Quoted Text 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.

This is what I try to do all the time.  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I always manage to lose people's interest because I don't use fancy words to describe stuff.  And my slugs too, for whatever reason (again) I often fall flat even though it's essentially a description of where we are.

Then there's the description of rooms, what YOU'RE seeing.  People get on my backside for saying "filled with teddy bears" or "dust covered walls folded loosely under a convex roof".  Is that not visual?  

What I said above does not pertain to what I've received here.  It's on another site where the supposed "master race" of screenwriters gather in some weird cave, through lack of a better analogy, in other words a bunch of namby-pamby troglodytes with more time on their hands than helpful critique to share.

Quoted Text 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?

I agree with you here.  I'd like to throw something into this discussion, something most people seem to overlook and I've thrown this in the ring multiple times away from this website too:

A long time ago in a far away land there was a guy.  This guy wrote the very first screenplay.  Where were his rules?  He had no industry standards.  He improvised.  Now we all follow his example as some form of religious law held in high regard.

If someone tells me I can't do "that" in a script, I ask them "why not?" and they respond with "because that's not what you're meant to do, you're meant to do this!" so I merely throw the above paragraph in the ring and they respond with "...but-".

Sure, as writers, we follow the rules as best we can but why follow them to the letter?  

That's just my two cents on the discussion.  

Then again, I've always followed the beat of my own drum so..

Quoted from Leegion   Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I always manage to lose people's interest because I don't use fancy words to describe stuff.

I doubt anyone would lose interest in your story because you don't use fancy words to describe stuff. My vocabulary is tiny and I often have to look up words when certain people here post a comment, so I don't believe that is the case.

Quoted from Leegion Then there's the description of rooms, what YOU'RE seeing.  People get on my backside for saying "filled with teddy bears" or "dust covered walls folded loosely under a convex roof".  Is that not visual?

SUre it's visual, but I think the important thing is - is it necessary?  Do the teddy bears come into play?  Does anyone interact with the teddy bears?  Does it matter if the room has teddy bears or Star Wars figures?

If it's simply a line of description, it shouldn't matter either way and by including it, you are attempting to give this room some kind of life that your readers can see or at least imagine.

Does it matter if a house is described in great detail as being white with red shutters and circular windows?  Only if there are other houses that look different, as in, once you see this house, you know whos it is, but then again, in a filmed version, do the exact details matter?

Quoted from Leegion If someone tells me I can't do "that" in a script, I ask them "why not?" and they respond with "because that's not what you're meant to do, you're meant to do this!"

You should answer them by explaining why you did it and how it makes perfect sense.  And, maybe, even explain why what they're saying is actually incorrect.

You should always find the best way(s) to do things in all walks of life, including writing, because as I always say and will always continue to, just because a Pro does something some way, that doesn't make it right and it doesn't necessarily make it the best way.

If you ask me why i say not to use "we see" and "we hear", I tell you exactly why, because everything that's written in a script will be seen and heard. Period.  It's a waste of space.  It's a waste fo time.  And, it's irritating.  

If you ask me why I always say not to repeat your Slug in your opening action/description line, I'll tell you exactly - it's a waste.  It's repetitive.  It's irritating.

You know what, though?  Check out some Pro scripts and see how often they do both.  Does that mean my reasoning is incorrect?  Does it mean you shold do it a well, since the Pros do?

NO...definitely not.

Prose is prose. If the writer has the reader's interest at heart then the largest vocabulary in the world won't do any good. Adverbs and adjectives are usually only effective when they contrast with what they modify:

Aspiring collapse
Innocent sin
Huge waste

And your fancy words don't have to be fancy at all, but if the connotation is appropriate for situation, it can enhance the read. Additionally, picking where you place your words in the sentence is just as important. If the last word of your sentence is strong, you'll encourage the reader to move forward to the next, and they won't even realize it.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I doubt anyone would lose interest in your story because you don't use fancy words to describe stuff. My vocabulary is tiny and I often have to look up words when certain people here post a comment, so I don't believe that is the case.

My writing was bad then, so I may have took it as "you've a bad vocabulary".  

There are a lot of vocabulary-nazis (per se) out there that get on your backside for not using profound means of descriptions.  Though, my writing has improved exponentially since I originally posted on the site.

As an example, I used to use "rounded outward" as opposed to "convex/concave" and "rocky columns" rather than "stalactites/stalagmites".

I think it was just their way of saying "get a dictionary".  As most of them liked the synopsis, but despised the draft...

Quoted Text SUre it's visual, but I think the important thing is - is it necessary?  Do the teddy bears come into play?  Does anyone interact with the teddy bears?  Does it matter if the room has teddy bears or Star Wars figures? If it's simply a line of description, it shouldn't matter either way and by including it, you are attempting to give this room some kind of life that your readers can see or at least imagine. Does it matter if a house is described in great detail as being white with red shutters and circular windows?  Only if there are other houses that look different, as in, once you see this house, you know whos it is, but then again, in a filmed version, do the exact details matter?

