Pia, you've obviously missed my point here.

You can overlook anything you want, but why you or anyone would, is beyond me.

Read the script as it's written.

I like Felipe's script as well, so in no way am I putting it down, but c'mon now.

Quoted from Dreamscale You can overlook anything you want, but why you or anyone would, is beyond me.

Because when you read a script for production, you often have something in mind about what you are looking for. You read a script for what appeals to you and potential.  You often care less about what's written and more about what you see it becoming when you read it.

The only time you care about how it's written is when you are entering a contest - particularly those that are peer driven.    

Quoted from mcornetto Because when you read a script for production, you often have something in mind about what you are looking for. You read a script for what appeals to you and potential.  You often care less about what's written and more about what you see it becoming when you read it.

And this is exactly why the vast majority of movies suck ass.  Producers or the powers that be, who are not writers (or at least good writers), make shit scripts into shit movies, based on what they want or see.

It's funny, because peeps continuously say similar things - don't worry about this, don't worry about that...it will be taken care of in production.  Well, you know what?  It doesn't get taken care of at any time and this is why movies mostly suck, don't make any sense, don't have any attention to detail.

These all powerful omnipotent Gods of all that is Holy and cinematic grab something based on a concept, but don't pay attention (or realize) to the plot holes and horrendous story telling going on and we get...well...you know what we get...why go into anymore detail.

This is actually a discussion that should be on a different thread.

I missed the first post when I split this.   Here it is

Quoted from Dreamscale A great example is Felipe's OWC, Now Lie In It.  I think I may have been the only one to bring up that his main character was buttass naked the entire script, because Felipe forgot to mention that he put clothes on.  The casual reader just assumed he must have clothes on now because it wouldn't make much sense for him to be parading around nude the entire time...but...you can't do that.  You need to read the script as it's written.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Jeff, that is such a minor technicality that it doesn't even matter. It is clear to the reader that his nudeness has nothing to do with the story! Since I was looking at these scripts as possible stories to produce, I can tell you that I totally overlooked his nakedness due to it having noting to do with the story. I liked his story for the story. NOT his state of undress!   Cheers!!

Ah, nicely done, Cornie...a new thread.

Well done.  It's a good discussion that I'm sure peeps will chime in on...or at least I think they will.  We'll see.

Quoted from Dreamscale And this is exactly why the vast majority of movies suck ass.  Producers or the powers that be, who are not writers (or at least good writers), make shit scripts into shit movies, based on what they want or see. It's funny, because peeps continuously say similar things - don't worry about this, don't worry about that...it will be taken care of in production.  Well, you know what?  It doesn't get taken care of at any time and this is why movies mostly suck, don't make any sense, don't have any attention to detail. These all powerful omnipotent Gods of all that is Holy and cinematic grab something based on a concept, but don't pay attention (or realize) to the plot holes and horrendous story telling going on and we get...well...you know what we get...why go into anymore detail. This is actually a discussion that should be on a different thread.

Hollywood movies are a business decision.  There's going to be a lot of marketing involved and the script is going to get changed beyond recognition.   They aren't going to care about how the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed because they are after the concept and they know the script is going to be rewritten umpteen times before they make it anyway.

However when talking about independent movies - it's a labour of love.  There's feelings involved in picking a script - it's not a black and white sort of thing.  Nobody is going to produce a script they aren't in love with - even if it is a perfect script.   Sometimes the scripts that have issues you need to work on, scripts you can mold into your perfection, are the ones that move you the most.    

So no matter how you slice it - how well you've written the script isn't going to count for production (only for contests).

Quoted from mcornetto Nobody is going to produce a script they aren't in love with - even if it is a perfect script.   Sometimes the scripts that have issues you need to work on, scripts you can mold into your perfection, are the ones that move you the most.     So no matter how you slice it - how well you've written the script isn't going to count for production (only for contests).

Mold into "your perfection""  Exactly my point again.  Who are these peeps who think their perfection is better than what the writer slaved over for months?  Doesn't make any sense to me at all.  Actually, it pisses me off to no end, but you guys already know that.

