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.
Here's a passage from the "Chronicles" screenplay aka. "Zodiac" (David Fincher). I have the shooting script I think, or at least the penultimate draft.
Quoted Text
The Man turns away. Walking back to his car. A GROAN. The Man turns. Walks back to the Corvair, reloading. Mike. Still alive.
See how it's all broken up with periods? The sentence in the middle has no subject ect.
And we've got a sentence which just says "Mike"...
How acceptable is this in screenplay format? To me the passage was really cool, and I notice this sort of writing in a lot of action screenplays.
What are your thoughts and feelings?
For example:
Quoted Text
The man SHOOTS. Reaches for another clip. Reloads. Max, on the floor, STRUGGLING.
Zodiac's a great film, great script. At its basis a well documented story, and story is always key. People will forgive you and go along for the ride if you've got them transfixed by the story - i.e., a page-turner.
Fragments are often used in screenplays and in this case isolating (Mike.) actually accentuates the fact that at this point he is 'alive' but in a minute he won't be. It aids in the rhythm.
Have you read the script for Nightcrawler, Max? That turns industry standard on its head. Mind you Dan Gilroy directed so he can write it however he pleases.
Max, what you've quoted is "staccato" writing. Personally, I use it in my writing quite often.
I see it as a part of pure language, instead of language controlled by orthography. Especially it is used to explain something quickly. Somehow it's a colloquial expression too. Personally, I use it as the author does here; when things are blank and just happen as they would happen on screen.
You may see, the writer didn't use any detailed descriptions or adjectives as for example: The character reloads with fury in his eyes to shoot the bullet straight blah...
No, they just act.
IMO and I can't emphasize it enough; because many writers swear on prose only; it is a very strong tool to break off your own writing structure. It gives variety. At all, short sentences make long sentences strong and the other way round. Like when you cap everything it's like capitalizing nothing.
Zodiac's a great film, great script. At its basis a well documented story, and story is always key. People will forgive you and go along for the ride if you've got them transfixed by the story - i.e., a page-turner.
Fragments are often used in screenplays and in this case isolating (Mike.) actually accentuates the fact that at this point he is 'alive' but in a minute he won't be. It aids in the rhythm.
Have you read the script for Nightcrawler, Max? That turns industry standard on its head. Mind you Dan Gilroy directed so he can write it however he pleases.
I've seen Nightcrawler and read portions of the script. The mini-slug approach annoyed me personally, lol.
Give me a script which is full of CAPS though, like Edge of Tommorow (ALL YOU NEED IS KILL), and I drool all over it.
Weird huh?
And cheers Moby for the term, didn't know what it was called.
It will always come down to taste in the end. Personally, I like that writing style. Lean and without much fuss. That style works especially well for action sequences, where everything needs to pop.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Style of writing should reflect style and tone of the film.
Sometimes a long, literary style is appropriate, sometimes a short staccato style like this is.
Just like some films are very slow, with long shots of people doing little, and some films are non-stop action with a million cuts per second.
Short style, in general, is used mainly for action films or action sequences to mimic the quick editing you'd see on screen.
Although you are using words, screenwriters are not writers in the way novelists or short story writers are. You use language to mimic cinematic language...you are trying to create the impression of a visual and sonic medium. Whatever works in that capacity is fine.
My five cents: staccato writing is great (when applied in a subtle manner.) IE: it really punches up an action sequence, but can get tiresome if used through a full script. That said, every writer has their own style. Pros can get away with more creativity than those who haven't "broken in." Anyone ever read "The Babysitter?" Damn, talk about breaking major rules. It sold quite well. (Not all that impressed with the story, even. But that's what happens when something gets heat.) ) Ultimately, there are very few rules in screenwriting: KNOW proper format. Be able to write professionally, smoothly, succinctly and intelligently. Have a riveting story and characters, and know when you *can* get away with stylistic gimmicks.
Its the same with all writing. Your writing simply has to flow. Doesn't matter how you do it. Sometimes that will mean writing in a more staccato manner. Others will take being verbose. Just go with what comes naturally. Don't try to force it and you should be fine. Each story will often contain a mixture of different styles.
Both examples? Or just mine? I just wrote in the style of the excerpt, to give an example of how sentences are broken up in a pro script.
Tell me what's wrong with the excerpt though, in your opinion.
Both examples.
IMO, this goes way beyond staccato or stacking. It's just plain wierd.
As others have correctly said, a quicker paced writing style works well in heavy action scenes.
Why, you may ask?
Well...let's just break it down to the old a single passage should equate to a single thought or action. The quicker you're cutting between shots and the like, the less you'll see in the passage.
I don't understand why your example is all jumbled together on the same line, and then broken up where it is. Makes no sense as presented.
IMO, this goes way beyond staccato or stacking. It's just plain wierd.
As others have correctly said, a quicker paced writing style works well in heavy action scenes.
Why, you may ask?
Well...let's just break it down to the old a single passage should equate to a single thought or action. The quicker you're cutting between shots and the like, the less you'll see in the passage.
I don't understand why your example is all jumbled together on the same line, and then broken up where it is. Makes no sense as presented.
You understand why the Zodiac excerpt is jumbled together though, right? Because it's exactly the same thing, omitting the subject from the sentence.
There's literally no difference structurally between what I wrote and the Zodiac example.
Another example:
Quoted Text
Max puts his hand over hers. Looks at her. Don't move. They wait for what seems an eternity. Then...
That's the way action is written in the Zodiac script, like that.
