Quoted from KevinLenihan But if a writer is to reach his/her full potential, he has to graduate to understanding there are no rules...only tools. At that point you take your writing to another level...

I've been with you all the way mate... but this in particular is a nice quote.

Quoted from Dreamscale Mo, the opening you quoted, IMO, is very poory written.  It reads like a novel and for me, it reads poorly, as it's so overwritten.  And, it's not visual writing, either, IMO. .

Jeffro, I gotta disagree with you, man.  It's far better than what I normally see.  Mo is right about (paraphrasing) some writer just writing "a car drives by while a storm rages on."  That shit is so bland.  I see it all the time.  I know you are really strict with a lot of things, especially "asides."  You really hammered that -- among other things -- in your critique of the first 2 pages of a draft I sent you of The Big Fade.  

The thing that surprises me the most?  One of the very first drafts I sent you had character descriptions like the one you disliked, yet you were the biggest supporter of the script.  You loved it.  You had nothing bad to say about it.  You didn't even trash my "cheesy asides" (what you called it this go around) that have carried over to every subsequent draft.


--Steve

Quoted from KevinL But if a writer is to reach his/her full potential, he has to graduate to understanding there are no rules...only tools. At that point you take your writing to another level...

Yes, Dustin. I also agree with this statement. Sounds like something Roy Clark would say. Writers with an understanding of the countless tools will write their own rule; furthermore, achieve a voice that will entertain a reader's point of view. Basically, great writers are aware of exactly how a reader will navigate their story.

Since I've been onboard SS, criticism leans more toward writing than story, and for good reason I believe. From the readers point of view, clarity isn't prominent in a majority of scripts. Maybe it's trying to overload a single thought, or mimic trends in the industry. But right there is the Catch-22, because the industry is its own rule.

Screenwriting is a tricky craft, and I've heard the argument from both sides of the table -- writing vs story. A great story doesn't enhance shit writing, and great writing doesn't help a shit story. You need both.

See, I am not taking some kind of side in a good writing vs good story debate. To me, the issue is what actually constitutes good writing. I personally want my writing to be the best it can be, and I never stop trying to improve.

I think one thing that leads people astray is the notion that a script is supposed to be a blue print.

Not really.

A blueprint is boring. Picture a building blueprint...carefully measured lines and angles, numbers everywhere, bare naked structure. Who looks at a blue print and gets excited?

If people are going to invest mega time and money into a script, they have to be excited about it!

Of course, there are some standards that have developed over time(which are always changing, too), and if a writer doesn't make his script look and smell like a screenplay, the reader will assume he's not a screenwriter. That doesn't help the cause at all.

But if the writer knows what he's doing, the reader will sense this right away. So as long as it looks and smells like a script, the goal is to use the writing form that best achieves the goal of getting the reader excited about the story.

I recently had to rewrite a script I wrote 2 years ago. That script conformed to all the "rules"...and it was annoying as all hell! I ended up having to make major fixes to practically every action description.

Where the "rules" forced awkward writing, I had to break the rules and make adjustments. Occasionally active voice was converted to passive. "ing" words made a triumphant return where it made sense. And heaven forbid, there are even a few adverbs now.

I think it's probably best for beginning writers to learn the "rules".

But then move on to better writing.

As evidenced in most...most...pro level scripts.

Quoted from KevinLenihan A blueprint is boring. Picture a building blueprint...carefully measured lines and angles, numbers everywhere, bare naked structure. Who looks at a blue print and gets excited?

I don't think that's what people mean when they say a script is a blueprint. The end goal is that it becomes a movie. A script is the movie on paper, just as a house blueprint is the house on paper, or an airplane blueprint is the airplane on paper.

But think I understand what you're trying to say though. Writers have the notion that it doesn't have to have life on the page just because things will change during the process of the script being "constructed" into a movie, and thereby omitting crucial details/ failing to omit unnecessary ones, giving the character too much specificity/underwriting the character, etc. etc.

-J.S.

I might be backtracking on what I said before, whatever, as if my words have been anything but garbage recently anyway, but I may have to fall on my sword or whatever and admit J.S. and Kevin are right and I agree with them both. In which case, I owe J.S. an apology of which I am making right now.

I was going to say as long as you paint a picture that's decipherable to a majority, that's all that matters. Paint your picture clearly and there should be no problem with the message coming across.

I've also been on this rollercoaster where I'm constantly doubting what words to use, what phrases, expressions, stupid mundane things that never have even bothered me before... now I'm being somewhat treated as a PRO ( lol ) I am shrinking into someone that is swimming in a bowl way, way too big for my inexperienced ass. Instead of having more belief, because projects have stalled, I'm thinking I was wrong to write freely. Now I think I should stop the WE SEE, We HEAR, BEATS, and now I have to CONDEMN any one that thinks they are right... although I got optioned, signed and paid using the same thing I just said no-one should ever use!

