SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 29th, 2024, 12:25am
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Screenwriting Discussion    Screenwriting Class  ›  Breaking "The Rules" 2: Electric Boogaloo Moderators: George Willson
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 2 Guests

 Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    Breaking "The Rules" 2: Electric Boogaloo  (currently 6542 views)
Shelton
Posted: May 27th, 2008, 11:46am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Chicago
Posts
3292
Posts Per Day
0.49
Continued from Here


Shelton's IMDb Profile

"I think I did pretty well, considering I started out with nothing but a bunch of blank paper." - Steve Martin

Revision History (1 edits)
George Willson  -  October 9th, 2008, 9:05am
Logged Offline
Private Message AIM
Dreamscale
Posted: May 27th, 2008, 6:40pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Wow, this is great!  Wish I would have found this earlier, but never too late to jump in, huh?

In my opinion, this discussion shows several extremely important points that all unproduced screenwriters (or wanna be Screenwiters) need to take to heart.

First of all, there is no "one correct way" to go about screenwriting.  It's a matter of opinion, and for many, of personal opinion.  There have been valid points made on both sides, points that taken exactly as written, cannot be argued.  That's not the issue though.  The up and coming screenwriter needs to find his own voice and style, as long as he sticks to tried and true "laws" of screenwriting and formatting.

Secondly, from these numerous back and forths, it is obvious that these people are passionate about Screenwriting.  Passion is what's usually lacking in screenplays, and more importantly, movies these days.  The up and coming screenwriter must have a real passion for writing and movies, and be able to convey that passion to create something unique and well written.

Finally, and most importantly, no one seems to disagree that the story is what it's really all about.  All too often, we get the same old thing, with the same old characters, the same scenes, same cliches.  It's not just in a site such as this, with inexperienced writers, but in Hollywood and on the multiplexes as well.  When something comes along that bucks the trends in terms of plot or story, it's usually a good thing...people stop, and take notice.  And then, it's the next "cool thing", and immitators take over, giving us the same thing over and over again.

Here's a short scene that although a bit flowery to some, shows an awful lot more than the few words on the page.  It's written in a way that may be a bit flowery, but more importantly, intriguing, and written well within screenwriting guidlines.

INT.  MOUNTAIN HOME - UPSTAIRS BEDROOM - MOMENTS LATER

A small Winnie the Pooh night light gives off a warm yellow glow.  The door opens quietly.

A young boy, JOEY PATTERSON, sits up in bed.

                          JOEY
        Daddy?  Daddy?  I heard noises.

Tobias enters quietly.

                          TOBIAS
        I'm afraid not.  Go back to sleep, little one.  Gute nacht.

A SHOTGUN BLAST bathes the room in blinding white light.

The screen goes shrill white.

What do you think?  Not the typical description we usually see, nor the typical outcome.  No wasted lines of description, no real action, but quite a powerful mental visual...and feeling.  A unique style, obvious passion, and a plotline we don't usually see.

Let's try and help one another as oppossed to spending our time backing up arguments that don't go anywhere.


Logged
e-mail Reply: 1 - 106
Death Monkey
Posted: May 28th, 2008, 2:55am Report to Moderator
Been Around


Viet-goddamn-nam is what happened to me!

Location
The All Spin Zone
Posts
983
Posts Per Day
0.15
I don't think that description was that atypical. There are certainly no unfilmables, the action paragraphs don't address the reader. It's a bit sparse perhaps. I didn't really get a visual feeling from reading it, maybe because of that. There's a lot of information missing.

First of all, a young boy can mean anything from 5-11 in my book. And I'm not drawn in by knowing how the characters are feeling when they do this. Is Joey surprised, does he see the shotgun when Tobias enters, does he recognize him as not being his dad, or is there a shadow covering his face? Does it happen quickly or does Tobias linger? Is it easy for him?

All these things could help paint a picture that would make me "see" the scene. Right now, I don't. I mean, it's definitely not bad, but I just don't think it's "powerful" viscerally. Not out of context at least.


"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."

