"lots of experience"

From my understanding, he has a lot of experience doing seminars and writing books. Not much experience actually writing screenplays.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. You're just in the groove with all of the horror of Halloween.

It's Halloween?


Phil

Quoted from ABennettWriter "lots of experience" From my understanding, he has a lot of experience doing seminars and writing books. Not much experience actually writing screenplays.

I don't know all of his credentials, but from his book, he states that he worked for a place called David L. Wolper Productons as a writer producer.  He also worked for Cinemobile where he read and synopsized over 2000 screenplays.  Additionally he worked closely with a French film director named Jean Renoir.

My recommendation however comes only from my experience with the book; I cannot vouch for his qualifications.

Sandra

Rules are important because without them how would we break them.

Mgj actually hits the nail on the head. There is a reason for these so-called "rules" we revere way too often. They are there so that the industry has a standard to follow and so that the people who work on a movie can find everything quickly and easily.

You're also looking in the wrong place.

The "rules" for screenplay formatting only apply to the way it looks on the page and the general style of the writing. The description goes here, the slugs go there, and the dialogue is right there. You write certain things certain ways, but when it comes to writing style, the "rules" are separated by spec and production.

You'll note that despite the pros tendency to put "we see" all over everything, the actual visual format of their scripts is almost identical. Sure, they could write it on toilet paper just like an army general has no dress code (this is true, by the way; a general in the Army can come to work in sweats if he want). But interestingly, a General continues to follow the military dress code because it maintains military uniformity, and his subordinates know who he is. Likewise, pros will continue submit their scripts on paper.

Pros might bend the wording rules of spec screenwriting, but you'll find they continue to follow those visual rules. The slugs are always a certain way; the dialogue is indented properly; descriptions are margin to margin. They continue to follow those essentials because the movie crews need to be able to follow that blueprint.

Everything else just needs to be understandable.

I agree with what you are saying anotherwriter, although i would take issue with the fact that your last example is well-written; it is one of the poorer starts to a script that I've ever read.

The story is dull and incredibly generic and the description is laborious. All that time just for the one image of two men riding into the ( very stereotypical) Indian encampment? I think not.

Hollywood execs are not geniuses who have intrinsic understanding of story structure and critical merit, they are just accountants and lawyers looking to make money from investments, more money than they would have made by putting it in the bank.

People who want to write for Hollywood should bear that in mind. They want clear and recognisable genre first and foremost.

I would say you're correct in your point of their not thinking about rules and such and concentrating on the script. And yes, that's just the way they write. It is probable (we don't know for sure, of course) that at one point, these pros went through their scripts line by line making sure it was picture-perfect so they couldn't be "caught" for this rule-breaking nonsense. Once someone asked them to write something and wanted it overnight, however, they had license to write it how they originally write stuff. They could infuse it with their own style and voice without worrying over whether they should or shouldn't use those pesky "we see's." Why? Not because they were anything special, necessarily, but because someone was going to read it and that someone would take what they were given.

These "rules" are there to cater to the masses. That being, every producer who is out there will likely read something that follows these format rules. Not every producer will be so pickyl not every one will demand such meticulousness; in fact, some won't even care that you painstakingly removed that last "we see" from page 47. The reason we do this is for that handful out there who want to be just that meticulous.

Now, I will grant that anyone who would toss a script for a single "we see" on page 47 is likely reading a script they would toss anyway. But what about those contests? What if 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place are all awesome scripts and yours is one of them? What if they need a final determining factor to push one of them over the top? What if removing that last "we see" places yours in that upper, upper echelon that takes first because the others weren't so anal in their proofing?

That's really what the "rules" are for. They make perfect scripts that transcend the reality of the movie making business. They are for the Miss America pageants of screenwriting. Come on, we know those girls in those pageants don't look that way 24-7, but they are told they MUST do this-that-and the other to win. Because they do this one piece of meticulousness that another contestant doesn't, they are one step higher. Once Miss America has her crown, she doesn't have to go through all of that if she doesn't want to; she's already there.

Once a screenwriter in on the inside, he's in the business, and that's a different world from us spec-writers just trying desperately to reach that upper echelon and be noticed. Those writers still write stories worth writing, and I've read some badly formatted scripts that would make some great films. What does format show someone? That the writer has a level of dedication that if they were to be applied to something real, they could probably hack it, since writing a spec to someone else's rules is a hell of a lot harder than writing to your own.

