I've noticed a trend in screenplays, mostly written by men.

Every time a female lead is introduced, she is described in some shape or form as "beautiful."

There's also my personal favorite: "NAME (36), beautiful despite her age." Like 36 is old and women are usually ugly by that point.

Anyway, my point is, don't you guys think we could describe them in some other way that doesn't have anything to do with attraction? It seems objectifying, but this really has little to do with not offending people and more to do with understanding characters regardless or gender.

I'm guilty of it too and I'd like to explore other ways to go about it.

HALP.

I noticed that men and women are usually described as beautiful or handsome or ugly. lol.  I like average.

Gabe

Most actors, be they male or female are attractive.

Most leads in movies are attractive.

People like to look at attractive people.  People like to read about attractive people.  People are more interested in attractive people than unattractive people.

Do I think using "beautiful" or attractive" or the like is a great way to intro a character in a script?  No, I don't, but it also make sense to me for the most part why writers do use such adjectives.

But, I think if you look at scripts that intro a number of characters at a time, or even just a script with multiple female characters, you'll find that they aren't all intro'd as being beautiful or attractive...but the main one?  Yeah, usually.

I have no issues with beautiful characters. I just think that having that as the main character description is kind of glossing over who the character really is... Though I guess non visual character descriptions come out more in actions the characters take.

I know most writers will disagree with me, but IMO, initial character intro's are all about looks, because in reality, that's all you'll see in a filmed version.

Using trendy, hip descriptors may read well to some, but to me, it's cheesy and a apparent attempt to be cool or hip.

Using anything else is really an unfilmable, and therefore, a cheat, IMO.

If your characters are well written, who they are will come out over the course of the script.

Quoted from Dreamscale Most actors, be they male or female are attractive. Most leads in movies are attractive.

Though it is much easier for unattractive actors to be successful if they are male. There are very few female equivalents of Paul Giamatti, Steve Buscemi, Danny Trejo, John C Reilly, Sylvester Stallone, Mike Myers, Nick Nolte, Gary Busey, William H Macy...

In fact, I might venture to say none, that I can think of. And those guys all lead multiple movies. Women in movies tend to need to be beautiful. Maybe that seeps unconsciously into the writing.

Quoted from Heretic In fact, I might venture to say none....

Kathy Bates isn't exactly top-drawer, but she has done alot, and I like most of it.

But, yeah, the one exception does not diminish your observation, which is mostly correct.

And you think ol' Sly Stallone is a dog, huh?  

Quoted from Heretic There are very few female equivalents of Paul Giamatti, Steve Buscemi, Danny Trejo, John C Reilly, Sylvester Stallone, Mike Myers, Nick Nolte, Gary Busey, William H Macy... In fact, I might venture to say none, that I can think of. And those guys all lead multiple movies. Women in movies tend to need to be beautiful. Maybe that seeps unconsciously into the writing.

Well...a few on this list are actually viewed as being attractive, or at one time were attractive.  Even Danny Trejo, who's about as ugly as they come, is not only very unique looking, but he's also perfect as a bad guy.

Women?  There's some bigguns out there and other unattractive ones, but alot of the time it's their comic presence or acting chops that make them unique or at least who they are.

Quoted from bert Kathy Bates isn't exactly top-drawer

Haha, that made me actually lol!

Good points. Along with Bates, I guess Helen Hunt was never particularly attractive, to me, anyway.

Stallone...haha no, I'm thinking he's not so handsome. Not even in his porn days...

Trejo I think is a particularly good example...he's usually the bad guy, yes, but he's also the lead in Machete, a relatively major movie, and treated as the romantic/sexual equivalent of (among others) Jessica Biel! So I think that kinda speaks to the issue pretty well in a broad sense...if you wanna be an actress, be as attractive as Biel; if you wanna be an actor, be as attractive as...Danny Trejo... And "unique looking"...that's a particularly interesting part of it. How many actresses are "unique looking"? It pays to look "exotic" for women...not so often "unique," I don't think, though unique works well for men.

It's definitely true that Nolte, for example, was considered attractive, but I think it's fair to say that his mainstream success continued past his attractiveness? Whereas with, I dunno, Rebecca DeMornay, Patricia Arquette, whatever...they look a little older one year and bam, done.

