Found this link at another site...It gives some insight...and makes you rethink your screenwriting dream.

http://www.kullervo.com/The_Mistakes.html

I.Love.This.Article.

I really do. It underlies everything we try to do as beginners. It clarifies that there are bigger and better things out there, and you can sure write them, but for God's sake, don't send them in.

Everyone should get a load of this one. Someday, we won't have to play by the rules of the readers, but I know I'm not there yet. If you are, then this article isn't for you.

Yup - a great article.

Every single point in this article I have heard repeated verbatim in Film Classes, Forums, talking with writers, directors, producers, actors.

Read it. Know it. Work with it.

Wow, it's a long one. But I will read it.

Thanks for the link.

I agree with the author on nearly every point. However, because I like to learn and grow, because I’m not always right about everything, and because I have to face facts and evolve, I’m going to go ahead and do something I never thought I’d do:

I’m going to defend the “we see.” (Gasp!)

That’s right. I think a point needs to be made here that many people fail to recognize when discussing screenplays.

Screenplays are not written to be experienced as a written work. They are meant to be produced and experienced as a film.

When one reads a novel, they read the story as the author intended the story to be experienced, as a written story. When one reads a screenplay, they are not reading a novel. They are reading a story that’s meant to be made into a motion picture.

I agree that a screenplay should be written to be as entertaining as possible, however, to think a screenplay should be viewed primarily as a written work is in my mind erred thinking. We do not write for other writers or even readers who are looking for a good literary work. We write for producers, directors, actors, etc., who can bring our written work to life visually.

“We see” is a device that, although most often detracts from a story, is a valid device to be used when describing a visual scene with words. And sometimes a “we see” is actually the most effective method to accomplish clarity in a scene.

I think this article is terrific overall and there’s much to be learned from it. But I also think the author of this article infuses a little too much of her personal preference.

I’ve never met anyone who cared about a “we see” other than other writers. I’ve certainly never met a director, producer, or agent who cared one bit about them.


Breanne

I think you make a good point here Breanne. Sometimes I get confused about 'we see'. I don't use it myself(or try not to). But is there really that much diff between writing that or 'the camera shows', etc?

While we are on the subject of formatting, when dialogue is interrupted by action,
should I put continued after the character when he talks again? again, this seems to be a preference issue. i haven't been doing it and, when you think about it, it's evident to the reader what's happened. Which again gets back to Breanne's point that screenplays are for directors, etc to read. Cheers

Breanne,

I think you're right about we see, although I've rarely seen instances where it has added to a script myself. If it is the quickest way of getting a particular concept across then that is fine, almost always it could simply be removed :

We see a cat run across the road

A cat runs across the road.

One of the best uses of "We" was by Darron Aronofsky, in Below, when he writes "we float beneath the wings of an ...[type of military plane].  

Like you say, It wouldn't bother me in a script.

The argument about the readability of scripts is always raging amongst certain factions. We delved into it a bit on the infamous "breaking the rules" thread. : )

The problem with the Studios is that the gatekeepers are not Directors or Producers, they are just readers, readers who read a LOT of scripts and are generally bored out of their mind. They are the ones who give the script coverage and pass it along to their superiors.

Unfortunately they don't necessarily have the skill to differentiate between a script that is mechanical but would make a great film and a script that is a fantastic read, but is in actuality cliched and trite.

They are more likely to give good coverage to a script that reads in an entertaining way, mistaking the pleasure of the read for the quality of its vision as a film.

I'd strongly recommend people read David Mamet's "Bambi vs Godzilla" where he launches into this topic with some vigour.

So whilst your supposition that "Screenplays are not written to be experienced as a written work. They are meant to be produced and experienced as a film" is one that I whole-heartedly agree with, it's worth bearing in mind that films may get through based on the fact that they read so well, when in reality the film they would make is fairly poor.

