Im working on a script and this subject came up.

Let me start with a Wiki-

In typesetting, widows and orphans are words or short lines at the beginning or end of a paragraph, which are left dangling at the top or bottom of a column, separated from the rest of the paragraph. There is some disagreement about the definitions of widow and orphan; what one source calls a widow the other calls an orphan.[1][2] The Chicago Manual of Style uses these definitions:[2]

Widow

A paragraph-ending line that falls at the beginning of the following page/column, thus separated from the rest of the text.

Orphan

A paragraph-opening line that appears by itself at the bottom of a page/column.
A word, part of a word, or very short line that appears by itself at the end of a paragraph. Orphans result in too much white space between paragraphs or at the bottom of a page.

Now I've heard these words used here many times but I have to ask how relevent they are to the structure of a script?

My Celtix, as with all software, tries to sum up the paragraphs to prevent this but in many cases does not.

I'm sure the "paid for" programs are much better at it than Celtix but really, is it important?

Is it seperating a pro looking script from an rookie one?

In a contest, are points deducted for them?

Just some thoughts I had when looking into whether or not to work that extra amount of time trying to tighten them up.

Any input??

Shawn.....><

Just write it once...

Go back and tighten it up...

Send it to a pro...

Get it back and look at what they suggest...

Re-write it using their points...

And don't stress over it.  I've learned these last 2 years -- These industry guys.  They're not scoping out all these "do it this way" websites and reading these "How to" books.  They're reading scripts.  Good, honest material.

Would I go back and change an Orphan or a Window?  Sure... If nothing more than to see what else can be added or taken out of that line to eliminate it.  They only occur from 1 of 3 things.

1.  Over writing
2.  Under writing.

or

3.  Lack of planning.

G'luck on your contest going... I'm entered into Page and just came off BK last month.  Tons of really good stuff going on this year.

Balt-

Good to see you.

Page is where im submitting this year as well.

Putting my comedy in. You?

This subject never really meant anything to me up till now.

In fact, with a few exceptions, no one has every really pointed them out so I have to ask if they really do decuct from the over all quality or not.

So, you have tons of good stuff going on eh?

Do tell...

Shawn.....><

+1 Baltis is right?

Just write that script and hopefully it screams MONEYMAKER.  

Good Luck

Ghostie

The sad tale of the lonely orphans.

I always find it humorous when people talk about orphans and say "don't worry about them", or "this is the way I write", or "they actually create white space on the page, and therefor are good".

They're not good, period.  They are 1 word that takes up an entire line.  Therefor they "waste" an entire line.

They are the very first thing every single writer should look for when writing and especially rewriting.

As Balt said, they are usually the result of overwriting.  Sometimes the result of just poor writing.  Other times, the result of not breaking up your passages properly.  But the bottom line is that you can easily do away with them 95% of the time.

Is every single lonely little red headed orphan a bad thing?  No, definitely not.  If a line reads exactly the way you want it to, hey let the little guy stay and get some exercise.  NO big deal.

The issue with orphans comes into play when there is an excessive amount, or when it's just damn obvious there is overwriting going on. And again, if you can save a line by eliminating an orphan, why the Hell wouldn't you want to do it?

Let's look at it this way.  Let's say you have a 100 page script with 1 orphan on each page.  Do you realize that by eliminating them, you cut out basically 2 whole pages?  If you have 2 per page, you've got basically 4 extra pages of absolutely nothing.

People talk about tight writing all the time.  Rounding up your orphans is the most obvious, and first thing you should do to tighten your writing.

I honestly just don't understand how anyone could argue this or think anything different.

Quoted from Dreamscale Is every single lonely little red headed orphan a bad thing?  No, definitely not.  If a line reads exactly the way you want it to, hey let the little guy stay and get some exercise.  NO big deal.

I am partial to the red headed ones!

Ok, I admit, I still don't know what these are - whatever the colour.

Can someone provide an example?

