I picked up an interesting book at the library: Write Screenplays that Sell, by Hal Ackerman.

Below is his suggestion as to how to write what he calls subsluglines, particularly useful in describing action scenes. Warning: some "rules" people will find this difficult. Take a deep breath, and at least consider it, because it's very effective.

The scene involves an action scene with a couple in a car being chased by bikers.

THE BIKERS
mount up on their HARLEYS and tear ass after them.

JOHN AND LINDY
see them coming. John floors it. They careen out of town. Just ahead of them--

THE DRAWBRIDGE
Begins to open

JOHN AND LINDY
Race past the stop sign.

        LINDY
    John, no!

THE BIKERS
Loom close in their rear-view mirror.

THE BRIDGE
Rises.

This works similar to what many of us use as a mini-slug within one location, usually a building. But note his use here mixes INT and EXT. Even the last Bikers slug is odd, since we are actually in the car looking at the rear view mirror.

"Rules" are violated everywhere!

So is Ackerman a rebel rule breaker? Actually, no. He warns from the outset: don't be a rule breaker. Make sure a screenplay looks like a screenplay. Use format that makes it look like a screenplay.

But to him that means have appropriate page length, spacing, general format. Make it look and smell like screenplay. It does not mean follow some cannon of little rules. No one important cares about that.

So why does the above example work? I think it helps to differentiate between a shooting script and a screenplay. That's something I first learned on this website...thank you! But people tend to not really appreciate that difference. A screenplay is an instrument for telling a story. A shooting script is a blueprint for for the production of a film.

For a shooting script, the above action sample will not work. But for a screenplay, it's very acceptable and effective. It's certainly much easier to read. It saves about 10 lines. And it's perfectly clear.

Someone is going to object: "But where are we when the bridge rises?"

The angle that it is shot from is not up to the screenplay writer! It's up to the production staff, and they will address it in the shooting script.

I know this is radical stuff for some folks. This book was published in 2003! So time for us here in the amateur world to catch up to how the pros have been handling things for at least a decade.

For those of you tempted to think this is just a stylistic trend, I would advise you that people said the same thing about the automobile. That it will never replace the train. This style and variations of it have become the norm and will be the norm for one reason: it's better. Take the above example and convert it to "rules" format, and tell me which looks better? Which reads better? Which is more effective at conveying the pace and feel of the action scene?

Hey, I like trains too, as anyone who has read my scripts will attest. But the automobile is not going away.

Interesting.

I've read something like this before but thought it was credited to Goldman - who cares.

For action scenes that seems to work by making the story clear, yet dynamic.

I try not to push the rules much but every now and then i look at a passage and think its technically fine but clunky. To me the writer should help the reader as much as possible seeking the clearest way to explain the story in the style its meant to be - so action would be one way, comedy another.

Still much to learn but these posts help.

I copied it right from the book, Bill. It's a pain to do that, but I think it helps people. I wish I had seen that a year ago.

I'm sure this is not the only guy teaching this stuff. And this is what scripts are not starting to look like.

When you think about the difference between a screenplay and a shooting script, all of these things about whether a slug is "correct" don't really make sense.

Tell a story, make it look and smell like a screenplay is supposed. That allows for a lot of room. We should use that to do what works most efficiently.

Quoted from leitskev And this is what scripts are now starting to look like.

Kev, Goldman has been doing stuff like this since guys like you and I were running around in Aquaman underoos.

Quoted from Reef I've read something like this before but thought it was credited to Goldman...

Not sure it is "credited" to Goldman, but nice to know someone else reads him.

As you are kind of into the "rule breakers" these days, Kev, I cannot recommend Goldman enough.  The man marches to his very own drum, for sure.

Check out "Princess Bride" -- one of my all-time favorites -- and "The Ghost and the Darkness" is another tight little script of his I really liked.

He does a lot of things we cannot -- but you can still learn alot from "watching" him do those things.

Quoted from leitskev I copied it right from the book, Bill. It's a pain to do that, but I think it helps people. I wish I had seen that a year ago. I'm sure this is not the only guy teaching this stuff. And this is what scripts are not starting to look like.

