what does *beat* mean???

(beat) is used to show a pause before someone talks.  Here's an example:

          MARY
John, I have some news for you.

          JOHN
What is it?

          MARY
I'm pregnant.

          JOHN
   (beat)
Pregnant?

Here, John paused before saying 'pregnant.'  (beat) is only used when there's a pause before a character talks.  If someone pauses in the middle of talking, you use three periods, as seen below.


         JOHN
I can't believe you're pregnant...  When
did this happen?

Here, there's a pause after 'pregnant.'



Phil

Thanks alot!

I'm sorry if this topic has already been covered and if it has, then I guess an administrator can feel free to delete this thread. Anyway, what I have a question on is the usage of we see's and beats in a screenplay. I know that both are frowned upon but is it really that bad to use them? I have just read the sixth sense and signs and both are early drafts and not shooting scripts and they contain an abundance of we see's and beats. Is that becase he directs his own scripts and has such creative control over the projects then studios let it slide, or can they be used as long as they don't detract from the story. Sometimes it seems alot easier to put things in we see terms especially for setting the atmopshere and settings.

Related to that I read it was okay to write we see if it was implying something the audience will see but the character does not. Am I correct in thinking that? Also, beats seem to work well in action paragraphs to imply pauses and they keep the words down and are precise. Anyway, what I'm asking is are we see's and beats a definete no no or can they be used somewhat sparingly in a script of good quality? If the script is good enough would people in a good position read it anyway or be turned off by those things?
just something I'm curious about so responses would be appreciated
thanks
-Matt

M. Night writes what can be considered shooting scripts and no one cares because a) they're going to be produced and b) he's going to direct them. What we write on here are called spec scripts. To write something on spec means you're writing it without being asked to or being paid to do it. You also don't know who's going to read it, produce it, direct it, or act in it. Therefore, the script must read as close to a pure story as possible. Books do not have beats or we sees. The author relies purely on his ability as a wordsmith to tell the story. The difference between using these and not using them is the difference between telling a story and teling about a movie. We don't want to be reminded we're reading a screenplay, so you don't use these directing devices. Readers are the first line of defense before you get to a producer. They have the job of weeding out the riff-raff and they would die for an interesting story. If you keep pulling them out by telling them what they see (and even think in one case I read), they're going to toss it.

Yeah my first script that I wrote had a ridiculous amount of we see's in it.  When someone alerted it to my attention I went back and read it over and it truly looks like it's an amateur piece of writing.  Any sentence that contains we see can be reformatted to look ten times better.  

Beats I do use though.  I have people constantly telling me to stay away from them but I like using it.  It has more of a punch do it then "pauses".  Of course I don't butcher my screenplays with beats but I do use them sparingly.  

I don't know I guess it just depends how much pull you have in the business and who is reading  your work.  

This is the first I've learned of beats being frowned upon. I use them often as they really enhance scenes of dialogue. It makes me feel like what has been said has had an emotional impact on the characters and that feelings are alive within them. I'm disappointed to learn they're discouraged. They seem so inconsequential. What's the harm in using a beat or two... or three?

My thoughts exactly, James.

My favorite writer and mentor Richard Kelly uses them in his screenplays and I think it is well known how accomplished of a writer he is.

I just think producers and execs are just getting lazier and don't want to have to read more than they want to.    

Yeah, which is why I think beats are better. Instead of writing "he pauses" or something alone those lines you can just write "beat". Seems to make sense to me but I have a few books that say that you shouldn't use them too often if at all.

You could also use something like ... ellipses. They tend to ... how you say ... create that feeling of ... oh ... beats and yet they really don't clutter up the page with unnecessary ... oh what are they? ... parentheticals.

George is right. I tend to use ellipses to denote a pause in dialogue and action "..."
If a longer beat is required, I'll use a short description rather than the word beat.

Quoted from George Willson Therefore, the script must read as close to a pure story as possible. Books do not have beats or we sees. The author relies purely on his ability as a wordsmith to tell the story. The difference between using these and not using them is the difference between telling a story and teling about a movie. We don't want to be reminded we're reading a screenplay, so you don't use these directing devices.

I had no idea about beats being frowned upon. Or CUT TO: or CONTINUOUS either. Hmmm... at least I'm learning now!

