Continued from Here

Wow, this is great!  Wish I would have found this earlier, but never too late to jump in, huh?

In my opinion, this discussion shows several extremely important points that all unproduced screenwriters (or wanna be Screenwiters) need to take to heart.

First of all, there is no "one correct way" to go about screenwriting.  It's a matter of opinion, and for many, of personal opinion.  There have been valid points made on both sides, points that taken exactly as written, cannot be argued.  That's not the issue though.  The up and coming screenwriter needs to find his own voice and style, as long as he sticks to tried and true "laws" of screenwriting and formatting.

Secondly, from these numerous back and forths, it is obvious that these people are passionate about Screenwriting.  Passion is what's usually lacking in screenplays, and more importantly, movies these days.  The up and coming screenwriter must have a real passion for writing and movies, and be able to convey that passion to create something unique and well written.

Finally, and most importantly, no one seems to disagree that the story is what it's really all about.  All too often, we get the same old thing, with the same old characters, the same scenes, same cliches.  It's not just in a site such as this, with inexperienced writers, but in Hollywood and on the multiplexes as well.  When something comes along that bucks the trends in terms of plot or story, it's usually a good thing...people stop, and take notice.  And then, it's the next "cool thing", and immitators take over, giving us the same thing over and over again.

Here's a short scene that although a bit flowery to some, shows an awful lot more than the few words on the page.  It's written in a way that may be a bit flowery, but more importantly, intriguing, and written well within screenwriting guidlines.

INT.  MOUNTAIN HOME - UPSTAIRS BEDROOM - MOMENTS LATER

A small Winnie the Pooh night light gives off a warm yellow glow.  The door opens quietly.

A young boy, JOEY PATTERSON, sits up in bed.

                          JOEY
        Daddy?  Daddy?  I heard noises.

Tobias enters quietly.

                          TOBIAS
        I'm afraid not.  Go back to sleep, little one.  Gute nacht.

A SHOTGUN BLAST bathes the room in blinding white light.

The screen goes shrill white.

What do you think?  Not the typical description we usually see, nor the typical outcome.  No wasted lines of description, no real action, but quite a powerful mental visual...and feeling.  A unique style, obvious passion, and a plotline we don't usually see.

Let's try and help one another as oppossed to spending our time backing up arguments that don't go anywhere.

I don't think that description was that atypical. There are certainly no unfilmables, the action paragraphs don't address the reader. It's a bit sparse perhaps. I didn't really get a visual feeling from reading it, maybe because of that. There's a lot of information missing.

First of all, a young boy can mean anything from 5-11 in my book. And I'm not drawn in by knowing how the characters are feeling when they do this. Is Joey surprised, does he see the shotgun when Tobias enters, does he recognize him as not being his dad, or is there a shadow covering his face? Does it happen quickly or does Tobias linger? Is it easy for him?

All these things could help paint a picture that would make me "see" the scene. Right now, I don't. I mean, it's definitely not bad, but I just don't think it's "powerful" viscerally. Not out of context at least.

I was just throwing something out there that I thought might help with the confusion over flowery prose, unfilmables, etc.  One side of the argument was saying to write very mechanically, exactly, don't use flowery words that don't need to be in there,  Say exactly what's on screen, etc.  The other side went so far as to argue the use of flowery prose with numerous unfilmables, such as describing a girl as "...a prom queen...".

I personally feel the passage "reads" well, which is something we're all after.  As you said, there are no unfilmables, so there aren't wasted words either.  It's quick, efficient, and to the point, yet written interestingly.

As for your questions, this is just a quick ending of an opening scene...it doesn't play more than 20 seconds, and characterization and motivations do not come into play.  However, from the passage, the Winnie the Pooh night light should give away the child's age, and I'd say it's way under 11.  The scene is nothing more than a quick kill, but in the way it's written, at least for me, it comes off well, and there are numerous visuals (the warm yellow glow of the night light, the blinding white blast of the shotgun, the German dialogue).

I would agree dreamscale that after reading over the scene a few times it does convey all a director would need to interpret the scene but it isn't, at least to me, over-flowery.  If anything it feels a little bare-bones.  There's no mention of the boy cowering under the sheets - if he indeed heard voices like he said.  He's just described as sitting up.  No mention of the wash of calm he must have felt as his supposed father enters the room - a calm that would have quickly turned to uncertainty and then terror as he reacts to the sound of the intruder's voice which is clearly not his father's.  All this, I agree, could be inferred but it takes a little extrapolation to fully appreciate what's going on.

Describing the boy's reactions, his thought processes - all this would add a little extra tension, I think.  It would also bring the reader into the story IMO.  As is, it has a real 'third person' feel to it.  I mention this mainly because I'm always called for describing a character's feelings yet to me that's what really brings a story to life.

Well good.  That's actually exactly the point I was trying to make.  It's not supposed to be overly flowery, but it's still written in what I call an interesting way.  It's also supposed to be rather bare bones, as it's a very quick scene in which characterization and motivation do not even come into play.

I was trying to make a point that one can use "flowery phrases" in moderation, create an interesting, engaging "feel", while still using very few words, no unfilmables, and be effective.

Maybe not the best example out there, but for me, I thought it made the point I was after.

Wow, what a mess. I've read through most of the former thread and all of this one, and really, people, I think the point is quite often missed. A screenplay is best described as the blueprint of a movie. It's only a piece of something bigger, and it is the job of the writer to convey a story as descriptively, yet with as much brevity, as possible. It's finding a happy medium between the over-kill descriptions of a novel (which includes descriptions of everything plus the thoughts of the characters) and the skeleton of an outline.

Let's talk about "unfilmable." There are many things that are thought of as "unfilmable" that play into things that are. The whole prom queen description of the previous thread isn't unfilmable. It includes instructions for the director and the actress who has to figure out the best way to convey the information given. In fact, just a tidbit of background info given in the introductory description of a character is well within the filmability of a script.

Unfilmable is anything that is contained within the descriptions for the bulk of the script that you cannot see OR UNDERSTAND by sitting in an audience watching the movie. Consider passages in films where characters exchange glaces and you, as a person in the audience, knows exactly what transpired between them. I'll bet something was in the description that told them what their characters were "saying" without speaking, and they SHOWED that unspoken material through their actions.

A script is for EVERY MEMBER OF A PRODUCTION, not just the director. An actor will put their own spin on whatever a writer writes, but if you have something you need from them in a particular section that is specific, they'll appreciate the heads up (as long as you don't wryly them to death). Is the color of the flowers in front of the house important? Describe the flowers? Is a glace supposed to convey a specific thought? Indicate the thought. Someone thinking about the upcoming bank robbery will LOOK completely different than someone pondering their dead mother. The audience might know about both events, but if the actor is supposed to look thoughtful, what the heck is he looking thoughtful about?

Granted, these occurrences shouldn't be a norm in a script, but they aren't forbidden and they aren't "unfilmable." In case you haven't noticed, almost nothing visual is unfilmable. Once upon a time, you couldn't film camels crossing the LA freeway, but now, you could probably do it if you needed to (but still you probably would want to avoid it). Unfilmable is limited to the resources available, and as spec writers, your limits are self-imposed.

I did tell someone once that his script was unfilmable in sections due to the descriptiveness of the under-age gay sex due to how certain topics in films tend to be censored in the US, but with some creative angles and care age-casting, he might get an R out of the deal if he's careful. But the unfilability was mostly my opinion. Anyone could film that (low budget even; they just couldn't sell it).

The "rules" everyone belly aches about are not so restrictive as everyone likes to make out. There are some formatting "rules" that are only in place so those in the industry are always looking at the same format. It makes your job easier. The ONLY other rule (singular) is to pretend your movie is already made, and write the script like you're transcribing it from the movie you're watching. What do you see on screen? Write that down. What comes next on screen? Write that down. Specs don't use camera angles, but neither do novels. Your spec script is a novel that you transcribed from the movie you just watched in your head. How difficult is that?

George, I agree with you...completely.  I was merely trying to point out the same fact that there is a happy medium where the writer can use his own, unique voice, write in an "interesting and engaging" way, stay within industry guidelines, and most importantly, write what needs to be seen and known.

As you said about "unfilmables", in many ways, these sort of descriptions do have merit, but are often wastes of lines and time, as there are better ways to get the point across.  The prom queen scenario is a great example, because as written, it's "saying too much", and whatever look the actress comes up with for that portrayal, each person in the audience will have their own impression of it.  Chances are very, very good that at least 9 out of 10 people would not describe her look as that of a prom queen with sad eyes of years of whatever.  Know what I mean?

Hollywood screenplays aren't "flowery".  The words chosen are precise and designed to convey a lot of information to a lot of different people.  The prom queen thing isn't even a real line so let's use a real script description instead:

"CLAYTON BOONE opens his eyes.  He is 26, handsome in a rough-hewn, Chet Baker-like way, with broad shoulders and a flattop haircut.  He grabs a crumpled pack of Lucky Strikes, lights a bent cigarette."

Name, age, look, time frame (Chet Baker and the flattop) and he smokes bent Luckys.  Thirty-five words and the reader knows volumes as does casting, the actor, the DP (the character just woke up and the lighting is morning gold), the set dresser, wardrobe, hair and makeup.

Oh, and I was with you George until you hit the spec v. shooting script business.  I'll type it once again -- the only difference between a spec script and a shooting script is the numbering and locking. http://www.simplyscripts.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-screenwrite/m-1207758539/

Maybe the term "flowery" is getting in the way here.  Your quote, rather from a Produced Holywood screenplay, or off the cuff, comes across as "flowery" to me.

Describing someone as  "handsome in a rough hewn Chet Baker-like way", doesn't tell me a thing, personally.  Was Chet Baker known for his looks or for his music?  I'd say his music, and considering that he's been dead for 20 years, I don't know why anyone would find this passage relevant.

And 35 words to give a very brief description of someone is not short and sweet by any means.  It's 3 lines basically, and what do we really get out of it?  His age of course, he looks like Chet Baker (whatever that means, and why that fact would be important to any script, I have no clue), he has broad shoulders (is he going to be lifting heavy weights in the script?  Why would I care what his shoulders look like?), and he smokes Lucky Strikes.

This is not a good example of anything, other than using too many words and unnecesary description that most wouldn't even understand.

Quoted from Dreamscale This is not a good example of anything, other than using too many words and unnecesary description that most wouldn't even understand.

Based on Tierney's example, I pictured a 50's throwback Rockabilly type.  In the actual film, the character looked like this...

http://www.mostbeautifulman.com/sambagblog/movie_godsnmonster/01.jpg

I don't think I was that far off.

And no, I don't generally cruise mostbeautifulman.com.  It was just the best picture that popped up in Google.

I think you just made George's see v. understand argument.  Here's a breakdown of what I understand when I read those thirty-five words.  It doesn't speak to you personally but maybe you don't understand the references.

