The best piece of advice I ever read from a screenwriting book (I can't remember which one right now, I've read so damn many) was this:  learn all you can about format, structure, plot points, mid-points, etc...then forget all that crap and start writing.

I've seen both Blank Check and Stop or My Mom Will Shoot and the reason they sucked so badly was probably because their writer, this guy you're quoting, was TOO conscientious of adhering to a rigid structure.  And when you put more thought into the frame than you do the painting, you're left with a really well framed piece of crap.

You could look at screenplays almost as though they were human beings; we all have the same basic structure, but our individual traits make us who we are.  Are we all exactly 5'9?  Do we all have blonde hair and blue eyes?  So who should dictate that your screenplay should be EXACTLY 110 pages long, or that your inciting incident has to occur EXACTLY on page 12, or that your midpoint needs to occur EXACTLY on page 55?  What if your script is 111 pages long?  Do you need to make your midpoint at EXACTLY the 55 1/2 page point?    

These things aren't written in stone; they're guidelines, not definites.  Yes, there are things all screenplays should include -- a beginning, a middle, an end; a mid-point; an inciting incident) but when and where they start or end is up to you, the individual, to decide as best suits the story you're telling.  

Besides, if I were to take any kind of advice from the writer of Stop or My Mom Will Shoot, it would be in regards to suckering someone into buying a well-framed piece of crap.  

Quoted from Death Monkey What Snyder says is that on page 25, and on page 25 EXACTLY, your act must break in a 110 page script. No page 26, not page 28. Page 25.

This is nonsense, of course. I agree with you here. I don’t even need to mention the hundreds of good scripts that don’t have an act break in page 25 exactly.

But the problem here are not formulas. It’s this author’s interpretation of them. Screenwriting formulas are useful if you think of them like guidelines instead of rigid rules. You don’t need an act break in page 25 exactly. But if you’re into page 55 of your script and you’re still in your first act, then it’s very likely you’re in trouble. There’s not a magic page number in which the act break should be, but it’s damm clear that if it takes you half a script to introduce the main conflict you’ll be likely boring the reader.

That’s why formulas are useful. Following them won’t make your script great, of course, no formula can do that. Its purpose is to make sure your script doesn’t suck on a basic level.

By the same logic I might add that rebelling against formula won’t make a script great either, since writing against formula could be considered a formula itself (the opposite one).

I can guarantee there is tons of useful “how to” reading material. From your comments, doesn’t look that the book you’ve got in your hands is one of the great ones. But don’t let that make you think that formulas aren’t useful. Screenwriting is a craft. Talent issues aside, part of it can be learned. And there are lots of people who know more than you, me, or any beginner. It will help your career a big deal if you try to benefit from their knowledge (rules, guidelines, formulas, structure, or whatever you want to call it).

I think the only formula worth sticking to is the three act structure. Your script will probably conform to that even if you don't want it to. Most stories just seem to work that way. As for more rigid formulas and strict rules about what events must occur on given pages, I don't think they're really neccesary. They work, no doubt about that. That's why there're books about them in the first place but I feel like sticking too close to them makes one's work like everything else out there and inhibits its ability to stand out. Besides, just because you're not following particularly rigid formulas doesn't mean your script has to be off-the-wall experimental.

Quoted from Mr.Z This is nonsense, of course. I agree with you here. I don’t even need to mention the hundreds of good scripts that don’t have an act break in page 25 exactly. But the problem here are not formulas. It’s this author’s interpretation of them. Screenwriting formulas are useful if you think of them like guidelines instead of rigid rules. You don’t need an act break in page 25 exactly. But if you’re into page 55 of your script and you’re still in your first act, then it’s very likely you’re in trouble. There’s not a magic page number in which the act break should be, but it’s damm clear that if it takes you half a script to introduce the main conflict you’ll be likely boring the reader. That’s why formulas are useful. Following them won’t make your script great, of course, no formula can do that. Its purpose is to make sure your script doesn’t suck on a basic level. By the same logic I might add that rebelling against formula won’t make a script great either, since writing against formula could be considered a formula itself (the opposite one). I can guarantee there is tons of useful “how to” reading material. From your comments, doesn’t look that the book you’ve got in your hands is one of the great ones. But don’t let that make you think that formulas aren’t useful. Screenwriting is a craft. Talent issues aside, part of it can be learned. And there are lots of people who know more than you, me, or any beginner. It will help your career a big deal if you try to benefit from their knowledge (rules, guidelines, formulas, structure, or whatever you want to call it).

I hope I didn't come across a complete anarchist, I believe in structure as much as the next guy, but my problem with Snyder and others like him is that they're passing a cooking recipe (as Bert coined it) off as prescription drugs. If you don't take you heart medicin three times a day you die, if you use saffron instead of oregano the dish is gonna taste a little different but it's still very edible. Might even be better.

Sorry, that was a hackneyed metaphor.

I think it's very important to be conscious of structure, knowing your plot-points, but you need to be in control of them, not the other way around, and I think that's what some of these books are making it seem like.

I mentioned this guy and his book on another screenwriting forum and quickly got a couple responses stating that apparently, this guy's a well-respected writer and popular screenplay teacher and even has a program based on his book's beat sheet formula.  

One of the guys who responded, a guy I respect on that board, said the author was even in his online screenwriting group.

Shows you what I know!  

Quoted from Lon I mentioned this guy and his book on another screenwriting forum and quickly got a couple responses stating that apparently, this guy's a well-respected writer and popular screenplay teacher and even has a program based on his book's beat sheet formula.   One of the guys who responded, a guy I respect on that board, said the author was even in his online screenwriting group. Shows you what I know!

He wrote "Blank Check" and "Stop or my Mom will shoot" and he's well-respected? By who?

