Found this little article on http://www.writerstorm.com regarding what they are looking for when reading entries to their contest.

I assume the same rules apply to other contests as well as scripts submitted to agents and prodcos, so I thought I'd post it for reference.

If anyone disagrees with anything in here please post your thoughts.



A couple of tips from our readers to help make a good impression on them:

-- BRADS MATTER. Use three-hole-punch paper, with a white cardstock cover and backing. Use TWO brads - Acco 1 ¼ inch solid brass fasteners are the norm. You're right if you think it's a minor issue and that it shouldn't have any affect on the reader. But, unfortunately, first impressions matter, and if the writer doesn't have the script bound in the proper way, then we tend to think that they don't know much about proper structure either. It's trivial… but do it.

-- PROTAGONIST. We want to meet the protagonist by page three. AND we want to know WHO the protagonist is and what his or her goal is. This is the number one flaw with most scripts - it's either hard to identify the protagonist OR it's hard to identify the protagonist's goal. Make it crystal clear.

-- ACTION BLOCKS. Keep them short. Three to four lines at the most. If we see THICK, CHUNKY action blocks, we get bummed out. As a reader, it's awful to turn a page and see a BIG chunk of action. Break it up, make sure there's plenty of white space on the page. Make the script easy to read.

-- CONFLICT. Make sure there is conflict on every page of your script. The worst scripts have scenes with characters simply chatting to each other. If a scene does not move the story forward AND expand our understanding of the characters, then either rework it or cut it.

-- PARENTHETICALS. Don't over use these. Basically, you should only use them if you need to tell the reader whom a character is speaking to. If you have to tells us what the character is feeling, thinking or doing, then there is something wrong with the dialogue. The mood/emotions of the character should be evident by the dialogue. The first thing actors do when they get a script is to cross out the parentheticals. Let actors act!

-- DON'T DIRECT. Don't use "we see" in the script. Don't put in camera movements or credit sequences. Don't tell us what song is playing in a scene unless it is critical to the action of a scene. Don't use "cut to". Again, keep it lean, mean...

-- ENDING. Make it strong, memorable.

That's it... We are excited by the writers from across the country who have submitted scripts. Some writers outside LA have written to tell us that they feel that all contests favor writers that live in LA. NOT true. We are looking for great writing, great scripts... period. As a matter of fact, LA writers sometimes write about similar subject matter and set their scripts in... LA. So it's refreshing to get scripts/stories that have unique settings and to read writers with unique voices.

Good luck to everyone!!

Quoted from Shelton -- DON'T DIRECT. Don't use "we see" in the script. Don't put in camera movements or credit sequences. Don't tell us what song is playing in a scene unless it is critical to the action of a scene. Don't use "cut to". Again, keep it lean, mean...[/i]

What's wrong with "cut to's"?

Sean

Quoted from Zombie Sean What's wrong with "cut to's"?

When you go to a new scene, it's already a given that it's a cut.  Adding the "CUT TO" just beefs up your script with pointless direction.

Those rules are pretty screwy. Some i can agree with, but others are ridiculous. A lot of great movies don't identify the protagonst by page three. A conflict on every page, and the worst scripts are the one's where the characters are chatting to one another???? Writers like Kevin Smith and Tarantino have such huge fan bases because of their dialogue. and no parentheticals that tell emotion? I don't think a writer should just be told to deny everything he sees in his head while writing. That's what makes a script what it is, and many lines can be said many different ways, depending on what the reader thinks, but if it's supposed to be a certain way, I don't think that should be punished.

Much like everything else in life, when you first get started you have to go by someone else's rules.  After you've made it, you make your own.  Do you think James Cameron or Quentin Tarantino follow the rules?  They don't have to!


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe Much like everything else in life, when you first get started you have to go by someone else's rules.  After you've made it, you make your own.  Do you think James Cameron or Quentin Tarantino follow the rules?  They don't have to! Phil

Hey, Phil's hit the nail on the head here, sucessful screenwriters can do what they like because they are already established..

Trouble with Spec Scripts is the conventions change from production company to company and from agent to agent and from published books on screenlays.. It all gets confusing and muddled with conflicting advice and information..

