All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Your script has to get past a reader to even get to a Producer/Director, unless you ARE the Producer/Director, then obviously, you can take whatever liberties you want.
And just because a girl is playing volleyball nude, doesn't mean it's an X rated movie. It could be a documentary about the benefits of exercising while producing the maximum amount of vitamin D.
Your script has to get past a reader to even get to a Producer/Director
No reader is going to chuck a script in the trash because a writer forgets to mention the character is clothed in the next scene if the story is good. A reader's job is to find good stories for the studio or production company. Not to find the best written script. Obviously, it's great if the great story is written well too, but their main job is to find good stories that would make a great film.
No reader is going to chuck a script in the trash because a writer forgets to mention the character is clothed in the next scene if the story is good. A reader's job is to find good stories for the studio or production company. Not to find the best written script. Obviously, it's great if the great story is written well too, but their main job is to find good stories that would make a great film.
In my short time here, I've been surprised by how much focus is placed on formatting versus how little is put on the mechanics of a story. I understand that if the thing's not formatted properly, it's confusing to read. But what's the point if it doesn't work as a story? It's the stories we're trying to sell, not the format. We got into this business because we enjoy entertaining people with our characters and the adventures we send them on, not whether we perfectly formatted something that isn't a physical part of the final product.
"I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called 'Max'."
In my short time here, I've been surprised by how much focus is placed on formatting versus how little is put on the mechanics of a story. I understand that if the thing's not formatted properly, it's confusing to read. But what's the point if it doesn't work as a story? It's the stories we're trying to sell, not the format. We got into this business because we enjoy entertaining people with our characters and the adventures we send them on, not whether we formatted something that isn't a physical part of the final product.
I'm the first person to argue that story overrides format.
Getting the format right is relatively simple though, and shows that the writer cares and is trying to be professional in their attitude.
It's kind of like rung one.
Ultimately reading scripts is a grind at the best of times, if a writer doesn't come up to some level of technical standard, most people will move onto a script that does...and then concentrate on the story.
If you're getting a lot of complaints about the format...fix it. Straight away. Then the next guy won't mention it.
Some of the people here use Dropbox to host the file, meaning you can change the script as and when (obviously not in OWCs).
...I understand that if the thing's not formatted properly, it's confusing to read. But what's the point if it doesn't work as a story? It's the stories we're trying to sell, not the format...
I'm always on the fence about this.
Yes, it's true that a good story can be improperly formatted but still worthwhile.
However, there's a difference between mildly improper formatting and formatting which genuinely interferes with the reading. The former doesn't bother me in the least, but the latter is an important part of the writer's job.
Looking at prose, for example: if a writer chooses to italicize dialogue rather than place it in quotes, either for stylistic reasons or due to ignorance of the norm, that's "wrong," but it's not gonna hugely affect my enjoyment of the piece; I can make that leap mentally, and can do so fairly easily, too. However, if a writer doesn't know about paragraph breaks, or chooses not to include them, that's going to make it extremely difficult for me to apprehend their meaning, and that's what writers do -- they create meaning out of words. It's not my job to add paragraph breaks in my head; it's their job to add them so that I can understand what they mean, and it's disrespectful of the reader not to do so (at least, not without some very specific intent).
So I guess the question for me is, is the formatting issue a logically coherent difference from the norm which is equally readable, or does it affect my ability to read the script? Because if the latter is true, it's a failing on the writer's part, in my opinion, and it's not unreasonable of me to ask that they correct it before I continue and focus on what is more important, story.
---
The specific example being discussed -- no clothes, and then, presumably, clothes -- this would be to me more the first type of issue. I can get over that one, in particular because it doesn't create confusion about the plot or characters. But I can imagine a similar issue of the contradiction of minor elements which would give me pause. What if it's once mentioned, in an unimportant line -- a joke, perhaps -- that a character is an only child, and then later, in passing, that the character's brother is a poet? That, to me, would suggest a writer who may not have committed to their story and characters as fully as they could have. It's still not the sort of thing that would stop me reading, but I'd agree with Jeff that this sort of issue is probably more likely to correlate with less interesting writing.
I think it's fair to say that you should read through little issues if the core stuff is grabbing -- Shakespeare's work, say, is often inconsistent in its details -- but I also think Jeff's point, in a general sense, is probably true: a script tells you a story, and if the story is wrong, you doubt the writer. With either the reader/writer hat or the producer/director hat, I think any chance that the writer gives us to doubt them is important, and should be noted and corrected.
No reader is going to chuck a script in the trash because a writer forgets to mention the character is clothed in the next scene if the story is good. A reader's job is to find good stories for the studio or production company. Not to find the best written script. Obviously, it's great if the great story is written well too, but their main job is to find good stories that would make a great film.
Quoted from mcornetto
"The bottom line is, if you want a higher-up to read your unsolicited script, it has to be better than a good lay. So don’t send it out – and don’t have your rep send it out – until it is. "
My friend worked as an intern for a major studio in acquisitions while attending UCLA. Here was his schedule:
Work an average of 12 hours a day. On Friday, take home duffel bag of scripts, usually 30-40. Bring in any hopefuls on Monday. He had a process for "pre-reading" scripts that involved a minimal effort but identified quickly pieces that might have a remote chance of being read:
Pre-Reading process:
Formatting bad, round file. Page count. Over 120, round file, unless first page hook is astounding. Then, "if I have time" pile. Glance at pages 1 for the hook, 17-20 for 1st-2nd act break, page 63-65 for 2nd-3rd act break, last 2 pages for conclusion. Anything missing, round file.
First scan:
Bad spelling/grammar, round file. Passive verbs, adjectives (i.e., He slowly goes over to the door and quietly opens it up), round file. Excessive descriptions, round file. Cliches, round file. Stage directions, "if I have time" pile.
After this process, the few that remained received a reading. Typically, there were "less than a half dozen."
He rarely brought more than 2 scripts back on Monday.
Okay technically, a character walking around naked, wasn't in the Pre-Reading Process or First scan, but if a writer forgets to clothe their character, I'm pretty sure there are other things wrong with the script.
Okay technically, a character walking around naked, wasn't in the Pre-Reading Process or First scan, but if a writer forgets to clothe their character, I'm pretty sure there are other things wrong with the script.
You don't need to put every detail in your script. Here's an example of what you shouldn't do in a script.
John walks to the cabinet. He pulls out a mug. Fills it with hot water then puts a tea bag in it. He dunks the tea bag several times in the water. He rings it on the spoon then throws the tea bag away.
What you should put in the script is:
John makes a cup of tea.
The rest is obvious or at the very least something that can be determined during pre-production. You don't need to and shouldn't include every detail of what a character does.
And no one here is advocating that a screenplay shouldn't look like a screenplay. So, yes, somewhat proper formatting is necessary.
What is being said is that when looking for a screenplay to produce - the reader will generally make a decision based on what they see in their head (their own perception of the potential of the script - including the changes they would make) rather than precisely what is written on the page.
Could somebody point me in the direction of where this discussion began? My name is mentioned in the first post here and I have no idea what's going on.
'Artist' is not a term you should use to refer to yourself. Let others, and your work, do it for you.
Pages: 
Author
What you read or what you see?
Logged
Locked Board