I don't know the story of The Beaver writer.  But I do know the story of a few of the writers that have sold a script.  And theirs usually start with querying a rep.

In my opinion, having contacts means buckus without a decent script.  Having contacts just means that you know someone that will be willing to read your script.  But you can usually get a read through a decent query letter.

True, you can get through with a decent query letter, but the point of this discussion is whether or not this Beaver writer would have gotten past the gatekeepers of the industry with the way his script is written. Of course, write like the pros, but these people know people who will read whatever they write. Us lowlifes who don't know anyone have to play the game of the readers to be seen. You can write what you want, but barring the rules of screenwriting, there are the rules of the readers that we have to contend with.

I appreciate what you are saying.  But I do speculate about the ligitimacy of readers and their rules, and how that really affects writers like us.  I can't say anything with certainty since I don't know any readers.

But what I would ask is, how do think readers fit into the overall query-to-sale game?

Because when I query a rep, it is usually the rep that directly reads my script.  Readers come into play later on when the script gets circulated around town by a rep.   And, from what I know, every spec going through the Hollywood system gets coverage.  So The Beaver would have had to go through readers.

The response you get when you send a "textbook" written script to a manager?

"Good story, but the writing is a little flat."

I just found this set of guidelines written by Don Bledsoe over at Script Nurse.  Don is a working professional and has been for decades:

Quoted Text General Rules There are ONLY TWO TOOLS to work with in a screenplay: • ACTION that is seen on the screen • DIALOGUE that characters say ACTION DESCRIPTION TIPS DON'T DIRECT or ACT — Directors don't like to be told how to shoot a scene. Besides, a good director might do it better than you suggest. Actors don't like to be told how to act. So don't tell them how in your script either. KILL THE CAMERA — Remove all references to camera movement and angles. Eliminate any "we see" or "we hear" references because we don't see or hear. Write the action the audience will see on the screen or the words the actors will say. The simplicity of screenwriting is what makes it so hard to do. USE STRONG LANGUAGE — "Fred is running around crazily" is weak compared to "Fred runs, flailing his arms frantically." Look for any descriptions that talk about "is" or "being." It's weak. Make it colorful! Use simple, colorful, visual language. Is your story too long? Or does it seem to wander aimlessly? Does it lack impact? Let's thin it out without gutting it! Try this: Strike every "well," "now," "listen," "oh," etc. that you find in your dialogue. Get to it. Cut to the chase. Cut out the unnecessary clutter in what they say. You can always put it back in if the producer wants it. ACTORS HATE TO BE TOLD HOW TO ACT ... and producers hate reading about it. Look for unnecessary parentheticals (instructions to the actor in parentheses in the dialogue). Hack them out. Use them ONLY when there's no other way to indicate that a particular line is directed to a specific character out of several in the same scene ... or if it cannot be done by carefully selecting the words for a character. Parentheticals are like speed bumps in a script. Avoid them entirely if possible. Review the action descriptions. ANY "is" or "being" stuff needs to be re-written. Get good thesaurus and synonym dictionaries and use them. The verb "is" implies a state of being that cannot be photographed. Only action can be put on the screen. Anyone who is thinking ... knows about ... wants to be ... looks like — kill 'em and re-write 'em. Action description doesn't have to be perfect English. This isn't a novel. It DOES have to be colorful and descriptive so the reader can "see" what you want seen on the screen. Kill ALL of the camera references. DIRECTORS HATE TO BE TOLD HOW TO DIRECT ... and producers hate to read about it. Strike any reference to ANYTHING not seen on the screen, like reminding the reader that "so-and-so was the same guy who..." you get the idea. If it can't be seen — CUT IT OUT! Eliminate CUT TO: in your script. It's already implied when you show a new scene heading anyway. By now, you should have thinned things out a LOT. Good. You're down to meat and potatoes, if you're lucky. You've probably concluded by now that the action descriptions aren't quite getting it. Now the real fun begins. Try this: SIMPLE, COLORFUL language in your descriptions. Cars don't just "pull up at the curb" ... they also gasp, lurch, grind, shudder, gurgle, clatter and expire at the curb. Get a GOOD thesaurus — USE IT! Also, eliminate big words not commonly used in everyday speech unless it's part of a character's persona. Think in master scenes. It's okay to write the interior and exterior scenes at one location as one scene. Use a separate action description paragraph to signal a separate shot without explicitly saying so, to let the reader know we went outside, if you started with INT. BAR - NIGHT. It's a LOT easier to read that way.