Dammit, now I have to re-do all my stuff. I'll see if I have time before I go to Canada.

Thanks for the tips.

Beats and ellypses are frowned upon as you;'re telling the writer how to act.  He or she will read the script his own way and ecided if a pause is needed.

(beat), when used, is used to give a pause before a character speaks.  It's not used to split up his dialogue.  To split up someone's dialogue, you use the ellipses... like this.

examples can be seen below:

      BOBBY
Dad?  Where Champ?

      DAD
Bobby, I have some bad news...  Champ was run over by the mailman.

      BOBBY
   (beat)
Champ?



Phil

I also use elipses instead of beats in dialogue lines, but very sparingly. You can spend a lot of time thinking and setting the beats of your dialogue lines, but it´s useless; the actor will interpret those lines in the way he wants (or the director wants) anyways.

Concerning beats in action lines... try not to use them. Nothing is more annoying than to be forced to read... nothing. It´s better to hit the enter key to hint a beat between two action lines, than force the reader to read "beat" again and again.

As far as format goes, be careful when reading scripts from the big boys; rules don´t apply to them the way they apply to us.

Yeah, I use elipses too but in different contexts. For once, I don't care that such things our frowned up. Removing them can make a scene feel hollow. It's almost like punctuating a sentence differently to give it a new meaning.

I don't think ellipses can entirely substitute for beats. How can you tell if a characters trailing off or just pausing before he continues to speak?

I really got to say, all this bums me out. Totally caught me off guard. Is it actually considered bad writing to use beats and ellipses or is it simply pointless?

From what I've seen the double hyphen is used when a character is being interrupted by another character's dialogue.  The ellipses can be used for trailing off.  I use pauses and beats in my screenplays also.  I think I've only used beats in subtext though, I don't think I have ever used it in dialogue.  That's where pauses go.  

Ha this is some good feedback.  I like this.    

yeah, this has turned into a very interesting post as it seems alot of people were wondering the same or similar things to go

but i guess the general consesus is NO WE SEE'S! and use beats sparingly and try to avoid them

Haha yeah we see's are bad.  

I am embarassed that I have so many in mine.  I might have to send my new draft ASAP.  

Using these devices isn't exactly bad writing. Since we're used to reading shooting scripts, we tend to migrate toward that style. Unfortunately, we have to write spec scripts which is slightly different. Spec scripts require a level of creativity between seeing the action on screen and writing a novel in screenplay format. Gotta be descriptive, but not too descriptive. Gotta be precise, but not too precise. But above all, you gotta tell the story and only the story. Forget the camera and everyone behind the scenes who may eventually read this masterwork. The story comes first, and it must be free of motion picture shooting script conventions...oddly enough.

And to confess, my first script contained a fair amount of we see's and lots of camera directions, but I've since cleaned it up and found a more descriptive way to say the same thing.

No caps? wow, I use those all the time.
So wait, you mean to say something has the following shouldn't contain any of the caps except for names?

EXT. GRANDMA’S HOUSE – DAY

A BLUE VOLKSWAGEN is parked outside of a small but nice looking old fashioned house. Moss is growing on the roof and a few vines are also sprouting, climbing towards the upper windows.

LUCAS MARTIN and MICHELLE (both in their early 20’s) are sitting in the car. Lucas looks upset as Michelle buckles her seatbelt.

He turns to look in the back of the car where a BLUE AND WHITE URN rests. He shifts it to make sure it’s not going to move on the drive ahead.


             I always though caps were fine for anything you wanted the audiences attention drawn to. Is that wrong then?

I actually hadn't read about CAPS being taboo. What I'd always read is that they tend to be overused, and should only be used for the first time someone appears and the first time something important appears.

In your example above, the car has relative importance since it gets them to where they're going and plays a role in the plot, so its capitalization can be justified. The urn is major enough that it can be capped as well, but the colors of the urn and car are not so important, unless blue and white is daddy's alma mater or something.

What one must be careful of is this:

He HITS his ARM against the END TABLE. BLOOD spills onto the SHAG CARPET, making a LARGE RED SPOT.

