Bert, I do not disagree with you on this...BUT...I don't completely agree either.

My comments are not based on this script, or this writer.  My comments are completely based on reviewing and trying to help writers in general.  You are definitely correct...sometimes, done correctly, appropriately, whatever, anything can work well.  But usually, that's not the case.  And usually, they are a complete waste of space and come off poorly.

Obviously, I am not in the right here, commenting on this thread, but I had to respond to Andrew's post.  My bad.

I'll throw this out, and it probably won't work for for anyone who who is not American (and I don't mean anything against our non American friends out there, especially, Andrew).

Look at College football players who are trying to go Pro.  All the people in the know are grading them on how they do things...how they do things correctly.  It doesn't matter how many games they win, how many Championships they win, or how many yards they pile up.  They look at how they do their stuff compared to how the greats have done their stuff.

I was watching Inside NFL tonight on Showtime.  They were talking about Jay Cutler, for instance, and how he doesn't "properly" throw the ball.  Same with Tom Brady, actually.  Bottom line is that you don't "teach" young QB's to throw the ball incorrectly.  You teach them to throw the ball in a classic sense.  Many times, very talented guy, learn their own style, and they make it work for them.  Talent rises...always,,,but let's understand that there's a way to go about things, and from the bottom up, we all need to learn and understand why we write the way we write.

There will always be exceptions, and that's cool and fine.  But there's a reason why things are the way they are, and they make sense if you really analyze it and think about it.

Again, do what you want...write how you feel.  Chances are, if you know what you're doing, and you write a great story, it will work.  But why constantly try to buck the system?  If you honestly believe there's a reason not to do something, I applaud you.  Do it your way.  But otherwsise, do it the "right way".  It makes sense, at least to me, and I can go on for hours and hours on why that is...at another time, in another thread.

Hope this makes sense to you guys.

Quoted from bert Dismissing the technique out of hand and stating flatly that it is never to be used is removing a tool from your toolbox. Over time, after reading many scripts -- both good and bad -- I have come to the conclusion that this is incorrect, and it is bad advice.

Here, here.

In my time as a frequenter of these boards there has been plenty of "advice" handed out on how scripts should be written. Some of this advice has been solid (there are off course some good writers here) but some of the advice I have been given has been downright detrimental to my writing. This has been the biggest, no unfilmables is clearly the biggest misconception in screenwriting and I am constantly amazed that this "rule" is still alive and gasping for breath on this forum.

Over the last few months while taking a break from this site I have read lots of scripts and I can say without any doubt in my mind that nobody gives a shit about 99% of the rules that I used to let guide my screenwriting. The cinemas are full of movies made from spec scripts by writers that more of less do what they want in order to get their story across and they are usually much better scripts for it.

Quoted from Murphy Here, here. In my time as a frequenter of these boards there has been plenty of "advice" handed out on how scripts should be written. Some of this advice has been solid (there are off course some good writers here) but some of the advice I have been given has been downright detrimental to my writing. This has been the biggest, no unfilmables is clearly the biggest misconception in screenwriting and I am constantly amazed that this "rule" is still alive and gasping for breath on this forum. Over the last few months while taking a break from this site I have read lots of scripts and I can say without any doubt in my mind that nobody gives a shit about 99% of the rules that I used to let guide my screenwriting. The cinemas are full of movies made from spec scripts by writers that more of less do what they want in order to get their story across and they are usually much better scripts for it.

I hate unfilmmables and always will do. In my opinion they add nothing to a script as by definition the mood created in the script cannot be transferred to the screen.

It guarantees that the script will be better than the film and introduces the possibility that important information gets lost. The simple fact of the medium is that everything has to be got across either visually or audibly. There is no way around that at all. Abstract thoughts belong in short stories, novels or poetry.

I agree with what David Mamet says in Bambi vs Godzilla. They have corrupted the quality of script writing by making promises that can't be fulfilled by filmmakers and have resulted in an idea that the scripts that read the best make the best films, which isn't necessarily the case.

For example in this script there is a line about the "mermaid" that she speaks in some frequencies that can't be heard by humans. It's an interesting idea and Sandra was really taken with it, the problem is you've got to make a sound that will ONLY exist within human frequencies. The actual film will be the opposite of what the author wrote.