Well Bill, I'm not sure if I'd be the best person to provide an example. There are times I tend to screw these issues
up.

Quoted from Reef Dreamer Ok, I admit, I still don't know what these are - whatever the colour. Can someone provide an example?

When you write your action paragraphs and the
paragraph ends with a line with only one word on it. Like
this.



The lone word "this" is the orphan.  

Never heard of them before I came on here.

Always best to get rid of as much fat as possible, so if cutting helps remove them...all the better.

I suspect that anyone interested in producing the work would only be noticing them if there are far more fundamental problems with the script.

Quoted from Grandma Bear When you write your action paragraphs and the paragraph ends with a line with only one word on it. Like this. The lone word "this" is the orphan.

thanks. So it really is only the layout of the words? I had a fear it was much more.

I can see the argument about lost pages but likewise when white space seems the be "so" pushed by the industry, it does seem to conflict.

Of all the things I can worry about I think this one is down the list, until it becomes an issue of course

Quoted from Reef Dreamer Of all the things I can worry about I think this one is down the list...

That is the correct approach, Reef, once all is said and done.

It does not hurt to be aware of them, but there are far worse transgressions.

This sounds like the next OWC:

Write a story about Orphans and Widows and each paragraph must have an orphan or widow.

Quoted from leitskev Well Bill, I'm not sure if I'd be the best person to provide an example. There are times I tend to screw these issues up.

They can just be real irritants - I've re-worded entire sentences to get rid of them, but then go and think 'this is far too pedantic'.

But then again - I don't mean to sound silly - but it's something to do with the visual effort of going all the way back just to pick up one little word. It's like you get a bus-load of kids across the road, and there's one little runt still on the other side - I'm not the type to think 'leave the little blighter to get run over', but...

Some people just get more worked up than others..

I was just teasing. I think it's good to work on eliminating orphans while you're writing. Often it results in more succinct wording anyway, which is healthy regardless of consideration of lines or white space.

I don't think clarity or better writing should ever be sacrificed for the sake of an orphan, however. If it's clearer or better with the orphan, keep the baby!

I'm guilty of this lil problem and I'm really working to try to fix it...have been told time and time again to write tighter.

It just looks cleaner besides tightening up writing.

I didn't even know this was an issue, but good to know. Thanks!

Quoted from kingcooky555 I didn't even know this was an issue

Have you learnt nothing from Dreamscale?  

Quoted from kingcooky555 I didn't even know this was an issue, but good to know. Thanks!

King, just to be clear here...

If you've got a 100 page script, and you have 1 orphan on every 10 pages, absolutely no problem, as you have an extra 10 lines, or 1/5 of an extra page.

OK?

But, if you have 5 orphans on every page (which, BTW, isn't that shocking, and I've seen it many times), you have an additional 10 pages of nothing but wasted space and lines.

It doesn't change the quality of your story, but it sure can inflate a script, and if you're prone to overwriting, and your script is already running long, you're fucked.

White space may be something some look for, but please don't ever think of an orphan as a positive, as they're definitely not.

OK, class is now dismissed.     RECESS!!!!

See what I mean..?

Gotta love him though

I had never heard of an orphan before joining SS and reading feedback on other scripts. (Thanks Jeff)

But it's certainly something I try to avoid now,  although I'm not stressed if I have one and it's affective in the story telling. It's a good tip in saving space which some people have already pointed out.

Quoted from Pale Yellow Gotta love him though

Wouldn't go that far!

Quoted from CoopBazinga Wouldn't go that far!

Gotta not hate him????  

I think the Chicago Manual of Style is more geared towards writers who write editorials and articles which have a size limit. All papers and magazines are very conscious of their page count and want the writing nice and trim. Less pages, less cost to publish.

I think the practice of eliminating orphans is a good one if you're writing for a contest that has a page limit or a film maker who gave you a max number of pages to write a script.