Again, agreed.  Whenever I mention what's in a room I do attempt to set up what kind of room this is.  Is it a child's room, a girl/boy's room, an adult's room or a teenager's room?  

Each one has a different look and feel.  The child's room would be full of toys.  Girl's room full of cute, fluffy stuff (no clue, my sister has cute, fluffy stuff).  Boy's room, perhaps video-games or something.  Teenager's room would be messy or clean, depending on the gender (I was messy... *am* messy) and an adult's room would offer some form of fine decor or clean furnishings, four post bed even.

Is it important?  Not really.  Does it matter?  Yes.  You need to know where you are, otherwise you could be in an alien child boy/girl's adult teenage bedroom on Saturn.

Quoted Text You should answer them by explaining why you did it and how it makes perfect sense.  And, maybe, even explain why what they're saying is actually incorrect. You should always find the best way(s) to do things in all walks of life, including writing, because as I always say and will always continue to, just because a Pro does something some way, that doesn't make it right and it doesn't necessarily make it the best way. If you ask me why i say not to use "we see" and "we hear", I tell you exactly why, because everything that's written in a script will be seen and heard. Period.  It's a waste of space.  It's a waste fo time.  And, it's irritating.   If you ask me why I always say not to repeat your Slug in your opening action/description line, I'll tell you exactly - it's a waste.  It's repetitive.  It's irritating. You know what, though?  Check out some Pro scripts and see how often they do both.  Does that mean my reasoning is incorrect?  Does it mean you shold do it a well, since the Pros do? NO...definitely not.

I've read plenty of pro scripts and seen those terms "we see" and "we hear".  It gets on my nerves too.  

It's one of the things I hate about "Pro" screenplays, also, the incredibly long action blocks.

Some of these pro scripts have too much detail, countless shots rolled up into one single paragraph spanning over 10 lines each.  I just finished reading The Dark Knight script, there was a paragraph of action there roughly 12 lines long.

I learned from pro scripts.  Mistake on my part.  I should have learned from spec scripts here on the site because spec scripts read better than pro scripts, and offer a much simpler example as to how scripts function.

When I first started, I used pro scripts as a guideline or "how to".  Yeah, using camera functions and "We's" every five seconds is more annoying than wanting to go but being constipated.  (that's a disgusting term, sorry, )

In my opinion, we should just go with what makes us comfortable.  Write it our way.  Use our voice and don't borrow someone else's.

-Lee

Quoted from Leegion Again, agreed.  Whenever I mention what's in a room I do attempt to set up what kind of room this is.  Is it a child's room, a girl/boy's room, an adult's room or a teenager's room?   Each one has a different look and feel.  The child's room would be full of toys.  Girl's room full of cute, fluffy stuff (no clue, my sister has cute, fluffy stuff).  Boy's room, perhaps video-games or something.  Teenager's room would be messy or clean, depending on the gender (I was messy... *am* messy) and an adult's room would offer some form of fine decor or clean furnishings, four post bed even. Is it important?  Not really.  Does it matter?  Yes.  You need to know where you are, otherwise you could be in an alien child boy/girl's adult teenage bedroom on Saturn. -Lee

Lee, just to be clear, I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying about this.

First of all, IMO, there's absolutely nothing wrong with throwing out a simple line of description about a room or house or whatever.  Some will complain for some unknown reason, but I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.

Secondly, you have to understand that if your Slug is "TEENAGER BILLY'S ROOM", most peeps will already understand what a male teenager's room will look like.  So, in a way, your description really isn't necessary, but again, giving a visual is not a bad thing.

But, check this out.  Let's pretend your Slug is "JOHNSON GARAGE".  OK?  So, again, most peeps can envision a garage, so you don't need to describe the cars or bikes, or lawn tools, or whatever, really.  BUT, if a character will later take a sledge hammer off a rack and whack someone in the face with it, it would be nice if you mention early on that there's a rack of tools on a wall.

Know what I'm saying?

If your Slug is "BATALI MANSION" and a good majority of your action will take place within this house, you'll want to set up the layout early on.  For instance, "The greatroom is large with a hallway leading off to the right and a grand stairway leading upstairs.  The back is open to a huge, gourmet kitchen.

That way, when your characters interact within this house or greatroom, it won't be a surprise if someone comes in from the hallway with a flame thrower and wastes Mario Batali, as he flambes Bananas Foster in the kitchen.

Make sense?  

Quoted from Dreamscale You should always find the best way(s) to do things in all walks of life, including writing, because as I always say and will always continue to, just because a Pro does something some way, that doesn't make it right and it doesn't necessarily make it the best way.