Basically, I should have kept my mouth shut. I don't even know what the hell is going on with my stuff, how can I possibly offer credible advise to anyone else?

I actually agree with JS on the blueprint thing. When working with exec's, producers, directors DOPs and even actors, a screenwriter soon learns just how much of a blueprint their script actually is.

That doesn't mean though that we should write so sparingly. The idea of our scripts is to entertain and help a producer, exec or whoever, see the potential. Perfection takes time, and it also takes input from other people, professional people. I'm always amazed (in a good way) at how somebody can tell me what is wrong with my story but can't write one themselves...

We need to remember also that we are selling a written medium. We have to impress with the words that are on the page. I'm not saying write like (The) King... but we need to show off what we can do, and we can't do that when sticking staunchly to rules. They have to be broken in the right way, but broken all the same.

I've tried to change the way I review others work in that, where possible, I look at the story. However there are still a lot of writers here that obviously don't know the rules in the first place, so certainly have no rights breaking them. They do need somebody like Jeff helping them out... best way to help people is tell them straight. Not saying he's always right though either... but people have to be intelligent enough to see the wood for the trees.... or they might as well give up now. The only reason I'm here now and not sitting at home hand writing everything on A4 is because I want to write professionally. So I assume everyone here is for the same thing.


Scoob... lots of scripts have been sold with beats in them. If it fits, use it.. or maybe you did enough with the story alone. The only reason I wouldn't use BEATS and I've never used them is because it's an American thing. Pause is British. Like full stop and period. I have used pause quite a few times... and I will do so again if the mood takes me. If the drama fits it. Like sound effects. Use once in a script. Two is overkill. OK, maybe two is OK... but if you think of it as overkill, then you will use sparingly. Too much of something ruins the aesthetics of a read. The story will still be sound... but the actual read itself will have 'huh?' moments for the reader. Most readers are actually very forgiving of minor irritations I've found... but best not to go there in the first place.

Dustin, thanks!
Well said, thank you. I agree on all points.
Thanks for the encouraging words I appreciate it, cheers!

I've put BEATS in as pauses plenty of times, I was being an absolute dick to J.S.
I did a WE SEE as recently as the other week.

I have to stop posting on here as if I have something to prove. If the film gets made, cool! If not, I have to deal with it and live with snide comments, haha.

The thing about the BEAT was, I was thinking exactly like you put it. It is overkill if you use it too many times. Same as any terminology that is frowned upon.

There must be a better way of describing that without using the BEAT. I'm writing, or have finished writing, this story that is set in one house with one girl and her parents. It relies on BEATS of silence. But there are ways around this to make it work, without using simple BEAT. Maybe this is what pissed me off.
I dunno.

Anyway, thanks for your comments

I've actually used 'Silence.' as a single word on its own action line quite a few times. It's just got to be done right. Obviously doing that too many times will ruin its impact.

However, too... if you're writing on commission then you don't really need to impress with your writing. That's for spec scripts. On commission you can get away with more. So long as the story is good and the dialogue crisp throughout then you're good to go... but at the same time, I suppose there's the perfectionist in all of us that wants to produce the best work we can. Plus, we don't want that exec looking at other scripts and thinking, why doesn't my guy write like that?

I really don't want to keep beating on this dead horse, but I think some of my comments have been taken out of context or maybe just misunderstood, so I want to try and explain a bit better.

We can argue about a spec script being a blueprint for a film or just an idea that will go through many changes, and both camps are correct to a certain degree.  But, if you really spend the time in your research and thoughts, and you're a good writer who knows what you're doing, a spec script really can be a blueprint, and in theory, can actually work exactly as written.

It rarely is going to work out that way, but why not try?  Why not literally put your very best foot forward and write the very best script you can?

OK, what does that mean, exactly?

Well, it means exactly what I said.  Be the expert in your details.  Think through how your characters would really act and react in the situations you create.  Write dialogue how your charcters would actually talk.  And finally, and probably most importantly, write in a way that is both visual and engaging...and of course, write error free prose that reads well and impresses.

I think the core of the ongoing arguments about Pro vs. amateur writing has to do with these certain "rules" that are thrown around.  Do this, don't do that.  But why should you do this but not do that?

It's obviously a matter of opinion, but for me, my opinions are grounded in what I feel is right and what is wrong and I have reasons why I developed those feelings, and it had/has nothing to do with what someone else thinks or says.

