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.
Okay, it seems the consensus is to introduce all characters regardless of importance with all caps. How do I handle the introduction of groups of people when their appearances are staggered? My screenplay, for example, begins with several scenes which feature different sets of prison guards.
Should I state there is a PRISON GUARD at the gate, PRISON GUARDS in another room, and PRISON GUARDS in a van or should I start by saying the man at the gate is one of many PRISON GUARDS at the facility?
If the prison guards are being introduced for the first time, use caps. After you've said it once, however, it has already been established that prison guards are around.
This thread is interesting! I was sort of under the impression that you CAP anyone in their first appearance if they have a line of dialogue. Because then their name or character would be in CAPS as the dialogue header.
Should I state there is a PRISON GUARD at the gate, PRISON GUARDS in another room, and PRISON GUARDS in a van or should I start by saying the man at the gate is one of many PRISON GUARDS at the facility?
First you should ask yourself is it important that you place the guards? Does it effect your story if you don't put them in various positions? Does it effect the visual you're trying to get across?
If it does matter and your open is a series of scenes/shots of generic guards then you want to try for some fluidity so the reader is pulled through. A PRISON GUARD stands at the gate, TWO MORE GUARDS in the front seat of a van, another PAIR OF GUARDS play cards in a room overlooking the yard, ONE GUARD paces, etc.. Different but the same.
Dan O'bannon said that there are only 5% of writers activly working in the buisness that know how to write a screenplay the right way. I agree with that. In all honesty, a good script is a good script. The story is what's important... Not how you emphasised one word over the other.
I like to bring attention to buzz words, sounds & items of interest, outside the law that we must CAP all character cue's, though. When you read a script and nothing jumps out at you other than the dialogue cues then you're in for a boring read. That's how I view things. A script is a script. A novel is a novel. A cook book is a cook book. All are blue prints for their source material and some would argue there is a right way of doing one and a wrong way... But if you get your story conveyed to us in the best way possible that is all that matters.
Dan O'bannon said that there are only 5% of writers activly working in the buisness that know how to write a screenplay the right way. I agree with that. In all honesty, a good script is a good script. The story is what's important... Not how you emphasised one word over the other.
Gimme a link to one of your produced scripts so that I can have a gander.
That was a really neat clip, JamminGirl., Thanks for posting that.
It illustrates a very interesting situation that new writers, such as myself, face. We have it hammered into us to keep things as short and economical as possible ("you could save eight words that way", etc.), yet here is a professional screenwriter who just showed us how to make a much more effective action scene (and it sure was) which was 3 to 4 times longer than what was first there! That's what learning-what-works-and-is-acceptable is all about!
That was tops, Jammin', thanks for giving us the heads up. I'll check out his website. The only question I have is, was he writing for a shooting script or a spec? Or is that his method all the time? Cheers
I notice that John August also places no emphasis on omitting the 'ing words.
As Baltis says - a good script is a good script. Sometimes I see that critiques zoom in on structure at the expense of what message the writer is putting across.
That was a really neat clip, JamminGirl., Thanks for posting that.
It illustrates a very interesting situation that new writers, such as myself, face. We have it hammered into us to keep things as short and economical as possible ("you could save eight words that way", etc.), yet here is a professional screenwriter who just showed us how to make a much more effective action scene (and it sure was) which was 3 to 4 times longer than what was first there! That's what learning-what-works-and-is-acceptable is all about!
Actually, the aim(for cutting out words) is to write active lines. You are writing 'action' more than 'description'. The thing that gets hurt when people focus only on keeping the action lines bare is that they forget to be specific. That's what John August emphasizes here. Specificity.
I would also include writing colourfully. When you only write bare bones action without a (tiny) bit of poetry the reading can be unbearably boring. example "the car slaloms around rush hour traffic" is both terse and poetic.
There was definitely an abundance of passive verbiage but I think most of the sentences had an active verb in there in front of the passive one. Either way, I thought the same thing, but this wasn't a lesson about passive verbiage, and he was writing his example on the fly.
I notice that John August also places no emphasis on omitting the 'ing words.
As Baltis says - a good script is a good script. Sometimes I see that critiques zoom in on structure at the expense of what message the writer is putting across.
Andrew
I don't think we should omitt 'ing' or 'we see' in absolute terms. If they're not overused, they work.
Pages: 
Author
A Question About ALL CAPS
Logged
Locked Board