All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
This is not really a big thing. I just wanted to get some opinions on the matter.
Now I read somewhere a long time ago that -- is used in screenwriting when an action gets interrupted. Usually in dialogue, but in action lines as well.
example:
JOHN I think that it's best we --
TOM -- NO! You don't, you don't think. ---------------------------------------
Or when it comes to action lines. example:
John is on the floor, he reaches over grabs the knife, turns --
WHACK! He gets hit with a shovel. -----------------------------------------
Now I read the original Sin City script a few days back. It uses -- in a different way.
example: CRASH! -- COPS fall backward as -- MARV smashes through the DOOR -- splintering it --
I seem to recall there's em dash and en dash. The first has a space in it, the second doesn't. I would try and explain in detail but search engines do it so much better.
To be brief - (ahem)
Opinions vary, as always. One dash at the end of the sentence you're breaking early should suffice.
A single dash is also often used to when you're linking one action to another.
Haha...Yep, I just love them. A technique I cribbed from W. Goldman, a man that I figure knows mostly what he is doing. Some say I use it too much. They may be right.
Plucking a random sentence from a recent script, I use 'em like this:
He walks with a cane -- it TAPS as he moves -- while white smoke curls up from the pipe clenched in his teeth.
But not in dialogue. In dialogue...when breaking things up...you use an ellipse...which is three periods in a row.
Like everything, opinions will vary, but I think the double-dash is more accepted in screenwriting than any of its "em" or "en" counterparts.
Johnny has it right on the money. It's used to soften the read and make the action keep flowing rather than feel stale or dense. Here's an example from the first page of Ion by Will Dunn, which was a huge huge influence in my writing.
"Tall, dark buildings -- no power. Some on FIRE, CRUMBLING. PEOPLE scatter in panic, DEBRIS spins up in the HOWLING WIND, BODIES lie in the wet gutter, lined with winter slush.
A Man stands, eyes searching the chaos -- he is sharp and soulful, but anxious. He looks up -- swirling, celestial lights FLICKER behind the low clouds."
Can you see how he puts emphasis on every new visual via hyphens and capped words? Some writers like to go further like your Sin City example where they start a new paragraph each time they want the reader's attention to shift to the next bit of action, it's usually used for scenes that should feel past paced and energetic. And honestly, it's just a way to make the read faster.
En dashes ( – ) and em dashes ( — ), have slightly different uses. And, they shouldn't be confused with hyphens which are used to join words and to separate syllables of a single word
The em dash ( — ) or double en dash is used primarily when a thought is interrupted by another character butting in, or by a sound i.e., bang on the door etc. Technically an em dash is a wider line and more like the length of two dashes but most screenwriting software doesn't enable it, hence why you see so many scripts with two en dashes put together.
If you're a pedant, em dashes can actually be formatted in Final Draft but you need to enable it in every separate screenplay. Send me a PM if you really want to know how.
An ellipses is altogether different in purpose. It is used when a character's speech trails off. A lot of writers over use the ellipses, and a lot of writers use them incorrectly i.e., when they should be using an em dash.
Your screenplay will look cleaner if you get em' right, but the key is in being consistent with either/or.
When it comes down to it, nobody's going to give a hoot where you put your dots and dashes if your story jumps off the page but it's a good idea to know what's what.
So if you guys don't like beat, who do you guys signify a pause in speech or action. Like I said, I've seen people use -- for it. What do you guys use?
If it's an action, do you go:
example: ............................................................. John looks away, through the windows he sees Mary.
Pause.
John goes back outside. .............................................................
You don't dictate the pace of the scene in that sense, it's down to the director. You don't really, or should not, even dictate the actor or how they say their lines.
It's subjective unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.
State the scene, say what happens, move on.
If you want it dramatic and drawn out, it really depends on how you've written it. But I would propose something simple:
JOHN looks away.
He checks the windows.
Mary slams her palms against the glass of the window, begging him to come inside.
John looks down the street. Dust.
Something emerges from the distant dust. This something turns into a stampede.
John heads inside the diner...
Some shit like that.
There is no real reason for a BEAT to exist apart from silence in conversation. Unless I'm wrong, that's the only reason it exits? It signifies silence - which, really is a complete waste of time. I've done it a few times when I wanted Joe Bloogs to recieve an answer from Miss Bloggs and she hesitated - but it's kinda pointless.
* I know I will get called up on about using SOMETHING, but it is a genuine substitute for POV. It just means you don't have to call a slug-line a POV, it makes it move smoother and it just makes everything gel nicely.
But it's kind of hard to leave out (beat). I constantly read produced screenplays from name writers, and they all use (beat) in dialogue. So, it's kind of ingrained in my mind that it's the "professional" way to go.
But it's kind of hard to leave out (beat). I constantly read produced screenplays from name writers, and they all use (beat) in dialogue. So, it's kind of ingrained in my mind that it's the "professional" way to go.
A produced screenplay has undergone a process whereby pauses and direction have been added. In a spec script, they are not needed and are usually a sign of a writer that would rather interject air rather than produce a movement or action where the (beat) could be replaced.
A produced screenplay has undergone a process whereby pauses and direction have been added. In a spec script, they are not needed and are usually a sign of a writer that would rather interject air rather than produce a movement or action where the (beat) could be replaced.
Shawn.....><
I worded that wrong. I meant to say, spec scripts that have gone on to become produce scripts still have beat in them.
I like beat. I think a pause adds a different dimension to what a person is saying. I don't think that's only the director's job. You as a writer still have control over the tone of the story. If you are writing a drama, a pause, a beat could add a sense of drama to what a person is saying. You can capture some emotions better with a pause, in my opinion.
What about (beat) in phone conversations? When someone is talking and we don't hear what the other person is saying. If some of you guys don't use beat, what do you use instead?
John: (into the receiver) Jane, I know. (beat) I heard. (beat) I know.
I would say you use the parentheses as a tool to keep it moving. However... It is frowned upon, but if you need to do it, do it. There is no reason why your above example can't be like:
JOHN (into to receiver) Jane, I know...I heard... I know.
Unless there is some weird shit going off in the background, why would we even need to divert from the phone call?
The ... explains there is tension in the speakers voice. You don't really need anything more.
If something significant happens between the speaker's voice, that's a different matter altogether.
There's nothing wrong with using "beat". It's a personal preference, just like using single dashes, double dashes, or elipses.
If dialogue is well written and thought out, there will most likely be times when one of the above will help in the read...in the believability of the dialogue, etc.
The thing about using "beat" is that it's a line waster and the more you use it, the more lines you waste. Whereas the otehr options don't waste any lines.
The thing about using "beat" is that it's a line waster and the more you use it, the more lines you waste. Whereas the otehr options don't waste any lines.
Now I agree with this. It lengthens your script. A double dash instead is a better option.
I think BEAT is a waste of space. Serves little to no purpose.
JANE I need to see... (BEAT) James.
Is always better as:
JANE I need to see... James.
What does this BEAT do? Nothing. It does not describe an action, it says nothing, it's utterly pointless. In an action line, maybe, just maybe it could work. But really? Who the heck needs to read a BEAT? It's pointless.
If you want to break/ make it suspenseful surely the last thing you want to read is BEAT.
There's a huge misunderstanding on when to use beat. Some of these responses are so misinformed, and consequently misleading, it makes me want to tear my hair out.
You don't dictate the pace of the scene in that sense, it's down to the director. You don't really, or should not, even dictate the actor or how they say their lines.
You're wrong about both of these things. It's been done since the beginning of cinema and it has been done by the best screenwriters of all time.
There is no real reason for a BEAT to exist apart from silence in conversation. Unless I'm wrong, that's the only reason it exits? It signifies silence - which, really is a complete waste of time.
If you spent some time reading scripts that use it and ask yourself why they used it, you'd understand. Every script is different, however. We can't just talk about these things in the abstract, in a vacuum. Every script follows its own rules.
Quoted from Ledbetter
A produced screenplay has undergone a process whereby pauses and direction have been added. In a spec script, they are not needed and are usually a sign of a writer that would rather interject air rather than produce a movement or action where the (beat) could be replaced.
Shawn.....><
Once again, innacurate information. They are used in many spec scripts, and in fact, they allow the director to visualize the movie. Additionally, camera movement and angles are used in many spec scripts. Some more sparingly than others. Look at Stoker. Yes, the script and the movie are anything but great. But it got made. Somebody liked it, pulled the cigar out of their mouth and said, I want to throw millions of dollars into this thing.
So here's the first page of the script.
Quoted Text
CLOSE ON a spider.
Eyes. Fangs. Round hairy back pulsing with life.
Cleaning itself at the center of its web, its small body is a blur of hideous industry.
The image is grotesque, hypnotic, awesome.
Nature at its deadliest and most efficient.
WE WIDEN OUT, revealing our little friend is someplace dark and tight, an ideal spot for going about your business undisturbed...
Until the web begins to shake. Violently. The spider is startled. (So are we.)
Music.
Someone’s playing the piano, a piece ŕ la Gnossienne No. 4 by Erik Satie.
It’s haunting, even when played with more precision than passion (as it is now).
Each note sends vibrations shimmering down the web...
The spider sets off to investigate, moving rapidly over a series of ridges and planes. It comes to a smooth lacquered surface, starts to descend.
As we watch it wind its way down one of the piano’s front legs, we realize we’ve been lurking beneath the instrument the entire time.
The music continues as the spider quietly touches down on the hardwood floor, begins crawling stealthily toward the pedals...
