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.
The Rules - Formatting fatigue (currently 9523 views)
Dreamscale
Posted: March 25th, 2019, 9:24pm
Guest User
Quoted from Dreamscale
Think about how easy it would be to use these action wrylies in place of action lines...you could have almost all action wrylies in a heavily weighted dialogue heavy script.
As I said above, which you didn't comment on...here lies the problem.
You can say you like that 1 sequence as you wrote it with the wrylie...I have no issue with that.
But, I think you're saying you like that better in every situation like that, and as I noted, in a dialogue heavy type script, where action is few and far between, you could very easily be doing this many times per page.
Is that really what you want a script to look like?
Yeah, moderation in all things...except maybe hot chicks, alcohol, good food, money, free time....FUCK...OK, I'll stop. But, you see where this could lead if you truly think this is a superior way to write action?
As I said above, which you didn't comment on...here lies the problem.
You can say you like that 1 sequence as you wrote it with the wrylie...I have no issue with that.
But, I think you're saying you like that better in every situation like that, and as I noted, in a dialogue heavy type script, where action is few and far between, you could very easily be doing this many times per page.
Is that really what you want a script to look like?
Yeah, moderation in all things...except maybe hot chicks, alcohol, good food, money, free time....FUCK...OK, I'll stop. But, you see where this could lead if you truly think this is a superior way to write action?
No, I didn't respond as I did not find the argument very compelling. It's like arguing the use of one voice over would lead to a script with all voice overs. That the use of one flashback would lead to a script with all flashbacks. And obviously you know I don't like using this device for all action lines or even most action lines since you read my stuff and you know I don't. In other words advocating the use of parentheticals when you think it makes for a better read and no way advocates for the use of parentheticals all the time.
I have already detailed several instances where I think the use of parentheticals can enhance the writing. Why don't you deal with those?
Ps. I'm done. Not much more to say. Will give you last word
Wow, the back and forth between Jeff and Dave has me somewhere between amused, intrigued and depressed...and backs up my original claim.
Anyway, I think the root of the conflict here is that some people consider all instances of straying from format convention to be worthy of comment, to be flagged, to be struck down as categorically wrong while others see them as on a sliding scale, a gradation of degrees. Some formatting rules you should not break, others are negotiable, dependant on style or preference.
The former I will mention once, recommend a change and move on, the latter will only get an internalised "That's not how I would do it but fair enough, its the writer's choice" and not detract or distract from the reading experience. It allows me to focus on the more important elements of the script.
So the problem I see with taking the hardline approach that any deviations are worthy of comment is that you see lengthy reviews on here of solidly written scripts where 95% of the review's content is about these niggly format issue with very little about the script itself. That is what disheartens me as this type of review is nominally helpful but mostly a waste of energy and rather tedious.
I've only been here a short while, but since I joined I have pretty much read every comment and review posted.
Personally, I haven't noticed an imbalance in reviews between format and story. If the formatting is horrible then I can't read the story (basic formatting, the type of stuff that really hinders the read). I'll make a comment saying that it should be properly formatted and move on, if they then improve the formatting and re-post, I'll be able to read the actual story and I'll be able to comment on that.
If something is formatted correctly (I.E the basics) then I have noticed that most reviews are a healthy mix of more advanced formatting issues/Story/Grammer and spelling. Some reviewers focus more on one area than others, some helpful reviewers comment on everything.
So... are we talking about a problem that doesn't exist? or am I blind to it?
I joined the site 11 years ago and although I haven't always been a consistently active member, I check in on a regular basis and this is the pattern I've noticed over that period of time. Even more so now since, as others have mentioned, the site is pretty dead between the OWCs...or when a format/rules based thread pops up of course.
Anyway, I'm repeating myself again.
I should also make it clear that I love this site. It has helped me a lot and I've met some cool people/great writers on here.
No, I didn't respond as I did not find the argument very compelling. It's like arguing the use of one voice over would lead to a script with all voice overs.
Dave, this is not even remotely on subject here. C'mon, man!!! As I posted at least once, probably a few times, let's all be clear, that if a writer makes the personal choice to have his character(s) "speak" with VO, then every single time that happens, you'll have a VO...and it could be alot...which is fine, as it's the nature of the VO beast.
That the use of one flashback would lead to a script with all flashbacks.
Same exact thing here. If a writer decides to use Flashbacks to tell their story, every time there's a Flashback, it has be be labeled as such, and Flashback heavy scripts/movies, will have alot of them (hey, I have 1 of those Flashback heavy scripts myself). Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
And obviously you know I don't like using this device for all action lines or even most action lines since you read my stuff and you know I don't. In other words advocating the use of parentheticals when you think it makes for a better read and no way advocates for the use of parentheticals all the time.
