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.

I think H.I. McDunnough best summarized the most likely path to success when he said, "What it is, is who knows who, and over here ya got favoritism."

It all boils down to one thing.  Either someone reads your script or they don't.  They either like what you've written or they don't.   If you keep then intrigued then you can get away with a lot of shit writing-wise.   If you don't, however, you give them an easy excuse to put it down - too many -ing words.  

Anyone involved in your story isn't going to care about what -ing words you've used or what camera angles you've used or what asides you've used, as long as they don't interfere with the flow of information being presented.

Kevin, you didn't even see the movie, so how can you say that what's written gets the job done?  How can you say that insanely long and totally unnecessary character description is remotely important?

You can't.  Period.

What is going on here is that you, like many others, seems to think that because a Produced script contains (fill in numerous blanks here of things that I say are incorrect), then not only is it OK to write the same way, but more-so, if you do, your script has more chance of selling and being produced.

And that's completely inaccurate.

If you wanna be a Pro Quarterback, should you study Tim Tebow's setup, release, and overall throwing technique?  Hell no!

The first page you posted is not the reason this script got made into a $32 Million film.  The writing of this script is not why it got made into a $32 Million film.

The reasons are as I explained in an earlier post - Ripley had clout.  Ripley pitched an idea and was turned down.  he said, "OK, then let me put it down in an actual script and show you how it will work.".  He did.  He turned it in to the same peeps he pitched to.  Someone said, "Yeah, let's do it.".  They did it.  Everyone's happy.

It's kinda like QT submitting a script on cocktail napkins and everyone fighting over the rights to Produce it...well...obviously not quite like that, but hopefully you understand what I'm talking about.

Cornie, that's a good post and something I say again and again...why potentially alienate someone who could be the decision maker?

But then again, if he tuns out to be someone who just can't get enough asides, and loves passive writing, go for it!  

Happy New Year's Eve Eve!

Since we seem to agree that we are mostly trying to get past that pesky studio reader, I'm curios how many people even get that far? I know people who have sent queries for years and has never even got read by any of those readers.

With regard to Kevin's initial observations re the Source Code script, this is mho.

I think it proves it's all about 'story'. All the 'ings' and 'ly's' and 'asides' aren't going to make a hoot of difference except imho to enhance a story as along as they're done well... and that is key.

Plus, as a writer and a reader I really enjoyed reading the description of Colter at the begining. Here's a guy knows what he's doing and is already sucking me into the story with his descriptions!

Source Code, though riding on the coat tails to some degree of Ground Hog Day and just transposing it into a thriller, was a unique idea, compelling, intriguing, entertaining, and that's that. And it hadn't been done before. The abundance of sequels and prequels these days prove unique ideas are thin on the ground.

And, it doesn't hurt that it's quite obviously intelligently written.

I'm not afraid of using the 'ings' etc. I think they can greatly contribute to the natural rhythm and colourful description of a story. Ditto to asides, and sparingly, the use of camera angles. It's just important that a new writer be guided into not overusing them and knowing when & how to use them and not overdo it, thus risking coming off as an amateur.

But when it comes down to it, it's all about story. If you've got that, you're half way there.

And then there is as Pia mentions getting your script into the right hands... alltogether another topic. I still reckon though if you've got a rip roaring unique story it'll eventually find its way into the right hands. Then again I might be being naive about that last part.

I was perfectly (or almost) fine with everything until:

"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."

This entire half of the page is an eyesore to me. I don't care about all your flowery, little details. I want facts. Got it. Guy looks military, is on a train, doesn't know who he is. Time for page 2.

That said, I find it curious that they changed it from New Jersey to Illinois.

Jeff

Question: Can you give me an example of a script that represents proper and effective screenwriting...and has been produced or at least optioned. I'd like to check some of these scripts out for my own learning. And, to be honest, I want to make sure this has not become some kind of Holy Grail quest for you. Yes, I understand that poorly written scripts get turned into movies for all kinds of reasons, but given that there are several hundred films made a year, and given that a script is not a piece of literature, but a design for a film, there must be some scripts that get filmed every year that are "correct".

Pia and LC

It does seem to be that the studio reader and other similar types are the gatekeepers that look for these types of things and have STC in their back pocket at all times as well. Fun and Games better begin on page 32! But I suspect, as has been mentioned, that very few if any scripts get through this way anyway. And I suspect that to the extent that stuff does get through to the point of being noticed, the story is good enough that being "correct" doesn't matter. Could those issues be enough to cause a reader to put a borderline script down? Probably, but a borderline script wasn't going anywhere anyway.