It certainly makes it right for that Pro, wouldn't you think? It's true there is no best way, or that there is only one right way. But didn't everyone already know that? It's seems obvious what you're saying. So this is not a very helpful statement in itself, actually. But on the other hand, its also the case that if one feels the need to do something like a Pro might do it, that doesn't mean they are doing it without reason and just straight up copying them. Perhaps they understand the effect of doing it that way. And that's what they want in their writing. That's where I think you're deeply mistaken.

Quoted from Dreamscale If you ask me why i say not to use "we see" and "we hear", I tell you exactly why, because everything that's written in a script will be seen and heard. Period.  It's a waste of space.  It's a waste fo time.  And, it's irritating.

Unless you're trying to direct the eye of the reader, it isn't, as Kevin mentioned earlier. Which I suppose you still think is wrong anyway. You're free to believe that. Bare in mind the script for Citizen Kane has camera angles written all over it yet Welles contributed not one iota to the writing.

-J.S.

Quoted from J.S. It certainly makes it right for that Pro, wouldn't you think? It's true there is no best way, or that there is only one right way. But didn't everyone already know that? It's seems obvious what you're saying. So this is not a very helpful statement in itself, actually. But on the other hand, its also the case that if one feels the need to do something like a Pro might do it, that doesn't mean they are doing it without reason and just straight up copying them. Perhaps they understand the effect of doing it that way. And that's what they want in their writing. That's where I think you're deeply mistaken.

If it's something that everyone already knows, why do peeps continuously say, "well, so and so did it, so I am too"?

And if you or anyone else is continuously quoting Pros or Black List scripts to "prove" what you're saying is correct, aren't you the one who doesn't quite understand this?

Quoted from J.S. Unless you're trying to direct the eye of the reader, it isn't, as Kevin mentioned earlier. Which I suppose you still think is wrong anyway. You're free to believe that. Bare in mind the script for Citizen Kane has camera angles written all over it yet Welles contributed not one iota to the writing.-J.S.

If you're referring to Kevin's example of Inglorious Bastards, I completely understand, but let's also understand that there are numerous ways to show this, without using "we see".

If you don't understand that and can't for the life of you figure out how, I think you need to back off and rethink everything you think you know so well.

And, James, please, PLEASE, let's not quote scripts or movies from the 40's or anywhere near that period.  Really?  Scriptwritign has evolved so damn much, een in the last 10-15 years.  You can't grab some version of a script from a beloved movie and act like you've got the Spec script that launched the flick.

You go ahead and write just like your favorite Pro and hopefully it will take you wherever it is you want to go.

Quoted from Leegion My writing was bad then, so I may have took it as "you've a bad vocabulary".   There are a lot of vocabulary-nazis (per se) out there that get on your backside for not using profound means of descriptions.  Though, my writing has improved exponentially since I originally posted on the site. As an example, I used to use "rounded outward" as opposed to "convex/concave" and "rocky columns" rather than "stalactites/stalagmites". I think it was just their way of saying "get a dictionary".  As most of them liked the synopsis, but despised the draft...

English is my second language and when I first started writing in -06, my language was horrendous. I have learned a LOT since then though. Words and grammar and spelling too. All thanks to writing scripts and putting them up here and getting feedback. Seriously. People here helped me.

What bugs me now when reading scripts is the lack of action verbs in scripts. I'm so tired of reading "he looks, she looks, he walks, she walks, and so on. There are many different ways of looking and walking. Use a thesaurus and you can tighten your writing by just using the right action verb instead of having to describe the "look or the walk".  

Quoted from Dreamscale Lee, just to be clear, I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying about this. First of all, IMO, there's absolutely nothing wrong with throwing out a simple line of description about a room or house or whatever.  Some will complain for some unknown reason, but I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Secondly, you have to understand that if your Slug is "TEENAGER BILLY'S ROOM", most peeps will already understand what a male teenager's room will look like.  So, in a way, your description really isn't necessary, but again, giving a visual is not a bad thing. But, check this out.  Let's pretend your Slug is "JOHNSON GARAGE".  OK?  So, again, most peeps can envision a garage, so you don't need to describe the cars or bikes, or lawn tools, or whatever, really.  BUT, if a character will later take a sledge hammer off a rack and whack someone in the face with it, it would be nice if you mention early on that there's a rack of tools on a wall. Know what I'm saying? If your Slug is "BATALI MANSION" and a good majority of your action will take place within this house, you'll want to set up the layout early on.  For instance, "The greatroom is large with a hallway leading off to the right and a grand stairway leading upstairs.  The back is open to a huge, gourmet kitchen. That way, when your characters interact within this house or greatroom, it won't be a surprise if someone comes in from the hallway with a flame thrower and wastes Mario Batali, as he flambes Bananas Foster in the kitchen. Make sense?

This makes more sense.  Think I've an idea now of what you mean.  Hopefully this assists me in future projects and gets those "people" off my back.