The idea is good enough that it should be in the film (IE someone should say it in dialogue. The idea that a creature can talk almost subconsciously to someone is great, but it's completely lost from the final product as it is).

The closest you will get to the idea without re-working the script is by having a weird, unearthly sound similar to the one used in Harry Potter with the mermaids egg thing. It will just be a noise, all the cleverness of the writing will be gone without a re-write.

In an argument on the "Breaking the Rules" thread, Tierney once commented that these things helped actors by helping to define their roles. That seemed like an interesting idea. However once I started working with professional actors I realised that they literally draw lines through anything that directs them on the page, without even reading it.

Why? It narrows their creative ability. They will play it out numerous ways, sometimes completely subverting the meaning that the author intended to find the most interesting ways of performing the scene.

To help you se it from a filmmakers point of view:

An example I've used before was something like this:

"She looks like the girl who blew you out on prom night".

Some people would deny that this is unfilmmable as it raises an image of a certain type of woman. That's true. However the actual abstract thought is incapable of being translated to the screen.

Shoot the scene exactly as you picture it. Show it to an audience and link their brains up to a machine that allows you to see their thoughts. What do you get when the actress walks on stage? Thoughts like, "Oh look it's that girl from Melrose Place!" or "She's hot", whatever. Zero percent of people will get the abstract thought ""She looks like the girl who blew you out on prom night".

Zero percent.

Why?

She ISN'T the girl that blew you out on prom night. You might not even know what a prom is if you are not from America. She's an actress.

That lovely, witty bit of writing is gone from the film, no ifs, no buts.

All you are left with is something like "A subjectively attractive woman enters. She looks a bit of a tart".

By writing in that way you are instantly reducing the quality of the film. Or rather, you are introducing a substantive difference in quality between the reading and the viewing experience.

It's the main reason why so many unfunny comedy films come out. They are hilarious to read, but all of the comedy is in the descriptive writing, not in the dialogue or on screen.

Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't use them. But they are essentially there for only two reasons. One to clarify something to a reader/producer. IE making it really obvious what someone is thinking so they don't miss the subtext. Or two to make the script scream out what a clever and entertaining writer you are. Readers get bored and this kind of writing will help get you noticed. A lot of people can't separate the pleasure they receive from reading from the evaluation of how good the film will be that comes from it.

Dramatically speaking though they are worse than useless.

Personally though, I would advise that you use them. Anything that makes the script read better will help people think that your script is better. That will necessarily result in you having a higher percentage chance of making a sale. It's also now so common that not doing it make make your script look less inspired than its competitors.

As ever, there is a difference between what is technically or critically right and what the reality is.

I would just urge people to be aware of the dangers to the final product of using them. A film can only be seen and heard, any abstract thoughts have to come from one of those two senses. You cannot transmit specific abstract thoughts in the same way that you can with novel writing.


Anyway, I've said my piece. I don't want to derail the conversation. I just sometimes feel that people don't understand the concept from a filmmaking point of view and whatever your views on something I feel it's better to understand the reason why some people are so vehemently against it, so you can make conscious decisions on your writing.

In short, use it as additional seasoning to a script, don't make a habit of losing your best stuff in descriptive passages that can't be recreated.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I hate unfilmmables and always will do. In my opinion they add nothing to a script as by definition the mood created in the script cannot be transferred to the screen.

Dec, my friend,

To say that is to say that words transfer nothing to a person's greater reality as a whole. Ask yourself:

What does the letter "A" mean in and of itself? Or the number "1"? It would seem they are just abstract things and surely, no animal can do such things as add and subtract and read and play music.

So too, at certain levels, man evolves to the extent where he can derive meaning and film the apparent unfilmables.

Like air, we most certainly don't see it, but only its certain effects and feel affected by it; likewise, we experience a transference from word to existence in reality which thus entertains and involves all aspects of perception emotionally and otherwise and eventually beyond to those aspects currently hidden from us.

Sandra

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It guarantees that the script will be better than the film and introduces the possibility that important information gets lost. The simple fact of the medium is that everything has to be got across either visually or audibly. There is no way around that at all. Abstract thoughts belong in short stories, novels or poetry.

If that's the case, maybe it's time for a change?

As in someone who might have once said:

Children should be seen and not heard.

Maybe we should listen to that child eh?  