Sorry Kevin, i didnt mean to suggest you were wrong, just i had heard a similar technic accredited to another. It's going to bug me now where i read that

Will check out, Bert. Princess Pride seems to be one of those scripts that is often talked about.

True, what famous writers do does not mean everyone can. The example I used is taught by Ackerman in courses. I see variations of that kind of thing in scripts. It seems to me that a)it works, and works better, and b) as long as your script really looks like it's not amateur, those methods should not turn people off. I would think I reader would appreciate the way it's written since it's so much easier to read.

I like rules of thumb, and try to follow them. I am suspicious of absolute rules and though shalls.

I read Tarantino's Django Unchained and he does that all the time.

What element would you use for the subslug?

Tarantino famously gets to do things how he wants. If you follow him, you'll have to include numerous spelling and grammar mistakes.

I'm not sure what you mean by the question. And I myself have not applied this method yet. Not completely, anyway. Recently I wrote a scene where a guy was hiding in the back of a moving pickup truck, while the passengers in the front cranked music. I went back and forth during the scene, as the guy in the back listened to the music being cranked. Was this supposed to be 2 slugs? and EXT and an INT? Probably. But I decided that would make the scene unnecessarily cumbersome. So why write it that way? Because there is some technical requirement? Why would there be. This is not a shooting script.

I think subslug is used here like a minislug. Which saves lines on unnecessary description.

In the example above, JOHN AND LINDY becomes a mini slug which replaces INT. JOHN'S CAR, and some of the descriptive lines which would follow. It's hard to argue that that is not a better way. The question is whether it pisses off a certain level of reader trained to look for something else. I am not qualified to answer that.

This kind of thing works best in your action scenes, so it won't be necessary to fill your script with this "rule breaking". Also consider this: it's not just a matter of saving space, or making it a quicker read. This method allows you to add little details that flesh out your scenes better. If you have to keep writing full slugs, you might be discouraged from adding in things like the closing drawbridge. Perhaps with this method you would be more comfortable using them. I wouldn't use this to add unnecessary detail, but you can liven up your scenes.

Amateur opinion, Cine, just my amateur opinion. Stuff for people to weigh and consider, if they choose, like anything else.

This seems like the upside down orphan. Instead of being at the bottom, you purposely smack it at the top of action. I don't get its effect. I won't write like this, but to each their own...

James

I think you read it too quickly, James. Those are separate locations, so they normally would require full slugs. So unlike an orphan, this saves space.

I'm not saying you or anyone should adopt it, or even to what degree I will. But I think it makes sense to be open to things that are possible improvements. I

Quoted from leitskev I think you read it too quickly, James.

I just skimmed it, so you're right. After rereading i see what he's doing. Kind of an intercut between locals.

Wonder if a 90 page script written like this would equivalate  to 90 minutes of film. Whole lotta cheatin' going on here.

James

I've seen this before. In fact, I was reading the "Hurt Locker" from this site and they use this technique as well, where the characters become mini-slugs.

I think this technique is perfectly valid if you have mutiple characters in a crowd. In the "Hurt Locker", the first fifteen pages switch between various characters as they diffuse a bomb.

Quoted from bert Kev, Goldman has been doing stuff like this since guys like you and I were running around in Aquaman underoos. Not sure it is "credited" to Goldman, but nice to know someone else reads him. As you are kind of into the "rule breakers" these days, Kev, I cannot recommend Goldman enough.  The man marches to his very own drum, for sure. Check out "Princess Bride" -- one of my all-time favorites -- and "The Ghost and the Darkness" is another tight little script of his I really liked.

I was always a Green Lantern kid myself.
But they gave my mom's work clothes that fresh mint look.

You can seat me firmly in the Goldman Stadium.
The first and most impressionable memoirs and tidbits I've read to date.

Every time I pick up the Butch & Sundance script, I can't stop flipping pages.

Oh, and I think Tarantino wrote all of Djano with the dub step slug thang.

Regards,
E.D.

