Hi there,

I'm working on my first ever screenplay and taking my time, since wanna learn as much as I can before posting a finished product.

I'm currently writing a zombie-ish film (yeah I know...) and I'm struggling with the action sequences, because I think in too much detail I think. It's not an action-zombie film per se, so fortunately I don't have that many action scenes, but I the scene I've posted here just seems to clutter up the pages. There's almost no dialogue, because I really hate it when a person exploring an abandoned house calls out too much ("Hello? HELLO?? JIMMY?? IS THAT YOU??") so it looks kinda....I don't know. If you have any advice to give, if it's too much description and in that case what to cut out, I'd appreciate it.

Here's the scene:

INT. DOCTOR JOHANSON?S HOUSE - PATIENT?S ROOM
The shades are pulled down, no light emits from anywhere. A broken microscope lies shattered on the ground several feet from an empty, blood-drenched hospital-bed.
A faint, desperate panting can be heard -- ferocious, animalistic.

Sarah picks up a small flashlight similar to one she was examined with yesterday, and steps over the broken glass.
The beam from the flashlight moves across the room; revealing ravaged equipment and smudged blood dragged in trails.

The panting gets louder; more threatening.

Sarah wheels around at the horrible sound as her beam illuminates a HIDEOUS creature arched over the body of a sheriff?s deputy -- DEVOURING, FEEDING.

Sarah chokes, loses balance -- petrified by the gruesome sight before her. Her lips shake, her hands grapple for anything to keep her from falling.

The grotesque looks up from its trough, mouth covered in blood, pupils faint; a deep hissing at the top of its lungs.
Sarah's face contorts in horror as she recognizes the devourer in front of her. It?s DOCTOR JOHANSON.

SARAH
Martin...?

The doctor CHARGES, surprisingly stalwart, without reason, and knocks the inert young woman over.
Sarah instinctively fends off the jabbing claws, what used to be hands -- she has no capacity to speak, to scream.  

The beast LUNGES for her throat, descending upon her like a starved cub. Her hand twitches, grabbing the broken microscope, and reflexively slings it against her attacker?s jaw.

The creature goes down momentarily, and Sarah drags herself to her feet.
The abominate thing grabs for her legs, untouched by the shards of glass piercing its throat, as she scrambles inside an open door and shuts it; LOCKED.

INT. DOCTOR JOHANSON?S HOUSE - STUDY
Sarah lies on the floor, panting; hyperventilating. Behind her, next to a large window, is a working desk and a chair.
No exits.

The monster slams on the door, trying to get in. She stares transfixed at the thin wooden door; unready for any of this.

Then suddenly NOTHING. Silence.
The banging ceases.
Sarah freezes, holds her breath for what seems like forever.
...
CRACK! The beast strikes the wood forcefully. The door gives way and one of the hinges bends.

Sarah jumps to her feet, panicking -- hysterically glancing the room for a way out.
BANG! Another strike. The wood splinters.

She eyes the desk chair, picks it up and batters it against the big window.
SLAM! Sarah falls back at the first blow; the glass unscathed.

BANG! The first hinge blows off the door. The creature keeps charging.
She picks up the chair and tries again. THUD! THUD! Again and again. The glass starts to fracture slightly.

Sarah grabs the chair with her last ounce of strength...
BANG!

The door blows of its remaining hinge and the vile thing hurtles towards her. She wields the chair against the glass, charging, just as the bloodthirsty creature grabs for her neck...

CRASH!
The window shatters into bits and Sarah plunges through the hole, slicing her arm on the broken glass.

EXT. DOCTOR JOHANSON?S HOUSE - DRIVEWAY
She topples down the roof, grabs the drainpipe, and falls on her back - softly against the thick snow.

Quickly, bewildered -- Sarah cowers to her feet and into the car, frantically jarring her keys in the ignition, as her eyes flicker back and forth to the front door in horrid anticipation.
IGNITION. The motor starts.

SUDDENLY a bloody hand smashes through the car-door window. Sarah YELPS, puts her foot through the floor, as another of those things, arrayed in a tattered deputy?s uniform, claws ferociously at her.

Instinctively she elbows the vicious beast out of the drivers seat, as the vehicle fishtails down the road.