I've been reading through the 5 or so scripts on Scriptshadow every week, and trying to work my way through the blacklist. I have yet to find a single script that would be considered "correct" by the purists. Underlining, capitalization for emphasis, sentence fragments, asides...all there in abundance. It's kind of like in Back to School, when the business teacher is explaining to the class the proper business model, and Rodney D is perplexed by the missing stuff, like payoffs to union officials and politicians. There's the classroom model, and then there's the real world model, which the professor doesn't comprehend.

I would bet that his first scripts also had underlining ...ing words...and the such. If the story is great, and the right reader picks it up, then who cares about the other stuff. I've read a lot of produced scripts and hardly any of them follow the strict guidelines we all read about. The whole structure thing, if you ask me, is too rigid...there are probably some readers who look for an inciting incident on the twelvth page and some who could care less about it as long as the set up is there, the conflict is there and the outcome...So, I think it all depends on the reader and the story.

I, as a very new writer, am trying to learn the proper formatting, etc. because my writing isn't great...but I might get something read if it looks proper and I don't come off as a newbie.

When I'm reading in here, I don't stop if format is off or if I see underlined words...I can deal with misspellings...if each line makes me wanna keep reading. If after a page the story is bad, I usually won't keep reading. I'll admit, though, if the logline, title, or opening scene is riddled with grammar, misspelled words, etc it is a huge turn off for me.

Sorry, Kev, I don't have the example you're asking for.  Does it exist at all?  I don't know...maybe it is the/my Holy Grail.  I don't know.

But whether or not it does actually exist, isn't the/my point.  The point is not only can it it exist, but it should exist.

My point here would be some simple realities that shouldn't be.

Is it right that millions of Americans have lost their homes to foreclosure?  Nope.

Is it right that millions of Americans have lost their jobs due to mergers and acquisitions...jobs they had for many years and were jobs they were performing well in?  Nope, definitely not right.

Is it right that a happily married man or woman with children would go out and sleep with someone else, all for a single night of lust, and because of it, ruin their partner and family's life?  Uh, no....Hell no.

Again, as I continuously say...

Just because something is, doesn't mean it's right, or the way it "should be".  A produced script is not the epitome of what makes a great script, or what all unproduced writers should strive to replicate.

As Pia said early on in this thread and I completely agreed with, these types of threads have been going on for years and they're always the same.  People can't let go and/or admit that what the "other side" is saying has merit.

I'll say it again and hopefully we'll be done with it.

Anyone can write however they want to, be they Pro, amateur, or brand fucking new.  It's up to each individual to decide what make sense, what makes the most sense, and why.  These decisions should take years, as truly understanding technicalities of this nature is much more than a simple science - as screenwriting itself is both an art and a science, and each screenwriter will put themselves into their work.

But, at the end of the day, there are things that can and most likely will get people into trouble...things that can be easily avoided, if the writer chooses to go that route.  These things can be a death knoll to any script in the hands of any reader.  You'll never know up front exactly who will be reading your script and you'll never know what idiosyncrasies he or she has when reading a script.

If your goal is t carry an egg on a spoon 500 feet and cross a line, you can do it any way you choose.  If you think you have the talent, you can hop on 1 leg the whole way, do flips, throw the egg in the air and catch it, walk backwards, etc.  Or, you can take your time, walk in a straight line, concentrating on making each step count, and getting across the finish line.

The choice is always yours, I just try to help people as much as I can by pointing out potential pitfalls.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Since we seem to agree that we are mostly trying to get past that pesky studio reader, I'm curios how many people even get that far? I know people who have sent queries for years and has never even got read by any of those readers.

I've been fortunate enough to bypass that frightening stage.
Cold solicitation and mass query letters scare the pants off me.
Because they don't allow me to demonstrate my best asset.
And I found out that *I* was my best asset after I did that great podcast here!

Thankfully, I hooked up with a production company through Sherwood Oaks.
They were impressed enough at the event to offer me coverage work.
We're repped by CAA, which in turn, packages and markets our scripts to the studios.
I am part of a core group that pours over our scripts before they get sent out.

I've taken on one of our scripts to rewrite, so that's a three step process:

1) The script has to get a strong consider or recommend from our coverage staff.
2) Then we send that script to our CAA rep and their coverage staff disembowels it.
3) If it passes CAA's muster, THEN they will package it and make the studio rounds.

These are the quality assurances we have to through to get to that studio reader.

Regards,
E.D.

Some views from a newbie, uh-oh!

Having seen the film and read this I think it sets the scene perfectly, the only thing I would argue was the introduction of Colter which read overlong IMO. As others have stated though, Ben Ripley had already done other projects, not to say he didn’t write like this previously. It just gives him a little more shall we say free will over other spec scripts.