Other than that, a few here and there certainly aren't a deal breaker if the story is good. I am aware of them as I write, but still leave some anyways if I like the way the sentence reads. I highly doubt there's very many film makers or producers that even know what an orphan is...

James

All of us here, in one way or another, are
orphans.

Quoted from stevie All of us here, in one way or another, are orphans.

That's so sad, stevie.  

Quoted from Dreamscale Gotta not hate him????

Of course! I can't believe that anybody would hate you, Jeff.

Hey Bill,

I have a bit o' philosophy to share on orphans...

While it's true they can provide white space on the page...
I feel they're a transparent way of getting that oft desired breathing room.
If a reader senses that kind of manufactured device, it diminishes the read IMHO.

So, I obliterate those orphans and challenge myself to write better descriptions.
Over time, that challenge became an ingrained strategy for me.
Now, I automatically wipe the little buggers out before they can take root.

I look at orphans as another potential reason someone may put down my script.
And I'm all about minimizing the reasons for a colleague to say no!

Regards,
E.D.

Quoted from stevie All of us here, in one way or another, are orphans.

This here is a blatant ploy to create white
space.



E.D.

You know, for the life of me, I never even gave this subjest a thought until I started working with Jeff on some script work a while back.

He pointed out to me what they were and I still didnt give them a thought when I wrote. If my paragraph had a dangly, so be it.

Even now, when I write "raw" those things would only slow me down. Before anyone ask, "raw" means to me writing without structure being at the forefront.

But I do apperciate Jeff teaching me this and several other facets of writing that would not have otherwise known.

Shawn.....><

Some peeps write a passage, a scene, etc., and then go back, reread it, and fix it up before they move on, thus making the need for a mega "rewrite" much less.  Those that do this, upon completion, have much more than a first "raw" draft.

Others obviously just write, and don't seem to care what the actual quality is when they're done.  In this situation, a complete rewrite is necessary, even to come up with a first, rough draft.

But, either way you do it, you should definitely always be looking for things that aren't necessary, in terms of words and phrases, and every time you have a lonely little orphan all by his lonesome, you should see if you can find him a home with his friends...on the line above him.

The reality of the issue is that it doesn't matter if you call them orphans or unicorns or just a single word on its own line.  Anytime you can save an entire line by cutting an unnecessary word, as Nike says, JUST DO IT.

Quoted from Dreamscale Some peeps write a passage, a scene, etc., and then go back, reread it, and fix it up before they move on, thus making the need for a mega "rewrite" much less.  Those that do this, upon completion, have much more than a first "raw" draft. Others obviously just write, and don't seem to care what the actual quality is when they're done.  In this situation, a complete rewrite is necessary, even to come up with a first, rough draft. But, either way you do it, you should definitely always be looking for things that aren't necessary, in terms of words and phrases, and every time you have a lonely little orphan all by his lonesome, you should see if you can find him a home with his friends...on the line above him. The reality of the issue is that it doesn't matter if you call them orphans or unicorns or just a single word on its own line.  Anytime you can save an entire line by cutting an unnecessary word, as Nike says, JUST DO IT.

Good, solid common sense advice.  Crazy not to follow it, since it's so simple.

Quoted from Ledbetter You know, for the life of me, I never even gave this subjest a thought until I started working with Jeff on some script work a while back. He pointed out to me what they were and I still didnt give them a thought when I wrote. If my paragraph had a dangly, so be it. Even now, when I write "raw" those things would only slow me down. Before anyone ask, "raw" means to me writing without structure being at the forefront. But I do apperciate Jeff teaching me this and several other facets of writing that would not have otherwise known. Shawn.....><

Hopefully no one ever finds any found footage, Shawn, of Jeff 'pointing out your dangly'...

Quoted from stevie Hopefully no one ever finds any found footage, Shawn, of Jeff 'pointing out your dangly'...

Just hope your dangly doesn't wind up on the cutting room floor.  

