I just wanted to offer up 5 samples from the first pages of 5 different screenplays currently in various stages of pre-production.  

They are all from the Blacklist for 2007 (the most talked about/referenced scripts of the year).  Some will be produced and some won't.  But they are examples of spec scripts that are on people's minds and on their assistant's desks.

This is what Hollywood reads and produces.  This is the kind of writing that is expected.  There is a lot of freedom there and don't fall back on the whole new/inexperienced writer can't do this business.  A producer doesn't care if you've only ever written a short film about oboes and the feature you're handing over.  He only cares about what's on the page.

*******
A gust of wind... the leaf breaks free... flutters down, landing in the slow current of the Missouri. The last leaf of the fall, taking its final journey south.

*******

STAFF SARGEANT JOHN TYREE -- who is in his mid-20’s, who has a shaved head beneath his GREEN BERET, and who is completely unaware that two bullets are seconds away from entering him.

******

WALTER, 40, the chipper coordinator/emcee, rushes in waving his clipboard. The man's been in the closet so long he smells like mothballs.

******

-- TEN CIA PARAMILITARY OPERATORS, hustling out of a dusty tent.  Known as 'Badgers' within the Special Forces community. Uniforms bear no identifying marks -- but their leader sure sounds American as he BARKS into a SATPHONE--

******
Peter Nielson was once handsome.

Not anymore. He's dead.

We hang above his body. He is splayed like an open flower below us. Early 50's. A bullet hole in his expressionless face.

Interesting.

Cheers for those examples Tierney.

For those looking to get their scripts into the right peoples hands, how would you say is the best way to go about it?

I'll give all sorts of writing advice but career advice?  Yike.

Step One: Be a white male under thirty-five who looks a lot like Mike Shelton.  If Mike has a pair of Converse All-Stars he could probably get a meeting somewhere.

Step Two: Graduate from Harvard or Brown or USC.

Those are the two normal steps to be successful in Hollywood.  There are other ways.  Most of them involve socializing and/or golf.  You could also get a job as a writer's PA or a script coordinator on a television series.  You work with the writer's staff and if you suffer long enough they give you a script.  

If you don't want to move to Los Angeles then you have to figure out your own way into the maze.  Stripper?  Ex-con?  

As far as getting an agent, the big contests can be good.  Nicholl and Sundance can get you noticed by an agency.  A friend did really well in the Final Draft contest and got a great agent out of the deal.

Mostly, just be good at talking with and meeting people. Be it online or in real life. It is ultimately about who you know.

Cheers for that Tierney. Thought it might have been helpful for a few of the writers on here.

I often hear of the Nicholl contest as being the most beneficial to writers, but don't recall anyone on here saying they entered it.


Martin, one thing I want to pick up on:

Quoted Text Every detail cataloged.  Emotions are written like physical ticks.  Every physical thing imaginable is described.  It's all very obvious but it doesn't flow. That's exactly the kind of thing I was geting at in my original post. The sad thing is when people actually enourage this kind of writing.

There are more problems with writers craft than following the rules or not following the rules. I've never seen anyone encourage boring writing.

Following the rules of screenwriting does not mean that you should create characters through emotional ticks. That is a complete misunderstanding if anyone thinks that.

A man's character is conveyed by what he does. If he's a coward you show him doing cowardly things like running away when someone needs his help for e.g.

Writing cinematically does not prevent people from creating convincing characters, quite the opposite actually.

It's a question of cinematic storytelling.

Let's say you want people to feel sorry for a character.

The best way of doing is is to establish the character  and then show something bad happening to that character that the audience can relate to, say for instance the loss of her mother. We can then empathise with the character and feel genuine sympathy.

