So, I joined this Facebook group last night for film makers. You know, share my work, make a few contacts, etc. This morning I posted my script Man's Best Friend ( on the boards here) in hopes of getting some feedback, maybe get a read or two, or who knows maybe a filmmaker will see it and love it.

So, this guy reads it. Loves it. I say thank you. That's cool. Then a so-called industry professional takes a look. Shes got IMDB creds. On page 1 she spots -- "We cut to..." Now I know most of the rules, I know anything we is frowned upon, but I used it anyway. She goes on to trash me in her posts, saying that she gave up after a couple pages because my script had "we see this" "we see that" throughout.

Really? Except for the one on page one it doesn't appear anywhere else in the script! Nowhere. So, I call her out on it. She proceeds to give me her resume, all her successes at Cannes, and how she's been reading "these documents called scripts" -- exact quote -- for 18 years. You know, some real condescending crap.

All I wanted was for her to fess up and admit that she never even read a couple pages, and just assumed the script sucked based on that one "we see" on page 1. Hasn't happened yet.

But that leads to a good point from an article I read last week about sending your script out into the big bad world for judgement. Some studio "readers" will only read one page of your script before they toss it in the trash. The woman I had the issue with is a reminder of that. So, maybe a little food for thought, and some insight as to how this "thing they call screenwriting" really works.

If she were a bloke I'd call her a dick.

As I read it she;

1] said she'd read more when she hadn't - lied in fact

2] Locked on to one phrase and bailed - that doesn't sound like a pro. Quite the opposite actually.

As we know in this business, there are a lot opinions out there. And as is often said in the army, opinions are like arseholes, we all have one.

Rough with the smooth, I'm afraid.

How many times do we have to read an article which says the pro readers don't care about format etc if the story is gripping.

All the best

If I had to read as many scripts as these readers do per day, I think I'd be miserable. I'd figure a lot of them would look for any reason they could to throw a given script into the trash. Not very professional, perhaps, but think about how many people out there flat out don't take their jobs seriously and will cut any and all corners they can get away with. In any industry. Everybody's met one.

You're not always gonna get a fair shake. All you can do is put your best foot forward and hope for the best. Or pander. That too.

Quoted Text As they drive away, we HOLD ON the cop.

This is on page 2 I think on the Spotlight script. Which won an Oscar for best original screenplay and best picture this year.

So yeah, a lot of famous writers use WE.

She was probably just trying to come off as she knows a lot, when in reality she knows very little.

Yeah, all of what you guys said is pretty much what I thought. Even guru Carson Reeves wasn't very pleased with Spotlight, as I recall.

And not only did she lie, she made an excuse for it by saying she went to bed at 3am and had a 7am call. I guess she was just tuckered out.

But there's more! Last night on my initial post she asked me if I write full time. I don't. I work two regular jobs, to which she replied, "Ahh, so you're among the 99.99999 0/0 of writers today" -- which she meant as the ones that never make it! So, for some reason, she was trashing me even before I posted my script. Laughable.

I don't know why people have to act that way.
If she didn't like it, she doesn't need to blab it to everyone.
Maybe it makes her feel like somebody special. Who knows.

Sorry someone did that to you.

Thanks Cindy. Its all good. Personally, I think it makes her look bad and I think people will recognize that.  

CJ,

That be the one.

Oh jesus is Alle still doing the rounds!

As CJ says, Google her... She used to be a regular on Stage 32, known for trolling, total nightmare... and do check her IMDB credits, hilarious!

Yeah, I Googled her earlier, but didn't look too close. Checked her imdb and, aside from the obvious, something seemed a little off. But deeper in the Google search is where I saw a few, um, things.

Wow.  Well, I haven't Googled this person yet, but:

1) Steve, I know your writing, and I know Man's Best Friend in particular.  Both stellar stuff.  And if she didn't see that outright, then WTH?

2) If she pulled "Too many We's", and there was only one on the first page?  Geez, gotta love people like that.

Trust me, I read oodles for STS - and yes, the slush pile can be tiring (no offense to anyone whatsoever who has submitted - I'm saying that reading lots of scripts takes lots of time).  But I also recognize gems when I see them. And I tell it like I see it... and *definitely* don't distort my script assessment with made-up excuses.

So - take the criticism from whence it comes... and ignore it.

Ditto to what Janet said.

Steve, my thoughts on this person's critique, if it can even be called that: Bunkum.

Btw, 'We' etc. is primarily a writer's criticism not a lay-person's view reading a script/story. To reiterate what Demento said, tons of pro scripts use it and nobody cares. Story is key ad infinitum.