I just went back through my 20+ pages of script and knocked out about 6 or 7 orphans.  Now those lines read much better, and the script is just under twenty pages.  Just like that.  Not just to cut back fat, but it forces you to write economically!

Quoted from steven8 I just went back through my 20+ pages of script and knocked out about 6 or 7 orphans.  Now those lines read much better, and the script is just under twenty pages.  Just like that.  Not just to cut back fat, but it forces you to write economically!

Now hit ctrl f and search for "is" in your script.  Take them all out.

Quoted from Baltis. Now hit ctrl f and search for "is" in your script.  Take them all out.

Got rid of twenty-odd occurances of the word 'is'.  I had no idea I'd used it so often.  Replaced them with much stronger words, or just plain got rid of them.

Thanks Baltis!  And thank you Jeff, for the advice on Orphans.

The script is getting stronger, and now that I am more aware, I won't have to go back and hunt things up, I'll make t better the first time!!

Steven, I wasn't going to jump in. What good does it do me to piss people off again? The people giving you advice mean well. But be careful about what advice you follow in forums, any of ours. You're being given advice that may harm your writing.

Let me be up front: I am little more than a rookie myself. Unproduced, not an authority on screenwriting. I think I've learned a few things, however, and I want to share them with you. In the end, though, follow what you think is best.

People confuse rules of thumb with rules. Whether it's the use of "is" or "ly" words, or "ing", or a myriad of other issues. That includes "unfilmables".

But you should not take my word either. Dig into pro scripts, and I'd be happy to provide you with some.

Let me begin with this instruction on "is": namely, to "Take them all out". I can tell you with confidence that any advice that extreme is likely to be bad advice. As a rule of thumb, avoiding "is" and finding more descriptive and active verbs to use instead is excellent advice. And the writer who pointed this out has helped you. But once this becomes a law, a "rule", it will only create trouble in your work. If you make it to the pro level, you'll find yourself wondering why you allowed rules to force you into more awkward writing.

I decided to pick a few pro scripts to look at, ones that happened to come my way this week. The first sold for 3 million dollars. Here's the opening:

FADE IN ON:
A snow globe.
Sitting on a little girl's desk. Inside it, among the water
and glitter, is a model of THE WHITE HOUSE.
The flakes swirl and gleam in the reflection of a night light.
Framed pictures on the desk. A little girl in front of the
Capitol. The Lincoln Memorial. We are in
INT. EMILY'S BEDROOM - NIGHT
Cramped. EMILY CALE (10) slumbers. A stack of magazines by
her bed. US Weekly. Teen People. The Economist.
We hear a cell phone BOOP. Emily stirs. Checks her battered
first gen iPhone. An email notification. The screen reads:

Multiple "rules" are broken. But this is strong writing. It's visual, effective, clean, quick. It's what the studios want.

Let's pick another. This was written by one one of the writers from Mad Men

on page 2, I find this:

Steve sits on the edge of the black lacquer bed unbuttoning
his shirt and kicking off his shoes.

Steve undresses and stifles a yawn, talking over his shoulder
to the next room.
In the darkness a MAN attacks him. All we can make out is a
beard and a round, strong body as they wrestle and struggle.

Ben is blowing into one of those long Australian horns that
makes a weird vibrating sound. Steve exhales smoke.

Let me try a third, seeing I'm 2 for 2. This one is an FF that sold to a big studio:

Newell is waved away by SERGEANT WOLFE, a black NCO with a
severe allergy to authority. Says a lot about him, he made
it this far on such an abrasive personality.

Delta is lined up. Byron paces, a conductor before the opera.

one more script:

This one�s of A PICTURE PERFECT FAMILY: the SENATOR, his
pretty WIFE, their pretty DAUGHTER (14).
The magazine is placed back down, face-up. THE COVER
smiles back up at us.