Why am I so against using the phrases, "We see...", "We hear...", etc.?  To me, it's so glaringly obvious, I actually get upset when otehrs just don't or can't get it.

Everythign in a script that's written as action/desciption will be seen and will be heard. It's so simple, for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone, especially a Pro would use such wasted words in their script.  It's beyond Screenwriting 101, really.

The ONLY time such a phrase could or should be used, is when you're directing the shot so completely, that you have to make the reader aware of exactly what or how they're seeing what you're trying to convey.

For instance, if you want to have a POV shot from the camera's perspective - flying/gliding over a landscape, you could write, "We glide over barren land, approaching a small herd of mutant babies."  Whatever...but...and this is a big but...is that ever really necessary in a Spec script?  The answer?  No, it's definitely not necessary.  It's literally your view of how you see this shot playing out.

Now, on another related subject, it seems there are numerous peeps here who feel the only way to "write interestingly" is to "break rules", and I disagree so vehemently, I just can't stop responding.

I'm all for engaging writing.  I'm all for visual writing.  I'm all for writing any way you need to, to convey what you want and need to get across.  I'm just not for BS writing that covers up weaknesses, and more often than not, that's exactly what happens when peeps try and get all cutesy with their prose and formatting.

There are so many ways to write effectively in which vitually no one will take offense.  But, understand that whether you believe it or not, there are also many who will take offense to BS styles of writing because they will be able to see through all the BS and realize there's really nothing left when it's stripped away.

It's pretty simple for me to spot a good writer vs. a not so good writer.  Based on feedback from most SSers, I know this is not true for most peeps,as pure garbage gets praised and obvious mistakes go unnoticed.

I'll leave with one of my patented analogies and see if it stikes a chord with anyone.

We've got 2 smoking hot 25 year old babes out to dinner in a classy restaurant.  For this comparison, let's assume they're literally equally smoking hot in all regards.  Babe 1 wears a ridiculously low cut top that shows her assets completely, and a skin tight skirt that barely covers her...uh...her...well, you know.  Babe 2 wears a nice clothing that accentuates her assets but leaves much to the imagination.

Babe 1 will draw the attention of both men and women, because what she's wearing is rather ridonkulous.  Babe 2 will also draw attention, because she's stunning and classy, but the attention she draws will be of the positive sort.

The point?  If it's good, you don't have to dress it up to draw attention to it.  Just let it speak for itself.

All dressed up and no place to go

When I talk about breaking or bending rules, I am generally not talking about dressing up writing. That's a common misconception. Many people seem to think I am advocating "flowery prose", as someone else said.

No. I'm not advocating that at all, though a little well done color is fine with me.

What I'm talking about is strictly functional. I once read a script from a good writer here where there was a fight scene on the side of the road. And every time the action crossed that barrier from pavement to grass he felt obliged by the rules to form a new slug. This was a veteran writer from here. He obviously felt the rules insisted on this "change of location" from road to side of the road. So the scene was burdened with slugs, several of them, which slowed the read and added nothing to the clarity of the scene.

Likewise, I read scripts where every verb is active...every single one...and all 'ing's have been eliminated...and I say to myself, is this good wiring? Would someone who was not a screenwriter think this is good writing, and if not, why in the heck do we?

Active verbs are generally preferable...great rule of thumb. But when it becomes converted into a rule, it results eventually in awkward writing. And the perfectly written amateur script...by the book...is INVARIABLY filled with awkward writing.

to prose or not to prose

That's a style choice. Done well and done conservatively, it can enhance the script. I'm not advocating it, and it doesn't bother me. MAKE the reader EXCITED about your script. What else matters? Here are some samples of things I've heard routinely: "Don't make the shooting script writer have to work to hard." WTF! Who cares? "Actors don't like..." Who cares! The goal is to make a reader excited about the project. Anything that helps that end = good. Anything that gets in the way = bad.

sailing the great We Sees

Jeff is correct. We should only use it when we are directing the shot...and sometimes we have to when it's important. The example I used previously is when the camera drifts down in the opening of Inglorious Bastards to show the Jews hiding under the floor. There shouldn't be a lot of shots like this in a script, and there often won't be any...but if you need the 'we see' tool, use it!

notes on scripts

We don't score scripts here. Feedback is intended to help the writer. And different writers need different kinds of help. Some need encouragement, especially very new writers. Some need tough love. It varies.

There ARE other things to consider when looking at a script besides the writing. If the writer writes well, but makes no attempt to make the character interesting or sympathetic or empathetic or in any way compelling, we have to really challenge them to do that. Perhaps the story makes up for that by creating an irresistible mystery or imaginative plot, and these are all things that feedback should address.

being a repetitive a$$

OK, that's me! Hello! But I want to repeat: this is not about "dressing a script up", or "flowery prose".

