All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Like Dustin rightly said, these "gurus" weren't good enough themselves to make it so now they have to justify there existence by scaring writers who have just started out into buying their "services". Some of them are legit however but it can be impossible to tell in this internet age.
This is what it basically comes down to. I wouldn't get too caught up with what guru's preach. Usually those are people that failed at what they were trying to do so they refocused to find a way and earn money in the same field. Read produced screenplays, see for yourself what is acceptable and what is not, draw your own conclusions and go by that. If it's the right field for you, you'll figure it out.
Here are Frank Darabont's thoughts on the subject:
Quoted Text
The whole industry of - we can make you a screenwriter. I have ambivalent feelings because, ultimately, even though there is some benefit to be gained by those things I stress the word "some" benefit, minimal benefit - ultimately you know what it all boils down to? You're sitting at your desk, all by yourself for years, trying to figure out your craft and applying the effort necessary. And that's what nobody wants to hear. Everybody wants to hear, I can teach you a three-act structure, I can give you a formula, and you'll be selling screenplays within six months. Bullshit. And what's really funny is, these guys in the business of being screenwriting gurus, they don't ever write screenplays. I have never seen one of these guys' names on a screen credit in a movie.
I still find this kind of stuff useful, even if a simple marketing trick. Which it is.
I have just read a handful of scripts at MP. We are all amateurs over there...and here as well.
But, but...it is very clear when someone is new. Even if they have read up and tried.
The reason that some'pro's' break rules is that they are;
1) Confident enough to say I don't give a shit
2) use it correctly, and effectively
Rules are often wrong, or can be limiting, in certain circumstances.
So, for example, a six line opening scene would be a red flag...until you read the most visual and powerful opening six liner you have ever read. Then it was a rule that had no relevance. Could I pull off a six liner that blew a reader away...probably not. I keep to two or three lines to keep it dynamic. I know my limits.
So, the rules are useful, lists like this are useful, just don't get obsessed over it.
Tell it visually
Tell it fast
Tell it in a compelling way
Tell it so that they want to read on
Tell them something new
Get those right and they will read on, even with an ing word.
(PS - I agree on the ing words being the second verb - thanks Jeff for that - and being used to show a dynamic situation. John August also made the point they are useful for showing the change of movement. Eg John walks in to the shop singing. He goes quiet. Susan stands at the till with her Husband etc)
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
A professional screenplay writer is somebody that writes professional screenplays. I don't see any difference between many of the writers here and that of many produced scripts. Indeed, many, many produced scripts are written by directors that believe writing is easy and do it themselves. They're not professional screenplay writers. They just know how to get funding for a film.
Decent article. Raises shitty script awareness. I'll agree and disagree with this point:
3. Description is in past tense instead of present tense and does not use the active form of the verb. For example, John drives � not John is driving. Danny stands � not is standing. No -ING verbs.
ING verbs are easy to screw up, but can make the read quicker if you use them properly. When writers aren't aware of the pitfalls ING can lead to, it reads poorly. The writer is then forced to ink robotic sentences to follow the rule of active verbs (not voice), which in turn sacrifices their writing voice.
However, if a writer knows how to use them - they can combine multiple actions leading to a dynamic sentence. Just consider this when using the forbidden ING:
- If you're using 1 verb in a sentence, don't ING that sucker - They sometimes add words; never use "is" to complete a verb - They add syllables causing large words to become even larger - The ING verb is submissive to the active verb - Don't use nominalzations - modifying a verb into a noun
I personally believe it's more of a sin to use an excess of adverbs and adjectives, far more lethal than INGs.
The thing with the ING verbs is that sometimes they are more appropriate than just S or ES verbs. If the scene starts with the character already doing something, ING just sounds better. Let's say the scene begins with someone already in a chair. If you say "John SITS in a chair" it sounds like we actually see him sit down, whereas "John sitting in a chair" is more accuarate because he's already in the chair. I've read a LOT of pro scripts with plenty of ING verbs, too. I've seen a lot of John August stuff where he uses ING, even when it would sound better to use S or ES.
The thing with the ING verbs is that sometimes they are more appropriate than just S or ES verbs. If the scene starts with the character already doing something, ING just sounds better. Let's say the scene begins with someone already in a chair. If you say "John SITS in a chair" it sounds like we actually see him sit down, whereas "John sitting in a chair" is more accuarate because he's already in the chair. I've read a LOT of pro scripts with plenty of ING verbs, too. I've seen a lot of John August stuff where he uses ING, even when it would sound better to use S or ES.
Don't forget the ole "Seated in a chair, John..."
Adjective "clauses" are still dependent on a main clause, although in screenwriting sometimes we can get away with it without it sounding goofy. Also, if using them in between a subject and verb, ensure you write it short and sweet. If too many words separate them, it causes confusion to the reader.
The technique has tons of value. It helps cut down on repetitious sentences!