For my OWC, I described a photograph with "a beautiful young woman". Guess who's winning the next academy award?

I usually try and avoid the word since I know there are a bunch of other ways I can imply the character is pretty/cute/beautiful.

Unfilmables are a strange thing, 99% of pro scripts that I've read have them, to some people, that may mean nothing but there's just no way someone can say "unfilmables don't work, if I see one in a script, I'm not reading it".

We're getting a little off topic here, but the thing with "unfilmables" is that most of what people call unfilmable is actually not unfilmable at all.

John opens the door to find LISA (24), barely dressed, drenched in rainwater. Love at first sight.

Some would say that the act of falling in love is unfilmable, but it's really not. Maybe you can't just film it, but you can definitely sell it on film. Between the performance and the soundtrack, it's one of the easiest things to show.

Just to bring this back to the original point, though.

It does happen to both male and female characters, though it definitely happens more to females.

As Jeff mentioned, lead characters, especially women, will always be played by "beautiful" people, so beauty is really irrelevant unless it is relevant. =D

If beauty plays a pivotal role in the story or if the character is significantly more attractive or less attractive than the supporting cast, I would mention it. Otherwise, it really is just the writer going through the motions in character description.

I've done it. Hell, I've done it in the past week. That's when it hit me... "What the hell am I doing?"

Thanks for all the input!

I am guilty of describing the female lead as hot in one way or another.

But I also try to make her a strong-willed character at the same time.

Its funny, though, I am writing a "horror" script (don't know if you could call it that) and the female protagonist is the total opposite of what you'd normally see/read.  So I guess I am going a different route and trying something new.

Well, here's an intro of 2 female characters from one of my scripts from way back...


Jackson enters with two INSANELY CHESTED GIRLS in their early
20's, on both sides of him.


Hmmm......

Yeah the whole beautiful and handsome and gorgeous adjectives are quickly becoming a pet peeve of mine.  It seems every protag is a supermodel or is portrayed as such.

I've always been a bit stubborn with the mentioning of unfilmables but after reading some of these comments, it seems that it shouldn't be a concrete rule.  I suppose approaching characters or situations and describing it with "unfilmables" can be tolerated and even exceptional in some cases.

The description of Salander and the ones Bert posted are great examples of "unfilmables" that can actually be seen or at least assumed.  It gives us a vibe with those characters that can be felt and I think it only enhances the read.

I would certainly welcome a crafty, unique unfilmable description of a character or protag over "drop dead gorgeous" any day of the week.  I get it; in the world of scripts, everybody is smoking hot...except the funny ones.  It's certainly a balancing act but a risk that should be taken IMO to kick off a great story.  I'll have to read more into these kinds of descriptions.  Great thread.

I've been guilty of this type of description in the past. But then I think everyone is basically the product of their environment. It's hard to separate yourself from the way you were raised. So yes, that creeps into my writing from time to time. I'm only human. I have one short lifetime to solve all the mysteries of my world. Surely I can be excused if I'm a little "typical" now and then.

Re screenwriting rules: I don't worry for one second whether or not what I write is an "aside" or violates some reader's personal irrational pet peeves. I don't worry about things like "we see" or the word "and" or "orphans" or any of that. I worry about things like content and the way the words flow, the way they feel. If the reader is hung up on arbitrary "rules" created by amateurs to distance themselves from beginners, and used by script consultants to separate amateurs from their money, I'm not interested in that.

The rules of screenwriting could fit on a 3x5 index card. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either full of shit or taking advantage of you. The number of "gatekeepers" who are hung up on that bullshit is very tiny. While writers are busy cutting their work down to a nub for a minority of squeaky wheels, the majority of readers just want to read great writing. They want something that stands out, not something that reads like the thousands of other scripts that bored the shit out of them.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson I've been guilty of this type of description in the past. But then I think everyone is basically the product of their environment. It's hard to separate yourself from the way you were raised. So yes, that creeps into my writing from time to time. I'm only human. I have one short lifetime to solve all the mysteries of my world. Surely I can be excused if I'm a little "typical" now and then. Re screenwriting rules: I don't worry for one second whether or not what I write is an "aside" or violates some reader's personal irrational pet peeves. I don't worry about things like "we see" or the word "and" or "orphans" or any of that. I worry about things like content and the way the words flow, the way they feel. If the reader is hung up on arbitrary "rules" created by amateurs to distance themselves from beginners, and used by script consultants to separate amateurs from their money, I'm not interested in that. The rules of screenwriting could fit on a 3x5 index card. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either full of shit or taking advantage of you. The number of "gatekeepers" who are hung up on that bullshit is very tiny. While writers are busy cutting their work down to a nub for a minority of squeaky wheels, the majority of readers just want to read great writing. They want something that stands out, not something that reads like the thousands of other scripts that bored the shit out of them.