There is nothing wrong with that.  That's actually quite decent if this is your first screenplay.  I tend to think that a writer should have their own style of writing so I am not too nit picky about things like this.

There are other people around here though that will crucify you to a cross if you don't have exactly the same amout of white space on each page, so I offer you warning there.

But on the subject, it is a well-written scene.  Try not to describe too many things in the room like the microscope and stuff unless it will be used in the story later or has some sort of significance.  But it's a good object to focus on considering the zombie will be a doctor, so that can stay.  A lot of new writers start their descriptions about the scenery rather than the characters.  Remember, your characters move the story along, not your settings.  Settings can always be rewritten in shooting scripts or in later rewrites if they are necassary, but try not to be overcome by them.  Characters, characters, characters.

Don't let outside forces control your writing.  Write a script how you want to write it, as long as it gets your point and story across clearly and without too much boring subtext.

Good luck, and I look foward to reading the finished product.  I am a action specialist myself so if you need any more advice shout me a holler.    

Thanks, Guy Jackson.

I've read a lot of screenplays on this site, and at this point in my script (page 35) I start to have a lot of self-doubt. It's hard to know whether I'm developing a personal style or simply getting things wrong from the get-go. Especially since it's my first script. So I just wanted to know, to an outsider, how it looked. I've pretty much stared myself blind in it.

But thanks for the advice, I might need your advice again, if you do action.

Of course, I'd still appreciate if anyone else has any advice or nitpicks on the scene.

The key to some goo description is to describe it sufficiently for a reader to enjoy the story, but not so much that you get bogged down in all the description. Really, the best way to do it is to play the movie in your head and write it out like you're watching the film in a theatre and describing what you actually see to someone else.

Some things that don't belong in your description are opinions, feelings, and other things that cannot be actually seen on screen: when the doctor charges, you say "without reason." Can't be shown. "she has no capacityto speak, to scream" "unready for any of this" "holds her breath for what seems like forever" "panicking" "grabs the chair (good) with her last ounce of strength (can't show it)" All of these cannot be actually shown. They work well in books, but if you were describing this film as you see it, most of these wouldn't be there.

"The glass starts to fracture slightly" should be "the glass fractures slightly." Nothing can start to do anything unless it can be stopped. With a fracture, it either fractres or it doesn't. No half-way point. No starting or stopping.

I commend you for not putting a single instance of "we see" any where in here. It's a sign of either a newbie or someone who refuses to listen.

Thanks for the advice, George Willson, I'll definitely look over my script and fix that.

Something I'm curious about though...

I know I'm not supposed to write stuff that can't be shown, but when I wrote "with her last ounce of strength" I of course want to show that she's doing the action in a sense that conveys that she's completely worn down and that she has no strength for another try, which I think is something that can be seen in a person. But I guess my phrase is just a bit too literary? I should use a more precise prose - adjectives that embody this, yes?

The same with "she has no capacity to scream". In my head I know exactly how this transfers to the actual situation, but again this too literary, right?

Again, thanks. I really want to get better, and I feel I am, so I'll do my best to heed your advice.

Quoted from Death Monkey Thanks for the advice, George Willson, I'll definitely look over my script and fix that. Something I'm curious about though... I know I'm not supposed to write stuff that can't be shown, but when I wrote "with her last ounce of strength" I of course want to show that she's doing the action in a sense that conveys that she's completely worn down and that she has no strength for another try, which I think is something that can be seen in a person. But I guess my phrase is just a bit too literary? I should use a more precise prose - adjectives that embody this, yes? The same with "she has no capacity to scream". In my head I know exactly how this transfers to the actual situation, but again this too literary, right? Again, thanks. I really want to get better, and I feel I am, so I'll do my best to heed your advice.

No, not all.  If you want to write it, write it.  It helps set the mood of a scene.  I use metaphors and internal feelings as well.  Your script shouldn't be a novel, but I think to get an insight into a character's personality?  If you read a lot of screenplays, especially Tarrentino scripts, you can see he writes a lot of stuff that can't be "filmed".  James Cameron is another one who does that as well, but I personally find his scripts annoying to read so he's not a good example.  He writes damn near in paragraph form and maybe 2 sentences in the paragraph are actual film actions.  But I guess he directs his own scripts so it's fine.

