LOL, glad this thread took off.

Quoted Text Most people will not get a visual image when the description reads "handsome in a rough-hewn, Chet Baker-like way"

I so do NOT disagree with this. I think most people WILL get a visual image from this description, and even better, most people will get a whiff of the atmosphere and mood the writer intended for the scene and/or movie. If you'd want to convey this with a purely descriptive writing style, you would need a lot more words then 35.

(Apart from that, you are not writing for 'most people', you are writing for agents, directors, production designers, and so on. My mom would probably have no clue what the description ment, but I think your average director will get an instant picture flash through his head. And HE will translate it onto the big screen, so my mom can enjoy the story too.)

Quoted from Dreamscale 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.

I did not even get the child being killed from that snippit, D.S.  The child could have shot the man, or an intruder might have killed either of them.

Your segment breaks no rules, and is, in fact, bare-bones in the opposite direction.  I get nothing from it, and it is not really an instructive example of anything in particular.

I, too, will side with Tierney on effective characterization delivered succinctly.

Quoted from Tierney 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/

Wow, talk about taken out of context. You actually added that I implied a spec vs. shooting argument. My post contains nothing of the sort. Here's the only possible reference I can find that could be taken the way you took it.

Quoted from George Willson Specs don't use camera angles, but neither do novels.

That's not a spec vs. shooting argument, but a statement related to a screenwriting best practice. A lot of newcomers to the craft place a large number of camera angles (or the dreaded "we see") in their early scripts because that's what they've read out there, so I often relate the writing of specs to the writing of novels, since novels tell a vivid story, but use no special jargon to do so.

I refer to what we tend to write here as "spec" scripts, because by definition, that's what they are. A "speculation" script is one written without a contract or payment to submit to a production company so they can decide to either make it or hire you for some other project where you would be paid either to rewrite your current script or to write a different script entirely. Speculation scripts have a certain style to them detailed in innumerable screenwriting books and on this site, and while people tend to argue a certain direction for "shooting scripts," I don't usually address them since we don't deal with them.

I typically communicate in a very straight forward manner, which can be a curse while writing, so there's no need to read between the lines of anything I post, since there's nothing there to see. ...but I appreciate the lecture.

I don't think I did take you out of context George.  You're repeating the same wrong information that specs are novels and shooting scripts are somehow entirely different.  If there is a camera angle or a WE SEE in a shooting script it was there in the spec. Your spec = shooting script.

When you write a feature screenplay, spec or commissioned, you're writing for it to be shot. It doesn't exist for any other reason.  Writing sample?  Usually that only plays in tv staffing.  A feature production company is only going to be interested in your feature spec script if they want to shoot it.  

Maybe it's not how the English major who wrote his screenwriting book sees it but that's the real world. And it plays into this thread about how the "rules" are just wrong.

Calm down Tierney, speaking of babies...Geez,  I did not rail against anything, especially an established award winning writer/director.  I merely said that I think the quote you used as an example with the Chet Baker blah blah blah, is bad.  I'm very surprised that more people aren't jumping up here and agreeing with me.  Maybe I'm in the wrong here or minority, but I'm not going to agree with you just to agree.  Not my style.

As usual, we're way off base here again.  Is this forum not for helping young, inexperienced writers?  Your advice is to write descriptions of charactrs like Bill Condon did in Gods and Monsters?  You think alot of the writers in here have the ability to do that?  I think you're being an A-Hole, and I disagree with you.

What are you referring to when you say that so many of us are limiting ourselves with arbitrary and wrong-headed rules?  Have you read Diablo Cody's screenplay for Juno?  Maybe you want to throw out a quote from that also?  I don't recall talking about or quoting anything from any screenplay books...did I?  And where's this BS coming from about using 1/3 of the vocabulary at hand?  Is that based on the fact "Chet Baker-like" isn't a term I've ever used, nor will ever use?

Whether you think the little snippet of an example I used is good, bad, or whatever, isn't the issue here.  It's really impossible to get much of anything out of a few lines, when you have no clue what came before, or what will come after.  It is what it is, and obviously the point I was trying to make is lost...maybe never there.  It doesn't mention Chet Baker, and I'm sorry that no Lucky Strikes are being smoked in the scene...guess that means that Tobias isn't very cool or tough, huh?