Well, I know you never used to be all in on action wrylies, but based on this back and forth, that may have changed, but that's not really the point again. My concern is that writers who don't know what they're doing will all of a sudden think it's perfectly OK to have loads of wrylies in their scripts. And based on the last OWC, that appears to be true.
I have already detailed several instances where I think the use of parentheticals can enhance the writing. Why don't you deal with those?
I have absolutely no problem with a wrylie here and a wrylie there, where necessary and/or the better way to go. The issue is when they start to pile up, when they literally stick out. Saying it's perfectly fine to have 2 or more wrylies on every page opens the door for abuse.
I've mentioned this before on here, but there is a series of interviews with screenwriters hosted by producer Micheal De Luca, they're on DVDs from the mid-2000s. In one episode with writer Billy Ray (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0712753/), Billy says that one thing most writers neglect are wrylies. He teaches writers to use wrylies and to use them often because it's his opinion that you can enhance your story with them.
Now, whether he's right or wrong is a debate we can save for another day. My point is, a sought-out Hollywood writer uses wrylies, encourages others to use them and they fit his philosophical approach to storytelling on paper.
He has his approach, you can have yours. Clearly, people can be successful with different approaches. This cannot be disputed. We've seen screenplays get posted here that have sold for numbers none of us we'll likely see, that have been written in a manner that would have members here check out by page 2.
What I want to know is why is it that every time these threads pop-up, Dreamscale chimes in with his opinion, which he presents as fact, as the right and only way to go. Then he goes on for pages debating and defending his stance. This is not criticism, I honestly want to know why these screenwriting conventions and rules are so important to him, despite the fact that it has been proven time and time again that highly successful and critically acclaimed writers do not follow them.
Why are you so passionate about this subject Dreamscale, and why are you so set in your ways?
DEMENTO (motions to each) He has his approach, you can have yours. Clearly, people can be successful with different approaches. This cannot be disputed. (several in the audience raise their hands to start objecting, but elect to let DEMENTO finish) (others point to the orphan) We've seen screenplays get posted here that have sold for numbers none of us we'll likely see, that have been written in a manner that would have members here check out by page 2. (deep breath) What I want to know is why is it that every time these threads pop-up, Dreamscale chimes in with his opinion, which he presents as fact, as the right and only way to go. Then he goes on for pages debating and defending his stance. This is not criticism, I honestly want to know why these screenwriting conventions and rules are so important to him, despite the fact that it has been proven time and time again that highly successful and critically acclaimed writers do not follow them. (faces DREAMSCALE) Why are you so passionate about this subject Dreamscale, and why are you so set in your ways?
(several in the audience raise their hands to start objecting, but elect to let DEMENTO finish) (others point to the orphan)
Please write this as a description/action line next time. Also: It should be: 'to object' and delete: 'elect to...' And format that non-indented line to match the rest.
He has his approach, you can have yours. Clearly, people can be successful with different approaches. This cannot be disputed. We've seen screenplays get posted here that have sold for numbers none of us we'll likely see, that have been written in a manner that would have members here check out by page 2.
- I'm in full agreement with the caveat that the amount at which its advisable to stray from certain rules depends on how established you are as a writer...but yes, the kernel of what you are saying is true, and thankfully so. Jesus, how dull would screenplays be otherwise?
I won't comment as to why Jeff is so vocal about this except to say he has always been as far as I've seen him on here. I doubt he's gonna change now and why should he? This is what he believes. However, let's be fair, he's not alone.
What I'm more curious about is that, on the basis of this thread anyway, most people seem to concur about the relative importance of story/character over formatting so why doesn't the discussion boards here reflect this? Even those in the majority seemed to get dragged into these debates against the minority so it ends up being the dominant topic of conversation.
To answer my own question, I think I know why. As I said in response to Anthony's post earlier, its just much easier to nitpick over fussy rules than have an analytical discourse about more abstract stuff like story, character, theme and so on. (Who cares if its subjective? I'd much rather someone reviews a script by what it did/didn't to them emotionally or dramatically, regardless of how misguided their opinions may be, rather than a step-by-step technical check list)*
Thus, some people bail out of a script prematurely under the pretense of "its unreadable, poorly formatted" so they don't have to contend with that. They just list a bunch of errors, however slight, and click post.
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.
Sorry for the late response. Boy, this thread got busy, didn't it?
So, when I say "format," I need first to explain that when I provide feedback on a script here on SS, it's with the purpose of the site in mind. And the purpose of the site is to help new writers learn how to write a script. At least that's how I've always seen it. So when I say "format" it's not just about margins and indentations and how many characters wide dialogue should be, it's the actual language of screenwriting. The kinds of verbs used, how to write good descriptions, and, just as important as what to write, what NOT to write. Mind you, I'm not about to go into stuff like story structure, character building, inciting incidents, etc. That's all stuff for another conversation. This is all about format and presentation.