There it all is in black and white.  I still want to write CLOSE UP:, when I see it, but I no longer write ANGLE ON:.  Still have to work on that.  I have been trying to remove CUT TO: from my scripts, but still find it difficult, and I love the way 'we see' and 'we hear' reads myself, but maybe I should start finding ways to write around it.

Here's another interesting bit by Don B. at Script Nurse under formatting:

DO NOT put character names in scene sluglines if you can possibly help it.

First I'd heard that.  Anyone else familiar with this?

Does that mean don't put :  INT.JOHN'S HOUSE - DAY? When else would you have that situation?
I like what he said about putting internal and external scens in one location, and just mentioning it in the action - that's a pretty handy tip.

Quoted from stevie Does that mean don't put :  INT.JOHN'S HOUSE - DAY? When else would you have that situation? I like what he said about putting internal and external scens in one location, and just mentioning it in the action - that's a pretty handy tip.

IT might sound easier, but it's not. It's always better to have your scenes viable and stand out to your eye and the readers eye. That reader could be a friend, family member or, if luck would be on your side, a producer/agent/director/actor...

INT. SIMPLY SCRIPTS, HOME PAGE - NIGHT

always looks and reads better than

SIMPLY SCRIPTS, HOME PAGE

In your script. Well, in many writers eyes that is.

Quoted from George Willson True, you can get through with a decent query letter, but the point of this discussion is whether or not this Beaver writer would have gotten past the gatekeepers of the industry with the way his script is written. Of course, write like the pros, but these people know people who will read whatever they write. Us lowlifes who don't know anyone have to play the game of the readers to be seen. You can write what you want, but barring the rules of screenwriting, there are the rules of the readers that we have to contend with.

Hmmm. I just don't buy this different world thing that people keep going on about. It's simply not true. There is only one world, the world of the Film Industry. Everybody has access to the very top level of Producers. You can meet them or their reps at the major film markets.

I had a nice chat with Tessa Ross at Cannes. Tessa is the woman behind Slumdog Millionaire, she's head of FilmFour and has recently been mentioned in Time's 100 list as one of the most influential people in the world. She's the only Film Producer on the list (I disagree with this, but that's not the point).

She said that although they prioritise applications from known literary agents, they WILL read all proposals that are sent to them. She bought the rights to Slumdog after reading the novel it was based on.

You're only making things difficult for yourselves if you keep believing that you are somehow outside the loop.  An acquaintance of mine has just get set up with a writing gig on a fairly major feature. He's only ever written shorts. He arranged a few meetings, pitched a few ideas and based on the strength of those ideas got the gig. It's that simple.

These companies care about two things:

1. Money. Does this project have a chance of making the money invested back? Is it something they can market, that they have experience in, does it have a long term future?

2. Is it any good? Some companies are looking for different, more powerful and unique stories, particualry the European contingent. They are not necessarily looking for the next Star Wars, but the next Shane Meadows, or Lars van Trier etc Films that garner critical acclaim and give them prestige. Obviously they want a return on the investment as well, but both the money invested and the expected returns will be less.

Now, all that aside, the issue being discussed is purely about format. We have seen many, many examples of scripts being picked up that do not follow the exact format that so many guru's and blogs tell us is the only way to write.

It is because they are good and the Producers believe they will make good films that audiences will pay to watch.  These issues that everyone is prevaricating about  just aren't that important.

The first thing an actor does when he gets the script is to cross out all the lines that tell him how to act. Why? Because it limits his ability to make creative choices. It's the very first thing they do. That's their job and you are attempting to do it for them. Maybe, technically, you shouldn't do it. It's pointless for a start.

However it will not stop the Producer from thinking that this script is economically viable. If it fits in with their market, if it's good, if it's not too execution dependent, they will probably fund it. They WANT to make your film, that's what they do. They make money from films.