Why reference Chet Baker?  Like I said before it gives a time period reference.  This movie takes place when Chet Baker was on the charts.  It's a very specific description in that the writer didn't use Elvis.  He opted for a jazz musician who was really only famous in the 1950s.

The character is a broad-shouldered, handsome guy with a flattop during the 1950s.   Korean War. Solider?  Ex-Soldier?  

He slept on his cigarettes and mangled them but he's going to smoke them anyway because he doesn't give a damn.  And the Lucky Strike cigarettes?  Huge mythos there. It's the cigarette that all those hardass Spillaine detectives smoked.  And in the 1950s it was considered a man's brand of cigarettes.

That's what I understand from that description. There's tons of stuff there.  It's rich and I know this character and want to know where he's going next.  There's a world of difference between this and the snippet of your scene that you posted in which I know just as much about the Winnie the Pooh nightlight as I do the characters.

Tierney, I understand...and I hear ya.  I think your quote is from "Gods and Monsters"?  I don't mean to knock you or the quote, but in terms of this discussion, it doesn't work.  It's exactly what a beginning screenwriter should not be trying to do, IMO.

First of all, it's a hit or miss in terms of the description. Most people will not get a visual image when the description reads "handsome in a rough-hewn, Chet Baker-like way".  Again, is Chet Baker known for what he looked like?  Secondly, the description as is calls for a very specific looking actor, and as far as I'm concerned, that shouldn't be all that important in any movie...sure good looks, tough looking, whatever does come into play for each character we write, but it shouldn't be written so that it limits who can play the role.  Thirdly (is that a word?) assuming the Lucky Strikes brand of cigs gives some sort of characterization is so cliche,  Finally, again,  it's 35 frickin' words, 3 lines, that may say alot to some, but won't say much of anything to most.

In terms of the comparison to the snippet I threw out there, the two really can't even be compared, because in my snippet, I was merely trying to show a way to write in an engaging, interesting way, a short scene, in which there is literally no characterization.  The scene shows nothing else than a quick, shocking kill.  Why is it shocking?  Because a young child is being killed, which is usually taboo.  The child's thoughts, feelings, looks, whatever, don't come into play, because they're not what's being focused on...or important, in this example.  The fact that this asshole just offed an innocent kid says volumes for who or what he really is.

Back to the point, this thread was discussing what was OK and not OK, in terms of writing, and writing styles...at least that's what I thought it was about.  You know that there are so many writers in here who are trying to find a voice, and they're obviously confused about what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, and how they should go about it.

The point I was trying (and still am trying) to make is that there should be a happy medium for all of us between mechanical, "boring" writing, and "flowery, overly literary useage of prose.  That's all I'm trying to say.  We all go about it differently, and when it's all said and done, it comes back to staying within the understood guidelines, and putting on paper, a great, interesting, and unique story that not only moves us, but makes us want more.  It's a passion that hopefully envokes a passion in our readers (and hopefully, our viewers, as well!).

We've got roughly 120 pages to paint a picture, and for most, that means sticking to what really matters.  If you've got 10 or more "main" characters, you just can't, or shouldn't spend 35+ pages describing each one in terms that many won't even understand.  I have nothing against over description, when it works, but I just don't think your example is a good one in any way.

Know what I'm saying?

>>Know what I'm saying?

No, not so much.

>>It's exactly what a beginning screenwriter should not be trying to do, IMO.

Why?  Easy question.  Why?   If anyone could explain to me why so many of you seem intent on limiting yourself with these arbitrary and often just wrong-headed rules that have nothing to do with writing to be produced. What difference is there really between any of you and say a first time screenwriter like Diablo Cody other than that she didn't limit herself?

I'm repeating myself from the great Shelton migration thread of 2008.  If you want to learn how to write to be produced read produced scripts from the last two years.  Not screenplay books telling you what you can and can't do.  You're not doing yourself any favors learning to write from a book and then having to learn how to write all over again in a style that will get you produced.  You want to find your "voice" but you hobble yourself by only using a third of the vocabulary at hand.

I'm also baffled by why you rail against produced writers and their writing. What are they doing wrong except writing scripts that people want to buy? Gods and Monsters won a screenplay Oscar and an Independent Spirit Award. The Clayton Boone description by Bill Condon is immaculate.  That description used to be used at Tisch in the screenwriting program as an example --  if you can write like this then you should be a screenwriter.  

Everyone talks about finding their voice but a lot of times voice is what you bring to the table. Bill Condon knows the 1950s and 1960s, he knows music and he knows old movies and art and architecture.  His voice is informed by the things that interest him and he's not obligated as a writer to dumb anything down or making it universal. People who produce his work know they're going to get intricately structured pieces that actors want to be in because it puts them in the Oscar race.  It's really horrible to write like Bill Condon with his obvious inability to handle description.

>>The fact that this a**hole just offed an innocent kid says volumes for who or what he really is.

No, it tells me that you're a writer who can't craft a scene to build tension.  Oh, this is shocking! I'm going to kill a child and get that guaranteed visceral reaction from my audience. It's trite and baby writers always do it because it offers an immediate emotional payoff that they can't deliver any other way.  

Quoted from Dreamscale In terms of the comparison to the snippet I threw out there, the two really can't even be compared, because in my snippet, I was merely trying to show a way to write in an engaging, interesting way, a short scene, in which there is literally no characterization.  The scene shows nothing else than a quick, shocking kill.  Why is it shocking?  Because a young child is being killed, which is usually taboo.  The child's thoughts, feelings, looks, whatever, don't come into play, because they're not what's being focused on...or important, in this example.  The fact that this asshole just offed an innocent kid says volumes for who or what he really is.

But the guy's gonna off the kid no matter HOW you write it. The fact that we're shocked (I wasn't really, it's been done) has to do solely with the concept of the child being murdered, not the way you wrote it. Like Tierney says, it's a cop-out, thinking you don't need to let us know thoughts, feelings, atmosphere if the violence on screen is sufficiently jarring.

And the fact that he offed a kid says volumes about him being a one-dimensional asshole. I can't tell if he's doing it just for fun, out of necessity, if he's psychotic etc. Again context might let us know, I don't know. But the scene doesn't draw me in, and the fact that a child is being killed doesn't make up for that.

LOL, glad this thread took off.

Quoted Text Most people will not get a visual image when the description reads "handsome in a rough-hewn, Chet Baker-like way"

I so do NOT disagree with this. I think most people WILL get a visual image from this description, and even better, most people will get a whiff of the atmosphere and mood the writer intended for the scene and/or movie. If you'd want to convey this with a purely descriptive writing style, you would need a lot more words then 35.

(Apart from that, you are not writing for 'most people', you are writing for agents, directors, production designers, and so on. My mom would probably have no clue what the description ment, but I think your average director will get an instant picture flash through his head. And HE will translate it onto the big screen, so my mom can enjoy the story too.)

Quoted from Dreamscale The child's thoughts, feelings, looks, whatever, don't come into play, because they're not what's being focused on...or important, in this example.  The fact that this asshole just offed an innocent kid says volumes for who or what he really is.

I did not even get the child being killed from that snippit, D.S.  The child could have shot the man, or an intruder might have killed either of them.

Your segment breaks no rules, and is, in fact, bare-bones in the opposite direction.  I get nothing from it, and it is not really an instructive example of anything in particular.

I, too, will side with Tierney on effective characterization delivered succinctly.

Quoted from Tierney Oh, and I was with you George until you hit the spec v. shooting script business.  I'll type it once again -- the only difference between a spec script and a shooting script is the numbering and locking. http://www.simplyscripts.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-screenwrite/m-1207758539/

Wow, talk about taken out of context. You actually added that I implied a spec vs. shooting argument. My post contains nothing of the sort. Here's the only possible reference I can find that could be taken the way you took it.

Quoted from George Willson Specs don't use camera angles, but neither do novels.

That's not a spec vs. shooting argument, but a statement related to a screenwriting best practice. A lot of newcomers to the craft place a large number of camera angles (or the dreaded "we see") in their early scripts because that's what they've read out there, so I often relate the writing of specs to the writing of novels, since novels tell a vivid story, but use no special jargon to do so.

I refer to what we tend to write here as "spec" scripts, because by definition, that's what they are. A "speculation" script is one written without a contract or payment to submit to a production company so they can decide to either make it or hire you for some other project where you would be paid either to rewrite your current script or to write a different script entirely. Speculation scripts have a certain style to them detailed in innumerable screenwriting books and on this site, and while people tend to argue a certain direction for "shooting scripts," I don't usually address them since we don't deal with them.

I typically communicate in a very straight forward manner, which can be a curse while writing, so there's no need to read between the lines of anything I post, since there's nothing there to see. ...but I appreciate the lecture.

I don't think I did take you out of context George.  You're repeating the same wrong information that specs are novels and shooting scripts are somehow entirely different.  If there is a camera angle or a WE SEE in a shooting script it was there in the spec. Your spec = shooting script.

When you write a feature screenplay, spec or commissioned, you're writing for it to be shot. It doesn't exist for any other reason.  Writing sample?  Usually that only plays in tv staffing.  A feature production company is only going to be interested in your feature spec script if they want to shoot it.  

Maybe it's not how the English major who wrote his screenwriting book sees it but that's the real world. And it plays into this thread about how the "rules" are just wrong.

Calm down Tierney, speaking of babies...Geez,  I did not rail against anything, especially an established award winning writer/director.  I merely said that I think the quote you used as an example with the Chet Baker blah blah blah, is bad.  I'm very surprised that more people aren't jumping up here and agreeing with me.  Maybe I'm in the wrong here or minority, but I'm not going to agree with you just to agree.  Not my style.

As usual, we're way off base here again.  Is this forum not for helping young, inexperienced writers?  Your advice is to write descriptions of charactrs like Bill Condon did in Gods and Monsters?  You think alot of the writers in here have the ability to do that?  I think you're being an A-Hole, and I disagree with you.

What are you referring to when you say that so many of us are limiting ourselves with arbitrary and wrong-headed rules?  Have you read Diablo Cody's screenplay for Juno?  Maybe you want to throw out a quote from that also?  I don't recall talking about or quoting anything from any screenplay books...did I?  And where's this BS coming from about using 1/3 of the vocabulary at hand?  Is that based on the fact "Chet Baker-like" isn't a term I've ever used, nor will ever use?

Whether you think the little snippet of an example I used is good, bad, or whatever, isn't the issue here.  It's really impossible to get much of anything out of a few lines, when you have no clue what came before, or what will come after.  It is what it is, and obviously the point I was trying to make is lost...maybe never there.  It doesn't mention Chet Baker, and I'm sorry that no Lucky Strikes are being smoked in the scene...guess that means that Tobias isn't very cool or tough, huh?

Keep it real man, and get off your high horse...it's really irritating.

