Hello ladies and gents. I want you to all pool your collective knowledge and wisdom. If this has been done before then forgive me, but I think it could help any people just starting out.

Many of you are long-serving writers with a whole heap of scripts to your name. When you review, you review using a set of terms that aren't entirely obvious to those not 'in the know'. I've never read a book on screenwriting. I just write. If I think this is something I want to seriously pursue, I will. I've read the definitions of the terms you use, but I wanted to get your take on what these words mean to YOU when you use and read them.

I've noticed that some of you have differing views on the art of screenwriting, so I'd love it if you shared your opinion on what some of these concepts are to you. I'm not really asking for technical terms like 'logline', 'slug' or things like that - those I think I grasp. These are really more subjective, less easy to pin down things that I wanted to see what you all thought of. Then, I can know what to do about them, how to identify them, etc.

Basically, I'll list a few, and if you have something to say about any of them, I'd appreciate it. I have a firm grasp on some and am less sure about others, so I thought I'd come to the people who know and just ask, rather than try to use them myself and look like a pillock.

- 'On the nose' dialogue
- Writing 'cinematically'
- 'Over-writing'
- A writer's 'voice'
- A script's 'flow'
- 'satisfying pay-off'

The main one is 'on the nose'...people on here use that all the time and I can't really grasp what it means. I found this in a post Shelton wrote almost a year ago:

"On the nose dialogue is more or less completely ridiculous attempts at cramming as much backstory/story into the script as you can in just a few short lines.  Example....

GUY 1
I can't believe you get to test video games!

GUY 2
Yeah, and I can't believe that I was able to get away with stealing this super top secret game from the company I work for!

GUY 1
I just hope they don't send a couple of hitmen to our house to brutally murder us for doing it.

GUY 2
Don't worry about that, I'll just take them out with my mad kung fu skills!  Did you forget I'm a black belt that trained in Japan for four years!


That's 'on the nose'."

Is that it entirely? Is it just about cramming in information, or is there more to it? Also, why the hell is it called 'on the nose'?! Thoughts on the others would be great, too.

Thanks peeps!

Jon

'On the nose'

I imagine it is something so obvious that it hits you right in the face, right on the nose. There is a saying I have heard before about something being as obvious as a dot on your nose. Probably something to do with that.

The example from Shelton is a good one, I would call anything that is 'on the nose' is dialogue that is wholly designed to give exposition only, sometimes it is not a bad thing to use dialogue this way, you just need to be clever about using it. The video game example is cleary not a clever way of doing it. When done badly it for me is a clear sign of a writer who is either lazy or lacks the basic skills to write a screenplay.


Writing 'cinematically'

Just remembering you are writing a film and not a book. Don't describe what something looks like, tell us what it looks like as though we are there in the room.

Also thinking of the power of cinema, the large screen, the surround sound, the whole cinema going experience. If you write a scene where the cops chase a guy through the streets then have them run through a chinese market instead of an empty street. Be aware of your theme and try and incorporate into every aspect of your script, use locations that are visually stimulating as well as related to your theme.

This may not be what others mean by cinematical but is what I think about when I hear it.


Over writing

This is simple. Lots of newbies are guilty of this.

"He enters the kitchen, sunlight fills the large room, a clock on the wall and some family photographs. The white units and wall is splashed with glistening red blood, the dishes unwashed in the sink."

A pro script would say

"He enters the kitchen, sees blood on the walls"

Okay, extreme example but means the same. There is no need to tell us anything that is not important. The director will decide what the kitchen will look like.

If "on the nose dialogue" means cramming in info dumps into small bits of dialogue, then your example looks perfect to me.

Regarding overwriting:

There was a gentleman awhile back who wrote a script in an OWC. He seemed to have a lot of experience working in an airport and it came through in his script. The trouble is, that while using jargon and knowledge can be a good thing and make the script come to life with a kind of realism, it can also make people go: What? Who? Why?

If we plaster on details and overdo explanations and details in any way, shape or form, then that to me, is overwriting.

We need to be careful that we're giving just enough to tell the story and not lay everything on so heavy that the story sinks under the weight of excess.

Sandra

I'll give you my interpretations of what those things mean.

On the nose you already have, which is essentially what I believe it to be.  What I've said in those few sentences is enough to fill up quite a chunk of a script.  You could put these into scenes, show the character doing all this stuff.  Learning karate, getting a job to test video games, etc.  Use those things to help develop a character rather than stick the whole story down their throat in 30 seconds.

Writing cinematically - I hear of a lot of people getting this one and have problem gotten it myself.  If I have, I've forgotten, because I don't really think much on it.  There are probably two ways you can go with this.  Too much dialogue (which is where I've probably had it told to me) and showing instead of telling.

By telling, I don't necessarily mean in the dialogue, but in giving too much info away in a description.  Intro'ing a character and trying to tell their whole backstory in the action, while the guy does nothing but sit on screen and drink a cup of coffee is not writing cinematically.  The audience isn't going to know that the guy drinking that coffee is the ultimate badass, unless you show him being the ultimate badass with a shootout or something.

Over-writing.  Taking four sentences to describe someone going to a door and opening it, or describing the door as being a certain color, brand, or anything else not related to the story.  Same goes with character's clothing a lot of the time.  If the person is just wearing jeans and a t-shirt, it's probably not that important.  If the person is wearing ratty jeans and t-shirt because they're a slob or a junkie?  That makes more sense.

A writer's voice is their style.  That's all.

A script's flow is exactly that.  How it flows.  Does one scene move to the next seamlessly, or is there something in there that throws everything out of whack?  If you have the latter, your script isn't flowing as well as it should.  take a big budget action movie, full of shooting, shooting, shooting, then you cut to the guy sitting in church.  He's not there to visit anyone, just attending mass.  Then you go back into the shooting.  That's not the greatest example, but hopefully you get what I mean.

A satisfying payoff.  A twist or way your hero overcomes their conflict.  Case in point, my script The Order of Things.  A lot of people weren't happy with the ultimate payoff in that the hero didn't necessarily overcome his problem on his own.  That he had help.  This varies from genre to genre, but in this instance there's a logic to what people have said.  There's also a logic to why I wrote it that way, but that's a whole other conversation.

As far as comedic shorts go, does the punchline at the end work?  If it does, that's a satisfying payoff.

Ultimately, if a person were to sit and down and read/watch your film, would they be happy with the way that it ended?  Not haha happy, because a drama where one of the main characters dies in the end isn't going to be so uplifting, but did it fit in with the story and make sense?  Would they be satisfied?

Anyway, this is a lot of rambling based on my own beliefs.  I'm sure others will chime in with different definitions.

I think you've laid these descriptions out well Mike. I'll add a little chiming in respect to the appeal of the story itself.

We should remember that it's ok to add that little bit extra if it helps to add to the enjoyability of the read. Even if that's not going to wind up on screen and even if the script gets changed a lot in its development for screen afterwards.

A boring story won't get read no matter how much it follows rules or how short we can slice it.

I've started working on a rewrite for Shiva and I can only hope I'll be able to finish it in time for the deadline with my green abilities in the scripting field, but one thing I do know is I'm going to cut this baby down to size in more ways than I could count on my own hands and a few borrowed ones too.

If I can do that, even if it's an unacceptable vision and structurally unsound version of Shiva, at least I'll have dug into that realm of rewriting that can only be experienced by working through the process.

No matter what I or anyone else does though-- after knowing and understanding the rules of the game, we have to use all methods and means to make it a good story. If it's not a good story, no one will care.

Sandra