I know Jeff. All I'm saying is that I highly doubt that the script went from 129 pages to 107 by just getting rid of those things. From what I noticed, some of the things you guys discussed were scenes that I never even read in the newer version. In other words, a lot got axed. I did not find the newer version to be overwritten and full of other "fluff".

I know you didn't like BS, but if you or anyone else feel like it, you can check out the version I read in the link I provided a couple of posts back. It read well and tight to me and it was a breeze to read and kept me interested all the way.

Hey -

Totally NOT taking anybody's side on this (Jeff, you and Pia just duke it out, okay?)

But re: the 107 page script.  Just on page 2, the description reads:  She is very thin, even for a ballerina.  The skin on her chest stretches tautly over her sternum.  Defined vertebrae run up her back, sinewy muscles contract as she moves.  Her slender neck leads to her hair, contained in a ballerina's bun.

Very nicely done - not arguing that point at all.  Could also be condensed to: Her hair is tied tight in a bun.  She is very thin - even for a ballerina.  

The axe I'm grinding?  That I've had scripts with about the same level of picturesque description...and had them slammed as amateur (for that specific reason) and overwritten.

So obviously, we outside the business have to deal with a different set of rules than established insiders.  Which gets kinda frustrating.

Which doesn't make the movie (and very likely the script) any less wonderful...

I think descriptions all boil down to, narrative tug vs white on the page, as Babz refers to it. If a story is engaging (the opinion is divided on this script), then most readers won't come down hard on you for an extra line of fitting and appropriate description that adds a visual. On the other hand, if the story, pacing, characters, tone, internal and external conflict, or whatever, are off and the action descriptions are a little too heavy, that can be the one thing to stick in someones throat. I have said myself at the start of this thread that make people would tear this up if it was posted here for unfilmables etc.

Quoted from wonkavite But re: the 107 page script.  Just on page 2, the description reads:  She is very thin, even for a ballerina.  The skin on her chest stretches tautly over her sternum.  Defined vertebrae run up her back, sinewy muscles contract as she moves.  Her slender neck leads to her hair, contained in a ballerina's bun.

I’ve got no problem at all with this description because it is not general meaningless detail. The writer is describing a set of close up shots and as I recall these kind of shots are used in the film.

For me this is an example of the writer giving the filmmakers a clear picture of what should be on screen without resorting to specific camera direction or a MONTAGE/SERIES OF SHOTS.

Another reason I like this bit of writing is that it is part of setting the tone of the script overall. We know that we’re going to see a close up examination of the physical demands of ballet and that at times we’ll linger on those details.

Hi PW -

Honestly, my bitching isn't again the amount of description per-se.  It's the double standard that seems to exist.  Established writers are allowed that leeway.  (Like with the Black Swan script.)  

For unproduced writers, that degree of description is considered a strike against them.

As I'd mentioned earlier, it's very likely due to the fact that unproduced writers are given a shorter amount of time to get their pitch across, before an agent or manager gets bored, puts the script down and just goes onto the next one.  

Different playing field, and different rules.  

An established writer doesn't have that problem - he/she's already got the audience willing to give the script a full look....

Exactly, Janet.

It's paradoxical.
- the more experience a writer has the more "coach pitching" they're given.
- the less experience a writer has the more "major league pitching" they're given.

Total BS, but... whatever.
Just gotta deal with it.

But maybe it's more like dating.
- first few dates everyone gets all cleaned up (assuming you're civilized).
- after a while couples are peeing in the toilet while the other brushes their teeth.

Certainly you wouldn't brush teeth while the other pees in the toilet on a first date, right?

Same thing.

Hey, it worked fine for Phil and my first date...

Just kidding.  But you softballed that one at me.  

It's a big world out there.
I hip to it.

To some people peeing on each other is a good first date.

Whatever floats yer boat.
Just show up to work on time so I ain't gotta do your share.

Quoted from wonkavite It's the double standard that seems to exist.  Established writers are allowed that leeway.  (Like with the Black Swan script.)   For unproduced writers, that degree of description is considered a strike against them.

Certainly a gray area for scriptwriters is to what extent it's reasonable to suggest shots and visuals.  Looking at it from the filmmaker's point of view -- if Joe Eszterhas tells you (indirectly) what images he thinks should be presented and how they should be presented, you will most likely take that into account.  He may not be a director, but he's been on a lot of film sets, he's worked with a lot of big directors, and he probably has a good idea of how camera setups work.

The same cannot be said of, for example, any writer (that I'm aware of) on Simply.  Some people have been through film school, some people have shot some indie shorts, and so on.  Most people here just want to be writers.  Writers write, they don't direct.  Camera setups are the director's job.  Directors, producers et al might be mildly interested in a seasoned veteran's opinion of where the camera should go, but there's no reason they should be interested in the opinion of a writer trying to break into the business.

