that's an unacceptable way to write a character description, right?  I read the new Tom Lennon and Ben Garant book and they do it that way, although they are famous screenwriters and I'm a nobody, so I'm sure it wouldn't fly.  

Thanks as always.

Extremely unacceptable!  Also, very lazy...

The problem with being this specific is that:

1. The person reading it may not like *Actor Name* or may not even know him/her;

2.  The person reading it may not like that actor.  If you describe the mysterious MISTER KING as 'think Sean Connery,' I would think that King is a lazy, pompous guy with a Scottish accent.

Describe your character as you see him.  Don't compare him to others.


Phil

Unacceptable might be too strong a word -- I mean, people do it -- but I suspect most would frown on it -- and worse they will roll their eyes at your naiveté and might even give up on your script right then and there.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with having an actor in mind.  That often helps.

If you are thinking Will Smith or Jack Black, then write to them.  Your character should talk like that and act like that -- and if you do it right, the reader might arrive at the same conclusion without your "help."

Quoted from dogglebe is a lazy, pompous guy with a Scottish accent.Phil

Huh?  Where'd lazy come from?  I can see the pompous and Scottish accent, but lazy?  maybe male chauvinist...

Quoted from dogglebe If you describe the mysterious MISTER KING as 'think Sean Connery,' I would think that King is a lazy, pompous guy with a Scottish accent. Phil

Retired, not lazy.

Quoted from DarrenJamesSeeley Retired, not lazy.

He is lazy.  He's plays himself, no matter what the role calls for.  Russian U-boat commander?  Let's do this smug and with a Scottish accent.  A Spanish highlander?  Let's do this smug and with a Scottish accent.

He doesn't play any other character.  That's why he's lazy.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe He is lazy. Phil

And rich...and well respected as an actor.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Sean Connery was HOT even into his 70s!!! Some people may have a broader range than others as far as acting goes, but few have the appeal that he did for that length of time and to both genders.

Connery has no range.  He played one character like many other actors in H'wood.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe The problem with being this specific is that: 1. The person reading it may not like *Actor Name* or may not even know him/her; 2.  The person reading it may not like that actor.  If you describe the mysterious MISTER KING as 'think Sean Connery,' I would think that King is a lazy, pompous guy with a Scottish accent. Describe your character as you see him.  Don't compare him to others. Phil

I agree here. Why? It's this simple:

I don't think anyone can really be stereotyped. Well, yes, kinduv, but not really. You know what I'm saying?

Yes, we have our type A personalities etc... and yes, I think we all fall into categories, but if we as writers become lazy and say, "think Sandra Elstree" or whatever, then I think we're going to lose a lot of ground. We need to always be asking:

What defines this character in a very distinct and critical way. Are they a shoe fanatic? And why and how? It's not just the shoes is it? What is it? On and on and on it goes...

We need to be asking questions. Hard questions. All of the time. If we simply paint some prototype on the page, I don't think we're working hard enough--

Not that the "think so and so" isn't acceptable in a pitch; I just don't think it's acceptable in our work at a base level and therefore in our scripts.

Sandra

I would say, if it works for you to do this then do it.  There's no law against it.  

However, it better really work because if it doesn't work it's going to fail miserably there's not going to be much of an in between.

Quoted from mcornetto I would say, if it works for you to do this then do it.  There's no law against it.   However, it better really work because if it doesn't work it's going to fail miserably there's not going to be much of an in between.

Kind of the same as writing specific music into your work. It can work, most definitely, but we had better hard thinketh it over and over, through it again and over again some many hundred times before we just hammer something out onto the page and consider it reasonable.

It's a firm belief of mine that everything-- every single god little thing that turns up on the page, if it's substantial, needs to prove itself. Then, it will remain. Like us and every one of our actions: If it's important, meaningful and lasting, it needs to prove its importance. If it scores well on our scales, it will rise to the surface of our consciousness and play out in our drama.

How it weighs out in the scheme of things? That's a weighty question. The variables are many. This is where it's our turn to play...

G-d give us a means.  

(Wish he'd given me more means). ...

But satisfaction is part of happiness and being grateful for what you get is all part and parcel of that same gift that He gives. ... Another life...

Another gift...

And so it goes...

If we can lift up our head and see how he's spryly given us life, with His good and bad included, we might eventually see our mothers and fathers, who winked at us, they hinted at us with half-blind eye. Why? Because they knew...

They knew that if we did our homework and if we paid attention to people who were on the same path as us, two years ago, we'd see the perfection in His guidance.

We'd see His Light.

I'm toast tonight, but I will return tom my script in progress tomorrow.

In the meantime, I'm thankful for the souls here at Simplyscripts. Such excellent souls. I don't know what to say.

Sandra

It is 100% lazy writing for someone who's not already in the business. Writers don't cast films and a professional reader or director or producer will think you're trying to cast the role. What else could they think - that you're saying "hey, let's get a third-rate actor who only looks like this famous person I just described"? No, they're going to think that you want that actor to play the role.

Second, casting directors who read the project do not want an image in their head of a particular actor or actress, otherwise it ruins the read and does their job for them...

Oh, and Conz?  A lot of regulars have given you honest answers and apparently have forgotten that you entered the last OWC and didn't do any reads. So please keep that in mind for the upcoming one?  (0:

AJR

Anthony, couldn't agree more with your words.  I also was thinking that Conz had recently said that he was sorry for not reading any OWC scripts yet and was going to get caught up...apparently he chose not to do that, and still has a big fat ZERO reads, which there just isn't any excuse for.

Time to pay the piper!

I do want to make 1 more comment on this actual thread.  I was thinking about it last night for some reason, and I couldn't stop laughing at what I was thinking.

It's funny enough to think that an unproduced writer would seriously try and cast his own Spec script by using actual known actor's names as descriptions of characters.

But, even funnier is to look at this way...

If you think about it, character description is obviously what the character looks like - so, if you see an actor's name in a character's description, I would think that's what the character is supposed to look like, meaning, maybe the other characters mistake him for the actor named in the description.

So, if your character is described as looking like Brad Pitt, he probably gets alot of trim.  If your character is described as looking like a young Sean Connery, again, he's most likely having his way with the ladies.  But, if you describe him as looking like F Murray Abraham?  Well...haha...luckily, most of your readers won't have a clue what the Hell he looks like.

Wish I read this thread last week.

I have a script submitted already that should be popping up soon.  If anybody reads it, just disregard the description of SKIER #3 as 'think Jeff Bush'.  I'll fix it up in the rewrite.