Keep it real man, and get off your high horse...it's really irritating.

Not all scripts began life as speculations. The 3 movie version of Lord of the Rings was never a "spec." It was written by the director, his wife, and friend in the manner he would shoot it after Miramax turned down their 2 movie version and New Line suggested the 3 movie version. Most of Quentin Tarantino's scripts aren't written as specs because he knows they'll be shot and he'll be the one doing it. I agree with your commentary that the difference between a spec and shooting script is negligible, but that would really only apply if the script began life as a spec and was used to shoot the film.

To be honest, I'm still a bit thrown on where this comparison thing is coming from. In my last post, I still didn't compare the two. I mentioned the existence of "shooting scripts," but never made any comparison whatsoever. I might as well have said paid and unpaid, for all it's worth. That's the primary difference as I see it.

Yes, you write your script in the hopes it will be shot. Yes, that is the goal. But that isn't always the reality. I never deal in absolutes because they rarely exist, and to presume that all specs that are read and liked will be shot is foolishness. Sometimes, the spec will be read and the producer likes the writer's style but not the story. Hence, he throws his own idea out there and the writer writes the script. This time, it isn't a true "spec" script because the writer isn't writing on spec, but it's a sure point that they'll use the same style.

The point of the "rules"? Yeah, there's a point. Consistency and readability. Do you have to follow the rules? No. Never said you did. But if you follow some of the basic guidelines, you'll have a very readable script that no one would turn down on either format or wording. You'll be judged on story alone.

If you'd care to quote where I disseminated incorrect information, I'd be happy to see where I slipped up or maybe I am wrong. At the moment, you're throwing out generalities and declaring me wrong. I said, for instance, that I compare specs to novels when it comes to writing them, but I never said script ARE novels. Please stop mis-quoting me.

You may have laid these cards on the table before, but perhaps I missed them. I admit that my knowledge comes from ages of reading a variety of books, websites, screenplays, etc. on the topic of writing screenplays, so I have a load of academic knowledge that is assimilated from a multitude of sources (not just an "English Major", my favorite of which just happens to be a produced screenwriter). How about you? Is your knowledge also academic or do you have a wealth of personal, first hand experience you're laying out there?

Hey Death Monkey, my example is being taken way out of context here.  If you remember the original thread, there was much talk about unfilmables, lighting, boring, mechanical writing, flowery writing...all sorts of stuff.

There were 2 sets of quotes that everyone was going back and forth on.  One was the two planes setup, and the other was the girl who looked like a prom queen, with sad eyes...  Both were poor examples of good writing, because both used way more words than were necessary, and the excess words actually made things confusing and unclear (with the planes for sure).  The prom queen deal was a complete waste of words because no one in the audience would be able to understand that look she was going for was what was written in the screenplay. You know?

I simply tried to throw something out there that was very brief with no setup, etc, showing you can throw a few things into your script that aren't "necessary" (the Winnie the Pooh night light, the white flash of the shotgun), but also are not only filmable, but also "paint" a visual feeling and even mood.  At least that's what I get from it, and if no one esle sees where I'm going here, let's drop it and move on.

I am not against characterization at all.  I also believe that feelings are extremely important.  I wasn't going after that in my example and it wasn't the point of it.

OK?

I understand what you all are arguing about, but I still say a good story trumps the writing style every time.

I just read the 1941 shooting script of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde yesterday. It was great, but if it was posted here today and written by a newbie it would probably not be read because people would say they refuse to read something written so wrongly.

I also read a feature by FlyBoy in the last week. Completely different style of writing, but I still enjoyed it.

I'm so used to reading screenplays that I don't really notice how it's written as long as I understand and can follow the story.

My own personal writing style has gone from too descriptive to almost too terse and staccato like. I try to limit the use of the word "and" even. This style suits me just fine since I'm not very good with words.  

Anyway, like I said. I know what you are arguing about, but it doesn't really matter if the story itself is dull  and uninteresting. At least not to me.

Thank you "Me"!  That's the exact point I have made in this thread at least 4 times now, but no one seems to get it.  You're on the money.

Hey, I too do not use the word "and", as it just takes up space, and using a comma makes for a quicker read.  Uh oh...I'm sure Tierney has something to complain about this also...  

