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.
Hey Kevin I want to compete with you on those stakes. Bet I've broken more rules than you have!
But you know what, whilst I am new, I still think it is harder to differentiate what is great than what is amateur. Let me explain.
I don't want to revisit any old SS thread about the difference between amateur and pro scripts but to me it seems easy to spot a very poor script, then an average script, then a standard pro script... but what is it about the top end scripts. You know the ones that broke through, didn't deserve to be there, had no contacts etc ( note I have no experience on these matters so please feel free to correct me).
Ok, Ok, I do get the picture about contacts, studios etc etc,but let's for a minute drop the defensive line and think what sets a page on fire, versus being great.
Of course I bow at at this point trying to appear wise, yet having no idea of the answer, but let's hope more on SS manage to find that magic spark.
I would say at this point Kevin, your wise observations and reflections of what works, what doesn't, and how you are building your understanding of how to structure a story are useful to us all - well definitely me.
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
If you got the time, about a year ago I spent quite some time digging through "spec" screenplays (found out most of these folks had inside connections [Hint! Hint! This is largely a collaborative industry]), and eventually uncovered a great deal of insight as to what constitutes a good amateur or pro spec screenplay.
Well, Reef, take whatever insights I share with a strong word of caution, and it is this: I seem to change my mind every month, so beware!
My current approach can be summed up with 3 letters: TTP
Turn the page.
STC(save the cat) is fine. Nothing wrong with it. But don't let it make you lose focus on what's important. Imagine you are telling a ghost story around a camp fire. As soon as you see someone yawn, or their eyes drift away, you know you're losing your audience. And you respond by adjusting your story quickly, inserting a real attention grabber.
And it's the same thing with a book. A good book you have trouble putting down. At the end of each page, you want to turn to the next one. TTP.
Why would a movie be different? Even more relevant, why would a spec script be any different? The object of a spec script should, before anything else, be this: make the reader keep reading. If you need unfilmables to do that, use 'em. If you need to break 3 act structure, do it.
To me, it's not 3 acts that's most important. It's these three things: 1) have a premise, log, and/or title that draws interest; 2) keep the reader turning the page til the end; and 3) make the end something memorable, either a powerful last image, or something emotionally satisfying.
That said , structure still is important and helpful, and things like Carson Reeve's GSU. But for me, it's TTP.
Buy hey, it still hasn't been a year since I first started writing, so I'll probably say this is all wrong in a month!
Be careful when you use acronyms. TTP is also short for Temporary Toilet Paper. (It seriously is. Google it.) I don't think you want anybody referring to your pages as TTP.
P.S. - Don't really google it. I was just making a funny. I think it actually has to do with blood clots or something like that. My stepdad had it.
Well, Reef, take whatever insights I share with a strong word of caution, and it is this: I seem to change my mind every month, so beware!
My current approach can be summed up with 3 letters: TTP
Turn the page.
STC(save the cat) is fine. Nothing wrong with it. But don't let it make you lose focus on what's important. Imagine you are telling a ghost story around a camp fire. As soon as you see someone yawn, or their eyes drift away, you know you're losing your audience. And you respond by adjusting your story quickly, inserting a real attention grabber.
And it's the same thing with a book. A good book you have trouble putting down. At the end of each page, you want to turn to the next one. TTP.
Why would a movie be different? Even more relevant, why would a spec script be any different? The object of a spec script should, before anything else, be this: make the reader keep reading. If you need unfilmables to do that, use 'em. If you need to break 3 act structure, do it.
To me, it's not 3 acts that's most important. It's these three things: 1) have a premise, log, and/or title that draws interest; 2) keep the reader turning the page til the end; and 3) make the end something memorable, either a powerful last image, or something emotionally satisfying.
That said , structure still is important and helpful, and things like Carson Reeve's GSU. But for me, it's TTP.
Buy hey, it still hasn't been a year since I first started writing, so I'll probably say this is all wrong in a month!
Good post Kev, and I concur with everything you say.
The nature of the way scripts enter the system means that scripts have to be very enjoyable to read. The readers are the first Gatekeepers of quality. They have a somewhat boring job and fast paced, interesting reads are more likely to get a consider or recommend than more technical or slower paced scripts.