Not all scripts began life as speculations. The 3 movie version of Lord of the Rings was never a "spec." It was written by the director, his wife, and friend in the manner he would shoot it after Miramax turned down their 2 movie version and New Line suggested the 3 movie version. Most of Quentin Tarantino's scripts aren't written as specs because he knows they'll be shot and he'll be the one doing it. I agree with your commentary that the difference between a spec and shooting script is negligible, but that would really only apply if the script began life as a spec and was used to shoot the film.

To be honest, I'm still a bit thrown on where this comparison thing is coming from. In my last post, I still didn't compare the two. I mentioned the existence of "shooting scripts," but never made any comparison whatsoever. I might as well have said paid and unpaid, for all it's worth. That's the primary difference as I see it.

Yes, you write your script in the hopes it will be shot. Yes, that is the goal. But that isn't always the reality. I never deal in absolutes because they rarely exist, and to presume that all specs that are read and liked will be shot is foolishness. Sometimes, the spec will be read and the producer likes the writer's style but not the story. Hence, he throws his own idea out there and the writer writes the script. This time, it isn't a true "spec" script because the writer isn't writing on spec, but it's a sure point that they'll use the same style.

The point of the "rules"? Yeah, there's a point. Consistency and readability. Do you have to follow the rules? No. Never said you did. But if you follow some of the basic guidelines, you'll have a very readable script that no one would turn down on either format or wording. You'll be judged on story alone.

If you'd care to quote where I disseminated incorrect information, I'd be happy to see where I slipped up or maybe I am wrong. At the moment, you're throwing out generalities and declaring me wrong. I said, for instance, that I compare specs to novels when it comes to writing them, but I never said script ARE novels. Please stop mis-quoting me.

You may have laid these cards on the table before, but perhaps I missed them. I admit that my knowledge comes from ages of reading a variety of books, websites, screenplays, etc. on the topic of writing screenplays, so I have a load of academic knowledge that is assimilated from a multitude of sources (not just an "English Major", my favorite of which just happens to be a produced screenwriter). How about you? Is your knowledge also academic or do you have a wealth of personal, first hand experience you're laying out there?

Hey Death Monkey, my example is being taken way out of context here.  If you remember the original thread, there was much talk about unfilmables, lighting, boring, mechanical writing, flowery writing...all sorts of stuff.

There were 2 sets of quotes that everyone was going back and forth on.  One was the two planes setup, and the other was the girl who looked like a prom queen, with sad eyes...  Both were poor examples of good writing, because both used way more words than were necessary, and the excess words actually made things confusing and unclear (with the planes for sure).  The prom queen deal was a complete waste of words because no one in the audience would be able to understand that look she was going for was what was written in the screenplay. You know?

I simply tried to throw something out there that was very brief with no setup, etc, showing you can throw a few things into your script that aren't "necessary" (the Winnie the Pooh night light, the white flash of the shotgun), but also are not only filmable, but also "paint" a visual feeling and even mood.  At least that's what I get from it, and if no one esle sees where I'm going here, let's drop it and move on.

I am not against characterization at all.  I also believe that feelings are extremely important.  I wasn't going after that in my example and it wasn't the point of it.

OK?

I understand what you all are arguing about, but I still say a good story trumps the writing style every time.

I just read the 1941 shooting script of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde yesterday. It was great, but if it was posted here today and written by a newbie it would probably not be read because people would say they refuse to read something written so wrongly.

I also read a feature by FlyBoy in the last week. Completely different style of writing, but I still enjoyed it.

I'm so used to reading screenplays that I don't really notice how it's written as long as I understand and can follow the story.

My own personal writing style has gone from too descriptive to almost too terse and staccato like. I try to limit the use of the word "and" even. This style suits me just fine since I'm not very good with words.  ;D

Anyway, like I said. I know what you are arguing about, but it doesn't really matter if the story itself is dull  and uninteresting. At least not to me.

Thank you "Me"!  That's the exact point I have made in this thread at least 4 times now, but no one seems to get it.  You're on the money.

Hey, I too do not use the word "and", as it just takes up space, and using a comma makes for a quicker read.  Uh oh...I'm sure Tierney has something to complain about this also...  

Sorry, Dreamscale. I suppose I missed what you had here is all the nonsense on the other thread. I find your scene to be a thin when it comes to the description. It looks like part of a larger story (as evidenced by your "MOMENTS LATER" slug), so some stuff is forgivable, but if I were to close my eyes and picture what you have, it kicks right from the lamp to the door opening, and we never get any kind of establishing idea of what Joey is doing in this room. I can guess he was asleep, but if that's the case, he wouldn't sit up asking about noises -- he wouldn't have heard them. If he were already awake, we should get an idea of the cowering as mgj said or whatever he was doing before hand. And we can assume Tobias is dad, but you offer nothing on him. You say he entered quietly. Did he stop at the door? Move all the way in? Did Joey surprise him by being awake? After all, we can guess Joey gave no indication that he was awake before Tobias came in. All of this is interpretation and maybe I got some of it wrong, but I find it leaves too many unanswered visuals that trial and error might work out in rehearsal, but would be a lot better to just have on the page.

And I'll read anything as well. I might comment on how it's written, but I'd read through it all. I've found some gems on here that were written poorly, but had a really good story. But you've hit on a solid reason to have that consistency in that people are more likely to read it. It's kind of like having a professional appearance works better in an job interview than looking like a bum.

This thread has got to be the worst case of "Waiting for your turn to talk, instead of listening" that I've ever seen.

The whole point of these threads is that writing in a manner that contains "unfilmables" isn't as big of a deal as it's made out to be, and doing so isn't going to cause your script to end up in the trash bin.  That's it.

Some people are for the style, some people are against it, and there's a third batch that can't seem to make up their goddamn mind.

Quoted from Shelton The whole point of these threads is that writing in a manner that contains "unfilmables" isn't as big of a deal as it's made out to be, and doing so isn't going to cause your script to end up in the trash bin.  That's it. Some people are for the style, some people are against it, and there's a third batch that can't seem to make up their goddamn mind.

Amen. Write how you want to write. As long as you tell a fine story, that's what really matters.

Quoted from Dreamscale Hey Death Monkey, my example is being taken way out of context here.  If you remember the original thread, there was much talk about unfilmables, lighting, boring, mechanical writing, flowery writing...all sorts of stuff. There were 2 sets of quotes that everyone was going back and forth on.  One was the two planes setup, and the other was the girl who looked like a prom queen, with sad eyes...  Both were poor examples of good writing, because both used way more words than were necessary, and the excess words actually made things confusing and unclear (with the planes for sure).  The prom queen deal was a complete waste of words because no one in the audience would be able to understand that look she was going for was what was written in the screenplay. You know? I simply tried to throw something out there that was very brief with no setup, etc, showing you can throw a few things into your script that aren't "necessary" (the Winnie the Pooh night light, the white flash of the shotgun), but also are not only filmable, but also "paint" a visual feeling and even mood.  At least that's what I get from it, and if no one esle sees where I'm going here, let's drop it and move on. I am not against characterization at all.  I also believe that feelings are extremely important.  I wasn't going after that in my example and it wasn't the point of it. OK?

I'm not sure what you're addressing here because my last post spoke to how you can't expect a scene to ladden with emotion or atmosphere etc. due to its subject matter (a child being killed). As such I feel your example wasn't apt for what we were talking about because it was too sparse to engage the reader properly; in other words it relied on its concept and not its execution.

What I think is important to take away from all this is that the "rules" are helpful to learn before you can break them, for most people. However if you wanna write a really cinematic script of Hollywood ilk you're pretty much gonna have to break the rules. Then it's all about starting the movie in the reader's head.

The only real unfilmables that I feel are completely inappropriate (even though I have seen them in produced scripts) is when you write expostion in the action slugs. "Timmy is Mary's younger brother, he always feels overlooked".

The primary principle of screenwriting can basically be summed up in "Show, don't tell". Describing someone as looking like a prom queen who wouldn't give you the time of day, does not violate this rule, IMO. I get a visual from that description. I get a face and an air about the person.

I believe Tierney is a working, experienced screenwriter, George. I remember him picketing during the writer's strike in a video on youtube or something.

One of the only ones on this site with actual insider knowledge of the craft and the business, I believe.

Tierney is also a girl!  ;-)

Thank you George...write however you want to, but understand it's the story that counts.  My point from the very first thread.

Death Monkey...again...my example was obviously not effective in getting my point across, and I apologize for that.  But just to be clear, my example was not to be taken as something that shows atmosphere, emotion, or anything like that...especially due to its subject matter.  You can't take a small snippet of an example and read any more into it than what's there...and we're all in agreement that there's not much there.  It's simply another "style" of writing, in this case, showcasing the use of color, light, and sound, as opposed to action, emotion, and charcterization.

If you don't get it, don't like it, or think it's trivial, that's OK.  Everything is a matter of personal opinion and interpretation.  Right?

Quoted from Grandma Bear Tierney is also a girl!  ;-)

A girl writing? What's next, they're allowed to drive? ;D

Quoted from Grandma Bear I understand what you all are arguing about, but I still say a good story trumps the writing style every time.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't. There may be a few examples of pretty bad writing with a great story that DID make it, but as far as we can tell it may only be a tip of the iceberg.

Apart from that, even if it were true, it's really no excuse to produce a badly written script.  

(This post might be lengthy so skip at will. And I'm mostly talking about Hollywood screenplays so if you're an indie person move along.)

I have to admit that I've only skimmed the hubbub that happened since I last posted.  There's no point for me to address individual things because it will just add a dozen more pages of chatter.

I post here because I've exchanged emails with Don for years.  He's a really nice man who does an amazing thing on this site.  I started posting during the WGA strike because I had the time and I thought maybe I could do some good and offer some advice that would be helpful.  

Then I ran into your various and assorted "rules" over and over.  I kept getting the theme from Deliverance in my head.  Your rules are this odd assemblage of misinterpreted information from books and magazines and interviews that has become factual because it has been repeated so often.  Your rules are pretty much all just arbitrary.  And you use your arbitrary rules to comment on each others scripts.  When I first got here there were a few writers posting that I thought were interesting and had voices that are now gone.  They got that your rules didn't work and moved on.  I'm sure it happens a lot.  It's not a great thing for a writing community to lose talent and only keep the people who fall in line with the "rules".

Do you want to be produced or do you want to follow a bunch of community-centric rules?  That's the question to ask yourself.

Here's a somewhat streamlined version of how a Hollywood script moves into production that might clarify a few things. The writer delivers something called a white draft.  It's the script that he/she has written be it a spec script or a commissioned script.  The conversation happens with the person in charge of distributing your script to the people in the crew who need it.  "Are you using Final Draft?" "Or can I have the file in RTF format?".  This person preps your script which means he proofs it for typos, fixes any spacing errors, adds scene numbers, builds a location list and a cast list and locks it down.  This is your white production draft and it gets distributed to the director, the producers and the various production department heads and their assistants.  This is the prep script.  People starting scouting locations, getting permits, renting costumes and buying props from this draft.