The key with networking is finding the right people to network with, and weeding out the hacks.

Thanks Janet. Appreciate all the help and advice you've given me this past year or two.

Libby, I called this person out for what she said. I knew she was full of it. I even read back my script and dared her to find another we. She didn't respond to that, just more excuses. It was laughable, and by no means did I take it to heart.

What a loser, hahahaha

Agree totally with CJ, she poisonous!

This individual may be a real asswipe, idiot, bitch, whatever you want to call her, but there is a lesson to be learned here.

As I've always said, when you do things that you know are issues to "some" peeps, you're risking hearing something similar, or just, "I'm out".

You guys know I do this routinely and I don't do it out of spite, to be a cock, to look cool, knowledgeable, or anything of the sort.

If someone makes a "mistake" in the opening Slug or passage, uses "we see, we hear, we whatever", chances are good I will not continue because I either know or assume what I'm in for.  I may be missing a great script, story, or whatever, but chances are god that I'm right in what I'm assuming.

Readers have to make choices where to invest their time.  Don't give them such easy reasons to bail on your script.

I have always believed that the weaker the skills or the focus (or both) of the reviewer, the more they overemphasize non-essential issues. Whether you use a "we see" or not is a non-essential issue.

I get what Jeff is saying. Not that I was looking to that wacko I came across, but I also said this in my original post about a lesson to be learned. Real pro industry types who read these scripts are gonna look for anything so they can bail on a script. Not saying its right. It's just the way it is. I think format rules -- the basics -- are easier to break once you've already broken into the business.

Quoted from SAC I get what Jeff is saying. Not that I was looking to that wacko I came across, but I also said this in my original post about a lesson to be learned. Real pro industry types who read these scripts are gonna look for anything so they can bail on a script. Not saying its right. It's just the way it is. I think format rules -- the basics -- are easier to break once you've already broken into the business.

I do believe that it is a reason they may bail on an otherwise bad script. But they would bail anyways. I do not believe it is a reason they will bail on an otherwise good script.

Quoted from CJ Walley It would be worth giving the group moderators a heads up on her history and other aliases...

Quoted from AnthonyCawood Agree totally with CJ, she poisonous!

No need for an exhaustive background, thanks.  Unless you have got something particularly insidious and prurient -- which is always welcome (although Don is above such things) -- a few quick glances here and there on the web have told me all that I care to know for the moment.

A quick heads-up if you spot her lurking about might be nice, though I am fairly sure she has yet to grace us with her learned presence.

Quoted from eldave1 I have always believed that the weaker the skills or the focus (or both) of the reviewer, the more they overemphasize non-essential issues. Whether you use a "we see" or not is a non-essential issue.

I do not agree the slightest bit, Dave.

There are many, many "non-essential" issues that occur and turn peeps off to the point where they bail.

This is an age old discussion and it's not only creative choices, it's also downright mistakes, typos, poor grammar, etc.  Those who are not strong  "writers", always are the ones who say these things shouldn't matter...but they do.

The "we see" and "we hear" issues are interesting to me, because there are so very few reasons to actually use such a phrase, because every action and description written in a script is seen and every piece of dialogue or described sounds are heard.

Bottom line - they are a waste and it doesn't matter if a Pro uses them over and over - they are a waste and are the first ways a brand new writer writes, because they don't know any better.  Why someone who does know better continues to choose to do it is way beyond me.

Quoted from Dreamscale I do not agree the slightest bit, Dave. There are many, many "non-essential" issues that occur and turn peeps off to the point where they bail. This is an age old discussion and it's not only creative choices, it's also downright mistakes, typos, poor grammar, etc.  Those who are not strong  "writers", always are the ones who say these things shouldn't matter...but they do. The "we see" and "we hear" issues are interesting to me, because there are so very few reasons to actually use such a phrase, because every action and description written in a script is seen and every piece of dialogue or described sounds are heard. Bottom line - they are a waste and it doesn't matter if a Pro uses them over and over - they are a waste and are the first ways a brand new writer writes, because they don't know any better.  Why someone who does know better continues to choose to do it is way beyond me.

That's cool, Jeff. But let's not include typos and grammar in the issue as they are objective measures. No one would argue that it makes sense to include either in a script. Nor am I advocating the "we hear". "We hear a GUNSHOT" as not as compelling as "A GUNSHOT pierces the silence." But that is not the point.

If one bails on the script because of that (or a similar) issue they are (a) a bad reviewer and (b) would not bail if the script was otherwise compelling.  

So - agree to disagree I guess.

One only needs to look at the type of people that do bail after reading things like this to realise that we don't have anything to worry about.