Quoted from leitskev Tarantino famously gets to do things how he wants. If you follow him, you'll have to include numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. I'm not sure what you mean by the question. And I myself have not applied this method yet. Not completely, anyway. Recently I wrote a scene where a guy was hiding in the back of a moving pickup truck, while the passengers in the front cranked music. I went back and forth during the scene, as the guy in the back listened to the music being cranked. Was this supposed to be 2 slugs? and EXT and an INT? Probably. But I decided that would make the scene unnecessarily cumbersome. So why write it that way? Because there is some technical requirement? Why would there be. This is not a shooting script. I think subslug is used here like a minislug. Which saves lines on unnecessary description. In the example above, JOHN AND LINDY becomes a mini slug which replaces INT. JOHN'S CAR, and some of the descriptive lines which would follow. It's hard to argue that that is not a better way. The question is whether it pisses off a certain level of reader trained to look for something else. I am not qualified to answer that. This kind of thing works best in your action scenes, so it won't be necessary to fill your script with this "rule breaking". Also consider this: it's not just a matter of saving space, or making it a quicker read. This method allows you to add little details that flesh out your scenes better. If you have to keep writing full slugs, you might be discouraged from adding in things like the closing drawbridge. Perhaps with this method you would be more comfortable using them. I wouldn't use this to add unnecessary detail, but you can liven up your scenes. Amateur opinion, Cine, just my amateur opinion. Stuff for people to weigh and consider, if they choose, like anything else.

Sorry, I should have specified:

In final draft, or whatever software you use, what element would you write the subslug in in order for it to look like that (no space between it and the action below)?

I guess you could do it as an action line in all caps and then hit SHIFT+ENTER to go to the very next line?

In Final Draft you'd use General if you want a single space.

Yeah, I guess there would be different options. If you treat it like a mini-slug, there should be a space. I copied it here the way it was in the book. Maybe it would be better with the space though.

Even the drawbridge becomes the bridge.

As with anything, I encourage you to investigate. Certainly don't rely on my word, I am one voice, and an amateur voice. All I really encourage is an open mind to what works best. I think riddling a screenplay with full slugs is a distracting way of conveying the story, especially in scenes like this. But I can't tell you how readers such as contest judges and studio readers will react to it. I am pretty certain the directors, actors, producers will not only not be bothered by it, but will appreciate it for its effectiveness.

Weigh cautiously the various viewpoints.

Yeah, this is not new by any means, and you'll see various peeps attempting to do something like this, usually very poorly.  That's the big problem - it's very difficult to master, and when it's not mastered, it comes off piss poor.

Basically, it's a form of "directing" each and every shot, without making it appear that's what's going on.

Each and every "sub slug" or whatever you want to call them, is basically exactly what you need to draw attention to, or exactly what is in the scene/shot.

It is, IMO a hybrid spec/shooting script, as it doesn't just "tell the story", it literally is, in theory, exactly what each and every shot is of.

A number of problems, IMO with it.

First of all, unless someone is going to shoot this exactly as written, it calls for a Hell of alot of rewriting and even re-imagining, as only the exact shot is given - no real details to anything else are given in the "grand scheme scenario".

If you can pull this off, it will appear very impressive, and very "Pro".  But if you can't or just don't, it will come off exactly the opposite - extremely amateur, and extremely irritating.

You know, I understand why you (Kevin) continually try to reinvent this wheel, or just attack it from an different angle, but, then again, for me, I don't get it.

As so many peeps continually say, it all comes down to the story, the concept, and the way it all comes off on the page.  Trying to do something you can't easily do, makes the game so much harder.

Master the easy stuff first.  Write in a way that is pleasing to read.  That is clear, visual, moving, and enjoyable.  When you get that, or if you get that, experiment all you want.

To me, it's crap like this that is most likely the cause of the majority of crap scripts that get made into crap movies, because everyone's trying to get noticed and write in a hip, cool way, but that's never going to mean that the content is actually worth 3 squirts or 4 shits.

It's like some slimy assfuck who has some "chat up line" that babes fall for every time, only to realize after the fact that they've been duped once again, leaving the "real prize" standing by himself with his schlong in his hand.

Interesting POV, Jeff.

I've never personally got the hang up about directing shots, because however you write that's exactly what you're doing anyway. Whatever you describe suggests the angle and width of the shot.

Eg if you're saying tanks are rolling down the street you're describing a shot wide enough to encompass the tanks and the street.