Or pay attention to the words inside of Killing on Carnival Row:

He holds it up to an oil lamp bolted to the wall to read the
beautifully calligraphed handwriting.

Sandra

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. Dec, my friend, To say that is to say that words transfer nothing to a person's greater reality as a whole. Ask yourself: What does the letter "A" mean in and of itself? Or the number "1"? It would seem they are just abstract things and surely, no animal can do such things as add and subtract and read and play music. So too, at certain levels, man evolves to the extent where he can derive meaning and film the apparent unfilmables. Like air, we most certainly don't see it, but only its certain effects and feel affected by it; likewise, we experience a transference from word to existence in reality which thus entertains and involves all aspects of perception emotionally and otherwise and eventually beyond to those aspects currently hidden from us. Sandra

No, it isn't.

This is the crucial thing. Words can express abstract thoughts. They can enter directly into your consciousness in the form that they are.

The mermaids voice in this instance will be created digitally on a computer. It will be created on a specific frequency (probably between 44 and 48HZ) and exhibited in that format through Dolby Digital or equivalent.. The film medium cannot physically translate those words into a concrete reality. It is impossible.

You can still get the abstract thought across by including it in the film in terms of dialogue. Philostate simply says to Bottom that the sound they create is beyond the perception of human ears and that some say that it can effect you.

Or you can visually show that the words effect the characters in some way beyond the sense of the word. You introduce a vignette and two voices appear, one the obviously subconcious voice that speaks to the soul and the other the "normal" voice and you have a strange transition to show what is happening. EG LOTR when Cate Blanchett talks to Frodo telepathicallty whilst addressing the whole crowd.

That's the unavoidable reality of the medium of film. It is visual and it is audible.

You can write anything you want, but unless it is translatable to the film medium, the chances are that it will be lost in the transition.

As it stands it's meaningless guff. Interesting in its own way, but an example of literary merit and not screen writing.

I appreciate that you wan't to break out of the confines of the medium, but that's what it is.

As with all mediums, the skill is in using their limitations and translating the abstract thought in your mind into that medium so that it can be understood and can survive the process. You can't take literary shortcuts with film. When writing prose you can leap in an instant to anywhere in the Universe, internally or externally. To do the same with film you have to respect it's limitations and work with them, not try and pretend that they don;t exist.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I hate unfilmmables and always will do. In my opinion they add nothing to a script as by definition the mood created in the script cannot be transferred to the screen.

At the end of your post it seems you address using "unfilmables" so you won't get left behind. Film is all about mood. Music. Cinematography. Acting. So how do you convey that in a spec without venturing into other taboo territory? How do you keep your descriptions to a minimum and your page count at 110, and still convey what you need to convey?

If you read the script, and get a mood from it, how do you convey that to the screen? Pick melancholy music over sanguine? Different color of paint on the set? Actor lines given with a sense of awe, or awe shit?

If you get to pitch the story, your energy better be there, in the proper mood, to convey what you want to convey.

It's bait on a hook.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films You might not even know what a prom is if you are not from America.

If you're writing from a western, or American point of view, you're writing for a western or American audience. So while technically correct, the statement is still technical and serves only to support your unfilmable arguement.

I like Carnival Row for the world it created. Anything less might not have created that world in my mind. I can see that world in my mind, magic dust and all. People getting hung up on the technicalities is still getting hung up. I really like this story. It's the same, but different.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. ~Ecclesiastes 1:9

"How to Create Remarkable Content When There's Nothing New Under the Sun
by James Chartrand

Being creative in a world where nothing is new is difficult. We all want to be the one to shake the earth and move mountains with our brilliant ideas and thundering blog posts, but it's tough.

It's all been said. Finding the angle is a challenge.

Sure, giving our work a personal voice helps to be original. It's much more fulfilling to read a post that carries personality and a sense of the writer's voice. After all, each of us is unique, with unique thoughts and perceptions that make us different from the next person.

Is your own voice enough, though?

When you're writing about common concepts that anyone can find in a textbook, you aren't being original. The textbook author probably wasn't original either. The concepts and theories we strive to put forward as different have been done repeatedly from every angle possible.

'Beating a dead horse' takes on new meaning with over 17 million blogs. "

Buddy cop stories.

Love stories.

Mysteries.