Quoted from Heretic if you wanna be an actress, be as attractive as Biel; if you wanna be an actor, be as attractive as...Danny Trejo...

Classic!  Nice.

Funny, but I've never thought Jessica Biel is all that hot.  And I actually used to think Helen Hunt was kind of hot in her own way.

Look at Sigourney Weaver, who's obviously a very talented and popular actress.  Even back in the day, IMO, she was butt ugly.

Other than Danny Trejo, I think I'll have to throw a shout out to old Ernest Borgnine (RIP).  Now, there was an attractive man!  

I agree on being visual with initial descriptions, but saying someone is beautiful comes off as lazy. Especially considering, as you said, characters in movies are always beautiful unless noted otherwise.

"I've always disagreed with character descriptions that amount to mini-biographies of the characters in question.

On the other hand, when a character appears on screen the audience gets a sense of the kind of person it is, just by looking at him.

Casting directors and directors cast to "character" -- and audiences intuitively understand this.

And so what I've always tried to do is to find the prose equivalent of that immediate sense that an audience gets when they first see a character on screen.

They won't start with a blank slate, nor simply with the objective visual information of age and gender and the fact the men are generally ruggedly handsome and the women fashion-model beautiful or girl-next-door beautiful or stunningly beautiful, or beautiful without knowing it or tough-as-nails but beautiful.

No, they'll pretty much immediately get some sense of the kind of people they are, just by looking at them.

In ancient Greek theatre the characters would wear masks, the masks identifying them, even to the most distant members of the audience, the archetypal characters that they were playing in the unfolding drama.

Although audiences today aren't quite aware of it, the way in which we cast movies and in which we select our actors creates a similar situation.

Our actors are archetypal. They project a sense of certain universals types of people. Ideally, as soon as we see them, they project a sense of the sort of person they are, or are meant to be, the qualities that they are intended to embody.

So the goal, in that initial character description, I think, is to find a handful of words that project that initial sense that an audience would get when they first see the character. Not simply his physicality, but how that physicality translates into a sense of character."

Couldn't agree more.

Ghostie

It's a fine line, Ghostie.  A very fine line...

Good points all around. In reality, there is definitely an expectation that film actors, especially leads, be attractive in some sense. Granted, there are exceptions but exceptions denote a norm and most of the exceptions are men anyway.

That said, I agree with the initial post. I don't think it's a writer's responsibility to promote good gender politics (though it'd be nice) but it definitely isn't their responsibility to promote lazy writing. We can do better, indeed.

And for the record, "NAME (36), beautiful despite her age" is pretty damn stupid.

Great thread. Hope a lengthy discussion comes out of it. In the mean time, I gotta run. I expect I'll be back.

There is also this, of course:

Quoted Text Receptionist: How do you write women so well? Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

I'm off to a Spring Training Cactus league game.  Won't be back for awhile, so hopefully we get more different perspectives.

I remember using the phrase, 'girl-next-door beauty' in a script and someone chewed me out for it, partially because he didn't understand the phrase.  I tried explaining it...

There are different ways to say that a woman is attractive/beautiful.  I compared Kirsten Dundst and Denise Richards in the movie 'Drop Dead Gorgeous.'  The two are beautiful in their own way, though I wouldn't describe Denise as girl-next-door beauty.

Describing a woman as beautiful is too vague.  It's like describing a guy as big.


Phil

Quoted from Ghostwriter So the goal, in that initial character description, I think, is to find a handful of words that project that initial sense that an audience would get when they first see the character. Not simply [her] physicality, but how that physicality translates into a sense of character.

Quoted from dogglebe There are different ways to say that a woman is attractive...

But how to do it?

Here are a few women from films you may recognize; these girls are attractive, sure, but you get much more than that when we first "meet" them:

Quoted from Rachel, from Blade Runner No woman can be all things to all men, though RACHEL comes closer than most.  The only trouble is she's all business.  Formidable without really trying.  Some beauty is better avoided and Deckard looks straight ahead.

Quoted from Buttercup, from Princess Bride BUTTERCUP is in her late teens; doesn't care much about clothes and she hates brushing her long hair, so she isn't as attractive as she might be, but she's still probably the most beautiful woman in the world.

Quoted from Carolyn, from American Beauty CAROLYN BURNHAM tends her rose bushes in front of the Burnham house. A very well-put together woman of forty, she wears color-coordinated gardening togs and has lots of useful and expensive tools.