CLOSE ON a shoe.
The black and white saddle kind, the kind a young girl might wear, moving up and down on the gleaming brass pedals.
The spider comes closer. Closer.
The shoe moving up and down, up and down...
And just as we’re sure this repulsive creature is about to skitter up that shoe and sink its teeth into tender skin, the shoe casually pivots toward the spider, crushes it underfoot.
End of spider.
WE PAN UP from the shoe.
This is visual writing. This is what you should be writing. Is it the best? No. Is it something that works? Yes.
Beat is used thirty times in the script, sometimes all by itself and sometimes in dialogue. Here's a place where it was used.... a lot.
Quoted Text
UNCLE CHARLIE (waving) Goodnight, Sheriff.
They’re about to close the door when the sheriff pivots on his heel, turns back to them.
SHERIFF HOWARD Oh, by the way... Did your housekeeper ever get in touch with you after she left town so quick?
Beat.
Beat, beat, beat.
INDIA No... She didn’t. Has her husband heard from her?
SHERIFF HOWARD Nope. Not yet... (then) Strange how people can just... disappear on you.
QUICK CUT TO:
INT. STOKER RESIDENCE - FOYER - NIGHT - CONTINUOUS
Uncle Charlie and India shut the door, locking it quietly behind them. Uncle Charlie looks out through the side lite, making sure the sheriff is getting into his car.
UNCLE CHARLIE (whispering) He’ll be back.
INDIA (also whispering) What are we going to do?
There’s no panicking here, but they’re both aware the stakes have just jackknifed. Uncle Charlie takes a deep breath, turns to his niece... and leaps.
UNCLE CHARLIE What I’ve been waiting to do ever since I got here... (beat) Leave. With you.
There’s a pause while India looks into his eyes...
And then she makes her decision.
Quoted from Dreamscale
The thing about using "beat" is that it's a line waster and the more you use it, the more lines you waste. Whereas the otehr options don't waste any lines.
How could it be a line waster when it shows that you know how to control pacing? Are all movies the same exact pace? No. Some are slower than others yet still feel tight and right.
As I said, every script follows its own rules and surely every writer is going to think differently about the story and what they want to communicate. What I don't like to see is when people who have no clue what they're talking about misinform others. Which is exactly what I'm reading here.
A produced screenplay has undergone a process whereby pauses and direction have been added. In a spec script, they are not needed and are usually a sign of a writer that would rather interject air rather than produce a movement or action where the (beat) could be replaced.
Once again, innacurate information. They are used in many spec scripts, and in fact, they allow the director to visualize the movie. Additionally, camera movement and angles are used in many spec scripts. Some more sparingly than others. Look at Stoker. Yes, the script and the movie are anything but great. But it got made. Somebody liked it, pulled the cigar out of their mouth and said, I want to throw millions of dollars into this thing. -J.S.
What part is “inaccurate”? The part about a script undergoing a rewrite to reflect direction, or the fact that (beat) is merely a replacement for an opportunity to write something more creative? I never said they (beat) weren’t used in spec scripts.
As for the script you mentioned here (Stoker); is it the spec version or the shooting version? If it were the spec version, I wouldn’t have gone past this first page. Camera angles and spscific music selections don't belong in a spec script. My guess is that this is a shooting script. Spec writing is about the story, not the directions. Let the director-direct.
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
What part is “inaccurate”? The part about a script undergoing a rewrite to reflect direction, or the fact that (beat) is merely a replacement for an opportunity to write something more creative? I never said they (beat) weren’t used in spec scripts.
Both, technically.
In some cases, scripts do get heavily revised to suit the directors needs. Most of the time these directors don't know what they're doing to begin with. I've never heard of major rewrites by any major director.
But in other cases, they do not get so revised. If a director really wants to put in camera angles and camera movement, and whatever, they use storyboards instead of messing around with rewriting the script. I guarantee you that whenever a script is rewritten significantly, it means there is something wrong with it to begin with.
As to the other point. "In a spec script, they are not needed"
You say they are not needed. False. They are needed if one, like me and other writers, find it suitable to control pacing.
"and are usually a sign of a writer that would rather interject air rather than produce a movement or action where the (beat) could be replaced."
They are not a sign of a writer that would rather interject air rather than produce a movement. To you, maybe that's how it seems. And you don't have to use it if you don't want to. But that's just flat out wrong to people who actually use them. And misinforming to those that may actually consider using them. It's your particular choice of words that makes it sound like fact that actually irritated me about it. Which, as I said, it isn't.
Quoted from Ledbetter
As for the script you mentioned here (Stoker); is it the spec version or the shooting version? If it were the spec version, I wouldn’t have gone past this first page.
It's the same script that made its way on the Blacklist in 2010. Funny, I read the entire thing. It's not great, as I said. But it was extremely visual and I could see why the director would be attracted by it.
Quoted from Ledbetter
Camera angles and spscific music selections don't belong in a spec script. My guess is that this is a shooting script.
To you, Shawn, they don't belong there. But guess what? They are found in more than half of the spec scripts on the 2013 Blacklist, in varying degrees.
Quoted from Ledbetter
Spec writing is about the story, not the directions. Let the director-direct.
If you honestly think that putting in camera direction is telling the director how to direct, you know nothing about directing. Camera angles and movement are suggestions. The director is either going to take it or leave it. But, to me, a script, a thriller script in particular, without any camera direction is as sterile as they come. Source Code is another example. The whole deal with Hitchcock was the fact that he would cut to the character, then their POV and then their reaction. How the hell are you going to tell the "same story" any other way without being explicit about it? I don't know where some writers get this misinformation, but it's just not helping you. Disagree with me till the cows come home, but you're only hurting yourself by not heeding my advice.
I use the dashes, but I've eased back a ton on their use, and sometimes replaced with the ellipse...simply because it strikes me as less harsh.
The ellipse(or dashes) is also useful in steering through a slug.
I've used a beat and ellipses interchangeably. So you don't have to read (beat) all the time. It usually means the same thing though. But maybe some people like to think of one as less severe than the other.
Man, your "advice" is as far off course as you claim everyones else to be.
Why did you omit to quote me on the fact that more than half the scripts on the 2013 Blacklist use camera placement/movement? Is it because it would contradict your "statement"?
People can do their own research and come to their own conclusions. Those that actually "care" to do it.
Yo, JS, calm down, bro. Make yourself a nice tall drink and down it. You'll feel better...trust me.
I don't know what you're smoking wherever you are, but things like this just ain't black and white, brother. This idea you have for pacing or whatever, is a bit loony. Are you saying you're using "beat" on a standalone line, because you want less on that page? Really?
Stoker is a kickass movie, BTW. It's Chan-wook Park's (of Oldboy fame) first time directing an American film. He's also a writer, and most of his work, he's written and directed.
Stoker was written by an actor, named Wentworth Miller. Whether or not you know of him, you've definitely seen him. He's been in a shitload of flicks and is well connected within the industry.
The opening page you posted for Stoker is piss poor spec script writing...terrible, actually. 99.9% of the time an unknown submits something like that, it's going in the garbage long before the reader will get to Page 10, let alone the entire script. Why? Because it's filled with complete and utter bullshit that no one wants to read.
As for your statement that because whatever % of Blacklist scripts are written poorly with beats, overwriting, whatever, don't think that makes it right...or why they somehow found their way onto that damned Blacklist.
And, check out just how well Blacklist scripts do in terms of BO results...or even critical praise. Not all that well, and that's because the scripts themselves aren't all they're cracked up to be. You see when you write in certain ways, it decieves the nonastute reader, and many of those in power, are not astute readers.
We all get to do things however we choose to and that's the beauty of life, but what you're saying is definitely not correct - there are always numerous ways to hose a bag, if you catch my drift.
"I don't know what you're smoking wherever you are, but things like this just ain't black and white, brother."
I stated nothing of the kind.
"This idea you have for pacing or whatever, is a bit loony. Are you saying you're using "beat" on a standalone line, because you want less on that page? Really?"
No. Not at all. You use beat whenever you feel there should be a pause. Nevermind the reason. Every script uses it for different reasons.
"Stoker is a kickass movie, BTW. It's Chan-wook Park's (of Oldboy fame) first time directing an American film. He's also a writer, and most of his work, he's written and directed.
Stoker was written by an actor, named Wentworth Miller. Whether or not you know of him, you've definitely seen him. He's been in a shitload of flicks and is well connected within the industry."
I thought it was a strange one, personally.
Chan-wook Park is the reason I watched the movie. I'm a fan of all of is work except Stoker. I don't see how him being a writer and having written the majority of scripts has anything to do with anything.
Wentworth Miller is the reason I read the script. Because I read somewhere he wrote the script under a pseudonym to subvert the very reason you cite why the script got made. It got made because it's well written. Not because he's in the industry. Well-written, however, and great movie are not the same thing, as is obvious to the movie going public.
"The opening page you posted for Stoker is p*ss poor spec script writing...terrible, actually. 99.9% of the time an unknown submits something like that, it's going in the garbage long before the reader will get to Page 10, let alone the entire script. Why? Because it's filled with complete and utter bulls*** that no one wants to read."
And yet there are several scripts from the Blacklist over the years that have done exactly the same. So the evidence is clearly not in your favor on this one. And lets not forget. It got made. A script you call piss poor terrible someone, as I wrote earlier, read, took the cigar out of their mouth, and said I'll invest $12 million on this thing. So clearly, the facts are proving wrong.
