I am copying below page one of The Source Code. Far as I can tell, this was the original draft. The script and the movie are considered by most to be brilliant. I am going to bold highlight some interesting writing and formatting aspects. I also observe there is no fade in, not sure if that indicates something. More comments after the script.

SOURCE CODE
Darkness.
A SOUND slowly builds: the rhythmic rocking of a TRAIN’S
WHEELS over RAILROAD TRACKS...
INT. HIGH SPEED TRAIN - MORNING
COLTER jolts awake. Sunlight hits his face.
He blinks. A stunned beat. He’s disoriented.
Slowly he turns his head to one side...
PASSENGERS. Filling most of the seats. Office workers on
their morning commute into a city.
Turning the other way, he’s confronted with a window. Trees
flash by, splitting the rising sunlight into a hypnotic
strobe pattern.
Colter looks to be thirty years old. A military buzz cut. A
disciplined physique, lean and spare, almost gaunt. Skin
burnished by years of desert sandstorms and equatorial sun.
His expression, prematurely aged by combat, is perpetually
wary, sometimes predatory, accustomed to trouble.
Despite his military bearing, Colter wears a button down
shirt and navy sports coat. On his wrist is a digital watch.
It reads 7:40 a.m.
He swallows. A strange, creeping panic.
He has no idea where he is.
EXT. NEW JERSEY COUNTRYSIDE - MORNING
The train hurls straight at us.
NEW ANGLE -- Skimming alongside as the train twists and
turns, sucking up track -- feet, yards, miles of it.
Beneath it, the curving rails, which the rushing train barely
seems to touch. They vibrate with an eerie, dulcimer HUM.


Comments: Two asides are used, underlining, and a whole bunch of the dreaded 'ing' words, not to mention some of the almost as notorious 'ly' words. And yet this is a very effective opening, in my mind. And I have not seen the film. The script paints a very vivid picture of what is taking place. Wondering if anyone has any thoughts to add.

Well, you know what my comments would be, regarding the actual writing...so I won't go there.

I will post the bio of the screenwriter, though...

Ben Ripley grew up in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. A cum laude graduate of Stanford University and an honors graduate of the University of Southern California's School of Cinema-Television, he sold his first screenplay to Fox in 2002. Since then he has worked steadily in the genres of horror, thriller and science fiction.

I've always disagreed with the notion of banning all use on words ending in -ing and -ly. As long as your language is efficient and effective, all words are fair game. In addition, a script has to paint a fairly complete picture of the story and characters, so whatever you, as a writer, need to do to paint that picture is also fair game.

The description of the main character right down to his clothes is important since that look and those clothes paint a visual picture of someone and still gives the reader the chance to read between the lines.

The final underlines bit about him not knowing where he is is vital to the character's predicament. An audience can see that printed on an actor's face. Despite the fact that it seems like non-visual writing, there's not much of any other way to write that with brevity. You can tell when someone doesn't know where they are.

That being said, the bit after the "New Angle" is a bit overkill, in my opinion. I have seen the movie, and while I remember that first shot, I have no memory of the killer train rushing along. It might have been there, but a passenger train's tracks vibrating with an "eerie, dulcimer hum" is someone getting all "authory" on the script.

Hey Jeff and George

Agree fully, George, and said much more convincingly than I could.

I've been reading further into the script, about a third of the way, while working. He even underlines dialogue at times. I don't agree with the way everything in the script is written, but the bottom line is he's the writer, it's his choice, and the script is overall very effective.

Thanks, George.

Just to be clear, we need to keep in mind that Ben Ripley was already an established screenwriter and had access to those who make decisions.

Interesting how it went down, actually, as he went with a pitch, prior to having a script, and it was not accepted.  He then, actually did have to write this on Spec, but again, it's not like a nobody writing a Spec script, as he basically needed to dot his I's and cross his T's in script form to the Producers he pitched prior.

Something else I want to throw out is what I continually say - just because a Pro writer has written a produced script a certain way, doesn't mean it's "correct" or the best way to achieve what he was after.  In other words, just because someone gets away with poor writing or whatever you want to call it,l doesn't mean that all the unproduced wannabe writers should do it that way.

My point was...this is not poor writing, and it's a mistake to think so, and a distraction even. Could some of those 'ing's be replaced? Yes, they could, so the writing could be improved. But that does not make this at all poor writing. Up until the second slug, which is a little bit unnecessary, the description is very effective. It efficiently and sharply establishes the images of the scene.

I would presume he used a similar writing style when he sold his first script to Fox, back when he was not inside the walls. This writing style did not seem to inhibit his success back then or after.

Something to think about.

No, Kevin, it's not poor writing.  It's also not great writing.  It's over-written, also.  It's passive.  It contains "we" and "us" shit.

Reread what I posted as Ben Ripley's bio.  He was a shoe based on his education.

Now, I don't know what he's "re-written" on assignment, but I do know the 2 Species DTV sequels he's credited with "on assignment, are not quality pieces of storytelling.  In fact, they're pure crap.

Source Code was an alright movie, for sure...nothing great, but better than most of the dreck we're submitted to.  I believe that the concept of the movie is better than the actual movie. I also believe that the star power attached to it, and a $32 Million budget, made it all it could be.

And, I gotta say, pretty much anythign with Michelle Monohan in it will work on some level with me.     She's not only a cutie, but she's one of those actresses that can deliver believable characters that I tend to care for.

