I'm opening this thread in response to a discussion I had with Dreamscale in the
Midnight Lake thread concerning the proper use of uppercase words in screenplays.

I've read many sources which state spec scripts should be kept as simple and straightforward as possible. Some of these rules we already know -- no camera directions, no use of "we see," and so on.

These sources argued all caps should only be used when introducing speaking characters in your story while background and ancillary characters -- students in a classroom, pedestrians on a street, patients and nurses in a hospital, and so on -- don't need to be capitalized.

Dreamscale, on the other hand, argued all characters regardless of their importance in the story need to be introduced with all caps. Dreamscale went on to argue important props such as a character's vehicle should also be stated in uppercase letters.

I know there's rarely set rules on how to write a screenplay -- well, other than what font and margins to use -- but I'd like to know what the community's consensus is on this issue.

Should all caps in a spec script be reserved only for speaking characters, or should they be used for every character in the story? Should all caps be used only to highlight characters, or should they also be used to draw attention to important items?

Caps are there to bring the readers attention to a character or sound or something important. So, no... generally characters we don't see more than once or twice do not need to be put in caps.

Police Officers would not be put in caps, for instance.

A woman named Julia Hove, whome we only see once and then falls of the pages, would not need to be put in caps.

Caps are great for something you want to bring attention to. A sound. An item of interest. Main characters. Something you want to stand out to the reader should stand off the page.

That is my rule of thumb.

Use them very sparingly I guess is the simple rule but they can be useful.

I often use them for sounds if the sound is important to the scene. They are also good for moments you are going to reference again later in the script, maybe a particular car or colour for instance.

But, and this is a big but. There are many screenwriters out there who never use them at all, even some of the best screenwriters around. It depends on you as a writer how exactly you want to write, I don't think anybody would put down your script for not using them.

Other than capping character names, use caps when you want to create an effect (like sound) or when you want to direct the readers attention towards something.

I found this on a nice website:

Quoted Text Always capitalize the name of a character the first time he appears in the script. If the character is important enough to be singled out, even if it's an extra, it gets caps because casting is going to have to find someone to play the part.

There was a brief but interesting (to me, anyways) exchange in the script by James, No Guts, No Glory, about this issue.

That script is littered with props all in CAPS -- things like NIGHT TABLE and GLASSES.

James is in film school -- with people who allegedly know what they are doing -- and I asked him if this was a required element.

He said he did not like doing it, but in the past had received points off for NOT doing it.

That said, I probably will not incorporate this particular element -- which I find distracting to the reader -- but it was interesting to know that his film school professors required it.

I am not entirely sure what to do with that information.

Quoted from bert -- but it was interesting to know that his film school professors required it.

And even more interesting that these guys are working at a school and not in the industry.  :-/

As a few others have said, I use caps for anything that I want to draw the readers attention to (and of course, first time character intro's).  I include all named or singled out characters, including extras, becuase as Steven said, they need to be accounted for.  If I intro an animlaA, I also cap it to show it's entrence, as it would not just be there and available for a shoot.  As  for props, I only cap those that are out of place, or unique to the scene, as in a weapon or the like, or something that will require a close up and be inportant to the story.

In the real world CAPS are for scanning a script you've already read or to save you having to read it at all.  

This is the first page of the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes script:

GAS STREET LAMP
POOL OF LIGHT
TWO-HORSE CARRIAGE
SUPERIMPOSE: "London 1891"
GLIMPSE OF A FACE
DR. JOHN WATSON
DOWN RIVER
POLICE CARRIAGES
SINGLE SET OF FOOTPRINTS

And you don't need to read it (either again or at all).  We get the period, main character and that the police are tracking footprints near the river.

You don't necessarily do it for the production or the director even though it often does highlight major props or elements and can be helpful if they're searching for a scene.  You basically do it for the people with money who never read a script in the first place.

This kind of capping (which I believe is what Bert referred to) acts as a kind of map.  And I'm sure it breaks a lot of new writer's hearts.

I don't use caps to highlight anything. Why? Because none of my scripts will ever be read by industry people so it doesn't really matter.

I'm not bitter... just realistic.  ;D

and I agree with Sniper about the teacher too.

Don't be so negative about your work, Pia.  That's our job.   ;D

Just remember that the more things that you put in caps, the less impact they have.


Phil

So to sum up, CAPS are used to highlight important elements of a screenplay so that eyes are drawn to those elements. The idea here is that someone can know at a glance that the insignificant TEACUP that happens to be on the kitchen table is important enough to be there so that the prop department doesn't replace said teacup with a coffee mug.

It's a matter of making that roadmap so someone with very little time to peruse the script can read the dialogue and spot the items that are capped (the first time they appear only) and know basically what's going on.

Naturally, this can be overdone, so use carefully and wisely, but not necessarily sparingly.

CAPS of THINGS are more common in action scripts.  It's like hitting something with a highlighter.  It keeps things moving.