I think you are spot on about buyers, they definitely don't care about things like "we see".

However it is not awlays a good thing. Some things ARE unfilmmable in a script and if you include them, you run the risk of institutionalising that error in the final film.

If things like charcater development are taking place in the description line and the Producer or director fail to think of visual ways to get that information across, then the info. will simply be lost from the film.

It's not like Hollywood is knocking out hundreds of great movies a year, the vast majority are dross and i do think that this is part of the reason.

Writers can "bluff" a good script. I've read comedies where I was almost crying with laughter, but when you analyse it properly you relaise that all the funny bits are the authors voice in the description and none of the comedy has actually made it into the dialogue or the visuals of the film.

The "Rules" do ensure that you actually write a film and not a strange hybrid.

Someone recently said that there are only about 5 writers in Hollywood who actually know how to write a film. I don't know about that, but I know that a lot of the scripts that i get sent wouldn't work as films without serious amendment for these reasons.

I do think that a lot of people can be bluffed by the quality of writing rather than the quality of the script as a FILM.

This is a really interesting discussion and certainly brought a new perspective to the discourse.

So nitpicking is an inhibitor? Following "the rules" minutely solely for the sake of following "the rules" could stand in the way of letting your script come alive?

Some unfilmables are okay so long as they convey atmosphere, behaviour or  reactions that CAN be filmed?

That's what I got from it, anyway.

Another Writer, I think your last post makes the difference a lot clearer.

Quoted Text Hy sits at the bar, nursing a drink. He glances into the mirror, and spots a girl -- Dawni -- Holy. Sh!t. He realizes he's staring at the same time she does -- he's caught -- -- and then she SMILES. Like she's actually happy to see him. That's gotta be a mistake. Hy looks away, looks around the bar, trying to figure out who she was smiling at, 'cause it couldn't have been him, girls have never smiled at him like that, especially a girl like that -- -- he looks back into the mirror -- and she's still smiling at him. And then she points at him: Yeah, you. Holy. Sh!t.

To me that is fine, because it contains all the visuals you need, plus the extra style. He is looking confused, the context of the visuals gives you the information that he isn't used to being looked at in that manner.

You can see the film and indeed the shots that would make up that film.

The earlier example

Quoted Text "Dawni catches Hy staring. She smiles. The kind of smile a girl has never smiled at Hy. The kind of smile he can keep under his bed with his stack of Playboys." The issue was with the "Playboys" sentence.  Many non-pros said it was superfluous.  But when another rookie took a pedestrian stab at it with: "Dawni catches Hy staring.  She smiles back with a very private sensual acknowledgment." Derek Haas (3:10 to Yuma) replied with: "I have to say that this kind of writing is boring. There's no oomph to it. There's nothing that makes the reader say... wow, this guy can WRITE his a$$ off. I'd take the Playboy description over this any day.

I would personally have a problem with. However much the writer dresses it up, the scene is merely a girl smiling at a boy. It is impossible to get a sense of anything else. The film is literally a shot of a girl smiling and that is it.

The reason the rookie's version lacked "oomph" is because the scene lacks oomph. It lacks character behaviour and psychology and is short on action. While it may not be exciting writing the truth is that it is the way the film will appear if it is not corrected.

The issue there isn't really with the style, it's more to do with the fact that the writer hasn't got a grasp on human interaction and doesn't know how to get the point across visually. He's trying to fill in gaps, which is what I called bluffing earlier.

I think that is the key difference.

Quoted Text Very early on in Ted and Terry's career, a producer said to them about one of their scripts, "I liked the jokes, pity most of them aren't going to be in the movie."

This is the crucial point. I see it time and time again, every single day. Important information hidden in the description, jokes that aren't in the dialogue or on screen.

I'm positive it's why there are so mnay comedies made that aren't even remotely funny.

Quoted from AnotherWriter The only place where people care about rules are on forums.

Great posts all, AW.  Plenty to think about.

The one point you overlook is that this is a forum for new writers.  For better or worse, there are plenty of young writers here posting the first thing they have ever written.

And that is why the "rules" get tossed around so much.

Do people break them?  Sure.  Sometimes to very entertaining effect.