But please don't take out some of those lines.  It will really help define your characters.  I am huge on chracters, because that is what a film is.  Characters equal drama.  Drama equals story, and Story equals a screenplay.

Hope this help.

I've looked over the scene and I've changed some of the obvious ones George pointed out. Like the "holding her breath for what seems like forever", "unready for any of this" and "without reason". I've replaced them with better substitutes.

However for the time being I'm letting the "last ounce of strength" and "capacity to scream" stay, because I can't think of anything better right now. Maybe when I go over over them in re-writes I'll find something more apt, but I'm afraid if I take them out, then I'll forget to put something in that emphasizes the feelings I wanna convey.

As an action scene, it's fine.

But it does appear to be extremely out of context... and missing the vital thing that every action scene needs:

Which is character.

We need to feel like the action scenes are a logical extension of the characters... not just there to drum up numbers. I know you're trying to draw us in through her experiences with the Doctor, but from that extract I'm not sure we're really getting any feeling for said relationship.

Maybe it works better in context, but at the moment I'm feeling numb towards the emotion. But, as I said, the action's fine... if a little predictable.

Thanks for the feedback, Chilli.

Well there IS context - this is right around page 25 and and you learn very early on in the story the relationship between the doctor and Sarah. He's basically a kind of surrogat father for her. That of course isn't conveyed in this scene alone, so yeah, I reckon there isn't much emotional pay-off as a stand-alone.

Like I said, it's a not an action script so the main thing I want is realism before style. I'm trying to build suspense in the situation, the confrontation, instead of 'how' they fight or get killed off.

Actually I think we share are ideas about action being the logical extension of characters. Personally, stylized action bores me, if there's no emotional investment in the characters beforehand.

But I appreciate any advice I can get, and any specific paragraphs or lines that don't work...I'd really like to know!

Okay --

Quoted Text The shades are pulled down, no light emits from anywhere. A broken microscope lies shattered on the ground several feet from an empty, blood- ...

The above is overwritten. If the shades are pulled down, we can assume there's no lighting. No need to spell it out.

In scripts, less is more.

One could write an action scene like:

Quoted Text INT. BUNKER - DAY Matt stands by the wooden door, splinters lining the floor, holding a HIGH POWERED GUN in his hand. He's nervous, waiting for the first strike, almost giddy with excitement until: A GRENADE rolls into view. He takes it in for a moment, confusion, and then... DIVES into the air... expecting to be blown into the far wall, past the amunition cases. But he's not. The grenade never went off. Matt looks up, and it dawns on him. He aims his gun, FIRES round after round. Someone screams in bloody agony.

But it's horribly overwritten.

A different way would be:

Quoted Text INT. BUNKER Matt is by the broken door. Holds a gun. Waits. A grenade enters frame. Matt sees it, darts away, takes shelter in the corner. Few beats pass... nothing happens. He looks towards it. Hears footsteps. He aims his gun. Fires into the distance. Someone screams.

Both can work. Just depends on what you want from the scene.

Thanks for the concrete example, I see what you mean.

I changed the first few paragraphs to this:

INT. DOCTOR JOHANSON?S HOUSE - PATIENT?S ROOM
Sarah reluctantly ventures inside, treading over a broken microscope lying shattered on the floor - several feet from an empty, blood-drenched hospital bed.

A faint, desperate panting can be heard -- ferocious, animalistic.

She picks up a small flashlight from a tray and moves the beam across the room, revealing ravaged equipment and smudged blood dragged in trails.

------------------------------------------------------

I tried making the characters move the action instead of the description of the scene, and then I chiselled down unnecessary filler.

Still, I couldn't fit in the part about the room being gloomy to my satisfaction...not unless I tag it on at the beginning or the end, but I'll work around that somehow.

I don't really have any problem with your example, Death Monkey, and I'm probably shifting slightly off topic here, but I don't know what the big problem is if you use phrases like "we see", or if you use a few adverbs here and there. I've seen this in a lot of produced (and popular) screenplays over the years. Even James Cameron does it, and no matter what your opinions are of him, he is undoubtedly one of the most intelligent and accomplished filmmakers of all time, so I don't think his work should be easily shrugged off. I don't think it's fair to class a writer as an amateur just because he/she writes "we see" in their descriptions. There is a lot more to it than that, and it doesn't really make any difference as to what you're trying to convey at the end of the day. If your story is good, your plot is tight, your characters are interesting and well-developed, the script is formatted properly and is clear to read, then I don't think a few "we see's" or adverbs will demoralise it that much.

