On the rules and formatting... it's been the best part of a few years since I've written anything seriously. In that time I've worked in film, produced a short, and generally got myself au fait with the process of making films, but completely abandoned screenwriting; have also been out of film for about 3 years, as I decided to enter the corporate world for $$.

Anyway, life story and contextualising over, I want to get writing properly, and am a little rusty on the rules.

So I have a formatting question!

When you open on black, with sound and a super... is this the correct introduction?



ON BLACK

An alarm clock buzzes non-stop.

SUPER: In dreams begin responsibilities. YEATS, W.B.

FADE IN:

INT. OLLIE'S FLAT - BEDROOM - MORNING

Daylight streams through closed curtains.



I know how basic, this is, but I've completely forgotten! Many basics like this have left my head.

I will post the first 12 pages or so of a story I first posted on SS over 10 years ago, which at that point was a 3-pager. It will be an incomplete story, but feedback will be hugely helpful.

Quoted from Dreamscale What up, Andrew?  Long time, bro. It may have been Dave who brought up the stuff about asides and the like, but you're talking about that here as well. You say that writers who know what they're doing don't need to be told about such things, but what about when you're not familiar with the writer?  How can you know? Well, I guess you can know when you read a wonderfully formatted, mistake free script that entertains, right?  But what if that wonderfully formatted, mistake free script that entertains, has cheesy lines like, "like a hungry lion attacking its prey", or, "faster than a cheetah", or how about, "as quietly as a mouse"? Know what i'm saying?  Some asides will work, most will not.  And, it's those writers that don't get why some work and most don't, but for some reason, they think they need to try and throw some in to make their work jump off the page. That's what I try to guard against.

All good thanks, mate. Good to be back on SS.

For sure, you can never be 100% on how experienced a writer is (unless you do know), but I guess the main point is not letting the usage of asides, wrylies or whatever else to distract from the story. It's fair to say that the aside or flourish doesn't work for the reviewer, but to not let that define the script.

I think it's absoluely cool to offer any advice that is intended to be useful. Film is a collaborative process, and SS, as its best, mirrors that collaborative nature.

I've actually posted a basic format question I need help for, so please help me on that one!

Quoted from Andrew On the rules and formatting... it's been the best part of a few years since I've written anything seriously. In that time I've worked in film, produced a short, and generally got myself au fait with the process of making films, but completely abandoned screenwriting; have also been out of film for about 3 years, as I decided to enter the corporate world for $$. Anyway, life story and contextualising over, I want to get writing properly, and am a little rusty on the rules. So I have a formatting question! When you open on black, with sound and a super... is this the correct introduction? ON BLACK An alarm clock buzzes non-stop. SUPER: In dreams begin responsibilities. YEATS, W.B. FADE IN: INT. OLLIE'S FLAT - BEDROOM - MORNING Daylight streams through closed curtains. I know how basic, this is, but I've completely forgotten! Many basics like this have left my head. I will post the first 12 pages or so of a story I first posted on SS over 10 years ago, which at that point was a 3-pager. It will be an incomplete story, but feedback will be hugely helpful.

IMO - what you have is clear. So mission accomplished. An alternate for you to consider.

BLACK SCREEN

The incessant BUZZING of an alarm clock.

SUPER: In dreams begin responsibilities. YEATS, W.B.

FADE IN:

INT. OLLIE'S FLAT - BEDROOM - MORNING

Daylight streams through closed curtains.

These are real nits and again - what you have is clear enough. But the reason for my suggestions:

If you start with ON BLACK - does a sound (buzzing) really go on something? That's why I prefer just BLACK SCREEN

"Incessant" sounds like a more irritating description than "non-stop".

That's it.

Quoted from eldave1 IMO - what you have is clear. So mission accomplished. An alternate for you to consider. BLACK SCREEN The incessant BUZZING of an alarm clock. SUPER: In dreams begin responsibilities. YEATS, W.B. FADE IN: INT. OLLIE'S FLAT - BEDROOM - MORNING Daylight streams through closed curtains. These are real nits and again - what you have is clear enough. But the reason for my suggestions: If you start with ON BLACK - does a sound (buzzing) really go on something? That's why I prefer just BLACK SCREEN "Incessant" sounds like a more irritating description than "non-stop". That's it.

Perfect, thanks. Agreed on both counts. Will adapt as such.

Quoted from Andrew Perfect, thanks. Agreed on both counts. Will adapt as such.

My pleasure.

"OVER BLACK" is the way to go.

OVER BLACK has been getting a kicking lately too as a less than original,  overused way to start a script.

I have nothing against it. Just commenting on what I've read lately.