So, I guess what you're actually saying here is that these Producers a=or whoever the fuck they are, don't really need a good writer at all.  All they're really looking for is a shell that they'll turn into the crap that they want to make, and again, this is why we get what we get in the cineplexes around the country.

You don't see what I'm saying?  Not at all?  Or are you just saying, "Hey asswipe, it's the way it is, do deal with it"?

I won't deal with it.  I'll continue to buck the system and I'll continue to believe...in a better way.

Quoted from Dreamscale Mold into "your perfection""  Exactly my point again.  Who are these peeps who think their perfection is better than what the writer slaved over for months?

Jeff, why do you think someone would want to devote their time (a year or more) passion and money on something just to please the writer? In order to do the best they can, they will do it to their vision...  

Quoted from Dreamscale So, I guess what you're actually saying here is that these Producers a=or whoever the fuck they are, don't really need a good writer at all.  All they're really looking for is a shell that they'll turn into the crap that they want to make, and again, this is why we get what we get in the cineplexes around the country.

Are you saying people that are willing to devote their time (one year +) and money to your story need to follow the writer's vision at all cost?

Quoted from Dreamscale I won't deal with it.  I'll continue to buck the system and I'll continue to believe...in a better way.

No one will deal with you, Jeff, if that's your attitude.

Love you, but you are wrong...

Pia, I assume and hope that we're talking about 2 completely different kinds of productions and movies here.


The time a Producer spends on a movie has nothing to do with what scripts get turned into productions and how they do or don't differ from what the original writer wrote, or envisioned.

And why are you acting like these Producers are the one spending all the time?  Like they're spending moire time than the other peeps involved in the production?  More time than the writer spent conceiving and writing the script?  WTF are you talking about?

Actually, I think I know what you're talking about and you're talking about ultra low or no budget dreck, and if that's the case, we're coming from 2 completely different places.

Can't say I didn't try. =)

Jeff...I don't think I can reach you...

Pia, now it's clear you completely have missed my point, as this has absolutely nothing to do with me or any of my precious scripts. Absolutely nothing.  Not sure how or why you even think this.

Go back and read my original comments.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Jeff...I don't think I can reach you...

Pia, "you" don't need to reach "me", because again, this has nothing to do with you or me.   What don't you understand about that very simple to understand statement?

Seriously?  What?

Quoted from Dreamscale The time a Producer spends on a movie has nothing to do with what scripts get turned into productions and how they do or don't differ from what the original writer wrote, or envisioned.

Read "Adventures In The Screen Trade" by William Goldman  and you will find out how untrue that is.   The producer is the first and last person associated with a film.  The producer picks the writer and gives notes on a script long before a director is on board.

Ok, so it appears we're back to the idea that because a Producer spends "the most time" on a film, they are the one who should ultimately decide what it's going to be and how it's going to play out...is that what you're saying here?

Are you also saying that the Producer is the one who should be held responsible for the quality of the project?

Or am I misinterpreting what it is you guys are even attempting to argue about?

Quoted from Dreamscale Ok, so it appears we're back to the idea that because a Producer spends "the most time" on a film, they are the one who should ultimately decide what it's going to be and how it's going to play out...is that what you're saying here? Are you also saying that the Producer is the one who should be held responsible for the quality of the project? Or am I misinterpreting what it is you guys are even attempting to argue about?

For studio films there are so many moving parts on essentially a custom project that not all the responsibility can be laid at the the foot of one person.

The actors could have flubbed a whole take and the editor has to make do with what they have.
Or budget was already stretched thin and whatever hole-filler pickups just couldn't get get shot.
Or MPAA demanded some cut that there was no hole-filler for.
Or the distributor demanded some edit.
Or the director demanded something.
Or a financier demanded something.

Car, plane, and ship manufacturers cant get everything right even when they're pumping out multiple copies of a single product - and - they get to have recalls and fix-its, whereas films... pretty much all you get is a single "hope they like it" debut.