Story and characters have always been the most important aspect of scripts, but now it's even more important that your script reads as well as a short story or a novella. It should encourage you to read all the way to the end.
There is of course a debate about whether this is a good thing (does a script that's fun to READ actually make an interesting FILM)...but that's another debate...albeit one I'm willing to get into.
I have been thinking for a while about this very question, Rick. And I think the answer is that you have to be willing to sacrifice certain things in order to give your script a chance. A script that's too complicated or too subtle is less likely to get picked up. If one can get to a point that they're established, then they have the opportunity to discuss their ideas with people that matter. The more you can do that, the more room there is to do this stuff. But before you're established, the script should read fast and easy.
This is a huge problem for me personally. My scripts don't read that way, and I have a tendency to insert things into my stories that are hard to pick up on a fast read. I think it's something I really have to learn to avoid.
I would imagine that if I have a pile of scripts on my desk that I have to get to, even though I'm looking for that diamond in the rough, I'm also looking for an excuse to be done with any given script. So every page has to do something to keep the reader interested.
Carson Reeves emphasizes GSU(goals stakes urgency). I find that helpful, and I've added my own: Q. It's an old and silly little trick, but I think it works. I am trying to leave a trail of questions and mysteries in my stories that the reader needs answered before he can put it down. What's in the mysterious box, who is that masked man, what's behind the locked door. Things like that. My hope is that by including a series of those, eventually I lead the poor reader all the way to Fade Out. If I can do that, I've won a part of the battle.
The problem writers have is that it's almost impossible to sell screenplays to major companies.
That's the way it appears to me anyway. Someone posted a link on here not too long ago saying there were only something like 29 spec sales last year to big studioes.
Ultimately...more people win the lottery each year...a lot more actually. There's three or four winners a week in the UK because you have the Euro Millions as well.
So how far does sacrificing parts of your story actually serve your career?
On the other hand...we're seeing the likes of Phil, AJR, Pia etc moving into making their own stuff, or being the main fulcrum behind the making of their own stuff.
Anyone can make their own film these days...and once it's made maybe someone will see it or even buy it....and all these rules that everyone forces themselves to follow don't really matter in those circumstances.
I suppose my point is that it's all about who you are targetting and what your intention is for your writing.
I read an article last week, I'll look for the link for you, which breaks things down a lot more optimistically, Rick. For writers. Combined with other things I have been discovering, I think the odds are MUCH better than the lottery. Let me explain what I've learned.
First, yes, the odds of getting your spec script produced by a major studio, as an unknown writer, are like hitting the lottery. Worse. But like I said, it's not all bad news.
The way it seems to work is this: if you write a spec script that really leaves a good impression, it really can open doors, even if it never gets produced. The studios really are looking hard for writers and other creative people. If you can get a script discovered, it opens doors. Studios want to meet with you, discuss what else you have. If it looks like you have several good ideas, like you have an understanding of what a marketable script is, and the ability to create one, you have a good chance of getting hired for other projects. Often a studio or director has a project in mind, they just need people to develop it.
The article I read had a breakdown. I think there are about 4400 writers working full time for studios. So that's the job pool. What are the odds of breaking into that? Well, the article looked at the number of scripts that are graded 'consider' or 'recommend' and calculated that there are only about 8500 or so writers out there who can write a script that can achieve that. So roughly half of them are already working.
In other words if you are capable of writing a script that a studio would rate as 'consider' or higher, the odds are about 50/50 you can get work as a writer.
Is this is good as selling your script for big bucks and seeing it produced? No, but work in the field is good in itself, but it also means you are developing the relationships you need to make your ideas have a chance at development.
I can't verify any of this. I have no direct experience of it, obviously. But I do sense there is a hunt for talent. So while getting a spec script sold and produced is a long shot, having a really good spec script open doors for you into the industry seems much more optimistic.
So to answer your question, I do think making your scripts easy to digest is worth it. Make them easy to read, enjoyable to read. Don't make them a blueprint, make them a story the reader can't put down. Find ways to add depth to the story that don't make it work to read.
I can say that's what we need to do. Doesn't mean I can do it!