You see it most commonly with comedies that are funny on the page because of their tone and descriptions but are suddenly bereft of any jokes whatsoever when they are made into films.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Breanne, I think you're right about we see, although I've rarely seen instances where it has added to a script myself. If it is the quickest way of getting a particular concept across then that is fine, almost always it could simply be removed : We see a cat run across the road A cat runs across the road. One of the best uses of "We" was by Darron Aronofsky, in Below, when he writes "we float beneath the wings of an ...[type of military plane].   Like you say, It wouldn't bother me in a script. The argument about the readability of scripts is always raging amongst certain factions. We delved into it a bit on the infamous "breaking the rules" thread. : ) The problem with the Studios is that the gatekeepers are not Directors or Producers, they are just readers, readers who read a LOT of scripts and are generally bored out of their mind. They are the ones who give the script coverage and pass it along to their superiors. Unfortunately they don't necessarily have the skill to differentiate between a script that is mechanical but would make a great film and a script that is a fantastic read, but is in actuality cliched and trite. They are more likely to give good coverage to a script that reads in an entertaining way, mistaking the pleasure of the read for the quality of its vision as a film. I'd strongly recommend people read David Mamet's "Bambi vs Godzilla" where he launches into this topic with some vigour. So whilst your supposition that "Screenplays are not written to be experienced as a written work. They are meant to be produced and experienced as a film" is one that I whole-heartedly agree with, it's worth bearing in mind that films may get through based on the fact that they read so well, when in reality the film they would make is fairly poor. You see it most commonly with comedies that are funny on the page because of their tone and descriptions but are suddenly bereft of any jokes whatsoever when they are made into films.

Oh I agree with striving to make a script as entertaining of a read as possible. I like to be able to suspend disbelief and enjoy a script in much the same way I enjoy a novel. The point I’m making is that if I’m looking for a script to make me money, I’m not looking to have my belief suspended. I’m looking for a good moneymaking venture.

I understand your point and it’s well taken. Those gatekeepers that you mention are torturing themselves. Being bothered by a “we see” is entirely psychological. They used to bother me immensely as well until I started looking at things in a more realistic way. But I understand that they’re there and they’re going to punish writers for violating their personal preferences. So point taken.

I do need to point out that always “playing by the rules” makes for some very boring scripts as well. And those gatekeepers never opened the door too quickly for me when I played by the rules. I think every writer has to write in whatever way makes the best, most salable, script.


Breanne

Wow, I already knew all this about selling your screenplay. Most producers or agents out there have one thought about every script they get handed, "this is gonna suck", and most of them do, but sometimes there's that one script like "Napoleon Dynamite" that a producer reads and is like, "I've got to make this thing", that's what I want my script to be, the one that producers like. In fact that's what everyone wants. But chances of that happening are one in a million, so you should probably listen to the asshole who wrote this and fallow everything he says.

You know, an instance of "we see" is not going to get a good script thrown out. If your script is thrown out because of "we see," it's because it had other problems. If you have a gripping story with a solid premise and movement on every page, they'll probably forgive a lot more than one that has issues ad they just want to get rid of it.

Some is great advice, some is good advice, and some is just...meh.

I think a lot of these essays and rants are often thinking in the mindset of when a script goes to a studio, which is a whole different ball of wax in my opinion, because you're not getting anything into a studio without having an agent submit it for you, and if you've managed to land an agent, you must be doing something right.

Smaller independents, while still looking for a certain grasp of the craft, don't seem to get into things like this as much.  At least from my experience.

As long as the script doesn't look like it should have been written in crayon, things should be alright.

I don't really like the use of we see though.  I think it's redundant.  But I don't mind the use of we.  Like "We float above the city, looking down" or "We follow the feather as it gets caught in the breeze."  Those would be ok.

Quoted from Shelton I think a lot of these essays and rants are often thinking in the mindset of when a script goes to a studio, which is a whole different ball of wax in my opinion, because you're not getting anything into a studio without having an agent submit it for you, and if you've managed to land an agent, you must be doing something right.

I actually have an agent/lawyer, but no script... Talk about being fucked in a different way!  :-/

Quoted from Grandma Bear I actually have an agent/lawyer, but no script... Talk about being fucked in a different way!  :-/

Is it a friend or something?  Seems odd to get an agent without a script to show.

Yep!

I am with Breane on this, and is it almost the same as a recent discussion on using words that end with 'ing. While there is nothing to stop you doing occasionally I firmly believe that it is solid advice not to use them. When you are on a re-write and go back through your script removing the we see's and 'ings etc.. and take some time, it forces you to improve your writing. They can all be replaced with something better if you try, maybe a more clever way of saying it, a more interesting way or just a quicker way, whatever it is it can turn a decent enough script with a great story into a rather more interesting script to read.

It cannot ever be a bad thing to not use them even though it is sometimes not a bad thing to use them.

Actually apologies, I meant agree with Decadencefilms, not Breane. Got the posts mixed up!