With independent films the variables are fewer, but then again, there are fewer people scouring over a generally thinner budgeted project/product to catch mistakes.
More control/less control sort of thing.


There are so many shenanigans behind closed doors that even if you began citing specific films there's little way that you could scene-for-scene compare the end product with the original or last known screenplay and point out "THERE! THERE'S THE PROBLEM! AND THERE'S ANOTHER ONE! AND ANOTHER!" and then find the true reason the film sucked or had problems with it.


But generally speaking, the screenplay is no different than a house's blue prints.
What some person fabricated on paper and what the homeowner or developer want to change on site because they're paying for it are two different things.

What you read or what you see?

What you see...every time.

This "discussion" veered way off course last night, as things of this nature always do.

I'm sorry, but I can't just let this die.

Not only do I think, but I know my original comments, which were given as a response to feedback on another thread, were completely taken out of context and somehow, even taken personally.

So, let me be 100% clear - this has nothing to do with me or anyone else on this site, or anyone even reading these comments.  Period.  OK?  OK, cool.

So, Rick has now jumped in and very simply stated that readers should base every script they read by what they envision, vs. what the writer actually wrote and envisioned.

And I have to once again wholeheartedly disagree (but remember, this is not aimed at Rick or anyone else).

The problem with this philosophy, IMO,  is that anyone who does read this way, isn't really even reading or giving the script a chance.  Not giving the writer his due by reading in or envisioning something else completely.

And what it really comes down to is this type of reader (or these all knowing Producers) are basically saying that they know better, they're a better writer, and they can actually somehow even see through horrendously written, plotted, conceived scripts, and make them into beautiful films, because they have this special gift of some kind.

It amazes me how these peeps can do this so quickly and easily, because we're talking about 1 quick read, knowing damn well that some of the scripts may have been the culmination of many months of planning and writing.

I'm sure, as usual, I'm the one who's missing the point somehow, but I just don't know how.

Stephen King said once, that he prefer books over films because films are very limiting. All you get it 24 still pictures per second and you are stuck with those. Books on the other hand are different because each reader will imagine/envision the story differently.  He also don't like to watch films that have been made out of his stories, because they are seldom even near how he pictured the story while writing them.

What I'm trying to say, Jeff, is that whoever decides to take their time, money and effort to make a film out of a script, will make it the way they envision it. If that's not how the writer saw the story, then that's too bad. And if the writer insists on the film being made to his vision then he probably have to produce that film himself.  That is all.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Stephen King said once, that he prefer books over films because films are very limiting. All you get it 24 still pictures per second and you are stuck with those. Books on the other hand are different because each reader will imagine/envision the story differently.  He also don't like to watch films that have been made out of his stories, because they are seldom even near how he pictured the story while writing them. What I'm trying to say, Jeff, is that whoever decides to take their time, money and effort to make a film out of a script, will make it the way they envision it. If that's not how the writer saw the story, then that's too bad. And if the writer insists on the film being made to his vision then he probably have to produce that film himself.  That is all.

Argh!!  I'm wondering if my baldness isn't actually caused by male pattern baldness, but my subconsciously pulling out my hairs in frustration?

Pia, this is again, nothing to do with my comments or this discussion.

OK, we agree a Producer and director can make a movie any way they want to, based on any script they choose to use/buy/whatever.  We're good there.  No reason to bring it up again.

My original comments had to do with reading a script as it's written.  If one wants to read it through a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th and begin to deviate from obvious mistakes or poor plotting, that's fine.  That's what feedback is all about. And the best kind of feedback is not only pointing out what's wrong, but also why it's wrong and how to fix it.

Before anyone can come up with their own ideas on a script, they have to first know and read what the original writer's ideas are, and that can't take place unless you read the script as frickin' written.

Make any sense?

Quoted from Dreamscale OK, we agree a Producer and director can make a movie any way they want to, based on any script they choose to use/buy/whatever.  We're good there.  No reason to bring it up again.

At least we've got that sorted.  

Thing is...just as it takes a woman and a man(or it used to) to make a child....it takes writer and producer to make a movie. Without both, it is like an unfertilized egg that will never hatch...you can hard boil it....color it...even play egg toss....