You say:


"Each and every "sub slug" or whatever you want to call them, is basically exactly what you need to draw attention to, or exactly what is in the scene/shot."

What more would you want? Anything other than that is extraneous information, no?

This reads like a film and that's all you can really ask for, whatever style you choose.

BTW, Kev.

I wouldn't get hung up on difference between a spec script and a shooting script.

The shooting script is just a practical consideration. It's what the script becomes after the studio, Director, other writers have had their say and it's been changed.

Then the scenes are numbered for the benefit of the Production staff.

At the point the Director's messing with the script, he might throw in camera angles and whatever else he wants. This is not because he's famous and can now break the rules...it's practical to give info. to Heads of Department and for himself.

If the Director writes "TRACKING SHOT of Ronnie running down the street"...the Cinematographer can start to work out the kind of lights he'll need (he needs to light the whole street for one shot), lenses, the Key Grip knows he needs certain kinds of rig, the 1st AD knows it will take X amount of time to set up and factor that into his calcualtions for the shoot etc.

It's just a way of passing relevant info. to your collaborators, it's not this werid mystical, unfair thing where some people are allowed to do stuff and others aren't.

Writers shouldn't do it purely because it's not their job.

The shooting script is also not necessarily re-written at all. In the example you provide, unless they want to change the action for some reason (practical or because they think something else will work better) it will stay the same. They'll then use a storyboard or a shot list to say what angles/coverage they'll shoot. Some Directors will just make it up on the day (although that is rarer in action films).

I think we're on the same page here, I'm just expanding.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I've never personally got the hang up about directing shots, because however you write that's exactly what you're doing anyway. Whatever you describe suggests the angle and width of the shot. Eg if you're saying tanks are rolling down the street you're describing a shot wide enough to encompass the tanks and the street. You say: "Each and every "sub slug" or whatever you want to call them, is basically exactly what you need to draw attention to, or exactly what is in the scene/shot." What more would you want? Anything other than that is extraneous information, no? This reads like a film and that's all you can really ask for, whatever style you choose.

Rick, I definitely don't want to get into any arguments with anyone, and I'm not trying to.

What you're saying here is true...to a certain degree.  There are simple ways of directing shots in which readers won't feel like they're being directed.  There are ways to infer things or shots.  When it's done well, it comes off a simple story telling, done in a visual way, which is what I think one should be after.

But there is another, or the other side of of the coin.  It's taking it a number of steps further.  It's bludgeoning you over the head that this is what you're seeing here and absolutely nothing else.

Here's one of my crazy analogies as an example.  Remember the scene in Blade Runner where they've got an old picture, and through the use of this scanning/zooming machine thing, they're able to focus in on a person's face that couldn't even be seen in the actual picture?  Know what I'm talking about?

Well, in a way, this is what this or similar styles do.  They strip everything away that's taking place and focus in on a single element.  The suggestion to me is all very tight close up shots in which nothing else is seen onscreen.

Why do I say this?  Well, I say this because when you turn normal props, characters or "things" into Sub Slugs, or Mini Slugs, what exactly are you saying and doing?

When you use a normal mini Slug, like "KITCHEN" for instance.  We know the kitchen is inside whatever house or structure we're in, but we also know that we're not going to see anything other than the kitchen - all the action will take place within the kitchen.

So conversely, when a "TIRE" becomes the Sub Slug, that's where the focus is going to be.  Period.  You'll then need to shift that focus (most likely pretty quickly) to the next area of action or attention.  We'll use Kevin's example - "THE BIKERS".  SO this will be all about what the bikers are doing - not where the bikers are or anything happening around them, just them.

As I said, it can look "cool" or "Pro" when done correctly, but it's hard work, and once you start this style, you need to continue with it throughout the script.  IMO, it inflates a script based on the extra lines being used with each new Sub Slug.  It also contains less detail in terms of description and "big picture" happenings.

You wanna write this way?  More power to you.

Thanks to everyone for discussing this. It's the kind of example when SS has a decent debate over a technique. I for one benefit.

As I write more I learn more techniques but importantly is understanding when to you use them. Work in progress.

