Valid debate going on here, even if on the wrong thread.

As I see it;

1) lots of films are made from novels or short stories, as Kevin pointed out, the later often from famous writers like Philip Dick, or whatever his name is

2) that medium gives the writer much more latitude than we are given, so could be useful in selling it to the directors, actor etc

So, should we do more than a script?

Well, I for one won't because I'm crap at writing proper words etc  I feel as if I know story and character but I couldn't write a novel about it. My mate, double Oxbridge, writes so beautifully but can't see the story. Hey you have to work with what you were given.

Script writing is a hard medium, IMO. We are so constrained and we have to HOPE than the reader saw the same image as we did.

Take Shark Dreaming. Now 14 pages, was 11. (Simon if you are interested I can forward a link) Not a long film really.

In the original, four dreams take place in the watery underworld, totally contrasting with the rough and ready upper world. To me that was a visually powerful contrast. BUT...and I totally get this because I do it myself, the readers skimmed along and it came across as slow. I have corrected this.

In a novel of short story, as Kevin suggested, this contrast, the pain experienced, the thoughts within, could all be explored more deeply.

The irony is that we promote this, ie scripts, as visual medium but written in a convention form. Chalk and cheese.

Cheers folks

Cool. This is at least a worthy and interesting discussion now. Very much so, I think.

Regarding Bill's script: the dreams were not at all the problem. The problem was that we didn't at all know what the character wanted. We didn't know what the spine of the story was. As it turns out, that spine is his accepting responsibility for his deceased friend's son. But we have no clue that is even the issue until near the end. That to me was the problem. We were on a ride without having any sense of what the story was about.

In fact, in the first draft, I think for a page or 2 I wasn't sure who's kid the boy was. It's clearer in the second draft I think...or maybe that's just because it was a second read for me.

So it seemed like the guy's problem was saving the boat...or maybe recovering the will to move on. But all he did was dream and drink and dream some more, so it was hard to understand. I now know he was struggling with a great decision, and the shark dreams helped him through the process, through his fears.

The writer Simon mentioned, I wonder if he sold the story to a producer after publishing the novel.

I don't know the stats, but we all know Hollywood prefers to buy projects they can adapt. Graphic novels, novels, comics and even games. What we always hear is the reason is because there is a built in market that already exists to build on. Makes sense.

But turns out there might be more to the story.

And I had already been thinking about this for a few weeks, and posted the idea in this thread. Then Carson wrote his blog about the piece DiCaprio bought, and Carson felt the book could not have had a substantial market. He believed the story was just much easier for DiCaprio to get a sense of in prose than he would have in a script.

If that's true, doesn't it make sense to at least consider it?

Have you guys ever looked into e-books on kindle? Let's say Bill had ten short scripts, preferably all in one genre. Now let's say he put them in prose form, and they ended up being pretty good stories, and he packaged him in an anthology. That could be published on kindle at no cost to Bill. He could sell it for nothing...or even smarter probably sell it for .99.  If he starts to sell a few, and people leave positive reviews, the book will get some traction.

Unless it really takes off, at that price he won't make much money(at that price he would get 35 percent). However, he might build a little bit of a market for himself.

He could then go to film producers and say he had an anthology of short stories, which he also has in script form, and it's built up a bit of a following. It gives him one more angle to market his work.

And kindle marketing has other advantages. Let's say one of those stories proved particularly popular based on feedback. He could then write sequels or a novel based on the short. And this would be poised to do well. And therefore also be poised to market to studios as a script.

Picture you are a director or actor thumbing around for stories. As Simon said, scripts are not fun to read. If someone sent you a package of short stories that were written with filming in mind, might you be more tempted to read through them? Since it might be less torture? Even better if you can package this with some cool graphics that give a sense of the story.

My points were this:

1) screenplays don't always present the story or character in the best way for the story to be appreciated. Ultimately a film needs a script, but first it needs someone to love the story.

2) there are ways open to us to reach the industry that weren't there before. Obviously places like Simplyscripts is one, and email. But there are other mediums such as kindle and even youtube. You might even publish an anthology of short stories on kindle and then tack in some of them the screenplay form so the reader knows what you can do.

Why limit one's thinking? It's like with the asides. Yeah, there's a simple logic to a rule which says nothing which can't be filmed should be in the script. But when you go to pro scripts and find that  literally every single one does this to a degree, is it still logical to insist on this as a rigid rule? Or do you owe it to yourself to see if there are ways that asides can be another tool you can use?

If you've read my work, and I'm not saying it's great or anything, but you won't see writing that is novelistic...except perhaps from an extremist perspective. To the extent there are asides they are sprinkled in and don't take up much space. Action lines are rarely if ever over a line or two.

The same applies to other rules. Active verbs are generally preferable to passive...but not always. However, there are boat loads of amateur writers that obsess over cleaning their scripts of these things. Same thing with the word "is" and with adverbs.

The purified scripts that result are invariably awkward. They just are not good writing, and I don't see how that ever helps a script's chance.

When I challenge people on this and ask them to name just one pro script that looks like this, they reply the pros don't know how to write, and that just because they write that way it doesn't make it "right". And they can't name one pro script that conforms to their rules in a way they approve...not one.

Well, I don't know who would want to follow those generals into battle, but that's for each writer to decide. I personally advise that a write collect all the evidence and weigh it himself.

Patience.

I think this is key. In regards to mysteries and pacing. Not a lot of readers are patient. The slow lead of answers turns off some. Shark Dreaming requires patience.  I rather enjoy the slow build and reveal. Some just want more oomph more frequently.

It's too bad readers won't always participate and co-create this reality. The moments were scripts breathe and settle, and layer themes, is not interesting for some. They want the show me stuff right away. It is only later, much later, or upon a second read will they consider what the point is. The message. The theme. The character's thought and motivations. The task of suggesting these elements in a script is an art in itself.

In regards to the format debate. Each have benefits.  Scripts are easier to write. Sure they may have restrictions,  like access to the internal and page limitations, but they don't require flowery prose.

Real writing is in novels. They are the masters of words. Screenplay writing is simple and concise, stylistically.

The story, characters and concept are always hard. Despite format.

The legends are novelists, not shory story auteurs. Granted movies have only had like a century. The difficulty of standing out in another format like a novel would be much more difficult.

Screenplays get rewritten by many writers. Concept is king. But novels  are primarily written by one very powerful voice. Then adapted into a movie by 3 or 4 folks taking a stab at it. Hehehe.

A worthy debate. Try every format. If you love your ideas, expand them.

Either way writing should be your love the art of expression and the value of entertainment.  The focus on money should come next.

Great ideas and opinions here...

Edited: I think this seems to have lost a bit of soul to it?

"It's the kind of place for those who want to escape the
pressures of the real world." doesn't really belong.

I recall someone explaining computer drum machines to me a while back saying that they are more accurate than human beings, but because humans don't repeat the exact beat every time, and make minor errors, this gives the human work a character that the drum machine doesn't have - this is what sprang to mind.

I think I prefer some of your errors as you were in the moment when you wrote them -- now you've the opportunity to stand back and clean them up, it's more clinical, less characteristic.

Let me think about it and give it another read through.

No idea why Simon thinks I'm with him on this one. I liked the re-write. I didn't sense anything but improvement.