Found this link at another site...It gives some insight...and makes you rethink your screenwriting dream.

http://www.kullervo.com/The_Mistakes.html

I.Love.This.Article.

I really do. It underlies everything we try to do as beginners. It clarifies that there are bigger and better things out there, and you can sure write them, but for God's sake, don't send them in.

Everyone should get a load of this one. Someday, we won't have to play by the rules of the readers, but I know I'm not there yet. If you are, then this article isn't for you.

Yup - a great article.

Every single point in this article I have heard repeated verbatim in Film Classes, Forums, talking with writers, directors, producers, actors.

Read it. Know it. Work with it.

Wow, it's a long one. But I will read it.

Thanks for the link.

I agree with the author on nearly every point. However, because I like to learn and grow, because I’m not always right about everything, and because I have to face facts and evolve, I’m going to go ahead and do something I never thought I’d do:

I’m going to defend the “we see.” (Gasp!)

That’s right. I think a point needs to be made here that many people fail to recognize when discussing screenplays.

Screenplays are not written to be experienced as a written work. They are meant to be produced and experienced as a film.

When one reads a novel, they read the story as the author intended the story to be experienced, as a written story. When one reads a screenplay, they are not reading a novel. They are reading a story that’s meant to be made into a motion picture.

I agree that a screenplay should be written to be as entertaining as possible, however, to think a screenplay should be viewed primarily as a written work is in my mind erred thinking. We do not write for other writers or even readers who are looking for a good literary work. We write for producers, directors, actors, etc., who can bring our written work to life visually.

“We see” is a device that, although most often detracts from a story, is a valid device to be used when describing a visual scene with words. And sometimes a “we see” is actually the most effective method to accomplish clarity in a scene.

I think this article is terrific overall and there’s much to be learned from it. But I also think the author of this article infuses a little too much of her personal preference.

I’ve never met anyone who cared about a “we see” other than other writers. I’ve certainly never met a director, producer, or agent who cared one bit about them.


Breanne

I think you make a good point here Breanne. Sometimes I get confused about 'we see'. I don't use it myself(or try not to). But is there really that much diff between writing that or 'the camera shows', etc?

While we are on the subject of formatting, when dialogue is interrupted by action,
should I put continued after the character when he talks again? again, this seems to be a preference issue. i haven't been doing it and, when you think about it, it's evident to the reader what's happened. Which again gets back to Breanne's point that screenplays are for directors, etc to read. Cheers

Breanne,

I think you're right about we see, although I've rarely seen instances where it has added to a script myself. If it is the quickest way of getting a particular concept across then that is fine, almost always it could simply be removed :

We see a cat run across the road

A cat runs across the road.

One of the best uses of "We" was by Darron Aronofsky, in Below, when he writes "we float beneath the wings of an ...[type of military plane].  

Like you say, It wouldn't bother me in a script.

The argument about the readability of scripts is always raging amongst certain factions. We delved into it a bit on the infamous "breaking the rules" thread. : )

The problem with the Studios is that the gatekeepers are not Directors or Producers, they are just readers, readers who read a LOT of scripts and are generally bored out of their mind. They are the ones who give the script coverage and pass it along to their superiors.

Unfortunately they don't necessarily have the skill to differentiate between a script that is mechanical but would make a great film and a script that is a fantastic read, but is in actuality cliched and trite.

They are more likely to give good coverage to a script that reads in an entertaining way, mistaking the pleasure of the read for the quality of its vision as a film.

I'd strongly recommend people read David Mamet's "Bambi vs Godzilla" where he launches into this topic with some vigour.

So whilst your supposition that "Screenplays are not written to be experienced as a written work. They are meant to be produced and experienced as a film" is one that I whole-heartedly agree with, it's worth bearing in mind that films may get through based on the fact that they read so well, when in reality the film they would make is fairly poor.