....so we write....they produce.... and if we aren't willing to let go of it at some point an let it evolve into a movie ...it'll never do us much good.

Some wait on that million dollars. Give me a grand...I'm cool. I don't need much to be happy doing something I love.

Jeff,

Ultimately, to me, a script is the first process in the creation of a film.

It's not a short story or a novel, designed to be published. It is a blueprint or a suggestion for a movie.

It's like the writer is saying "I think this would make a good Movie...what do you think?" and that's how I judge it...would this make a good film?

That's why formatting and things like that aren't as much as an issue for me when I read a script (I'm not saying they are not important), I'm sort of watching the film on a TV screen to see how it plays out and if it works as a slice of cinema.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I'm sort of watching the film on a TV screen to see how it plays out and if it works as a slice of cinema.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.  Thank you, Rick.  So, hopefully, you're saying that "sort of watching the film on a TV screen to see how it plays out" as written, right?

Or are reading in and making changes as you read, based on errors or poor construction, dialogue, characters, whatever, making assumptions on unclear writing, etc?

If you're doing the first, we're in agreement.  If you're doing the latter, we're in disagreement (on the "correct" way to read a script).

I do a bit of both, I suppose.

I read what's there initially. Then I'll filter it through a look at how it could be.

I have a hierarchy of things that I consider important. It's purely subjective.

Somewhere near the top would be that the premise of the story is enticing and interesting. Somewhere near the bottom would be formatting.

Sometimes you come across a script that isn't brilliantly written, but is full of interesting ideas and I'll usually prefer that to a very well written script that has nothing new or interesting.

I do certainly look at how much "potential" something has, as well as what state it's currently in.

Jeff, I've decided to give you 10 million dollars to make a film. Ok?

One stipulation: you cannot use your own script. You must find one written by someone else.

You can make whatever changes you want to the story. But it must be originally someone else's script.

You'll get very limited distribution and advertising budget, so the film better sell itself.

I'll let you keep 25% of the profit on the script. And if it really makes money, I'll invest again with you to make another film, maybe more money this time, once you've proven you're a good investment.

So now you can begin the process of searching for a script, a film concept, a writer. However you wish to proceed.

You probably only get one shot at this in your life, so you better make sure the premise works. Good luck!

Oh, and I hope you'll accept a check.

Kevin  

I'm not a Producer and I'm not a Director.

BUT...here's where the problem comes in.

These Producers aren't writers either, yet they appear to want to be, so apparently, they take a script (that may or may not be any good, because they don't know or realize what constitutes a good script) and turn it into their own script, and, the results are usually very poor, as we witness each week at the metroplexes across the nation.

To make matters much worse, the vast majority of the central core concepts even suck.

So, I guess I'll just take the money and run for the hills.  

I guess thing that spawned this whole argument was because the author left out one minor detail. He forgot to put his pants on? In a script written in a week?

Come on, Jeff.

I definitely think it's what you see. Why write in this format unless your goal is to see it on film?

James

Let's take another approach. Jeff, while I am transferring funds from my offshore account for your 10 million dollar feature. In the meantime, I'll send you 30K and a case of fine Jaeger in order to produce one of these OWC scripts.

Same stipulation: can't be your own.

And so you won't play favorites, I'm gonna give Ray 30 k too, and whoever makes the best short will get the 10 mil for the feature.

How will you pick your script? Will you look for the concept you think will make the best film, or will you judge which script is the best written and formatted?

To be sure, the writing matters, because once you choose the script, you may want the writer to keep working with you on the project, so you're taking into consideration all these things.

So they all matter. But under the pressure of having to select what will make a good film, it might change your priority somewhat. This is why writing for a writer is very different than writing for a producer.

Just like getting drunk on Jaeger is different than getting wasted on wine.

No, James, that's not how it started, actually, but at this point, I'll just say fuck it.

You guys read script however the fuck you want to. Read in to them, make your own assumptions when you're clueless.  Put clothes on nude characters, just completely glance over horrendous writing and mistakes and say how great the writing is and how much you enjoyed reading it.

