Bert, although there is obviously some truth in your words, it's also a bit silly, though, isn't it?

You're acting like a writer has no control of their won writing and its quality, or lack of quality.  This is not true.

Although great writers are born, not taught, writers can be taught to be good.

I wish I could orchestrate a test I'd love to, but it's not possible, really.  What I'd like to do is see the various reactions to a script that is 100% exact in story, characters, dialogue, actions, and reactions, but is written 4 or 5 different ways.

Option 1 - Well written, no mistakes, strong and consistent Slug use, strong visual writing.

Option 2 - Well written but way overwritten with over description, repetition, "we see", "we hear", etc.

Option 3 - Not so well written with awkward phrasings, poor grammar, poor punctuation, orphans, passive writing, etc.

Option 4 - Any of the above, but with bolds, CAPS, underlines on every page.

Option 5 - Any of the above, but with a staccato/fragment style, utilizing lots of dashes and line skipping.

IMO, the answer is obvious that option 1 would be more highly praised, regardless of the story, character, and dialogue flaws.  I just don't see how it could be any other way.

Which leads me back to what I always stress, which is good, strong, solid writing that shows pride in the craft, and doing things because they are "right" and make sense, not because someone else does it that way, or someone else told you to do it that way.

If I am reading a really good story, for some reason I don't even catch the typos. I surely wouldn't catch an orphan ...but as a writer I am trying my best to clean up some of my bad habits.

I swear though, if I'm doing a review for someone or notes and the story is like killer, I don't take good notes on the formatting, typos, orphan-type stuff. Maybe it's just me.

Anyway, this is an awful lot of posts about orphans and widows. Don't you guys know there are tons of orphans out there needing a home and widows needing a good man??

Quoted from Pale Yellow If I am reading a really good story, for some reason I don't even catch the typos. I surely wouldn't catch an orphan

Agree 100%.  Same goes with me to a certain extent.

The problem is that very, VERY few scripts are "killer".  Few are even good, when you really get down to it.

Yeah ...true that. And I know mine aren't 'killer' sooooo I'm doing my best to try to clean up my sloppy writing. My writing needs all the help it can get

The purpose of screenwriting is to abstractly describe an audio visual experience in a written form.

Each genre and each story has its own style, tone, shape, structure.

You should select whichever tools you believe work the best for the particular tone, pace and style of the story in order to tell it as effectively as possible.

Any trangression of any rule is only a mistake if it doesn't work for that particular moment, and for that particular story.

Personally I think even the dreaded We see or its equivalents have their uses.

From time to time, we can agree, Scar (about "we see" not being the worst thing in the world) and sometimes necessary.

More than formatting things, I hate OVERLY flowery prose. Well, I hate flowery prose in general but if it's over-the-top, I couldn't stand reading that. That would bother me way more than any orphan or "widow".

Just as an example...I'll use Balt's snowy roads:

1. The road is covered in snow, it stretches for miles and miles.

or

2. Snow covered roads stretch for miles and miles.


To me these are two quite different openings, cinematically.


The first...the writer is telling the audience that it's important they know that the road is covered in snow. It's our first shot...the road...this particular road...is covered in snow. Probably a medium wide.

Such a specific shot would have a reason to be there. Maybe it's a plant for later (the road is inpassable) or even for just later in the scene....all we know is that the writer wants our attention drawn to it.

It then suggests a tilt up or a jib shot to encompass the full extent of that particular road.

The whole road is covered in snow...obvious assumption...you aren't going anywhere.


2. This is a much wider shot...a panorama of a whole hill side showing multiple roads. It's far less specific and seems more of an establsihing shot for the general area. It's not drawing attention to one particular thing, but to the surrounding geography.

And this is essentially the thing...you pick the language that tells your story in the way you want it to be seen.

That's the difference between the pros and why they "get away" with supposedly breaking the rules...there aren't any rules and they just choose the words that present their story in the order that they want you to understand it.