These are just cursory reads of the first few pages of these scripts. I have a bunch of recently optioned scripts on file. Pick a card, any card. It's that easy. These "rules" seem to only apply to unproduced writers. Now, you can learn what you want from that. Some people conclude that pro's do it just because they can, they're inside the gates already. But think about that a moment. Every single pro writes like this just because they can? Every single pro decides to just drop what they learned now that they've made it? Does that make sense?

Of course it doesn't make sense. At all. These writers understand the difference between rules of thumb and rules. Follow the rules of thumb only to the point where they make your writing better. Be wary of absolutes.

Also, those examples above are taken out of context. By themselves, they might even look like poor writing. But I assure these scripts are very solidly written. I'd be happy to send them to you, or we can randomly pick 4 more.

But again, don't take my word, or anyone else's, though well intentioned. Trust your own judgment. Look at pro scripts. Make up your own mind. If I could convince you of anything, it would be to be wary of absolute rules in this field. We're not writing computer code. Focus on the story, tell it visually. Tell it like a pro.

Yeah, don't listen to me...

I learned all of my immediate screenwriting know-how from the back of an off-brand cereal box.  Fruity Dino Bites, I believe it was.  

Taste almost like the real thing too.

But you really should omit your "is" words when applicable to do so.


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

or

Snow covered roads stretch for miles and miles.
--

I mean, this is work-shop 101 shit here.  But, yeah, do what you feel your comfortable with.  It is, after-all, your material -- not mine.

OK, I'll bite as well, Kev.

First of all, I do agree about most absolutes.  There are exceptions and times when just about anything is not only acceptable, but maybe even the better way.

Is using "is" really such a terrible thing?  Nah, not really, but it is "weak" writing, and as Balt points out, there are usually much better , "stronger" ways to construct a sentence.

Now, the "we see" and "we hear" shit?  C'mon now...terrible.  Fucking terrible, completely unnecessary, amateur hour 101...and I don't care if every sold script in the world contains them.  There is no argument that anyone is ever going to make to convince me that there is any reason to use them.

But, Kevin, IMO, you continue to miss the big picture when you continually site "recently sold" scripts or any sold scripts, and point to something and basically say, "See?  It's in here, and this sold for $3 Million, so it should be in all scripts."  Paraphrased, obviously, but my point is this -

The things you're bringing up - the rules that "Pro" writers break, have absolutely nothing to do with why their scripts were sold, or why they're "Pros".  You seem to think that emulating certain script writing fads will turn your material into Pro level work, and IMO, that's so far from the truth, it's downright silly.  There's another writer on SS, whom I will not name, who seems to think this way as well, and his writing seems to go downhill with every script he writes, and few readers ever give him anything except grief about it.

I think it's very important to understand a few things about writing, as well as literally anything.  When you get instruction, you learn tried and true do's and don't's.  If you study close enough, you eve learn why certain things are smiled on and frowned upon.

You can use this simple analogy to literally anything from cooking to skiing.

Once someone becomes proficient, they see ways to bend certain rules, find ways to enhance this or that.  And the reason they, or we do this, is to produce a better omelet, to jump a few inches higher, shave a few seconds off the race time, etc.

Kevin, if you honestly think that by reading your "hundreds" of Pro scripts, you've stumbled onto the keys of success in screenwriting, hey man, that's awesome and I wish you all the luck in the world, and I'll be first in line to see all your movies.

But, as I've said on other threads, in one way or another, just because a script sells or a writer is a paid Pro, doesn't mean that the script is good or great, or the writer is even good or great.  Don't confuse a script selling to mean that's the way to go about writing yours.

Balt made a very good, simple point, and it sums up my feelings on the subject in general - "this is work-shop 101 shit here".

And it is.  It's common, basic knowledge that you cannot argue with.  Just like you can't argue with me and tell me "we see" and "we hear" is a good way to go about writing your script.  It just isn't and there's no way you or anyone else can tell me there is...and prove it.