It doesn't matter...

Fuck it...I give up. You guys have broken me...and balded me.  

http://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A11-17&version=NIV

Like ST, I read in both fashions: one as the story is written, the other as a deconstructionist "How am I going to get this done (on film)?"

Reading screenplays as literature, or poetry, or haiku is... not useful.


Screenplays are blueprints.
They are not a final product.


Think of it as a pretty woman: good health, big boobies, child bearing hips, face you can look at for a while.
THAT'S the body you want to ruin with childbirth.
Stretchmarks high and low are battle scars. Badges of glory.

A pristine form of a model never to be used for what it was designed for is... not useful.

"Here's a show car - but you can't drive it! Just look at it!"
"Here's a bodybuilder in perfect balance and form - but don't expect to get any labor from it. He's just for show."
"Here's a beutiful picture of food - but don't eat it. It's all doctored up just for a photo."

Well... what's the d@mn point, then?


Just for show - or - just for work?

Quoted from Dreamscale Fuck it...I give up. You guys have broken me...and balded me.

A new study suggests that balding men should just go ahead and Bic it all off: society sees men with shaved heads being more "manly."

Personality Science. A proud bald man himself, Mannes found that his 60 participants, when shown pictures of different hair-blessed and hair-challenged men, repeatedly conceived of the men with cuetops as ranking higher for "masculinity, strength, dominance and leadership potential."

You read that right: dudes with receding hairlines shouldn't fret... just turn to Gillette.

“The shaved look is more attractive than the visibly balding look," Mannes told Time. "So men suffering natural hair loss may enhance both their dominance and attractiveness by shaving."

so if we made your hair fall out we made you more sexy according to this article

A screenplay is just a vision for a film. Someone likes the vision the writer has tried to portray with their script, they can buy the vision and try to bring it to life.

And they have the option of changing the vision as they see fit.

Calling a screenplay a blueprint is fair, but can be deceiving. A blueprint needs to be very exacting. If one measurement is off, the resulting structure can fail.

A screenplay does not need to be as exacting. And in fact to the extent that being too exacting might interfere with the vision, it should not be.

One more thing, then I'm checking out of this conversation: I'm fairly certain that these kinds of debates are what make producers and directors look down with disdain on writers. Just a hunch.

Quoted from Dena A new study suggests that balding men should just go ahead and Bic it all off: society sees men with shaved heads being more "manly."

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I'm bald by default

Mark

Got absolutely nothing from this thread apart from Jeffrey being bald? Never imagined that, big guy.

Also, nobody seems to be mentioning the finance. Very unusual for the producer to be fronting it. To be fair, I think you guys are all on a different page with this discussion.

Kevin, you 're compartmentalising far too much, and dare I say suggesting implicitly that you've never been on set. You describe three different roles, but it's not necessarily three different people. You describe an "us" and "them" mentality that doesn't exist in the way you mention it, but rather in textbooks.

Have not compartmentalized anything. I've talked about general concepts. I'm certainly aware that producing, writing, directing are roles that can be performed by the same person, or that people collaborating can share these functions. It doesn't seem necessary to say that, it's self evident.

No doubt many small groups that are producing films simply develop their own concepts and write the script themselves. Or, as at the studio level, writers are hired to develop the script from the concept.

But people here are writing spec scripts. So they are looking for those directors and producers who are searching for a script, or a concept, to choose theirs.

My hypothetical with Jeff was just playing around. It was meant to illustrate that writers, and by that I mean people that more or less focus exclusively on writing, have a very different way of judging scripts than do people that are looking for scripts which they want to film.

I hope this clears things better for you.

I think I understand what Jeff is getting at here, I might be completely off track though, correct me if you need to.

Although for the OWC, because I had to read so many and I'm a slow reader, I stuck to the storyline and left very minimal comments, but normally I would read everything very literally - the way the writer wrote it. Of course my vision compared to theirs would be different, but if a writer has someone naked and never has them get dressed - then they stay naked. If it is a mistake then, I agree, the writer needs to be corrected. If not then fine.