Some of these "rules" that writers obsess about are editing choices and are IMO nothing writers should dabble in. Unless they also happen to be experienced editors. Just tell the story and let others do what they do best.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 However, this is one of the reasons why I have drifted from the site. As you rightly pointed out, people love to get into the nitty gritty about rules rather than, as far as I can tell, talk about story and character which is far more important and, dare I say, interesting. Script discussion boards dry up fast but a thread with "format" or "rules" in its title gets serious traffic. It's a shame really.

Going back to the original post before I add my 2 cents.

This seems like a pretty odd reason to drift from the site because this only really affects you as much as you let it. If someone comments on your script regarding format/rules and you either disagree or don’t care then just let it slide off your back, no harm done. You are also free to comment on the hundreds of scripts on the site in any way you see fit, if you would prefer to focus on story, character, theme, no one is stopping you. So I see this as a personal problem not a site problem.

As far as my personal thoughts on the 'rules' and other associated issues go; I think they have a place.

When I started writing I knew nothing, and I didn’t have a site like SS to help me along, so I read books, lots and lots of books by the 'gurus' and I read a lot of scripts. One thing I could tell very quickly is that there is a way to write a script. Obviously everyone has their own style, their own little things they do that set them apart, but for the most part a script looks like a script. That led me to believe that whether written or not there was a convention on how to write a script.

So I went ahead and learnt all those rules, I know them back to front at this point. My first script was so rule heavy that it was wooden, it had no life, but dammit it was formatted correctly in the eyes of the gurus.

I can honestly say that not many of my scripts on this site have a lot criticism about the writing (other than those from Jeff, that I largely ignore), and for the most part the comments I get are things like "really well written", "Solid writing - good craftsmanship", "Expertly written", and “The writing was excellent", or the writing isn't commented on at all. This means that the comments that follow are generally on story and associated elements. I truly think this is because I still strive to write within the rules, for the most part.

In the years I have been a part of SS I have developed my own style, do love a good aside, I definitely see the value in a well-used wrylie, if the best written block of action has an orphan, who cares, and if I think that some out-of-the-box method of doing something will either enhance or clarify my story I am sure as hell going to use it. But in saying all of that, I learnt the 'rules' which really are conventions more than rules and I still largely apply them and I think it benefits my writing to an extent.

I used to comment heavily on format because that’s what I knew, now when I comment on format I will generally add that it may be a personal preference thing or that it really doesn’t matter too much, but that for me personally it affected the read in one way or another. Sure, use camera directions, we sees, lots of passive writing, an overload of wrylies, but this will more than likely change the reading experience for me if it isn't done in a way that does not benefit the story.

Quoted from Warren I can honestly say that not many of my scripts on this site have a lot criticism about the writing (other than those from Jeff, that I largely ignore)...

Oh, Warren, c'mon, man.  Really?

On other such threads, you've admitted several times that things I have said on your scripts have helped you and many things I've brought up, you still do to this very day, although you wouldn't say exactly what those things are.

Give The Kid some credit.

First off, thanks Libby for moving my tangential post to a new thread. Sorry again for hijacking the OWC thread.

Good to see people are debating it and, honestly, I'm heartened to see most people are in general agreement with me. I just wish this would manifest itself on the boards more.

My point was mainly regarding the disproportion of conversation about rules in comparison to story, character, etc. I didn't say (and I don't think anyone else is saying this either) that discussing rules is not important. I explicitly said it was. What I’m saying is that it’s not important as the latter yet it seems to get way more attention.

Quoted from Andrew My view on it is that the formatting discussions are fine, but they shouldn’t get an outsized focus

Quoted from Andrew Maybe it's just me, but it seems no one is requesting this type of formatting critique be eliminated. Mostly, this type of analysis is beyond helpful to someone new to the screenplay writing craft. Without this help, they will make mistakes that interfere with the story they are trying to tell. 2) Then there is the like of asides, for example, which - at least to me, when done well - illuminate the story and read. The task of the screenplay is surely to create a visual, desirable blueprint, and if the writer is able to do that whilst being creative and meeting the core competencies of expectation in format, then why not? Of course, there is debate around how adroitly the writer is introducing the asides, and whether or not they are satisying point 1, but if we get bogged down in format for experienced writers (who do know the basic proficiency in format required), we risk missing the crucial elements such as tension, conflict, theme, character arcs, etc. That's when it becomes ineffective to go around in circles on format, IMO. That then very much becomes a philosophical debate, and is often down to the personal preference of the reader. For me, running over format isn't too interesting when I read a script, but I will say if I think the writing is getting in the way of the story. I much prefer to let others touch on format - even in the case of point 1, where the writer is new - because the core element is always the story; is it cohesive? does it have an internal logic? are characters fully fleshed? do motivations make sense? And so on. Because even poorly formatted scripts may have a golden story lurking underneath. I think col is suggesting we should place greater emphasis on story when reviewing, but I don't think that's the same as saying format in unimportant. At the end of the day, everyone's input is important and serves a purpose, because I firmly believe people commenting are doing so from a good place.