Perfect, couldn't have said it better myself.

Breanne, where have you been--?  Busy, yeah, I know... you are one of the writers that I admire the most.  

Big or small - New or old - Amateur or pro... can learn a lot from you -- I know I have.

Ghostie

Hi Ghostie,

Thank you for the kind words. I'm in the middle of a writing assignment, which means I'm on the verge of losing my mind.

Interesting discussion here about "unfilmables" and how some of them aren't really unfilmable. I have to admit, I've started to experiment with them a little bit, albeit sparingly. I think the "Love at first sight" example is a good one. Most definitely filmable.

As far as using "unfilmables" for describing characters, I'm on the fence. On the one hand, I think character descriptions are really tedious to write. There's really only so much you can say without going into insane physical details like the shape of someone's nose. Most of what you're left with is pretty generic and boring, especially after you've read so many scripts. Hair and eye color, fat or thin, etc. I think if character's have a specific look or style or carry themselves in a certain way, that helps a lot but not every character does. Sometimes, you need a little something extra.

On the other hand, I think a lot of the unfilmables you read in pro scripts just feel really tacky and overblown. I really don't care if you can capture them on camera or not. If the writing doesn't work, it takes me out of the script. I'd rather soak in the character over time than have the writer force their interpretation on me. The Blade Runner excerpt, for example, is too much for my taste. Not poorly written exactly but I feel like it'd come off as intrusive in a script.

The Princess Bride excerpt isn't bad. I think the text from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is excellent. The mention of the other character's reaction keeps things moving along, which is great. As of late, I've tried to weave character descriptions into the action so as to do exactly that. Little images here and there are preferable to one big block of text.

Unfortunately, not every character is going to be as striking as Lisbeth Salander.

I've been trying my best to bite my tongue, or actually put my hands in clamps so i can't type a response to many posts on this thread, but what the Hell?  I'll chime back in.

I always get a laugh when I hear peeps saying things about "the rules" and how the reality is that there aren't any rules.  Or even more humorous, "just write a great story".

  OK, sure...thanks for that stellar advice.

You know, in terms of character introductions, I'm just not clear why anyone thinks that some type of unfilmable description is the way to go.  Why would you need to tell me something about a character that I will not know or see in a filmed version, unless you're actually not capable of writing a good character, so that I'll know in time, when I should know?

Does that not make any sense to anyone?  Seriously...

The classic horrendously pathetic description of "beautiful beyond her years" or whatever, is a frickin' joke, if you think about it for even a second or two.  What is it supposed to mean?  Do women get more beautiful, the older they get?  Not that I'm aware of.

When you think of anything involving "rules", you'll usually get or have a negative connotation...and that's really too bad.  There's nothing at all negative or bad about adhering to things that make perfect sense - in this case, "the rules".

They're meant to help you.  They're meant to make you a better writer.  Don't cut corners and think your unfilmable descriptors are remotely as effective as actually being able to write characters with actual character.

All I'm arguing is that 50% of the time is that unfilmables are not unfilmable at all.

True unfilmables look something like this:

Aaron looks at her and remembers the time in the 5th grade where he asked her out and she punched him in the face.

How about this...

Janet, 17, wise beyond her years, winks at Suzanne, 18, beautiful beyond her years.

Wise beyond her years is unfilmable. Beautiful beyond her years is just bad.

Also, I always took beautiful beyond her years to mean that someone is old, but still somehow attractive, but I guess I just read that wrong.

Even "wise beyond her years" -- although I don't think it sounds particularly good -- isn't necessarily something that's totally outside the realm of visual information. Some people have this look. Natalie Portman's character in The Professional understands "more" about life than the average kid her age...we know this from her look, but also because as she's introduced, it's an obvious outcome of her environment. If there's violent shouting from dad, then a kid who looks "wise beyond her years" runs out of the room, we make the connection between the abuse she suffers and how quickly she's had to grow up in some ways, and the description, I think, holds weight. Though the wording definitely leaves something to be desired.

I guess maybe what I'm getting at is that it's not necessarily useful to take an abstract phrase in isolation and say you shouldn't ever use it because it's unfilmable. Abstract phrases might have an appropriately concrete meaning in the context of the whole scene.