Dave Trottier pointed out many taboo spec sins in his Screenwriter's Bible, but captilzation, properly used, is not one of them. But this is an art, not a science.

thanks for the clarification George

i agree that the example you gave over used the caps and i dont do anything that bad. I just cap important objects or physical traits of characters so it appears i have nothing to worry about

I'm writing a script with a lot of dramatic irony in the form of a stalker.  Should I:

1)  Use "POV" shots, even though it's directing.
2)  Use "We see"s (NO APOSTROPHE, GRAMMER-LESS FOOLS)
3)  Do something else.

How does one do dramatic irony without "We see"s?

POV shots are a must.  I can't see how you can write that type of shot without putting that heading.

I mean I guess you could say "Through the eyes of the stalker, a girl emerges from the apartment building." or " From the stalker's vantage point, a girl emerges from the apartment building."  But I think a POV shot would work better.  Some people on this site are pretty anal about camera angles but oh well, I use POV shots.

"We see's" are a big no no though.  It's a sign of laziness and just plain ignorance.  I see a lot of produced screenplays that contain that BS and it pisses me off everytime.  These people are supposedly "professional" writers and they have nothing better to write down other than "we see" every sentence.  Any sentence you write that begins with we see, you can rewrite.  It's a proven fact.  I used to be the king of "we see" ask anyone on this message board.  It looks much more professional and you look more literate when you don't use "we see."

Hope that helps.    

"We see", "We hear," etc. aren't necessarily frowned upon unless they're used in proliferation.  If you can't go more than a page without wriiting 'we see" then I'd say it's time you figured out a different way to write it.  For instance...

"Bob and Tom argue.  We see Bob's hand slide down to his pistol, out of Tom's view..."  could just as easily be written as:

"Bob and Tom argue.  As they continue, BOB'S HAND slides down to his pistol."  This is a way of directing what the reader sees and calls attention to something the other character doesn't see, without adding in a cut-away, insert or camera direction.

As for beats, I'm just as guilty of using them as anyone.  And though there are ways to be creative when it comes to a dramatic pause, I worry about that in the rewrites.  My first drafts are always chock-full of "beats" every where you care to look.  When I start the rewrite, THEN I worry about changing it to "Bob fumes" or "Jerry is momentarily struck by silence" or whatever.  But even then, if I can't think of a simple alternative, I'll just stick to using "beat" because it's universally given that if you see a "beat" in a script that there's going to be a moment of silence.

As for POVs, I never bother with them.  Usually when you use a direction like that, you have to put in a "BACK TO SCENE" afterwards to let the reader know you're finished looking through a character's eyes.  I've yet to write POV in anything I've written thus far because it's easier and less jarring to the eye to write "Bob looks through the binoculars and sees..."  or "The killer peeks around the corner and sees...", etc.

when that word is used like....like this for instance:

NAME
(beat)
what does that word
mean? does it mean
"pause" or something
or what?

Yeah...that's exactly what it means.  A dramatic pause.

And actors DETEST them -- as you are telling them how to do their job.

You should not use them -- as they will be ignored anyways -- and in fact, the actor will probably pause someplace different just to be petty.

If your dialogue is "right", the actor will know when to pause.

You will see "beats" in a lot of scripts -- sure -- but you should not use 'em.

I love using them even though I know we're not supposed to, it gives the writer a way of telling the reader a dramatic pause.

Hey we're writing scripts to be read by others, maybe if you're making it you can change those things but sometimes actors look to the guys in charge for motivation on the character.

Would you recommend pause or beat? I've started using pause, because it's more human and not so technical, I suppose.

Although, I expect I'll take them out in the re-write anyway.

Write what you want.  It's your script.  If the story is good, it shouldn't matter what technical stuff you put in.  I use beat, pause, POV shots, it doesn't matter.  

I think people get a little too Gung ho about exact formatting.  Why are you going to make your script look like everyone else's?  I've used the stuff above and had producers read it and give feedback.  So it's not as big as people are making it to be.  

See also, glossary of screenwriting terms

-Don

thanks, Don, I'll read that.

It needs to be noted that a beat is not specifically the same thing as a pause. A literary beat serves the same purpose as a beat in music. In fact, these story beats are used by composers to plan the soundtrack score. When movies are scored, there are even visual cues placed over the film to aid the musicians.

