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.
On unfilmables: if you were sitting in a movie theater and could reasonably write the action lines based only on what you see, then it's filmable. This would completely include inferences from body language. That's what you miss here sometimes, Jeff. A movie is visual and sometimes your unfilmable lines can be conveyed via body language, and they are not always clear from the action.
One that I like from above is "A thought registers." I see this as filmable because you can see on someone's face when a thought registers. It's actually clearer to write it this way than attempt to describe the facial expression that accompanies a registering thought. I don't remember examples, but I know that you've condemned quite a few body language reactions, Jeff.
On the talking if he makes an effort, it's subjective. Is there a better way to say it? Maybe. Can I close my eyes and picture someone's expression if they're feigning being mute? Sure. Can I describe it on paper? Probably not. However, being that descriptive might take away from an actor's interpretation of that facial expression.
As with everything else, it's about being clear about what's going on while sticking to the visual. The human body is a very expressive thing, and part of clarity is letting an actor know how to direct that expression when it isn't clear any other way. If you weren't using dialogue, you'd have to convey a lot using only expressions and body language. Would you find as many unfilmables in a dialogue free script, I wonder?
My understanding is that the original irritation with wrylies was that it was directors getting annoyed by writers directing from the script. However, that original sentiment (legitimate or not) has devolved into a generalized reader ethos of "three strikes and you're out" regardless the usage.
For economy's sake, a wryly inserted into dialog saves three lines of page that a "Subject turns to object" would consume. (counting the CHARACTER (cont.) line)
If a limited number of wryly usages does not offend a statistically relevant readership, then I guess I'm okay. Paradoxically, the more times a character shifts dialog attention between others the greater the need for "Subject turns to Object" and the more lines get needlessly chewed up.
Logic indicates the reverse of this policy/practice.
The simple rule of thumb regarding wrylies is that if the intent of the wryly is clear from the context, then don't use it. If the intent is not crystal clear (sarcasm being a very, very solid example), then you should indicate that using the wryly. Most of the time, when a writer uses a wryly, it's not necessary since the feelings of the character that they're wanting to convey are clear via the scene or situation they're placed in.
I have a question (probably the first of many), I think I have it right but I'm not sure. How would you format a scene where the character has a series of quick image flashes in their head. Obviously, with the amnesia problem being in all of our scripts, I'm sure most of us will have our character experience some memories returing at completely random times.
I have it like this. --------------------------------- MELISSA HAS QUICK FLASHES
- (here, I list the small things she is remembering like a montage)
Simply QUICK FLASHES should be suffice. The readers should be able to tell who is having the quick flashes from the context of the scene.
E.g. QUICK FLASHES: A hand chops down an apple.
I'm not too sure about BACK TO SCENE. I've seen them with and without. Anyone else can answer?
FEATURE:
Memwipe - Sci-Fi, Action, Thriller (114 pages) - In a world where memories can be erased by request, a Memory Erasing Specialist desperately searches for the culprit when his wife becomes a target for erasure -- with his former colleagues hot on his trail.
George, I've used the example you gave many times about watching a movie and being able to write down what you see...if the writing includes things that no one would ever write down, then it's an unfilmable, most likely, or just piss poor writing, maybe.
I really don't try and condemn writers and things I find to be unfilmable, but then again, I do come across many, many unfilmables that just shouldn't be included in the script.
Again, George, the example you used here about a thought registering is fine, IMO. It does stray the line but you're right that writing it this way is probably better than most.
Asides are what really bug me...the ones that are supposed to be witty, intelligent , and funny. 99% of the time, they're not any of the 3.
How about describing a character "Like Rambo in a suit" or "Her features suggest she's the girl next door type"?
FEATURE:
Memwipe - Sci-Fi, Action, Thriller (114 pages) - In a world where memories can be erased by request, a Memory Erasing Specialist desperately searches for the culprit when his wife becomes a target for erasure -- with his former colleagues hot on his trail.
Ray, keep in mind that there is a big difference between dialogue lines and action lines. Using wrylies the way you're talking about uses up less space than using action lines, but it also changes the look and flow of the script.
A well written script will have a certain look, meaning dialogue will be broken up by action lines, and vice versa.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against the use of wrylies when they're used sparingly and correctly...much like George was talking about. You just need to be careful to use them sparingly and properly.
Personally, I think the Rambo in a suit is a great description... the other is maybe too cliche, but I suppose anything with girl next door in it will be thought of that way.
I think we're all getting too worked up over the 'rules' and such here. If you look at all the latest spec scripts that have sold and been leaked onto the internet, they are filled with examples of asides and some unfilmables too. Some of those spec sales were first time writers and It didn't do them any harm. I think you'll get away with quite a bit, as long as the script isn't littered with them from first page to last.
Personally, I think the Rambo in a suit is a great description... the other is maybe too cliche, but I suppose anything with girl next door in it will be thought of that way.
I think we're all getting too worked up over the 'rules' and such here. If you look at all the latest spec scripts that have sold and been leaked onto the internet, they are filled with examples of asides and some unfilmables too. Some of those spec sales were first time writers and It didn't do them any harm. I think you'll get away with quite a bit, as long as the script isn't littered with them from first page to last.
Oh, yes. And check out Buried - it's literally littered with them although I wouldn't use this many, not even one fiftieth of what's in it. But yeah, little easy on the rules - I'd love that!
The ol' unfilmmable thing is something I've got hot under my collar about in the past. It's not worth worrying about from a screenwriters point of view. The industry seems to actively prefer it (asides and such make the script more fun and therefore you are more likely to get good coverage and therefore a sale).
The reality of them from my point of view as a filmmaker is very different. I absolutely can't abide them. 100% of the time they guarantee that the script is better than the film. If you look at the Crazies script thread this issue arose about a description of a house. In the script a guy burns down a house that was described as belonging to his grandfather...it gave the on page story a high level of emotional resonance. I would encourage people to watch the same scene in the film and see how these kind of things translate....make your own mind up.
It's a simple fact of the medium that information has to be either shown or told. Abstract thoughts can not be imparted in the same way that literature does it. Too often writers tend to write vivid, interesting descriptions of characters then forget to make them say or do anything to back those up. Too often writers hide histories and emotional depth in descriptions and fail to present scenes where these things are actually shown or revealed to the audience.
The most common mistake in this vein I see is in comedy scripts where all the humour is hidden in the descriptions rather than in the dialogue, or in the action.
I once read a script that made me laugh out loud, but all of the humour was unfilmmable.
Eg At the start a woman enters a guys apartment. The description of the place said: It looks like he hired a monk as an interior decorator.
I thought it was quite funny. But think about if it's funny on screen...all it will be is a sparse set with minimal furniture. It won't even register and certainly won't be funny.
On the other hand if she enters and says: "Nice place...did a monk decorate it?". The same thought is suddenly translated to the screen.
..but like I say, it's not worth overly worrying about.
Pages: 
Author
The 2010 Simply Script 7 week Feature challenge
Logged