In saying that, the story is always the major thing that sells, we can all learn the basic formatting over time. Constructing a plot with interesting characters and telling a story is completely different. That is an art that I am still trying to master as well as the formatting may I add.

Kevin

Question: Where are you reading black list scripts if you don’t mind me asking? It would be interesting to take a look.

I can't list them off the top of my head, but plenty of professional scripts I read have -ing words in the action lines.

Also, seem to be seeing a lot more "--" in description.  I wish I knew the proper way to use those.

I just read "Imagine" by Dan Fogelman and he even uses elipsis in description, which I've often wanted to do... but I'm not Dan Fogelman.

Quoted from Conz I just read "Imagine" by Dan Fogelman and he even uses elipsis in description, which I've often wanted to do... but I'm not Dan Fogelman.

I like using ellipses in action/description lines.  They provide a nice way to break things up.

Quoted from Dreamscale I like using ellipses in action/description lines.  They provide a nice way to break things up.

The old double dash -- it serves the same function as an ellipse -- but it is somehow speedier and more visual on the page.

Use 'em all the time.  I cribbed it first from Goldman way back when, but they are common now.

well, you learn something new everyday.  I've been going out of my way NOT to use to them.  

From the point of view of the script itself, the only issue I would have is the line:

"He has no idea where he is!"

Purely because I'm not sure the writer has set up enough clues that this is what's actually happening.

Other than that, I have no issue with any of it....and perhaps the reality is that this is the Director's problem, not the writers.

THERE ARE NO RULES!

These "rules" everyone goes on about are just made up on sites lke this and repeated. There is no rulebook as officially endorsed by the Producers of World Cinema.

Worry about the Story and the Characters.

By all means make the writing lean and effective, but also worry about the tone...the tone of the writing should be consistent with the story. There appears to be a desire on some sides to make out as though there is only one acceptable way of writing a script...and this is patently untrue

It get to a point when these kind of things become a major hindrance...the literary equivalent of not seeing the Woods for the Trees....staring at the make up of one tree, it's branches and the shape of the leaves and not seeing the Forest.

I think the part of where "he has no idea where he is!" is interesting. It's technically an aside. It's difficult to show. But I like it...a lot. In one line he sets up the situation for the director, the actor, most importantly, the reader. I mean, an actor CAN play that. His expression and other physical aspects will convey it. And the rest will be conveyed in the following minutes when he tells the girl across from him he has no idea, but I think it's effective to do that right away in the scene.

And that was really my point. He violated two "rules" with that one sentence, perhaps three. An aside, directing the shot, and underlining. Tssk tssk tssk. Detention time.

I decided recently to use underlining and capitalization...sparingly. Does it interfere with the read? It shouldn't. Does it make things clearer that I am afraid the reader will miss? I hope so. Will it piss people off? The only people it will bother are the people who have had "rules" drilled into them.

Jeff, if your still following, if you can't find a script that does not contain any of things, doesn't that suggest something? Doesn't make you consider...or reconsider? Does that aside really make that script less effective...or more?

Finally, given that there are some things that could be improved in the writing here, what is the more practical approach...spending countless days, months, years trying to polish a script like this...or cranking out scripts and trying to market them? After all, these are scripts, not works of art or pieces of literature. In the end, they will be either filmed and forgotten, or just forgotten.

I've not read the script, but it sounds like the writer makes it clear that he doesn't know where he is through dialogue.

That's fine then....these things are useful embellishments. Like you say it lets everyone know what's going on...CLARITY.

The reason "the rules" exist is because more often than not, writers will have a line like that, then not back it up...and sometimes whole scripts are written in this kind of pseudo literary way and nothing happens that is translatable to video or audio.

Agree hundred percent, Rick. And that really is largely what the rules are for, IMO. A guideline for beginners. Many writers, when they start out, write with quite a few unfilmables. It takes a little practice to learn how to avoid them. But once you pretty much get the hang of it, there may be times you want to knowingly and sparingly include them in your script. That's why we generally find them in the scripts written by those that really understand what they're doing.

No harm in completely writing without them, if you can make the story work!

I was out for a bit, but yes, I am still following.

The term "sparingly" is an interesting one, Kevin...especially when it's referring to underlining words and phrases for "importance".  How often is sparingly?  3-5 times per page?  I don't think so.  If you're only going to underline those words and phrases that are "important", what's that saying about all the other words and phrases?

As to your other question about what does it say if I can't produce a "Produced" script that's written like I preach, my response is exactly what I posted earlier...but I'll take it a few steps further, using my crazy analogies that I know you all love so much.