I can see where you are coming from with movies being made today and I agree, but I just can't get it down in words how to say what I mean - feeling tad stupid today - need more sleep

I think all this is a miscommunication over communication.

It started because I misinterpreted a bit of info in Jeff's script, thinking certain phrasings were hyperboles rather than literal descriptions, and it changed my perception of the script and the author's original vision. He faulted me for reading something into it, rather than leaving my preconceptions of life, the universe, and everything at the title page.

Personally, while it's the author's prerogative to require that of their audience, I disagree with it because it's unwise. Movies are meant to be shared experiences. Unless an author writes solely for themselves, then it's silly to favor your own conceptions/experiences over those of your audience. I know "shimmering beads" isn't requiring a lot from the audience and maybe I was the only one to misunderstand it, but this philosophy's just kinda risky, IMO.

Yeah, bflywings and Dan seem to understand the situation better than anyone else has.

As I said on a different thread to Dan, it's always my opinion that a reader should read exactly what has been written and understand that, as opposed to making assumptions or assuming mistakes have been made.

If the writer does a poor job at describing something or completely misses the ball in common sense or logic, then the reader has a choice - read in and make your own assumptions, or simply stop and tell the writer that the script was too poorly written for you to go on.

When you read enough poor scripts, you'll hopefully understand that enough is enough at some point.

When a writer can't write simple sentences without mistakes, I highly doubt they'll be able to conceive the next great plot/story for the latest, greatest movie.  

Quoted from Dreamscale As I said on a different thread to Dan, it's always my opinion that a reader should read exactly what has been written and understand that, as opposed to making assumptions or assuming mistakes have been made.

To me, I think this is pretty audacious. People read your script as a favor to you, so you should be considerate and make it reasonably simple for them.

Quoted Text If the writer does a poor job at describing something or completely misses the ball in common sense or logic, then the reader has a choice - read in and make your own assumptions, or simply stop and tell the writer that the script was too poorly written for you to go on.

I should've stopped and told you that I didn't understand your script before I got to the end? I didn't realize anything was wrong until I finished it and read the reviews. "Shimmering beads" seemed like minor descriptions to break up the dialogue and describe some change in the action, not a major plot device. When I read and don't understand something, I usually fault myself first and keep reading, thinking the confusion might make sense later. In your case, it didn't really make sense until I was done with it. Even when I realized my mistake and went back to re-read it, I not only saw how I missed the significance of the beads, but it didn't really help me to understand what really happened.

Quoted Text When you read enough poor scripts, you'll hopefully understand that enough is enough at some point...When a writer can't write simple sentences without mistakes, I highly doubt they'll be able to conceive the next great plot/story for the latest, greatest movie.

There's no universal standard for communicating clearly, so I'm going to give the author the benefit of the doubt and read their work to the end, regardless. Unless it's impossible to glean even a grain of story from their gibberish, I'm not going to fault them for bad descriptions. I've had plenty of experiences where something didn't make sense early in a reading, but was clarified later on. All of William Shatner's Star Trek books were like that for me. I don't like to make hasty judgments for that reason. I'd miss out on a lot of good stuff if I quit it halfway just because my feeble brain got confused the first time around.

On the other hand, I am a big fan of pattern recognition. If people can't put two and two together, they're not going to prove string theory.

I read what's written.

If I were to read a script where a girl was naked in one slug, then she's outside playing volleyball in the next slug...for one, that would be a great movie, and two, it's not my place to put clothes on her, regardless of the writer's "intention".

Jordan

Quoted from Nomad I read what's written. If I were to read a script where a girl was naked in one slug, then she's outside playing volleyball in the next slug...for one, that would be a great movie, and two, it's not my place to put clothes on her, regardless of the writer's "intention".

If I'm reading a script with the idea that I might want to film it, my thoughts when the girl is playing volleyball in the nude would be "LOVE the story, but I'm not making an x-rated film so we'll just get her dressed here"...wether the writer likes it or not.

