Can Bill talk any faster? My gosh!

There's only so much you can learn from rules. You're writing so you can tell the story that came to your head the way it came. If you're not doing that, something is inhibiting you that needs to go. Endless rewrites are a waste of time. Three should be the limit, unless someone's paying you for another. Filmmakers will change things to suit their purposes anyhow, so put the script in as good shape as you can, then rest your case. Move on to the next project.

There are two issues here:

The reality of the situation and the theoretical ideal.

Breaking the rules will not stop you selling a script, in fact the reverse may well be true, it may help to sell your script.

As Martin points out, it gets very boring reading scripts. If you as a writer introduce flowery descriptions, it is easier to convince a reader that it is a good script. But a script that is interesting to read is not necessarily the same thing as a script that will make for an interesting FILM!

David Mamet (who for me is one of the very few decent screen writers currently working in "Hollywood") addresses this issue very well in Bambi vs Godzilla.

He points out that the presence of unfilmmables is perhaps the biggest reason why so many crap films get made, the writers manage to convince readers (who write coverage for the Producers who HARDLY EVER read the script  ) using pointless, but interesting to read description, to give them good coverage.

It's one of the great ironies of the Studio system, that the lowliest people in the company are the first gatekeepers of quality.

The greatest is perhaps that the people who give you the money to make a film usually haven't got the first clue about writing, story sense, character development etc They are accountants and lawyers.

The reality of the world is that it is not necessariy the best scripts that get made, it is just those scripts that persuade people that they are good scripts. Or persuade people they could sell.

I get sent scripts all the time. I've read thousands. I would never turn a script down because it broke the rules BUT equally I have never read a script, no matter how well written, that used unfilmmables in such a way as it would make the final product, the FILM, better in any way.

The format rules allow an infinite variety of audio and visual information to be presented. If you cannot present an interesting story within the confines of them, then you cannot write a script that will make an interesting film.

As a Director, if I come across something that is unflimmable and think is interesting, I then have to re-write the script to incorporate the idea in a visual form. In other words, I have to re-write the script as it should have been written in the first place. Either that or strike it out, as it has no bearing on what gets on the screen.

For a good story, would I be willing to do that? Absolutely. The point remains however.

Screenwriting is an art that very few people actually master. The vast majority of paid professionals included. Some of the greatest novellists can't write scripts. Why?

Because they use words to evoke emotional responses when a screenwriter should be using images and sound. The words are just an abstract language to describe the things we see and hear.

Another Writer is correct and rightly quotes Derek Haas as saying it doesn't matter what you write. Clearly it doesn't. Derek Haas has only written terrible scripts like Invincible, 2 fast 2 furious. His only success was to be involved in a re-write of 3:10 to Yuma. The only reason that was a success is because of the direction of Mangold (Cop Land, Walk the Line etc). He still has 4 huge budget films in various stages of production however. The scripts he has written have been turned into financially successful films. So he gets more money.

Here's the rub. If you are a great writer, you don't need to break the rules. If you aren't, there could be something to be said for deliberately breaking them. A few power phrases here and there could turn your mediocre script into a more sellable script than the clone next to it. They'll be the same film though.

And always remember that in the real world the test of quality is not critical reception, it is how many people pay to watch it.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are writers on here who, were they more canny with their networking and more business like in their outlook, could sell scripts.


Now having said all that, I will address the more "artistic" rules ie those mentioned about Mckee etc. All artistic rules can be broken, and are frequently. But you should absolutely know the rules in the first place so that you can break them to create a desired effect. You can't be Avant-garde unless you know what you are avant to.

I'll break down this script as a Director/ Producer to highlight the problems with breaking the rules.

This is a script that Martin was hugely impressed by. I personally would agree that the fella can write, but argue that he is a terrible screenwriter.

I'll show you why. Hopefully it may be of use to some of you.


EXT. PRIVATE AIRPORT -- DAY 1

[b]Dark, gray day. TWO CORPORATE JETS idling on the runway. Big
jets, engines whining, faced-off across a hundred yards of
blacktop.



TWO LONE FIGURES -- one from each plane -- marching toward the
empty middle in SUPER-SLO-MOTION...