The way Hollywood does it very often is this (and I'm not having a pop at Tierney here):

Quoted Text I can say that Julia is the saddest person ever and it's a like a cloud is always over her head.  And what's going to happen is that the wardrobe is going to put her in muted colors, makeup is going to decide on a look for her and the actress is going to shuffle through scenes.  She's going to be lit in a certain way and shot in a certain way

They use every trick in the book to create signals that we're supposed to feel sorry for this girl. They lay it on with a trowel. Sad music, subdued lighting to try and artifically enforce emotion. It works on a superficial level, but the moods created like this won't last once the lights go off in the cinema. Real storytelling simply doesn't need that.

If you want the audience to know she's sad, let's just see what is happening to her to make her feel this way and how she reacts.

Her dad beats her and then she goes into the forest and rescues a bird with a broken wing. What does that say about her.

Her dad beats her and then she goes into the forest and finds a bird with a broken wing, twists it's wing around and tortures it to death.

Without a single word being uttered you can create compelling action that reveals everything about a character.

All those silly unfilmmables are quite unneccessary.

Quoted Text Screenwriting is about clarity

I agree. The problem with the kind of descriptive writing that seems to sell in Hollywood is that it is very often unclear what the writer intends.

E.G:

Quoted Text STAFF SARGEANT JOHN TYREE -- who is in his mid-20?s, who has a shaved head beneath his GREEN BERET, and who is completely unaware that two bullets are seconds away from entering him

.

In your opinion, what does the writer want to get across here?

Does he want me, as a Director to maintain the action of the piece or the tone?

I can't do both.

The way it is written, I can film it so the audience sees a soldier, minding his own business and then BANG. We are shocked as the bullets tear into him unexpectedly.

I've maintained the action he has written, but at the expense of the dramatic tension that he had invested the script with. As readers we know something he doesn't know, he's about to get killed. This creates anticipation. If you film his action, that is lost.

To maintain the sense of suspense I have to re-write the script.

Perhaps show him sitting there laughing and joking, blissfully unaware of the two red dots on his back.

Or start the film from behind a sniper, clicking his magazine into place, crane into a shot of the soldier minding his own business etc etc

There are an infinite number of ways I can maintain the dramtic tension, but none of them are in the script.

Scripts that contain numerous passages like this present these problems. Do I choose to get across the themes and character descriptions that the writer has introduced and re-write all the action to do this or do I strip most of the meaning away and stick with the action they've created?

We've established that this type of writing is characteristic of a Hollywood style, but are not most Hollywood films categorised by having shallow storylines, characters, banal, formulaic plots? This style of writing encourages that IMHO, because a lot of times the director will just stick with the action and ignore, or fail to see the deeper layers.

I'm aware that most people disagree with me, but I'm passionate about the future of Cinema and passionately want to see a greater quality of writing being produced.

Do a test yourself to see the realtive merits of what I'm talking about. Find some scripts that have been produced, but you haven't seen the final film. Read the script, mark the bits that moved you the most, then watch the film. How did those scenes translate to the screen?

Is the film worse. If so why? What didn't they put in that was on the page? What's better and why?

That way you can really get a feeling for the merits of styles of writing.

It's also a great directing exercise. Read the script, choose the shots you would use to tell the story and then compare them to the actual film. You'll find some things you could have done better, you'll find some directors deal with things in a way maybe you wouldn't have thought of. Either way it's a useful experience.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films There are more problems with writers craft than following the rules or not following the rules. I've never seen anyone encourage boring writing.

I've seen it happen, especially on this forum. Compelling prose is discouraged in favour of mechanical actions and descriptions. You get a lot of people nitpicking character intros, telling the writer they should introduce a character as "John, thirties, dressed in a suit" and be done with it. As far as I'm concerned this advice is damaging to writers who are trying to develop their own unique voice.

Funnily enough, the forum critics who jump on these unfilmable errors rarely go on to talk about what's really important i.e. story and character.

The fact is that every great writer develops their own style. You mentioned Mamet earlier in the thread, which I found funny because in many ways he's the other extreme. If someone posted a Mamet-style screenplay here, they'd also get ripped apart by the format police. Why all the beats? You can't write "beat"! You have to break up your dialogue with action! Never go over four lines of dialogue! Don't write actions in parenthesis!