Notes are given on this white production draft, changes are made and it becomes a BLUE DRAFT or a YELLOW DRAFT or a TRIPLE GOLDENROD DRAFT.  You get notes to eliminate scenes, clarify plot points, add a part for the director's girlfriend.  Whatever.  Writers don't add camera angles to make it a shooting draft.  They address problems that make the script difficult to shoot but they don't map the shooting.  If someone has bought your script they know how to shoot it and they don't need to add crib notes.  First day of production and guess what? They're shooting the script that you wrote.  Your spec has scenes numbers, has been tweaked and is being shot.

That's the weirdest thing about your "rules".  You so separate writer's draft from shooting script that it is like you don't get that the script you write is the script that gets shot.  It's like a protective barrier.  Like you don't have to write for the screen because someone else is going to magically turn it into a "real screenplay".  Doesn't work that way.

READ PRODUCED SCREENPLAYS.  Shouting, I know.  I live in LA and shout a lot. Usually obscenities. If you don't like the language or how people who get paid to write do the job then maybe you should consider writing novels.  Draw a distinction between yourself and paid writer in what language and techniques you can use?  Don't even bother to pollute the planet with 120 pages of typing paper that doesn't meet the requirements of a screenplay that can be produced.

And a screenplay only exists to be produced. ( I guess you could e-publish and give it to your family at Christmas but whatever.) When you start a screenplay it is FADE IN and that is a camera and editing direction.  The document you are typing is prefaced by a technical direction and then you go on to write stuff that divorces itself from from the language and accepted techniques of produced screenplays.  I don't get it.  WE SEE?  That's seems to be an issue with you.  Who told you that you couldn't do it?  I'm sure the not doing it has been repeated many, many times and thus it is a "rule".  If you read produced screenplays it's all over the place.  Who are you going to believe?  A bunch of writers on a message board or the writers of 47 scripts out of the 116 scripts on this year's Black List that use WE SEE?

You're all so thrilled when some college kid picks up your shorts to shoot as a class project.  Want  a feature that gets picked up?  READ PRODUCED SCREENPLAYS and try to understand what the writer is doing.  Frank Darabont's The Mist just went up on the main site.  He's a good, solid, linear writer.  Read the script and try to understand that his writing incorporates directions for a mob of people -- actors, art department, location scouts, buyers -- and it all fleshes out the story.  Every element builds the story and if you're writing a script without those "unfilmables" that define character and location and time then what you're writing that can't be produced because there's not enough on the page for it to matter.

I hope I'm not coming across a mean-spirited about this but I want to shake a lot of you really hard.  Sneak into your homes and shake you really hard.  At night. Oh, wait, that's a great idea for a K-horror like screenplay...

Thank you so much for that inside explanation! :-)

Avlan,
I didn't say it was badly written. Just that a lot of people wouldn't read it because of the format being wrong. Big chunks of text, scene numbers, a lot of 'ing and things like that.

I'll admit before Tierney started to do her reveille a few months ago I too was under a dogmatic spell of "the rules". I'm still thankful I learned the rules, but now that I know them, I feel comfortable breaking them. If you wanna write screenplays that read like movies and not stageplays, and using a "WE" or a flowery characterization helps you do that, then do it.

I think inside advice like that is to be treasured. If "the rules" truly don't qualify or disqualify a script to a producer, then that is invaluable information.

Tierney, I like your explanation. It really does help to shed some light on a well worn topic that so few want to listen to. Too many people do obsess over these rules, and a lot of times, I wonder why they even care. When I was around a lot more regularly, I would field questions about how to write this or that, and a lot of times, it would boil down to "as long as it can be clearly understood, you're fine." That's the real curse we run into more than rules.

But you also have to look at this board from another perspective that you did touch in your post. We are amateurs. Few, if any, are produced. Some of the people on this board deserve to be working writers, but get very little attention. I've been accused of being of these people, but through all the queries I've sent out, no one wants to even read what I have much less produce it, so I don't know how all this learning even fares in that real world.

So what's the point of the rules from someone who essentially "grew up" on these boards? The first draft of my first script was total crap. It was poorly told, littered with unnecessary descriptions, and overall unbelievable. Through learning about these rules and such, I became a better writer. Through following all the little nit-picky things that are so over-emphasized here, I went from turning out crap to creating a script that was not only worth reading, but interesting...and I didn't change the story at all.

These rules are not meant to alienate anyone. They are aimed at making someone who doesn't know how to write a better writer. That's it. We don't tell people what to do; we make suggestions to improve the writing. I'm not produced, but I've been writing for a while now and watch over 200 movies a year and have at least a general idea of how a good one looks and feels. Can I give someone solid, insider, industry advice? No. Do I at least know how to make a good story? I believe I do.

Some specific rules? Why avoid "we see"? Because it forces you to write in a more active tense instead of present progressive. It flows better on the page, uses fewer words, and is easier to read. Granted, screenplays are written to be shot and the existence of one won't kill you, but you have to admit that screenplays are read before they're shot and the better one reads, the better chance it has to be shot.

We are sticklers on format, and I doubt you'd argue that that's a bad thing.

Some people seem to get caught up in them. I was very caught up in them at one time and could write a 10 page review only touching on what rules were broken. I stopped doing that some time ago and have focused on the story ever since.

Do you have to follow "the rules" to be a better writer? No. You do what works for you. I know it worked for me, and I now when I write, I do it all subconsciously, and at least the people on these boards have enjoyed many of the things I've turned out. If anyone in the industry ever reads them, I hope they feel the same way.

Everything boils down to the same answer though. You do what works for you and tells the story.

My final thoughts on the matter. Everyone has had more than enough of this thread, I know.

Firstly, I'd like to thank Tierney for posting the process that a script goes through. It's obviously been enlightening for a few board members.

However I would like to take umbridge with some of the things that she has said.

Firstly this :

"That's the weirdest thing about your "rules".  You so separate writer's draft from shooting script that it is like you don't get that the script you write is the script that gets shot.  It's like a protective barrier.  Like you don't have to write for the screen because someone else is going to magically turn it into a "real screenplay".  Doesn't work that way.

READ PRODUCED SCREENPLAYS.  Shouting, I know.  I live in LA and shout a lot. Usually obscenities. If you don't like the language or how people who get paid to write do the job then maybe you should consider writing novels.  Draw a distinction between yourself and paid writer in what language and techniques you can use?  Don't even bother to pollute the planet with 120 pages of typing paper that doesn't meet the requirements of a screenplay that can be produced."

This is hugely ironic in that you are essentially transplanting one set of "rules" with another, namely, "Do exactly what I tell you or else! This is the only way to write a script that Hollywood will buy!"

The greater irony is this:

The scripts that you are telling people to read,  follow the "Rules" as set down in text books more slavishly than any other art form on the planet.

The last 30 years of Hollywood film has more or less been defined by the work done by Joseph Campbell in "The hero with a Thousand Faces". He was a great friend of George Lucas and his investigation into Universal Myths and story types was a huge influence on Star Wars. It's influence can still be felt today in 90% of Hollywood films.

Christopher Vogler, a Hollywood exec, famously wrote a 7 page memorandum based on this archetype which he used to decide which films to buy. He later turned it into a best-selling book: The Writer's Journey.

Modern Hollywood films follow this template not only to the letter, but in many cases to the EXACT MINUTE!

You all know the story.

Kid gets orphaned, inciting incident/call to adventure, call denied, meeting with the mentor, hero loses everything , then comes out victorious at the end with a changed viewpoint on the world.

Hollywood films follow this template to such a level that once someone is aware of the model, they can predict almost to the second, the events that are about to take place.

I saw Iron Man two days ago. This was written entirely from this template. Most Hollywood films are.

In other words your advice is simply: "Don't follow the "Rules", follow the "Rules".

The error is compounded by citing Diablo Cody as an example.

Diablo did the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are telling everybody to do. She didn't even write screenplays!

She was a young insecure, rebellious teenager who worked in the sex industry. She lived life and then wrote an INTERNET BLOG! which became famous and well-liked. On the back of the blog a Producer approached her to write a screenplay. She had never previously written one because she feared rejection.

In other words, if you want to learn to write with a unique voice DON'T read Hollywood screenplays which are almost all written from one starting point (and usually as you said by young white males who live within spitting distance of the Studios and whose only experience of life is the Hollywood system).

Instead lead an interesting life. Travel, meet interesting people, get involved in interesting events. Get your heart broken. Read just about everything OTHER than screenplays so that your influence and you style is not just the regurgitation of someone's elses work.

But Rick,  Campbell and Vogler deal with rules of story structure, what Tierny is talking about is basically format. She addresses "the rules" found and enforced on sites such as SS that dogmatically state certain techniques are inexorably VERBOTEN, simply for the sake of being "a rule".

I don't see anyone talking about story structure in this thread, which arguably is formularized in Hollywood. But this isn't about the content but its conveyance.

It's not me confusing style with content, It's Tierney:

"Every element builds the story and if you're writing a script without those "unfilmables" that define character and location and time then what you're writing that can't be produced because there's not enough on the page for it to matter."

We have now moved to a point that unless you fill your scripts with things that cannot be recorded by a camera, the film physically can't be produced.

Not only is that absurd, it's completely untrue.

How is that quote confusing content and style? It pertains to format, not content, and certainly not story structure.

Seems to me like you're trying to pick a fight, so to speak, just for the sake of it.

Because the discussion has moved from saying that "It's Ok to write in a certain way, Hollywood writers do it all the time"

To the fact that it is now being held as an essential part of the "content" of the film. IE No film can possibly be produced that isn't written in that style.

It's no longer being held as an optional style, but as an imperative one that apparently defines the character, location and timing of a whole script.

Is character, location and timing not part of the content of a script?

I'm not looking for a fight. I just reply to whatever people actually write and point out things that I don't agree with.

Rick is correct.  What Tierney is saying is just wrong.  Tierney seems to be talking about a screenwriter who has the ability to write whatever they want, and have it not only read by insiders, but also have it be picked up and produced.  That's just not the way it is for 99.9% of us out here.

As George said earlier, he's tried and tried and can't even get interest in someone who matters to read his work, based on low level gate keeper "readers", who turn him down bewfore thay've even seen his work.  The hard part is getting by these people, so "someone who matters" actually reads what we've put together.  This is why we have to do the most we can with our 120 pages.  Setting up each and every scene, character, and situation the way Tierney's talking about would leave nothing available for the actual story and action.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Because the discussion has moved from saying that "It's Ok to write in a certain way, Hollywood writers do it all the time" To the fact that it is now being held as an essential part of the "content" of the film. IE No film can possibly be produced that isn't written in that style. It's no longer being held as an optional style, but as an imperative one that apparently defines the character, location and timing of a whole script. Is character, location and timing not part of the content of a script? I'm not looking for a fight. I just reply to whatever people actually write and point out things that I don't agree with.