Each of these contain what are arguably "unfilmable" elements that nevertheless translate wonderfully to the screen -- but in the form of tone, and spirit.

If it is done right -- and yes, it can be done wrong -- a small dollop of unfilmable can speak volumes about your character.  You should not be afraid to use it sparingly.

The caveat here is that one needs to learn the difference.  People who tell you never may be well-meaning, but they are mistaken.

Check it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wri.....ionship-with-writers

Thoughts?

Y'know, it's kinda funny that no female writers have joined this thread, yet.  (Until now - and Heretic's avatar not-withstanding.) Come on Pia, Dena and Breanne - get in here!

1) I agree: NAME (36), beautiful despite her age is pretty stupid.

2) There are a handful of female actresses that aren't great to look at (Melissa McCarthy being an example.)

3) But - men DO have an easier time being ugly and successful in the field.  Hey, just look at Steve Buscemi, bless his heart and crooked teeth.

4) With my female characters, I tend to put in something about the way they dress or carry themselves that helps reflect their personality. (Like - "black tank and shorts...a goth ensemble, trying hard to look tough.) Though, I'm not above calling them cute or attractive, too.  Which I'm admittedly a *little* less likely to do with the men.  Though, come to think of it, the only time I really went out of my way to call characters attractive was in a rom-com...so that was definitely justified....

I got kudos for writing

Sally, 25 , heavyset,  easy on the eye

From a few contests

Mark

I would also take Katy Bates over this anyday

I might introduce my next female character as...

CARLA, 26, all hips and a$$.

Quoted from B.C. Check it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wri.....ionship-with-writers Thoughts?

Quality post.

Quoted Text Rather than emulate mediocrity, why not aim to get rid of it?

Something to keep in mind...

The very first contest that I entered I basically got ripped over writing physical descriptions instead of personality. The reader wanted to know WHO they were, not what they looked like.

Since then I've tried to cut back on the looks side and add a couple of words that would be more about their personality. This is for both men and women. As Bert said though, it can be done wrong and I think I still need work to perfect this. Thanks for the examples. I might look back on these from time to time.

Researching it, it would seem that even though it is unfilmable to add personality, it is still good to include something. It not only informs the director/producer a little bit about the character but also lets the actor know how they are saying their intial lines. Some lines are pretty much standard while others may have various tones.

Quoted from wonkavite Y'know, it's kinda funny that no female writers have joined this thread, yet.  (Until now - and Heretic's avatar not-withstanding.) Come on Pia, Dena and Breanne - get in here! 1) I agree: NAME (36), beautiful despite her age is pretty stupid. 2) There are a handful of female actresses that aren't great to look at (Melissa McCarthy being an example.) 3) But - men DO have an easier time being ugly and successful in the field.  Hey, just look at Steve Buscemi, bless his heart and crooked teeth. 4) With my female characters, I tend to put in something about the way they dress or carry themselves that helps reflect their personality. (Like - "black tank and shorts...a goth ensemble, trying hard to look tough.) Though, I'm not above calling them cute or attractive, too.  Which I'm admitted a *little* less likely to do with the men.  Though, come to think of it, the only time I really went out of my way to call characters attractive was in a rom-com...so that was definitely justified....

Well, as one of the female contingent I'll weigh in. A lot of good points have been raised. Thing is if your female 'lead' isn't 'attractive', and I use that term broadly, then you wouldn't want to 'watch'/read.

Here's an example of a well known movie character:

Lisbeth Salander walks in: A small, pale, anorexic-looking waif in her early 20's. Short black dyed hair, pierced eyelid - tattoo of a wasp on her neck; probably several more under her black leather jacket - black t-shirt, black jeans, black Caterpillar boots.

Frode is only middingly successful in concealing his initial reaction to her. This isn't
punk fashion. This is someone saying, Stay the fuck away from me.

Interesting that her character description is made more fully dimensional and better realised by another character commenting on her.

This is what I'd try to aim for, others observation of her, or as Bert said some 'unfilmable' aside to further create 'character' and an image of what the character looks like.

I'd never describe a character as just 'beautiful'. How boring.