Quoted from DustinBowcot One only needs to look at the type of people that do bail after reading things like this to realise that we don't have anything to worry about.

Yea we get totally worked up about this and lose focus at the same time. If someone was holding a mill and reading mine and bailed due to a typo I'd be peed, but how many people who bail are the make or break of you script, pretty much none.

Well said, CJ.

I agree with Jeff about work being compromised if a script has a lot of typos, lack of punctuation, grammar mistakes etc. i.e., a blatant disregard for professionalism as a writer, but time and time again we surely have to stop obsessing about 'We see' etc. - I read Blackscripts, Bloodscripts, pro-scripts with all sorts of blunders as far as the rules go.

The one thing these scripts all have in common though is that they're bloody good stories/page turners.

Quoted from CJ Walley scripts are read with a degree of optimism and a focus on potential. They are looking for entertaining storytelling. Plus, when it comes to a paid reader, they are paid to read a solicited script in full and provide coverage aligned with their employer, not to freak out and toss the whole slush pile in the bin every time someone breaks one of their made up petty rules.

This is true. They have to write coverage for all the scripts they read as proof they've actually read them. I'm sure they can get cranky if the writer has a million mistakes and such, but the reader's main job is to find good, unique, marketable stories. That's all they are looking for. What they are paid to find.

I'm still struggling with grammar and such, but I've come a loooong way in the last ten years. I wrote a female lead thriller The Hit, sent the first draft to Screenplay Readers and got only CONSIDERS back. I had two friends read it and they said it wasn't too bad. I figured it can't suck too bad then, so I posted it on InkTip and it got picked up by Mind's Eye Entertainment. It was a freaking first draft! With warts and all.  

Pia, I think your grammar etc.is always pretty darned good. I would never guess you were of NESB if I hadn't known already. Read plenty of your stuff and the occasional interesting choice of word, but that's all. It's obvious you put a lot of work in, but then you are prolific so it clearly paid off. Admirable.

Quoted from LC The one thing these scripts all have in common though is that they're bloody good stories/page turners.

Well, I can't just walk away...wish I could, but I can't.

Libby, are you really saying something even close to "all (or most) Pro scripts are incredible"?

And I don't mean to call you out, cuz I hear this horseshit so often, it just makes my big old head spin.

Of the 1,000 or so scripts that turn into actual movies each year, how many are based on original scripts that are incredible stories?  20?  15?  Less than 10?  How many are critically praised as great ideas, well written, etc?  20?  15?  Less than 10?

And these oh so coveted Blacklist scripts that sit around for years, not being picked up..what does that tell you?  It tells me all I need to know.  

Jeff

I think you are reaching if you turn 'bloody good' or 'page turners' into 'incredible' for the sake of your arguement.

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.

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.

Quoted from AnthonyCawood Jeff 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.

Back to my island...

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.

Just wanted to clear up what a pro is IMO.  

Quoted Text 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.

Peace

I know what you're saying, Pia.

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.

I say, Bull Shit..you sure can!!

Quoted from eldave1 Peace

Peace, brother.  We all have our different thoughts and beliefs and that's what makes this world go round.

Quoted from Dreamscale Peace, brother.  We all have our different thoughts and beliefs and that's what makes this world go round.

True, that.

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. "

Former member?

I went to bed so missed all that followed...

Catching up:

Quoted from Dreamscale 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.

Quoted from AnthonyCawood 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.

Yep.

Quoted from eldave1 ... 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. ...

Yep, again.

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.

Anthony

Quoted from CJ Walley Great post, Pia. I feel the same about craftmanship.

Just to be clear. I didn't write that. I couldn't string that many words together and make sense if my life depended on it.

Kevin L wrote that. I miss him around here. One of the most helpful people out there.

Quoted from Grandma Bear 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.  

On another note, CJ, great post too.

Quite a bit of debate. It's good to see that.

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.

It's all good though.

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

It'a all in the attitude. I appreciate when folks point out things that they perceive to violate the rules. A reviewer really has no idea whether I intended to or not so I always welcome the comment. I have learned a TON from this site in that regard. That may be rooted in the fact that I have never had a writing class or read a screen writing book - nonetheless - SS has been my college in that regard.

That being said, negative comments don't have too be nasty. However,  I have no right to demand that they are not since I am getting a review for free. However, other than stuff like typos, then should be framed in a manner that the receiver of those comments are not misdirected.

A good example is unfilmables. I used to avoid them thinking that it was a rock solid rule. Now, I enjoy them. To my eye:

"TOM (40) athletic build"

is far less interesting than:

'TOM (40), once the Captain of the high school football team and still looking the part.