Hey man, I’m good, I hope you are well too. Thank you for understanding my point and articulating it far more eloquently.

Quoted from eldave1 When you get into the asides, parentheticals, orphans issues on an otherwise solid script it it a tedious and pointless discussion.

Quoted from Philostrate Not that I'm against discussing the rules/formatting issues, they are really important, they define what makes a script a script, but... when the script is solid, is it really necessary to put so much emphasis on them? And, most importantly, is it constructive? Just thinking out loud...

Yep, I’m agreed with you two. That’s what I was getting at.

Quoted from Dreamscale Ah...something to talk about...it's been so dead here lately. It always amazes me how peeps continue to pound on other peeps who try and help writers who don't know how to write.  I just don't get it, but then again, I think I do...maybe. Those that keep barking about "rules" and format not being important in feedback are most likely the ones that don't see the mistakes...and/or why they are mistakes. I've never been a very good dresser, so when someone who is tells me what I'm planning on wearing isn't a good idea, I thank them and make a change. If I continuously drive to a certain place and it takes me 30 minutes each time, and then a friend tells me about a secret route that will get me there in 20 minutes, I try it out and if he's right, I thank him and make that my new route. All this talk about commenting on character, theme, conflict, whatever is all great if you're dealing with a well written and conceived script in the first place, and IMO, those are very few and far between, both here at SS as well as in Hollywood, where we're given crappy movie after crappy movie. When someone says they don't like this or that about your script, it's simply their opinion, and chances are very good they don't have a clue to start with. BUT, when someone like myself says this and that are literally incorrect in your script, you can take it to the bank, as there's really no arguing it.  Thank me, make the changes, don't make the same mistakes on your next script, and you've become a better writer.

- You seemed to have missed my central point (assuming you are responding to my comment). I’ve reiterated it above and it was also expressed by Andrew (better than I ever could), Dave and Phil so I won’t repeat it again.

Quoted from Warren This seems like a pretty odd reason to drift from the site because this only really affects you as much as you let it. If someone comments on your script regarding format/rules and you either disagree or don’t care then just let it slide off your back, no harm done. You are also free to comment on the hundreds of scripts on the site in any way you see fit, if you would prefer to focus on story, character, theme, no one is stopping you. So I see this as a personal problem not a site problem.

- Well it affected me in as much that finding discussion about character, plot, etc was scarce while every thread about rules/formatting had 50+ comments. That doesn’t really interest me. Anyone who has conversed with me on here about their work or mine will know that I talk about the former first and foremost and formatting is secondary. So yeah it’s a personal problem in that it was becoming harder and harder to find meaningful conversation and this was related to the site and the direction it had, as far as I could see, increasingly taken. Of course, I’m not suggesting this was some guided, concerted change, it’s just how it felt to me. Hence, I drifted from it. Don’t see how that’s an odd reason.

Quoted from LC I have a particular fondness for FADE IN being written at the top of a script. It signifies for me ooh, this is the start of something special - hold onto your hats! I do not understand why people ditch that. To me it's like doing away with the info music /drum roll prior to a movie starting.

I can only speak for myself but I ditch it sometimes because I don’t envision a particular opening scene fading in. Simple as that. A lot of films start like that and many don’t. Some start in the middle of the action. So why should it be this standardised thing on the page when it’s not standardised on screen?

I've moaned about this before on here I'm sure. It really bugs me because I remember entering a competition once which docked me points because I didn’t write FADE IN: due to the fact that I didn’t see the script starting in that manner. It was a stylistic choice. This, to me, is a prime example of adherence to the rules taking precedence over common sense, creativity, practicality. Its silly.

And yes, the irony/hypocrisy of me getting into this in light of my original comment is not lost on me

Quoted from LC Hmm, seems Col has drifted off again. Oh, the irony.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 I've moaned about this before on here I'm sure. It really bugs me because I remember entering a competition once which docked me points because I didn’t write FADE IN: due to the fact that I didn’t see the script starting in that manner. It was a stylistic choice. This, to me, is a prime example of adherence to the rules taking precedence over common sense, creativity, practicality. Its silly.

This is a great example, not for being silly, but for showing the importance of certain things...like using FADE IN to start your action.  Yeah, there are lots of ways to do this without using FADE IN, but skipping it completely shows that you're simply bucking the system, IMO.

Here's a quick analogy (I love analogies!).

I hope we all understand that when driving, a stop sign and/or a red light both signify the need to stop (momentarily for a stop sign and until the red light turns green).

Well, what about if it's really late at night/early morning, and no one is on the road?  Or, how about if you're out in the country and again, no one is within miles of you?  Do you stop because you've been trained to stop, or simply blow through it, because common sense tells you that the rules don't have to apply here, as there's simply no reason to stop with no one around you?