I feel you're miscontruing the argument by way of semantics. No one has ever mentioned story structure in this thread and yet you invoke Campbell and Vogler to counter what you seem to perceive to be Tierney's point: "Do not obey ANY rules, in any sphere of the screenplay". But the rules Tierney is talking about are specific, and were never those of structure or content, but certain dogmatically adhered, arbitrary tenets of format.

Quoted Text It's no longer being held as an optional style, but as an imperative one that apparently defines the character, location and timing of a whole script. Is character, location and timing not part of the content of a script?

Yes, they are. And a sensible style should convey its content, not be confused with it.

The keyword here is DEFINE. Your style of writing marks, fleshes out, and DEFINES character, time and location. But they do not CREATE them. Naturally, the very nature of style assures that we might "see" the movie in different ways depending upon the style employed, but it does not change the nature of the plot, it does not create events, and it does ultimately not dent the aforementioned story structure to which you segue. That's the difference.

So why did you bring up story structure? Are you saying writing-style informs plot-points?

Write how you write and tell a good story. I must admit being blindsided by all the "rules" I read about after joining this community. My writing style breaks a few of the rules continually mentioned and people have called me on it. Yet one of my scripts breaking those rules was optioned by a known producer in Hollywoodland, and never in the two years we worked on it did anyone ever say "umm Mike, you do know you have broken several sacred rules don't you?". Everyone focused on the story. And in the end when another writer was brought in, he pretty much had his own style too and broke the rules.

Two other scripts rejected by the system were turned down on the basis of the story, the written coverage sent back to me never mentioned how I broke any rules.

Know the basic style and structure of a screenplay, write it to be read, write a good solid exciting story and if your story is good enough and if it's what Hollywood wants, they'll come knocking and will forgive you a few instances of "We See".

Quoted from Death Monkey I'll admit before Tierney started to do her reveille a few months ago I too was under a dogmatic spell of "the rules". I'm still thankful I learned the rules, but now that I know them, I feel comfortable breaking them. If you wanna write screenplays that read like movies and not stageplays, and using a "WE" or a flowery characterization helps you do that, then do it. I think inside advice like that is to be treasured. If "the rules" truly don't qualify or disqualify a script to a producer, then that is invaluable information.

Death monkey there are no rules in screenwriting. They are guidlines and principles. If there were "rules" in screenwriting then it would make no sense from a creative standpoint to break them. If these rules can be broken than they are not rules.

Quoted from eric11 Death monkey there are no rules in screenwriting. They are guidlines and principles. If there were "rules" in screenwriting then it would make no sense from a creative standpoint to break them. If these rules can be broken than they are not rules.

Certainly there are rules in screenwriting. Think of tense for instance. Ever see a screenplay written in the past tense?

Again, the "rules" I'm referring to are of the specific mantra that is often repeated on sites such as this, not ALL RULES EVER. And the reason why I keep them in quotation marks is exactly because I dispute whether or not these are actually rules and not merely guidelines for beginners.

Exactly yes, there are rules every writer HAS to know, correct tense, formatting; be sure your script looks like a script and not something someone just spit out of MS Word. Those basics must be mastered.  If your script looks like prose it's going nowhere fast.

The rest, the mantra, not so much.

Oh, Decadence why do you keep replying to my posts when you hate Hollywood scripts and all I talk about is Hollywood scripts?  Just want to argue with someone?  Get married.

Quoted from Dreamscale Rick is correct.  What Tierney is saying is just wrong.  Tierney seems to be talking about a screenwriter who has the ability to write whatever they want, and have it not only read by insiders, but also have it be picked up and produced.  That's just not the way it is for 99.9% of us out here. As George said earlier, he's tried and tried and can't even get interest in someone who matters to read his work, based on low level gate keeper "readers", who turn him down bewfore thay've even seen his work.  The hard part is getting by these people, so "someone who matters" actually reads what we've put together.  This is why we have to do the most we can with our 120 pages.  Setting up each and every scene, character, and situation the way Tierney's talking about would leave nothing available for the actual story and action.

In this post I went from being wrong, to kind of wrong to once again being completely wrong.  It’s like being the central character in a Russian novel.

I can’t speak to George’s situation. I don’t know the particulars. All I can ask you is what logically do you think would boost your odds of being read – following “rules” that tell you not to write like a Hollywood writer or writing like a Hollywood writer?

And you do have to do the most with your 120 pages.  Which is turn a bare bones plot into a story with characters and theme and imagery.  Dream, you’re plagued by the Gods and Monsters description as if I had told you ever character has to be described just like what Condon wrote.  Gods is a character study and you don’t want to invest words on your character?  It’s also 115 pages long, handles two major characters and six minor ones, and spans three different time periods in history in a series of flashbacks.  That’s a writer who knows how to write for the screen. Read it, read other good produced scripts that you like and try to figure out how it all works.

As a very, very new writer, I appreciate the hell out of you guys thrashing seven shades of sh*t out of this discussion. Seeing both sides presented in a passionate way gives a fair balance for us to chew over.

Maybe it would help to make some kind of mini-list of the "rules" you're actually arguing about breaking/not breaking, to get some clarification. Or maybe not, just sayin'.

Assuming Tierney IS an actual screenwriter, who works in the business, and decadence and others have not been produced (like the rest of us), I can only just LOL @ them claiming Tierney's claims are wrong.

I think it's simple:

(1) Do you wanna be a professional screenwriter?
(2) Is Tierney a professional screenwriter?

If answers to both 1 & 2 are 'yes', then listen to Tierney, and when you really disagree, and I mean REALLY disagree, then prepare for not ever being a professional screenwriter. Would be my asessment.

(And I agree with Vaughn about this discussion and I would like to add: This is what a forum discussion should look like! ;) Well, it should contain more profanities tbh but then Don would all ban us ;) )

Tierney, this time you're right...I am plagued by your "Gods and Monsters" quote, and the way you have backed it.  Gods and Monsters was a heavily praised and awarded script and movie...BUT...it is far from what I would call successful, mainstream, or what writers in this forum desire or should strive to write.

GnM was made for approximately $3.5 Million.  It went on to gross around $6.5 Million.  It never played in more than 150 theaters at 1 time.  Although it was critically acclaimed, it wasn't seen by very many people...and it never will be, because your average movie goer doesn't give 2 shits about the subject matter.  It was a small Indie movie with a small, limited audience.

To tell beginning screenwriters to write like Condon did in ths movie, is just not good advice.  Think of the description of the movie you gave in your last post...it's a VERY difficult script and story to write...especially in 120 pages.  Young screenwriters should not be aiming for this type of stuff, because they won't stand a chance of succeeding...and if they do?  No one will really care, because no one will read it.  Hell, any period piece is tough.

I hope you understand that I'm not questioning your expertise, just your judgement in using GnM for some kind of template.

Quoted from Dreamscale BUT...it is far from what I would call successful, mainstream, or what writers in this forum desire or should strive to write.

This is WONDERFUL advice.  Seriously, everybody, take note and do all that you can to avoid writing a script that makes back nearly two times its original budget, gets distributed by Lion's Gate, and wins an Academy Award for best adapted screenplay.  If you do that, you'll be well on your way to writing superstardom and can make millions out of your one bedroom apartment just like Don Lapre.

I think we can all agree to follow those rules, right?

Point missed again, huh?  I could give you quotes and stats for movies that have made $10, $20, $30 Million above budget as well.  Anyone could.

Point being (again), GnM is not a typical or good script/movie to learn from...is it?  What is teh success rate fro a movie like this?  It's extremely low...much lower than other genres.  It's also a much tougher write, with a vey limited audience.

C'mon people, wake up!

Quoted from Dreamscale Point missed again, huh?  I could give you quotes and stats for movies that have made $10, $20, $30 Million above budget as well.  Anyone could. Point being (again), GnM is not a typical or good script/movie to learn from...is it?  What is teh success rate fro a movie like this?  It's extremely low...much lower than other genres.  It's also a much tougher write, with a vey limited audience. C'mon people, wake up!

Missed the point?  All I did was point out positive facts associated with the exact same film/script that you're telling people not to emulate.  If you want your point to be taken as anything but horrible advice, reference a script that ended up as a total failure, and then take it a point further by proving it was a horrible failure based on the way it was written.

Your second point really has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.  It's not about genre, or which demo you're looking to appeal to.  It's about the style of the writing on the page.  The "rules".

Capitalize sluglines.  
Capitalize character names when they are introduced and above their dialogue.
Make sure your tabs are set so character names and dialogue appear where they should.
Make the action visually descriptive, but...
Make the action brief... it's a screenplay, not a novel.
Write in present tense.
Give a feeling of where the action takes place... but don't describe every little detail.
Mostly... just write the story.
Make sure it moves.
Avoid dialogue that goes on and on... and on... and on.

What amazes me, is the number of people who, with all of the information about proper format out there, continue to write screenplays that read like novels.  I started reading something for someone a few weeks ago, and I haven't been able to finish because it is so densely written.  Huge chunks of description, not just of setting and action, but of every thought and detail from the characters' pasts, punctuated by sparse dialogue that says exactly what's just been described.

  

Quoted from Death Monkey Certainly there are rules in screenwriting. Think of tense for instance. Ever see a screenplay written in the past tense? Again, the "rules" I'm referring to are of the specific mantra that is often repeated on sites such as this, not ALL RULES EVER. And the reason why I keep them in quotation marks is exactly because I dispute whether or not these are actually rules and not merely guidelines for beginners.

Writing in the present tense is a principle of convention, not a rule to be obeyed. I have seen it broken and have succesfully "broken" it myself. Anyways my point was that writing is about understanding what works, mastering what works, then finding your creative voice using what works - mastering the artistry of the form. Rules say, you HAVE to do it this way. Hence when some one says I learned the "rules" so I can "break them", makes not a single i'otta of sense to me.

To give you a sense what I mean is this, you can't break rules in mathematics, you can't break rules in science, you can't break natural rules of survival (you can find ways around them but you can't break them).

So why do some writers here think you can break "rules" in screenwriting and get away with it? If a rule can be broken succesfully it is not a rule.

Hence, that's why I don't believe screenwriting is about following rules. Screenwriting is about understanding the guidelines and learning to master the principles of the form.

It is fair to say that there are conventions that should be utilized by the writer when learning the craft like; master slug lines, font, details, using paper instead of chalk boards, etc.  

Yet all this has nothing to do with story structure. When I say there are no rules in screenwriting, I am saying there are no rules in story structure.

Some people seem to be a little off track here as well, so I'm going to point this out.

There are "rules" which are basically related to word usage and the style of the writing on the page, and there are rules which relate to where your character names, sluglines, dialogue etc. should be positioned.

I don't think anyone is disputing the merits of the actual rules, here.  It's about the "rules".

And yes, that's a horribly complicated description, but take note of the " ".

OK, so Shelton, are you telling me that you think GnM is a good place for beginning screenwriters to look for help in finding a voice in screenwriting?  Are you really saying that?

If that's indeed what you're saying, I guess I'm just out in left field then, and I won't give any more horrible advice.  I don't mean to be an ass here but this just strikes me as comical.