The Mute (short)
The Pool (short)
Tall Tales (short)
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 2 - 106
Dreamscale
Posted: May 28th, 2008, 11:24am Report to Moderator
Guest User



I was just throwing something out there that I thought might help with the confusion over flowery prose, unfilmables, etc.  One side of the argument was saying to write very mechanically, exactly, don't use flowery words that don't need to be in there,  Say exactly what's on screen, etc.  The other side went so far as to argue the use of flowery prose with numerous unfilmables, such as describing a girl as "...a prom queen...".

I personally feel the passage "reads" well, which is something we're all after.  As you said, there are no unfilmables, so there aren't wasted words either.  It's quick, efficient, and to the point, yet written interestingly.

As for your questions, this is just a quick ending of an opening scene...it doesn't play more than 20 seconds, and characterization and motivations do not come into play.  However, from the passage, the Winnie the Pooh night light should give away the child's age, and I'd say it's way under 11.  The scene is nothing more than a quick kill, but in the way it's written, at least for me, it comes off well, and there are numerous visuals (the warm yellow glow of the night light, the blinding white blast of the shotgun, the German dialogue).
Logged
e-mail Reply: 3 - 106
mgj
Posted: May 28th, 2008, 12:50pm Report to Moderator
New



Location
British Columbia, Canada
Posts
253
Posts Per Day
0.04
I would agree dreamscale that after reading over the scene a few times it does convey all a director would need to interpret the scene but it isn't, at least to me, over-flowery.  If anything it feels a little bare-bones.  There's no mention of the boy cowering under the sheets - if he indeed heard voices like he said.  He's just described as sitting up.  No mention of the wash of calm he must have felt as his supposed father enters the room - a calm that would have quickly turned to uncertainty and then terror as he reacts to the sound of the intruder's voice which is clearly not his father's.  All this, I agree, could be inferred but it takes a little extrapolation to fully appreciate what's going on.

Describing the boy's reactions, his thought processes - all this would add a little extra tension, I think.  It would also bring the reader into the story IMO.  As is, it has a real 'third person' feel to it.  I mention this mainly because I'm always called for describing a character's feelings yet to me that's what really brings a story to life.


"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." - Albert Einstein
Logged
Private Message Reply: 4 - 106
Dreamscale
Posted: May 28th, 2008, 2:13pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Well good.  That's actually exactly the point I was trying to make.  It's not supposed to be overly flowery, but it's still written in what I call an interesting way.  It's also supposed to be rather bare bones, as it's a very quick scene in which characterization and motivation do not even come into play.

I was trying to make a point that one can use "flowery phrases" in moderation, create an interesting, engaging "feel", while still using very few words, no unfilmables, and be effective.

Maybe not the best example out there, but for me, I thought it made the point I was after.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 5 - 106
George Willson
Posted: May 28th, 2008, 3:18pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Doctor who? Yes, quite right.

Location
Broken Arrow
Posts
3591
Posts Per Day
0.51
Wow, what a mess. I've read through most of the former thread and all of this one, and really, people, I think the point is quite often missed. A screenplay is best described as the blueprint of a movie. It's only a piece of something bigger, and it is the job of the writer to convey a story as descriptively, yet with as much brevity, as possible. It's finding a happy medium between the over-kill descriptions of a novel (which includes descriptions of everything plus the thoughts of the characters) and the skeleton of an outline.

Let's talk about "unfilmable." There are many things that are thought of as "unfilmable" that play into things that are. The whole prom queen description of the previous thread isn't unfilmable. It includes instructions for the director and the actress who has to figure out the best way to convey the information given. In fact, just a tidbit of background info given in the introductory description of a character is well within the filmability of a script.

Unfilmable is anything that is contained within the descriptions for the bulk of the script that you cannot see OR UNDERSTAND by sitting in an audience watching the movie. Consider passages in films where characters exchange glaces and you, as a person in the audience, knows exactly what transpired between them. I'll bet something was in the description that told them what their characters were "saying" without speaking, and they SHOWED that unspoken material through their actions.