In the last few years in a lot of drama scripts characters are always capped at every appearance.   JOHN is always JOHN and never John.  It's a personal choice if you want to do it right now but it will be interesting to see if it becomes the norm.

Okay, it seems the consensus is to introduce all characters regardless of importance with all caps. How do I handle the introduction of groups of people when their appearances are staggered? My screenplay, for example, begins with several scenes which feature different sets of prison guards.

Should I state there is a PRISON GUARD at the gate, PRISON GUARDS in another room, and PRISON GUARDS in a van or should I start by saying the man at the gate is one of many PRISON GUARDS at the facility?

abelorfao, capitalize your characters that do something to be mentioned(whether they had a line or an action that impacted a scene). You don't have to give them people names but you can give the descriptive names like SLOPPY POLICEMAN or something.

Quoted from abelorfao Okay, it seems the consensus is to introduce all characters regardless of importance with all caps. How do I handle the introduction of groups of people when their appearances are staggered? My screenplay, for example, begins with several scenes which feature different sets of prison guards. Should I state there is a PRISON GUARD at the gate, PRISON GUARDS in another room, and PRISON GUARDS in a van or should I start by saying the man at the gate is one of many PRISON GUARDS at the facility?

If the prison guards are being introduced for the first time, use caps. After you've said it once, however, it has already been established that prison guards are around.

This thread is interesting!  I was sort of under the impression that you CAP anyone in their first appearance if they have a line of dialogue. Because then their name or character would be in CAPS as the dialogue header.

Quoted from abelorfao Should I state there is a PRISON GUARD at the gate, PRISON GUARDS in another room, and PRISON GUARDS in a van or should I start by saying the man at the gate is one of many PRISON GUARDS at the facility?

First you should ask yourself is it important that you place the guards?  Does it effect your story if you don't put them in various positions?  Does it effect the visual you're trying to get across?

If it does matter and your open is a series of scenes/shots of generic guards then you want to try for some fluidity so the reader is pulled through.  A PRISON GUARD stands at the gate, TWO MORE GUARDS in the front seat of a van, another PAIR OF GUARDS play cards in a room overlooking the yard, ONE GUARD paces, etc..  Different but the same.

If the guards are around, they're around. Why introduce them so many times?

Dan O'bannon said that there are only 5% of writers activly working in the buisness that know how to write a screenplay the right way. I agree with that.  In all honesty, a good script is a good script. The story is what's important... Not how you emphasised one word over the other.

I like to bring attention to buzz words, sounds & items of interest, outside the law that we must CAP all character cue's, though. When you read a script and nothing jumps out at you other than the dialogue cues then you're in for a boring read. That's how I view things. A script is a script. A novel is a novel. A cook book is a cook book. All are blue prints for their source material and some would argue there is a right way of doing one and a wrong way... But if you get your story conveyed to us in the best way possible that is all that matters.

To your readers and to Hollywood.

Quoted from Baltis. Dan O'bannon said that there are only 5% of writers activly working in the buisness that know how to write a screenplay the right way. I agree with that.  In all honesty, a good script is a good script. The story is what's important... Not how you emphasised one word over the other. .

Hey Baltis, this is the opinion of one of those 5% out there http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPHIb1RweeI&feature=channel_page

Gimme a link to one of your produced scripts so that I can have a gander.

Quoted from JamminGirl Hey Baltis, this is the opinion of one of those 5% out there http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPHIb1RweeI&feature=channel_page Gimme a link to one of your produced scripts so that I can have a gander.

That was a really neat clip, JamminGirl.,  Thanks for posting that.  

It illustrates a very interesting situation that new writers, such as myself, face.  We have it hammered into us to keep things as short and economical as possible ("you could save eight words that way", etc.), yet here is a professional screenwriter who just showed us how to make a much more effective action scene (and it sure was) which was 3 to 4 times longer than what was first there!  That's what learning-what-works-and-is-acceptable is all about!

That was tops, Jammin', thanks for giving us the heads up. I'll check out his website. The only question I have is, was he writing for a shooting script or a spec? Or is that his method all the time? Cheers

The only real differences between a spec and a shooting script are a paycheck and scene numbers.

I think he's just giving a lesson on writing action. He uses his blog to help newbie writers.

sweet!  i checked out his site  gave it a plug on twitter

I notice that John August also places no emphasis on omitting the 'ing words.

As Baltis says - a good script is a good script. Sometimes I see that critiques zoom in on structure at the expense of what message the writer is putting across.

Andrew

Quoted from steven8 That was a really neat clip, JamminGirl.,  Thanks for posting that.   It illustrates a very interesting situation that new writers, such as myself, face.  We have it hammered into us to keep things as short and economical as possible ("you could save eight words that way", etc.), yet here is a professional screenwriter who just showed us how to make a much more effective action scene (and it sure was) which was 3 to 4 times longer than what was first there!  That's what learning-what-works-and-is-acceptable is all about!

Actually, the aim(for cutting out words) is to write active lines. You are writing 'action' more than 'description'. The thing that gets hurt when people focus only on keeping the action lines bare is that they forget to be specific.
That's what John August emphasizes here. Specificity.