You see it most commonly with comedies that are funny on the page because of their tone and descriptions but are suddenly bereft of any jokes whatsoever when they are made into films.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Breanne, I think you're right about we see, although I've rarely seen instances where it has added to a script myself. If it is the quickest way of getting a particular concept across then that is fine, almost always it could simply be removed : We see a cat run across the road A cat runs across the road. One of the best uses of "We" was by Darron Aronofsky, in Below, when he writes "we float beneath the wings of an ...[type of military plane].   Like you say, It wouldn't bother me in a script. The argument about the readability of scripts is always raging amongst certain factions. We delved into it a bit on the infamous "breaking the rules" thread. : ) The problem with the Studios is that the gatekeepers are not Directors or Producers, they are just readers, readers who read a LOT of scripts and are generally bored out of their mind. They are the ones who give the script coverage and pass it along to their superiors. Unfortunately they don't necessarily have the skill to differentiate between a script that is mechanical but would make a great film and a script that is a fantastic read, but is in actuality cliched and trite. They are more likely to give good coverage to a script that reads in an entertaining way, mistaking the pleasure of the read for the quality of its vision as a film. I'd strongly recommend people read David Mamet's "Bambi vs Godzilla" where he launches into this topic with some vigour. So whilst your supposition that "Screenplays are not written to be experienced as a written work. They are meant to be produced and experienced as a film" is one that I whole-heartedly agree with, it's worth bearing in mind that films may get through based on the fact that they read so well, when in reality the film they would make is fairly poor. You see it most commonly with comedies that are funny on the page because of their tone and descriptions but are suddenly bereft of any jokes whatsoever when they are made into films.

Oh I agree with striving to make a script as entertaining of a read as possible. I like to be able to suspend disbelief and enjoy a script in much the same way I enjoy a novel. The point I’m making is that if I’m looking for a script to make me money, I’m not looking to have my belief suspended. I’m looking for a good moneymaking venture.

I understand your point and it’s well taken. Those gatekeepers that you mention are torturing themselves. Being bothered by a “we see” is entirely psychological. They used to bother me immensely as well until I started looking at things in a more realistic way. But I understand that they’re there and they’re going to punish writers for violating their personal preferences. So point taken.

I do need to point out that always “playing by the rules” makes for some very boring scripts as well. And those gatekeepers never opened the door too quickly for me when I played by the rules. I think every writer has to write in whatever way makes the best, most salable, script.


Breanne

Wow, I already knew all this about selling your screenplay. Most producers or agents out there have one thought about every script they get handed, "this is gonna suck", and most of them do, but sometimes there's that one script like "Napoleon Dynamite" that a producer reads and is like, "I've got to make this thing", that's what I want my script to be, the one that producers like. In fact that's what everyone wants. But chances of that happening are one in a million, so you should probably listen to the asshole who wrote this and fallow everything he says.

You know, an instance of "we see" is not going to get a good script thrown out. If your script is thrown out because of "we see," it's because it had other problems. If you have a gripping story with a solid premise and movement on every page, they'll probably forgive a lot more than one that has issues ad they just want to get rid of it.

Some is great advice, some is good advice, and some is just...meh.

I think a lot of these essays and rants are often thinking in the mindset of when a script goes to a studio, which is a whole different ball of wax in my opinion, because you're not getting anything into a studio without having an agent submit it for you, and if you've managed to land an agent, you must be doing something right.

Smaller independents, while still looking for a certain grasp of the craft, don't seem to get into things like this as much.  At least from my experience.

As long as the script doesn't look like it should have been written in crayon, things should be alright.

I don't really like the use of we see though.  I think it's redundant.  But I don't mind the use of we.  Like "We float above the city, looking down" or "We follow the feather as it gets caught in the breeze."  Those would be ok.

Quoted from Shelton I think a lot of these essays and rants are often thinking in the mindset of when a script goes to a studio, which is a whole different ball of wax in my opinion, because you're not getting anything into a studio without having an agent submit it for you, and if you've managed to land an agent, you must be doing something right.

I actually have an agent/lawyer, but no script... Talk about being fucked in a different way!  

Quoted from Grandma Bear I actually have an agent/lawyer, but no script... Talk about being fucked in a different way!

Is it a friend or something?  Seems odd to get an agent without a script to show.

Yep!