So, if you really want to follow your new Pro writers style, you should go all the way and include lots of "we see", "we hear", this is", lots and lots of unfilmable smartass asides, underline a word or phrase on every page, have your characters do and say completely ridiculous things, and don't by any means worry about orphans.

These are the keys to success.  Now, just start planning what to do with all the money that's abut to start rolling in.

I think the use of "ly", "is", "we see" or "we hear", unfilmables etc. comes down to when it's applicable. You can't say never. Try your best to not use it. And if you think you need it, then use it. There's nothing wrong with that.

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

Anything written in action/description lines are things we see - oh wait...that's not true, because some dumbass writers who think they're cool, like to include lots of unfilmable asides, which we don't and can't see.

Hey!!  Maybe that's it.  Everything that we or are supposed to see should be bolded, CAPPED, and underlined, to make sure that we not only see it, but pay attention to it as we read it.  Might as well start the sentence off with WE SEE, as well, then that way, anything that's not bolded, CAPPED, and underlined and doesn't begin with WE SEE, we'll know it's just an irritating unfilmable aside.

Yep, I think we've got it figured out now.

Seems we've veered towards "Pro emulation" here as a topic.
In general, I think it's a waste of time, unless for a very specific reason.
And I've actually come across a situation where it's somewhat viable...

If I'm writing for a specific feature producer...
I do ask for an example od two of how they like scripts written.
What's their favorite kind of "voice on the page".
And more often than not, there's something I can pluck out to use...

The producer may like a bit of unfilmables on the page...
Or, I find out they don't like swearing in action descriptions.
Stuff like that, you bet I emulate, because it's the feature producer.
And he's the cat with the agency reps to get my pages read.

Other than that, I haven't found much use for emulation in its strictest form.

E.D.

I totally agree with you, Brett, but it appears that Kevin is referring to Spec scripts.

Use whatever you have in your toolbox to tell your story.

And it will be good, or it won't be good.

Somebody telling you beforehand that your script will not be good because you elect to employ a certain technique is being totally silly.

How could they possibly know that?

Your stuff will be good or not good -- simple as that -- whether you "bend rules" or adhere to them rigidly.

Truth is, you actually have very little control over it.  Really.

You either know what you are doing or you don't.

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.  

This is me spitballing here:

EXT. PARK.  

Guy jogs pass us. we follow. He glances at us.

GUY
(to us)
Jogging is good but running....

He runs. We keep up.

GUY
(to us)
is...better.

Baltis stares into the camera...  

Can't believe this is still going on.

Me either....must be a testosterone thing. Who needs UFC when you can come on here for entertainment

I have a moment to play, so back into the fray!

Jeff, this has nothing to do with emulating anyone. In fact, that isn't even possible. Even a quick look at all 4 of the scripts I randomly picked shows they each have quite different styles.

Let me turn your argument on its head, because this is what I think is really happening anyway. People that have been writing a few years and are still outside the gates wondering what the secret alchemy is that will get them in seem to think if they just master the "rules" they will have a better chance. And script gurus and film courses only encourage this. It's a lot easier to teach rules of "proper" screenwriting than it is to teach how to write a great story, which is far more subjective and elusive.

Balt's example at most teaches us that in that instance the writing might improved without the "is". It does not imply that every single "is" in a script should be removed. Which was my point to begin with.

Rick makes an excellent point, and that's why it's really hard to take these examples out of their context. These writers know how to craft. They know how to make the reader see the story the way they want it seen.

True, their scripts were optioned for their stories, not the writing. But the fact that this kind of writing is in literally every single pro script does suggest something.

All I am saying is that the way certain writers in this field are breaking this craft down into absolute rules leads to less clear or graceful writing. I've seen writers, and have done this myself, perform cartwheels to avoid saying "sitting at the bar" when not only is sitting at the bar perfectly clear and visual, but in some contexts is the most effective use of the language. And they perform these cartwheels simply because they've been taught these "rules".