ON THE LEFT -- THE BURKETT & RANDLE JET. The famous blue- onred
B&R logo tattooed across its frame. AN ANXIOUS GROUP OF
EMPLOYEES -- ASSISTANTS, VICE PRESIDENTS, FLIGHT CREW -- all
gathered near the step-ramp, watching HOWARD TULLY, their
beloved CEO, striding off into the breach. TULLY the legendary
titan. The mythic boardroom shogunate.

Problems already.

1.Ask yourself this. How do I as a director show that someone is a Vice President? There are two options a label on jacket or someone says it in dialogue.

Neither are in the script. As a director I have to ask myself if this information is important to the story. It appears not. So scratch it. It's pointless. If it's pointless why is it in the script?

2. How does the audience know he is called Howard Tully? Answer, they don't.

In the film as written he is just an anonymous man.

The writers intent is to show that this man is loved by his employees, but he has failed to include anything that would suggest this.

As a Director I have to ask whether this info is important or not. I would conclude that it is CRUCIAL. So I would have to re-write the script. Show his employees wishing him well (and calling him boss). Perhaps a secetary kisses him on the cheek.

Perhaps a luggage guy says "Who's that". "What do you mean who's that? That's Howard Tully the legendary business guy".

Hopefully you see the point. It's not a script. It's prose in a script format.
All you have is a tall, anonymous guy getting off a plane in the way it is written and a worried looking entourage, but we have no way of knowing why they are worried as the scriptwriter has omitted it from the film.

We're a paragraph in and already I'm having to completely redesign the film from the ground up to make it into a FILM.

ON THE RIGHT -- THE EQUIKROM JET. Slick and aggressive. Silver
and green. 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.

Meaningless guff. Again we don't know who he is, he has not been introduced by anyone on the screen. The writer is trying to establish him as the greedy bad guy but has failed to include ONE SINGLE ACTION that demonstrates this on camera.

Hypervisionary

How do I show this? I'd have to have a separate montage showing him creating great plans or have someone say it IE "Go get him Dick. You're Sick Dick, Hypervisionary, corporate cannibal" blah blah "You'll kill this guy".

Either that or scratch it.

I as the Director again have to completely re-write the script to stick with the writers intention.

I already know that this guy can't carry a script. He's got no concept of filmmaking.

CREDITS ROLLING as this slow-motion encounter ripens. And no,
this will not be a cordial union of peers. Both men yelling --
screaming -- as they draw closer. Words lost beneath the roar
of the turbines. Arms waving. Toe-to-toe. The Finger In The
Face. The Belly Bump. The Huff and Puff. The Touch-Me-One-More-
Time until...

Fine on the surface, but what is the writer trying to get across here? Who is the aggressor? Who does what? This is crucial information that the audience will use to make it's first and lasting impression of the characters and the writer has completely omitted it.

Dreadful writing.

Clearly as a Director, i have the impression that the writer wants to show Tully to be the good guy. Does that mean that Garsik should be the more aggressive? The script has only just opened and already the writer has lost control of his two characters.

They are behaving in an indeterminate fashion, both are indistiguishable. Isn't one of them supposed to be beloved and the other a corporate carnivore?

A punch is thrown.

[b]Even the majestic influence of slow-motion can't pretty this up.
It's an instant, ugly, awkward playground brawl.[/b]

Contradiction. Is it instant or in slo mo? Majestic slo mo suggests a twee love scene. What is happening in this scene. A punch is thrown, does it connect? Who threw it? What happened? Absolutely no information again.


As the Director I have to make up the entire scene. I have to choose the aggressor, choose everything that happens.

Clearly the writer wants Garsik to be the bad guy. So he should be throwing the punch. Why isn't that in the script?

Even the tone of the piece is offputting. Is this supposed to be comedic? I'd have to say so, so the word ugly seems incongrous.

At this point I'm thinking the writer has not got a clue what he is doing. He's just throwing words around without any cohesive idea of the point he is trying to make.

This little segment reads well enough, but it isn't even the basis for a storyboard, let alone a film.

He has left every creative choice up to the Director.

That in a nutshell is the difference between being a writer, and being a screenwriter.