If you routinely blow through read lights and stop signs, chances are good you're going to get a ticket, as video cams are popping up everywhere, or maybe it's simply a trap and a cop is waiting out of sight.

But, what also happens is that you're now telling yourself it's OK to break the rules (the law) when you deem it to be OK, and that's where the problems begin.

Quoted Text I think it important to define "format"  in the context of your point. Some format rules are like typos - i.e., there is an objective wrong or right. e.g., regardless of how great I think a script might be, I would point out to the writer the need to put DAY or NIGHT (or whatever - MORNING, etc) at the end of their header. etc. And I agree with you that these things ought to be clean as a whistle. It's the soft ones that bother me - asides, parenthetical, etc that often can enhance a read that some folks will hammer on.

This right here is pretty much it for me, and I think it's an extremely important distinction to make, generally speaking. I try to be more tolerant about that kind of thing nowadays to allow writers some room to experiment.

That said, I once read a parenthetical in an amateur script that was eight lines long, a full-on paragraph stating exactly why or how the attached four-word line should be said. By the time I finished reading the jumble of nonsense in that parenthetical I had essentially lost the rhythm of the scene and, by extension, lost sight of its purpose.

Shit like that doesn't tell me that the writer is experimenting... it tells me that they have never read and perhaps have never even laid their eyes on a screenplay in their life, and probably figured it'd be easy because they wrote a short play once or some B.S.

Do I think people get too hung up on the rules? Yes, I do. Do I think the rules should be bent or broken when they need to be? Yes, absolutely.

Do I also think that the rules are there for a reason, namely to avoid unfortunate incidents like the above? Yep!

Quoted from ReaperCreeper This right here is pretty much it for me, and I think it's an extremely important distinction to make, generally speaking. I try to be more tolerant about that kind of thing nowadays to allow writers some room to experiment. That said, I once read a parenthetical in an amateur script that was eight lines long, a full-on paragraph stating exactly why or how the attached four-word line should be said. By the time I finished reading the jumble of nonsense in that parenthetical I had essentially lost the rhythm of the scene and, by extension, lost sight of its purpose. Shit like that doesn't tell me that the writer is experimenting... it tells me that they have never read and perhaps have never even laid their eyes on a screenplay in their life, and probably figured it'd be easy because they wrote a short play once or some B.S. Do I think people get too hung up on the rules? Yes, I do. Do I think the rules should be bent or broken when they need to be? Yes, absolutely. Do I also think that the rules are there for a reason, namely to avoid unfortunate incidents like the above? Yep!

Well said.

Quoted from Dreamscale This is a great example, not for being silly, but for showing the importance of certain things...like using FADE IN to start your action.  Yeah, there are lots of ways to do this without using FADE IN, but skipping it completely shows that you're simply bucking the system, IMO. Here's a quick analogy (I love analogies!). I hope we all understand that when driving, a stop sign and/or a red light both signify the need to stop (momentarily for a stop sign and until the red light turns green). Well, what about if it's really late at night/early morning, and no one is on the road?  Or, how about if you're out in the country and again, no one is within miles of you?  Do you stop because you've been trained to stop, or simply blow through it, because common sense tells you that the rules don't have to apply here, as there's simply no reason to stop with no one around you? If you routinely blow through read lights and stop signs, chances are good you're going to get a ticket, as video cams are popping up everywhere, or maybe it's simply a trap and a cop is waiting out of sight. But, what also happens is that you're now telling yourself it's OK to break the rules (the law) when you deem it to be OK, and that's where the problems begin.

Using your analogy.

No one is really arguing to run the stop sign. They are debating two things:

- What is a Stop Sign?
- What does running that Stop Sign mean?

For me, asides, unfilmables, wrylies, bold headers and a whole host of other things are not Stop Signs. When I read reviews that contain stuff like - you used a wrylie, there's an orphan, there's an aside, I generally learn nothing as it carries the same weight as if someone had said you used a verb or a noun.  Worse, when I read comment that concludes the writing is bad because of the existence of these elements, I think the commenter is simply inaccurate and hope the writer ignores them.

Same for things like V.O. and O.S. e.g.,  When someone points out their existence - like they're inherently a bad thing, (or a Stop Sign in this analogy) it's useless - because they're not stop signs. Conversely, if someone is making an argument that - hey. I think the scene would work better if the character actually said the line versus just thinking it because (insert reason)- then I'm listening. I may end up disagreeing - but I'm listening.

And then there is the weight given to the things that are reasonably construed as Stop Signs. As an example, I think scripts should generally start with FADE IN. That being said I can remember a single instance where I noticed if it was there or not. It's a nit and should be given the weight of one in terms of the overall writing.