I see a lot of people saying ‘oh orphan on the front page rookie error’. Am I alone in not giving a shit about this? I write it as tight or good as I can get it. If that means the occasional word hanging out on its own - so what? Doesn’t mess up my read when I have to spend a millisecond dragging my eye all the way over to read it.

I understand the need for decent formatting. To make things clear and understandable. Orphans have no effect on that. So perhaps I missed this screenwriting lesson but I am genuinely interested in why they bother people. Or why they’re wrong.

Please discuss. If you give shit ...

Quoted from Anon I see a lot of people saying ‘oh orphan on the front page rookie error’. Am I alone in not giving a shit about this? I write it as tight or good as I can get it. If that means the occasional word hanging out on its own - so what? Doesn’t mess up my read when I have to spend a millisecond dragging my eye all the way over to read it. I understand the need for decent formatting. To make things clear and understandable. Orphans have no effect on that. So perhaps I missed this screenwriting lesson but I am genuinely interested in why they bother people. Or why they’re wrong. Please discuss. If you give shit ...

Must people don't give a
shit.

They serve one purpose, IMO. Just a reminder to see if you are writing efficiently. Half the time when I look at them I find a better way to say something. Half the time I don't.

In no case do they bother me when I read other peeps stuff.  

Quoted Text They serve one purpose, IMO. Just a reminder to see if you are writing efficiently. Half the time when I look at them I find a better way to say something. Half the time I don't.

Indeed they are useful as check tool. If only people spotted them and suggested a better way to write the sentence. That would be useful. It just the mindless ‘orphan’ calls that give me the shits.

I don't give a shit... and to me, much more importantly, no producer has ever mentioned them to me - I doubt they know what they are

It's aesthetics and is in all writing not just screenplays. An orphan doesn't look good on the page. Most of the time there is a better way to structure the sentence... but if there really isn't, nobody is going to care or perhaps even notice aside from other writers.

It's mostly about math, as far as I can tell. Do it once, no big deal. Do it fifty times and you're likely to find your script length inflated by a couple extra pages.

Fifty words equals two pages? Who cares about an extra two pages anyway?

It's aesthetics. There is no other reason. Even as a reader of novels, it annoys me seeing an orphan on the page. They look messy. It's like ending a script with one word on the final page. No matter what, we must find a way to stop that happening. Why? Aesthetics. That is all.

Look at the pro scripts, the ones that get produced that you've heard of and admire. They have a few, everyone does it. No-one but format OCD'ers care about a few here and there.  What they don't have is a lot of them though because they write lean and take care to utilize every piece of white space as efficiently as possible.

Why? Because time is money. Reading the script, then producing it should be as effortless as possible to save time and therefore money. Anything the writer can do to help with this, only makes their script easier to sell. An orphan usually screams out that the action or dialogue needs a trim, that there's a better way to get the message across.

It's when there are loads that there's a problem, as that suggests that the writer is just starting out or doesn't give a shit.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Fifty words equals two pages? Who cares about an extra two pages anyway?

If an orphan moves a line of prose onto another line by one word, yeah, fifty words equals two pages. And, I care about two extra pages. If you don't, awesome. Makes no bit of difference to me.

Oh boy...like a late Christmas present for me.  I'll take this one on...

There are several things to consider when thinking about orphans, and it's really quite simple...if you give a shit.

I haven't counted recently, but I recall that most script writing software throws out between 48 and 52 lines per page.  An orphan "wastes" an entire line, so, by my math, every 50 orphans equals an extra page.  Or, let's really look at what we're saying here.  5 orphans per page, on average, over a 100 page feature, equals a whopping extra 10 pages!  Or, an extra 10%!

Now, let's also understand that you don't really have 50 lines of prose per page, as many of the lines will be blank, some will be Slugs, and some may be character headers.  The lines you have available to you for action/description prose are both limited and important, so don't waste them.

In a short, like an OWC, where page count definitely comes into play, getting rid of a few orphans can literally make or brake your script, in terms of either just fitting into the max page count, or going over, having to omit FADE OUT, or just having to pull out whole lines.

Probably more importantly, though, is the pure fact that the VAST MAJORITY of orphans are caused by either poor writing or "over writing".  Seeing an orphan is like getting a clue in editing that something can be written more effectively, and this is really the reason that orphans are not good in a script.

For instance, consider a passive line, like, "...is running", compared to the "correct" tense of "...runs".  Something so simple can be the cause of either an orphan, or 2 words that spill over onto the next line, and in effect, serve the same issue as an actual orphan does - a wasted line.

How many times do we see passages that spill onto the next line by 2 or 3 words?  I'll answer that for you - A FUCKING LOT!!!  Very often, it's the choice of words and tense that causes this to happen.  Over writing and over describing are big issues in script writing.  They bloat the script, prolong the read, and show that the writer either isn't very good, or just doesn't get it or give a shit.

Are orphans "bad"?  No, not really, but what causes them usually is bad, and that's why orphans are singled out as being "bad".  There's absolutely nothing wrong with an orphan here and an orphan there, but starting out a script with an orphan in the very first passage?  Really?  Or 3 or 4 in the first half page?  C'mon, man...read what you've written and get it into the kind of shape that will impress, not push away.

Word...

Quoted from Anon I see a lot of people saying ‘oh orphan on the front page rookie error’. Am I alone in not giving a shit about this? Please discuss. If you give shit ...