"As for your statement that because whatever % of Blacklist scripts are written poorly with beats, overwriting, whatever, don't think that makes it right...or why they somehow found their way onto that damned Blacklist."
It doesn't make it "right" because there are no "rules" to screenwriting. It means it's something that works and its clearly what the producers are looking for. For you to suggest otherwise is beyond logic, my friend. It's against common-sense. Damn, it's against human nature.
"We all get to do things however we choose to and that's the beauty of life, but what you're saying is definitely not correct - there are always numerous ways to hose a bag, if you catch my drift."
I don't say "Do it like this!". I say, "Don't be afraid to do it that way just because someone out there tells you otherwise." That's all really. As I said, people will come to their own conclusions when they do their research. I've done mine. I've seen the patterns. I've seen what writers--great writers from 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, so on and so on--put in a script and that is why I make the claims I make. I have no stock in arguing with anyone. I'm just warning people of these completely unsubstantiated claims people have found in some derelict corner of the interwebs.
I hated Stoker. Dull and slow and oh God, it was dull. I remember when Kidman used to be able to move her face.
I may have been in a bad mood, it does happen. I certainly was when it was over.
Anyways, to my point. As Led said once, you can write a script in red crayon as long as it's good. Nobody will take a blind bit of notice as long as the story is engrossing.
A beat is the American way of saying Pause. In the UK we'd write Pause. I agree though too that it can be used interchangeably with ellipses in dialogue as well as used in action lines. The fashion today tends towards ellipses or double-dash. Nobody likes using Pause or Beat anymore. Let's face it... both look ugly on the page.
I don't say "Do it like this!". I say, "Don't be afraid to do it that way just because someone out there tells you otherwise." ... people will come to their own conclusions when they do their research. I've done mine. I've seen the patterns. I've seen what writers--great writers from 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, so on and so on--put in a script and that is why I make the claims I make. I have no stock in arguing with anyone. I'm just warning people of these completely unsubstantiated claims people have found in some derelict corner of the interwebs.
There's many routes to production, as I'm sure your research will show you, and hopefully some of your experience will inform you too. There is an element of wanting that magic formula, the way to get it right, that is behind the STC devotees' motivation, and lacks the creativity and hard graft sometimes needed to get something made.
On Wentworth, it's clear that by the time the script got to Nicole Kidman, there was a cinematic influence by the director - she comments on it, so he had the chance to influence the written work. Kidman still states it was the story that sold to her however, and underneath the clutter, much of which is unnecessary, there is a good story - which is the key to any good script. Try getting hold of the abortion that was QT's first draft of RD.
On Billy The Bomb, I noticed that you tended toward the pedantic at times in regard to the writing, yet that script is now going into production. So you must agree that scripts good and poor can get the go-ahead. And a clean written spec, that avoids clutter in the way of directions and beats, and concentrates on a solid story is a valid piece of work? If so, peoples' posts here encouraging a clean read are not innaccurate, but a method of working.
And...careful what you try to lock in a suitcase and throw in the oven! I love that avatar SC, brings back some scary memories of watching that ep. of Trilogy of Terror - such a classic!
Open 10 Black List scripts randomly. Read the first 5 or 10 pages.
Then open 10 of the top scripts here and do the same.
As you read, don't focus on "rules". Focus on how the scripts read. Is the writing clear? Efficient? Does it convey a MOVIE?
Not all of the Black List scripts have great writing.
And most of the Black List scripts have concepts that don't interest me.
And very few have stories that really grab me.
But that said...the writing is one thing that MOST of the black list scripts have in common. They are generally MUCH better written than even the good amateur scripts.
If you're stuck on some set of strict rules that someone sold you, such as never do this or that, and always do this and that, you will think the writing in those scripts is flawed.
But if you judge the writing in those scripts on its effectiveness at conveying a story that can be imagined by the reader as a film, then you will find the writing to be vastly superior to amateur writing...most of the time.
Rules don't exist. Rules of thumb do. Rules of thumb are meant to foster better writing. Where they don't do that, they should be bent or discarded as the situation requires. There's no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect". There's only what works best.
If "we see" is needed to properly convey a scene...then it's the right choice.
If "angle on" is needed to convey the story properly...it's the right choice.
It's not about directing the shot. It's about conveying the story.
In Inglorious Bastards opening scene, there is a shot where the lens drifts below the stairs to show the Jews hiding underneath the floor. That shot is needed to convey the story, to help us imagine the film. Why would a script leave that out? Because someone said it's a rule? Because someone said it's a rule to not direct the shot? Really?
The idea is to not micromanage the scenes...leave stuff like that to actors and directors. However, if it's important to the telling of the tale, it should be in the script.
Yeah, I think JS is catching a lot of unneeded flak. No good writer gives a rat's arse whether you use 'we' or put ellipses instead of a double dash (like really?). If a writer needs to use beat, then let them use beat.
The Black List does have some circle jerk elements to it but the writing for the most part reeks of confidence and hard work. Here's the first half page of Hot Summer Nights, probably the strongest script on the 2013 Black List, and probably one of the best I've ever read.
"OVER BLACK
DANIEL (V.O) Every moment in life is the result of all the moments preceding it...or some shit like that.
From the darkness we hear a harrowing roar. Powerful and tragic. Like the aching cry of some prehistoric beast.
CLOSE ON A HIGHWAY SIGN: WELCOME TO CAPE COD Nightfall. We are in the middle of a violent hurricane and what we just heard was the wind.
Stinging rain slams into the earth. Snapped power lines and uprooted trees. Nothing’s safe. Mother Nature’s genocide.
I-6 Westbound. Breaklights for miles. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is headed for the hills. Except for one crazy bastard.
Driving headfirst into the storm’s mouth is a ‘91 CHEVY CORVETTE. It blows past us, leaving behind a trail of light in the fog."
This breaks almost every rule that the screenwriting police preaches. There's no slug, there's no character intro, there's 'we' everywhere, we have camera angles, asides, the only thing that's missing is a beat... But this is probably one the most visual writing I've read all year, it throws you into the scene and makes sure you can't escape the script's clutches. I know plenty of writers that would've just written "A hurricane brews in the distance as a car blasts by us". Economical maybe but so damn bland and uninspiring.
Yes, some Black List scripts turn into complete shit when filmed but what about the dozen others that have garnered Oscar noms?
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.
Kev, not trying to start an argument, but your comment about picking any 10 Black List scripts and comapring them to any "amateur" script doesn't work for me at all.
That comment seems to say that some sort of freaky change occurrs when a script goes from amateur to Black List. What about the Black List scripts before they were on the Black List? Would they compare to the current crop of Black List scripts?
We all like different kinds of writing for different reasons and that's all fine and cool. The same goes for movies themselves.
There are many, many worthy scripts flaoting around that have not been read by someone who could make a difference. The Black List are not the best unproduced scripts. They're merely 1 man's opinion on the scripts he's read that are unproduced.
That comment seems to say that some sort of freaky change occurrs when a script goes from amateur to Black List. What about the Black List scripts before they were on the Black List? Would they compare to the current crop of Black List scripts?
Jeff, I think what Kevin is saying is that the writing is why it's on the Black List and is no longer just another amateur script.
Jeff, I think what Kevin is saying is that the writing is why it's on the Black List and is no longer just another amateur script.
I understand that, but if you seriously want to make a comment in that regard, you need to understand exactly what you're saying.
For anyone to say that every Black List script is better than every other amateur script, is ludicrous, because you never know...one or more of those amatuer scripts may pop up on the Black List, so then it becomes the one to judge all others by.
Is ever NFL Quarterback better than every non NFL Quarterback? Was Brady Quinn really better than Andrew Luck before Luck was drafted?
I'm sure there are many well written scripts on the Black List and I'm sure many will go on to become good, successful movies, but again, just because a script is on the Black List, that does not make it all powerful and perfect.
There are many, many worthy scripts flaoting around that have not been read by someone who could make a difference. The Black List are not the best unproduced scripts. They're merely 1 man's opinion on the scripts he's read that are unproduced.
Just to clear something up on the Black List, it's not one man's opinion on the scripts he's read. They have a pool of about 500 or so Hollywood execs, agents, managers, etc. who are asked to vote for what they think are the best unproduced scripts floating out there. The scripts that garner the top votes make the list. Which is not to say that there aren't some unknown scripts out there that are at least as good. But the Black List ranks the scripts that have been brought to "market."
As for Brady Quinn, yes he was better than Andrew Luck at the time he was drafted. But only because Luck was in like sixth grade.
For anyone to say that every Black List script is better than every other amateur script, is ludicrous, because you never know...one or more of those amatuer scripts may pop up on the Black List, so then it becomes the one to judge all others by.
But that said...the writing is one thing that MOST of the black list scripts have in common. They are generally MUCH better written than even the good amateur scripts.
Every and most are not the same thing. And he's right too.
Just to clear something up on the Black List, it's not one man's opinion on the scripts he's read. They have a pool of about 500 or so Hollywood execs, agents, managers, etc. who are asked to vote for what they think are the best unproduced scripts floating out there. The scripts that garner the top votes make the list. Which is not to say that there aren't some unknown scripts out there that are at least as good. But the Black List ranks the scripts that have been brought to "market."
As for Brady Quinn, yes he was better than Andrew Luck at the time he was drafted. But only because Luck was in like sixth grade.
So, when you say, "brought to market", what exactly do you mean by that?
