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.
Here is my working list of Top Five Things To Do To Get Someone To Go Beyond The First Page. At this point in time (and for the foreseeable future) 1. and 1.a. is a showstopper to getting on the site. I send them to Anthony's software page (with other free template suggestions). I'd like to flesh this out. The [ ]'d items are what I'd like to flesh out more. If you have a moment, do you have a different "top five" peeve"? and/or How can I better explain why it's bad and what to do about it.
1. Formatting (and Software) 1.a.Spelling, punctuation and capitalization count.
[ ]Why Formatting is Important.
[ ]One page example of screenplay format (Which would highlight Font, Fade In, Screen Heading, Action (Stage Direction/Slugs), Transition, Dialouge (Character, parenteticals), The End) with emphasis on Software available to do this: [ ]Screenplay Format Glossary
[ ]Software:
[ ] I'd like this to lead with Free Templates and move down to other low cost options, e.g.,
2. Scene Headings - Location - Place - Time of Day [ ]Examples (bolding is not a hill I would die on)
3. Try to avoid using camera angles. [ ]We are not the director. We are not writing a shooting script. We are telling a story. Don't take the reader out of the story. [ ] Examples:
4. Try to avoid using We See/We Hear" in Action (Stage Direction/Slugs) [ ] Who is "We" and why are you in the bathroom with me reading this script. [ ]Examples: Bad: "We see a boy running across an open field. We hear an eagle scream." Bood: "A boy runs across an open field. He hears an eagle scream"
5. Try to avoid writing in passive voice. One trick is to avoid using "-ing" verbs in Action (Stage Direction/Slugs) Passive: A little girl is beating a homeless man. Active: A little girl beats the homeless man.
I think stay away from suggesting MS Word (even though that is a great and intuitive template there), especially as there are so many free options for dedicated software.
Quoted Text
. No camera angles. We are not the director. We are not writing a shooting script. We are telling a story. Don't take the reader out of the story.
I've argued this before, but I think this is overstated advice. Spec scripts (that get produced) often have camera directions, especially when its necessery for a scene to work. A spec script isn't a shooting script so they should be used very sparesly (and I, out of personal preference, never use them) but a script's failings are never going to be because a writer has "low angle" on one page.
Quoted Text
no "-ing" verbs in Action
I hear this all the time, too, and I personally never use passive voice on purpose (it's slipped by on occasion). However, it's not a big issue if I read it. Most of the time I don't notice it.
Besides huge formatting mistakes, my biggest pet peeve with new writers is that they don't respect the length of their work. For instance, 140 pages is too long for script and no one can get through it. It's probably the only hard and fast rule that I think should never be broken by spec writers - make your feature 80-100 pages at the most.
I think stay away from suggesting MS Word (even though that is a great and intuitive template there), especially as there are so many free options for dedicated software.
It is those free options that I want to flesh out.
I've argued this before, but I think this is overstated advice. Spec scripts (that get produced) often have camera directions, especially when its necessary for a scene to work. A spec script isn't a shooting script so they should be used very sparsely (and I, out of personal preference, never use them) but a script's failings are never going to be because a writer has "low angle" on one page.
I hear this all the time, too, and I personally never use passive voice on purpose (it's slipped by on occasion). However, it's not a big issue if I read it. Most of the time I don't notice it.
Besides huge formatting mistakes, my biggest pet peeve with new writers is that they don't respect the length of their work. For instance, 140 pages is too long for script and no one can get through it. It's probably the only hard and fast rule that I think should never be broken by spec writers - make your feature 80-100 pages at the most.
[/quote]
Ben,
Thanks for these insights. I will keep them in mind as I revise.
I'll be a good boy and be quiet. Personal growth, I guess.
Hi Kevin,
I'm not sure where you are going with this. I've listed my personal pet peeves in the hope that I can come up with a few items that a new writer can use to put the best foot forward as well as elevate, if even slightly, the quality of the works on the site.
Veteran advice: "You should avoid passive writing."
The amateur responds: "What's passive writing?"
The veteran writer, who understandably doesn't have time to hold a writing style course, says "Just don't use ing words."
That made some kind of sense in the pre-internet age. But now people can look up what passive writing is and get a better sense.
To completely eliminate passive description results in weaker writing. Pro scripts don't look that way. It's taking a tool out of the writer's toolbox.
Highly refined amateur scripts look that way, and it marks them as amateur.
I think the falsehood that some of these things are absolute rules is being perpetuated.
Here's what I think happens:
These rules take brand spanking new writers and DO make them better.
But then these rules eventually CONSTRICT the writer's development...because the rules are essentially false.
The only rule that matters is good writing, and following these rules strictly leads to awkward writing. EVERY time. There is not a single pro script written this way.
Simplyscripts has a role to play. A lot of people, I suspect, learn to write screen here. I don't know how it's best to split the difference. On the one hand, you want to help the babe-in-the-woods writer. That means simple rules.
But when these general rules of thumb are turned into "rules", it drives away writers eventually, once they see these rules hold them back. They start to see this as a freshman writing course that you have to get past and then move on if you want to grow.
Does it have to be that way? Maybe. I don't know.
And I do recognize that a huge challenge for Don is to be able to make a quick evaluation of a script before he posts it, to see if it's close to a standard. So I'm not sure what the solution is.
The very act of trying to break the form of good writing down into a few simple rules is what led to the problem in the first place...the problem being awkward writing in screenwriting.
