I think Tony Gilroy is an interesting writer and director.  I guess he didn’t feel the need to rewrite himself to make this qualify as filmable by Decadence's standards.  

I’ll just poke at a few things:

Quoted Text 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.

The writer has assistants, flight crew and vice presidents.  You don’t know the difference between those three?  You don’t think wardrobe (suit), props (corporate security badge and a Rolex) and make-up (killer haircut) knows how to make someone look like the vice president of a company standing near a corporate jet with a big logo on it?

Quoted Text 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.

So, you want all characters to be introduced without names?  You can’t use a character name until someone says it in dialogue?  Huh?.  I can only imagine how confusing you just made the production manager and casting director’s lives.

You have a bunch of extras all clustered around the ramp of a plane gazing up at Howard.  Pretty adoring to me.  The imagery in fact is almost religious.  Who would waste page count having extras who aren’t important to the story speak?  Who would waste the money giving lines to background. A director’s job is to direct background.  Tell them to adore.  They’re actors. They’ll adore.

As far as the story I’m hooked.  These two corporate bigwigs get off a plane and start wailing on each other.  I want to turn the page and find out why.

I won’t even go into the stuff about the action scene.  Gilroy with his Bourne movies has pretty much reinvented action films.  I think he knows exactly what he’s doing.

I would back-up what Tierney is saying. When I started screenwriting (all those months ago! lol) I was writing scripts for movie audiences, and still do to a degree. I try to write a script that explain  everything in a visual style or through dialogue, but the end result being informing the audience what the story is, "show don't tell!".

I much prefer reading the "professional" scripts, they flow better, they are easier to understand and follow. They are written for directors not for audiences, they contain lots of "we see's" which when we are writing a script that is designed to be filmed I think "we see" is a perfect way of describing the action. But it is the general feeling that not a word is wasted when reading these scripts. They are not scared to use lots of words ending in "ing" that makes for shorter, punchier sentences. Descriptions are short and none are given unless they are needed.

I often find reading that reading a script such as Michael Clayton for example is a lot easier affair than reading a 15 page short on here sometimes, which is weird. It is why I try to stay away from reading any unproduced features on SS too, they are just too hard going. But I can pick up a script from the produced section and comfortably read it within two hours.

Of course the answer is usually that we are not writing spec scripts for directors but script readers, I can understand that fully. I can see the logic in writing it differently for readers as opposed to directors. But the more I read and hear the more I think things are changing, readers do not seem to bother so much anymore, they are looking for the story more than anything else.

Quoted from Grandma Bear 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...

I think some of us here, including me, think that if you want to be a succesful scriptwriter it is probably unwise to try and do stuff differently then the industry standard.

Of course there are examples of people who have broken the rules and still have succeeded, but those are few. I'm pretty sure there are thousands and thousands more who have broken the rules and failed. That's the thing in the entertainment branch: You only hear the succes stories.

If you have a brilliant story, why not write it the way everyone does it? It's still gonna be your brilliant story, and even better, it won't be rejected on format.

Quoted from avlan If you have a brilliant story, why not write it the way everyone does it? It's still gonna be your brilliant story, and even better, it won't be rejected on format.

That's the issue though Avian, "the way everyone does" generally does not apply to the most successful people in the business. The really great scripts that I enjoy reading and have been made into succesful movies are usually not written "the way everybody does".

This is an debate that can rage and rage and people of course have their own ideas on it, and I can see both sides of the debate and agree with parts of them both. But it is true that the strangest thing about screenwriting is that in order to be like the Pro's, the successful people who we all (should) aspire to be,  we are actually told not to write in the same style as they do, which is weird really.

Quoted from Murphy That's the issue though Avian, "the way everyone does" generally does not apply to the most successful people in the business. The really great scripts that I enjoy reading and have been made into successful movies are usually not written "the way everybody does".

Are you reading spec scripts or shooting scripts by these people?

There are several ways to tell the audience that Bob is a butcher.

A  Introduce Bob in a bloodied smock chopping up a side of beef in his store.

B  Write 'BOB (45) climbs into his car.  He's a butcher by trade, for most of his life.'

C  Introduce Bob on the phone, arguing with his meat supplier about the last order he received.

D  Show Bob arriving at a neighborhood picnic where all of his neighbors thank and praise him for the steaks he brought from his shop.


Which one is wrong?


Phil

I've explained the problems as clearly as I can, if you want to ignore the advice, then that is fine.

As regards the plane film, the writer was attempting to establish one character as a good guy and one as the bad guy in his opening salvo. Because of the way he wrote it, he failed to do so. He has left all the character action off-screen.

The writer is the one filling the page with pointless chitter, chatter not me. It's either in the film or it isn't. Anything that he wants the audience to know, has to be on the screen.

That is a problem that has to be fixed before the film is shot. If the story is so good then it is possible that the film will get made anyway, as I've said, but there are clear problems with the writing as a blueprint for a film.

All a writer has to do is ask himself one simple question: Is everything that I want to get across on screen?

That's it. If a writer doesn't have the pride in himself to do that, then I would question why.