I've read countless screenwriting books since first becoming interested in the craft many years ago, and while they all have their own suggestions (and many even contradict one another) there are a handful of guidelines they almost all agree on:
1. No extraneous description. Keep it lean and clean. 2. Always begin a new scene with slug line: INT/EXT - LOCATION - DAY/NIGHT 3. Keep action/narratives to four lines or less. 4. No camera directions, no actor directions, no stage directions, no scene numbering 5. Include only what can be seen, heard or visibly represented on film. 6. Use active, present tense verbs.
These are, by and large, the rules of spec script writing -- which is itself by and large the type of script a new screenwriter will be writing. And the reasons for these spec writing rules are...
1. Too much description, the script becomes a traffic jam. A whole lot of noise, very little progress. 2. Not including slugs, the reader loses sense of progression and location. 3. Action/narratives kept to four lines because huge chunks of text are off-putting and make it feel like a chore to read. Plus, if you're using that many lines, clearly you're ignoring #1. 4. No camera/actor/stage directions or scene numberings because you're the writer, not the director, not the production designer, not the acting coach. It's not your job to direct the movie, it's your job to structure an interesting story and populate it with interesting characters. 5. No one can see what a character is thinking, no one can see motivation. Find a way to show us what they're thinking. 6. Active, present tense verbs because the idea is to make the reader feel as though the movie is happening in the now, playing right in front of them.
Things like margins, dialogue width, capping a character's name upon introduction -- these are format standards that every writer needs to meet. There is no reason for ignoring them. Learn them, abide by them.
The soft stuff you mentioned -- stuff like asides, wrylies/parentheticals, as well as orphans, stacking action, scene transitions, etc. Those are much more subjective. My advice is to keep them to an absolute, bare minimum. An orphan here and there, an occasional parenthetical, an editorial comment/aside -- one or two isn't going to completely sink a script. If the writer can't think of a better way to sell a moment, so be it. But it's when the writer relies on them, when they occur on every page and the script is filthy with them, that it becomes a problem. It goes back to the writer trying to direct the movie, direct the actors, etc.
As I'm fond of saying, the writer's job is the what; let the director worry about the how. There's an anecdote I read many years ago from Scream screenwriter Kevin Williamson. One day during pre-production, director Wes Craven commented to him that he didn't know how to hide the killer's clothes so that the audience wouldn't instantly recognize who it was. To which Williamson replied, "That's not my problem. I'm just the writer." And he was right.
Piggie-backing on some stuff that's already been said about wrylies/parentheticals, my thoughts are that they should only be used to imply subtext. There is no need to include incidental actions.
The wrong way:
Bob bites into a burnt piece of bacon.
MARY (Pouring coffee) So, what do you think?
BOB (lying so as not to hurt her feelings) Yum!
The right way:
Mary pours Bob a cup of coffee as he bites into a burnt piece of bacon.
MARY
So, what do you think?
BOB ("Yuck!") Yum!
A couple other things. Capping sound FX -- it's an old practice that writers used to help the film's sound designer, as a courtesy. But even if they're not capped, the sound designer's job is to scour the script looking for moments where sound FX are needed, so capped or not, they're going to find them. Hell, they may even find some you didn't think to cap. So cap them, don't cap them, I don't think it matters.
But there are many instances where caps come into play. They can be helpful to direct the reader's eye without outright including camera directions, like...
Bob's hand slides to the PISTOL tucked into his waistband.
Or they can be helpful in selling the impact of a moment:
Mary looks over the railing of her 20th story patio to see the streets below SEETHING WITH THE LIVING DEAD!
But as with any subjective bit of formatting, better to keep these things to a bare minimum. Above all, when it comes to telling your story, if you're ever stuck and unsure how to write something, keep it simple. Always go for clarity first.
He has his approach, you can have yours. Clearly, people can be successful with different approaches. This cannot be disputed. We've seen screenplays get posted here that have sold for numbers none of us we'll likely see, that have been written in a manner that would have members here check out by page 2.
What I want to know is why is it that every time these threads pop-up, Dreamscale chimes in with his opinion, which he presents as fact, as the right and only way to go. Then he goes on for pages debating and defending his stance. This is not criticism, I honestly want to know why these screenwriting conventions and rules are so important to him, despite the fact that it has been proven time and time again that highly successful and critically acclaimed writers do not follow them.
Why are you so passionate about this subject Dreamscale, and why are you so set in your ways?
Pages: 
Author
The Rules - Formatting fatigue
Logged
Locked Board