I was not talking about padding pages I was talking about cutting pages.

Quoted from eldave1 An orphan may be the result of a crap line or it may be the result of a perfect one. WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD. Has an orphan. WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD. Does not. The first line could easily be superior to the second one.

Well, Dave, of course, looking at it like this, you're 100% correct.  But that's not the point I've been trying to make, and writing of any kind is not so cut and dry, obviously.

Quoted from eldave1 In all cases, each line should be killer. An orphan, rather than being an indicator of a bad line, is just a tool for a writer to focus on whether or not it could be written better. That's it.

IMO, every line does not have to be killer, but no lines should be crap.  That's the key.  That's what stands out...the crap, the poorly written lines and passages.

Quoted from eldave1 IMO, it is almost never helpful to point out to a writer that they have an orphan. It is always helpful to say this line could be written better by (insert your suggestion) and as a side benefit you save a line. Orphans are indeed indicators for writers to edit their work and see what's causing those orphans, but to say it's unhelpful to point out orphans is crazy, IMO.  It's no one's business to rewrite someone's script, unless they're being paid to do it.  I very often mention  lines that are awkward and the like, to lines just being downright poorly written.  If the writer can't or doesn't want to take the time to figure out why, that's on them. [quote=eldave1]Orphans are not the problem. Bad writing is.

I agree with you here, Dave, but I also have to disagree a bit.

Bad writing is always going to be a problem.  I think everyone will agree on this, although most writers just don't know what bad writing is...or why it's bad, which to me, is quite sad.

Orphans are clear indicators of what is most likely a poorly structured line or passage, and the fact that it's going to cost you a line you can never get back, make them a "problem".

For some peeps don't seem to realize just how rampant these little red headed orphans are in most scripts.  Here and there, an orphan doesn't matter at all.  But when there are numerous orphans on virtually every page, it is a problem...and it can be a HUGE problem.

Quoted from DustinBowcot ...all that stuff you said...

The odds of a writer over-relying on these things aren't slim at all.  I already named one script, The Nun, which does that.  Or look at the script White Hell in the horror script section.  See, I just named two scripts which over-rely on those things in the time it took to type this sentence.  Now imagine how many I could point you toward if I put some time into it.

Of course writers need to learn how to structure and build a story. Are you saying that you didn't have to?   Maybe you're one of those naturally gifted writers to whom screenwriting came easy, maybe you were born with Freytag's Pyramid coded into your DNA.  Others need to work at it.  And maybe we're not all content to simply copy what we see.  Or transcribe someone else's work.

It's true that people fail for varying reasons.  And among those reasons are not knowing format.  Ask any reader or assistant who has had to take a stack of scripts home to read over the weekend how many times they've come across an amateur script, poorly formatted, and considered that enough of a reason to chuck the script aside and move on to the next one.  My very first time submitting a script, the feedback that I got was that no one would know whether there was a good story in my script or not because I sabotaged it by not adhering to formatting guidelines.  

As a result, that has become one of my biggest preaching points when critiquing someone else's script.  FORMAT MATTERS, at least at this level of screenwriting.  You disagreeing with that doesn't make it any less true.

And he calls me delusional...

This being the Internet, positions seem to be creeping toward the extremes.

Orphans are generally an aesthetics issue. Just like you wouldn't expect a mirror-like shine on a 3-D printed mock-up, you wouldn't expect flawless typesetting in a spec script.

One can go overboard with orphans to the point of padding the page count, but that only matters in situations that actually have a minimum acceptable page count. Haven't read The Nun, but maybe it's in that category.

Before that point, it's just an annoyance to people who pay attention to typesetting. How likely is your screener/reader going to care about typesetting? That should gauge the amount of effort spent in a sweep through your document for orphans, as a last chance to tighten things up a bit.

OK, let's try this...

We all know the "rule of thumb" about 1 page being equal to 1 minute of film, right?  Hopefully, we also know that this is to hold true over the course of the script, not on a page by page basis.

So, for features, we "expect" to see scripts ranging from 90 to 120 pages, which equates to an hour and a half film to a 2 hour film.