If a "great" script is read by someone that matters, who can do something with that great script, I would imagine that it would be optioned, or that writer would be taken on by that Agency, ProdCo, whatever it is.
Kev's comments above...and for years, actually, always state the same thing - a Black List script is head and shoulders above any amateur script you could compare it to, and I just don't beleive that in any way, shape, or form.
I hear what you're saying and you're correct about 500 or so Pros doing the voting.
It appears about 225 Black List scripts have been filmed - do you or anyone else have a list of these films? I'd love to see it and we could have more discussion over just how great these scripts really were.
As for Brady Quinn and Andrew Luck, I have to assume you're jesting in your response. If not, my point is that just because someone is a Pro, that doesn't mean a non-Pro can't come in and immediately be "better". There are lots and lots of Pro players making Millions of dollars each year, who could easily be outsourced by college level players before they enter the draft. Of course, this line of reasoning has nothing to do with Pro writers and amateur writers, but I think there is some sort of relationship that all can understand...hopefully.
When I say brought to market I simply mean the script has entered into this world of execs, agents, and prodcos and is being passed around town.
I don't have a list of the Black List scripts that have been filmed. Frankly that 225 number seems surprisingly high to me.
Yeah, kidding about Brady Quinn. He's not fit to hold a clipboard, let alone QB a team. But I think your point would have been better made if you used an undrafted QB in comparison to a first rounder like Quinn. Kurt Warner was stacking soup cans in a grocery store while a lot of bums were being paid millions in the NFL.
As I said, and as J.S. pointed out...MOST black list scripts are written substantially better than MOST amateur scripts. There are some amateur scripts that have fantastic writing, there are some black list scripts that have pretty weak writing.
What's a shame is that there are some talented amateur writers who are not reaching their potential because they've had rules hammered into their head by gurus, other amateurs and even some agents...rules that take tools out of the writer's hand and therefore result in writing which is not what it could be...and which does not reach the levels that the pros do.
But by all means, this is a competitive field, so if writers want to limit themselves...I guess it's ok.
A weakly written black list script is not weak because it broke "rules"...but because the writing was not effective.
As I said, and as J.S. pointed out...MOST black list scripts are written substantially better than MOST amateur scripts.
OK, I'm not going to go back and play quote this and quote that, but IMO, what you were saying and what you have said in the past, is implying that you could take any 10 Black List scripts and compare them to any 10 amateur scripts and it would be simple to see why the Black List scripts are much better than the amateur scripts.
But maybe I took what you said incorrectly.
But, let's quickly focus on your above quote.
I would hope that MOST Black List scripts are written better than MOST amateur scripts. Most amateur scripts are terribly written and most are written by peeps who have no clue what they're doing.
My point is really quite simple and it has nothing to do with writing asides, we see, we hear, overwriting, poor Slug use, or any of "the tools" that are available to any and all writers.
It's that "any" writer can write a great script, and even a Black List script. The big difference between these "amateurs" and the Black List writers is the difficulty in being seen and taken seriously by those powers that be that rule the film industry, or just serve as gate keepers.
Just because a script is on some year's Black List, get's optioned, gets sold, or gets turned into a movie, doesn't necessarily mean it's a great script or better than any other script that doesn't get any of the above.
As I said, take any 10 black list scripts...and make your own list of the top 10 amateur scripts here. Some of the scripts here might end up being better, but that's the exception that proves the rule.
There is a very, very strange notion that floats around in certain corners of this board. That idea seems to hold that scripts that make the black list, or spec scripts that actually get sold, only do so because the writer is connected, or because it was a can't miss concept, etc.
No.
Those scripts...in general...are significantly better written. When it comes to the black list, it's more the writing that sets them apart then anything else, because frankly, some of the story concepts are pretty out there.
Many people make the mistake...and I'm sorry, but there's no other word for it...of thinking those scripts are poorly written because they open them up and see "rules" broken.
When we first begin writing, and I mean our very early work, we are wisely given guiding rules...such as don't direct the shot, don't use we see, don't write unfilmables. And we're also told to avoid flashback, avoid V.O.
This is all great advice for the new writer.
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...the kind of writing that is much in evidence with black list scripts, Nicholls winners, and pro scripts.
The notion that the pro's somehow have it wrong is very strange. Would an amateur golfer tell a seasoned pro he's doing it all wrong? Would an amateur golfer...or baseball player, or musician...think he had nothing to learn from a pro? Of course not...but with screenwriters, in certain circles, this seems to be a common approach. It's very strange.
And...careful what you try to lock in a suitcase and throw in the oven! I love that avatar SC, brings back some scary memories of watching that ep. of Trilogy of Terror - such a classic!
Oh yes, the Trilogy of Terror. That was some scary shit for network television back in 1975, and shame on my parents for letting me watch it! That's a long way back, but I'm sure I must have spent a couple sleepless nights thinking that stupid doll might be under my bed.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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..
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'll say it again, the best way to write is to side with the reader.
Objective writing is essential to clear presentation. This includes writing techniques that are learned, practiced, and mastered. And screenwriting is a entirely different craft. You don't have the luxury of defining abstract writing, rather, you have to achieve visuals that provide the path of least resistance to the reader.
Beats, dashes, wrylies, and "we see" are a part of this craft, whether you choose to use them or not. I believe the controversy with them is they have the tendency to promote lazy writing, and there is a lot of evidence out there to prove it.
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.
Never read a pro script and probably never will. I've read thousands of books though. Writing a screenplay is no different once you learn some simple rules. pHuck how the pro's do it. I do things my way.
I have looked at pro scripts and I just don't see what everyone gets excited about. I didn't even bother to read Tarantino's Hateful 8... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I read two pages.
I couldn't care less about anyone else's scripts... unless I know and like the author. The rest can screw themselves... pro or no.
And that's all well and good. Mostly, at this point, I'll read a pro script because I want to, not because I need to. But that doesn't mean I won't read it with a writer's eye, either.
As far as it being an invaluable tool, I meant it from an inexperienced writer's POV, who would like to see how it's done--correctly. That's not to say amateur scripts are incorrect. A lot of them are written extremely well.
Bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that the learning process never stops.
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.
This is a common mistake that many amateur writers make, I've made it myself. When they first begin writing, they research scripts of classic movies they are familiar with. So the writing is of an older style or might be a shooting draft or something the studio puts out for the public.
What the aspiring writer needs to do is get relatively current scripts, especially spec scripts that have drawn attention or been produced. I can direct anyone interested to where these can be obtained, PM me.
And can we please stop saying this is about emulating anyone?
It's not. When you read, you learn. You decide which things might be useful to use. Just like ANY profession.
In fact, I'm not aware myself of ever emulating any one writer or technique. The way it works with me is that I am very conscious if a certain technique is not effective. That causes me to experiment on my own, try to find what works best. THEN I often notice something similar done in a pro script and it affirms that I was on the right track. But it's a process that involves thinking things through, not copying.
It's never about emulating. Jeff seems to think it's about taking a famous writer and copying a style simply because he's famous. He should know better. One of my more annoying qualities is that I question anyone and everything, pro and amateur. He knows this, but forgets. I look at techniques used by pros and amateurs and bring the same critical approach. If it works, cool. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Everything I do, good or bad, is with a clear purpose. In the end it might not be the best way,but I think it through. There's no mindless emulation.
Quoted Text
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".
This is VERY revealing. It's a rules based approach. Jeff is saying here that we should avoid "we see" not because it's a less efficient way of doing it...but because it annoys the rules people, so it's worth bending over backwards to describe the shot without using "we see".
That really reveals in a nut shell how it works with the rules crowd. It starts out rational: don't use 'we see' because it's a wasteful way to describe what we plainly see. But from that, it becomes a rule, and as a result, in situations where 'we see' is most efficient, they end up doing cartwheels to avoid using it, and the result can ironically be more wordy or less clear.
I don't even know if that scene was written with 'we see', it's just a hypothetical.
Where Jeff and I agree: it's about what works best.
Where we differ: it's about what's "correct"or "incorrect".
Because sometimes what's "incorrect" is what's best.
If the shot can be described clearly without 'we see'...that's best.
But if we see is not only the clearest, but the most efficient way to describe a shot necessary for the film, then why not use it?
There are other style choices the write might make which go beyond the logic of the blue print approach.
For example, this:
The tanker skids of the bridge and explodes on the cliffs.
or
The tanker skids of the bridge and - BOOM! - explodes on the cliffs.
Or here's one from a script I just opened from the Hit List written by an old member from here known as Mr. Z...an outstanding writer.
Laughter behind the door. Cut short as --
WHAM! - Lance KICKS the door!
A rules guy might ask...why do we need the WHAM? The door is described as being kicked, isn't that enough?
The answer is that many writers have found that this is an effective way to help the reader see this as a movie. It's not covered by the rules...but it's excellent technique...technique which has proven effective.
Two more quick points. First, I think the fact is that most amateurs who take this position that pro level scripts are not worth reading...have not read many pro scripts. They will deny this, but it's true. They've read some famous ones here and there, and maybe a long time ago. But that's it.
An aspiring writer who wants to master his craft should at least open and read part of several pro level scripts a week. I've never once met a person who finally agreed to do this and didn't come back and thank me later. Never. Like any profession, we need to be constantly learning. If a writer doesn't think he needs to keep learning, I hope his last name is Coppola or Weinstein, because he's at a serious disadvantage.