I would limit putting anything in a Spec Script, keep it lean and keep it mean and you should be on to a winner. The most important apsect of a script is to tell a good riviting story which also has great characters. These types of scripts are what make you a great writer, formatting errors or mistakes can always be edited out if need be.. Formatting isn't the be and end all of script writing, telling a great story is..

Ask Phil  he's a good writer, he knows..


Kev

Thanks for the post, Mike. Hard to disagree with any of it.

The way I see it, by following these simple rules, a screenwriter can place himself above thousands of other writers who don't know them, or don't want to follow them because Tarantino or other sucessful writer didn't.

In screenplay competitions, a judge does not have to read your entire script.  And since most competitions don't offer feedback, there's no way of knowing how much of it they read.

If a judge looks a page one and sees that it's badly formatted, or that there's spelling problems on page one, your script will very likely end up in the garbage without being read.


Phil

I defintely agree with that, Phil.  I know if I were a reader and saw something along those lines on the first page, I'd certainly chuck it before wasting my time.

The one thing from the article that threw me off was the "page 3" rule.  I always thought you should try to establish things like that within the first ten pages, along with the hook.  I may have to go back to my most recent comedy script (no plug, but my sig is in chronological order) because I don't think it does that too well.

Quoted from Shelton -- PROTAGONIST. We want to meet the protagonist by page three.

Personally, I don't believe that this is always necessary, especially if your script has a cold intro or the movie equivalent of a teaser. Horror scripts are notorious for a cold intro to set up the genre and get in that first kill. It's practically a requirement. In horror scripts, you usually don't meet the protag until immediately after this teaser which is rarely by page 3.

Everything else under the protag I agree with though. In fact, the list is solid including the conflict bit. Conflict can occur through dialogue, and in fact, it often does. While there may be scenes of talking heads in your favorite films, these talking heads are moving the plot, building character, or creating/amplifying conflict. Note that they specify "simply chatting." Chatting doesn't build conflict. Conflict on every page simply means that they want to stay interested, and not listen to life stories. No problem there.

The only thing I didn't really like to much was the "Just chatting" part.  I think that it helps build characters and can also be funny.

Quoted from Higgonaitor The only thing I didn't really like to much was the "Just chatting" part.  I think that it helps build characters and can also be funny.

And if that is in line wih the plot, conflict, and builds character, that is not "just chatting," that's continuing to tell the story. What they're referring to is likely idle talk that might be a great gag, but doesn't serve the plot or story in any way.

Those scenes always annoy the crap out of me. It's there because someone thought it was funny, but serves no purpose in the story. It's got to at least build character to stick around.

Quoted Text In horror scripts, you usually don't meet the protag until immediately after this teaser which is rarely by page 3.

The problem is that in horror scripts you often don't meet the protagonists at all.

Quoted Text And if that is in line wih the plot, conflict, and builds character, that is not "just chatting," that's continuing to tell the story. What they're referring to is likely idle talk that might be a great gag, but doesn't serve the plot or story in any way. Those scenes always annoy the cr** out of me. It's there because someone thought it was funny, but serves no purpose in the story. It's got to at least build character to stick around.

I think building character is enough.  In Tarantino's movies, it builds the characters and enhances the style/atmosphere of the movie, even if it doesn't enhance the plot (aside from in Jackie Brown, QT has very little emphasis on plot).

Building character is enough to retain a scene. I was referring to those that have it around for a gag, but it neither builds character, nor enhances the plot.

And you refer to bad horror scripts, jerdol. The good ones have a clear cut protagonist, but with the teaser, you just don't meet them right away. Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, The Ring, and Scream to hit some more famous ones have a clear cut protagonist, but you don't meet them right away.

Now to switch gears, in the James Bond franchise, you meet the protagonist in the teaser, but the goal is not defined until later. In fact, if these people expect to have a clearly defined goal by page three, they haven't done any homework on screenwriting. The goal isn't usually defined until pages 20-30 at the earliest, and some later than this. Most thrillers have a basic goal of "figure out what the hell is going on, where the final goal is not defined until right before they figure it all out somewhere in the third act. It's ride you go for there.

this is great stuff... thanks mike for posting