To me, the ideal exchange would be:  Reviewer - "hey, there is an unfilmable there" Me - thanks, I know - did it on purpose to get a better sense of Tom. - Cheers - Cheers. The bad exchange is: Reviewer - There is an unfilmable there - this script must suck. Me - you must suck.

"The We" violation that started this post is another great example of this. While I generally don't use it since there is a better way to write it - there are cases where - at least IMO - it fits perfectly. To my eye:

We see Dave's computer screen as he types a post.

is better than

Dave sits at his computer - taps the keys

INSERT COMPUTER SCREEN

Blah, blah, blah.

Many other examples - the point being - that sometimes coloring outside the lines is better. And in other times - the lines are just stupid. e.g., I am certain we will see a day where the new standard is to put the time in the slug: E.G.,

INT. DAVE'S HOUSE/DEN - 2:00 PM

With some caveat - always include the time - let the Director figure out the best way to show it. Otherwise you always have to put that stupid clock on the wall or add that extraneous - "what time is it" piece of dialogue.

I enjoy and appreciate when peeps point out the rules - even when I intended to violate them (um - the rules - not the peeps) since they don't know what my thinking was in the first place and the comments have been incredibly helpful. I just don't enjoy it when the entirety of my script is assessed on them.



  

Quoted from eldave1 It'a all in the attitude. I appreciate when folks point out things that they perceive to violate the rules. A reviewer really has no idea whether I intended to or not so I always welcome the comment. I have learned a TON from this site in that regard. That may be rooted in the fact that I have never had a writing class or read a screen writing book - nonetheless - SS has been my college in that regard. "The We" violation that started this post is another great example of this. While I generally don't use it since there is a better way to write it - there are cases where - at least IMO - it fits perfectly. To my eye: We see Dave's computer screen as he types a post. is better than Dave sits at his computer - taps the keys INSERT COMPUTER SCREEN

I totally understand what you're saying, Dave, as well as what others are saying.  The problem being the constant use of the word "rules".  I for one never use this word, whether it's in discussions or in reviewing.

Screw the rules, do what's right...do what makes sense...do what is most clear...but be very careful, because most writers screw themselves and their scripts in this regard.

Dave, I agree with the first part of what I quoted here completely.  I do not agree with the 2nd part, about the we see example.

I know you're writing this example on the fly, without much thought, so no big deal, BUT, understand that using an insert, you are showing only what is being "inserted".

We may well see Dave's screen as he types, but it's unlikely we'll actually see exactly what's on that screen, as the shot will not be close enough...thus...the insert here is the correct way to go, if you intend on showing what's on the screen.

I'd do it like this (without any "we see's", of course...

Dave furiously types away on his keyboard.

ON SCREEN

blah, blah, blah.

Make sense?  Agree?  Disagree?  CJ?  Here's your chance to attack!  Go for it, you writer of gritty female leads.

Quoted from eldave1 To my eye: We see Dave's computer screen as he types a post. is better than Dave sits at his computer - taps the keys INSERT COMPUTER SCREEN Blah, blah, blah.

I still use INSERT, but don't like it either. So, do you suggest that it could be avoided entirely?

From Kevin...

"Libby, my account is inactive, so I had to post through Pia. I still come to the forum from time to time to check on friends, but I don't want to use up precious writing or reading time in volleys. I even read some OWC's! There are a lot of exceptional writers here, good to chart their success.

CJ's original comment in this thread was so well-stated that it drew me into the discussion. Sadly, he was later subjected to juvenile personal attack, which has since been amended, but was a reminder of how quickly things can degenerate here.

Dave's example in his last post was perfect! His examples really should be the stake in the heart of the rules people...but it won't be. They seem to have eternal lives. They are impenetrable to reason or evidence."

Quoted from eldave1 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.

The use of "we," (is that comma in the right correct spot location?) generally, would not deter me, however I have no problem bailing on a script at page one purely because of how it's written (done it a million zillion bajillion dozines dozens of times). Like Jeff said, you can generally tell what you're in for on from page one. If the story is there, then I, for the most part, can skip right over the format Nazi stuff. If you're committed to read (by money or word) then read, and review (maybe that's the real point here?), otherwise, who cares. I think it's the writers job to tell a story compelling enough to for me to want to read it (of course one person's reading junk is another's reading treasure).

Quoted from CJ Walley And all the power to you, buddy. But referring to a lot of the good practice out there as rules is part of the problem. We have to stop doing so.

Don't agree - I'm not going to object to some one posting:

As a rule - you should include day or night at the end of the slug.

vs.

As good practice - - you should include day or night at the end of the slug.