The second point: rules are comforting. They are. That's why people dig them so much. Jeff doesn't like the people who follow structure rules, like the Save the Catters...but it's the same darn thing. The STC people feel they are getting closer because each one of their scripts follows the model. It's comforting to think you've mastered some aspect of it. And it's the same with screenwriting rules. It's the same with many things in life...it's comforting to have boundaries.
To break through in this business, good ain't enough. You have to be elite...best of the best. Playing within the rules...whether Save the Cat or writing rules, a writer can be pretty good. But he will never be elite. He will get comfortable. He won't test boundaries. He will feel satisfied he knows what he needs to know. That is not the path to being elite.
Two more quick points. First, I think the fact is that most amateurs who take this position that pro level scripts are not worth reading...have not read many pro scripts. They will deny this, but it's true. They've read some famous ones here and there, and maybe a long time ago. But that's it.
I haven't read any pro scripts. The only reason I read amateur ones is because it is good practise for editing and spotting mistakes in my own. I'm a writer, not a reader. I read easily over a thousand books until I stopped reading. Now my reading is only about facts. Facts that I can relate through fiction. I don't need to read anyone else.
An aspiring writer who wants to master his craft should at least open and read part of several pro level scripts a week. I've never once met a person who finally agreed to do this and didn't come back and thank me later. Never. Like any profession, we need to be constantly learning. If a writer doesn't think he needs to keep learning, I hope his last name is Coppola or Weinstein, because he's at a serious disadvantage.
I started learning the moment I was born. I don't need to read screenplays to educate myself. I read history, philosophy or science then translate that into my stories. Learning to write stories is for kids. Real education comes from actual study. Reading another guy's screenplay isn't an education for anyone over twenty. There are plenty of books and forums like this around to help one with format.
To break through in this business, good ain't enough. You have to be elite...best of the best. Playing within the rules...whether Save the Cat or writing rules, a writer can be pretty good. But he will never be elite. He will get comfortable. He won't test boundaries. He will feel satisfied he knows what he needs to know. That is not the path to being elite.
I'd say that was partly true... but that is how it should be. However, there are plenty of mediocre writers in this business... as is evident from the shite put on our screens over and over again. Escape Plan is a good example of terrible scrip writing and poor story planning. Whoever wrote that was no pro'. Well, they are obviously a pro... what I mean is, they are not elite. It IS about who you know... you have to be elite AND know people.
I started learning the moment I was born. I don't need to read screenplays to educate myself. I read history, philosophy or science then translate that into my stories. Learning to write stories is for kids. Real education comes from actual study. Reading another guy's screenplay isn't an education for anyone over twenty. There are plenty of books and forums like this around to help one with format.
Of course you should read other things to advance your knowledge and imagination: philosophy, psychology, poetry, science news, history, mythology.
But to assume that you have mastered the writing craft because you've digested all the "how to" books is not a professional approach.
Quoted Text
Reading another guy's screenplay isn't an education for anyone over twenty. There are plenty of books and forums like this around to help one with format.
The statement is so foolish I'm not sure if I should waste much more time with you. I don't mean that to be provocative or an insult, either. I'm just just being honest. Wiser people than me would look at that and say don't waste time with this guy.
Do you think successful fiction writers, such as Stephen King or Hemingway, stopped reading books at age 20? Do you think that successful musicians stopped listening to and being influenced by other musicians? Do you think artists don't examine others paintings?
- If one spends more time reading other peoples screenplays than writing...yes, that's poor use of a writer's time.
- If any writer, certainly an amateur, thinks they have nothing more to learn as far as craftsmanship, that's silly. It would probably be silly for a pro to say that, but for any of us to say that it's absurd.
- While there are things to be learned from reading other amateur scripts, it's very strange to think there is more to learn from amateur scripts than pro scripts. How is it that screenwriting seems to be the only field where so many amateurs seem to think that there's more to learn from amateurs than from pros? It's bizarre. You don't find that in any other field. It's statements like Dustin's which make a lot of talented writers move on from this forum. No one who has a future in this field thinks like that. You're going to get pissed at me for saying it and start hurling jabs...fine...but do me a favor first: read the first 10 pages of a different pro level script every day for the next 2 weeks. Try to do 2 a day, so 20 pages a day. We're talking 10 or 20 minutes a day. A small sacrifice. If after 2 weeks, you still believe there is nothing to learn, then come back here and fire off the best insults you can come up with.
OK, done with the thread. Getting old, using to much time. Enjoy the weekend everyone!
But to assume that you have mastered the writing craft because you've digested all the "how to" books is not a professional approach.
Writing a story is simple. I write a story with a beginning a middle and an end. I mastered the art of telling stories years before I ever picked up a how to book on screenplay writing. The how to books on screenplay writing merely taught me the correct structure.
I learned to write through reading lots and lots of books. Books tell stories too... only they utilise a greater amount of the English language to do it. When I read a book I would visualise everything in my mind... to me it was the same as watching a film.
The statement is so foolish I'm not sure if I should waste much more time with you. I don't mean that to be provocative or an insult, either. I'm just just being honest. Wiser people than me would look at that and say don't waste time with this guy.
Taken within context it makes perfect sense... you just lack the nous - as usual - to see it. Where's the education in a screenplay? They're about drama... not a documentary. Once you know how to tell a story then reading another guy's screenplay isn't going to help educate anyone. Indeed they can serve to misinform... due to artistic license.
There are only so many stories one can tell. With books and films combined every one of us will have seen the same stories told thousands of times. Same old, same old stories. Now my interests lie not with copying other writers... as I did a lot of in my youth... but with reading facts and translating those facts into fiction. I also like adaptations of famous old stories... change them up, remix them. I haven't read a work of fiction in years... and have no interest in doing so. You may believe that that means I will stay an amateur, but I can assure you that you don't know what you're talking about. I know all of the stories already... now it's time to share mine.
Do you think successful fiction writers, such as Stephen King or Hemingway, stopped reading books at age 20? Do you think that successful musicians stopped listening to and being influenced by other musicians? Do you think artists don't examine others paintings?
I couldn't care less what any of those artists do. Nor do I care what you consider an artist should do to be successful. Who are you?
- If any writer, certainly an amateur, thinks they have nothing more to learn as far as craftsmanship, that's silly. It would probably be silly for a pro to say that, but for any of us to say that it's absurd.
Why is it more absurd for any of us to say that? The way you talk about pro's is silly. You think they're some type of elite writers because they got paid to write their last script when half of them are shit. You have bullshit in your eyes mate.
When I read a book I would visualise everything in my mind... to me it was the same as watching a film.
Quoted Text
...translating those facts into fiction.
Quoted Text
I know all of the stories already... now it's time to share mine.
Quoted Text
I started learning the moment I was born. I don't need to read screenplays to educate myself.
Quoted Text
Learning to write stories is for kids.
Quoted Text
Never read a pro script and probably never will. I've read thousands of books though. Writing a screenplay is no different once you learn some simple rules. pHuck how the pro's do it. I do things my way.
Margarine, being just one molecule away from plastic, has many common uses. Most known for "spreading on bread", this wonder of science and deliciousness has one use that most food-lovers don't know about -- the screenplay.
Yes the screenplay, but who would've thought to actually use it for writing? In the small town of Tinderton, one rebel screenwriter has come forward with a new way of writing, and is now on Hollywood's radar.
His name is Tootsie McBooty.
We sat down with Mr. McBooty to get a glimpse of just how margarine not only breaks the boundaries of a script, but what the mind of a genius looks like. It was shocking...
"I just spread all over," chuckles Tootsie. "Not only my scripts, my entire body. Fellow writers say I'm on a slippery slope, but it's a helluva lot better than butter."
Margarine, being just one molecule away from plastic, has many common uses. Most known for "spreading on bread", this wonder of science and deliciousness has one use that most food-lovers don't know about -- the screenplay.
Yes the screenplay, but who would've thought to actually use it for writing? In the small town of Tinderton, one rebel screenwriter has come forward with a new way of writing, and is now on Hollywood's radar.
His name is Tootsie McBooty.
We sat down with Mr. McBooty to get a glimpse of just how margarine not only breaks the boundaries of a script, but what the mind of a genius looks like. It was shocking...
"I just spread all over," chuckles Tootsie. "Not only my scripts, my entire body. Fellow writers say I'm on a slippery slope, but it's a helluva lot better than butter."
Those rules are comforting. They seem to help people sleep at night. Make them feel that all would be well, if only the people that make movies would listen to them.
Meanwhile, somewhere else, writers are selling scripts.
Stephen King once said: 'It is the story...not he who tells it'.
The other is a query that has always intrigued me when writing:
You know how you intro or name a character in your script, right? Or read the name of one in any script I guess.
Well, how then does your regular audience watching the movie of the script know the person's name if it isn't said straight up? Do they find out before they see the movie when they get info about the film? You guys understand what I'm getting at?
Stephen King once said: 'It is the story...not he who tells it'.
Stephen King was wrong. There are only so many types of story. It's like when comedians tell jokes. One guy tells a joke and nobody laughs... next comedian tells the same joke, everybody laughs.
It's the way I tell 'em... as Frank Carson used to say... and he was right. It was the way he told them.
It isn't the story, it's the person telling the story. The voice that comes through. Certain people have a natural writer's voice... most do not.
You know how you intro or name a character in your script, right? Or read the name of one in any script I guess.
Well, how then does your regular audience watching the movie of the script know the person's name if it isn't said straight up? Do they find out before they see the movie when they get info about the film? You guys understand what I'm getting at?