I've seen examples of produced movies...as in real movies, released wide around the world, where the script is less than 75 pages and is also "padded" to get to that length.  This is an extreme example that is basically the opposite of what we're discussing here, but let's understand, somehow, these scripts turn into 90 minute movies...usually "padded" 90 minute movies.

Now, let's take the other side if the extreme - say a 135 page amateur script, loaded with orphans and overwriting, that should actually come in around110 pages.  You really think anyone is going to read that entire 135 page script, with any potential of producing it?  FUCK NO!  Never gonna happen.

First of all, no one wants a 2 hour and 15 minute movie from an outsider. Second, it's not even close to a 2 hour and 15 minute movie - it's just crap writing that is causing the bloat.

Page count matters.  Orphans matter.  Editing matters.

Do yourself and everyone who's going to read your script a favor, and get it in the best shape you can, including getting rid of useless orphans.

Quoted from Lon The odds of a writer over-relying on these things aren't slim at all.  I already named one script, The Nun, which does that.  Or look at the script White Hell in the horror script section.  See, I just named two scripts which over-rely on those things in the time it took to type this sentence.  Now imagine how many I could point you toward if I put some time into it.

When you rely on something this is because it yields good results when you do. If orphans are bad, why do writers rely on them to such a degree they over-rely on them? Why do writers depend on orphans?

All you have done is point out scripts that have orphans. In what way did the authors depend on these orphans?

Quoted from Lon Of course writers need to learn how to structure and build a story. Are you saying that you didn't have to?

I've been writing stories with a beginning, a middle, and an end since the age of seven. I have read hundreds of novels, classic and modern. I have seen hundreds of films too. They are all stories and all pretty much the same. When you have seen one revenge story, you've seen them all. Once you've seen one romance, you've seen them all.

Quoted Text Maybe you're one of those naturally gifted writers to whom screenwriting came easy, maybe you were born with Freytag's Pyramid coded into your DNA.  Others need to work at it.  And maybe we're not all content to simply copy what we see.  Or transcribe someone else's work.

Yes, screenwriting did come fairly easy to me. It was a simple matter of training myself to write more actively, in present tense, and in visual terms. I also found it easy to train myself to write only for sound. Indeed, I jumped right in, not a single lesson. I don't even like listening to audio plays... but I can write them.

Quoted Text It's true that people fail for varying reasons.  And among those reasons are not knowing format.  Ask any reader or assistant who has had to take a stack of scripts home to read over the weekend how many times they've come across an amateur script, poorly formatted, and considered that enough of a reason to chuck the script aside and move on to the next one.

We're talking about orphans here. Stop trying to broaden the subject line. It's a poor tactic in a discussion. Please, stick to the point.

Quoted Text My very first time submitting a script, the feedback that I got was that no one would know whether there was a good story in my script or not because I sabotaged it by not adhering to formatting guidelines.

Riiight... but did you get the script back because it had too many orphans? If you say yes, I know you will be lying.

Quoted Text As a result, that has become one of my biggest preaching points when critiquing someone else's script.  FORMAT MATTERS, at least at this level of screenwriting.  You disagreeing with that doesn't make it any less true.

Why would you place something that doesn't have anything to do with this discussion in uppercase? I have not said that format doesn't matter. Not once. Of course format matters. It's just orphans that don't.

Page count and orphans

of course page count matters to some degree, what I meant when I said page count doesn't matter is obviously in respect to the number of pages orphans will add to a script. Even if there are enough orphans to add 2 pages this will mean nothing to an 88-page script.

It would be nice if the conversation can be kept on track and in the correct perspective. Steering it into extremes and even other subject matters doesn't help anybody. And nor does fearmongering. Claiming my opinion hurt other writers chances of success and that I am deliberately out to sabotage is ludicrous.

Quoted from Dreamscale I agree with you here, Dave, but I also have to disagree a bit. Bad writing is always going to be a problem.  I think everyone will agree on this, although most writers just don't know what bad writing is...or why it's bad, which to me, is quite sad. Orphans are clear indicators of what is most likely a poorly structured line or passage, and the fact that it's going to cost you a line you can never get back, make them a "problem". For some peeps don't seem to realize just how rampant these little red headed orphans are in most scripts.  Here and there, an orphan doesn't matter at all.  But when there are numerous orphans on virtually every page, it is a problem...and it can be a HUGE problem.