It's interesting cause I've been trying to come up with a good character description for one of my women characters and wanted an 'edgy' description. First thing I thought of was the nose ring, tattoo, dyed blue hair etc. The character in Run Lola Run was generally what I was aiming for physically, i.e. has spunk, physically fit, take on men etc. but also determined, feisty, 'never say die' attitude. And therein lies the key.

Thing is all those characteristics sounded cliche'd to me. Every female has a tattoo this days - how to differentiate her from all the others? Not give her a tattoo, for one. When it comes down to it, that first line or couple of lines re her have to contain some essence of her personality as she relates to others and the story that follows.

She has to be 'attractive' though, in the most literal sense of the word i.e. not necessarily sexually alluring or pretty even, but appealing to the audience/reader.

This is a good subject, but I think in terms of describing character it's just as important to not describe your male character as some Mills & Boon rugged, square jawed romeo as well.

In general, 'ugly' men, or 'character' actors, as we've come to know them, just get a hell of a lot more opportunities to shine in movie roles than their plainer female counterparts. Is just the way of the world. Women's roles unless they're playing a 'type' of character the 'fat best friend' or 'ugly duckling' or 'plain funny girl' are required to be attractive or have a compelling personality trait... if not. But then they're the characters that are most interesting anyway.

It's essential imho, when we women are writing about women that we try to avoid stereotypes and write fully fleshed out characters. I don't want my characters to just be glorified 'handbags' to men.

Bette Davis and Joan Crawford had it pretty good. I don't think you get much of that these days. Maybe Meryl Streep, Kathy Bates, Sigourney Weaver come closest to it... oh, and Helen Mirren and Judy Dench!

I think it's not so bad... it's just up to us to write great female fully dimensional characters.

Quoted from RJ The very first contest that I entered I basically got ripped over writing physical descriptions instead of personality. The reader wanted to know WHO they were, not what they looked like.

Funny you should mention that.

Yeah, I'm trying to find it.  There was this article, along with the video of a famous actor, who was commenting on what they look for when they read a script... as far as the character goes.  

He said so many times we see stuff like this...

BLANK (40) handsome.  And his reply, I don't know what that is or means, so I just skip that part.  I wanna know something about my character, something I can work with.  Anyway, he eventually called up a lawyer, because he was playing the part of one, and asked a few question...

One was this... "Did you always want to be a lawyer?"  And the lawyer responded... "Oh God.  No.  I wanted to sing country music and play the guitar.  So the actor ended up  incorporating the guitar into his charater.   The director loved it.

Anyway, it was a very interesting article.  Hopefully I can find it.

Quoted from LC Well, as one of the female contingent I'll weigh in.

BTW - for those who aren't aware - I'm female, too.  (LC, didn't realize you were "one of us"!)  

Quoted from wonkavite BTW - for those who aren't aware - I'm female, too.  (LC, didn't realize you were "one of us"!)

We share another thing in common too, and that is the two writers in one household. Life is never dull, is it?!

Good to meet you officially, Wonka.    

Same here....!    Is the hubby on the boards, as well?

Cheers,

Wonka (Janet)

PS: Two writers in the household.  Never dull.  Which means automatic coverage...not to mention occasional writer "differences of opinion..."  

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.

I would rather see "wise beyond her years" in a script that "beautiful beyond her years."

To be honest, it may be unfilmable at first, but it gives us some insight on how to read that character.

Even if it doesn't it doesn't detract from the script. It doesn't bog it down with backstories that we will never see. It's a simple phrase that tells us something that affects the way the character is perceived, and that, despite not being great writing, is totally filmable.

Quoted from Heretic 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.

True - using "never" and "ever" probably shouldn't be used, but the reality is that you almost have to say these kind of things to smash it into peeps heads not to do certain things, because 99% of the time, it's either incorrect or ineffective.

But Chris, taking your example of Portman's character in The Professional, which, BTW, is one of my all time favorite flicks, doesn't hold any water with me, because as I said a few posts up, we don't need to know this immediately upon her intro - we learn it, as we get to know her.

We find this out through her actions, her interactions, and through her dialogue...which is the way it's supposed to work.

If you're giving a short synopsis of a movie and you need to get info to your readers very quickly, something like that is fine, but IMO, it's far from fine in an actual script.

Quoted from Dreamscale we don't need to know this immediately upon her intro - we learn it, as we get to know her. We find this out through her actions, her interactions, and through her dialogue...which is the way it's supposed to work.