I personally have just learned too much from that type of feedback to not want to see it. Again, I started here as a novice so my value from it may be different then others.

I just want to avoid - your script sucks because you (pick your rule). I don't care what it is labeled.

Quoted Text Dave, I agree with the first part of what I quoted here completely.  I do not agree with the 2nd part, about the we see example. I know you're writing this example on the fly, without much thought, so no big deal, BUT, understand that using an insert, you are showing only what is being "inserted". We may well see Dave's screen as he types, but it's unlikely we'll actually see exactly what's on that screen, as the shot will not be close enough...thus...the insert here is the correct way to go, if you intend on showing what's on the screen. I'd do it like this (without any "we see's", of course... Dave furiously types away on his keyboard. ON SCREEN blah, blah, blah. Make sense?  Agree?  Disagree?  CJ?  Here's your chance to attack!  Go for it, you writer of gritty female leads.

Hey, Jeff.

No - I don't really agree. You make an assumption that is a bit of leap - that being we are looking at a blurry screen that we can't make out merely because it wasn't inserted. If I wrote this instead:

We see the words on Dave's computer screen as he types a post.

You still probably wouldn't like it. To me - all that is needed is the knowledge that something Dave types on a screen is visible. Why not let the Director decide if the shot it over Dave's shoulder, if it is a shot of the entire screen or any other scenario. It always seemed to be that the preciseness of the INSERT standard contradicts another axiom - don't so the Director's job.

All that being said - I think the way you suggested works fine as well. I just don't think there is a right of wrong here. But I do know my own preference.

Cheers

Quoted from Athenian I still use INSERT, but don't like it either. So, do you suggest that it could be avoided entirely?

No. If I think that in my readers mind it is more compelling to see the Computer, TV, or whatever take up the entire screen - then I use the standard insert. If I don't think it matters I have taken to using the We see approach because I think it is more efficient.

I don't think there is a wrong way here. Or better said - I prefer to write what is in my mind's eye.

Quoted Text You make a good argument here, Dave. I should have worded my point better. I don't feel good practice should be touted as a strict ruleset. The phrasing you use here does not do as such and I have no issue with it.

We be on the same page

OK guys and gals.  I'm not trying to argue here.  I'm honestly not and I'm going to choose my words very carefully and not take any potshots at anyone.  I'm also not going to say anything is right, wrong, or a rule that must be adhered to.  And again, I definitely understand that when someone throws out an example, chances are good they didn't spend alot of time on it.

Let's take an example of "Dave" and a screen.  It doesn't matter if it's a computer screen, a phone screen, or a TV screen.

If what's on that screen is important and you want to "show" what's on that screen, you need to make it known.  The only way you can do this is by "telling/showing" exactly what is on the screen.  If it's not important, you won't say anything about what's on the screen.

"Dave watches TV."  This simple action/description line says all we need to know, while not giving any exact details.  In this example, "we see" Dave watching a TV, which implies "we see" Dave, "we see" a TV, and "we see" him watching that TV.  It doesn't matter what's on the TV or where Dave is situated (sitting in a recliner, lying on a sofa, lying in bed.  Very possibly, this would be shown in the prior line or passage, but also very possibly, it's not, because it doesn't matter.

If Dave is doing Tae Bo, as he watches, we're going to need to know, and "see" that a Tae Bo workout is taking place on the screen (and maybe that Billy Blanks is on the screen, leading the workout - LOL!).

"Dave types away furiously on his computer keypad."  This simple action/description line again says all we need know, assuming we don't need to "see" what exactly he's typing.  If we do need to see what is on the screen or what he is typing, it's going to have to be written out, and IMO, an insert or "ON SCREEN" will need to be used, so we can "see it".  You're not going to say something like, "Dave types a love letter", or "Dave replies to a post on Simply Scripts".

"Dave texts on his new Smart Phone."  Again, this is a very simple action/description line that shows all we need to "see" - unless we need to "see" what's on the screen, and again, without an insert or the like, we will not be able to "see" what he's texting, because the screen is too small.

Just trying to be clear and make it clear where I'm coming from and why I say what I say.

Just to clarify: Dave is an old fat ass who would never work out as he watches TV. He would drink beer, eat snacks or doze off.

Jeff, I used the term post as a placeholder - it would work as:

We see Dave's computer screen as he types: "JEFF THINKS DAVE WORKS OUT."
i.e., you can use the We see to show exactly what is being seen. You prefer:

Dave types at his computer.

ON SCREEN

JEFF THINKS DAVE WORKS OUT

I prefer my way - achieves same objective, uses one line rather than three, lets the director decide how the viewer sees this. Sure, it would be scoffed at by some - but I like it better.