(Just my opinion LOL!)  

Ghostwriter - there's a difference between writing a script for yourself to direct, and writing a script for someone else to make.

Nothing wrong with writing 'We see'... unless you're on a site like this that caters to the written word as oppossed to the visual medium. Writer/director's can get away with 'We see' because they have it ingrained in them pre-existing camera angles.

Yeah I don't really like we see either.  I used to litter my scripts with we see's all the time but it just looks much better when they are not there.  I don't know what it is.  And like I said I don't like to force people to write a certain way because it's your script, but we see should be avoided because it's almost an extraneous description, because isn't every word in the screenplay seen?  At least if you are doing your job it is.

I mean in stead of seeing "We see Jim's car come to a stop in the driveway."

You can write "Jim's car comes to a stop in the driveway"

Same sentence, I thinnk it looks much better in the latter example.  It's much more natural

And I'm not doubting James Cameron as a filmmaker, he is responsible for nearly every type of digital effect in use today.  But he is a shitty screenwriter.  Read some of his scripts on here, they are written terribly.  I think the only reason he got away with it is because he directed most of them.  I mean don't get me wrong, his stories are fantastic, but the actual screenplays are a pain in the ass to read.  I tried to read Strange Days and I stopped after a couple pages.

Here's an example of his script.

Blackness.  We hear:

                         VOICE
          Ready?

                         SECOND VOICE (LENNY)
          Yeah.  Boot it.

A burst of bright white static exploding across the
darkness.  A high whine on the audio track gives way to
street sounds and rapid breathing.

AN IMAGE wavers and stabilizes: A nervous POV.  We're in a
car, sitting in the backseat, and we're nervous, the view
swinging around, showing the street rolling by outside the
windows, then whipping back to the two guys in the front
seat.

Our POV looks down at a SMALL RECORDING DEVICE in "our"
hands.  A red LED is flashing.  We slip the recorder into
a coat pocket.

                         OUR VOICE
          Okay.  It's goin'.  I'm recording.

The guy riding shotgun, LANE, is just pulling a pantyhose
over his head, smearing his features into a pig-like mask.
He turns, DIRECTLY TO THE LENS, pissed off.

                         LANE
          Good one, dickhead.  Thanks for
          waitin' till I get this fuckin thing
          on.  You tryin' ta I.D. me, or
          what?

He tosses another pantyhose right at us and we catch it.
Our POV looks down, into the pantyhose, which comes up
over our field of view.

We realize: this is not some ride-along verite video.

WE ARE ONE OF THESE GUYS.  Real honest-to-God point of
view, with no cuts, no music.  This is not film, it is
human experience.

The driver is a Hispanic guy named "SPAZ" DIAZ.  Lane is a
white guy who looks very strung out.  Couple of
crackheads.  The car is a mid-seventies barge, piebald
with primer.


AHHHHH!  That's like 2 pages of descripton for a simple driving scene.  

The main argument for the opposition of writing "we see" in a screenplay is that it distances the reader from the story. But how am I supposed to be immersed in the story of a screenplay when I'm being explicitly TOLD, in the present-tense, exactly what is happening from cover-to-cover? If I wanted to be truly engulfed in a story then I'll read a book, which shows me real emotions and takes me deeper into the characters, their lives and their world. I know you can do this in a screenplay, but only to an extent. And I don't mind that! I don't want to be immersed in a script, I just want to know what is happening!

That is the distinct difference between a novel and a script: A script gives the facts of what is happening there and then, and the reader follows. A book tells us why everything has happened and how the events have affected the characters, in much deeper ways, and we are left to imagine and interperet it as we want to.

All I'm saying is that in the first place you can never be as emotionally involved in a script as you can in a book. In a book you are imagining and feeling what is going on, in a script you are being told. So why bother trying to cover up the fact that you are TELLING the readers what they should be "SEEING"?

It's not really a big deal. I just don't see why people scorn this simple method so much, because when you REALLY think about it and the context in which it is used, there's nothing wrong with it!