@ Kev,

BTW one thing not mentioned so far was the lack of Fade In.

I think that's because it doesn't fade in!

It starts with a black screen with the sound of a train then smash cuts to the main character waking up.

It's hard not to respond...well...obviously, for me, it's impossible.

So, I'll go another new route here with a completely wild analogy that many could say has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

So, you have 3 candidates for the VP position at a prestigious NYC company, sitting in the waiting room.  The hiring CEO has already spoken to all 3 both over the phone and in person and actually, had to whittle this group down from 15 candidates with equal backgrounds and strengths.

We won't get ridiculous and say that these final 3 are exactly equal in every way, but let's assume, as occurs in real, life all the time, that although they each bring different qualities to the table, it's almost impossible to make a decision based on their background, knowledge, or skill sets.

Candidate 1 is impeccably groomed, in a beautiful new suit, nice matching tie, socks, shoes, shirt, and sporting a fresh shave and haircut.  Candidate 2 has all the same but for some silly reason, he's wearing socks that don't remotely match his suit.  Candidate 3 looks good, but far from great, and it's obvious he didn't go out and get a fresh haircut for this final interview.

Who gets the job?

Rick, these rules as you call them aren't rules to me.  It's much simpler than that.  Certain things work, certain things don't.  Certain things read and flow well, and others don't.  Some things serve a purpose and some things do not.  I'm just trying to keep it real and provide whatever help I can to those who ask for it.  There's nothing I'm going to say that will hurt a writer's script.  It doesn't mean that my way is the only way, but it's never going to be a bad way.

I have not read this whole thread, but as a business owner, I can tell you I'd definitely hire the guy with the different socks...and I'm serious.  

The guy who gets the job will be Candidate 1.

The screenwriter equivalent is the guy who jazzes his script up using asides, and interesting descriptions. We see this in every script sale we get our hands on.

Armored is the only script that comes to my mind that was written "textbook" style.

You can blame Shane Black for that, and regale against it if you like, but it's the way it is.

As for your last paragraph...if certain things work for you, that's great. The problem is that's purely subjective, other people like the way it's written...including the people dropping multi millions on it...who are the be all and end all at the end of the day.

OK, as I've said a few times, you guys go ahead and write your scripts exactly as you want to.

I won't bother you with feedback, as my opinion means nothing to you, so why waste my time?  I won't...I did that for someone recently and learned my lesson.  I'm a slow learner but once I learn, I understand.

I'll bow out now and you guys can all orgasm over Ben Ripley's script and writing.

Happy New Year...hope 2012 brings everyone what they're looking for.  Be cool and be safe.

The candidate thing brings up an interesting angle to the subject - in my field candidate 3 would have the upper hand.  

It's all about GQ or IQ, do you prefer someone who dresses well (GQ factor) or do you want someone who can do the work (IQ factor)?   In my field if someone dresses to impress then it's more than likely they don't have the technical skill to handle the job and have to rely on their outward appearance to get hired.  

So it's basically whether you want a script that outwardly appears perfect but has no  substance, or whether you want a script that may have some typos but wows you with its prowess.

You decide.

Quoted from Dreamscale OK, as I've said a few times, you guys go ahead and write your scripts exactly as you want to. I won't bother you with feedback, as my opinion means nothing to you, so why waste my time?  I won't...I did that for someone recently and learned my lesson.  I'm a slow learner but once I learn, I understand. I'll bow out now and you guys can all orgasm over Ben Ripley's script and writing. Happy New Year...hope 2012 brings everyone what they're looking for.  Be cool and be safe.

C'mon bud, you know you're appreciated round here!

Your reviews are excellent and you're frequently correct about other people's writing.

It's just that you can take it too far...particularly when it comes to the "top level" scripts. There is no higher level than some of the scripts you decimate...they are the top of the tree.  

That's not to say they are perfect, nothing is...but they are the closest around based on their story and characters and fitness for purpose.

Jeff, as often happens in good films with the main character, you learned the wrong lesson. I think most people, certainly myself, appreciate honest feedback. There is much recent evidence of this in another thread. There is a way to do things however. As with scripts, it's not just what the story is but how it's presented. I think that's an analogy you might appreciate.

I will use my own learning process as an example. In the last year, I have learned, largely with Jeff's help, how to reduce passive writing in my scripts. The work is much stronger because of it.

But let's take a look at the dreaded "ing". When you make the effort to reduce them in your work, you do end up with stronger, more visual description. That's why it's worth doing. However, there is a curve to it. There is a point where doing verbal gymnastics to avoid the use of it reaches a level of decreasing return, and there is finally a point where it becomes counterproductive. There have been times where I sat there struggling to eliminate an "ing" when I know the result is much more awkward, or forces me to use an extra line. At this point I am doing this not to make the script writing stronger, more visual, or more efficient. I am doing it merely to avoid annoying people who have been "taught" that "ing" is forbidden.

So this is not just about pursuit of perfection. There are times that these "rules" force us to write things that are less effective, less graceful, more awkward, and less efficient. There is a point on the curve where eliminating an "ing" becomes less about better writing and more about rules for rules sake.

You can spot an amateur script because it breaks all the rules. But I would venture you can also spot an amateur script because if FOLLOWS all the rules. The good writers understand that you have to break some of these "rules" in order to engage the reader and get your story through. This is absolutely clear from reading optioned scripts.

I wish i had some semblance of a life, so I could ignore this stuff and move on, but alas, I don't, so here I am again.

When you talk about "the dreaded "ing"", you're obviously talking about passive writing, or passive verbiage.  You'll also find it labeled simply "passive writing".

It is not simply a matter of having a verb with an "ing" on the end of it, and I think that's important to understand.  Most of the time, that's it, but to think hat you can't or shouldn't ever have a verb ending in "ing" is incorrect, and counter-productive, as Kevin states.

What the fuck am I talking about again?  Well, I'm talking about, is understanding what passive verbiage is and writing your scripts in the active voice.  And more importantly, understanding why you want to write in the active voice, vs. a passive voice.

As I say over and over, and have said many times in this thread, it's not about doing something or not doing something because someone tells you to.  It's about doing things for a reason, and doing things that make sense.

If someone wants to be a writer, they should know how to write.  If someone doesn't know the real difference between the active and passive voice, simply do a Google search and read several articles.  30 minutes later, you'll probably have a whole new understanding of exactly what it is, how to do away with it,. and why you want to do away with it.

To make random decisions about when not to worry about it, is downright incorrect, as is not knowing when you're doing it, or why it's weak writing.

Obviously, this is just 1 example, based on Kevin's last post.

Hope everyone had a great New Year's Eve last night.

Agreed, Jeff. Although it should be noted that in practice, the commandment is often though shalt not use...fill in the blank. But I agree, as you know from everything I have ever said, that it's the reason behind things that matters.

Post # 52 from Kevin.

What point?

Clorox, I don't know what you're trying to say here.

My point...or 1 of my points, is that when you use a verb that ends in "ing", it is not necessarily passive verbiage, as Kevin's post made it out to be.

What is your point and what are you trying to say?