Quoted from Dreamscale OK, so Shelton, are you telling me that you think GnM is a good place for beginning screenwriters to look for help in finding a voice in screenwriting?  Are you really saying that? If that's indeed what you're saying, I guess I'm just out in left field then, and I won't give any more horrible advice.  I don't mean to be an ass here but this just strikes me as comical.

Beginning screenwriters should read and study all the scripts that they can possibly get their hands on and consume, whether they're produced, Academy Award winning, or even unproduced scripts where you trust the writer to know what they're doing.  That's just Screenwriting 101, and you'll see that advice given in a ton of other places.

So to answer your question, yes, I do think it would be beneficial to the writer to look at a script like G&M and possibly learn a few things.

I'm glad you found my previous statements to be comical.  That's nothing new for me around here.

OK then...I give up!

Apologies to all for bad advice on my part, and poor critique of Tierney's examples.

Didn't mean to crack on you either Shelton.  Sorry about that.

I picked Gods and Monsters because it used to be used as a teaching script in entry level screenwriting classes. Small cast and written to budget. Lots of people I know who went to film school have read Gods -- USC, UCLA, NYU.   It's now over ten years old and I have no idea what script has replaced it so I referenced Gods.

And I only used it as an example not as a template.  I don't care what you read -- Transformers, Children of Men, Legally Blonde, Lars and the Real Girl - but read and try to understand what the writer is doing.

Read Fargo. Michael Clayton. The Abyss. Anything by William Goldman. Get Walter Hill's draft for Alien.

You'll see each is written differently but they all adhere to the basic rules of screenwriting format, while each has an individual voice. They break what are seen as sacred 'rules' here but all are good solid screenplays, all produced.

Hell, remember Shane Black's Lethal Weapon, written before he was a name writer?

"EXT. House - Day

It's the kind of house I'm going to buy if this movie is a hit"

Extreme yes, but it got by readers and wasn't excised. Read screenplays please.

Quoted from mikep Read Fargo. Michael Clayton. The Abyss. Anything by William Goldman. Get Walter Hill's draft for Alien. You'll see each is written differently but they all adhere to the basic rules of screenwriting format, while each has an individual voice. They break what are seen as sacred 'rules' here but all are good solid screenplays, all produced. Hell, remember Shane Black's Lethal Weapon, written before he was a name writer? "EXT. House - Day It's the kind of house I'm going to buy if this movie is a hit" Extreme yes, but it got by readers and wasn't excised. Read screenplays please.

lol he put that in a script? I respect him even more now :D

It's technically not really breaking the rules, and it's probably a good line to get you noticed

Quoted from Shelton Some people seem to be a little off track here as well, so I'm going to point this out. There are "rules" which are basically related to word usage and the style of the writing on the page, and there are rules which relate to where your character names, sluglines, dialogue etc. should be positioned. I don't think anyone is disputing the merits of the actual rules, here.  It's about the "rules". And yes, that's a horribly complicated description, but take note of the " ".

Sorry if I seemed a little off track there, but I felt like grounding what I posted in those hard and fast rules that can't be violated, sort of like when you're building a house.  There are the local building codes that specify how the house is to be built, such as wiring, plumbing and stressed members.  Beyond that, the actual design of the house aesthetically is up to you.  If you're tall and you want all the sinks and switches to be six inches higher than normal, you can do that.  If you're in a wheelchair, you can have all of the sinks and switches at a comfortable height and extra wide doorways.  So long as the house is built to code, you're free to do what you want.  The problem is, when you go to sell that house, you've already narrowed your market to people who are either very tall or in a wheelchair.
Well, the same thing applies to screenplays.  The most important thing is "building it to code".  Sadly, many screenplays I've read here and in other places don't even meet that criteria.  And, a lot of these writers have it in their heads that their idea is so good and their writing so powerful, that they don't need to "build it to code".  There's a story about Frank Lloyd Wright piling pig iron onto a slender concrete piling he was planning to use in the Johnson Wax building to prove to the local inspectors that it could carry the load.  Well... he's Frank Lloyd Wright... and you aren't.  Your script has to be "built to code", because the readers employed in this industry are just like the building inspectors making sure the house is structurally sound.  If they walk in and see two studs in an eight foot wall, contruction will be halted just as sure as if a reader opens to the first page and sees a solid page of description, the script will be dropped into the "circular file".
Sorry if I seem to be on a tangent, but I am getting back to the original point...
... which is that pushing the limits of convention are much easier when you are an established screenwriter.  A lot of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings leak, not because he wasn't a good architect, but because he pushed the limits of what builders and materials were capable of.  He could get away with it, because he was a genius with impeccable credentials.  In order to push the boundries, you first need to take care of the basics.  Wright didn't attempt Fallingwater when he was starting out.  His early designs were conventional structures made unique because of his design aesthetic.  
For me, the same thing applies to screenwriting.  Keep it simple.  Master the basics.  Build it to code.  Don't give a reader any reasons to toss your script in the garbage by breaking too many rules or conventions.  And back to the first paragraph, which house do you think appeals to the most buyers?  One built to standard convention or one built to satisfy special wants or needs?  Everyone looking to buy a house isn't going to be seven feet tall or in a wheelchair.  Same with readers.  You may luck out and your script might land on the desk of someone who really enjoys scripts that break all sorts of conventions, but don't count on it.  Most readers are going to want to open doors and turn on lights without stooping or be able to use the sink without a stool.

Quoted from mikep Read Fargo. Michael Clayton. The Abyss. Anything by William Goldman. Get Walter Hill's draft for Alien. You'll see each is written differently but they all adhere to the basic rules of screenwriting format, while each has an individual voice. They break what are seen as sacred 'rules' here but all are good solid screenplays, all produced. Hell, remember Shane Black's Lethal Weapon, written before he was a name writer? "EXT. House - Day It's the kind of house I'm going to buy if this movie is a hit" Extreme yes, but it got by readers and wasn't excised. Read screenplays please.

Lol. Mike I appreciate the effort, but you are not going to convince me that this is an example of rules in screenwriting.

Contrary to popular opinion not all screenplays are formatted correctly. Not all compelling screenplays are formatted correctly.

I have read plenty of screenplays. Enough to know that a great writer doesn't believe in rules.

I have my cup of coffee, morning check to see if people have killed themselves and it's the same stuff over and over.

This thread thus far -- it started when Martin complained that the writing on SS was flat and mechanical because of a bunch of community-centric "rules", it got drug off track into an argument mostly between Decadence Films (who hates Hollywood movies and disapproves of how they are written) and me, and now we're in a new thread which was wobbling along toward what I thought was some kind of resolution.

Eric11 -- I agree that some produced screenplays look like they were written by a drunken monkey with a grudge and a love for the Garamond font.  In fact I used to carpool with one of those monkeys and he's still one of my favorite writers.  I get it but what you're saying is several miles beyond where this discussion has settled.  I'm having problems getting people to look out a window let alone kick in a door.

Quoted from bwdial Keep it simple.  Master the basics.  Build it to code.  Don't give a reader any reasons to toss your script in the garbage by breaking too many rules or conventions.

But exactly who are you relying on to codify the code? People on a message board or the writers of the hundreds of produced screenplays you should be reading if you want to write for the Hollywood. The problem is that your simple and basic script isn't really built to Hollywood code.  

Okay, so you have a zombie polar bear movie.  "They polluted their land and now they're out for revenge!"  It lands on the desk of a story department reader.  The thing is that she has another zombie polar bear movie on her desk written by someone with ten years worth of credits.  It's a competition.  And who is going to win in this development showdown?  The person who writes a script that reads like a Hollywood screenplay or the one who limits how he/she writes based on a bunch of SS "rules" that tells you that you're not allowed to write like people with credits.

This is the thread that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friends
Martin started it, he had a point to get across
SS members continue argue it forever just because...
;D

Quoted from Tierney Okay, so you have a zombie polar bear movie.  "They polluted their land and now they're out for revenge!"

Get out of my head!  Get out of my head, foul woman!

I can't stop either...

But what if the unproduced Screenwriter's script had an unbelievable action sequence in which the zombie polar bears attacked a pod of Orcas, under the ice?  What if the unproduced Screenwriter's script was the much more interesting, thought out script?

What if the zombie polar bears in the unproduced Screenwriter's script used zombie Narwhales as lethal undead projectiles, while the professional Screenwriter merely had a pack of zombie polar bears stumbling around like drunks, barely even terrorizing anyone?

Have we lost the brief agreement that it's all about the story?  A unique, engaging story that we haven't seen before?

All this talk of polar bears has me thinking of Kevin Smith's Superman story.

When will the giant mechanical spider come into play?

I think what Tierney meant was that if two scripts arrived on the reader's desk and both were about zombie polar bears, the script by the unknown writer would most likely not get read at all. Even if it was a better story.

I'm going to be brief (because I never am, but I want to make a few points). Being the moderator of this board, it's the recipient of the "rules" post, but very few people actually get the point.

Must the rules always be followed? No.

Then what's the point? They are learning tools. That's it.

Will I be a better writer if I follow them? Maybe.

Will I be a worse writer if I don't? Dunno.

What do I get out of them? In many (not all) cases, the rules force a greater level of creativity and a more concise and easier to read story.

What if I want to tell you to f**k your rules, do my own thing? Go ahead.

It's all about personal preference. Since SS caters to basically unproduced writers looking to make their break, we use these rule things to help teach people how to write in a manner mostly consistent with produced screenplays. This means brevity with detail in style along with a good story (which is not within the rules). Do people get carried away? Sure.

Will the rules help you get produced? Well, look at it this way. Take the same example with the zombie polar bear script that Tierney took from Mike's brain but by unknowns. Script A has perfect format and tight descriptions while script B has inconsistent format and blocks of black. If these people were fortunate enough to be read, which would have a better chance?

As for my frustration, I spent a lot of time querying companies, and of the hundreds of letters I sent out, I've had exactly two requests. This means I really don't know what the industry thinks of how I write because they've never read what I've written. I cooked my scripts up till I and this community felt they were good, and no one wants to even have a look. You see, I can't really say that I'm either good or bad because they won't even give me a chance.

Now (pat me on the back), I do get recommended around here. That makes me feel good. But those who makes the financial decisions for motion picture production? Not even so much as the time of day, much less a courtesy read. It sucks.

OK Me, if you're correct in your last post, then it's quite a shame, isn't it?  The produced Screenwriter gets the read with a boring, cookie cutter script, written in a "Hollywood" style, while the unproduced Screenwriter with the creative, unique action, and superior story gets shit canned.  In this example, it doesn't even matter whether or not the unproduced Screenwriter wrote a good screenplay.  Nor does it matter what style he wrote it in.

And George, as I've said before, I hear ya completely.  Same deal as above.  The industry doesn't give us unproduced Screenwriters a chance, and because of that, we get the kind and quality of movies that we've been getting recently, which for the most part are crap.