Anyone with a very strong idea for a story with a recognisable demographic has a chance to sell it. Anybody. You do have to get out there though. You have to meet people, you have to pitch ideas you have to establish relationships. But the good news is that the film markets are designed to do exactly that. Everybody who is anybody in the world of film is there from the Far East to Hollywood.

Worry about your story and your characters far more than any of this stuff. Make sure your story is exciting and high stakes and your characters memorable.

My script “Tormentor” broke these rules. It had “we sees” and even underscored passages. I’ve written two features for a Hollywood development company and both had occasional “we sees,” transition notations, and underscoring. In one case, I was specifically told to notate some transitions to “make it look like a pro script.” I’ve had my work seen by numerous Hollywood professionals and no one has once said anything about my breaking any format rules.

“Gatekeepers” with hang-ups regarding their personal format pet peeves are a case of readers wanting a good read instead of a screenplay. People who don’t understand why occasional camera directions are okay in a script are people who misunderstand the very definition of a screenplay.

Parentheticals are not there for the actors alone. They’re a device that helps picture the story. They can sometimes help keep the story moving along, beats intact, without upsetting the meter of the story. If an actor has a better way of doing it than what I’ve written, then good. That will just make a better picture. Because that’s what this whole thing is about; making a good picture. And the screenwriter is only one person in that process.

Saying screenplays are just action and dialogue is a very simplistic way of looking at it. There’s meter and structure and characterization through the action and dialogue. Just a bunch of bland ”he does this” or “he does that” actions with intermittent on the nose dialogue will get you nowhere.

Screenplays need to be cinematic, not just visual. There’s a difference. When you go to the theater, you’re well aware that what you’re seeing and hearing (yes you do see and hear at a movie) is a camera having shot actors. You know you’re sitting in a chair at a theater. Yet you still suspend disbelief. Why? Because it’s an indulgence. And if it’s a good movie, it’s a delightful indulgence. A script should read like a movie. The reader should be able to picture the film in his or her mind. And not just that, they should see it (yes see it) as a movie unfolding on the big screen.

Honestly I find it perplexing that a writer would open a script with “FADE IN:” and then tell himself, “From here on, I can’t use anymore cinematic language until the very end when I write ‘FADE OUT.’”

Write a good script. No. Write a great script. If you write a great script, you have a chance and all the readers in Hollywood who have hang-ups over “rules” can’t stop you. If you don’t write a great script, all the readers in Hollywood can’t help you.


Breanne

Quoted from Breanne Mattson My script “Tormentor” broke these rules. It had “we sees” and even underscored passages. I’ve written two features for a Hollywood development company and both had occasional “we sees,” transition notations, and underscoring. In one case, I was specifically told to notate some transitions to “make it look like a pro script.” I’ve had my work seen by numerous Hollywood professionals and no one has once said anything about my breaking any format rules. “Gatekeepers” with hang-ups regarding their personal format pet peeves are a case of readers wanting a good read instead of a screenplay. People who don’t understand why occasional camera directions are okay in a script are people who misunderstand the very definition of a screenplay. Parentheticals are not there for the actors alone. They’re a device that helps picture the story. They can sometimes help keep the story moving along, beats intact, without upsetting the meter of the story. If an actor has a better way of doing it than what I’ve written, then good. That will just make a better picture. Because that’s what this whole thing is about; making a good picture. And the screenwriter is only one person in that process. Saying screenplays are just action and dialogue is a very simplistic way of looking at it. There’s meter and structure and characterization through the action and dialogue. Just a bunch of bland ”he does this” or “he does that” actions with intermittent on the nose dialogue will get you nowhere. Screenplays need to be cinematic, not just visual. There’s a difference. When you go to the theater, you’re well aware that what you’re seeing and hearing (yes you do see and hear at a movie) is a camera having shot actors. You know you’re sitting in a chair at a theater. Yet you still suspend disbelief. Why? Because it’s an indulgence. And if it’s a good movie, it’s a delightful indulgence. A script should read like a movie. The reader should be able to picture the film in his or her mind. And not just that, they should see it (yes see it) as a movie unfolding on the big screen. Honestly I find it perplexing that a writer would open a script with “FADE IN:” and then tell himself, “From here on, I can’t use anymore cinematic language until the very end when I write ‘FADE OUT.’” Write a good script. No. Write a great script. If you write a great script, you have a chance and all the readers in Hollywood who have hang-ups over “rules” can’t stop you. If you don’t write a great script, all the readers in Hollywood can’t help you. Breanne

Your words here should be posted on the refrigerator door if anyone feels they are drifting away from what's important.