Beats, like a riff or a drumbeat in a song, are drivers for the story and occur so often in a script that most are just understood. Most writers incorporate them subconsciously and notating them should be kept to a minimum at least. There is no real necessity to notate them at all. Most writers actually use them solely to break up dialogue when there isn’t a great deal of action. If dialogue can be broken up with action, that would be better.

I wouldn't use beat all the time. I only use it when it's a necessary pause for that moment, if it's significant for what I want, then I'll use it, otherwise no.

I've used them in my scripts.  I haven't had one complaint about using them.  Just use them sparingly.

Quoted from Kevan If somebody posts about the use of the word "beat" then they obviously haven't read a book on screenplay writing and assume they can use this from reading shooting scripts they have downloaded from the internet!

man that was a cheap shot!

Actually Kevan, you're suppose to use an ellipsis when you want to add a pause in the middle of someone's dialogue:

            JOHN
I was there the night of the
fire... It wasn't pretty.


You use beat when you want to add a pause before someone actually talks.

           MARY
What's that smell?  Did you
cut one?

           JOHN
    (beat)
No.


I hope this clears things up.


Phil

well i dunno. i mean the question still stands really. should i use beat or not?

That's entirely up to you.  If you use them, use them sparingly.


Phil

got it!

Quoted from Kevan Great! Now you're gonna confuse the kid!

"gonna"?

Wether you call it 'beat', 'pause', or 'Chuck Norris', don't use it at all.

Every scene in your screenplay, every sentence, and every word must be designed to make the reader want to read more. Words are the tools by witch you create interesting visuals in the reader's mind.

What powerful, compelling, and emotive image does the word 'beat' create in your mind?

None. Each 'beat' of your script is a waste of space which only produces a sense of nothingness in the reader's mind.

Of course there are lots of beats in a movie... hundreds of them, but the actors will know how to place them. They're not going to say their lines interrupting each other, if you omit to write the 'beats' down in the script.

Even when a beat in a particular scene has enough dramatic weight to write it down, don't write 'beat'. Write down what's happening during the beat, what are the characters doing during the pause in dialogue. These actions have to be dramatically relevant, if they're not it means we're in presence of those small beats that should be handled by the actors, not the screenwriter.

If John asks Sally to marry him, and Sally doesn't respond inmediatly, that's a beat that could belong to the screenwriter's territory. But don't write 'beat'. Does Sally look away? (uh oh, she's gonna say 'no') Does she look at him smiling? (it seems she's gonna say 'yes'). Write down what she does during the beat instead of just telling the reader that there's a 'beat'.

No prob Kevan, I'm glad I helped.  

Kevan,   Where the hell are you coming from with your nonsense?  I learned formatting from the Cole/Haag's, 'The Complete Guide to Standard Script Formats, Part I: The Screenplay Guide.'  This book is considered to be the bible for the industry and it doesn't say to use (pause) over (beat).  I've never heard this from a script doctor I've hired (and he was very thorough).  And I've never been told this from judges in competitions wher eI've received feedback.

(beat) can be used but it must be used sparingly.  It can be used in spec scripts when that pause would change how the line is read.  With the example I use above about farting, the (beat) suggests that John was lying.  

In regards to you pm'ing Daniel, don't bring up that nonsense.  While it's true that I can read minds, I was reading someone's else's at the time.


Phil

I was reading a few helpful and well-meaning websites and screen-writing books about structure and beats and I found myself honestly questioning the advice I was given.

Every screenwriting book out there I've read about, explains to you a certain patented variation of an 'age-old' formula that all "good" screenplays apparently follow. It's not so much that I mind following structure, I think it's imperative in screenwriting, but what struck me was the examples these books were supplying as evidence of their theory.

Legally Blond
Miss Congeniality
American Pie 2

And so on.

While they claim the method is universal the examples given are always incredibly mediocre movies, IMO. Maybe that's because no one can teach you to write a great movie, only the assembly-line ones?

So I guess I wanna debate whether or not adhering to this rather rigid structure is advice to creating a marketable screenplay and not necessarily a good one.

Many of the best movies I've ever seen, do not follow this formula slavishly, and this is not just a case of "you're not William Goldman, you can't afford the luxury of being creative".