Frankly, it's all bullshit. The gurus sell you their "rules" because they couldn't make it selling screenplays.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films A man's character is conveyed by what he does... etc

Thanks for the 101, but this is a different discussion entirely. We're talking about writing style - how a writer communicates those actions and images to the reader. Nobody's arguing against visual, cinematic storytelling an characterization.

Consider the example from Duplicity:

"ANOTHER WORRIED ENTOURAGE gathered at the ramp,
watching RICHARD "SICK DICK" GARSIK rushing forward into noman's-
land. GARSIK the buccaneer CEO. A corporate carnivore in
his prime. Hypervisionary. Hypereffective. Hyperactive."

Now see it after an encounter with the format police:

"ANOTHER ENTOURAGE gathered at the ramp, watches RICHARD GARSIK, dressed in a suit, rush forward across the asphalt."

I don't know about you but the first one gives me a much clearer mental image of what's on screen. I can see the character in my head. From the brief "unfilmable" description I can picture his face, how he looks, how he moves.

Without the descriptive flair, the rule abiding rewrite falls flat.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films In your opinion, what does the writer want to get across here?

For the record, that example isn't the kind of writing I'm lobbying for. I agree, it's purely for the reader and it needs to be rewritten to be filmed. Having said that, we're not writing shooting scripts.

Some people will tell you a script will get binned for that "unfilmable" alone. That's simply untrue.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films There are more problems with writers craft than following the rules or not following the rules. I've never seen anyone encourage boring writing.

I don't see anyone disagreeing with this.

Quoted Text The best way of doing is is to establish the character  and then show something bad happening to that character that the audience can relate to, say for instance the loss of her mother. We can then empathise with the character and feel genuine sympathy.

That's one way, but not the only way.

Quoted Text In your opinion, what does the writer want to get across here? Does he want me, as a Director to maintain the action of the piece or the tone? I can't do both. The way it is written, I can film it so the audience sees a soldier, minding his own business and then BANG. We are shocked as the bullets tear into him unexpectedly. I've maintained the action he has written, but at the expense of the dramatic tension that he had invested the script with. As readers we know something he doesn't know, he's about to get killed. This creates anticipation. If you film his action, that is lost.

True.
But I think adding something like "unaware of two bullits" is for another purpose: To intrigue your reader. Also important. You are right in that in that it is unfilmable. However, I think sober descriptions will give the director, dp and actors the opportunity to interpret and fill in the blancs, which you seem to think is a bad thing. Additionally, I think with very elaborate descriptions you run the risk of insulting the director, dp, actor, or reader ever so slightly.. And you don't want that.

Quoted Text We've established that this type of writing is characteristic of a Hollywood style, but are not most Hollywood films categorised by having shallow storylines, characters, banal, formulaic plots? This style of writing encourages that IMHO, because a lot of times the director will just stick with the action and ignore, or fail to see the deeper layers.

Wow, that's a big big leap, blaming the accepted writing style for the existence of bad movies. What about all the great movies?

Quoted Text I'm aware that most people disagree with me, but I'm passionate about the future of Cinema and passionately want to see a greater quality of writing being produced.

I don't think there's anyone on this forum who is NOT passionate about the future of cinema or who doesn't want to see the highest quality in writing.

I think you're on a pretty high horse here.

I don't know how to address the details because the interpretations change from post to post.   This thread has taken so many turns.  Rules, what rules?  It is a strange thing in that the initial bit of this thread it was all about people just writing a great story and not being strangled by ideas about "unfilmable" and now it's all about one person's ideas about what he can or cannot direct (not write but direct).    Not to be unkind Decadence but why should everyone here be writing to meet your skill level?  Based on your comments you don't really understand how to read a Hollywood screenplay (and since they all suck who cares).