Maybe just change the wording to "avoid passive voice as much as possible"...and let the writer google what that is. "Avoid 'we see' and avoid camera directions, descriptions of things that can't be seen in the film..."
I agree Leitskeiv. You basically said what I was trying to, but better.
**
Hell, I think even saying "avoid" is too strong a directive. Instead, explain why passive writing is "frowned upon": i.e "passive writing uses more space and is jarring" and let writers make their own assessment as to how they should respond.
What if we are driving through a suburban neighborhood.
Suburban utopia: an old man watering the lawn, kids riding their bikes, mothers pushing baby carriages, people walking their dogs...
and a little girl beating a homeless man?!
Is it really better to say an old man waters his lawn?
The above example is not a grammatically correct sentence, it's a long fragment, but even in prose fragments are sprinkled in usefully.
And especially in screenwriting they can be useful to creating punchier scripts.
I think "avoid" is good advice. And then I think Don will know the difference at a glance between a good writer who knows what he's doing and one who doesn't.
I think Dave, too, has said the same thing - use 'avoid' (or 'try to avoid' or 'use sparingly') rather than absolutes when it comes to passive writing, camera angels and 'we'.
A five point FAQ is not going make a writer's first script a masterpiece. However, I am trying to vastly improve that first draft that is posted so that we as writers, when a draft is posted to the site, can focus on the story rather than the mechanics. Later the writer can learn when one can get away with breaking the rules.
I've modified the top five issues based upon your suggestions. I still need to flesh out more. Willing to take suggestions.
That's fair, Don. It's hard to make a "guide" to formatting without using some absolutes. And again, I guess you have to learn the basics to be able to break them well, like Leitskev does.
Veteran advice: "You should avoid passive writing."
The amateur responds: "What's passive writing?"
The veteran writer, who understandably doesn't have time to hold a writing style course, says "Just don't use ing words."
That made some kind of sense in the pre-internet age. But now people can look up what passive writing is and get a better sense.
To completely eliminate passive description results in weaker writing. Pro scripts don't look that way. It's taking a tool out of the writer's toolbox.
Highly refined amateur scripts look that way, and it marks them as amateur.
I think the falsehood that some of these things are absolute rules is being perpetuated.
Here's what I think happens:
These rules take brand spanking new writers and DO make them better.
But then these rules eventually CONSTRICT the writer's development...because the rules are essentially false.
The only rule that matters is good writing, and following these rules strictly leads to awkward writing. EVERY time. There is not a single pro script written this way.
Simplyscripts has a role to play. A lot of people, I suspect, learn to write screen here. I don't know how it's best to split the difference. On the one hand, you want to help the babe-in-the-woods writer. That means simple rules.
But when these general rules of thumb are turned into "rules", it drives away writers eventually, once they see these rules hold them back. They start to see this as a freshman writing course that you have to get past and then move on if you want to grow.
Does it have to be that way? Maybe. I don't know.
And I do recognize that a huge challenge for Don is to be able to make a quick evaluation of a script before he posts it, to see if it's close to a standard. So I'm not sure what the solution is.
The very act of trying to break the form of good writing down into a few simple rules is what led to the problem in the first place...the problem being awkward writing in screenwriting.
Maybe just change the wording to "avoid passive voice as much as possible"...and let the writer google what that is. "Avoid 'we see' and avoid camera directions, descriptions of things that can't be seen in the film..."
Use AVOID instead of DO NOT.
IMO
I understand and in many areas share your sentiment. I don't believe in absolute rules other than standard format and typos.
That being said, I do think that there is room for "generally" in this discussion and that newbies could benefit from that knowledge. The first script I posted here was filled with "ing" words. After being admonished/guided in that area I re-drafted and it is a much better script, IMO. I violate all kinds of the so-called "rules" now, but with knowledge of what some of the guidelines are. I think the guidance can be crafted in such a way that it does not put hand cuffs on a creative writer.
As I said, the simple rules DO help the brand new writer.
But there is no doubt that this process of creating easy rules of thumb has resulted in this strange world of scripts being written by seasoned and talented writers where there is an abundance of awkward writing. And the awkwardness is the result of one thing: an attempt to rigidly comply with these rules.
I guess what I'm saying is that it would be nice if Simplyscripts could contribute to two contradictory forces.
On the one hand, we want it to continue to guide brand new writers. That means teaching these simple rules.
But on the other hand it should be a place for maturing writers. That means advocating good writing...a process which includes knowing when to throw out these "rules".
Later, I may go out to water the lawn.
When you drive down the street, you may see me watering the lawn. It's an ongoing process, a state of affairs, something you see me doing. There is no conceivable argument that using the word "watering" is poor style.
The lonely guy is sitting at the bar staring at the hot bartender.
I think we are on the same page. At least for me - it took several discussions on this board to get there. Using your watering example - I went from completing over using ing - to never using it (after being guided not to) and then telling another writer that they shouldn't. Their response was - thanks - but I am okay with the ing word because I am showing an activity in progress. My synapses - oh - that does make sense. All of that was part of the maturing process.
Same with bold scene headings (I like them - others hate them), not using CONT'Ds - I don't - others say rule violation, etc. etc.
But in all these cases I benefitted from a starting point.
Anyway - I think the proposed thread as I imagine it will allow for healthy input to new writers and a nice place to discuss nuances amongst more experienced writers. i.e., long winded way of saying that it seems we are in agreement on what the ideal thread would look like.