Quoted from eldave1 Just to clarify: Dave is an old fat ass who would never work out as he watches TV. He would drink beer, eat snacks or doze off. Jeff, I used the term post as a placeholder - it would work as: We see Dave's computer screen as he types: "JEFF THINKS DAVE WORKS OUT." i.e., you can use the We see to show exactly what is being seen. You prefer: Dave types at his computer. ON SCREEN JEFF THINKS DAVE WORKS OUT I prefer my way - achieves same objective, uses one line rather than three, lets the director decide how the viewer sees this. Sure, it would be scoffed at by some - but I like it better.

LOL!!!  

1 clarification - when using "ON SCREEN" - you can simply "follow" that on the same line with what is onscreen, so it's 1 extra line and 1 empty line.

Quoted from Dreamscale LOL!!!   1 clarification - when using "ON SCREEN" - you can simply "follow" that on the same line with what is onscreen, so it's 1 extra line and 1 empty line.

So - it is 3 lines rather than 1. Better I think.

I would add this: the "guideline" will change. Somewhere down the road a guru will figure out that there is no need for the "We see" (my way) or the Insert (your way) because computers, TVs and cell phones are so ubiquitous. They will say just simply cap it like one does for sounds. e.g.,

Dave types on his computer: "DAVE IS FAT"

or

Dave pulls out his cell phone and texts: "DAVE IS FAT"

The argument will be since you added the line, of course it is scene - why waste the space telling us that it is.  My bet anyway.

I would just write -

Jeff stabs the keys on the keyboard. His jaw knotted tight.

On the screen: I need a fucking Jägermeister!

Quoted from Grandma Bear I would just write - Jeff stabs the keys on the keyboard. His jaw knotted tight. On the screen: I need a fucking Jägermeister!

Or...

The great and all powerful Jeff stabs the keys on his keyboard, his jaw knotted tight.

ON SCREEN:  I need a fucking Jagie!

Good arguments on both sides here.

I guess the bottom line for me is this - there are some writers who know that what they're writing is going to get filmed, whether it's because they are in demand and it's a spec, or they were hired to write something specific. They can do whatever they want.

So don't compare yourself to them. Write according to the rules. Why take the chance? I don't think any of us realize what a CHORE it is for people to read a spec script. The bigger the person is in the industry, the more of a chore it is. Because they are busy, and they can busy themselves for the rest of their lives with Grade-A eat off the floor scripts from established writers.

So write according to the rules. The "no" pile does exist. And most readers have a page 1 and page 10 threshold.

So once you write according to the rules? Then on the second pass, write what you FEEL. If you feel that an aside is going to place the image you want to place in the reader's head? Then do it. But don't overdo it. And pretty soon you'll be developing your own style. And setting yourself apart from the crowd.

I have read scripts that are in pre-production that I have thought were bad, and I have seen spec scripts that are not getting a sniff that I've been envious of. It's like chess - once you master the rules, there are an infinite number of levels.

So write according to the rules. And then break them, within reason, in your own style. As long as you can write, and have a story worth reading, writing this way should set you apart and get you the reads you need.

I was reading a script on another site yesterday and it was unbelievable how good it was - but it had fragmented sentences (there was a purpose to them), orphans, an offbeat cover page -- HELL, IT DIDN'T EVEN INCLUDE A FADE IN TO START WITH!!!  And a couple of reviewers focused more on those oddities than the story and characters itself, which blew me away.  And the shits and giggles about it all was that the scripts those reviewers had written were very sub-par (in my personal opinion).

So there's a paradox for you -- can a writer who is not overly proficient in writing (notice I didn't say bad, because I would never call anyone a bad writer) be a good reviewer? I think most people's reaction would be no, but that's because they equate the quality of a review with the quality of the reviewer's writing. Maybe there's some correlation, but for me, like Pia mentioned, story is king, and all of us, regardless of how good our writing is, know what appeals to us in a story and can react to that accordingly.

And as I've personally experienced, there are plenty of people who do not like my "writing", but all it takes is one person to like my script for it to lead to something.  And at the end of the day, that one person's opinion is all that matters to me.  Damn, I wish I had ended this paragraph with an orphan.  

Gary

If you bring a script to a site full of writers where they can offer an opinion, then you will get comments on the writing. No harm in that, but just take the review for what it is worth. If you don't learn anything then move on. If you do learn something, be thankful.

Quoted from DustinBowcot If you bring a script to a site full of writers where they can offer an opinion, then you will get comments on the writing. No harm in that, but just take the review for what it is worth. If you don't learn anything then move on. If you do learn something, be thankful.