I agree that it's not necessary, but I really don't think it kills the script.

Not that I want to get into this argument with you, but FADE IN: at the beginning of a script is not necessary either, but I have no problem with people who use it. It doesn't detract anything other  a few lines from the page.

Quoted from Dreamscale . 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.

Quoted from Dreamscale - Fade to White I'm not a believer in the old 3 Act structure of a script.

Not trying to stir the pot, but for someone who prides themself on being a noncomformist, Jeff, it sure seems like you've got the cart before the horse when it comes to unfilmables, character intro's, and screenwriting in general.  But on the same note, I hear what you're saying.

Again, not trying to start anything.  Just making an observation.

Quoted from M.Alexander Not trying to stir the pot, but for someone who prides themself on being a noncomformist, Jeff, it sure seems like you've got the cart before the horse when it comes to unfilmables, character intro's, and screenwriting in general.  But on the same note, I hear what you're saying. Again, not trying to start anything.  Just making an observation.

Is this quote from this thread?  Does it have any relevance to this thread?

Using a "standard" and cliched 3 act structure for all your scripts simply shows that you don't know how to write a story that will differ from the masses.

Using unfilmables, poor character intros, and wastes of words shows that you don't know how to effectively write in a visual way

I don't see the connection, personally.

I can see you're not feeling my vibe.   My point is you're being a total stickler on this unflimable thing when you yourself don't adhere to the proposed industry standard format.  So what's the big deal about a few unfilmables in a script?  I see them all the time in pro scripts.  All the time.  So yes, that quote does have relevance. IMO.  Practice what you preach, bro.  

Quoted from Breanne Mattson 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.

I actually like this advice.

Michael, you're not feeling me either, bro.

The issue here isn't "a few unfilmables".  Peeps continually go overboard with the like.  At times, if you pay close attention, wasted words lead to orphans.  Orphans are wasted lines.  Wasted lines lead to wasted pages.  Wasted pages lead to long, irritating reads.

It's basically 1 of many forms of over writing.  I've seen numerous examples of scripts (be there shorts or features) where the over writing is literally at 100%, meaning, the actual script is 1/2 the length of what's being presented.

I'm a stickler for things that don't make sense....things that are flat out wrong or a complete waste.

The funny (or actually, the sad) thing is that most overwritten scripts, filled with unfilmables and the like, are often the least visual scripts.  Writers spend their space using things that offer nothing, as opposed to writing visually, so your readers can engage and "see" what you're trying to show.

I hear what you're saying, Jeff.   It's a fine line between love and hate.

Btw, I thought of a cool movie poster for Fade to White.   Kinda like a pirate flag with a skull and two snow skis as the crossbones.  Feel free to take that and run with it.

Quoted from LC We share another thing in common too, and that is the two writers in one household. Life is never dull, is it?! Good to meet you officially, Wonka.

Enough with the introductions.  Why don't you gals go back in the kitchen and make us men some sammiches?


Phil

Quoted from Felipe 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.

Nope.  You're right on that one.  That's how I read it, too...  

Quoted from dogglebe Enough with the introductions.  Why don't you gals go back in the kitchen and make us men some sammiches? Phil

That's it!  I'm deleting your copy of Final Draft!  PPP  Okay, never mind that.  But just for that comment, I'm switching out your mild for Budweiser when you aren't looking...  

Quoted from dogglebe Enough with the introductions.  Why don't you gals go back in the kitchen and make us men some sammiches?

Just noticed this. Very funny. This line is all too familiar! If you'd tacked on: 'and, get us a beer while you're up darlin', it would have been perfect. Sounds like Janet might agree.

Ok, back to the main thread.

A figure emerges out of the shadow.  It's Special Agent  TANYA KNIGHTBLADE in her tight black leather outfit.  28, sexy atheletic body, dark long flowing hair, brainy with know it all intelligence, luscious rosy lips that all men would want to kiss.

You had me until you said 'brainy' coldbug.


Phil

i think i know what you were going to say Phil.  I can't write what audience won't see on the screen.  "Brainy"..how can you tell she is smart.
Is it what you mean?