It just doesn't make any sense, and is far from fair.  All we can do is push on and hope for that 1 break...and that's all we really need...1 break.  1 minute you're an unproduced Screenwriter arguing trivial points in here, and the next, you're a produced "professional" Screenwriter because someone gave you a chance,a nd actually was impressed with what you wrote.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I think what Tierney meant was that if two scripts arrived on the reader's desk and both were about zombie polar bears, the script by the unknown writer would most likely not get read at all. Even if it was a better story.

Quoted from Dreamscale OK Me, if you're correct in your last post, then it's quite a shame, isn't it?

I don't believe that's the meaning behind the post at all.  I think the point that Tierney is trying to make is that the way the story flows is what will cause it to win the development race.

Say you have two scripts from two different writers that follow the exact same plot lines, but one of them is written in a way that the reader can vividly imagine every little detail, going so far as to describe a wicked zombie Polar Bear/ woolly mammoth skeleton battle in great detail.  Every bite, claw, eye gouge and drop of blood that's spilled is laid out right there on the page.

The other one says "The Polar bear and woolly mammoth engage in a tough fight.  The polar bear wins."  No more, no less.

Which do you think would be more interesting and ultimately more likely to get optioned/bought?

Shelton, Shelton, Shelton...I really try and resist with the ongoing back and forth, but I just can't.

I don't agree with you here.  The way you've laid it out, it's quite obvious which script wouuld win. But you're reading in, assuming that the produced Screenwriter's script is written that way and the unproduced Screenwriter's script sucks.  That's not always the case, and I don't think the point here.

Let's pretend that as I said, the better script is actually from the unproduced Screenwriter.   Like George continues to say, and I agree with, based on similar lack of interest from "Hollywood", it's usually a case of the unproduced Screenwriter's script not even getting read.   It's just the way it is.

"Prettying up a script", or writing it in such a way that it "looks like a Hollywood scipt" does not change content, story, creative uniqueness, originality, or any other term like this 1 bit!  You don't agree with this?  How could you not?

Again, this is why we have the same old movies being released over and over again.  It's so rare these days that a unique movie comes along, because no one's willing to read the far out, whacky, and original ideas that are surely floating around out there somewhere.

There are wonderfully creative minds that have not been tapped into because of Hollywood's closed door policies.

PS...I guess you didn't visulize the underwater battle with the zombie polar bears and Orca pod?  Or the devilish use of zombie Narwhales' unicorn-like horns?  C'mon...how whacky would that be?  Of course, I jest here for the most part, but you gotta admit, it sure would be interesting, and if there's going to be a movie involving zombie polar bears, you might as well go the whole 9 yards.

Quoted from Dreamscale I don't agree with you here.  The way you've laid it out, it's quite obvious which script wouuld win. But you're reading in, assuming that the produced Screenwriter's script is written that way and the unproduced Screenwriter's script sucks.  That's not always the case, and I don't think the point here.

I laid out two different scenarios and two different styles of writing.  One where the writer just lets it flow and another where the writer would stop, afraid that they were doing themselves a great disservice by going into too much detail.  You assume that the less detailed of the two was written by the unproduced writer.  What does that say about this entire conversation?

Quoted from Dreamscale Let's pretend that as I said, the better script is actually from the unproduced Screenwriter.   Like George continues to say, and I agree with, based on similar lack of interest from "Hollywood", it's usually a case of the unproduced Screenwriter's script not even getting read.   It's just the way it is.

If there are two scripts on a reader's desk, the better of the two is going to win no matter who wrote it.  George's point was based around his inability to get his script on desks.  Tierney's is when it's already there and in the middle of a showdown.

Quoted from Dreamscale "Prettying up a script", or writing it in such a way that it "looks like a Hollywood scipt" does not change content, story, creative uniqueness, originality, or any other term like this 1 bit!  You don't agree with this?  How could you not?

C'mon, man, go back and read my last post.  I stated that the two scripts follow the EXACT same plot line.  I took the issues regarding story completely out of it because that's not what's being debated here.  At least from my vantage point.

Quoted from Dreamscale   PS...I guess you didn't visulize the underwater battle with the zombie polar bears and Orca pod?  Or the devilish use of zombie Narwhales' unicorn-like horns?

I did, but only briefly since Winnie the Pooh came along and wasted them all with his 12 gauge pretty much straight away.

This thing has been going on forever now, and I've grown quite weary of it.  If you're comfortable in writing the way you do, that's fine.  The point, once again and hopefully for the last time, is that not everything is completely set in stone when it comes to the way things end up on the page.  That's it.  

If you glanced at one of my scripts you'd notice that my writing is pretty straight forward as well.  It's just the way I write.  I can, however, look at things from other sides, and I can certainly give credence to people who are in the know from a professional standpoint.  Who better to get advice on how things really work than from someone who's actually in the trenches?

Fair enough Shelton.  I'm not looking for an argument, and really never have been.  You did stack the cards against the unproduced Screenwriter though.

Funny about Pooh Bear.

I still disagree that both scripts would even be read though.  George isn't the only one who finds it almost impossible to get a read.  It's the way it is in Hollywood.  I'm not sure why you don't realize this or agree with it. It's not based on what's good or better, it's based on who you are, or who you know.  From there, may the best man win.  Of course, there are also numerous exceptions, but they're far outweighed.

There are so many "classic" examples of scripts from unproduced Screenwriters that float around Hollywood for many years, before someone decides to take a chance...and then, they do $100 Million at the NA Box Office  It's not that these scripts are good or bad, it's just that because the writer didn't have any "clout", no one gave them an opportunity.  Once someone stepped in and said "Let's give it a ride", they turned into what the Screenwriter thought they were in the first place.

What about zombie Winnie the Pooh nightlights that use mini shotguns to kill innocent children...or innocent polar bears?  Oh...wait a minute...that wouldn't be appropriate...or accepted in Hollywood, would it?  My bad...

Quoted from eric11 Writing in the present tense is a principle of convention, not a rule to be obeyed. I have seen it broken and have succesfully "broken" it myself. Anyways my point was that writing is about understanding what works, mastering what works, then finding your creative voice using what works - mastering the artistry of the form. Rules say, you HAVE to do it this way. Hence when some one says I learned the "rules" so I can "break them", makes not a single i'otta of sense to me. To give you a sense what I mean is this, you can't break rules in mathematics, you can't break rules in science, you can't break natural rules of survival (you can find ways around them but you can't break them). So why do some writers here think you can break "rules" in screenwriting and get away with it? If a rule can be broken succesfully it is not a rule. Hence, that's why I don't believe screenwriting is about following rules. Screenwriting is about understanding the guidelines and learning to master the principles of the form. It is fair to say that there are conventions that should be utilized by the writer when learning the craft like; master slug lines, font, details, using paper instead of chalk boards, etc.   Yet all this has nothing to do with story structure. When I say there are no rules in screenwriting, I am saying there are no rules in story structure.

When you say you've successfully broken the tense rule, do you mean to say that you've written a script in the past tense that got picked up or made, or simply that you personally was satisfied with it? I need some handle on your idea of "successful" here because I've never seen a produced screenplay written in the past tense?

And let me point out you're arguing from a very idiosyncractic semantic point of view. Your definition of "rules" is that which cannot be broken, and if it is it ceases to be a rule. Well, firstly I would argue that tense to my knowledge certainly falls into that category if it means an agent, or reader will put down your script on page 1. Which Tierney and others suggest isn't the case with "WE" for instance.

But the actual meaning of rule according to Merriam Webster is:

1 a: a prescribed guide for conduct or action b: the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members c: an accepted procedure, custom, or habit d (1): a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2): a legal precept or doctrine e: a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct.

There is a discrepancy here with your definition of something dogmatically authoritative. The point is, it's not inherently impossible for rules, in their lexical definition, to be "broken". Far from it, actually.

But what we should take note of is the fact in screenwriting there are certain basic elements you must conform to for it to be a screenplay, or for it be a screenplay that will ever get made. In the real world, that is. Not on a hypothetical plane.

Is there a difference, in your opinion, between a novel and a screenplay, or is the only distinction the context in which they're used? I.e. A novel becomes a screenplay if someone decides to try to film it?

ANYWAY, I do think we're seriously veering off track here. The "rules" this thread is about those that say "If you write X and Y in your script you will NOT get read" and then those who question whether or not X and Y are in fact taboo on behalf of Hollywood or on behalf of closed screenwriting communities outside of it.

My shout is that everyone is still involved in the thread, should sum up as succintly as possible their thoughts about the topic, without reference to the posts of others.

That way we can bring the thread to a nice close, pointing out the differences of opinion in a pleasant way and then freeing up everyone's time for more important things. (Like writing their scripts!).

Once everyone has their shiny new scripts in front of them, we can worry about what is wrong with them then. And deal with very specific problems like why you can't get people to read them.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Once everyone has their shiny new scripts in front of them, we can worry about what is wrong with them then. And deal with very specific problems like why you can't get people to read them.

We should pick a particular script to discuss. Not just to review for the writer, but discuss style and such and why or why not that script works or don't.

Hard to get too many people to read a feature so maybe a "long short".

This thread may have gone on longer than necessary, but the discussion was still good and this is what we need to have more of IMHO. Discussions about scripts and writing.

At Done Deal they pick a script every week for people to read and the next week they discuss it. I like that idea and I would participate if we had something similar here.  :-)

Quoted from Grandma Bear At Done Deal they pick a script every week for people to read and the next week they discuss it. I like that idea and I would participate if we had something similar here.

Hey, that would be instructive for everybody -- and what a great resource for the author.  A little different from the normal review thread, I guess, but more of a chatty thing where your script really gets thrashed -- in the best way, of course.

If the script were by an active member, I might participate in that, too.

It would be much more constructive than stretching out this weary thread for eternity.  This kind of went in the toilet about the time the polar bears arrived, if you ask me.

Quoted from Grandma Bear We should pick a particular script to discuss. Not just to review for the writer, but discuss style and such and why or why not that script works or don't. Hard to get too many people to read a feature so maybe a "long short".

Do you mean something along the lines of what I brought up last week regarding the live feedback via Skype?

Yep.
But we could do it in text here too so those who can't participate live can still benefit from the discussions.

I think these are great ideas!  I would love to participate.  I have no problem with a full sized script,and I think it would offer more to discuss than a short, which really limits everything.

Let's do it, and see if we all actually agree with each other more than we seem to.

OK.

Let's do it.
A couple of questions:

Produced scripts or un-produced?

Feature or long short? Some people may not have the time for a feature.  (hint, the soulshadows scripts coming up soon are 20-30 pages)  ;D

Quoted from Grandma Bear OK.  Let's do it.

Back on topic (such as it is...) for this thread, please.