But it can quickly become counterproductive to run around shouting, "Screw the rules...break them all!" to someone completely new to the craft.

Let's use driver's ed as an anology.  Does just about every experienced driver break the speed limit from time to time?  Some of them all the time?  Absolutely.

But do you tell the brand new driver to screw speed limits because plenty of drivers ignore them and do just fine?  I hope not.

Anyways, that is why the rules get harped on so much around here.  Not because everybody is anal -- but because they do have a place on forums such as this.

I would also add that you are free to write what you want. No one is going to stop you. Will someone comment on it when they read it around here? Sure. Do you have to change it? Hell no. I've had multiple comments on my scripts that I've completely ignored because I've liked things they way I've written them. But I've had many others that were spot on.

I know this discussion spawned from someone fussing over "we see" being in professional scripts, but why does it matter? If you want to use "we see", then use it. It's a matter of personal preference. So on a personal note, I prefer to not use it; here's why.

Removing the "we see" bit of a sentence is a) very easy and b) results in a stronger, more action oriented sentence. Simple as that. How many writers of novels use "we see" in their books? Come on, give me a number higher than zero. Name that paperback writer. Guess what? There aren't any.

On this forum, we're in a purely written medium that we hope will become a visual one. So it is actually in our best interest to keep our decriptions as visual and actionable as possible. "We see" not only creates a passive sentence out of an action one, but it also reminds the reader that they are reading a script, not watching a film. It amounts to laziness in not finding a better, more visual way of describing a scene.

Now, I have no issues with the Playboy description above. Frankly, it provides the actor (who will have to portray this character) something to go on later. A good actor could portray a lot of things that aren't visual and use that description to do it.

For me, not using this "we see" thing has become a habit. I don't do it at all. Not even in first drafts. I try to find a very actionable way to decribe what is going on, and draw interest to the situation in such a way that it is very obvious what "we see" in the scene, and very obvious what the camera should be looking at. These "rules" as you like to degrade them aren't here to force anyone to do what they don't want to do; they are here to show you another way to do something that is just a little better. What would you rather read?

We see the cow jumping over the moon.

or

The cow jumps over the moon.

As a noob when it comes to script-writing, I think the rules are incredibly important to learn. You only need to glance over some of the badly-written, unfilmable scripts found in the 'Unproduced' section to see that.

I recently read a blog post by an established TV writer who said that the goal of a wannabe screenwriter should just be writing competent script after competent script - it's only once that becomes second-nature that you should worry about dazzling people with your writing ability. Seems to make a lot of sense to me.

I may not win awards by knowing the rules - but it's probably going to be a lot harder without them.

Keep in mind that, when you're submitting a script to someone in the biz, they're looking for reasons to put it down.  They may have to go through ten scripts in a given sitting.  To have them pass on you because of formatting is ridiculous.


Phil

The way this script reads is like someone actually telling it to someone else; or better said, someone describing the movie. I can see a hyper-active screenwriter rapidly telling all of this to someone else. I can see it as a verbal storytelling device. And if you want to use it, all power to you.

Here's a little storytelling bit of myself, though. I wrote play scripts before I wrote movie scripts. Not once in any of the scripts or stories I wrote prior to looking at screenplays did I put in the words "we see." I didn't learn about this little wonder until I read some screenplays and there it was. I hadn't read it in any play or musical scripts that I'd been in. It wasn't in any novels that I'd read. The only place this "we see" phrase existed in was in some movie scripts online. As I read about this craft called screenwriting, I found people recommending against using it. This made sense to me since no other writing craft in the world to that point used them, so not using them was very natural.

So from that perspective, this little debate seems very silly. My viewpoint on them is always this: a spec script should read like a novel in visual script format. It should engage the reader and take the reader on a journey like a book does. If you really want to use "we see," then go ahead and do it. There will always be people on both sides of the fence, and each will have their own reasons for doing it or not doing it.

My personal reason is that by describing something, you automatically draw focus to it, so it would stand to reason that "we see" it, and I'm no fan of redundancies (no, I don't say ATM Machine -- makes me crazy). You will have your own reasons for using it or not using it, but I would hope these reasons are your own, and not "well so-n-so does it, so I can too."

Be yourself, and write in a way that tells the story the best way you can tell it. Clearly, no one can talk you out of it, nor should we feel the need to.