I would also include writing colourfully. When you only write bare bones action without a (tiny) bit of poetry the reading can be unbearably boring.
example "the car slaloms around rush hour traffic" is both terse and poetic.

There was definitely an abundance of passive verbiage but I think most of the sentences had an active verb in there in front of the passive one.  Either way, I thought the same thing, but this wasn't a lesson about passive verbiage, and he was writing his example on the fly.

Quoted from Andrew I notice that John August also places no emphasis on omitting the 'ing words. As Baltis says - a good script is a good script. Sometimes I see that critiques zoom in on structure at the expense of what message the writer is putting across. Andrew

I don't think we should omitt 'ing' or 'we see' in absolute terms. If they're not overused, they work.

Write a kick ass story. Have a contact that can get you read by someone who matters.

Seriously, how many of us can get read by a studio reader no matter how perfectly the script is formatted?

Quoted from JamminGirl I don't think we should omit...'we see' in absolute terms. If they're not overused, they work.

It has been said in many other threads, but is repeated here for the sake of completeness.

There is a difference between "we" and "we see".

Virtually without exception, "we see" is wasted words that can simply be lopped off the front of your sentence.

The use of "we", as in "we sail through the air" or "we move through the keyhole" are fun to use...sparingly.

If the verb you use after "we" is either "see" or "hear", there is probably a better way to write the sentence.

Quoted from JamminGirl I don't think we should omitt 'ing' or 'we see' in absolute terms. If they're not overused, they work.

I totally agree. There is standard practice, but an effective use of 'we see' can dovetail with an industry standard screenplay.

The idea, story and ability to compellingly tell said story is the most crucial element - we all agree on that. I tend to focus my reading more on produced screenplays, and from that reading, it's clear to see that there is no consensus on what should and what shouldn't be included.

Andrew

Andrew

Quoted from bert It has been said in many other threads, but is repeated here for the sake of completeness. There is a difference between "we" and "we see". Virtually without exception, "we see" is wasted words that can simply be lopped off the front of your sentence. The use of "we", as in "we sail through the air" or "we move through the keyhole" are fun to use...sparingly. If the verb you use after "we" is either "see" or "hear", there is probably a better way to write the sentence.

you make an interesting point. You're against the 'see'.

What annoys me is when someone cuts a script down on the mere basis of someone using 'we'. It's as if there is an absolute rule against it without reason.
Atleast you give your reason, and not an unreasonable one.

This talk about CAPS has gone into one of those annoying "how to write a sentence" discussions.

The use of "we" has boiled down to a personal preference. The argument against is that it can (CAN) pull the reader out of the story and remind them that they are reading a script. Is that a big deal? Depends on who you are and how you like to read. An argument for is that it gives one a distinct way to define what "we" as the reader are actually seeing. The one thing I've always said on this point is that a novel NEVER uses this so why should a screenplay. Yes, they're different, but a spec is meant to tell a story.

On 'ing' words... The point of such a recommendation is to prevent the use of passive sentences, just like recommending against 'we' is to do the same thing along with keeping the story in the story instead of reminding the reader that they're reading a script for a movie. Active sentences. However, you can write an active sentence with a word ending in 'ing', just as you can write one with a 'we' as Bert pointed out.

Drop all the rule talk. It's unnecessary. Rules are guidelines when it comes to screenplays as well as any other kind of literary art. Yes, screenplays are literary until they turn into movies. Specs are basically novels written in a different format. They're not easier or harder; they're just different. In a way, they're a little more difficult because we're taught NOT to direct and track everything in a scene. This allows us to lose track of what's going on pretty easily sometimes.

Screenplays have specific elements in regards to FORMAT that have to be followed, but that's about it. A poorly formatted screenplay with an excellent story, however, is still a pleasure to read, since a poorly formatted feature length script can be fixed in about an hour in Word. A poorly told story takes a lot more time.

The point is to tell a good, active, visual story. If you do that, no one will fault anything you put in there from 'ings' to 'we's' and even CAPS. Please don't obsess over these things.

Quoted from Lakewood In the real world CAPS are for scanning a script you've already read or to save you having to read it at all.   This is the first page of the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes script: GAS STREET LAMP POOL OF LIGHT TWO-HORSE CARRIAGE SUPERIMPOSE: "London 1891" GLIMPSE OF A FACE DR. JOHN WATSON DOWN RIVER POLICE CARRIAGES SINGLE SET OF FOOTPRINTS And you don't need to read it (either again or at all).  We get the period, main character and that the police are tracking footprints near the river. You don't necessarily do it for the production or the director even though it often does highlight major props or elements and can be helpful if they're searching for a scene.  You basically do it for the people with money who never read a script in the first place. This kind of capping (which I believe is what Bert referred to) acts as a kind of map.  And I'm sure it breaks a lot of new writer's hearts.

Yep. I like it myself. I can skim a script in a matter of minutes and see all the beats and all the changes of tempo and the entire skeleton of the story very easly.