While I do believe that 99% of all great films share certain inevitable plot-points like the climax and the PONR, all this business of cramming a screenplay into 15 set beats, seems to make our work that of a craftsman as opposed to an'artist' (and I use the word hesitantly).

My question is, are you conscious about making all your scripts marketable (in the Hollywood sense)? Or do you write some specifically for the high-concept readers and some for the more 'avantgarde' (again, I hesitate) crowd?

Never follow a "formula" for the sake of following a formula.

I personally think that the best use of screenwriting books is as a diagnostic tool for if something is wrong with your script. I think they can be useful as a checklist if something feels like it is missing.

When it comes to being marketable or not the choice should be yours and yours alone. As a writer or as any kind of artist you should ask yourself what you really want and be honest with yourself. You should then set specific targets to reach your goal.

If you want to make a living from screenwriting then marketability is a bigger factor than if you just write as a hobby.

I do think it makes it easier to sell, because it puts Producers at ease. They know what they are getting.

It can make your films very transparent though. Some films are written to such a template that you can predict to the second what is going to happen. I watched Monster House not so long ago. It had been written to the Heroes Journey template in such a way that you could predict every last detail.

You can always do both John Sayles used to write horror specs like the Howling for the money to make his own independent films.

There is also the happy medium which is hard to find; The meaningful but marketable film.

From a personal point of view I write everything from art-house to deliberately commercial projetcs. I have eclectic tastes in all kinds of art and films.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Never follow a "formula" for the sake of following a formula. I personally think that the best use of screenwriting books is as a diagnostic tool for if something is wrong with your script. I think they can be useful as a checklist if something feels like it is missing. When it comes to being marketable or not the choice should be yours and yours alone. As a writer or as any kind of artist you should ask yourself what you really want and be honest with yourself. You should then set specific targets to reach your goal. If you want to make a living from screenwriting then marketability is a bigger factor than if you just write as a hobby. I do think it makes it easier to sell, because it puts Producers at ease. They know what they are getting. It can make your films very transparent though. Some films are written to such a template that you can predict to the second what is going to happen. I watched Monster House not so long ago. It had been written to the Heroes Journey template in such a way that you could predict every last detail. You can always do both John Sayles used to write horror specs like the Howling for the money to make his own independent films. There is also the happy medium which is hard to find; The meaningful but marketable film. From a personal point of view I write everything from art-house to deliberately commercial projetcs. I have eclectic tastes in all kinds of art and films.

I agree with you about that.

I loved Monster House, mostly because it was an homage to the kind of 80's adventure  that I grew up with, but its template was very transparent. As was the template of the films it paid tribute to. Indiana Jones, Back to the Future etc. And that's fine, because not everything is meant to break the rules.

But I find sometimes I have difficulty diverting from the formula because it's so engraved in me now. If I don't have a MAJOR SETBACK at page 75 I feel a little guilty as if I'm doing something wrong.

Like you I wanna write small and big, art-house and fun-house.

I'd say that the style of the film should dictate the structure.

What's the film about? What are it's themes?

If the film is about memory or identity you might want a very loose structure and a very independent feel to proceedings.

If your film is about one man who saves the earth from a terrible fate the 3 Act Structure/ Heroes Journey template will probably be best.

I think if you want emotional, visceral action 3 act structure is best if you want a more intellectual or philosophical film you can use a less rigid structure.

A lot of it comes down to audience expectation, they want to leave the cinema happy.

Those books give you the formula because that is what people actually buy the books for.

If they need a book, they consider themselves beginners, and want to know how it is done.

It's like cookbooks.  You wanna make a cake?  This book gives you a reliable and traditional method to make cakes.

Then -- when you have read all the cookbooks -- you are ready to fiddle with the recipe and try something different.

But you can't look to those books for new ways to deviate from the formula.  You gotta find those yourself.

If they were in a book, they wouldn't be new, would they?

I don't think I would ever write anything for a Hollywood audience because the simple fact is they do not care if you're entertained after the movie is over as long as they get your money.

That is where they have went wrong.

Lots of writers follow the basic formula which is why they get praise to a point where nobody cares about the projects anymore. This is describing a few years back when the site was taken over by Horror after horror and they were all the same.

I like to write my own way and if people like it good, if they don't they can offer advice and points and we can go from there.