Quoted from Grandma Bear English is my second language and when I first started writing in -06, my language was horrendous. I have learned a LOT since then though. Words and grammar and spelling too. All thanks to writing scripts and putting them up here and getting feedback. Seriously. People here helped me. What bugs me now when reading scripts is the lack of action verbs in scripts. I'm so tired of reading "he looks, she looks, he walks, she walks, and so on. There are many different ways of looking and walking. Use a thesaurus and you can tighten your writing by just using the right action verb instead of having to describe the "look or the walk".

Lots of he/she's find themselves into my scripts.  I bought this 6-book study library thing from Webster's a couple of days ago, comes with some nifty stuff, spelling, grammar, world facts, world atlas (helps for finding locations), dictionary and thesaurus.  

I decided I'd had enough of writing the same phrases all the time.  Examples of that thing you mentioned I've now learned "He swaggers, strolls, gaits, saunters, ambles" etc.  Always best to have alternate words to use to avoid repetition.

I don't think anybody with an ounce of originality about them should write like their favorite pro. However, it is invaluable to read pro scripts (something that's produced) and learn from it. Borrow from it in bite sized pieces. The same goes for amateur scripts. Enough studying (reading) AND writing should hopefully provide your voice, which for me, was elusive at first and is still not entirely perfected.

There's a comedy short, I think it's called "Bubbles," which is posted here somewhere, that is written by a pro with an IMDB profile and some credentials to back it up. Reading it for the first time was like a revelation of sorts for me. This guy was really good.

However, I can read stuff by Michael Kospiah, Shawn or Mark Lyons (to name a few) and say the exact same thing.

To each his own.

Study tools are great, too. I have a thesaurus next to me at all times. But reading, then writing and practicing your craft is the one sure fire way to turn your amateur script into "pro" status. It takes time.

Steve

Quoted from Dreamscale If it's something that everyone already knows, why do peeps continuously say, "well, so and so did it, so I am too"?

Jeff, re-read what I wrote because you've misunderstood what I wrote somewhere along the way.

Your claim is, "just because a Pro does something some way, that doesn't make it right and it doesn't necessarily make it the best way."

And I agree that in and of it self what a Pro does will not be the best way or right way for everyone, in some sort of objective way of writing. But since there really is no objective way of writing, that's why what you're saying is really actually nothing at all.

Quoted from Dreamscale If you're referring to Kevin's example of Inglorious Bastards, I completely understand, but let's also understand that there are numerous ways to show this, without using "we see"."

As I wrote earlier, I'm not rule conscious like you seem to be. So I don't sit there and attempt to stop myself from writing we see.

But okay. Rewrite the opening of Stoker I posted earlier. I want to see your take on it.

Quoted from Dreamscale And, James, please, PLEASE, let's not quote scripts or movies from the 40's or anywhere near that period.  Really?  Scriptwritign has evolved so damn much, een in the last 10-15 years.

I was pointing out the elements that have stayed the same a la camera angles and such. That's remained in there.

Quoted from Dreamscale You go ahead and write just like your favorite Pro and hopefully it will take you wherever it is you want to go.

You have an outrageously absolutist mindset. To quote you from earlier, "I don't know what you're smoking wherever you are, but things like this just ain't black and white, brother." So are you contradicting yourself now?

I'm not talking about "writing just like" anyone. I'm talking about writing a la this or that way for this or that reason. Everybody will find their own way to do that. Because there is no one way or best way. This is so obvious to me, since every great writer in the history of the world has done it, I don't know what your beef is with it. I mean, whatever. If you have some notion your ideas or your writing isn't influenced by any writer, okay. If you want to start from the beginning and not follow in the footsteps of others like every writer has done, every musician has done, and every artist has done, suits me. As Kevin said, less competition.

-J.S.

There is no objective way to write?! Gee whilickers...

I'm a little schlammied but half way through a response to James.

But yeah...really?  What is an objective way to write?

You claim: "just because a Pro does something some way, that doesn't make it right and it doesn't necessarily make it the best way."

There's a difference between what a Pro does for reasons X, Y, or Z and a Pro doing something and it being correct "just because a Pro does it", or in other words, being arbitrarily right just 'cause they're a Pro.

The second part is how I understand your statement. Unless you mean you should never under any circumstance do it like a Pro, then you clearly don't know what you're talking about to anyone who's read enough about any writer in history.

I'm saying, it's okay to do what another Pro does if one understands the reasons the Pro did it. And I agree that one shouldn't just do what a Pro does "just because they are a Pro". Meaning, you don't actually understand why you're doing it. You're just copying them mindlessly.

But then you add on the words "the best way". As if there is some indisputably best way of writing. Call it the objective way of writing. Well, there is no such way. So of course I'm going to agree with that, since nothing like that exists.

-J.S.