It's for this same reason (partly) that one doesn't write anything that directs the actor.  I dunno.  I guess the point I'm trying to make is: of course the double standard exists, and it should.  Writers who are "amateurs" by definition probably don't know much about directing.  The more description one writes, the more directing one is doing.  Writers who are "professional" will most likely have a more complete understanding of the filmmaking process, having been on sets, in preproduction meetings, et al, and therefore are more valuable sources of opinion for directing approaches.  

Personally, if I'm looking at directing something, I read it once to get the gist of the story and then, on subsequent readings, ignore everything except dialogue and slugs.  Who cares what the writer thinks about anything else?  

Hey Heretic -

Agree completely with your post - which actually wasn't mutually exclusive with my complaint re: leeway for descriptions. (IE: visuals...aside from camera angles or acting prompts.)  

Let's put it this way.  If anyone on SS went into that level of detail on a character's vertebra and musculature in their script (as seen in Black Swan)...it'd be decried as over writing.  Even if it does add a number of useful and pertinent things to the story's atmosphere, and characterization (things that are the proper realm of a writer.)

But again - that's how the game's played.  And I'll bow to it as a reality.

If you are trained for film, it's difficult to divorce yourself from the training entirely.  When you write a script you write the shots you are seeing in your head.  To ask a writer with this background to do otherwise is kind of absurd.  About the only thing you could hope for is that they limit it to character and story.  

I think that's what the writer did here.  "Defined vertebrae run up her back, sinewy muscles contract as she moves" is just a way of visually saying she's athletic.

Hey Cornetto -

FWIW: I'm not complaining about a writer using visual descriptions.  I'm a huge fan of them, myself.

I'm bitching about the double standard whereby any one of us would be panned--and labeled an amateur--for doing the exact same thing.  (Though I understand why it would be so, from an agent's point of view.)

Quoted from wonkavite Hey Cornetto - FWIW: I'm not complaining about a writer using visual descriptions.  I'm a huge fan of them, myself. I'm bitching about the double standard whereby any one of us would be panned--and labeled an amateur--for doing the exact same thing.  (Though I understand why it would be so, from an agent's point of view.)

Most people will understand and agree. At the end of the day, we all know that we need to be able to construct what's "on demand" -- on demand. If we can do that, and make money in the process, we will be successful. Well, we will be successful on the money level at least. ...

After that stepping stone, when we've learned a lot of the ace and base, then, that's when we can learn to be truly creative. Just as Ray and others have stated and I commend them for their efforts. One needs to know the whole process (call it by any name you want) and know it to a fault. By this, even though it might seem constricting, really, it's unleashing. Because after one gets with that, they can unleash their creative spirit. But...

Certain things need to be in order. There may be many variations of such order and I am not so skilled to list them however, if we can identify some of them, firstly, then we are at least on our way to constructing a story-- adding depth and detail as we ourselves assimilate all of the input we receive.

Re: the heavy visual descriptions:

I imaged a slow moving camera. The detail. The backbone. The skinny almost malnourished backbone. ...

I see nothing wrong with this except that new writers often mistake good detail and overdo it in their scripts. It's not wrong; it's just not appropriate for their purpose. For example: Any fine description, like perhaps a woman's strong fingers-- they only need that detail if they are relevant to the story. Like perhaps, the woman with the strong fingers, winds up plucking up a child from some dangerous situation and the woman, whose strong hands needed to be such, were the object of necessity. They weren't just strong fingers, but they were an asset to her person. They were something pointed to, purposeful, and not extraneous.

Meaningful. That's the bottom line. It needs to be meaningful in whatever world you create. A visual description need not be detailed. It all depends upon the goals at hand. That's what writers need to discern in their stories.

Sandra

Hey Wonka,

Agreed!  Didn't mean to imply that I was contradicting your post -- only expanding on why I thought the double standard existed.

I'd say it probably pushes people towards under-writing description, in a lot of cases.  A lot of amateur scripts feel very bland even when they're pretty good, and I bet it's because they don't (and probably can't) allow themselves any detail whatsoever in description.

Personally, almost all of the description in Black Swan added something for me -- I guess our job is to figure out how to imply that stuff without being allowed to write it like the pros are...

Quoted from Heretic Personally, almost all of the description in Black Swan added something for me -- I guess our job is to figure out how to imply that stuff without being allowed to write it like the pros are...

You ARE a pro for G-d's sake!. Just add hours and... (Well I won't mention the other...)

Seriously, the most important is continuity in what you're doing and getting together with like-minded individuals. What the hell? You can talk numbers and construct 'till the cows come home, but if you dun got no feelin', yoos a dead guy.

I can't help but think of Breanne. She's a brilliant woman and she's just working. That's all. Working.Sincerely working. ...

IMHO, I think that's what make B.S. so great. They were working. Applying themselves at a level that most people never will realize in a single happy moment of their lifetimes. People that manage to get into this kind of groove and be successful are more than average people. They are the ones that, like Ray, are willing to go further into "the story". Maybe...

Maybe...

Story finds itself.

Sandra