Hard truth.  

Quoted from Grandma Bear If I'm reading a script with the idea that I might want to film it, my thoughts when the girl is playing volleyball in the nude would be "LOVE the story, but I'm not making an x-rated film so we'll just get her dressed here"...wether the writer likes it or not. Hard truth.

Bingo.

While wearing the producer/director's hat you just kinda gotta make these kinds of big leaps.
No biggie.

Quoted from RayW While wearing the producer/director's hat...

I'm wearing the Reader/Writer hat.

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.

Jordan

I'm going to keep it simple from now on and just keep all my characters nude throughout the entire script.

Or maybe, I'll just have a note before the initial FADE IN:, that reads, "All characters are buttass naked.   If you choose to dress them, be my guest."

Oh yeah...and I agree, there's nothing wrong or X rated about naked female volleyball players.

Now you're being silly and taking things into the extreme...

Quoted from Grandma Bear Now you're being silly and taking things into the extreme...

And hopefully, it's obvious I'm just kidding around, replying to Nomad's comments, who is also kidding around.

Quoted from Nomad I'm wearing the Reader/Writer hat. 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.

Quoted Text 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.

I like that, Pia.

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.

Right on Dan, well said.

Quoted from DanBall I like that, Pia. 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).

Quoted from DanBall ...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.

Quoted from Grandma Bear 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.

Quoted from Nomad 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.    

Simple as that.

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.

It was split off of this thread.

http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-Oct12/m-1350778419/s-45/

Also, I'm really sorry I forgot to put clothes on my characters. I'll never do it again. Promise.

Quoted from Felipe Also, I'm really sorry I forgot to put clothes on my characters. I'll never do it again. Promise.

D@MNATION, MAN!
I was hoping you'd dodge left but you went right instead!
Bugger!

NEKED PEOPLE EVERYWHERE!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDQalLHNltw

Quoted from leitskev Only naked people should be able to post on this thread. New rule.

YAY!
I can post!

Only naked people should be able to post on this thread. New rule.

Jeff,

You are absolutely right. If you read a script, you should definitely read it as it is written; however, it is mentally impossible to not allow your mind to wonder how it could be better.

I assume anyone who read my script and glanced over the nakedness issue thought it would be a better script if that was fixed. All it takes is an action line. I assume they liked the story and the atmosphere despite the awkwardness of characters walking around naked when joined by a visitor.

I would hope that anyone reading would tell me to fix that rather than just pretending the mistake is not there. Even if you think I did it on purpose and disagree with it, please tell me you disagree with it. I'm not asking you to cut me some slack. Quite the opposite... Complain about it. Start threads about what a stupid choice it was. Help me fix it.

Just as I didn't close your OWC script at the first sight of Kimmie May's exaggerated dialogue, I would hope a simple fix such as naked characters wouldn't cause you to give up on a potentially intriguing story.

I understand from your comments taht you didn't dislike my script, as I didn't dislike yours. I'm just using our scripts as specific examples of places where people forgave mistakes because they saw something more. People forgave Kimmie May's dialogue as they forgave my character's nudeness. They certainly didn't fail to mention it in their notes though.

All the best.
Felipe

I see naked people.

Felipe,

I just re-read that part of your script and  you can if you want but you really don't need to tell us that he puts on clothes.

If this were a shooting script - then I might expect to have that detail included because I would need a shot for it.  

However, this is a spec script and that detail is completely unnecessary to the story.  I naturally assumed he would be dressed in later shots as did many other people - probably most - who read your script.  And actually, that isn't entirely accurate since his state of dress wasn't even on my radar because I was concentrating on the story.
    

Surely people/readers did not think he walked around naked the whole time...this whole thread is ridiculous.

Felipe...don't worry so much ...it isn't a big deal. The filmmakers are right here...they know the deal.

Quoted from DanBall 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 agree in part, story is always key and really difficult to accomplish so if you do have a great story...

Don't spoil it by poor formatting - you're doing yourself and the story no justice at all.