Very well put, Dustin.  I agree 100%.

It's funny, actually, because so many times (and even recently) someone will disagree with what I brought up and then make many of the changes I mentioned anyway.

It's all free advice here, so be thankful for whatever you get.

Quoted from Gary in Houston So there's a paradox for you -- can a writer who is not overly proficient in writing (notice I didn't say bad, because I would never call anyone a bad writer) be a good reviewer? I think most people's reaction would be no, but that's because they equate the quality of a review with the quality of the reviewer's writing. Maybe there's some correlation, but for me, like Pia mentioned, story is king, and all of us, regardless of how good our writing is, know what appeals to us in a story and can react to that accordingly.

It's like everything in life. As an example, I play a lot of tournament poker. There are dudes who know every rule (and do not hesitate to point them out), the statistical probability of every outcome and yet they suck at playing poker. i.e., like poker, screenwriting has a science aspect and an art aspect. The science is easier, can be learned by anyone who cares to. The art - not so much. That being said - I'll take any reviews - format based, story based, positive, negative et al because they are (a) free, (b) have value - even if they have elements I disagree with. My only real pet peeve is the this scripts sucks because it does not follow this or that particular rule or there was an honest but nowhere near fatal mistake somewhere. Those reviews should just say - hey - you made a mistake here. They should never offer a conclusion or conjecture on the script as a whole. Just my opinion.

Here's something else to consider...

Back in the day, the SS crew actually read feature scripts in their entirety quite routinely.  That rarely happens now and only a few still do this, usually because they're friends with the writer or owe him or her a read.

Why is this?  I don't know, but it's the way it seems to be.

With that in mind, for me, at least, it's very clear that what's on the first page, first 5, and first 10 is incredibly important, and a very "easy" reason why peeps only read a few pages of features.

It's really the same philosophy I bring into OWC's.  If there are problems early on, I have to assume those problems will continue throughout the script.

And when i say "problems", I'm not simply referring to typos, grammar, and other "mistakes".  I'm referring to everything in how the script looks and reads.  When a script is anonymous and i see "we see" this and "we hear" that, I assume it's a writer who doesn't know any better, and chances are very good I'm out long before I get to the meat of the story.

We can all agree to disagree, but for my money, I want my scripts to shine, look polished and professional as often as possible.

Enjoy the weekend, everyone!

Quoted Text Back in the day, the SS crew actually read feature scripts in their entirety quite routinely.  That rarely happens now and only a few still do this, usually because they're friends with the writer or owe him or her a read. Why is this?  I don't know, but it's the way it seems to be.

I wasn't here back in the day. I do agree that features get very little interest. I assume that is entirely a factor of the time (effort) it takes to get through a feature vs. a short. I try to balance that by page count - that is, I'll generally read the first 15 pages of a feature and give it the same effort as I would a short and limit my comments to those 15 pages.  

Quoted Text With that in mind, for me, at least, it's very clear that what's on the first page, first 5, and first 10 is incredibly important, and a very "easy" reason why peeps only read a few pages of features.

Again, I think that is a false paradigm. it is merely a matter of time and effort. I would throw in that it is sometimes hard to tell if a review is even going to be read since several post scripts and you never hear from them. So there are times I will read entire features just for my own development and entertainment not post notes if I think they are going to go into a vacuum.

Quoted Text It's really the same philosophy I bring into OWC's.  If there are problems early on, I have to assume those problems will continue throughout the script.

I think it is the wrong philosophy - for me anyway. I have probably read more than a hundred OWCs entires by now. Some start bad and end great. Some start great and end bad.  This is particularly true of OWC scripts where there is little time to apply all of the spit shine to the script. So I am assuming that all of the scripts will have easily fixed formatting scars and I am looking for story gems.  

Quoted Text And when i say "problems", I'm not simply referring to typos, grammar, and other "mistakes".  I'm referring to everything in how the script looks and reads.  When a script is anonymous and i see "we see" this and "we hear" that, I assume it's a writer who doesn't know any better, and chances are very good I'm out long before I get to the meat of the story.

I think you are missing out on a lot of good stuff as a result. Admittedly, I have received some very helpful comments from you on my anonymous OWC scripts. I have also received this:

T

Quoted Text he good news... Peeps seem to enjoy this for some reason. The not so good news... References to "Frankenstein" are incorrect - Frankenstein was the Doctor, not the monster, but many peeps seem to confuse this. The bad news... I'm out after the first passage.  I cannot stand this smarmy style. Obviously a pisser, with zero effort to meet the actual challenge. I will not waste anymore time on this garbage. Grade... D-

Now, by this time I was no longer a newbie - so I took the comments with a grain of salt. That being said, I thought to myself I was glad that this was not someone just starting. They're being told that their work is garbage after one passage. And this - in a challenge that really is a learning tool.

i.e., the danger of concluding "I'm out" - "this sucks" - or whatever is that (a) there is a good chance that your test sample is so small that your conclusion is unwarranted and (b) it simply ain't necessary.