That's how all writers should be, open to advice but some people have become standoffish. Especially unproduced writers and if you're on this site that is what you are no matter how much you tell yourself otherwise.

BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA is a great movie because it throws elements of conventional formulas out the window.  KURT RUSSEL looks like the hero, and the camera -- for the most part -- follows him as if he's the hero, but he's actually the bumbling side-kick.  The guy who looks like his side-kick is actually the guy who knows what's going on, yet we see things from KURT RUSSEL'S point of view more often since he's the guy who has the LOOK of the hero.  So KURT RUSSEL's character's name is JACK BURTON, and when JACK finally confronts the main boss, you expect a long drawn-out battle, but the contrary choice they made is hilarious.  And in the end, at the point when the hero usually kisses the girl, JACK makes a choice that I believe generates much more chemistry than many screen kisses ... and the particular choice he makes goes totally contrary to what you'd usually see in formulaic movies.  And the final scene also goes contrary to forumula in a great way.  If you haven't seen BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, it's a must-see because of how it goes against many formulas and ultimately became a much better movie than most movies out there.  It's very close to the top of my list of favourite movies of all time.

Follow formula.  After you're rich and famous and succesful as a writer, then you can go Quentin Tarantino on your scripts.


Phil

What prompted this thread was actually the book "Save the Cat" by Blake Snyder. I got it in a bundle offer when I bought The Screenwriter's bible.

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. He goes on to say that on page 12 EXACTLY you must introduce the change that will eventually send the heroes on their journey. Not page 11, not page 13. Page 12.

This makes it seem like more than just a template.

Blake Snyder wrote "Blank Check" and "Stop or my mom will shoot".

As for the entire "Don't stray from formula unless you're already successful", well that has never made much sense to me. That's like saying to a rock-band they have to play calypso music until they're successful and then play what they want. You can write scripts that follow formula, that will appease the Hollywood reader, and you can write scripts that will get the attention of indie-people. I write one kind, some of the time and the other kind most of the time.

Quoted Text Follow formula.  After you're rich and famous and succesful as a writer, then you can go Quentin Tarantino on your scripts.

Isn't that statement something of a contradiction in terms?

After all the reason Tarantino was so successful was because he DIDN'T follow the formula.

By all means learn the formulas and become proficient at telling a story with them, but never be afraid to break the rules because other wise you're in danger of killing your 'voice' before you've even found it.

Quoted from Death Monkey Blake Snyder wrote "Blank Check" and "Stop or my mom will shoot".

Snyder's book pissed me off immensely but I did find parts of it helpful and I've been loosely using his beat sheet to plot my latest feature and it's working surprisingly well.

What gets me is how the writer of "Stop or my mom will shoot" can spend much of his book slagging off films like Memento because they didn't smash the box office and then go on to draw examples from his own spec called Drip, an apparently lame comedy about two rival plumbers. He describes a great scene in Drip where both plumbers need to pee after an ice tea drinking contest and the genius that is Snyder throws in a garden sprinkler and a reference to waterfalls to up the tension. Wow!

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Isn't that statement something of a contradiction in terms? After all the reason Tarantino was so successful was because he DIDN'T follow the formula. By all means learn the formulas and become proficient at telling a story with them, but never be afraid to break the rules because other wise you're in danger of killing your 'voice' before you've even found it.

Tarantino also produced his own work.  He used his money.  If you can write/direct/produce, then knock yourself out,  If, however, you don;t have the money to make your own, then you have to follow formula until you make a name for yourself


Phil

Quoted Text Tarantino also produced his own work.  He used his money.

What on? My Best Friend's Birthday in 1987?

He was going to with Resevoir Dogs, but Harvey Keitels involvement got them backing to the tune of $1.2M. The rest is history.

Quoted Text If, however, you don;t have the money to make your own, then you have to follow formula until you make a name for yourself

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that one. I reckon that as soon as you get a name for writing one kind of thing, you'll be stuck in that for as long as you live.