Usually the name is brought up during dialogue somewhere later down the line. Or it could be in the promo's if not...
There will always be those writers that spend all their time looking up. It won't be until you see yourself as equal or better than all of those you idolise that you could ever be elite. It takes knowing what you can do and above all, believing in yourself.
Writing a screenplay should be as easy for a writer as building the framework of a house is for a brick layer. Shouldn't it?
Slugs... action... dialogue...
The rest comes down to natural ability... your voice. Not everyone is going to like what you do and there will always be haters... particularly amongst fellow writers, even the ones that smile to your face. It's like these game shows where everyone pretends to help each other, but the aim of the game calls for just one winner. They help each other for selfish reasons. It isn't honest. They have to be nice to each other to stop the others voting them out. A lot of things come into play, from level of attractiveness to simply who the best bullshitter is. The person that pretends to care the most is usually a good choice for biggest bullshitter, IMO. Anyway, I digress.
Writing a script is actually quite easy. The rest comes down to your story-telling ability and talent. Not looking up at half the idiots that are getting paid right now and sucking dick.
It's like when comedians tell jokes. One guy tells a joke and nobody laughs... next comedian tells the same joke, everybody laughs.
Now this is actually a well made point.
Then unfortunately...
Quoted Text
It won't be until you see yourself as equal or better than all of those you idolise that you could ever be elite... looking up at half the idiots that are getting paid right now and sucking dick.
Just to clear things up, though I'm sure it won't, this is certainly not about idolizing anyone. My first year of writing was spent mostly at this website, and the scripts I read were amateur. And I read a lot, gave tons of notes.
Then I ended up on the Scriptshadow email list, back when he was sending out scripts. These scripts were usually of projects that were in some stage of production, so the film had not been released. Seldom had I heard of the writer, but that didn't mean much because my knowledge of that kind of thing was limited.
What DID matter was that I started reading the scripts...and what a difference! After reading all those amateur scripts for a year, where even the good ones proved to be a chore to get through...having to suffer through writers like myself or Dustin...all of a sudden I was reading scripts that you could finish in an hour.
It's not about idolizing. It's about appreciating and learning.
Do you suppose a fiction writer stops reading other work once he understands grammar, thinking he has nothing else to learn and only has to tell his stories?
Do you suppose that once Jimmy Page learned how to play the guitar he stopped listening to other bands?
One more example, and then time for coffee. Lately I've been reading a lot of short story collections. My purpose is actually to hopefully improve my ability to create characters and character voices, so I mostly read stories that were written in first person.
While doing this with a collection written by a single author, I discovered something: those writers are very experimental. They play around with a variety of styles and techniques. It's not at all the case that the writer employs one "voice" and uses it for all his or her stories.
Only in the amateur screenwriting world is there this notion that you learn the basic rules...and then that's it, all that's left to do is keep telling your stories until someone buys one.
I've read a lot of interviews with established screenwriters, and usually they mention other screenwriters who they read. When you find yourself doing the opposite of what successful people in your field do, it's time to take stock and reevaluate.
What DID matter was that I started reading the scripts...
I usually avoid these sorts of debates -- as I have mostly avoided this one -- please note my double dash -- but I did want to say something to those who think there is no value in reading scripts by the pros, or the recently-sold up-and-comers.
Like Kevin, I have to say, if you have never tried it, you are so wrong. And the shame is you stick so firmly to your guns without even knowing how wrong you are.
I have taken a little something away from every pro script I have read. Not to steal, or to mimic, just knowledge of what's out there.
Like an architect looking at a building and realizing, "Oh, you can also do columns that way. Interesting."
Or a golfer driving an extra 20 yards when somebody shows him how to twist his wrist just so.
Just techniques that broaden your understanding of what is possible.
I am happy to point doubters to a short list of scripts that might change their mind. Or they might not. Just felt compelled to comment this morning.
I have looked at them and I don't see any difference with a good amateur script. Pro scripts are made into films and I watch plenty of those and plenty of them are not worth watching... and that is down to poor dialogue and poor story structure. It starts with a shitty script written by a so-called professional. Escape Plan is a case in point. Written by somebody that was paid... when they should have been shot. Actually I just googled and it was written by TWO professional writers. It took two pro's to make such a shitty story that no amateur would ever be able to post without being vilified.
It's that shite in the eye thing I mentioned earlier... the very fact that a person has been paid to write a script instantly fuzzes over the story and writing inadequacies. Indeed, those inadequacies are oft applauded as just a pro being allowed to break rules. An amateur does it and it's because they don't know what they're doing. The only difference between us... is that I wipe the shite from my eyes.
I'd also rather not have knowledge of what's out there. I honestly don't care what anyone else is doing... all that matters is what I am doing.
I've also had plenty of praise for my work from professionals in the business. Enough for me to know that I'm doing things the way I should be. Considering I started around 20 months ago, I'm doing quite well.
This debate, like anything that is debatable, are two people on opposite ends of an issue or in this case an opinion that has no right or wrong answer... yet they share very little middle ground.
I dont believe there is anything wrong with referencing pro scripts once in a while or not doing it at all.
I've read several of Dustin's works... it certainly doesnt seem to have hurt him.
If Dustin doesn't need to read pro scripts to help with the development of his writing than more power to him. Personally, I need all the help I can get. I read pro scripts for two reasons 1) for pacing of the script & 2) how the dialogue and action lines feed off one another. Top many times I've read work from an amateur and find that scenes run a little too long or that the dialogue comes off a bit flat from the action lines. I'm currently writing a thriller feature and I've been struggling with trying to incorporate scares and intense scenes into the script. I know what i want to do and say but for some reason it doesn't come out the way I want it to. I tend to look for pro scripts to see how they would handle the scenes. I do not steal their idea nor do I copy how they word it but it gives me better ways on how to tackle the situation than maybe an amateur script would.
I usually avoid these sorts of debates -- as I have mostly avoided this one -- please note my double dash --
Too many double dashes, Bert. I don't think I can find the patience to read through the remainder of your post.
Anyway, on the Stephen King thing. Wasn't he, and maybe Pia can confirm this since its been a long time since I read it, who said in On Writing that you should read both the good and the bad? So shouldn't this apply to Pro scripts and amateur scripts?
... you should read both the good and the bad? So shouldn't this apply to Pro scripts and amateur scripts?
That would necessitate amateur scripts being bad and pro scripts good... which certainly isn't the case. Plenty of shitty scripts out there where writers have been paid... and plenty of great scripts out there where the writer hasn't.
You guys feel the need to read pro scripts for ideas... I'm cool with figuring out my own ways of doing things. Slug, action, dialogue.... there's only so much one can do with that. The rest comes down to voice and being able to tell a coherent story... but I'm just repeating myself now.
I don't care what anyone else does to be honest... but I reject the claim that one has to read pro scripts if they want to be a pro screenplay writer.
Anyway, on the Stephen King thing. Wasn't he, and maybe Pia can confirm this since its been a long time since I read it, who said in On Writing that you should read both the good and the bad? So shouldn't this apply to Pro scripts and amateur scripts?
Your point here suggests that good and bad are pro and amateur... unless it's just down to poor grammar and what you actually meant was the good and bad in both pro and amateur scripts... which doesn't really make any sense within that context. Whether you meant it or not... what you've said here necessitates that pro scripts are good while amateur are bad.
Most amateurs are bad is the simple truth... most of the scripts listed at this site are bad to mediocre. Most pro scripts are good because they go through a million drafts (exaggeration, it's more like 2 million) with input from everyone, directors, producers, story consultants...
Most amateur scripts are one or two drafts all from the mind of one writer. Stories take time to build and they need input from others interested in the script... writers of screenplays can't do it on their own... what we see as possible in our mind's eye may not be so when it comes time to film... and we have to write around those obstacles... and plot holes that can appear from nowhere. I've got a few scripts that I'm working towards production on and I'm always amazed at how invaluable input from other is.
So even with all that... the idiots revered here as THE PRO'S (all pHucking hail) still manage to pHuck it all up. How does that happen? how do two writers, along with story consultants and all the experience of Sly and Arnie pHuck up a perfectly good concept like the one from Escape Plan?
I don't care what anyone at this site says... I would tear apart a concept like the one from Escape Plan and make the last writers look like they just walked out of film school.
Your point here suggests that good and bad are pro and amateur... unless it's just down to poor grammar and what you actually meant was the good and bad in both pro and amateur scripts... which doesn't really make any sense within that context.
No, Dustin. It's not down to poor grammar. It's down to poor reading comprehension.
To explain:
"So shouldn't this ("you should read both the good and the bad") apply to Pro scripts and amateur scripts?"
What else could the "this" be referring to in my previous sentence? I don't understand.
What do you mean it doesn't make sense within that context? What context would that be? I'm curious to know.
Of all the King books I've read and own, I actually still have not read his book on writing yet.
I think this discussion here seems to be going around in circles. I'm guessing that when most of us refer to amateur scripts, we think of scripts we've read that were written by friends or posted here at SS. Those same scripts, were also most likely earlier drafts. Maybe even first drafts. We post scripts here in hope to get feedback so we can rewrite our scripts into something better. Same thing when friends send us scripts and ask us to read them. They are not the final drafts. Therefore, what most of us think of when we think amateur scripts are not completed polished last drafts. The pro scripts we read are the final drafts or at least VERY polished and rewritten drafts. That is IMHO why the difference between a Blackilist script for example and a script here at SS vary so much in quality.