IMO - perfectly okay to say - too many typos, would work better without WE, scene heading wrong, etc. Why not just leave it at that? You've given some valuable information to someone without the unnecessary acerbic conclusion on the entire script. You must know that the easiest thing for writers to fix are the format issues. The real challenges are in dialogue, character arc, plot points et al. You can help newbies with the science aspect of this without undermining their desire for the art. I don't know you - but I assume you are a good guy. Just comment that way.

Quoted Text Enjoy the weekend, everyone!

You too, mate.

If the script is a page turner and keeps the reader interested, it's a good script.
Grammar should be as good as possible, but it's not a book we're writing here that's going out on sale to the public, it's a screenplay, a blueprint for a movie.

If producers used the idea of this "perfect script", I reckon the majority of our fav movies would have never been made, thrown out because of "a grammar/typo/misued parenthetical" mistake on page 1".

Writers should make sure their material is as clear as possible, aimed towards people that would want to invest their time in order to make the script a movie. Writers should not aim to please other writers/ wannabee critics.

I believe most of the so called "experts" on screenplay writing have no idea when it comes to what a movie producer is looking for, they just like to pretend they do.  

Out by page 1 because of formatting?  Yeah, if it's just a blatant mess.

I never really pay attention to the occasional "we see" or "cut to".  It doesn't bother me.  

What takes me out by page 1?  Robotic writing... and this goes for amateur & pro... mostly amateur.  Sometimes the formatting is perfect, nothing crazy going on.  But the writing is robotic, bland.  No style, no voice, no conflict.

I finished a feature on here a few minutes ago, written by someone not signed up to the board.  It wasn't the best script, but the opening grabbed me, had me cracking up, had me wanting more.  I could tell the writer was having fun the whole time.  He had a voice.  He took normally paper thin characters and made them feel like real people.  He also had a "cut to" on page 1.  But it was a page turner for me.

Also recently read a horror fan-fic that had "cut to" everywhere.  Besides that, the formatting was on point and so was everything else.  It was the best horror script I ever read.  It's a shame it will never be made into a movie for this one particular franchise.  Bert, I think you would get a kick out of it, if you're reading this and want to check it out, I could send you a link.

Quoted from dead by dawn It was the best horror script I ever read.  It's a shame it will never be made into a movie for this one particular franchise.  Bert, I think you would get a kick out of it, if you're reading this and want to check it out, I could send you a link.

Or you could post a link here so the rest of us aren't left wondering.

R

Quoted from dead by dawn It's a shame it will never be made into a movie for this one particular franchise.  Bert, I think you would get a kick out of it, if you're reading this and want to check it out, I could send you a link.

Quoted from rendevous Or you could post a link here so the rest of us aren't left wondering.

Ha...If he is calling me out, Ren, I suspect he is speaking about the "Phantasm" franchise, for which he and I share a strange affinity. The films are a hot mess of brilliance.

Shoot me the link, thanks.  I'll have look.

StevenClark - great discussion you started here! I've written amateur fiction most of my life but started learning screencraft only about 5 years ago, and I definitely relate to the feelings of being ridiculed as you get up to speed on things. At my first screenwriting class we read 10 pages of my fabulous romantic comedy and afterward the teacher adjusted her papers uncomfortably and said, "So -- this is a comedy?"  Not a good sign! You have to just stiff-arm the haters like Robert Stack stiff-armed the Hari Krishnas in Airplane, and keep going!

And as someone here said, you do have to feel for the professional readers who slog through so many bad scripts, that's got to be an awful job. When I started reading 2-3 scripts a week just for practice I found it amazing how quickly you too start skimming past things - imagine someone reading 20-25 a week! Read "L.A. Story" by Steve Martin - there's nothing to it on the page! Or then "Elizabethtown" by Cameron Crowe - holy crap that guys writes a novel on every page! Both are professionals, both completely different from each other, yet both work.

I try to keep learning the craft as I go, get to know the best-practices/rules by reading others' work, but still try to stay true to my voice and my vision as much as I can.  Just know that any true teacher would never tell you to quit or belittle a sincere effort to tell a story, so take that trash to the curb brother!

Tim,

Truth. And even though what happened to me was just a hater hating, the lesson did not go unnoticed.

Steve