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.
I think you are reaching if you turn 'bloody good' or 'page turners' into 'incredible' for the sake of your argument.
Your stats re 'incredible' scripts may well be correct... But there are plenty of working writers, in fact the majority based on your own estimates, who are happy enough with their optioned/sold/produced 'page turners'.
One day I hope to write something incredible, but i'd settle for bloody good too.
Anthony, yes, you are correct. My quote does take a leap from what Libby literally stated.
My point goes far beyond just hat Libby said here, though. There's a belief out there (and in here at SS0, that Pro scripts have something that amateur scripts don't have. That if a Pro does it, it's OK, it's "right", it's the way to do it.
That's not correct, though. If something is "right", it's right because it it's right, not because so and so did it or does it. And when something is not right, it's not right no matter who does it...successful or not, Pro or amateur.
And, IMO, it doesn't matter if whatever is being discussed doesn't affect the script other than being not the best way to do it.
I think one issue here is the word Pro. What is a pro. A professional. (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.
A writer who is a pro, someone who's main income comes from writing, is probably a pretty good writer and does not churn out crummy scripts. That's why they get paid to write. I think one mistake people make here is assuming that anyone who has an agent is a pro. That is not correct. I know several writers who are with the four major Hollywood agencies, they have yet to earn enough money to be able to live on it. So, when I think of a pro, I think of those writers who make a real living from writing and the scripts these writers write are pretty much always better than amateurs. Reading Blacklist, Bloodlist and whatever else lists scripts are great, because we know they are on those list because they're pretty darn good, but that doesn't mean those writers are pros, IMHO.
There's a belief out there (and in here at SS0, that Pro scripts have something that amateur scripts don't have. That if a Pro does it, it's OK, it's "right", it's the way to do it.
I don't believe that was any one's position
Quoted Text
That's not correct, though. If something is "right", it's right because it it's right, not because so and so did it or does it. And when something is not right, it's not right no matter who does it...successful or not, Pro or amateur.
For objective criteria (typos, grammar, etc.) I don't think anyone disagrees. There are other areas (use of asides, unfilmables, bold slugs, using more specific times - dusk/dawn et al in slugs, etc.) where non adherence to a specific guideline makes for a better read. Long winded way of saying in applying the "something is not right" criteria is not always whether or not it is in some screenwriting handbook, but rather in the subjective view of whether or not it makes the script a better read.
But none of this was the core of the thread. It was whether or not a perceived transgression - the use of we - is grounds for evaluating the entire content of a script. To me it clearly is not and is more of an indication of a bad reviewer than it is of a bad writer.
My point, as it's always been, is that Pro writers don't always write great scripts. In fact, they rarely do.
I watch alot of movies...not as many as I used to, but still alot. I read up on each movie I watch on IMDB afterwards. I check out Rotten Tomatoes as well.
Look at the critical reception as well as the Box Office reception to movies. Not usually very positive, and many, many times, critics (and movie goers alike) have very negative things to say about the writing, the story, the characters, etc.
I just don't understand the fascination with Pros and what they spit out. We all know so much of it is garbage, yet writer type peeps (on SS, at least) always say that you can't blame a writer for the filmed version of their vision.
A former member emailed me and asked me to post this.
“I just don't understand the fascination with Pros”
It’s not about a fascination with pros. It’s actually only about one thing: using the best craftsmanship possible.
Where do standards for screenwriting come from? Same as any field: they are the ones most widely applied by the professionals of that field. Should writers really follow the advice of anyone who thinks otherwise?
There are several objectives in screenwriting which are the foundation for the standards in the first place. Clarity, brevity, conveying things visually, conveying tone, and if it’s a spec script, making the read enjoyable for the reader.
Sometimes these principal objectives come into conflict with each other and require a bending of the appropriate “rule”. For example, using active verbs, normally preferable to passive, sometimes is not the best way to create white space. Or sometime the passive voice is the most efficient way to draw the scene the way the writer wants the reader to see it in a certain order in his mind.