As Jeff says, I can picture this coming across as really effective IF the writer has nailed down the perfect scene/moment for it. If not, then it could be like a bad joke told at a party that everyone groans about.

From what I know, this seems to be an effective process when you have a rapidly changing, dynamic scene that you want to show more than one POV within that scene eg a chase.

I could also picture this where two, or more, parties are racing to the same place but from different positions. The viewer is being teased with who will get there first. Will James bond get to the timer before the bomb explodes and the baddy gets away - separate location. Will someone get to a phone to call the love of his life before she gets married to the wrong man etc etc

In the UK a Tv programme called Top Gear uses this alot when they set the TV stars a race (not on a track but usually through a city or over mountains etc)  often in two or three cars, and we don't know who will win. As it gets closer to the finsih they cut quickly between the various cars to add tension.

Good morning, gentlemen. And any ladies who may be lurking.

For good or for bad, I'm the kind of person that likes to understand the reasons behind things. Someone tells me, "this is how you do it", I say "thanks, much appreciate it", but I attempt to understand it.

About a year ago, Jeff took the time to explain to me certain rules about slugs, passive verbiage, etc. And I still appreciate it. It is my nature, however, to want to understand things. Even more so when I find problems, things that don't make sense.

One of the early examples was the passive 'ing' verb. I do appreciate how it's better to avoid these in writing. Film is action, and active verbs are more powerful. I was grateful to learn this.

But I soon found there were times that completely eliminating the passive verb led to awkward phrasing. I struggled with this myself, but what's more, I witnessed it in the writing of some skilled veteran writers here. People would perform acrobatic feats to construct sentences that avoided the passive verb. Sometimes the result was sentences that were longer, or just awkward.

How was I to approach this? It seemed to be that the philosophy was this: yes, it sometimes results in awkward wording, but it's just a necessary evil, because those are the rules, and if you include passive verbs, a pro reader will put down your script.

I struggle with things like that. By temperament, I have hard time accepting that we should follow rules that force into doing things that don't work as well. It has nothing to do with wanting to be cool, current or hip. I simply want to know the best way to do a thing.

But even though it raised my blood pressure to have to force myself to do things that don't make sense, for a couple of scripts, I did it. It made no sense for me to be the only one to buck the tradition. Not if the goal is to be produced.

Then a strange thing happened. I began following a blog(not going to mention it, but most of you know) where several optioned scripts a week are reviewed. These are scripts that have been optioned but not yet produced, so they are current scripts. Participating in the blog gained me access to 6 or 7 of these scripts a week. And I began reading them.

This is where Jeff interjects: but Kev, just because a script has been optioned does not mean it's well written.

True. I've read some stinkers. But those are the exception. The majority are very well written. In fact, it's like night and day to reading scripts here at SS. These optioned scripts generally are a breeze to read. If someone thinks they are only optioned because the writer is cousins with a big time producer, they are deluding themselves. These scripts are on a different level. If someone has trained for years to spot rule violations, such as orphans, is's and ing's, they might not appreciate that fact. But if one can put that aside, and just read them for effectiveness at conveying story, he will quickly recognize their superiority.

For anyone discouraged by this, keep this in mind: I've read many interviews, and all of these writers have similar stories about writing for years before breaking out. Most write 15 or 16 scripts before they get a break. So unless you've written that many, you can't be frustrated that you don't write on their level. They've put in the time.

Back to topic: when I read this scripts, I noticed something. Though each had its own style, none of them strictly conformed to the rules insisted on by many here. None of them. None.

Hmm. Was it because they don't know the rules? Was it because they are big shots now so they don't care about the rules?

Or was it because there is a problem with these rules themselves?

As I had already been troubled by awkward writing that the rules seemed to at times force, it was easy for me to suspect the latter. That the problem was strict adherence to "rules".

Let me use an example. In a recent script I worked on, a guy walks out of his house, speaks passingly to a neighbor who is watering his lawn, and heads to a shed in back. I had two slugs, an EXT for the house, and then an INT for the shed.

A strict enforcer of the rules had a problem with this. "Technically" we had multiple slugs in play: the front yard, the neighbor's yard, the back yard, the shed. Heck, perhaps even the side yard, since he walked by the house. There was even a question of whether the neighbor's dialogue should be O.S., not because we couldn't see him, but because he was in a different slug.