As I had mentioned in a different thread awhile back- a script is a tool as much as it is supposed to be a good story.

Indeed, your question: How could anyone write FADE IN: and then cease to use any cinematic tools for the entirety of a script until FADE OUT at the end is warranted.

The trouble isn't in using the tools; rather, it's how they're used.

I like your description of the "front lines workers" as gatekeepers.  

When you read enough scripts, or anything for that matter, you know a little something about the quality of the read even if some things aren't spot on "industry standard" as some claim.

As Pia always says, "Write a kick ass story!" That's the mantra to keep in mind, even as we yet again, discuss formatting.

Sandra

Quoted from steven8 I just found this set of guidelines written by Don Bledsoe over at Script Nurse.  Don is a working professional and has been for decades: There it all is in black and white.  I still want to write CLOSE UP:, when I see it, but I no longer write ANGLE ON:.  Still have to work on that.  I have been trying to remove CUT TO: from my scripts, but still find it difficult, and I love the way 'we see' and 'we hear' reads myself, but maybe I should start finding ways to write around it.

BTW. I just looked this guy up. He's got one recognised credit: As a make up artist on John Carpenters Assault on Precinct 13 in 1976. He's 60 years old.

He has apparently written several features, one of which has been optioned to a small production company called Clipper Films, who frankly, look more than a bit shit.

http://www.clipperfilms.com/projects.html

This is the problem with so many of these guru's. They just regurgitate what they've read in other screenwriting books, they don't actually have a clue about what's really going on.

He had a solid career as an actor, but he has hardly demonstrated that his word is gospel when it comes to screenwriting.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. The trouble isn't in using the tools; rather, it's how they're used.

Sandra,

I think this speaks to the very core of this issue. The problem isn’t that amateurs can’t use these techniques and pros can. The issue is knowing how to use these techniques. If a writer doesn’t know how, then they may be better off not using them just yet. It’s understandable that a reader might get annoyed at a writer who uses them when they’re obviously doing it arbitrarily and don’t really know what they’re doing.

However all writers need to eventually start using at least some of these techniques at some point. It’s very doubtful a writer will sell a script until they at least reach a point where they know how to use them.

But yes, I think you struck the main issue. It’s about know-how.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films This is the problem with so many of these guru's. They just regurgitate what they've read in other screenwriting books, they don't actually have a clue about what's really going on.

They have to give you something for your money.  

In entertainment, people often have to "reinvent" themselves. Services like Script Nurse allow people to make a living in Hollywood. The “rules” give them a slew of readymade advice to obfuscate the fact that they probably can’t really help you sell your script.


Breanne

Quoted from Breanne Mattson Sandra, I think this speaks to the very core of this issue. The problem isn’t that amateurs can’t use these techniques and pros can. The issue is knowing how to use these techniques. If a writer doesn’t know how, then they may be better off not using them just yet. It’s understandable that a reader might get annoyed at a writer who uses them when they’re obviously doing it arbitrarily and don’t really know what they’re doing. However all writers need to eventually start using at least some of these techniques at some point. It’s very doubtful a writer will sell a script until they at least reach a point where they know how to use them. But yes, I think you struck the main issue. It’s about know-how. They have to give you something for your money. In entertainment, people often have to "reinvent" themselves. Services like Script Nurse allow people to make a living in Hollywood. The “rules” give them a slew of readymade advice to obfuscate the fact that they probably can’t really help you sell your script. Indeed. Breanne

Breanne and decadence - you have articulated something that I have been festering on for a while; all of this pontification for a "we see", or a slight variation on "rules" is ultimately bull****. The one and only thing that ever matters is the story.

A script may abide by the "rules", but you can only polish a turd so much.

Andrew