Sorry Bre, nothing personal ;-)

Quoted from Murphy Actually apologies, I meant agree with Decadencefilms, not Breane. Got the posts mixed up! Sorry Bre, nothing personal ;-)

Yeah I figured it out from reading. No offense taken whatsoever (except maybe leaving an ‘n’ out of my name. :))


Breanne

Quoted from Breanne Mattson Yeah I figured it out from reading. No offense taken whatsoever (except maybe leaving an ‘n’ out of my name. :)) Breanne

::) Spelling someones name wrong is very rude, Sorry Breanne.

Have a couple of n's to try and make up for it.. n  n

Cheers.

Quoted from Murphy Spelling someones name wrong is very rude, Sorry Breanne. Have a couple of n's to try and make up for it.. n  n Cheers.

Thanks. I was only teasing with you. Every time I tell people my name is Breanne they always say, “Brianna, that’s a beautiful name.” Then I say, “Actually it’s just Breanne.” Then they say, “Oh,” as though that’s not as pretty. And then they call me Brianna anyway. :)

So between the misunderstood names, the misspelled names, and the actual nicknames I have, I get called all sorts of things: Breanne, Brianna, Brea, Bree, Brie, Anne, Annie, Bea, Breane, Brenne, and those are the nice ones.

Anyway, sorry for getting off topic.

Back on topic: I really think the peeve with “we see” is a personal burr under the saddle. I personally hate to see esses on the ends of the words backward and toward. It’s an unnecessary letter. A waste of space. And just plain annoying. But I recognize that everyone simply doesn’t agree and I ignore it when I see it. I certainly wouldn’t reject a good script otherwise over something so silly. Anyone who rejects a script solely because it has a “we see” in it is a complete moron who has no business in show business, in my opinion. I think there are things to be concerned with and things to just let go.


Brea

Quoted Text Back on topic: I really think the peeve with “we see” is a personal burr under the saddle. I personally hate to see esses on the ends of the words backward and toward. It’s an unnecessary letter. A waste of space. And just plain annoying. But I recognize that everyone simply doesn’t agree and I ignore it when I see it. I certainly wouldn’t reject a good script otherwise over something so silly. Anyone who rejects a script solely because it has a “we see” in it is a complete moron who has no business in show business, in my opinion. I think there are things to be concerned with and things to just let go.

Again, you're right. IMO the reason people takes these "mistakes" so seriously is this:

It takes about a day to learn screenplay formatting, less if you use a screenwriting package. 99.99999% recurring of the time, you find that people who can't be bothered to learn such simple rules will not have had the patience or persistence to perfect their craft in terms of structure, character, story etc.

In other words, it's not the mistakes in themselves that make a difference, it is the fact they signpost what is almost certainly going to be a poor script. People start to codify these mistakes into a test for the quality.

I mentioned on here before that  I met a Producer who reckoned he could tell a bad script from the name and address on the envelope. EG Snoop Doggy Motley from Brooklyn. You know it's going to be a crap urban "Boyz in the Hood". He also said that any woman who sent a script calling herself "Mrs" whatever, was straight in the bin because he knew it would be a family based drama lacking conflict.


It's like the point about sending your script in with a stylized title page. It's quite common. A simple google search will reveal that they don't like it. If you can't be bothered finding out how agents, prodco's etc want the script delivered, it's not a good sign. Who would spend months perfecting a script on every level and then not bother to find out how you are supposed to send it to people? It instantly makes you look like somone who wrote the script on a whim over a short time. The chances are that this first impression is correct.

I get sent a lot of scripts and I've done nothing of note as yet. God knows how many scripts the bigger companies must get. They must receive thousands a day. You start off wanting to give everyone a chance, with the belief that format and such should not inherently stop the story from being fantastic, but you quickly realise that a writer who doesn't have the desire to make sure his script is properly presented almost certainly will not have the talent and strength of will to carry a 90-120 page feature.

I would say however that were I to receive a particularly brilliant idea that I thought could be executed better, I may still be interested in the script in order to re-work it into something I thought could work.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble.  ;)

One other thing I'd like to mention on a related note; As writers you are looking to directors and producers as the gate keepers, you are writing films for them. Producers then defer to the distributors, who market and sell their film.

There are a few things that should fill you with hope:

1. There aren't that many marketable scripts written. The vast majority of people don't write particularly strong scripts.

2. A great many of the best scripts written aren't very marketable.

This second point is one that I rarely see mentioned. It's something I notice of a lot of filmmakers in Europe particularly as well, when they are at the film markets looking for funding or a distribution deal.