Up until the late 70's, no one was very concerned about the pollution our automobiles and factories were producing, let alone the pollution we ourselves were responsible for in littering, not recycling, etc.  Does that mean that the way things were were just fine and dandy...or even acceptable?   No, it didn't.  Thank God we finally got a clue, or we may not even be around today.

I'm a perfectionist and I look for and strive for perfection.  It may not be attainable, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying, or accept things which are clearly flawed and inferior products.

Just because the vast majority of horror movie and scripts are God awful, doesn't mean that they have to be...or should be.  Stupid, moronic characters don't have to run up the stairs and hide in a small room, when an entity is chasing them to be "acceptable" or good...cause it's not either.  They can run out the front door, jump out a window, or stand and fight, and chances are the script or movie will be immediately all the better for it.

Jeff,

The problem is that you seem to put such a vast importance on minutiae that don't really matter.

Any appraisal of this script should really be focussed on things like: Is this an effective opening? Is there a hook to get the audience involved? Does the main character seem interesting? Are there interesting visuals or opportunities for strong sound design? Is it establishing the right tone?

This little excerpt is doing so many things that many pre-pros fail to do in their first twenty pages, let alone paragrpah.

Point of view is established instantly...we meet our main character and are instantly introduced to the world. The writer is thinking both visually and in terms of sound...using the train to disorient and establish tone etc. He's even thinking about lighting and using light to create interesting effects.

There's an interesting strobe effect, the sun is rising suggesting a new beginning.

Then he's using the train tracks to create a feeling of someone being almost dragged along against his will, like a kind of inescapable destiny. (Something similar to something Hitchcock did in Strangers on a Train).

He's already layering up his future theme.

These are the important things...the things that will survive the transition to film.

After that there are commercial concerns..is this feasible in budgetary concerns, does it have a market etc etc?

I'm not having a go here, but you always seem to miss this kind of stuff and then get all upset by underlinings and such, stuff that's of so little consequence that no filmmaker is even going to notice.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Jeff, The problem is that you seem to put such a vast importance on minutiae that don't really matter. Any appraisal of this script should really be focussed on things like: Is this an effective opening? Is there a hook to get the audience involved? Does the main character seem interesting? Are there interesting visuals or opportunities for strong sound design? Is it establishing the right tone? This little excerpt is doing so many things that many pre-pros fail to do in their first twenty pages, let alone paragrpah. Point of view is established instantly...we meet our main character and are instantly introduced to the world. The writer is thinking both visually and in terms of sound...using the train to disorient and establish tone etc. He's even thinking about lighting and using light to create interesting effects. There's an interesting strobe effect, the sun is rising suggesting a new beginning. Then he's using the train tracks to create a feeling of someone being almost dragged along against his will, like a kind of inescapable destiny. (Something similar to something Hitchcock did in Strangers on a Train). He's already layering up his future theme. These are the important things...the things that will survive the transition to film. I'm not having a go here, but you always seem to miss this kind of stuff and then get all upset by underlinings and such, stuff that's of so little consequence that no filmmaker is even going to notice.

This above....and the fact that if you read enough scripts, you can tell -- by page 1 -- if you are reading a competent scriptwriter who is playing fast and loose with their prose.

On the flip-side, you can also tell by page 1 that the writer doesn't have a clue what they are doing.

Sure, there are sometimes shades of gray, but 90% of the time this is a fact.  It is.

And folks who read scripts for a living?  You can bet they spot it even faster than we do.

You have been called on this before, Jeff -- you read alot here, but you need to get OUT of here sometimes and read what is going on out there.

Read those specs and "see" what you are missing.

You guys humor me, you really do.  And I'm sure I humor you as well.

I've watched and continue to watch enough movies to feel confident in what I'm saying, when it comes to movies and the scripts they're born from.  And I have enough writing background and knowledge, in terms of both screenwriting and all other forms of writing to feel confident in what I say.

The funny thing is that anyone can "read" anything they want into something, be it a Pro or amateur script they're trying to defend, or downright praise.  It's easy.  It can even be done with a pisser or a piece of shit script, if you really try.

Rick, you say I continue to miss these certain things you bring up at various times, but I continue to say that "everyone" continues to miss the vast majority of what I bring up all the time.

But there's a big difference, because the majority of what you bring up isn't tangible...it's something you're "seeing" or reading in, that others may not.  It may or may not be something the writer even remotely was after or realized.  What I bring up is black and white and should be obvious and something that can't be argued.

Let's try this again, for the love of all that's Holy and bright.

You want to underline your entire script?  Go for it.  You want to bold the entire thing?  Sure, why the fuck not...go for it.  How about using different colors for different parts of the script, or when different characters speak?  Maybe even a different color for Protags and Antags?  OK...sure...go for it.