This kind of thinking is madness. Why would one take a scene like that and break it down into multiple slugs? Is it not clear what's going on?

In the OWC short Splitzkreig, the kids are in a squirt gun fight or something, and it takes them through a few yards in front of their house. Someone complained about the lack of slugs for these boundaries. Are you kidding me? does that really make the telling of this story better? Every time we hit some property line, we have to pop a new slug on the script?

I read another script by a veteran here, a well written script, where the heroes were traveling on a road, and were attacked by wild dogs. The fight took place on the road and by the road side. Every time the a character crossed from the road to the roadside, he added a slug. There were 5 or 6 slugs as the fight went back in forth, all basically at one location. This where this rule thinking leads.

The reason in my earlier post I brought up shooting script vs screenplay is to help avoid this kind of madness. A shooting script is a blue print. A screenplay is not. The task of a screenplay is to convey a story. Anything that encumbers that is to be avoided if possible. Adding slugs were it does not enhance the clarity of a scene is a major mistake. What causes people to do this is because they say it's "correct". Any time you hear that word in regards to a screenplay, warning bells should go off. "Correct" is the language of something technical, like a blue print. Like a shooting script. In a screenplay, what's correct is simply what conveys the story best.

The example I posted from Ackerman has nothing to do with directing a scene. Nothing. Let's be clear: nothing. What it does is very different. What it does is create moving images in the reader's mind so he can see the story. This helps him imagine it as a film. Ultimately, the director will choose the angles and shots. This is not an attempt to even influence that thought process. It is very simply trying to create the story in the reader's mind. That's all.

I'm not sure I should address the notion that there is some kind of relation to the current quality of films to writing styles of scripts. It seems too silly to discuss, to be honest.

The idea that some writing style will draw attention to producers, get your script made even if it's not good? Wow. Just wow. I wish that were the case. It's easy to learn a writing style. Much harder to write a great script.

As for directing shots: I actually learned some time ago, from Rick, though I'm sure he doesn't remember it, a sneaky way to do this. You just write it in without using terms that are director's terms, such as CLOSE ON, or POV. Just write the story how you want the reader to see it in his mind's eye.

For example:

EXT. JEFF'S HOUSE - DAY

Bill holds the gun on Jeff.

FOOTSTEPS on the walk outside.

A RAP at the door.

Jeff's hand edges toward his jacket.

The lock on the door turns.

The director may do a closeup on Jeff's hand, and on the lock. There's no reason for the writer to indicate this. The writing tends to lead the reader to imagine it that way, however.

Not the best example, but hopefully helps.

It's not really about directing the shot, however. It's about creating the feel for the story: the pace and cadence, the tension, the moving images.

Bill, the Ackerman example I've posted at the top of this thread is not something I've used. I'm not really recommending any particular style or form. What I am saying is this: what matters is conveying the story in the most effective and efficient way possible. When you read the pro scripts, you find that they are extremely good at doing this. Often I don't even care for or buy into the story. But the writing, though never perfect, almost always sets itself apart from amateur scripts.

People should not be rebels just because. Not should they blindly follow rules for the same reason. Be open to what works best. In all things in life.

Jeff,

All I can say is that because I've never really paid much heed to style, I didn't fixate on something like "THE BIKERS".

I just thought it was telling us about the bikers, which it was.

I don't really follow this part:

"They strip everything away that's taking place and focus in on a single element.  The suggestion to me is all very tight close up shots in which nothing else is seen onscreen."

Like I said above...when the writer is describing a group of bikers getting on their Harleys...it's obvious to me it's a wide shot of a group of bikers getting on their Harleys.

Obviously if there's something I want to shoot as director that I think would be better, I can, but I see no suggestions of close ups anywhere.

When it goes to JOHN AND LINDY...that's a clear two-shot of John and Lindy...probably through the windscreen.

You get a CU of John flooring the pedal...but that's not a slug.

None of the slugs suggest tight close ups to me.

The speed of it seems useful for an action sequence where it's all about quick cuts, to me at least.

As you say, best to do what you are comfortable with.