A script is for EVERY MEMBER OF A PRODUCTION, not just the director. An actor will put their own spin on whatever a writer writes, but if you have something you need from them in a particular section that is specific, they'll appreciate the heads up (as long as you don't wryly them to death). Is the color of the flowers in front of the house important? Describe the flowers? Is a glace supposed to convey a specific thought? Indicate the thought. Someone thinking about the upcoming bank robbery will LOOK completely different than someone pondering their dead mother. The audience might know about both events, but if the actor is supposed to look thoughtful, what the heck is he looking thoughtful about?

Granted, these occurrences shouldn't be a norm in a script, but they aren't forbidden and they aren't "unfilmable." In case you haven't noticed, almost nothing visual is unfilmable. Once upon a time, you couldn't film camels crossing the LA freeway, but now, you could probably do it if you needed to (but still you probably would want to avoid it). Unfilmable is limited to the resources available, and as spec writers, your limits are self-imposed.

I did tell someone once that his script was unfilmable in sections due to the descriptiveness of the under-age gay sex due to how certain topics in films tend to be censored in the US, but with some creative angles and care age-casting, he might get an R out of the deal if he's careful. But the unfilability was mostly my opinion. Anyone could film that (low budget even; they just couldn't sell it).

The "rules" everyone belly aches about are not so restrictive as everyone likes to make out. There are some formatting "rules" that are only in place so those in the industry are always looking at the same format. It makes your job easier. The ONLY other rule (singular) is to pretend your movie is already made, and write the script like you're transcribing it from the movie you're watching. What do you see on screen? Write that down. What comes next on screen? Write that down. Specs don't use camera angles, but neither do novels. Your spec script is a novel that you transcribed from the movie you just watched in your head. How difficult is that?


Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 6 - 106
Dreamscale
Posted: May 28th, 2008, 3:37pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



George, I agree with you...completely.  I was merely trying to point out the same fact that there is a happy medium where the writer can use his own, unique voice, write in an "interesting and engaging" way, stay within industry guidelines, and most importantly, write what needs to be seen and known.

As you said about "unfilmables", in many ways, these sort of descriptions do have merit, but are often wastes of lines and time, as there are better ways to get the point across.  The prom queen scenario is a great example, because as written, it's "saying too much", and whatever look the actress comes up with for that portrayal, each person in the audience will have their own impression of it.  Chances are very, very good that at least 9 out of 10 people would not describe her look as that of a prom queen with sad eyes of years of whatever.  Know what I mean?
Logged
e-mail Reply: 7 - 106
Tierney
Posted: May 28th, 2008, 4:53pm Report to Moderator
New



Posts
83
Posts Per Day
0.01
Hollywood screenplays aren't "flowery".  The words chosen are precise and designed to convey a lot of information to a lot of different people.  The prom queen thing isn't even a real line so let's use a real script description instead:

"CLAYTON BOONE opens his eyes.  He is 26, handsome in a rough-hewn, Chet Baker-like way, with broad shoulders and a flattop haircut.  He grabs a crumpled pack of Lucky Strikes, lights a bent cigarette."

Name, age, look, time frame (Chet Baker and the flattop) and he smokes bent Luckys.  Thirty-five words and the reader knows volumes as does casting, the actor, the DP (the character just woke up and the lighting is morning gold), the set dresser, wardrobe, hair and makeup.

Oh, and I was with you George until you hit the spec v. shooting script business.  I'll type it once again -- the only difference between a spec script and a shooting script is the numbering and locking. http://www.simplyscripts.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-screenwrite/m-1207758539/
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 8 - 106
Dreamscale
Posted: May 28th, 2008, 5:19pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Maybe the term "flowery" is getting in the way here.  Your quote, rather from a Produced Holywood screenplay, or off the cuff, comes across as "flowery" to me.

Describing someone as  "handsome in a rough hewn Chet Baker-like way", doesn't tell me a thing, personally.  Was Chet Baker known for his looks or for his music?  I'd say his music, and considering that he's been dead for 20 years, I don't know why anyone would find this passage relevant.

And 35 words to give a very brief description of someone is not short and sweet by any means.  It's 3 lines basically, and what do we really get out of it?  His age of course, he looks like Chet Baker (whatever that means, and why that fact would be important to any script, I have no clue), he has broad shoulders (is he going to be lifting heavy weights in the script?  Why would I care what his shoulders look like?), and he smokes Lucky Strikes.