A lot of the most talented people write very personal, deep films that don't sell very well. Dramas are very difficult to sell without two A list stars. They are also what the Distributors call "Too Execution Dependent".

This phrase means that everything in the film has to be perfect for it to work. Perfect direction, perfect acting etc If any of the things are off, the film is unsellable.

E.G Revolutionary Road. Imagine if the film had a poor central performance from Kate Winslet? It doesn't make the Globes, the Oscars and no-one goes to see it. It becomes a huge flop.

Most directors with a drama like that won't get it funded. It's too risky. But a large percentage of the best writers/directors around like to write those kind of films.  

In other words, they are taking themselves out of the game, despite their talent because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the business.

Films cost money, therefore they need to make money. To make money it has to be easy to target the core audience, therefore it is better if it is genre based with a particular marketing hook.

Look at the discussion of the Strangers on the script club. It's the kind of film that allows you to put together a strong visual trailer (with their masks). It doesn't have to be that great to find an audience.

A film that is unusual or between genres needs to be amongst the best films made throughout the world in that particular year and even that doesn't guarantee success if the audiences find it hard going.

I'm rambling again, but I hope you get my point.

Rick.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I would say however that were I to receive a particularly brilliant idea that I thought could be executed better, I may still be interested in the script in order to re-work it into something I thought could work.

You know, I still have that PM from you regarding my "very commercial script". ;D

Anyway, I agree with your points in your second post, that execution is a very important thing, and I touched on it quite a bit when I commented on Steve's script yesterday.  

If someone makes that film and fails terribly in the execution, it's going to come off as nothing more than bad, instead of intentionally bad as it should be.  It's a fine line to walk with any film, as so many things can go wrong, and it only takes one to cause a disaster.

Quoted Text You know, I still have that PM from you regarding my "very commercial script

I still think that's a very commercial idea. I actually had the email address of a guy called Rusty Cundieff that I was going to give to you, but I fucking lost it.  :B He made a very funny film called Fear of a Black Hat and has directed the likes of the Dave Chappelle show. He has worked with pretty much every famous Black comedy actor in the business. You should get in contact with him and get a bit more "blackness" in the script. ;)

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0192090/

I know that he's trying to get one of his own films off the ground at the moment, a comedy crime caper, but I reckon he'd know what to do with it. He's got access to all the people you'd need for that film to be a success.

Personally I think it must be stressful trying to direct a comedy. There's no way to "fake" comedy. It's either funny or it isn't. You can save other kinds of films more easily with sound effects, visual effects, tight editing etc

Fear of a Black Hat was hilarious.  I remember seeing that years ago and laughing my ass off.

Thanks for the tip, I'll look into that option.  Is he somebody you know, or did you just stumble upon the email address?

Comedy, is very tough.  Writing it, directing it, and so on.  I wrote a blog about this some time ago, giving specific examples of why it's so difficult, and it's mainly because the writer gets the most in tune feedback with what they were trying to do, which is...be funny.

I don't see this as much with other genres, whether a drama made the reader sad, or a horror script scared somebody, or an action script got their adrenaline going.  It's weird.  I suppose some horror gets a scary comment, but more often than not I'd think people get more involved in that aspect when it's an actual film.

No, I don't know him personally. I was sent a package about his latest film that he wanted to direct, he was looking for a company to produce it, with him attached as Director.

When I saw what he'd done in the past I thought of your Pimp Juice script.

I just checked out IMDb Pro, and wasn't able to find any contact info other than his rep at Paradigm.

I'll see if I can't weasel my way into something with a few contacts.

You know, one thing jumped out at me like a rabid squirrel when I was reading that list of beginner mistakes.  The writer tells us that it is NOT okay to do 'bad' things, and then say, "Well, this pro writer or that pro writer does the same thing!", because we are NOT an established pro writer like the person(s) we reference.  However, one of the first pieces of advice a new writer gets when asking where they should start is to go and read as many scripts as they can by professional, established writers, so we know how it's supposed to be done.

Does that sound like a recipe for frustration to anyone else?

What do you mean by "BAD" things, Steve? Sure I think that this writer should reread his work cause he tells us NOT to do one thing and then in a different paragraph tells us TO do that thing. Various things.

Anyways, I agree with almost everyone else, how the "we see" isn't that bad of a thing. Most pro scripts I read us "we see", "we hear" or "we then" in their scripts especially "we then... CUT TO:" or something like that. To me it's not anything to go 'what the hell' over.

I thought it was a pretty good article.  I wish I had read it before I submitted my below par scripts.