A formal discussion of "me's" idea has been started here:

http://www.simplyscripts.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1212603825/

Quoted from Death Monkey When you say you've successfully broken the tense rule, do you mean to say that you've written a script in the past tense that got picked up or made, or simply that you personally was satisfied with it? I need some handle on your idea of "successful" here because I've never seen a produced screenplay written in the past tense? And let me point out you're arguing from a very idiosyncractic semantic point of view. Your definition of "rules" is that which cannot be broken, and if it is it ceases to be a rule. Well, firstly I would argue that tense to my knowledge certainly falls into that category if it means an agent, or reader will put down your script on page 1. Which Tierney and others suggest isn't the case with "WE" for instance. But the actual meaning of rule according to Merriam Webster is: 1 a: a prescribed guide for conduct or action b: the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members c: an accepted procedure, custom, or habit d (1): a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2): a legal precept or doctrine e: a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct. There is a discrepancy here with your definition of something dogmatically authoritative. The point is, it's not inherently impossible for rules, in their lexical definition, to be "broken". Far from it, actually. But what we should take note of is the fact in screenwriting there are certain basic elements you must conform to for it to be a screenplay, or for it be a screenplay that will ever get made. In the real world, that is. Not on a hypothetical plane. Is there a difference, in your opinion, between a novel and a screenplay, or is the only distinction the context in which they're used? I.e. A novel becomes a screenplay if someone decides to try to film it? ANYWAY, I do think we're seriously veering off track here. The "rules" this thread is about those that say "If you write X and Y in your script you will NOT get read" and then those who question whether or not X and Y are in fact taboo on behalf of Hollywood or on behalf of closed screenwriting communities outside of it.

The answer to your first question is yes, but I did not write the entire script in the past tense. I wrote it before I knew anything about "rules". The point is, it doesn't make sense to write the script in the past tense, but it is not a rule. BTW I was being sarcastic when I said "I broke it succesfully" - I don't believe in rules.

I am not playing with semantics. Your defination affirms what I said before that a rule says "it must be done this way".  You can change the wording if you want or site examples but it boils down to the same thing.

If you ever want to write a screenplay that will get optioned by some one, the story has got to be solid. I guess I do believe in one rule after all.

Quoted from Tierney But exactly who are you relying on to codify the code? People on a message board or the writers of the hundreds of produced screenplays you should be reading if you want to write for the Hollywood. The problem is that your simple and basic script isn't really built to Hollywood code.

I read every script I can... Shane Black... Rossio and Elliott.  I've got Michael Clayton, The Fugitive and The Bourne Ultimatum sitting on the floor beside me right now.  I've got two copies of Trottier's Bible.
My point is to make it read like these people.  This is what I'm referring to as "code".  
Sadly, I've read a lot of scripts that don't even begin to read anything like these.  Too many people seem to think they can jam a script with all sorts of camera directions and pages of description when three lines would do, because they think their idea is so incredibly strong.

Wow, my thread spawned a sequel. Not only that, it's epic!

I'd be lying if I said I'd read the whole thing but I skimmed through and this jumped out at me.

Quoted from Tierney Martin complained that the writing on SS was flat and mechanical because of a bunch of community-centric "rules"

Just to be clear, I wasn't specifically complaining about SS, but screenwriting forums in general. And it's less the quality of writing, but the quality of "advice" that might hinder a writer's development. There's loads of great writing to be found on this site so my complaint certainly doesn't apply to all. In fact, it doesn't apply to anyone in particular, it was meant as a word of warning not to take all the "advice" you receive as gospel.

Hey guys, i have some questions here i really wanna make.

The first: The word "we" when we describe something, can be used? Because i have been said that is not a good thing to use it. But most of the scripts use it in describing things, i'm talking for a guy like Andrew Kevin Walker, who i'm reading recently.

Second: Some of these writers, write the Scene heading in bold, i used to do it before, but i have been said not to. If you check some scripts out there, they have it.

Now, i know these question might sound stupid, but i'd like a fair answer.

Cheers

If you are going to be shooting the film Nik you can pretty much do anything you want.  However, if you are going to be submitting scripts for feedback or entering them into contests then there are a few guidelines to follow.  Unfortunately the current guideline fashions do not allow for the use of we - but you could probably get away with  bold slug lines.

Well, it just seems common to me, when some writers use the word we so often in describing the scenes, that was my point. As for the bold, i think it just makes it more distinguishable when a scene starts.

I think 'WE SEE' and 'WE HEAR' are the big no-nos. WE MOVE, or WE FOLLOW are more common but if possible it's best not to use them.

The bold sluglines I think would just be personal taste. If your sending them to comps though it's probably best not to. Simply because a judge might personally not like them.

Quoted from stebrown I think 'WE SEE' and 'WE HEAR' are the big no-nos. WE MOVE, or WE FOLLOW are more common but if possible it's best not to use them.

Make note of the distinction Steve is making here, Nik.  It is an important one.

Virtually every time you read "We see" or "We hear", it is wasted words -- wasted space -- and that is why it is frowned upon.

"We see an alarm clock sitting on the counter" should be "An alarm clock sits on the counter"

"We hear an alarm clock buzzing" should be "An alarm clock buzzes".

But sometimes -- in very rare instances -- in my humble opinion -- anything other than "we" will weaken the sentence or description or effect.

To grab one of Steve's examples:  "We move through the keyhole into the room" can probably be written in many different ways, but this is probably the most concise way to express that transition.

It is an ongoing debate, and plenty of people will tell you never to use the dreaded "we" under any circumstances.  It depends upon who you ask.

Very, very sparing use of "we" -- in an appropriate context where anything else would be bulkier and less clear -- is probably alright.

As to the second question, to my knowledge, there is never a reason why anything in a script should appear in bold font.

Bert's advice is very sound.

I think the reason it became such a no-no was that some writers would start almost every line with a We see or a We hear and it can become annoying to some people quite quickly.

However as Bert says, it's whatever that works best in a particular moment that's important. Removing most We sees from a script will usually tighten it up considerably, the same with removing most ..Ings.

The thing is that in certain situations, you may spend about half an hour trying to find ways to word it without the WE and if that's the case, forget about it.

One of my favourite starts to a script was Darren Aronofskys (sp) Below. " We float beneath the wings of  a [type of plane].

From my own point of view, I couldn't care less about We sees, but I tend to read scripts differently to most people. My only concern is whether the script will work well as a film, so the writing style and a prevalence of We sees doesn't bother me as they won't make it into the final film.

As far as using bold goes, I don't think it is necessary. Might be useful if you are bolding out props though so you don't miss anything...

Hey guys, whoa thanks for all the responses. Appreciate them, the reason why i made this topic is because i'm reading Andrew Kevin Walker's script Psycho Killer, and he use the word "we" alot, and the bold font.

I used to write with "we" most of my first scripts, but now i don't use them anymore.

Anyhow here a description from the named script:

“’We’ will mostly be shot from behind, or from the neck down, because our FACE WILL NEVER BE FULLY REVEALED. ‘We’ are PSYCHO KILLER.”

This is just a little considered of how often he uses the word.

As i said thanks for making things clear to me.

Cheers
Nik

I'm not endorsing the use of we, but just a point to note is that you can win contests with wes littered in your script.  Yes you can. You can even win one with ALL of the shooting directions in it(CUT TO:'S, DISSOLVES, we see, we do this, dolly that, high angle this, etc.).  I've seen it many times.  However, not all contests will give you the benefit of the doubt, so echoing everyone here, it's probably best to sway from the use of we.  Make your sentences as simple as possible.  

"Bob walks to the store" instead of "we see Bob walking to the store."  

Some people get more butthurt over the use of we than others.  To keep everything simple, I'd just leave the we alone.  Play a Wii instead.

Hey guys. Sorry to bring up a dead thread but this looked like a good spot to ask a question.

What is your guys' take on tracking shots in spec scripts?

It's kind of important because overall, I don't really care for them too much but this opening scene I wrote kind of requires it.

You're probably going to get answers from both sides on this one, so I'm going to answer your question with a question.

Why is it required?

Well, it's not required but it's how I picture it. Following 8 people through an entire movie theater.

It starts with one character then leaves them but the final shot is of that character too, so it's almost necessary, or at the bare minimum, the simplest way to do it.

Just write how you "see" the shot, there's really no need to call it a tracking shot. If written well enough, then the reader will see it as a tracking shot as well.

Long tracking shots are almost stylistic trademarks and while you can write to hoping for that tracking shot, there's never a guarantee, even if you write LONG TRACKING SHOT on the page. I'm of the "write what you see" persuasion and if you've constructed the scene so that it works in one long shot, then the right director will shoot it that way, if possible. If it is picked up by a smaller independent company who can't get actors with a longer than two line memory or a director who can't conduct a rehearsal to save his life, it'll be broke up no matter what you do so that multiple takes can be stitched together. Also keep in mind that from a budgetary perspective, long shots can be cost-prohibitive depending on how much ground they cover. A production will have to light every element and make sure that sound is covered everywhere the camera goes. It's a very difficult shot for a movie because of how much is behind the camera and with a long tracking shot, there is no behind the camera.

I'm with George on this one.

A long tracking shot is basically for a Director to show the world that he's billy big bollocks. I think writing it as a tracking shot won't help much to get it into the film.

Ithink your best chance is not to worry so much about HOW you write it, but to concentrate on the thematics of the opening. What is there that needs, or would be better told in a single shot?

I think it needs to be something stronger than it just being the way you see it because even if the Director manages to do it, it will just look like he's trying to be Scorcese if there's not a meaning behind it.

Here's some of the best of them.

Touch of Evil is still the best for me, because it was one of the few that actually uses it to tell the story, but in terms of sheer technical wizardy, I really don;t know how they managed to shoot th opening shot of Boogie Nights like that.

Quoted from decadence I really don;t know how they managed to shoot th opening shot of Boogie Nights like that.

Not sure either, but I do know that PTA is immensely talented, and 'There Will Be Blood' is one of the rare moments when the product eclipses the rave reviews, IMO. Random, but felt like chucking that in there!

As an aside - although more pertinent  :) - this was a really interesting thread to read.

Andrew

Well, the number one tracking shot is Russian Ark. The entire film is one long shot as it moves through this museum. It only took them two takes to pull it off, but a freakin' ton of rehearsal time to coordinate it all, especially the crowd scenes. It's more impressive when you consider that it's one uncut shot than the actual film is. If you haven't seen it, it's worth at least one look.

The one that I initially fell in love with was the first eight minutes of Snake Eyes. Talk about huge. Haven't seen it since that first time, but I thought it was cool then.

And of course, how can we forget Rope? Back when a film reel only held 11 minutes, Hitchcock had to come up creative ways to make his "one shot" movie while distracting you from the fact that he HAD to cut between reels.

The trouble with Snake Eyes is that it wanted to be a tracking shot. But, there were 8 cuts during that scene.

It's a shame because that's where I got the initial idea for my scene and it stuck. Luckily (in my opinion), it's not just filler dialogue like Snake Eyes' was but Snake Eyes was good in its awfulness. Lol.