This is not a good example of anything, other than using too many words and unnecesary description that most wouldn't even understand.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 9 - 106
Shelton
Posted: May 28th, 2008, 6:20pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Chicago
Posts
3292
Posts Per Day
0.49

Quoted from Dreamscale

This is not a good example of anything, other than using too many words and unnecesary description that most wouldn't even understand.


Based on Tierney's example, I pictured a 50's throwback Rockabilly type.  In the actual film, the character looked like this...

http://www.mostbeautifulman.com/sambagblog/movie_godsnmonster/01.jpg

I don't think I was that far off.

And no, I don't generally cruise mostbeautifulman.com.  It was just the best picture that popped up in Google.



Shelton's IMDb Profile

"I think I did pretty well, considering I started out with nothing but a bunch of blank paper." - Steve Martin
Logged Offline
Private Message AIM Reply: 10 - 106
Tierney
Posted: May 28th, 2008, 7:03pm Report to Moderator
New



Posts
83
Posts Per Day
0.01
I think you just made George's see v. understand argument.  Here's a breakdown of what I understand when I read those thirty-five words.  It doesn't speak to you personally but maybe you don't understand the references.

Why reference Chet Baker?  Like I said before it gives a time period reference.  This movie takes place when Chet Baker was on the charts.  It's a very specific description in that the writer didn't use Elvis.  He opted for a jazz musician who was really only famous in the 1950s.

The character is a broad-shouldered, handsome guy with a flattop during the 1950s.   Korean War. Solider?  Ex-Soldier?  

He slept on his cigarettes and mangled them but he's going to smoke them anyway because he doesn't give a damn.  And the Lucky Strike cigarettes?  Huge mythos there. It's the cigarette that all those hardass Spillaine detectives smoked.  And in the 1950s it was considered a man's brand of cigarettes.

That's what I understand from that description. There's tons of stuff there.  It's rich and I know this character and want to know where he's going next.  There's a world of difference between this and the snippet of your scene that you posted in which I know just as much about the Winnie the Pooh nightlight as I do the characters.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 11 - 106
Dreamscale
Posted: May 28th, 2008, 8:04pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Tierney, I understand...and I hear ya.  I think your quote is from "Gods and Monsters"?  I don't mean to knock you or the quote, but in terms of this discussion, it doesn't work.  It's exactly what a beginning screenwriter should not be trying to do, IMO.

First of all, it's a hit or miss in terms of the description. Most people will not get a visual image when the description reads "handsome in a rough-hewn, Chet Baker-like way".  Again, is Chet Baker known for what he looked like?  Secondly, the description as is calls for a very specific looking actor, and as far as I'm concerned, that shouldn't be all that important in any movie...sure good looks, tough looking, whatever does come into play for each character we write, but it shouldn't be written so that it limits who can play the role.  Thirdly (is that a word?) assuming the Lucky Strikes brand of cigs gives some sort of characterization is so cliche,  Finally, again,  it's 35 frickin' words, 3 lines, that may say alot to some, but won't say much of anything to most.

In terms of the comparison to the snippet I threw out there, the two really can't even be compared, because in my snippet, I was merely trying to show a way to write in an engaging, interesting way, a short scene, in which there is literally no characterization.  The scene shows nothing else than a quick, shocking kill.  Why is it shocking?  Because a young child is being killed, which is usually taboo.  The child's thoughts, feelings, looks, whatever, don't come into play, because they're not what's being focused on...or important, in this example.  The fact that this asshole just offed an innocent kid says volumes for who or what he really is.

Back to the point, this thread was discussing what was OK and not OK, in terms of writing, and writing styles...at least that's what I thought it was about.  You know that there are so many writers in here who are trying to find a voice, and they're obviously confused about what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, and how they should go about it.

The point I was trying (and still am trying) to make is that there should be a happy medium for all of us between mechanical, "boring" writing, and "flowery, overly literary useage of prose.  That's all I'm trying to say.  We all go about it differently, and when it's all said and done, it comes back to staying within the understood guidelines, and putting on paper, a great, interesting, and unique story that not only moves us, but makes us want more.  It's a passion that hopefully envokes a passion in our readers (and hopefully, our viewers, as well!).