The problem is that "orphan" is used in a pejorative sense. i.e., if you tell someone they had a single word on a line their reaction would be - and...?? Unlike a typo, which is objectively wrong, an orphan it may or may not be a problem. That's why I continue to say that just pointing out there is an orphan isn't helpful. What would be is the better way to write the line.

It's akin to saying you got a brown circular spot on your face. It's only a problem if
it's cancer. It could just as well be a beauty mark.

The post started with is there something inherently wrong with orphans. The answer is clearly no.  

Quoted Text I've seen examples of produced movies...as in real movies, released wide around the world, where the script is less than 75 pages and is also "padded" to get to that length.  This is an extreme example that is basically the opposite of what we're discussing here, but let's understand, somehow, these scripts turn into 90 minute movies...usually "padded" 90 minute movies.

If they were produce - isn't that mission accomplished?

Quoted Text Now, let's take the other side if the extreme - say a 135 page amateur script, loaded with orphans and overwriting, that should actually come in around110 pages.  You really think anyone is going to read that entire 135 page script, with any potential of producing it?  FUCK NO!  Never gonna happen. First of all, no one wants a 2 hour and 15 minute movie from an outsider. Second, it's not even close to a 2 hour and 15 minute movie - it's just crap writing that is causing the bloat. Page count matters.  Orphans matter.  Editing matters.

I've never run across a script where the page length was driven by orphans. Maybe if I saw the 135 page gem that could have been a 120 page gem without orphans I would change my mind. Generally when I see an over written script, over writing is the problem. Not orphans.

Got agree with Eldave. An orphan doesn’t necessarily means overwriting. The sentence could be perfect.

And it’s annoying when people give the ‘orphan’ critique just because there’s an orphan.

Orphan’s don’t matter, overwriting does.

But thanks to the responses to my question. People DO give a shit one way or the other.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I've been writing stories with a beginning, a middle, and an end since the age of seven. I have read hundreds of novels, classic and modern. I have seen hundreds of films too. They are all stories and all pretty much the same. When you have seen one revenge story, you've seen them all. Once you've seen one romance, you've seen them all. Yes, screenwriting did come fairly easy to me. It was a simple matter of training myself to write more actively, in present tense, and in visual terms. I also found it easy to train myself to write only for sound. Indeed, I jumped right in, not a single lesson. I don't even like listening to audio plays... but I can write them. We're talking about orphans here. Stop trying to broaden the subject line. It's a poor tactic in a discussion. Please, stick to the point. Riiight... but did you get the script back because it had too many orphans? If you say yes, I know you will be lying. Why would you place something that doesn't have anything to do with this discussion in uppercase? I have not said that format doesn't matter. Not once. Of course format matters. It's just orphans that don't.

Oy to the vey.  It occurs to me that you really don't seem to grasp what it is that's being discussed here.  Of course orphans are a formatting issue.  What else could they be?  They're not story-related, they're not character-related.  They have to do with the visual structure of the script -- yes, that's right, THE FORMAT.  You're clearly a master screenwriter, I would think you'd understand that.

Eh, I'm done.  There's no talking sense to the senseless.  Happy New Year, everyone!  Yes, Dustin, even you.

Quoted from Lon Oy to the vey.  It occurs to me that you really don't seem to grasp what it is that's being discussed here.  Of course orphans are a formatting issue.  What else could they be?  They're not story-related, they're not character-related.  They have to do with the visual structure of the script -- yes, that's right, THE FORMAT.  You're clearly a master screenwriter, I would think you'd understand that. Eh, I'm done.  There's no talking sense to the senseless.  Happy New Year, everyone!  Yes, Dustin, even you.

Now you're starting to get personal. It's fine to say that what I said is senseless but to call me senseless is a step too far.

Orphans are not a formatting issue as they are not an issue at all. That's the point.