Now Zombie and Slasher flicks.



This comic says it all.

So in the end, getting the story across is what counts. Bert said it best. I think it worthwhile to overlook what is termed by some as bad grammar, format, all that kind of stuff, for the story. Then go back and edit the shit out of the bad grammar (er? or ar?) and format. Use words judiciously. Of course if you, the reader, is lost due to bad grammar and format, then we've just gone down a different if/then path. Like I said, it's bait. You have to bait the hook correctly, or fish sharks aren't even going to won't pay attention bite attack bite .

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films No, it isn't. This is the crucial thing. Words can express abstract thoughts. They can enter directly into your consciousness in the form that they are.

Exactly!!!! You are saying the exact thing that I am saying!!! And I wholeheartedly agree.

Sandra

Quoted from cloroxmartini If you get to pitch the story, your energy better be there, in the proper mood, to convey what you want to convey. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. ~Ecclesiastes 1:9 [i]"How to Create Remarkable Content When There�s Nothing New Under the Sun by James Chartrand Being creative in a world where nothing is new is difficult. We all want to be the one to shake the earth and move mountains with our brilliant ideas and thundering blog posts, but it�s tough. It�s all been said. Finding the angle is a challenge.

My dear Clorox, you have added again your wonderful voice and I'm thankful.

I'll add that not only must one bring their energy and human sacrifice to the pitch, if there ever be one, but to the work itself. That's something above just hammering away at the keys. There's a different hammering, drumming that's going on and that's the beat we need to listen to.

Thank you again. I loved the comic you presented here.

Sandra

Spinning things back to "Killing on Carnival Row" --

I spent about 15 minutes scrolling through it -- looking for an "essential" unfilmable -- so I could argue for its inclusion -- but I could not find one.

And I was sure I would.  Easily.  But no.

Some may find this script overwritten -- true enough -- but does it contain any unfilmable elements in its language?

Is there anyone who has an example?

Not from another script -- we all know what they look like -- I am talking about a specific example from this script -- the one we are talking about.

Quoted from bert Spinning things back to "Killing on Carnival Row" -- I spent about 15 minutes scrolling through it -- looking for an "essential" unfilmable -- so I could argue for its inclusion -- but I could not find one. And I was sure I would.  Easily.  But no. Some may find this script overwritten -- true enough -- but does it contain any unfilmable elements in its language? Is there anyone who has an example? Not from another script -- we all know what they look like -- I am talking about a specific example from this script -- the one we are talking about.

No, it's fine. As a matter of fact the thing I mentioned about the noise isn't even in there.

When I read Sandra's earlier critique of it I seemed to remember it being part of the description of the sound, whilst it's actually part of the dialogue.

Minus points for me.

We're all good.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Minus points for me.

Haha -- no points are assigned here -- unless you count the demerits for Jeff just because we can -- and I in no way meant to imply the discussion was not good -- or useful.

Excellent points from both sides of the fence that eventually sort of end up in the middle.

My main point was that I so expected to find unfilmable elements in this script, and was quite surprised that I did not when I actually went hunting for them.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films No, it's fine. As a matter of fact the thing I mentioned about the noise isn't even in there. When I read Sandra's earlier critique of it I seemed to remember it being part of the description of the sound, whilst it's actually part of the dialogue. Minus points for me. We're all good.

Which critique were you referring to? What number is the post?

Sandra

Dec, Great post. I do not disagree with you at all. I  understand fully while the "rule" is there but like anything in life you tend not to get anywhere when you are the only one not breaking the rules. Someone you have to join 'em. But you more or less said that anyway. Cheers.


Bert, I can understand fully why you liked this script so much, it is written very well. I have only read the first 10 pages or so and the opening was superbly put together.

I held of reading the comments until I had read the start of this script and Terry Pratchett indeed was in my mind while reading, even in the very beginning when describing the city it reminded me if of a Discworld novel. I was not surprised to see others pick up on this too.

I liked Pratchett books when I was younger, not however for the fantasy but purely for the humour. I share something with Jeff here in that this is not really my cup of tea. But it is written so well and is probably worth reading so will see if I can read some more....

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. Which critique were you referring to? What number is the post? Sandra

Post 33 my dear.

You mentioned how much you liked it and I thought it was a line of description, but it was dialogue.