We've got roughly 120 pages to paint a picture, and for most, that means sticking to what really matters.  If you've got 10 or more "main" characters, you just can't, or shouldn't spend 35+ pages describing each one in terms that many won't even understand.  I have nothing against over description, when it works, but I just don't think your example is a good one in any way.

Know what I'm saying?



Logged
e-mail Reply: 12 - 106
Tierney
Posted: May 29th, 2008, 2:42am Report to Moderator
New



Posts
83
Posts Per Day
0.01
>>Know what I'm saying?

No, not so much.

>>It's exactly what a beginning screenwriter should not be trying to do, IMO.

Why?  Easy question.  Why?   If anyone could explain to me why so many of you seem intent on limiting yourself with these arbitrary and often just wrong-headed rules that have nothing to do with writing to be produced. What difference is there really between any of you and say a first time screenwriter like Diablo Cody other than that she didn't limit herself?

I'm repeating myself from the great Shelton migration thread of 2008.  If you want to learn how to write to be produced read produced scripts from the last two years.  Not screenplay books telling you what you can and can't do.  You're not doing yourself any favors learning to write from a book and then having to learn how to write all over again in a style that will get you produced.  You want to find your "voice" but you hobble yourself by only using a third of the vocabulary at hand.

I'm also baffled by why you rail against produced writers and their writing. What are they doing wrong except writing scripts that people want to buy? Gods and Monsters won a screenplay Oscar and an Independent Spirit Award. The Clayton Boone description by Bill Condon is immaculate.  That description used to be used at Tisch in the screenwriting program as an example --  if you can write like this then you should be a screenwriter.  

Everyone talks about finding their voice but a lot of times voice is what you bring to the table. Bill Condon knows the 1950s and 1960s, he knows music and he knows old movies and art and architecture.  His voice is informed by the things that interest him and he's not obligated as a writer to dumb anything down or making it universal. People who produce his work know they're going to get intricately structured pieces that actors want to be in because it puts them in the Oscar race.  It's really horrible to write like Bill Condon with his obvious inability to handle description.

>>The fact that this a**hole just offed an innocent kid says volumes for who or what he really is.

No, it tells me that you're a writer who can't craft a scene to build tension.  Oh, this is shocking! I'm going to kill a child and get that guaranteed visceral reaction from my audience. It's trite and baby writers always do it because it offers an immediate emotional payoff that they can't deliver any other way.  
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 13 - 106
Death Monkey
Posted: May 29th, 2008, 2:59am Report to Moderator
Been Around


Viet-goddamn-nam is what happened to me!

Location
The All Spin Zone
Posts
983
Posts Per Day
0.15

Quoted from Dreamscale


In terms of the comparison to the snippet I threw out there, the two really can't even be compared, because in my snippet, I was merely trying to show a way to write in an engaging, interesting way, a short scene, in which there is literally no characterization.  The scene shows nothing else than a quick, shocking kill.  Why is it shocking?  Because a young child is being killed, which is usually taboo.  The child's thoughts, feelings, looks, whatever, don't come into play, because they're not what's being focused on...or important, in this example.  The fact that this asshole just offed an innocent kid says volumes for who or what he really is.



But the guy's gonna off the kid no matter HOW you write it. The fact that we're shocked (I wasn't really, it's been done) has to do solely with the concept of the child being murdered, not the way you wrote it. Like Tierney says, it's a cop-out, thinking you don't need to let us know thoughts, feelings, atmosphere if the violence on screen is sufficiently jarring.

And the fact that he offed a kid says volumes about him being a one-dimensional asshole. I can't tell if he's doing it just for fun, out of necessity, if he's psychotic etc. Again context might let us know, I don't know. But the scene doesn't draw me in, and the fact that a child is being killed doesn't make up for that.



"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."

The Mute (short)
The Pool (short)
Tall Tales (short)
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 14 - 106
 Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Screenwriting Class  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006