Writers often write awesome stories. Stories that Directors/Producers want to make.

They fix these things you mention in numerous rewrites.... at least that's what I've been told to do...

Quoted Text Writers often write awesome stories. Stories that Directors/Producers want to make. They fix these things you mention in numerous rewrites.... at least that's what I've been told to do...

If you are going to fix them, why make the mistake in the first place?

Maybe I've missed something, but there is a distinct lack of "awesome stories" being written. This is a common sense and integral part of screenwriting, if you can't get it right (and it's basic stuff: Is it on the screen or not?) then the chances are you won't be able to handle the nuances of character development, plot etc

By all means develop a voice, but don't leave character information and actions out of the script. That's the whole point.

I guess what I tried to say is that we all try to do our best. When someone writes an awesome story (yes I've read several here) and a director/producer finds the script and wants to shoot it, they don't seem to say "nah, this one wasn't written visually enough. Too bad because I really liked the story. Next!".

Usually what the directors do is a lot of major rewrites when this happens.  And what happens at the end is that the script is no longer what the writer wrote.


Phil

I'm not criticising anyone. There are numerous writers on this site whose work I respect.

I'm just pointing out that if you want to write a truly great script then there is absolutely no reason not to stick to the rules. Breaking them adds nothing to the story. It can only present problems, as I demonstrated.

The reality is that you can convince a director or producer to develop a script with you based on an idea written on the back of a cigarette box.

You can also write short stories and have them turned into features, look at Philip K. Dick.

The thing is, if you want to write a script, write an actual script.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films The thing is, if you want to write a script, write an actual script.

I'll keep that in mind next time I sit down and "attempt" to write one.

Do you disagree with my breakdown of the script above?

I'm only offering advice, take it or leave it.

I'll repeat myself:  If you're going to break the rules, break them for a reason.  Not knowing proper formatting is not reason enough.


Phil

In a way I do and in a way I don't.

Just like you, I read a shiteload of scripts. A lot of those are written by people who previously have written novels and are new to screenwriting. Often their scripts are far from resembling screenplays. However, as a "wanna be" filmmaker, if I read one of those and the story itself blows me away, I'm not going to toss it in the trash and say "what a shame it was written like a novel". IMHO, the story will always trump the writing. GOOD stories are a lot harder to come by than a crummy boring story visually written.

Martin may have loved the script mentioned and been able to visualize it in his mind even if you did not feel the same way about it.

Film is an art and as such subjective. Obviously you and I differ some in our thoughts. I don't believe that makes either of us wrong...

But the point remains nonethless:

At some point that story is going to be have to turned into a script.

For me it's not a matter of subjective opinion. It's not a question of whether the story was good or not. It's simply a question of what is and what is not a script.

Any director would have to alter the script to be able to film it and get the writer's intention across as I showed. That means there is a technical flaw with the script, whether you like the story or not.

Most of the stories that get turned into films are novels or short stories. Indeed in the old studio days most writers were encouraged to write prose before they turned it into a screenplay. It's easier to develop plot and character in prose and then translate those ideas into visual actions.

As you yourslef have noticed, many excellent writers struggle to write good scripts. Here's why:

Script writing is about telling a story through visual and audio means.

It's not about writing prose. You can jazz up any script with a thesaurus, and it will fool a lot of people. But once the fancy words have gone and the film is in production all you have is the picture on the screen.

The point is a screenplays function is to be a blueprint for a FILM. If it has to be altered to function in such a manner then there is clearly something wrong with it.

"IMHO, the story will always trump the writing. GOOD stories are a lot harder to come by than a crummy boring story visually written."

The problem here is that the quality of the writing is disguising a crummy story.

Look at the second example. All it is is a guy with a buzz cut waking up on a train.

That's the film. That's all the audience will see. The quality of the writing is being used to disguise the fact that he has started his film with one of the oldest cliches in the book.

You can't hide behind colourful description on the screen. So you shouldn't do it in a script.

Keep in mind, also, that the more you describe something, the more likely you will say something that a filmmaker doesn't like.  It may go against how he sees the story.  A great example of this would be to include songs in the script.


Phil