This snippet of a script is the first scene from an adaptation of a Nicolas Spark's novel called Dear John.  It's not a war story.  It's a romantic drama.  It is written with a little bit of fable mixed in.  It is a choice that I imagine is meant to establish tone.

Quoted Text STAFF SARGEANT JOHN TYREE -- who is in his mid-20?s, who has a shaved head beneath his GREEN BERET, and who is completely unaware that two bullets are seconds away from entering him . In your opinion, what does the writer want to get across here? Does he want me, as a Director to maintain the action of the piece or the tone? I can't do both.

It is part of the job description of a director to be able to maintain tone and do an action beat all at the same time.  In this case you've gotten one sentence and you've already said you cannot film it. Huh?  Based on how you've commented on Gilroy's work I get that you want everything on the page.  Literally mapped out for you.  That's not how Hollywood screenplays are written.  One of the big reasons is that Hollywood directors hate to have their shots blocked for them.  They want a story and they want to shoot it as they see it playing out in their heads.  

A screenwriter's job isn't to write shot lists masquerading as prose.  It's to write a story with great characters and imagery that someone wants to spend three to six months of his life turning into a movie.  That's it.  Write like what you're putting on the page matters enough to pull hundreds of people away from their families to work twelve hour days for months at a time.

Hello Tierney.

Quoted Text This thread has taken so many turns.  Rules, what rules?

Just to clarify.

A lot of people's introduction to screenwriting naturally comes from the likes of Mcklee and Syd Field. Both of these (and most other screenwriting "gurus") suggest that people write cinematically.

It can basically be broken down to into a simple concept:

A screenplay is a written version of what will go on screen, therefore one should take care to ensure that everything you intend to get across should be understood by the VIEWER. IE All important information regarding character, action etc should take place on screen. Through action, diaolgue or narration.

A screenplay is a blueprint for a movie, not a literary story in essence. Though you use words to write, you are using them to convey images and sounds in a way that reflects the medium that you are writing for.

Martin was also specifically referring to the fact that often on here people advise against flowery character descriptions and pointing out (quite correctly) that Hollywood Producers will not reject work written in such a way, despite what people may say.

All I have attempted to do is to widen the discussion to not only include the reality of the situation, but to discuss some of the reasons why it is the case that people write like this in Hollywood, and why it may not necessarily be the best way of ensuring that the final product, the FILM, is as good as it could be.

It is, after all, a discsussion board and the thread is specifically about screenwriting.

Yourself and Another Writer pointed out examples of writers who write in a certain way. I pointed one out who went into great depth in his book Bambi vs Godzilla, why he believes that type of writing is responsible for the decline of American Cinema and also why it has resulted in the undervaluing of writers in Hollywood, resulting in their need to strike every now and again.

I am merely pointing out that though the initial point seems like it is only a matter of common sense not to be strangled by "rules", the issue touches on deeper levels.

All I am seeking is to ensure that people are writing in a way that best gets their vision onto the page and more importantly onto the SCREEN.

Quoted Text and now it's all about one person's ideas about what he can or cannot direct (not write but direct).    Not to be unkind Decadence but why should everyone here be writing to meet your skill level?

It's nothing to do with my level of skill. I'm talking about Objective Reality.

Quoted Text This snippet of a script is the first scene from an adaptation of a Nicolas Spark's novel called Dear John.  It's not a war story.  It's a romantic drama.  It is written with a little bit of fable mixed in.  It is a choice that I imagine is meant to establish tone. [quote]Quoted Text STAFF SARGEANT JOHN TYREE -- who is in his mid-20?s, who has a shaved head beneath his GREEN BERET, and who is completely unaware that two bullets are seconds away from entering him

.

Quoted Text In your opinion, what does the writer want to get across here? Does he want me, as a Director to maintain the action of the piece or the tone? I can't do both. It is part of the job description of a director to be able to maintain tone and do an action beat all at the same time.