Actually, that isn't my analogy... It was Stephanie Rogers analogy.   I wrote "the road is covered in snow" out of the gate on Frostbite and she corrected me...

Wow.  What an amazing snowball has built up over this.  I took the advice of Jeff and Balt and did some reworking of my script, and I felt that it was much stronger for it.  I posted that to be a good thing, and I still think it is.  My sentences are much sharper and the rewrite removed a bunch of wasted space.  All in all, it was worth it.  

If we come to sites like this, to be with fellow writers, why would we ignore their advice -- especially if, after taking it, we feel it has made our work stronger?

I am thankful to both Balt and Jeff.  I will not lose my individal writing voice over it, I promise you.

Quoted from steven8 Wow.  What an amazing snowball has built up over this.  I took the advice of Jeff and Balt and did some reworking of my script, and I felt that it was much stronger for it.  I posted that to be a good thing, and I still think it is.  My sentences are much sharper and the rewrite removed a bunch of wasted space.  All in all, it was worth it.   If we come to sites like this, to be with fellow writers, why would we ignore their advice -- especially if, after taking it, we feel it has made our work stronger? I am thankful to both Balt and Jeff.  I will not lose my individal writing voice over it, I promise you.

I think this is what it's all about, really, and I'm glad you posted this, Steven.

As I say often and as most know, one always has to take advice with a grain of salt and decide what works best for you.  One should also "understand" the logic, or lack of logic behind each piece of advice.

People are continually saying, "do this, do that" without really explaining why, and that's where alot of confusion and problems come into play.  This is especially true when referring to not using "ing" verbs" vs not writing passively, which do not go hand in hand.  Even all the debate on orphans comes into play with this, as there is a definite reason why orphans are not good - period.  Any time you can save a line without losing literally anything positive, it's a good thing and something you should strive for.

It's about moderation as opposed to absolutes, and it's a question of how much is too much, why, and when.

You know, drinking alcohol every day of your adult life may not be a good thing, but having 2 or 3 drinks each night is hardly going to ever get you in any trouble.  7 or 8 drinks each and every night could/will most likely get you in trouble, and if you're out in public, and/or driving?  Well, I think that's pretty obvious.

There's nothing wrong with the advice from both Baltis and Jeff...the only point others are making is that the idea is not to follow rules for the sake of it, but to understand why those rules exist and what effect they have thereby allowing you to make an educated decision when you're writing as to which tools to employ.

Quoted from Dreamscale Unless you're writing a FF script, what possible reason is there for using "we see"?  I need to know.

I agree with this.  I'm in the midst of an FF script right now and you discover as soon as you begin one of these that you're essentially writing and directing at the same time.  You need to be so specific with the imagery that you have to use terms like "We see..."  "CAMERA zooms on..."  "Bill walks into frame..."  etc.  

Otherwise, I'd avoid those terms like the plague.

For the "snowy road" example, I'd probably write something like:

"A snow-covered road stretches for miles."

"Miles and miles" seems redundant.  How many places can you actually see a snow-covered road stretch that far anyway?

Napoleon MO... That is one place you can see snow covered roads for miles... And miles.  I didn't include "miles and miles" in my script however, as it was set in the mountains of CO... I wrote "the street is covered in snow".   It was brought to my attention, through her analogy, of why "is" isn't needed at all in a screenplay, unless it's spoken.

She gave me several examples of is not being needed in my script... I took them all out and it reads better, tighter, shorter, more to the point without them.

Use is all you want... I'm not.   I'm just giving advice to those who are on the fence to maybe give it a go.  Just know words like "the" and "is" are flagged by consultants as over writting.  These are some of the first things they look for when suggesting what you should do to tighten up your script...  

What about if you try to write a movie where one of the characters breaks the fourth wall? Won't you need "we see".

Quoted from Mr.Ripley What about if you try to write a movie where one of the characters breaks the fourth wall? Won't you need "we see".

Give an example... Write how you'd do it.