I've been studying a course on writing in the past few months or so and I've discovered some interesting data. This is a course offered by a professor, not a guy on a late night infomercial, he teaches in a state university. I'm hoping this data will help me be a more effective writer.

My conclusion has been use what gets your point across. There continues (as has for about 2 thousand years) to be a LOT of debate about what actually is "proper" grammar and what isnt. A great deal of what is considered proper is simply arbritary, rules made up for no real reason other than to just simply make another grammar rule. Its been a real eye opener.

Now of course there are "rules" to screenwriting, so follow them if you think it gets you a better chance of getting produced.

But sometime after I'm done with the script Im working on now I plan to write one using only "Grammar B"! ;0)

A person does not sell their first script, then lean back in their chair with a smug grin and say, "Cool...NOW I can finally start using underlines and words that end with -ing and all the other pro goodies!"

Nobody changes their style like that.  It is compelling stories, hard work, and right-place-right-time breaks that got any of those guys where they are writing pretty much as they have always written.

Bad format is bad format, sure, but harping on the subtle variations as bad form is simply uninformed.

Unless you are reading current, sold specs, you are not speaking with any authority. Avid movie-watching is not a substitute.

Haven't looked at this thread since I think we already have a few hundred or so just like it.  And the argument is always the same.  

All I'm going to say since I've heard this several times from people in the industry is that no director cares about any of this. They look at the story. Period. In other words, aren't we just trying to please studio readers when worrying about -ing and -ly words and other stuff?

Personally I keep them to a minimum myself because that's how I'm used to writing. I even avoid the word "and" if I can.

Quick echo of pia's comments... My own writing style leans towards the flowery, and I've dealt with a number of producers and agents who have never given me a note that the script was overwritten or too wordy.  The notes are always character and story.  That said, the more dialog on a page vs. the expositional passages, the more likely it is for a reader to read the entire script.

I agree with the points above. And while I'm sure over the years the argument has been seen many times before, not everyone has been here years.

Jeff, you point out the writer went to top notch schools and therefore did not have to worry about "correct" writing because he had an "in" with a resume like that. It's worth considering that obviously those schools did not consider this style of writing an important point of emphasis, or they would have "corrected" it. And like I said, it didn't inhibit his success.

I absolutely agree with Pia's point about studio readers. That seems to be the sole issue and concern. These are entry level positions. Some will move on to bigger and better things, most won't, but these might be the kinds of things they obsess over. It gives them the feeling they have a grasp on what a script should be. People that actually make films don't care about this kind of thing.

Quoted from leitskev Jeff, you point out the writer went to top notch schools and therefore did not have to worry about "correct" writing because he had an "in" with a resume like that. It's worth considering that obviously those schools did not consider this style of writing an important point of emphasis, or they would have "corrected" it. And like I said, it didn't inhibit his success.

Kevin, my point is that Mr. Ripley was a cum laude graduate of Stanford University and an honors graduate of the University of Southern California's School of Cinema-Television, meaning, he already had an in, pretty much everywhere in Hollywood, and because of this he was able to skip the route that everyone has to take.

He was also able to skip any and all entry level gate keepers.

Also, because of his impressive school credentials, he was immediately viewed as someone of interest and potential.

These kind of debates amaze me, and as Pia said, there have been hundreds of them over the years.

My debate is very, very simple - if something is not correct and a distraction to the read, is it wrong to say so?  Is it wrong to strive for excellence?

What it comes down to is the level of incorrectness, the level of distraction/annoyance matched against the level of quality of the overall product.

If the product is already flawed, the annoyance of all these "little issues" is magnified.

If the product is very strong, then these things don't make that big a difference, but they can still be discussed, pointed out, and corrected.

People (me included) always say that it's so important to get out of the gate as cleanly as possible.  What they're/we're obviously saying is that if the distractions and problems overtake the positives, the script is already damned.

But it should go much further than that.  If you can not only capture your audience, but continue to captivate them throughout the script, the little things don't seem to matter all that much anymore, do they?

Quoted from Grandma Bear All I'm going to say since I've heard this several times from people in the industry is that no director cares about any of this. They look at the story. Period. In other words, aren't we just trying to please studio readers when worrying about -ing and -ly words and other stuff?

Yes! This!

I get this exact sentiment from the production company I'm currently writing for.
Don't think about the director, think about that bitter reader you have to get past.

E.D.

The point I wanted to make, Jeff, is that there are a lot of things in that first page that some describe as "incorrect", but that IMO do the job the way the writer intended. For instance, incomplete sentences(yes, on purpose). Adding verbs to these fragments don't make anything clearer, but would extend the number of lines, and lengthen the read. The aside used is an example of directing the shot, so is a double no no according to the orthodox view. But it paints in one line the picture of what is going on here, and brings the reader into the story.

The underlining was a personal choice of the writer. He uses it throughout the script, sometimes even in dialogue, which I don't recall seeing before. But it doesn't really distract from the read in any way, and the writer makes sure you get what he wants you to get.

He also uses capitalization for this purpose, and this seems to be the norm from what I am seeing in pro spec scripts.

And then there's the passive language. I admit if he reduced that here a little, it would be an improvement. But at the same time we can't run like frightened children every time we see an 'ing'. Sometimes the passive verb is actually more efficient and less awkward. It's worth reducing them as much as possible, but common sense should apply, not rule enforcement.

I wonder how many scripts make it by the studio reader and into production anyway. My guess is that is not the likely path to success, but others can speak more authoritatively to that.