Quoted from Martin Snyder's book pissed me off immensely but I did find parts of it helpful and I've been loosely using his beat sheet to plot my latest feature and it's working surprisingly well. What gets me is how the writer of "Stop or my mom will shoot" can spend much of his book slagging off films like Memento because they didn't smash the box office and then go on to draw examples from his own spec called Drip, an apparently lame comedy about two rival plumbers. He describes a great scene in Drip where both plumbers need to pee after an ice tea drinking contest and the genius that is Snyder throws in a garden sprinkler and a reference to waterfalls to up the tension. Wow!

I'm getting increasingly pissed off as well as I'm reading. there are a few good things in the book if you filter through the bullshit, but the way he references his own spec and unproduced work is tiresome, when he could be referencing scripts and movies people actually knew. Also it's very clear to me that the comedy he thinks is funny is what I categorize as "Bingo night" humor.

Also, he doesn't explain the reasoning behind the rigid tenets of his patented formula. If he would tell me WHY you must always break into act two on page 25, and never page 26 or 27, then perhaps I would learn something, I would understand. but as it is right now, all I'm getting is "because I said so."

Quoted Text I'm getting increasingly pissed off as well as I'm reading. there are a few good things in the book if you filter through the bulls*** , but the way he references his own spec and unproduced work is tiresome,

He's part of Michael Wiese's lot

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0927595/

They always self-reference each other and themselves, it's how they keep making their money.

They're still re-releasing Hardware Wars, a shitty twenty minute piss-take of Star Wars, 30 years after it first came out. It's made them millions.

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.

Shooting scripts use camera angles, which is why you see the occasion 'we see.'  Spec scripts shouldn't include such things.

If you are going to direct the film yourself, or if you are an in-demand Oscar-winning screenwriter, you can write your scripts on toilet paper with the blood of a newborn.  When you're just starting out, you have to follow the rules.  And one rule is:  don't use 'we see' in the script--

Blood of a newborn?  What the hell...?



Phil

Quoted from dogglebe Shooting scripts use camera angles, which is why you see the occasion 'we see.'  Spec scripts shouldn't include such things. If you are going to direct the film yourself, or if you are an in-demand Oscar-winning screenwriter, you can write your scripts on toilet paper with the blood of a newborn. Blood of a newborn?  What the hell...? Phil

You're just in the groove with all of the horror of Halloween.  I'm heading to get the toilet paper now and I think this handy dandy toddler-size Red Crayola ought to do the trick.

Scripts written by professionals and their little formatting quirks should be out of sight and out of mind for budding screenwriters as far as I'm concerned. I've seen lots of shoddy scripts on this site and when they're slammed for bad formatting and/or rule breaking, the writers always refer to scripts written by professionals in their defense. If you want to learn how to write a script, your best bet would be to read a book or something. In fact, you'd probably learn a lot more here about screenwriting than flipping through produced scripts. Trying to learn from professionals, ironically, is usually the wrong way to go

So I was sitting in film study class today as our teacher explained how to write a script:
"The first thing you'll notice is that everything in a movie script is centered . . ."

I timidly raised my hand:
"I'm pretty sure nothing is centered, and the dialogue is just indented . . ."

"No, Tyler, I'm pretty sure you're wrong.  I've never seen it like that."

I was bitter the rest of the period.

Tyler, or Higgs, I'd say you need a new class, if the teacher is ignorant enough to tell you that.

Quoted from Higgonaitor I was bitter the rest of the period.

You are so obligated to correct her ignorance.  You are in high school, not kindergarten.

Do not be intimidated -- or whatever else it was that kept you silent -- when you know that you are correct.

Quoted from bert You are so obligated to correct her ignorance.  You are in high school, not kindergarten. Do not be intimidated -- or whatever else it was that kept you silent -- when you know that you are correct.

I'll agree with that. You've worked hard to attain your level of expertise, and there's nothing wrong with showing what you know so long as its done in a respectful manner. Your classmates should thank you for it.

My question is this regarding we see's and other formatting things...

Are some of those elements added by the director and/or others on the production team while the final shooting script is being prepared?

The whole business aspect of screenwriting is real cloudy to me. (Selling your spec and what happens after that...the production process).  I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions for a good book on the matter.

Thanks!

Joe

Quoted from Higgonaitor So I was sitting in film study class today as our teacher explained how to write a script: "The first thing you'll notice is that everything in a movie script is centered . . ." I timidly raised my hand: "I'm pretty sure nothing is centered, and the dialogue is just indented . . ." "No, Tyler, I'm pretty sure you're wrong.  I've never seen it like that." I was bitter the rest of the period.