Good post Kev,

The only issue that I would possibly disagree with is this:

"The idea that some writing style will draw attention to producers, get your script made even if it's not good? Wow. Just wow. I wish that were the case. It's easy to learn a writing style. Much harder to write a great script."

A lot of people in Hollywood (David Mamet wrote a whole book about it) complain that this is actually what's happening. That the Gatekeepers (readers) are not Directors or even Producers and don't understand film...they just read a LOT. They get bored easily and deep, slow moving stories or heavily technical scripts which might make brilliant films are cast aside for breezily written scripts with lots of CRASH, BOOM, BANG...because they are more enjoyable to read.

There is, in short, a correlation between how enjoyable the script is to read and how good the coverage is and not between how good a film the script would make and the coverage.

Mamet believes that's why Hollywod is producing so many substandard movies compared to the Golden years.

Babz said that style is more important than content as well and there was a post about someone else and the process of elimination for scripts where they look at passive verbage, when the beats are and everything else and throw away all those that don't follow the rules...before they've even looked at the story.

Obviously people are free to disagree, I'm just pointing out that it's not totally stupid to believe that the system has created a demand for style over content which has lowered the overall quality of Cinema.

Writing has a power. Skilful writers can take the most cliched scene and make it purr on the page. But when it's on screen it's just the same old, cliched scene.

That being said, I haven't personally come across all these wonderful scripts that just don't happen to be written a certain way and Hollywood has to make SOMETHING each year...whether they're good or bad.

The good news is that the reason these debates rage on is because peeps are passionate about such things.  And that's always a good thing.

The other good news is that there are obviously options available to you in terms of writing styles and even adhering to or breaking rules.

Now, Kevin, my friend...you started your last post off with a very long winded diatribe on passive writing, which isn't what we're talking about here (I understand however what your point was in bringing it up).

But my issue with this (passive writing debate, to be exact) is that you don't understand the issue enough to be able to really discuss it, and in the bigger picture, I think this boils over into most of these discussions.  Now don't all huffy and think I'm calling you out specifically, because I'm not - you are far from alone.

The point is, anytime someone says something about rules stating you can't use verbs ending in "ing", does not understand the concept of active and passive writing and why passive writing is extremely frowned upon, not only in screenwriting, but other forms of writ8ng as well.

You've said over and over how "trying to not write passively often causes awkwardly structured or sounding sentences".  That's just not true.  An when it is, it's not a problem at all to use a passive sentence or a passive verb.  The idea is not to do it on a regular basis and to understand how and why.

It's crazy, really, as I see so many examples of writers trying to do what they think they're supposed to, but not only not understanding why, but more importantly, not understanding how even.  Drives me a bit batty.

OK, back to the topic at hand.  Let me say again - if you can write this way effectively, by all means, go for it.  But, chances are very good that you can't, because it's very difficult to get it right all the time and once it becomes apparent that there are problems, they'll start to pop up like red headed orphans in a family community of hairless citizens.

Your example of the "nameless script" in which "someone" suggested using correct Slugs for areas that fell outside of the already established scene is good, because I obviously know exactly what you're referring to.  And I'll try to help you here, and maybe even Rick will chime in.

In the example, we have the EXT of a house (the front porch, to be exact) as our scene or Slug.  We have a character in another location, next door on his front porch interacting with our main Protag - but based on how the script was written, we don't see the characters together.

Your assumption is that this will be filmed at an actual house and the other character will be at the next door house, and it will be filmed in 1 sitting, which is most likely not the case.  By omitting the "other location Slug", you're risking problems in production, but more importantly, you're not being remotely clear with your readers.  Aren't you, when you really think about it?

People are always all concerned about white space on the page and they write in ways that artificially inflate it - because they have to, based on the fact that they're probably not actually writing out their Slugs properly, let alone their action/description prose.  If you do it "correctly", you'll be surprised how much natural white space your script will have, while still being chock full of visual description and detail.

I used mini slugs out the ass on Frostbite... Levenberg never said anything about them.  He did, however, point out interruption of dialouge with action below them and how many scenes a 115 min movie should have -- and it's not 91.

I like minislugs... I'll use keep using them if they make sense.  But it's better to be clear than it is trendy.