You are putting yourself in the situation that your script has to be re-wriiten to be turned into a film. Why would you want to do that?

If you do, that is fine. But don't complain if the work is changed beyond all recognition.

That's not a question of style, that's just bad screenwriting IMHO.

I've seen enough of this script to know that it is going to descend into a story full of stereotypical characters.

As regards the strawman argument at the end about Tony Gilroy.

Ultimately Gilroy is an accomplished director. I don't think much of him as a writer personally. Michael Clayton was the only decent thing he's written himself (The vast majority of his work he has just adapted from novels) everything else like the Cutting Edge, For better or worse, Bait was bollocks.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Ultimately Gilroy is an accomplished director. I don't think much of him as a writer personally. Michael Clayton was the only decent thing he's written himself

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one, Rick.  I shut Michael Clayborn off after forty minutes because I had no friggin' idea what was going on.  George Clooney and Tilda Swinton's characters hadn't even met yet.  All I knew was that it was something about lawyers.


Phil

Quoted Text That's the issue though Avian, "the way everyone does" generally does not apply to the most successful people in the business. The really great scripts that I enjoy reading and have been made into succesful movies are usually not written "the way everybody does".

Filmmaking is about money.

You break into filmmaking by making a film that sells. There's no great mystery. Write a story, convince a director to make it. Sell it. Then you are a screenwriter.

If you write a script that is made into a successful film, you will get work again. You have proved that your ideas can sell. Whether you can write or not. Look at Derek Haas.

I'm just pointing out what it takes to write a script well. A way that stops you making mistakes (which professionals do all the time, most films made have terrible story lines, plot flaws, weak characters etc Let's not lionise them here.)

Quoted Text I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one, Rick.  I shut Michael Clayborn off after forty minutes because I had no friggin' idea what was going on.  George Clooney and Tilda Swinton's characters hadn't even met yet.  All I knew was that it was something about lawyers

It was a pointless film, with no message I'd agree. But he did write it himself and it seems to have been received well by the audience.

I was just being kind.

Quoted from Murphy That's the issue though Avian, "the way everyone does" generally does not apply to the most successful people in the business. The really great scripts that I enjoy reading and have been made into succesful movies are usually not written "the way everybody does".

Hmmm... the scripts I've read are mostly the same, technically.. At least the formatting, use of terms and such are pretty much the same. Sometimes there's a way of describing a scene or setting that has a writers mark, but on the whole (from what I've read) those are a few sentences, not a wholly different way of setting up a scene.

The structure of the STORY is another thing. The Syd Field Dogma of plot point 1, midpoint, plot point 2 is a very nice blueprint, but this structure is in no way the only way to go... And lots of examples of writers doing it differently with great success.

Quoted from dogglebe I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one, Rick.  I shut Michael Clayborn off after forty minutes because I had no friggin' idea what was going on.  George Clooney and Tilda Swinton's characters hadn't even met yet.  All I knew was that it was something about lawyers. Phil

Yeh I don't know what it was with that film but it was... mmm.. boring. Which is pretty bad for a supposed thriller. You could see where it was going from miles away.

Quoted from avlan Hmmm... the scripts I've read are mostly the same, technically.. At least the formatting, use of terms and such are pretty much the same. Sometimes there's a way of describing a scene or setting that has a writers mark, but on the whole (from what I've read) those are a few sentences, not a wholly different way of setting up a scene.

Scripts are easier to read when they're properly formatted.  People in the business know the rules and accept this formatting.  When you write a script and change things around (like changing the margins, or using left justification for dialog), you're making the reader work harder.  This pulls him out of the story he's trying to submerge himself into....

And that's never good.


Phil

DecadenceFilms so far has criticized Derek Haas and Tony Gilroy.  Those hacks!  Oscar nominations and huge worldwide grosses with Haas at 320 million and Gilroy at 750 million. You can not like the writing all you want but Hollywood buys their “unfilmable” screenplays and turns them into movies that make money.  If you don’t like their work -- or don’t understand it -- maybe it says something about your ability to write a feature that can sell.

Word choice, sentence structure, line breaks = camera positioning and movement.  If I describe a character as hyper-anything that says that I want a fluid camera with fast cuts. If you don’t understand that the individual words you chose dictate the pace and look of a shot then don’t write for film.  The useless chatter in the Gilroy script tells your actor where to start with the character and helps the various departments buy his clothes and his car and furnish his home.  If you don’t understand that you have to do that then don’t write for film.

Quoted Text There are several ways to tell the audience that Bob is a butcher.

Blood under his fingernails, BOB turns the steering wheel and guides his car down Langdon Road.  It’s where the rent boys walk.

A butcher by trade, he watches from behind the safety of the windshield glass as they show their haunches and lean muscles for his benefit.  
--
Here is the self-analysis of the snippet about what I tried to accomplish with Bob.  He’s got blood under his nails and he’s cruising for boys.  I call him a butcher.  The reader makes the assumption one way or another about what kind of butcher.  I layered in something else – I made sure in my description to put Bob behind glass like a butcher in a supermarket.  And which side of the glass are the boys on?  Are they the meat for sell or are they salesmen with the product?  Where is the balance of power?  Will the reader get that?  Hopefully, on some level.