Doesn't his work speak for him? Is his work well-respected?

He might be a great teacher, he might be a regular Robin Williams, but his writing and his ideas on writing aren't impressive, IMO. Maybe he's a genius when facilitating them, I dunno.

I did find his beat sheet somewhat helpful, at least it's a template you can re-rwite yourself to match your needs.

Well, I'd assume that much like any teacher, some folks will find he has something they can learn from him, and some will find he has nothing they can learn from him.  

I fall into the latter camp; I've not read his book but about the only useful thing anyone mentions about it is his beat sheet.  Which I don't need, because the outline method I use works just fine for me.

That being the case...

Couple of thoughts on this:

I've been to a bunch of screenwriting workshops and classes like Gotham Writiers and even took a class at NYU, and none of them stressed formula.  They stressed writing.  The NYU class stressed concept and plot.  The Gotham class, while describing the formula structure, pointed out AROUND what page each of five moments should occur (inciting incident, end of act one plot point, mid-movie plot point, crisis, denoument), but also splitting the story into sequences not because this what the writer should do, but to make it easier to write the script.  They even said, if you live and die by a formula, most likely, it'll be the latter.

Second, look at Picasso.  Picasso's art was the normal body shape and form, until he had those down.  It was then that he played with shape and became a master.

Besides, as my wife said, the formsula is based around male theory.  What's wrong with multiple climaxes if you want to pull that off?

Another thought on formula is that it gives you an idea of how long certain things should take.  I have trick called "Get to the mall faster, Kevin" which was note Kevin Smith got on Mallrats.  Granted, that killed some character building that might have made the movie better in favor of moving the action to the mall, however it's another way of saying that, if it's page 40 and you haven't jumped into the meat of the story yet, you might need to do some editing.  Likewise, if it's page 195 and you still haven;t gotten anywhere near the resolution, you might want to consider a little editing as well.

I'm on a different computer and had to redo my screenplay template on word, so I did a quick search on tabs and came across the very handy SS guide. I was reading it, and at the bottom there are notes by Dana. I agreed with most of the guide until then.

I'm flabbergasted that anyone would tell people to use "we" in a screenplay. Or capitalize sounds for that matter. (I understand the last one is personal taste, though.)

The use of "we" in a screenplay is the most amateur thing anyone could ever write in a screenplay. It shows that you lack skills to write visually.

I'm disappointed in SS for sharing such information.

(BTW, I did use "we" in DROWNED, but it was at the very end. I'm also a knowledgeable writer who knows when not to use it.)

Welcome back from Playville.

Quoted from ABennettWriter ...at the bottom there are notes by Dana. I agreed with most of the guide until then.

Don't know who Dana is, but I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the people that read your message are already aware of the "don't use we" rule.

Quoted from ABennettWriter I'm disappointed in SS for sharing such information.

Hopefully, this will be the worst thing you experience all day.

Today, October 24, I had a boo at the Bourne Ultimatum shooting script since the link was posted on the home page.

Take a look at their blatant use of "We."

It's us -- we're running

We are Jason Bourne...

we're running down the alley...

This all occurs in the first three lines.

How do you like them apples?  So go ahead and break the rules, but only if your name holds some kind of weight or the rest of your words are golden.

Limited warranty on this post, some restrictions may apply.

Sandra

I posted a thing about this a few days ago, and one of my responses were deleted.

Using "we" is fine and dandy if you have a solid career. For us amateurs, it doesn't work. We need to learn how to write a script properly, make a name for ourselves, and then we can break the rules.

And I could be wrong, but I thnk tht may be more common in a shooting script.

Yes, you should definitely avoid using "we see" in your scripts.  But the real problem isn’t the use of "we see."  Fact is, if it’s used properly once or twice in a script, it’s no big deal.  The reason it doesn’t work in pretty much all newbie scripts is because all the other words around it are so poorly placed.  

This is why "we see" is overlooked in pro scripts -- because everything else reads so darn well.  For example, in the screenplay Heat, Michael Mann breaks every rule in the book, including multiple uses and variations of ?we see,? but we don’t care because a) the story is so good, b) the characters are so well-defined, and c) the action makes this an exciting page-turner.  Here's an example of Mann's overuse of "we see"...

CERRITO'S POV: As we approach the street, an armored truck passes by.  We fall in behind. At this point we realize these men are going to pull down and armed robbery of this armored truck.  But, we turn LEFT.  The armored truck went straight.  Then we turn RIGHT.  However we SEE the armored truck again.  It turns left.  Our paths will intersect at 90 degrees.

Mr. Mann also grossly over-describes his settings and characters...

Planes ROAR overhead in landing or take-offs.  Yellow vapor lamps glare.  It's gaudy with lights.  Neil and a man named NATE are parked next to each other facing opposite directions.  Nate's 50 -- an ex-prizefighter with his nose all over his face in a silver Mercedes.  His big muscles have gone to flab.  He wears a yellow rayon shirt.  He's deeply tanned and pock-marked.

Nate functions as a middleman and fence for Neil.  All calls from people who want to contact Neil come to Nate.  Right now he examines the manila envelope from the armored truck.  Neil's in a Lincoln Town car, gray suit, white shirt, no tie.

...and Mr. Mann also uses "CUT TO" after every scene!

So there you have it.  Lots of broken rules, even some sloppy writing ("...his nose all over his face in a silver Mercedes."), but when a script works so well, we're willing to overlook such sloppiness.*

I recently addressed this topic in my blog.  Here's the link:

http://theworkingscreenwriter.blogspot.com/2007/10/theres-more-to-good-script-than.html

* You could argue that Mr. Mann wrote in this manner because it was a script he was directing himself.  Still, it's a pretty fab script.