Part of engaging the reader is being efficient. Most readers are pouring through many scripts. Flowery prose would tend to get in the way.

But note the difference. I am saying excessive prose is a problem because it slows the read. I am not saying it's a problem because it breaks a rule, or because it annoys readers who have been trained to have certain expectations.

Show the reader she is in competent, confident hands.

Establish a voice...hard to do if your script sounds the same as every person who's taken a course in screenwriting.

But above all else, take the reader, who is cruising rapidly through your script, and help him see a movie in it. Make her excited about it. Use whatever tools you need. And if the rules get in the way, and you don't have the courage to bend them...

And Jeff, the battle has been all in good fun, so don't worry about the dead horse. No one's twisting any arms to read our comments! Tastes great, less filling! It doesn't get settled, it's just something for us to do.

Scoob, It's all good Things really didn't get out of hand to warrant an apology. And you were not an absolute dick. Trust me, I wasn't offended.

Just to add on to what Kevin is saying. To me, breaking or not breaking "rules" all depends on what you're trying to do. Which is why I don't keep myself busy thinking about them as I write.

If you're writing an action script, maybe you'll feel the need to do more of this and less of that. Same goes for a thriller. Same goes for a comedy. Same goes for a drama. Every genre sort of thrusts you into a different territory of thinking about the story and essentially visualizing the movie. And so that will reflect itself in your writing. So maybe I feel its okay to do a POV here and use a we see because that's what I want the reader to see for reasons X,Y,Z. Or maybe I have no reasons at all and I'm just fucking with people.

My feelings are that if you're trying to be flowery in order to impress, that's what people will see: you trying to impress. If you write moment by moment how you visualize the movie, alternatively, people will see the movie moment by moment. If you give the sense of not knowing what you're doing, people will see that when they read your writing.

-J.S.

All well put Kevin, and your voise does come through here and that is obviously important.

Sometimes "dressing up a script" can be misconstrued.  And my analogy was not meant to say that...exactly.  It was more meant to say that there's a fine line to dressing up a script...or dressing down a babe, and most of the time, IMO, it just isn't necessary, and often, can become a deterrent to the read and can leave a foul taste in the reader's drooling mouth.

There's a reason why peeps detest overuse of adverbs and adjectives in scripts.  That's not to say 1 here and there will be an issue.

There's a reason why peeps detest the use of asides and other such unfilmables in scripts, but again, that's not to say one can't use them here and there, where they actually help the read.

Same goes with all these "rules", but the bottom line is that most amateur writers don't know the difference between when to do it and when not to.  And this is really where all these discussions originate.

But, IMO, it includes the Pros as well.  And the problems arise when peeps read these Pro scripts and think that if a Pro wrote it like this, it must be perfect and it must be the way to write, and they try and emulate the style, usually resulting in a very poor effort.

Back to Babe 1 and Babe 2.  Babe 1 obviously thinks/knows she's hot shit and wants to flaunt it.  Babe 2 knows the same thing, but knows she doesn't need to, and by dressing "properly", her beauty is what will stand out, not the fact that she's attracting oglers because she's basically baring it all.

If I was looking to get laid for the night, I'd jump all over Babe 1.

If I was looking for a girlfriend, I wodln't touch Babe 1...I'd go right to Babe 2 and be a much happier man for it.

Babe 1 stands out for all the wrong reasons.  Babe 2 stands out for all the right reasons.

Quoted from J.S. My feelings are that if you're trying to be flowery in order to impress, that's what people will see: you trying to impress. If you write moment by moment how you visualize the movie, alternatively, people will see the movie moment by moment. If you give the sense of not knowing what you're doing, people will see that when they read your writing.

Good point, JS. I've found that if I write, say, an awkward action line, and I know it reads awkward, nine times out of ten an astute reviewer will call me on that exact line. It never fails. So, there's definitely something to be said about the ways you want to convey things to your reader, and the ways you don't.

Steve

Just got this quote in an email... I feel it is somewhat apt:

"Everything at the end of the day when you're making a movie starts with the material and how well written the script is...I've never seen a silk purse made from a sow's ear...I've never seen it happen wherein a 'crap' script with 'crap' characters, a director somehow found a way to make a masterpiece out of it.

And that's the constant struggle we all sort of have as actors...it's finding those gems and that's why people grab onto them like vultures...

When you find a great piece of material or a great script it's like (motions with his hands in a vulture grip). You should see what happens...it's like a piranha feeding fest!" ~Leonardo DiCaprio