Do I have Bob in a smock?  Talking about meat?  Nope.  Maybe in the next scene I’ll have him at work cutting some pork tenderloin.  Maybe not. I’ve got time to show the reader that Bob really is a butcher.  I know what I’m doing.  I can layer and refer and build.  

I just have to make sure that everything I promise about a character (or a plotline) I fulfill by the time I get to fade out.  

Gross earnings are not a benchmark of quality.

It's the marketing guys that deserve the Oscar.

Besides the Oscars are about who throws the most money about behind the scenes and are hugely weighted in favour of U.S writers/directors.

List of films from 2007 that are far better written than Michael Clayton:

Control, Silent Light, the Lives of Others, Zodiac, Climates, Away from Her, 12:08 East of Bucharest, Syndromes and a Century, the Painted Veil, Beyond Hatred to just name a few.

Of course, you won't have seen any of them. (maybe Zodiac).

Everything that Haas has been involved with, with the exception of a remake of 3:10, has been shite.

Oh no! The shawdowmen are coming!

I challenge anyone to read Haas's dialogue without laughing.

Gilroys best films are adaptation of already existing materials. When he writes himself he is poor IMO. He is a very accomplished director. Very accomplished.

We're talking about writing ability though.

I can understand why you like him. He's not to my taste, but that's a subjective matter.

Quoted Text If I describe a character as hyper-anything that says that I want a fluid camera with fast cuts

Explain how that concept fits in with the script that I dissected.

Tell me the shots that you would choose for hypervisionary, hyperactive and hyper-effective in the context of what that writer was trying to establsih in that scene.

Quoted Text The useless chatter in the Gilroy script tells your actor where to start with the character and helps the various departments buy his clothes and his car and furnish his home

I've seen Michael Clayton. The old man behind a desk is no "velvet switchblade" that's for sure. He's just an old guy behind a desk. If even a writer/director is unable to use his own unfilmmables what's the point?

Maybe it's the reason why almost all the characters in Gilroy films are one and two dimensional plot devices?  

Perhaps he thinks by writing unusable character descriptions that he is creating fully-rounded characters. That is the trap and it's one that you should be careful not to fall into.

Understand, this is a site where there are a lot of new writers. I don't have a problem with Tony Gilroy writing unfilmmables per se. Maybe they help him direct. He puts enough visual information in his scripts that he can bend the rules. There is enough in what he wrote to visualise a character. However, the "velvet switchblade" thing did not make it into the film. If it was his intention that it should, he should have written it differently.

The problem is a lot of people put NO visual information in their scripts and BREAK all the rules. Once you can construct fully rounded characters without resorting to describing them, then you can do what you like.

Quoted Text Seriously, I do wonder what goes in people's heads when they give Hollywood's elite writers the thumbs down and give the nonsensical preachings of screenwriting teachers/gurus (that can only make their money by giving false hope to wannabes) the thumbs up.

For every Hollywood writer that proposes that you can write any old shit and no-one cares (which I've said is the case) there is one who is concerned at the collapse of intelligent films being written and made. I quoted David Mamet who has also been Oscar nominated. As I said, he was very clear about "unfilmmables" and why they are contributing to the amount of rubbish that is being shovelled out. I completely agree with him.

They add nothing to a film, they are just a way of faking that you can write well in order to impress readers.

When all is said and done, the only things that end up on screen are character actions and dialogue. Yes the actors have input, but you can't create something that doesn't exist. If you write that someone is neurotic in the character description, but the character doesn't do anything neurotic, then it simply won't come across.

That is why you get so many cartoon like characters in films, because people don't create believable characters using dialogue and actions. It is precisely because people write in these character descriptions that the actors are forced to invent silly little mannerisms that aren't backed up by the plot.

I also don't believe in a "Hollywood elite". 99.9% of films coming out of Hollywood are tripe. The filmic equivalent of MacDonalds. But if you think Catch that Kid is a testament to the ability of the Hollywood elite, knock yourself out.

Why should I defer to someone who has made exclusively bad films?

Good luck to the guy, I'm glad he's making money from the system but let's not pretend that he is some sort of super-writer.

At the end of the day, I don't hold Hollywood in much regard when it comes to scriptwriting. There is a huge lack of imagination. The films are almost universally formulaic and controversay free, they don't deal with issues in any depth.

What Hollywood does well is technical competence. The Production Values are immense, but the stories and characters are usually soulless, lifeless devices.

The best writers, unfortunately in terms of how popular and how powerful Hollywood is, are to be found elsewhere.

Quoted Text John's sweating bullets now.  The timer on the bomb is ticking down the last ten seconds.  It's now or never.   John chooses a wire -- red -- CLIP...   But the timer keeps going...   Last two seconds...   He's already fvcked.

Wow. I've never seen such an exciting script.

Tell me, did he survive such a terrible ordeal?

I wouldn't wipe my arse with it.