As for this whole subject, I read what's written because it's hard to see anything that isn't written if you get what I mean. I also noticed the character in Felipe's story was naked which I commented on at the time...

Quoted from CoopBazinga I guess my first question would have to be about Jackson... was he nude throughout? And if so, I don't want to know where he keeps his lighter.

But it didn't harm the story in anyway and it was pretty obvious it just a simple error which is easy fixable. On the other hand, maybe he was supposed to be naked throughout? I didn't really know because I can only read and then hopefully "visualize" what the author has written. I was just guessing at the end of the day, that it was in fact an error.

It was an error right, Felipe?

It was an error indeed... You can find this little gem on the master list thread:

Quoted from Felipe I just realized I left a huge logistical error in mine. It would be the easiest thing to fix, but it's probably going to get slammed.

I posted it before my script went up. Ah, the power of foresight....

P.S. Don't worry Dena, I wasn't worried. Just putting in my two cents. Only after making a facetious apology.

Quoted from Felipe People forgave Kimmie May's dialogue as they forgave my character's nudeness. They certainly didn't fail to mention it in their notes though. Felipe

Somehow I missed alot of these recent posts.

Felipe, I didn't mean to throw you under the bus here at all, as I think you know.  But, in response to your quote here, I think most peeps liked Kimmie May's dialogue and it's probably a reason many voted for it.  Her dialogue gave her character and whether or not it was annoying to some, it certainly made her who she was intended to be.

Cornie, I have to disagree with your comment about Felipe not needing to address the character's nakedness.  Jackson is clearly described as being nude in the 2nd passage of the script.  This scene continues onto Page 2, where Jackson walks into the bathroom, obviously still nude.  In the new scene "BATHROOM", it's assumed (by me, at least), that this is a continuous scene, as there isn't any time element in the Slug.  It's written as a Mini Slug, but it still has "INT.".

What's the point?  The point is that anytime you have naked peeps banging each others lights out, you need to think about how you're going to transition into the next scene, if it's indeed continuous from the last, as this appears to be.

You guys may start screaming again that I'm being too picky, to technical, too exact, but my reply is, Why?  Some things like this make no difference, while others do.

For instance, if the scene cut out before Jackson got out of bed, and started up with him in the bathroom with the door closed, technically, he could have put clothes on in between.  But, I';d still recommend noting that he's now dressed.

Just my weird brain working in weird ways.

And that's where you and I agree. It was definitely a mistake on my part and I don't hink it should just be forgiven. I welcome people letting me know they noticed it, even though I posted about having caught that mistake before my script was even posted and knew it was going to cause an uproar.

What I don't agree with is your opinion that someone should just put a script down when something like that happens. If they are into the story, it's no reason to stop reading.

I'd much rather have that mistake in there than have dialogue or a storyline that just turns people off. Both can be fixed, but I argue that a blatant omission such as a naked character is a much easier fix, therefore much less of a reason to stop reading a script.

Felipe, I never said that someone or I would put a script down because of an error like this.  Hey, I didn't put it down, and you know I did put some down.

I know you didn't put it down. But it seemed like you were making an argument that scripts with those types of mistakes should warrant readers to put them down. If you are a reader for a company and your job is to find worthwhile scripts, it makes sense to not give glaring issues like that a chance, but we're talking about a OWC here.

I know you're talking about reading scripts in general, but if you are going to write a script where the reader can't use his own imagination a little bit, that script would be thousands of pages long.

The reader has always had to fill in the gaps, some bigger than others. If I read every script exactly how it's written and didn't fill in the details to add atmosphere, most scripts would be about people standing around in rooms with no walls or floors because most scripts don't escribe these things unless necessary.

I was saying it didn't matter to Felipe's story whether or not the character was nude.   I  pictured it the way I would shoot it.  And it probably would be shot with the character dressed with his pants pulled slightly down or maybe in his underwear.

Those are the realities of the shoot - the author's vision of nudity or when the character gets dressed means nothing from a production standpoint (at least for this script and probably for many others).  I am very certain that particular stretch of nudity won't be in the final film - no matter who might shoot it.