For me personally, I must have read maybe a thousand amateur scripts by now. At least if I factor in shorts. I wish now that I had spent some more time reading pro scripts. Maybe I would be further along with my own writing.
Good stuff, peeps. I almost hate to say it -- double dash -- but I have to agree with much of what Dustin has to say. BUT, obviously, there are out there comments as well.
BUT, the guy is making some sense for sure...with me, at least.
Of all the King books I've read and own, I actually still have not read his book on writing yet.
Pia, you should pick up a copy - it's terrific reading. I read it when it first came out, have since passed it on to hubby, and also bought a copy for my neph (an aspiring writer) for Christmas.
It's essential and really enjoyable reading imh, not necessarily aimed at screenwriters, but at writers in general and true to form contains a lot of King's life experiences, his childhood, that almost fatal accident (he added that experience to the book) and how writing helped him come back from the brink.
"If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot."
Lots of great stuff to be had in the book, and at the very least it's inspiring stuff and will likely get your fingers tapping.
Well since we're mostly off topic and not really talking about the subject at hand -- the double dashes -- I think I'll take us further off topic with a quick, simple question. If you show a main character in a picture/photo before he is actually shown as a real person, does his name still get all caps for the picture/photo introduction or no? Help please. Thanks.
Well since we're mostly off topic and not really talking about the subject at hand -- the double dashes -- I think I'll take us further off topic with a quick, simple question. If you show a main character in a picture/photo before he is actually shown as a real person, does his name still get all caps for the picture/photo introduction or no? Help please. Thanks.
I would too, Deadite, especially since we're going to meet him. And depending on the circumstances, nothing wrong with saying..."Who we'll meet later"...or something like that. Clarity is king.
Well since we're mostly off topic and not really talking about the subject at hand -- the double dashes -- I think I'll take us further off topic with a quick, simple question. If you show a main character in a picture/photo before he is actually shown as a real person, does his name still get all caps for the picture/photo introduction or no? Help please. Thanks.
--Steve
How old is the photo? Nobody is going to give a pHuck whatever you do. Be a little weird intro'ing a character that's twenty in a photo and sixty when they come on screen though.
I recently tackled this in a short I'm going to be co-producing... and I added some fluff, like photo's and shite to early description... and I left it at that. The photo's are from times gone by... but if they were recent photo's, then I might intro them through the photo... that's actually a cool way to intro someone I think.
"If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot."
That's true. I have and continue to read a lot. My tastes have simply changed from reading fiction to fact. I had a lot of time on my hands during my wayward youth and have read more novels than most. 83 books a year is nothing. Try 300, and more if you count little westerns of which I could easily manage 4 per day. There are even books I've read up to three times, and not through choice either. I'm also a fast reader, can devour a 3-400 page novel in seven hours or so. I read The Stand in three days. I used to call fiction like that easy reading. I left school aged around thirteen... ended up in care, youth prison, then starred up at twenty-one. Don't get me wrong though, I always read books, right from a young age... Frank Baum, CS Lewis, Roald Dahl... I loved reading. I also loved writing and actually did really well at school while I was there.
When I started getting into trouble and put away, it was easy for me to read and write to kill the time, which consisted of 23 hours per day bang up, with no TV's in those days... and man, did I read. With nothing else to do my appetite became voracious. I had to fill every waking hour reading or writing. I would write around seven A4 sides per day... 2-3000 words... all by hand of course. Screenplays too. Poorly formatted screenplays, but I'd written several before I finally decided that I was going to get myself out there.
I'm sick of reading. I've read every story there is time and time again. Now I read fiction with a critical eye only, even if you're a pro, I will be looking at the flaws in your writing. King doesn't interest me... nobody does anymore. I like Tarantino's films... but I couldn't give a flying about his script. I read a couple of pages of Hateful 8. All I needed to read to know he's a good writer. Then I clicked it off. He's only going to tell me a story I've heard before, yes in an entertaining way... but I can do that myself... and to be really honest, I don't want to be polluted with his ideas. I'm my own writer.
All I'm interested in now are facts and translating those facts through my writing. I've always been a writer. Even as a kid, I knew that one day I would be a professional writer... which is partly why I went out seeking adventure... the other part is because I was just pHucking crazy. Was is an operative word there. Different person these days.
Obviously not everybody here will have had the opportunity to read fiction as much as I have... but, in my opinion, there are only so many stories one needs to read... the rest comes down to talent. Writer's voice.
In the olden days storytellers around a campfire used their voice... and we still use it today. Whether to connect with producers or the viewing public. The voice provides the vibe. Let's take King and The Stand. I read straight through without any issues... and his imagination was running wild with that story... what carried me through 1300 and more pages (I think it was around that) was his voice. The guy could be in the room with me, talking right into my head... when I wasn't reading it, I was thinking about it. You can't learn that. No matter how much you read. It's something you either have or you don't, IMO.
Photos are generally the go to trope that a lot of writers seem to use to show events through visuals rather than dialogue. It can definitely get jarring if there's too much of it, although I think it's pretty obvious anyway if you're trying to reveal a past event through a picture, basically taking the effect away. Doesn't really work for me but depends on the context of the scene I guess.
The picture thang is rough in a script - much more clear in the filmed version.
I would not intro a character through a picture if for no other reason, a picture is static and there's not much you can really say if it's simply a headshot, for example.
I use a picture to introduce a character in "Empowered". It's a really old photo though, torn, frayed and dirty. The photo is set in Roswell 1947, black and white, introduces "Kai" who is the father of one of my main characters... though the story is set in 2016 and said character is like, 18.
I think it's a cool way to intro characters. I also use the TV to introduce characters, which is another cool way to bring folks into the fold as it's live feed some of the time, and opens doors to switch scenes seamlessly.
Usually though, sticking to the classic action line during scene works best.
Unless your character LOOKS different and has not aged since the photograph was taken, otherwise I believe you're just shooting yourself in the foot by saying he/she's 25 in the photo then they're 60 when you meet them in a scene.
All depends on how you handle it in truth.
As for the "--", examples of how I use it below:
RION (pronounced: Ree-on) How's the chicken? Is it -- hold on a sec --
*Throws guy through a wall*
RION You mind? *takes chicken, bites into it* Hm -- not bad.
That's dialogue. In terms of action blocks I only EVER use it if there's a break in scene. Such as this:
Rion's fist turns concrete. He punches a guy through a wall into --
*NEXT SCENE TAKES PLACE IN NEW LOCATION*
-- guy crashes through a fish tank. Water floods out, glass rains down. Onlookers SCREAM and scatter.
They basically work as beats without the parenthicals.
I think I'll take us further off topic with a quick, simple question. If you show a main character in a picture/photo before he is actually shown as a real person, does his name still get all caps for the picture/photo introduction or no? Help please. Thanks.
I used a current framed photo of my main character in Scream For Me to start the script off with and I used all caps to introduce him. The reason I used a photo instead of the character himself, he's in the same room, is because the whole film is about him changing to a monster throughout the film. In the end, when he dies, his face returns to normal or to the handsome face we first saw in the photo. So, it also serves as bookends for the film as well.
There's no reason why we can't use the photo to tell us something about the character too... rock climbing for example. I think it can work quite well if utilised correctly.
Therefore, what most of us think of when we think amateur scripts are not completed polished last drafts. The pro scripts we read are the final drafts or at least VERY polished and rewritten drafts. That is IMHO why the difference between a Blackilist script for example and a script here at SS vary so much in quality.
There's truth in that.
On Writing is a quick read and it will be worth your while.
Quoted from deadite
I think I'll take us further off topic with a quick, simple question. If you show a main character in a picture/photo before he is actually shown as a real person, does his name still get all caps for the picture/photo introduction or no? Help please. Thanks.
Kevin's right on the caps, if the character make an appearance on screen later.
But I couldn't see why I ever would use a photo to introduce a main character, maybe for some reason I would. It seems counter productive to me since you want, for most characters, to introduce them in the shortest period of time. A photo is simply the face of another person walking down the street. Unless you plan on having the character holding the photo, looking at the photo, or whatever, and actually tell us something about the character, okay, maybe.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
The way you've written it suggests that amateur is bad and pro is good.
I think the fact you avoided to answer my questions suggests something.
If you think that... then you should change it. I'd never do something I considered lame, just because somebody else suggested it.
Nobody suggested it...I did it on my own ( I don't like the route I took, but for now I'm gonna keep it...maybe). I was just curious as how to format it.
As for everyone else --
Formatting problem solved, and I am now moving on with my story.
I might toy with deleting that "photo" intro, however....
I can EASILY see why a main character would be introduced in a photo...and I'm sure it's been done.
Here is a hypothetical. Last week, I read a story about a British soldier in WWI. A German soldier found his dead body, and in his hand was a photo of the man, his wife, and his baby...and a written request to return the photo to his wife. The German soldier did so after the war.
If the story opened with this scene, this is how we would meet his wife...in the photo.
And I think I read an optioned script last year that begins similarly in Iraq where the soldier has a photo of his wife, and then a scene or two later we meet the wife.
I think I actually have a scene like that in one of my own scripts, but I can't recall it at the moment.
