OK then...I give up!

Apologies to all for bad advice on my part, and poor critique of Tierney's examples.

Didn't mean to crack on you either Shelton.  Sorry about that.

I picked Gods and Monsters because it used to be used as a teaching script in entry level screenwriting classes. Small cast and written to budget. Lots of people I know who went to film school have read Gods -- USC, UCLA, NYU.   It's now over ten years old and I have no idea what script has replaced it so I referenced Gods.

And I only used it as an example not as a template.  I don't care what you read -- Transformers, Children of Men, Legally Blonde, Lars and the Real Girl - but read and try to understand what the writer is doing.

Read Fargo. Michael Clayton. The Abyss. Anything by William Goldman. Get Walter Hill's draft for Alien.

You'll see each is written differently but they all adhere to the basic rules of screenwriting format, while each has an individual voice. They break what are seen as sacred 'rules' here but all are good solid screenplays, all produced.

Hell, remember Shane Black's Lethal Weapon, written before he was a name writer?

"EXT. House - Day

It's the kind of house I'm going to buy if this movie is a hit"

Extreme yes, but it got by readers and wasn't excised. Read screenplays please.

Quoted from mikep Read Fargo. Michael Clayton. The Abyss. Anything by William Goldman. Get Walter Hill's draft for Alien. You'll see each is written differently but they all adhere to the basic rules of screenwriting format, while each has an individual voice. They break what are seen as sacred 'rules' here but all are good solid screenplays, all produced. Hell, remember Shane Black's Lethal Weapon, written before he was a name writer? "EXT. House - Day It's the kind of house I'm going to buy if this movie is a hit" Extreme yes, but it got by readers and wasn't excised. Read screenplays please.

lol he put that in a script? I respect him even more now

It's technically not really breaking the rules, and it's probably a good line to get you noticed

Quoted from Shelton Some people seem to be a little off track here as well, so I'm going to point this out. There are "rules" which are basically related to word usage and the style of the writing on the page, and there are rules which relate to where your character names, sluglines, dialogue etc. should be positioned. I don't think anyone is disputing the merits of the actual rules, here.  It's about the "rules". And yes, that's a horribly complicated description, but take note of the " ".

Sorry if I seemed a little off track there, but I felt like grounding what I posted in those hard and fast rules that can't be violated, sort of like when you're building a house.  There are the local building codes that specify how the house is to be built, such as wiring, plumbing and stressed members.  Beyond that, the actual design of the house aesthetically is up to you.  If you're tall and you want all the sinks and switches to be six inches higher than normal, you can do that.  If you're in a wheelchair, you can have all of the sinks and switches at a comfortable height and extra wide doorways.  So long as the house is built to code, you're free to do what you want.  The problem is, when you go to sell that house, you've already narrowed your market to people who are either very tall or in a wheelchair.
Well, the same thing applies to screenplays.  The most important thing is "building it to code".  Sadly, many screenplays I've read here and in other places don't even meet that criteria.  And, a lot of these writers have it in their heads that their idea is so good and their writing so powerful, that they don't need to "build it to code".  There's a story about Frank Lloyd Wright piling pig iron onto a slender concrete piling he was planning to use in the Johnson Wax building to prove to the local inspectors that it could carry the load.  Well... he's Frank Lloyd Wright... and you aren't.  Your script has to be "built to code", because the readers employed in this industry are just like the building inspectors making sure the house is structurally sound.  If they walk in and see two studs in an eight foot wall, contruction will be halted just as sure as if a reader opens to the first page and sees a solid page of description, the script will be dropped into the "circular file".
Sorry if I seem to be on a tangent, but I am getting back to the original point...
... which is that pushing the limits of convention are much easier when you are an established screenwriter.  A lot of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings leak, not because he wasn't a good architect, but because he pushed the limits of what builders and materials were capable of.  He could get away with it, because he was a genius with impeccable credentials.  In order to push the boundries, you first need to take care of the basics.  Wright didn't attempt Fallingwater when he was starting out.  His early designs were conventional structures made unique because of his design aesthetic.  
For me, the same thing applies to screenwriting.  Keep it simple.  Master the basics.  Build it to code.  Don't give a reader any reasons to toss your script in the garbage by breaking too many rules or conventions.  And back to the first paragraph, which house do you think appeals to the most buyers?  One built to standard convention or one built to satisfy special wants or needs?  Everyone looking to buy a house isn't going to be seven feet tall or in a wheelchair.  Same with readers.  You may luck out and your script might land on the desk of someone who really enjoys scripts that break all sorts of conventions, but don't count on it.  Most readers are going to want to open doors and turn on lights without stooping or be able to use the sink without a stool.

Quoted from mikep Read Fargo. Michael Clayton. The Abyss. Anything by William Goldman. Get Walter Hill's draft for Alien. You'll see each is written differently but they all adhere to the basic rules of screenwriting format, while each has an individual voice. They break what are seen as sacred 'rules' here but all are good solid screenplays, all produced. Hell, remember Shane Black's Lethal Weapon, written before he was a name writer? "EXT. House - Day It's the kind of house I'm going to buy if this movie is a hit" Extreme yes, but it got by readers and wasn't excised. Read screenplays please.

Lol. Mike I appreciate the effort, but you are not going to convince me that this is an example of rules in screenwriting.

Contrary to popular opinion not all screenplays are formatted correctly. Not all compelling screenplays are formatted correctly.

I have read plenty of screenplays. Enough to know that a great writer doesn't believe in rules.

I have my cup of coffee, morning check to see if people have killed themselves and it's the same stuff over and over.

This thread thus far -- it started when Martin complained that the writing on SS was flat and mechanical because of a bunch of community-centric "rules", it got drug off track into an argument mostly between Decadence Films (who hates Hollywood movies and disapproves of how they are written) and me, and now we're in a new thread which was wobbling along toward what I thought was some kind of resolution.