What's wrong with the above example? I don't think that's bad writing for a screenplay, it's clear, succinct, and gives you all you need to know without wasting any additional space.
Max, each example you posted is 2 lines. Is that really how it reads in script form?
I'm very much against omitting the subject like this, as it just doesn't make any sense why one would want to. It can be confusing when the scene has more than 1 potential subject, which means, the writing will be different depending on that fact.
And, again, these examples do not look like spec scripts, which is what you will be writing.
But, as many often say, wrote however you want to. Emulate whoever you choose to. Pick whatever style you feel is the latest and greatest that has sold. It's your choice, bro.
Max, each example you posted is 2 lines. Is that really how it reads in script form?
I'm very much against omitting the subject like this, as it just doesn't make any sense why one would want to. It can be confusing when the scene has more than 1 potential subject, which means, the writing will be different depending on that fact.
And, again, these examples do not look like spec scripts, which is what you will be writing.
But, as many often say, wrote however you want to. Emulate whoever you choose to. Pick whatever style you feel is the latest and greatest that has sold. It's your choice, bro.
2 lines yeah.
But why can't you write a spec script in that style? It's still the same read. It's not like the staccato writing changes because the script is spec.
Do you like reading the Zodiac script? I personally love it, and the style.
Near Dark, written by Kathryn Bigelow and Eric Red, both Pros before this was written, came out in 1987 - 28 years ago.
The script is 122 pages long and there isn't a single blank line in the action/description passages. The movie, including credits, is 94 minutes. If lines were skipped, as they "should be", this script is close to 200 pages.
To say it's overwritten is like saying Jurassic World's BO performance is pretty good - IT'S EXTREMELY OVERWRITTEN. It's also extremely dense.
It's a very poor example of how to write a screenplay.
As for Alien, I think enough has been said over the years, but let's understand, it was written close to 40 years ago, and again, written by a Pro.
These are not examples of Spec scripts, nor are they examples of recent scripts.
I don't know about Near Dark but Alien was a spec script, even the Hill-Giler draft was a spec script - they had not secured any deal with Fox when they wrote it. And for what it's worth, Walter Hill has always written like this, even before he turned "pro".
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
I don't know about Near Dark but Alien was a spec script, even the Hill-Giler draft was a spec script - they had not secured any deal with Fox when they wrote it. And for what it's worth, Walter Hill has always written like this, even before he turned "pro".
Walter Hill does write like that. But so do others.
Had a chance to look at the script for the 2001 movie Dust - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243232/. A few months back. Which was a spec script. Not Hollywood financed. Mainly UK. Budget around 10 mil.
The director who is NY based and has been nominated for an Academy Award, writes in a similar way. Here is an example:
Quoted Text
INT. ANGELA'S APARTMENT, NIGHT
Underneath the balaclava, a menacing face appears - EDGE.
Dangerous, intense... wicked.
Adjusts gun in back of pants. Goes through drawers, finds nothing.
Three bucks in a cookie jar.
Sweeps books to the floor.
Straightens slick new suit - his pride. Turns on tv.
A locked chest of drawers. Another airplane ROARS overhead.
Smiles. Pries it open. A crack and a snap:
A pocket watch inside. Pockets it.
Not everyone's cup of tea. But people do it. So... do whatever makes you happy
But..as I said earlier, don't write a 20m page script and think it will work as a spec script...cuz...well...it won't.
It does work... sometimes. For specific things. Action scenes for example. They work REALLY well with fragmented writing. Helps the director see it clearer.
Different strokes for different folks though, right?
It does work... sometimes. For specific things. Action scenes for example. They work REALLY well with fragmented writing. Helps the director see it clearer.
Different strokes for different folks though, right?
Right, but not 200 page scripts...they don't work on spec.
Right, but not 200 page scripts...they don't work on spec.
200 page scripts? No... no they don't work as a spec script, shooting script or any other version of a script whatsoever.
Not even sure ANYONE could write a 200 page script. It'd just drag on way too long. Hell, if my midpoint was at 100 pages, I'd get bored of writing it.
Hell, if my midpoint was at 100 pages, I'd get bored of writing it.
That happened to me with one of my comedy scripts... that was several months ago and I've written two features since as well as half of another feature, finished the children's novel and also written several shorts. I'm at 90+ and only hitting the mid point. Exactly as you said, I got bored of writing it.
That happened to me with one of my comedy scripts... that was several months ago and I've written two features since as well as half of another feature, finished the children's novel and also written several shorts. I'm at 90+ and only hitting the mid point. Exactly as you said, I got bored of writing it.
It sucks, right?
It happens on the reverse too. A while back I was writing a Western that sounded cool in my head, started writing it out, then at Page 30 or so I realized I was over halfway through the story I'd planned out and that there wasn't enough material to complete a feature. So I scrapped the whole thing and restarted the planning from the ground up.
Guess you just gotta realize how a certain story should unfold, and how long is too long or how short is too short. If you've got enough to write a feature or too much. Cut the fat off the bacon and let it sizzle a while longer for extra crisp.
I've finished a few initial drafts around the 60+ mark. Sometimes it's worth sticking with it and finding more story. I still intend to go back to the comedy one day.
Pages: 
Author
Is writing like this frowned upon?
Logged
) Ultimately, there are very few rules in screenwriting: KNOW proper format. Be able to write professionally, smoothly, succinctly and intelligently. Have a riveting story and characters, and know when you *can* get away with stylistic gimmicks.
Locked Board