I totally agree with you that if you want to work in the Hollywood system (and of course sell a script), then that way of writing is the best way to go...I also think it's best to combine it with Hollywood style films...comedies, rom coms, heist stories etc. The fresh twist on solid genres approach.
I suppose from my point of view, it just seems a little futile. I think it was Brett who laughed the other day at the fact the guy who wrote Arlington Road was working on Transformers. Seems you have to really refine your writing talent to a ridiculous degree, just to write scripts that are essentially:
Robot attacks, gets blown up.
Robot attacks, gets blown up.
Copy and Paste for twenty pages (which was all that happened for twenty minutes in Transformers 2!).
It seems like spending years mastering quantum mechanics to get a job sweeping the floor in a lab.
I don't think there is a single regular on here that isn't writing to a producable standard. There are films out there that are turning a profit that really are not good at all.
I just wonder whether writers are making things too hard for themselves by chasing the Hollywood dream/style, when they could be making decent stuff with local teams and getting it out there.
Just a couple of examples of the thinsg i'm talking about:
This was an independent film that sold over a million copies and has a distribution deal with Dimension Extreme. It's appalling. Basically an extreme low budget version of 28 days later shot in ultra crap Blair Witch style.
This is a film my friend is in (Rob Ireland). It's again ultra low budget (1 crew member...the Director...who is also a character in the film)...but has distribution with Warner Bros in the US. The Director is in talks with Lionsgate about a properly funded film.
A really good example, Rick. Think about this, though: you have to be able to write Arlington Road to get to write Transformers. So maybe a lot of people can write Transformers, but how many can write Arlington Road?
The studio knows full well that Transformers is not going to be a masterpiece in film. But they know it's going to involve huge dollars, so they can pay masterpiece level writers.
I would also venture it must take some talent to write a movie like that. I've seen the first part of the original, and it is awful, but the task of writing a movie about robot cars must be daunting in a way.
Can you honestly say that if the studio calls you up and offers you a million to write the next Transformers you would turn it down? Not even for the money, but just for what it does for your chances of seeing your own original work come to life, it would be worth it.
I can tell you this: odds are against my making it, but I will say I have no interest in moving to LA or living the Hollywood lifestyle. I actually hate LA, and no matter how you dress me, I'll always be a blue collar guy. But I do need to earn a living, so I would go there if that's what it took and the option was available to me.
There are options outside of Hollywood. Australia seems to have a nice film industry. South America, North Carolina, Britain, South Korea.
Also, I think it's possible to explore multiple pathways. Directing and producing shorts is not an option for all of us, but it seems like a great way in. And I think there's no reason you can't write different kinds of scripts. You can have something that has more of an indie feel, and also show you can write something that is mainstream marketable. Writers should be writing all the time, so to me it makes sense to do a variety of things.
Personally, I think a good strategy is also to write strong characters. You have to sacrifice some things to do that. For one thing, a story can seem less focused, even less structured. For another, we need a little more patience in the first act to develop these characters. And another big problem is this: interesting characters say interesting things, usually. That means you have to really risk having your characters be over the top, or expository.
But there's an advantage. We all know how important a premise is to marketing a movie. It's also important to attract actors. So you need characters that appeal to actors.
It's also a personal preference, for me, because I like colorful actors.
There's different ways to do it, and people should probably try several ways if they can. I do think the emphasis for spec scripts should generally be readability, even when that means sacrificing some things. You can hopefully add some of those back if you get a producer interested.
I just wonder whether writers are making things too hard for themselves by chasing the Hollywood dream/style, when they could be making decent stuff with local teams and getting it out there.
Yeah.
Why work so hard to be able to write bad films?
The only conceivable answer is money, and if that's what you're looking for, deal drugs. That's quick and easy.
EDIT: Oh, and fame, I forgot fame. But who wants to be famous for bad work?
The only conceivable answer is money, and if that's what you're looking for, deal drugs. That's quick and easy.
EDIT: Oh, and fame, I forgot fame. But who wants to be famous for bad work?
It hasn't stopped most of the current musical 'stars'.
Note to mods - while I'm here, is there any reason why my sig space is so big? Can I make it smaller? It went like that a few weeks back for some reason.
Pages: 
Author
10 Ways I Know I'm Reading An Amateur Script
Logged
Locked Board