Eric11 -- I agree that some produced screenplays look like they were written by a drunken monkey with a grudge and a love for the Garamond font.  In fact I used to carpool with one of those monkeys and he's still one of my favorite writers.  I get it but what you're saying is several miles beyond where this discussion has settled.  I'm having problems getting people to look out a window let alone kick in a door.

Quoted from bwdial Keep it simple.  Master the basics.  Build it to code.  Don't give a reader any reasons to toss your script in the garbage by breaking too many rules or conventions.

But exactly who are you relying on to codify the code? People on a message board or the writers of the hundreds of produced screenplays you should be reading if you want to write for the Hollywood. The problem is that your simple and basic script isn't really built to Hollywood code.  

Okay, so you have a zombie polar bear movie.  "They polluted their land and now they're out for revenge!"  It lands on the desk of a story department reader.  The thing is that she has another zombie polar bear movie on her desk written by someone with ten years worth of credits.  It's a competition.  And who is going to win in this development showdown?  The person who writes a script that reads like a Hollywood screenplay or the one who limits how he/she writes based on a bunch of SS "rules" that tells you that you're not allowed to write like people with credits.

This is the thread that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friends
Martin started it, he had a point to get across
SS members continue argue it forever just because...

Quoted from Tierney Okay, so you have a zombie polar bear movie.  "They polluted their land and now they're out for revenge!"

Get out of my head!  Get out of my head, foul woman!

I can't stop either...

But what if the unproduced Screenwriter's script had an unbelievable action sequence in which the zombie polar bears attacked a pod of Orcas, under the ice?  What if the unproduced Screenwriter's script was the much more interesting, thought out script?

What if the zombie polar bears in the unproduced Screenwriter's script used zombie Narwhales as lethal undead projectiles, while the professional Screenwriter merely had a pack of zombie polar bears stumbling around like drunks, barely even terrorizing anyone?

Have we lost the brief agreement that it's all about the story?  A unique, engaging story that we haven't seen before?

All this talk of polar bears has me thinking of Kevin Smith's Superman story.

When will the giant mechanical spider come into play?

I think what Tierney meant was that if two scripts arrived on the reader's desk and both were about zombie polar bears, the script by the unknown writer would most likely not get read at all. Even if it was a better story.

I'm going to be brief (because I never am, but I want to make a few points). Being the moderator of this board, it's the recipient of the "rules" post, but very few people actually get the point.

Must the rules always be followed? No.

Then what's the point? They are learning tools. That's it.

Will I be a better writer if I follow them? Maybe.

Will I be a worse writer if I don't? Dunno.

What do I get out of them? In many (not all) cases, the rules force a greater level of creativity and a more concise and easier to read story.

What if I want to tell you to f**k your rules, do my own thing? Go ahead.

It's all about personal preference. Since SS caters to basically unproduced writers looking to make their break, we use these rule things to help teach people how to write in a manner mostly consistent with produced screenplays. This means brevity with detail in style along with a good story (which is not within the rules). Do people get carried away? Sure.

Will the rules help you get produced? Well, look at it this way. Take the same example with the zombie polar bear script that Tierney took from Mike's brain but by unknowns. Script A has perfect format and tight descriptions while script B has inconsistent format and blocks of black. If these people were fortunate enough to be read, which would have a better chance?

As for my frustration, I spent a lot of time querying companies, and of the hundreds of letters I sent out, I've had exactly two requests. This means I really don't know what the industry thinks of how I write because they've never read what I've written. I cooked my scripts up till I and this community felt they were good, and no one wants to even have a look. You see, I can't really say that I'm either good or bad because they won't even give me a chance.

Now (pat me on the back), I do get recommended around here. That makes me feel good. But those who makes the financial decisions for motion picture production? Not even so much as the time of day, much less a courtesy read. It sucks.

OK Me, if you're correct in your last post, then it's quite a shame, isn't it?  The produced Screenwriter gets the read with a boring, cookie cutter script, written in a "Hollywood" style, while the unproduced Screenwriter with the creative, unique action, and superior story gets shit canned.  In this example, it doesn't even matter whether or not the unproduced Screenwriter wrote a good screenplay.  Nor does it matter what style he wrote it in.

And George, as I've said before, I hear ya completely.  Same deal as above.  The industry doesn't give us unproduced Screenwriters a chance, and because of that, we get the kind and quality of movies that we've been getting recently, which for the most part are crap.

It just doesn't make any sense, and is far from fair.  All we can do is push on and hope for that 1 break...and that's all we really need...1 break.  1 minute you're an unproduced Screenwriter arguing trivial points in here, and the next, you're a produced "professional" Screenwriter because someone gave you a chance,a nd actually was impressed with what you wrote.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I think what Tierney meant was that if two scripts arrived on the reader's desk and both were about zombie polar bears, the script by the unknown writer would most likely not get read at all. Even if it was a better story.

Quoted from Dreamscale OK Me, if you're correct in your last post, then it's quite a shame, isn't it?

I don't believe that's the meaning behind the post at all.  I think the point that Tierney is trying to make is that the way the story flows is what will cause it to win the development race.

Say you have two scripts from two different writers that follow the exact same plot lines, but one of them is written in a way that the reader can vividly imagine every little detail, going so far as to describe a wicked zombie Polar Bear/ woolly mammoth skeleton battle in great detail.  Every bite, claw, eye gouge and drop of blood that's spilled is laid out right there on the page.

The other one says "The Polar bear and woolly mammoth engage in a tough fight.  The polar bear wins."  No more, no less.

Which do you think would be more interesting and ultimately more likely to get optioned/bought?