All kinds of possible situations: - a mother holds a photo of a missing child that she is searching for and we eventually meet. - a character who first meets someone online, so we first see the photo on a screen, like a dating service - we're in dracula's castle, in the present, and there is a painting of him on the wall, and later we meet him - a newspaper photo of a serial killer who our character is chasing, and later we meet him
Why why why delete the photo intro if that's what works best for the story? See, this is where the rules stuff aggravates me. People worried about whether that's the "best" or "correct" way to introduce a screenplay character have now changed a writer's story choice! It's literally a kind of madness that we need to develop an antibiotic for.
DO WHAT IS BEST FOR YOUR STORY. If it makes sense that this is how we first see the character, then do that.
Go back about a month and find his week long discussion on "rules". Scott has consulted many of the most experienced hands in the field...people that are actually involved with the film making process. He even goes into the history of how this rules stuff has evolved. It's really a new phenomena, as schools only started teaching screenwriting a couple decades ago...and THEY needed rules so they could teach them.
There ARE standards that have arisen over time, of course...and they are always evolving. Your script should look and feel in accordance with these norms, and there is a wide range for those norms.
But those "rules" are never meant to interfere with the telling of your story.
Kevin, I agree with what you're saying. And I was actually thinking of a similar war scenario that you mentioned (A soldier that holds the photo of his loved wife/girlfriend under his helmet or whatever). I considered writing that in my post but decided against it and here's why.
It's difficult for me to say whether the character in the photo would actually play a role as a MAJOR character (the protagonist, and characters directly influencing the protagonist). As a minor character, I can easily see it happening, for me. But a major character that we don't see until maybe half way through the movie? I'm dubious about that.
"a mother holds a photo of a missing child that she is searching for and we eventually meet."
I would consider the child a plot device and a minor character. Unless the story is not about finding the child, and the child is found early on and then the story is about something else, like finding the kidnappers. Then I suppose the child is a major character.
"a character who first meets someone online, so we first see the photo on a screen, like a dating service"
This is a legitimate one.
"we're in dracula's castle, in the present, and there is a painting of him on the wall, and later we meet him"
This one I don't understand.
"a newspaper photo of a serial killer who our character is chasing, and later we meet him"
Maybe. Depends on how "later we meet him" and what role the character plays in the story. E.g. Buffalo Bill was a minor character, yet he's the plot device for the story. On the other hand, Hannibal Lecter is a major character and, oddly, the story is not about him.
Why why why delete the photo intro if that's what works best for the story? See, this is where the rules stuff aggravates me. People worried about whether that's the "best" or "correct" way to introduce a screenplay character have now changed a writer's story choice! It's literally a kind of madness that we need to develop an antibiotic for.
DO WHAT IS BEST FOR YOUR STORY. If it makes sense that this is how we first see the character, then do that.
Hey Kevster, it has nothing to do with rules. I don't let that stuff stifle my stories. I just think it's a lame way to intro a character. I think the first time we see a character he should have a memorable introduction to the audience, like, for example the opening to Goodfellas. These 3 guys are driving around and they think they "have a flat tire", but they pull over and we find out the thumping noise was actually a guy in the trunk that they thought was dead but who's still alive. They proceed to blow this dude the fuck away. Awesome opening, awesome introduction to these characters. It's like, woah, what the fuck kinda movie am I in store for here??? Ya dig? That's what I try to accomplish.
Kevin's right on the caps, if the character make an appearance on screen later.
But I couldn't see why I ever would use a photo to introduce a main character, maybe for some reason I would. It seems counter productive to me since you want, for most characters, to introduce them in the shortest period of time. A photo is simply the face of another person walking down the street. Unless you plan on having the character holding the photo, looking at the photo, or whatever, and actually tell us something about the character, okay, maybe.
Maybe your character lived 100 years before the story takes place and he's seen in a photograph? That's what I went for at least. Then when you meet him, and 100 years have passed since that photo was taken, and he looks identical to said photo, then you realize "oh, damn... this dude's freaking IMMORTAL!" and voila, character development without even doing anything with him yet.
An antibiotic may definitely be in need, but I'm not sure who needs it the most.
Kevin, I know you mean well and and have lots of great advice, but the more I read your posts on anything that has to do with actual writing choices, it becomes clearer and clearer how badly you want to buck the system and how much you're against rules and standards that are there for damn good reasons.
If I'm not mistaken, this latest discussion came up because the man with 1,000 different screen names asked if he should CAP his character intro in a picture, and he recevied several different pieces of advice. Right?
Now, you're making this into whether or not it's OK to intro a character through a picture and you're all gung ho over it for some reason.
The examples you bring up are so far from unique, yet you act like you're offering up revelutionary ideas. I honestly don't get what you're saying or why you continue to harp on this stuff.
You want to first show a character in a picture or the like? Absolutely nothing wrong with that, but when you first intro him/her in your script, as a living, breathing, live body (or dead one in Drac's case), you should do it the way you always would - CAP his name and give him a proper intro. Why? It's a screenwriting staple, that's why.
Does that limit your creativity in some way that I don't understand? I sure don't think so, and for the life of me, can't see how.
If I'm not mistaken, this latest discussion came up because the man with 1,000 different screen names asked if he should CAP his character intro in a picture, and he recevied several different pieces of advice. Right?
Just curious. Why did you call him " the man with 1,000 different screen names" ?
"The examples you bring up are so far from unique, yet you act like you're offering up revolutionary ideas."
Of course not. That was the point. It's probably been done many times...those were quick hypotheticals.
What worried me was that the writer wanted to introduce his character this way(in a photo), but changed his mind because he was told it's incorrect for some reason or another. It's not.
I actually have no desire to buck the system. I generally write within. I merely refuse to let the system force me into bad choices.
Look, people are comfortable with having a system. It means once they master it, they don't have to think about that stuff. Which is comfortable.
But as with many things in life, once we get comfortable we stop looking for what's optimal. That's a danger in a field, especially in the sciences, but in anything.
There are times in screenwriting where the system just doesn't work well. So I buck it.
But I think many new writers that come here have a certain terror beat into them that they are going to do something "incorrect". And as a result, sometimes they don't make the best story choice, or the best writing choice.
So if a character is introduced in a photo, do you cap it? Do you then cap it again later. And I'm ok with that. And I think we should keep in mind circumstances vary. For example, we might meet the character in the photo, but then not meet the living version until much later.
I would have no problem with something like this:
EXT. FRANCE - TRENCHES
The SOLDIER, bleeding from a mortal wound, crawls between lifeless comrades.
Lies down and pulls out a photo.
CU ON PHOTO: the soldier with his wife JESSICA, 20, attractive...we'll meet her again soon.
The soldier breathes his last holding the photo to his chest.
Is this the best way? I don't know, there are many ways. Is it clear?
Do I need to say "we'll meet again soon"?
Maybe not...but if this is going to be an important character, the writer might choose to, as it becomes more of an introduction this way.
So let's say in the very next scene we meet the living version of Jessica at home in England...do we cap her intro again? I would not, but I'm certainly not confused or bothered by it if I'm read it.
Also, let's say we don't meet Jessica in the flesh until half a script later. I see no problem with saying:
A beautiful woman rides through the garden under a brilliant sun: Jessica, from the soldier's photo.
Or something like that.
And I'm not saying those are the best ways to handle the situation. But when searching for the best way, I'm not going to be constrained by rigid rules. I'm going to try to figure out what works best for the reader.
Kevin, I agree with what you're saying here in theory and agree that each writer can make his or her choice how to write it.
I don't see any "rules" being broken here in your scenarios and don't see any issues if the writer was a rules stickler, either. An aside here or there, possibly CAPPING an intro for a picture and then again for the actual character intro...who cares...no big deal.
I'll say it again, however, that I do wonder why you feel that certain "rules" will force you into bad choices. I just don't see why you continuously have issues such as these.
Even using such notes as C.U. or the like, to me, is rarely necessary.
For instance, take a picture as an example. If the writer writes that a picture of whatever "is seen" onscreen (now, you know I don't mean that he literally writes that), wouldn't it just be common sense that the view is close enough that whatever details are described can be seen?
Also, if we see a picture in a dying man's hands of a woman and child/ren, again, doesn't it go without saying that this is most likely going to turn out to be his family? Obviously, we wouldn't have a clue what her name is or anything other than what that picture shows, but as things play out, it will be crystal clear who that was and why it's important...at least to me, it is.
Yes, makes sense, and I've actually never used CU. There are different ways to do it, and I always hope to find what is clearest and most efficient.
We would not have a clue about Jessica's name, but we often don't have clue about a character's name...until another character speaks it, usually.
I would be ok with introducing her name here...or waiting. Whatever the writer decides...as long as things are clear to me.
And I don't mind a few extra words placed in order to make sure the reader is clear. For example, if when we meet Jessica it says "the girl from the photo"...or something like that, that might save the reader having to go back and check to make sure.
I was actually just outside doing some watering, having a cocktail and started thinking about something.
I include things in my scripts all the time to help the reader, that some may find "wrong" or "unfair", but like you, I strive for clarity, easy reading, and visual reading.
For instance, when you have a married couple, unless your properly intro tham with first and the same last names, your reader really won't know if they're married or going out, or even brother and sister. But, if you use "her husband" in an action/description line instead of the guy's name, your reader knows. If you use "his girlfriend", then again, it's clear.
Obviously, there are tens of thousands of ways of doing little things that most won't even catch, that will make your read an ease and as visual as possible.
The trick to me, is not to overdo it, not to do really anything that someone may not like to the point of red flags popping up and waving in their face.
You never know, I may throw out a whole new style with this upcoming OWC...
Pages: 
Author
The use of " -- ".
Logged
Locked Board