[/quote]

I've already explained why this can't be translated to the screen without it being significantly altered. Replace the I, with Steven Spielberg and it is the same result.

Steven Spielberg, will have to introduce action that is not in the script to maintain the tone because the writer has included an unfilmable concept.

I am questioning why any writer would want to write in such a fashion. Why would a writer not want to introduce his concepts in a way that can be immediately converted to the screen without a process of conversion?

David Mamet would say it is to make the script read better than it actually is, to convince the lowly readers to give it good coverage and to disguise the fact that they can't think or write visually.

Maybe you agree or maybe you don't, but as writers it's always good to think about the craft isn't it?

Daniel Day Lewis cannot act like he is unaware of the bullet appraoching and at the same time convey that he is. It's impossible. A paradox.

No DOP can light the film in such a way as to convey the idea that this man is about to be hit by two bullets.

They can convey the idea that something bad is about to happen. Not the specific concept.

If Steven Spielberg wants to maintain the dramtic tension introduced by the writer, he will have to introduce new action. He will have to re-write the script.

Film is about what you see and hear, nothing more. So what are the advantages of writing in such a way? What are the disadvantages?

I've pointed out several disadvantages of using unfilmmables: Lack of clarity, the need to re-write literary concepts in filmic form, the fact that unskilled directors may miss them, the incongruity between the experience of the reader and the ulimate consumer, the viewer.

The only advantage is that it may make the "flow" better. But that is not necessarily true either as it means you fill the script with extra words. A man introduced with flowery description will either act and speak in such a manner anyway, rendering the descriptions redundant. Or he will not and render them pointless  (E.G The velvet switchblade example).

It may be a useful starting point for the actors as well. That seems a fair point, particularly if you are trying to sell the script to an actor. Those kind of words may give them something to immediately bite upon. That's something I'll bear in mind.

Do you agree with the phrase Cinema is Dead? How does this style of writing relate to those issues? Why do some people maintain that film has deteriorated since the advent of sound? Why do so many of the better Hollywood films these days seem to be adaptations of novels?

Quoted Text Based on how you've commented on Gilroy's work I get that you want everything on the page.  Literally mapped out for you.  That's not how Hollywood screenplays are written.  One of the big reasons is that Hollywood directors hate to have their shots blocked for them.  They want a story and they want to shoot it as they see it playing out in their heads.

I think that is a good point about Hollywood directors. Maybe they prefer less specific scripts.

In terms of that script, I was being overly pedantic in order to convey what I consider an important point. That in film every thing that you want to get across to the viewer has to be on screen.

The vast majority of people will experience the film by watching it. A script is made to be filmed. All that lovely description and turn of phrase will disappear in filming (unless you stick it in narration or dialogue or action).

So I think it is important that people understand that.

A script that reads well is not the same thing, necessarily, as a script that will make a great film.

The ironic thing is that the people reading and replying on the thread aren't the ones who need the advice.

Ultimately I can fathom no reason why screenwriters would want to write in the way that you did when introducing Bob the Butcher. Why would you want the reader to know something that the viewer won't?

In terms of an ideal script, I think that there should be visual images that convey this idea.

In terms of reality, it wouldn't be a deal breaker. If I like the story and later in the script I can appreciate your use of imagery to create the feeling of isolation of poor Bob, then I'd simply call you up and ask what your intentions were in the first segment. Why you chose to write it like that and what you were hoping to convey.

Then make creative decisions based on that.

Martin.

Quoted Text Consider the example from Duplicity: "ANOTHER WORRIED ENTOURAGE gathered at the ramp, watching RICHARD "SICK DICK" GARSIK rushing forward into noman's- land. GARSIK the buccaneer CEO. A corporate carnivore in his prime. Hypervisionary. Hypereffective. Hyperactive." Now see it after an encounter with the format police: "ANOTHER ENTOURAGE gathered at the ramp, watches RICHARD GARSIK, dressed in a suit, rush forward across the asphalt."