Does any of that change literally anything in the script in terms of what it will look like on film?  Nope...not one stinkin' bit.  So why not do it?

Am I "taking it too far" with these examples?  How far is too far?  It comes down to each reader how far is too far or what is annoying and unnecessary.

So my point once again is what, you're asking?

My point is don't write unnecessary things.  Assure yourself of not going too far overboard with any of this nonsense by not doing it at all.  Is that so crazy?

Quoted from Dreamscale My point is don't write unnecessary things.  Assure yourself of not going too far overboard with any of this nonsense by not doing it at all.  Is that so crazy?

It isn't crazy.  It is a valid viewpoint.

BUT, you are removing tools from your toolbox if you dismiss it all out-of-hand.

We are all here for pretty much the same reason, Jeff.  To learn.

That is why I once again inject myself into this tired debate -- to encourage you to get your hands on a few Black List scripts, or something similar.

Your opinion sometimes carries a lot of sway, Jeff -- but the trap is assuming that you, yourself, have nothing left to learn.

Quoted from bert It isn't crazy.  It is a valid viewpoint. BUT, you are removing tools from your toolbox if you dismiss it all out-of-hand. We are all here for pretty much the same reason, Jeff.  To learn. That is why I once again inject myself into this tired debate -- to encourage you to get your hands on a few Black List scripts, or something similar. Your opinion sometimes carries a lot of sway, Jeff -- but the trap is assuming that you, yourself, have nothing left to learn.

Wise words, summing up what I've been saying less effectively.

Jeff, the way I use underlining is not to highlight what is important. It is to highlight things I am afraid the reader will miss. And anything missed, even something relatively minor, can screw up the story. It's happened to me, and I hate when it happens. If I can use the tool of underlining, or capitalizing, or making three dimensional words that jump up and down, it's worth considering.

Those pros that use them? Chances are they use them for a reason.

You guys love to pile on...again and again.

Bert, your last comments here could (once again) be applied to anyone and any opinion.

In no way am I saying or have I ever said that I have nothing to learn and never make mistakes.

But, that doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion and feel strongly about it.  Or have complete faith in my opinions and beliefs, and feel confident that what I saying has merit.

Does it?

We always tend to get off topic when these  discussions take place.

Let's see what Kevin was originally after with this post...

He posted 1 page of a Produced script to "show" that Pro's do what he is currently doing, to show that it's more than just acceptable.

Then, because it's a "popular" and successful movie, others chimed in how amazing the writing was, how perfect in what it got across to the readers, blah, blah, blah.  A few had a minor qualm about this line or that line.

I gave my opinion and stand by it.  Having not seen the script in a PDF form, I don't know exactly what the first page looks like, in terms of bolded or underlined passages, but in no way is anyone ever gong to be able to convince me that the multiple sentence character intro is the way to go, or even semi necessary.

Quoted from Dreamscale You guys love to pile on...again and again.

Heh...yeah, just happens to be a lazy afternoon around here.

I will ask you one last question, Jeff, then leave it at that.  And really think about it for a second.

This opinion that readers will toss a script aside for some of these transgressions...did you actually READ that from a honest source that you trust....or is it just an opinion formed over time from haunting around these boards...and convincing yourself this must be the case?

My opinions were identical to yours, Jeff.  About three years ago.

Come join us on the dark side.......

Well, I can't quote who I've heard it from, but I do know for a fact that I've read it from multiple sources, on multiple screenwriting websites.

And Bert, c'mon, lets' be honest here.  I do not say that I or anyone else will stop reading a script based on a single violation of this or that.  Never the case.  But there is a line where things go overboard...whatever they are, and if the script ain't cuttin' it anyway, good bye read.  Period.  Or, if I'm being paid to read, or doing it as a favor from a friend, when the annoyances start to mount, my feelings on the script go downhill fast.

Lazy afternoon here as well.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Leaving aside the "intangible" thing...the problem is that you've created rules for yourself and then are using them to evaluate the quality of any given script in a purely mechanical way.

But those rules are largely arbitary. They aren't based on anything tangible, as you seem to think. They aren't based on what's selling, what makes good films or anything else.

Like Kev says, all these "rules" are just guidelines intended for neophyte writers to put them in the general area of how to write a script. They aren't written in stone.

4 lines of character description isn't necessarily a bad thing...it might be, it might also be considered necessary in the mind of a writer for his own personal reasons.

You're a victim of sites like these in a way...people have repeated things so often that they've become accepted truths, but when we analyse how things are in the real world, these "truths" are found to be wrong.

@ 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?