Quoted from coldbug A figure emerges out of the shadow.  It's Special Agent  TANYA KNIGHTBLADE in her tight black leather outfit.  28, sexy atheletic body, dark long flowing hair, brainy with know it all intelligence, luscious rosy lips that all men would want to kiss.

I was actually assuming this was a joke post...no?

IMO, there are many, many things wrong with it.  The first being, it's just way too long and detailed.  The last being the ridiculous last part about all men wanting to kiss her lips.  That's downright goofy.

I'm not saying anyone should go out there and try to be William Goldman, but I just love this:

Buttercup is in her late teens; doesn't care much about
clothes and she hates brushing her long hair, so she isn't
as attractive as she might be, but she's still probably the
most beautiful woman in the world.

While you could argue that those descriptions are unfilmable, I'd disagree.

It's a little long, but what's wrong with making an impression when introducing an important character? Give them a grand entrance if your story calls for it.

As much as I'm sick of people emulating great writers, I'm also sick of cold, stale, sparse writing that plagues scripts today.

Quoted from Felipe As much as I'm sick of people emulating great writers, I'm also sick of cold, stale, sparse writing that plagues scripts today.

I'm against cold, stale, sparse writing as well, but in terms of character description, my thoughts differ from yours, Felipe.  I'm all about the visuals in action and description, but IMO, character description can be as simple as an age and a physical descriptor that's important to the character.

In terms of female character's descriptions, just breast size matters.  

Quoted from Felipe It's a little long, but what's wrong with making an impression when introducing an important character? Give them a grand entrance if your story calls for it.

I can agree with this in theory but I think it has to be done extremely well. A lot of the intros I read in pro scripts (let's say 90%) just feel really intrusive and annoying to me. It's like a friend showing you one of their favorite movies for the first time and having them grab your shoulder and whisper shit like "You're gonna love this!" every time some supposedly great moment comes along. Maybe you would if they'd just STFU and let you take it all in at your own speed. In scripts, I hate having someone tell me how I'm supposed to react to something when the elements should really speak for themselves.

Consequently, I think The Princess Bride example is fairly decent.

I also recognize Bert brought that one up, I'm just bringing it back up because Coldbug's description made me think of it.

Quoted from Dreamscale I was actually assuming this was a joke post...no? IMO, there are many, many things wrong with it.  The first being, it's just way too long and detailed.  The last being the ridiculous last part about all men wanting to kiss her lips.  That's downright goofy.

lol..yea it is kind of goofy.  

Quoted from coldbug A figure emerges out of the shadow.  It's Special Agent  TANYA KNIGHTBLADE in her tight black leather outfit.  28, sexy atheletic body, dark long flowing hair, brainy with know it all intelligence, luscious rosy lips that all men would want to have wrapped around their dicks.

I like it.  

Quoted from Guest I like it.

LMAO!!
I was just trying to let the reader imagine how beautfiul (here we go again BEAUTIFUL) and sexy she is in their minds.  I think I finally got someone's attention..haha!

i think you rewrite it better

Quoted from Dreamscale People are more interested in attractive people than unattractive people.

Not sure if people are more interested in that or if that's just what Hollywood uses to get people to watch the movie.

Marty is an excellent script with not so attractive people. Network too, except of course Faye Dunaway which is kind of a given the woman is attractive. But that's the director's choice.

The Apartment. Double Indemnity. Anything by Sturges. Although, Joel McCrea is a handsome man I wouldn't consider him a pretty guy like Clooney, Pitt, or Farrell.

I see that most male screenwriters during the Classical Hollywood era wrote parts for beautiful women and handsome men. And while the men were tough and hard, and maybe not all of them were attractive especially by today's standards, they were real men. Not pretty boys.

Nowadays, my theory is anyway, Hollywood tries to appeal to both men and women and so they throw in attractive man X with attractive woman Y, have 'em talk for 90 to 120 minutes and make bank.

But the screenwriters with the most talent usually write about not so attractive characters, mainly the males because the writers are males. Same probably goes for the novelists. Just something I've noticed.

Quoted from Heretic Women in movies tend to need to be beautiful. Maybe that seeps unconsciously into the writing.

I agree. Women have always been depicted as beautiful in stories, even in the most ancient texts, Goddesses and such.

I use milf or milf-ish sometimes.

You don't have to always itemize your character's attributes in one action line/block.  Space it out.  Do it on the go.  This can apply to location descriptions as well.