Just bring the Screenwriter's Bible to class and quote it to your teacher. hell, bring more books if you'd like. If there's one thing I've learned it's that teachers aren't inherently knowledgable about what they're supposed to teach.

One time I was corrected in History class for saying Amsterdam is the capital of Holland. My Social studies teacher chimed in as well and told me, like my history teacher, that it was The Hague. But I was positive I was right so I mailed the Dutch tourist council and asked them, and took a transcript of the mail to class. Turned out I was right.

The moral of the story is, you shouldn't pass up an opportunity to nail your teacher. You may misinterpret that anyway you want. Especially if she's hot

Higgs,

I see you have a teacher like a few that I had in school.  
I, like you, sat quietly in class from that point on. My grades in those classes ended up being bad, too, because I saw things differently than the teacher, and I wasn't one of "the pets".

**I suggest that you print out a couple pages of a few different scripts, and take them to her or him privately, before the class.**

That way you won't embarrass the teacher in front of the class, and then the teacher will know that you know what you are talking about.

Good luck,

Cindy

I'm wondering what you're doing participating in class instead of just staring out the window.

Mike Shelton, Former C Student.

Well first off, he's a guy.

Secondly, he's pretty cool, so I don't want to contradict him in front of the whole class, but I also don't want to seem like a pretensious know-it-all who doesn't let things go.  I already brought it up, and he's lettimg me write it "whatever way I want, so long as the dialogue is seperate from the descriptions" so I think I'm just going to let that be that.

Thanks, though, for the advice everyone.

Tyler Higgins, current C student.

Quoted from Higgonaitor Well first off, he's a guy. Secondly, he's pretty cool, so I don't want to contradict him in front of the whole class, but I also don't want to seem like a pretensious know-it-all who doesn't let things go.  I already brought it up, and he's lettimg me write it "whatever way I want, so long as the dialogue is seperate from the descriptions" so I think I'm just going to let that be that. Thanks, though, for the advice everyone. Tyler Higgins, current C student.

Higgs,

I didn't mean for you to come off as a know-it-all.

I work with one, and it's all I can do to walk away from her...

Like your teacher who is teaching your class wrong, this girl started bragging to another worker that she wrote "movies".

When I heard her say that, I excitedly asked her what genre she wrote in? Did she belong to a writing group? And I suggested she come here. I told her that she could post her scripts here and do some reading...

I got some really odd looks from her...
and then she said, "What I meant to say is that I write so detailed that it could be a movie".

I was like, "What!?"

but she does know eveything else. Just ask her, and imagine, she's only 19.

But to get back on subject, I think your teacher would respect you if you bring it to his attention "in private"...

You would be doing your classmates a favor, too.

Just trying to help.
Cindy

Quoted from Higgonaitor Well first off, he's a guy. Secondly, he's pretty cool, so I don't want to contradict him in front of the whole class, but I also don't want to seem like a pretensious know-it-all who doesn't let things go.  I already brought it up, and he's lettimg me write it "whatever way I want, so long as the dialogue is seperate from the descriptions" so I think I'm just going to let that be that. Thanks, though, for the advice everyone. Tyler Higgins, current C student.

I was kidding though.

TJ, pretentious know-it-all who doesn't let things go. Ever.

Quoted from CindyLKeller But to get back on subject, I think your teacher would respect you if you bring it to his attention "in private"... You would be doing your classmates a favor, too.

I think I might.  I think I'll just say I was looking it up to be sure and found "this site" that explains it.  Then I'll just hand him an explenation from one of the many websites that explain script formatting.

I think that's what I'll do.

Thanks for the help,
Tyler

A quote from Albert Einstein:

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

Perhaps one can have respect for another and still know they're wrong.  My understanding of Einstein's quote is that we shouldn't just follow blindly what others might say and believe is truth-- always questioning: "why" or "how so".

One screenwriting book that I've found to be extremely well written is Syd Field's "Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting.  This is a gentleman with lots of experience in the industry and an honest voice on some of the finer points as well as a general overview and examples of typically studied screenplays.

Sandra



Sandra

"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