I understand where you are coming from. Gilroy's version reads a lot better. If it's a choice between those two then I'd take the former any day.

As a filmmaker though, I also look behind the words. What's actually going to be on the screen? That's the story.

At the end of the day, the "no-mans land" IS going to be asphalt on the screen.  

The thing is though, the phrase no-mans land, qualifies an already exisitng image. By definition he's going on to the ground at the airport, this gives you a visual sense of the type of mood. It adds to what is there.

My problem is with things like this:

Garsik is not going to appear as a "hyper-visionary" (We'd need to see him doing something like building a space shuttle) or as "hyper-effective" (we'd need to see him doing something effectively and damn quickly) at this juncture. These words need action to give them meaning on screen. Though, I accept Tierney's argument that perhaps a description of someone as "hyper-effective" suggests a certain groomed style or whatever, good for wardrobe.

Hyper active will probably come across in the way Giamatti moves, licks his lips etc but then doesn't this create the situation that worried you before, in terms of character coming through like emotional ticks? He's got to create a specific charcateristic without anything to relate it to...

How much of the anticipation of this scene is created through unusable words and how much through what the audience will see on screen?

As it happens, it's a very strong opening to a film. It's exciting, unusual and immediately engages the audience.

So as it turns out, my only real problem with the whole of that snippet, was the word hyper visionary.
(and I suppose if you take that out, the line doesn't read as well.).

Anyway, all I was trying to point out was that I think it's important for people to get across everything that they intend by getting it on screen. IE to highlight the potential pitfalls of writing intense character description, but forget about actually showing us acting that way in the film.

I agree with you about most things.

Decadence, I think we're creeping towards some kind of agreement.

I can certainly see your point of view - that writers can disguise a poor story with compelling prose. I don't contest that at all.

I think it's about finding the right balance. We all want to write scripts with great writing AND a great story. I started this thread because, in my opinion, some writers let their writing become mechanical because they worry too much about rules which are open to interpretation.

Yeah.

My position is read the rules, understand them, then ditch them as you see fit.

I went on the artful site after Another Writer mentioned it. I like Tim Talbott's (Lather Effect, South Park) advice.

"Just write awesome".

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films "Just write awesome".

Sure, I can do that, but if I do, will you have to rewrite it in order to meet your vision?

I mean, will you see the word "awesome" and suddenly realize that you can't possibly portray awesome on screen, switch it to "cool", and portray the artist formerly known as Mr. Awesome with a leather jacket and a smoke hanging from his mouth so that he's now Mr. Cool and thus filmable?


I'm an idiot.

But an amusing idiot.

Here's the scene that's taking all the abuse if anyone is interested in something other than one sentence.  It's by Jamie Linden.

-------

FADE IN

JOHN’S VOICE
There's something I want to tell you.

OPEN ON:

STAFF SARGEANT JOHN TYREE -- who is in his mid-20’s, who has a shaved head beneath his GREEN BERET, and who is completely unaware that two bullets are seconds away from entering him.

John looks around the ramshackled room he’s in, then turns and says something we cannot hear to someone we cannot see.

JOHN’S VOICE
After I got shot, you wanna know the very first thing that  entered my mind, right before I blacked out?

A BULLET slices into his left shoulder, inches away from his heart. John’s eyes widen, but he’s too stunned to cry out.

JOHN’S VOICE
Coins.

Despite the EERIE SILENCE, a second BULLET hits him in the gut and sends him to his knees.

His hand flies to his stomach. In no time at all his fingers are coated with blood. John falls onto his back. His eyes search the dingy ceiling above him. All is still SILENT.

Sunlight pours in from a large mortar hole, and as John stares at it, the light ENVELOPES THE SCREEN, AND --

EVERYTHING GOES WHITE.

FADE OUT

I like it. It's straight to the point, while sill being visual and interesting.

I don't know if I like all the capitalized words, though.