Saying something can’t be done because “it’s not correct” or because “it violates a rule” is just not a logical approach. It’s not a professional approach. The logical approach is to use what works BEST. Where rules of thumb result in awkwardness, lack of clarity, or less white space a true craftsman will seek better ways to do it. That’s what you see in 99% of pro scripts.
I’ve seen plenty of pro scripts where the story does nothing for me. But rarely have I seen one where the writing was a problem. Each writer uses what he thinks works best for that script and according to his style and voice.
Rules are not really rules...they are rules of thumb designed to help amateurs. Nothing more.
Rules are supposed to work for the writer, not against him. Where excessive devotion results in a reduction of clarity or white space or smoothness of read the rules must be bent, or even discarded at times.
“We see” is a perfect example. Amateurs fill their scripts with them. I know I did with my first script. So the “rule of thumb” gets rightly passed down: avoid “we see”. But then people who are eager to teach screenwriting, or who are perhaps comforting themselves that they have mastered form, turn a rule of thumb into a canonical rule. But the fact is that there are situations where “we see” might be the most efficient and most clear way to write what you want the reader to see. By what logic would you take that out of a writer’s tool box? If it happens to be the best way in that particular situation...the briefest, the clearest...why would a writer not follow logic and use it?
So it has nothing to do with "fascination" with pros. It's all about using what works best, never anything more than that. Citing pro scripts merely points to the obvious flaws in the approach of those who think there is one "correct" solution for every screenwriting situation. "
Libby, are you really saying something even close to "all (or most) Pro scripts are incredible"?
Nope, you can breathe easy. I clearly should have been more succinct with my words. Plenty of these (Pro, Black, Blood) scripts I open, I read a bit, then close, for all sorts of reasons, but not because of 'we see' etc.
What I took Libby to mean was that they read well and the stories were compelling enough for someone to overlook a few minor typos and 'we sees' and appreciate the narrative enough to produce it.
... But none of this was the core of the thread. It was whether or not a perceived transgression - the use of we - is grounds for evaluating the entire content of a script. To me it clearly is not and is more of an indication of a bad reviewer than it is of a bad writer. ...
Agree CJ, but as we know from various writing communities, that there is a minority of people who prefer to take the agressive/negative/personal approach to feedback, arguing that toughening up writers is just doing them a favour. They're often the ones with little of their own writing on display!
I think you can support and coach any writer to be better in a positive and constructive manner, and that's not to be great, even good necessarily... But better, seems a reasonable aspiration and the right appraoch to me.
Kevin L wrote that. I miss him around here. One of the most helpful people out there.
I had a feeling it was Kev but didn't say anything till I was sure.
Kevin, you should just post yourself when you feel like it - you still have a username, right? I do understand you obviously don't want to be involved in a verbal tennis match but surely going though a proxy (Pia, in this case) is the equivalent of posting something yourself anyway. You can still elect not to respond to whatever follows or might develop further, surely.
Anyway, absolutely no need to respond to this post. I just want to say I too always enjoyed/enjoy your intelligent and well thought out views and responses re screenwriting.
I'll note, for those late to the party, is that the person who claimed she read my script never even read it. Never was invited to read it. But she said there was "we see this, we see that" all over the pages, when in fact it wasn't. Not even close. And when confronted with that, then claimed there were multiple issues on the first half page alone! Multiple issues. Funny how the good folks at SS read the same script and not once pointed out these multiple issues on the first page. Um, maybe because there are none.
That's funny stuff. I've known people who exhibit these same characteristics -- habitual lying, delusions of grandeur, etc. Base yourself in reality, please.
Couldn't agree more Steven... Now I'm off to see the King of the Universe in my flying car
On a more serious note, I called Alle out a while ago and asked her to share some of her own writing so we could learn by her example... She repeatedly refused
Pages: 
Author
Out By Page 1??
Logged
Locked Board