The only rule that matters is clear, effective writing. Rules of thumb are very helpful as a guide towards that end. Absolute proclamations of universal laws are not.

If there's one thing you should recognize about me, Jeff, it's that I go with what I think works best, whether it's my own idea, something I learned from you, or something I've seen in pro scripts. I reason out what works best, IMO, and I go with that.

Quoted from Mr.Ripley This is me spitballing here: EXT. PARK.   Guy jogs pass us. we follow. He glances at us. GUY (to us) Jogging is good but running.... He runs. We keep up. GUY (to us) is...better.

Unless it's a comedy -- I wouldn't break it.  And with comedies comes a whole new ball of questions about formatting.  Why?  Because they do not adhere to the same rules as other genre's do.

When you're writing a comedy it's written to entertain for laughter and be consistent at being funny.  The tropes of doing such a thing are vastly different than writing a horror or a drama script.  There are much more liberties with the genre and, from the one comedy I've written and had professionally critiqued -- consultants, agents and directors are much more accepting of things like:

"we see" and a gaggle of "LY-adverbs".  

There is a rule book they all follow.  It's just the vast majority of us don't know the name, haven't read it or even looked upon it.  The best some of us can do is spend the money, get some feedback and spread the info around.

It's, in the end, trial and error... It's best to try on someone else's dime than your own.  Screenwriting, that's why we're all here, shouldn't be a warring community.  It should be a community for people to toss out what they know and then let others mill over if they want to use the knowledge themselves.  Screenwriting is like a beta version of software.  It's forever changing and getting better or, in most cases, getting worse.

And just because you haven't sold a script or even talked to someone about selling your script -- doesn't mean it can't sell.  It just means you're not talking to the right people just yet.  Just remember when you do have a bite on the line, don't run around blathering about it all over town...  Keep your work close to your chest and any deals in the vault until "THEY" are ready to move on with them.

Take the advise... don't take it... It's not up for discussion -- Rather up for grabs.

Quoted from Dreamscale People are continually saying, "do this, do that" without really explaining why

...and if you do ever meet with anyone who wants to produce any of your work - I think it pays to know, at least to some extent, why you are doing what you are doing - not just from a formatting point of view, but also from a story - the structure of the story - point of view.

I like to think that I need to learn the rules, and then deploy them where I think best. If I get that wrong, then I pay the penalty of never getting anything produced - that's a private risk.

I'm of the opinion that this all comes down to the privacy of the contract really. Of them all, if any, a very limited number of persons or companies will produce your work. I think it's best to keep them happy with whatever style suits that now private, not public deal.

Stevie turns toward us, naked from the waste down, looking more pathetic than expected.

                             STEVIE
            Sorry, guys, I know...I know.  What can
            I say?  Everything's smaller here down under.

Gosh Wally.  I was just trying to learn about screen writing and junk.

Quoted from Dreamscale Stevie turns toward us, naked from the waste down,

Waste down?    Ewww...

Quoted from Ryan1 Waste down?    Ewww...

"wasted" - sorry.

Quoted from steven8 Gosh Wally.  I was just trying to learn about screen writing and junk.

Well, you learned about the junk. Screenwriting's to follow...

Quoted from Dreamscale "wasted" - sorry.

Wasted, literally.

Quoted from Forgive Wasted, literally.

Yes, that was my point.

Quoted from Dreamscale Stevie turns toward us, naked from the waste down, looking more pathetic than expected.                              STEVIE             Sorry, guys, I know...I know.  What can             I say?  Everything's smaller here down under.                         (beat)             Which still makes it much bigger than anything from Arizona or Wisconsin...

Quoted from Baltis. Goat nips...

Goat Nips.  Are those anything like Cheese Nips.  A light, crispy cracker, with just a hint of goat.

Goat nips are what young Aussie males are weened on before they realize that they're supposed to go after their human counterparts, when it comes to nips.

Quoted from Dreamscale young males are for me