Sorry, Dreamscale. I suppose I missed what you had here is all the nonsense on the other thread. I find your scene to be a thin when it comes to the description. It looks like part of a larger story (as evidenced by your "MOMENTS LATER" slug), so some stuff is forgivable, but if I were to close my eyes and picture what you have, it kicks right from the lamp to the door opening, and we never get any kind of establishing idea of what Joey is doing in this room. I can guess he was asleep, but if that's the case, he wouldn't sit up asking about noises -- he wouldn't have heard them. If he were already awake, we should get an idea of the cowering as mgj said or whatever he was doing before hand. And we can assume Tobias is dad, but you offer nothing on him. You say he entered quietly. Did he stop at the door? Move all the way in? Did Joey surprise him by being awake? After all, we can guess Joey gave no indication that he was awake before Tobias came in. All of this is interpretation and maybe I got some of it wrong, but I find it leaves too many unanswered visuals that trial and error might work out in rehearsal, but would be a lot better to just have on the page.

And I'll read anything as well. I might comment on how it's written, but I'd read through it all. I've found some gems on here that were written poorly, but had a really good story. But you've hit on a solid reason to have that consistency in that people are more likely to read it. It's kind of like having a professional appearance works better in an job interview than looking like a bum.

This thread has got to be the worst case of "Waiting for your turn to talk, instead of listening" that I've ever seen.

The whole point of these threads is that writing in a manner that contains "unfilmables" isn't as big of a deal as it's made out to be, and doing so isn't going to cause your script to end up in the trash bin.  That's it.

Some people are for the style, some people are against it, and there's a third batch that can't seem to make up their goddamn mind.

Quoted from Shelton The whole point of these threads is that writing in a manner that contains "unfilmables" isn't as big of a deal as it's made out to be, and doing so isn't going to cause your script to end up in the trash bin.  That's it. Some people are for the style, some people are against it, and there's a third batch that can't seem to make up their goddamn mind.

Amen. Write how you want to write. As long as you tell a fine story, that's what really matters.

Quoted from Dreamscale Hey Death Monkey, my example is being taken way out of context here.  If you remember the original thread, there was much talk about unfilmables, lighting, boring, mechanical writing, flowery writing...all sorts of stuff. There were 2 sets of quotes that everyone was going back and forth on.  One was the two planes setup, and the other was the girl who looked like a prom queen, with sad eyes...  Both were poor examples of good writing, because both used way more words than were necessary, and the excess words actually made things confusing and unclear (with the planes for sure).  The prom queen deal was a complete waste of words because no one in the audience would be able to understand that look she was going for was what was written in the screenplay. You know? I simply tried to throw something out there that was very brief with no setup, etc, showing you can throw a few things into your script that aren't "necessary" (the Winnie the Pooh night light, the white flash of the shotgun), but also are not only filmable, but also "paint" a visual feeling and even mood.  At least that's what I get from it, and if no one esle sees where I'm going here, let's drop it and move on. I am not against characterization at all.  I also believe that feelings are extremely important.  I wasn't going after that in my example and it wasn't the point of it. OK?

I'm not sure what you're addressing here because my last post spoke to how you can't expect a scene to ladden with emotion or atmosphere etc. due to its subject matter (a child being killed). As such I feel your example wasn't apt for what we were talking about because it was too sparse to engage the reader properly; in other words it relied on its concept and not its execution.

What I think is important to take away from all this is that the "rules" are helpful to learn before you can break them, for most people. However if you wanna write a really cinematic script of Hollywood ilk you're pretty much gonna have to break the rules. Then it's all about starting the movie in the reader's head.

The only real unfilmables that I feel are completely inappropriate (even though I have seen them in produced scripts) is when you write expostion in the action slugs. "Timmy is Mary's younger brother, he always feels overlooked".

The primary principle of screenwriting can basically be summed up in "Show, don't tell". Describing someone as looking like a prom queen who wouldn't give you the time of day, does not violate this rule, IMO. I get a visual from that description. I get a face and an air about the person.

I believe Tierney is a working, experienced screenwriter, George. I remember him picketing during the writer's strike in a video on youtube or something.

One of the only ones on this site with actual insider knowledge of the craft and the business, I believe.

Tierney is also a girl!