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.
I don't know if this one has been floated in here before, but I think it's one of the more helpful set of guidelines that I've found to the day, explained clearly. It has certainly helped me to improve some of the amateurish aspects of my drafts.
The one thing I've seen a lot in here, especially during the OWC reads, is the lack of character description, which is one of the points mentioned in the article. A lot of folks simply write the character name and an age in parenthesis and that is the extent of their character introduction. Even though it's become pretty much a standard in here, I've never seen it in professional screenplays and it's become somewhat of a personal pet peeve of mine.
The act of writing is a quest to put a hundred thousand words to a cunning order. - Douglas Adams
Henrik, I think it's worth noting, and I'm interested in your opinion on this, that some characters are more in need of description than others. For example, we all have waiters, bartenders, train conductors and gas station attendants in our stories for bit parts. Often they have no lines, or maybe one line. I don't think we need to describe these generally. The casting director is going to get who he gets.
Most of the scripts I've seen here, at least by veterans, have decent descriptions of the main characters. It's kind of an art to be able to paint a picture in as few words as possible. Not very good at it myself. Also, it helps of your description can find some sneaky way to give a clue to the character's character. The old beady eyes type thing. Has to be done in a visual way, so that's kind of an art, too.
It also depends upon the context and depth that is required in general. I think that extends to major parts as well.
For instance, if what is required is a teenage bobble head with an attraction to the mall and an aversion to school then it may not be necessary to state specific age and, in my opinion, probably relying on physical attributes is the worst of all (all depending upon the story in question).
In essence, it comes down to the question the writer must ask: Does the description get the job done? I have no problem with a neat, but boring description if that's all that's necessary. I don't always need to know everything in great precision and I always take "the whole" into account. Also, I think it can be detrimental to try and cram too much into a character description. It's better to show that through their actions because actions speak louder than words.
See, for me, and I think this might be true with others, the problem was not lack of description of main characters, but too much description. That was the case in my earl scripts, hopefully I've improved a bit. I tended to introduce my characters as though it was a novel.
1 sign Carson Reeves wrote a screenplay and got bitched at because of his unfilmables:
Quoted from The Article
Here’s a description for you: “Gene, 40, takes in the world behind a pair of steely gray eyes. He always looks at you for a little too long, as if he’s sizing you up for some later experiment.”
Here’s another: “Gene, 40, short and stocky.”
Try and convince me that the reader doesn’t get more out of the first description
Gene better be performing an experiment later on and this better be a science fiction story. If it's not, I'm going to be really ticked off the writer's got me thinking about experiments and crap.
On the other hand, in the second description, Gene better be played by Danny DeVito.
I don't necessarily agree that not describing a character in detail is a sign of an amateur. I'm sure a professional writer can get an image into a reader's head through the character's actions and dialogue, too. Not everything has to be black and white.
I don't necessarily agree that not describing a character in detail is a sign of an amateur. I'm sure a professional writer can get an image into a reader's head through the character's actions and dialogue, too. Not everything has to be black and white.
Of course nothing is. And I don't think the author means that the description is meant to give you a full idea of the character. For me, this means that you're supposed to tell what the first impression of the character should be, just as an actor gives a first impression whenever they first appear on screen.
The act of writing is a quest to put a hundred thousand words to a cunning order. - Douglas Adams
I think there's a way to describe characters without the two lines of unfilmables and the short and stocky. Somewhere in the middle is where a writer hits their stride. The first approach is too novelistic, and the 2nd, well, we all know what's wrong with the 2nd...
I described one of my key female characters as, along with a couple of other adjectives, "glorious." I wanted to convey her ethereal beauty, and rather than waste a line saying "she's an ethereal beauty", I think this word gets the job done.
One of the ways I could tell a new writer in the OWC was when so much energy was expended on details in the opening settings. Sometimes it seems to take a long time for the actual story to begin.
And the thing about the amateur giveaways is this: shorter leash. I don't assume an amateur script will be bad. It can turn out to be a great story. But if you get to a rough patch, you're much quicker to quit on the story if you know it's an amateur. If you sense you're dealing with a veteran or pro writer, you give it a little benefit of the doubt, and carry on, thinking the story is likely to pick up.