I do not worry about orphans... so guess I fall in the don't give a shit category on this. It looks neater without them but one here or one there .. if the script is good ... who cares.

No one that will consider your script for production will care about orphans.

Is it worthwhile for a new writer to learn how to write without them? Yes, and I agree with Jeff that often when you spot the orphan and then look at the sentence you will find there is better and more efficient way to word it.

I do some flash fiction now, either for contests or aimed at publishers that are looking for that. Usually there is a word limit of something like 1000. I find that number limiting, and often I am forced to go back to cut. But when I do I also discover that there is a lot of crap that is worth cutting. Only the word limit forces me into that discovery.

Orphans can be like that, they force you to take a closer look.

Also, if you're worried about the page count running too long, it's worth trying to be efficient in order to conserve space.

As far as it being an aesthetic thing, again, I doubt that any reader would even notice unless he was also a screenwriter and has been taught over a period of years to spot those things as a kind of rule violation. As for orphans in prose, is that even a thing? I've never even heard it mentioned anywhere, and I've read dozens of books on writing, followed writing blogs, etc. I think the whole thing only exists in the screenwriting world(I could be wrong).

Update: I searched for orphans in prose. Found this: https://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/how-to-edit-and-polish-your-writing

However, it turns out the article was addressing orphans in scripts and how it might be useful in prose. So again, this is a screenwriter thing. I use Scrivener to write prose, the top writing software. And there is no way to even spot an orphan. When the manuscript is compiled into a document it will be different than what you see in the writing window, and it will vary based on what format you compile, such as e-book, doc, or PDF. It's just not a thing in prose.

I can write a great sentence (honest, I can!)... and if I'm typing away I won't notice if I've created an orphan or not...

Then I look down and see it, an orphan!

But if the sentence is good, not passive etc, should I re-write a perfectly good sentence to remove the orphan?

Well, I don't...

Sure I will re-write as part of my normal process, and this may remove the orphan... could also introduce some new ones as I improve my script with each pass (hopefully)!

So, if you re-write specifically to remove orphans you run the risk of sacrificing decent writing for the sake of a 'rule' no one cares about.

IMHO of course.

The notion of orphans being a problem comes from old-fashioned typesetting, first for books then later for magazines and newspapers.

Typesetters - who generally were not authorized to modify the text - kept on the lookout for several aesthetic problems that could be fixed with spacing or hyphenation:

* Orphan: the last word of a paragraph, on a line by itself
* Widow: the last line of a paragraph, wrapped by itself to the top of the next column or page
* River: alignment of spaces that appear as white "rivers" through a block of text
* Having the same word start three consecutive lines

A particularly bad paragraph could exhibit all of these problems simultaneously.

People don't really notice rivers in fixed-width fonts (as used in scripts), but they can be distracting in proportional-width fonts.

Modern word processors will handle widows automatically. It will wrap two lines instead of one, except in the case of a three-line paragraph when it wraps the whole thing. (Edit: word processors interpret "widow control" as also avoiding having only the first line of a two-line-plus paragraph at the bottom of a page. The typical fix is to wrap the first line onto the next page.)

Modern word processors built for proportional fonts will make some attempts at automatically controlling orphans. In a fixed-width world, the only adjustments would be to add whole spaces, which tends to look bad so programs aren't set up to attempt it.

You're completely on your own avoiding repetition, but since few people will notice it's also a fairly low priority.

Note that fixing an orphan will save you a line, but fixing a widow costs you one or two lines. When I notice a widow, I try to take advantage of the "free" line at the bottom of the page to make the writing a tad less terse. Strangely, expanding a paragraph from three lines to four can actually save you a line.

As mentioned in another thread, Final Draft also has an option to break pages at sentences rather than words. It reads quicker, though to me it's not always obvious if the next page is starting with a new paragraph or not.

Final verdict: fixing widows, orphans, rivers, and repetitions can have a minor impact on your page count, but their better use is to break your tunnel-vision and get you to take a second look at what you wrote.

Besides padding the page count (similar to stacking action) they can make the script a chore to read.  A script should flow.  Imagine breathing in tiny, staccato fragments.  That's what it feels like to read a script riddled with orphans/widows/stacked action.  

The Nun is a case in point.  Page after page of orphans/widows/stacked action.  It was a thoroughly frustrating reading experience.  Cut those things out and the script would have been half as long.

Quoted from Lon The Nun is a case in point.  Page after page of orphans/widows/stacked action.  It was a thoroughly frustrating reading experience.  Cut those things out and the script would have been half as long.

And that's a great point...some scripts...scripts with very little plot, action, etc. often use such a scam to purposely pad the script to an "acceptable" length.

Either way, adding pages by use of a 'writing mistake" is never a good thing...IMO, at least.

Quoted from Dreamscale Oh boy...like a late Christmas present for me. ...

Damn! Did you get the dreaded socks and undies again?  

Quoted from LC Damn! Did you get the dreaded socks and undies again?

  I got socks, but I actually needed them.  No undies, as I rarely wear them...I prefer freeballing whenever possible.  HA!!

I think most think as I think. If the writing is good - then you trust that the orphan is justified. If it’s shit - you don’t. But if it’s shit, orphans are the least of your worries.

I've had a few scripts produced by now and I have never ever heard a producer/director/filmmaker ever mention orphans. Not sure they would even know what that is. What they do care about is story, characters and great endings. Twists almost guarantees interest in your script, but even without that, the ending has to be good. Just my three cents of course.  

Quoted from Anon I think most think as I think. If the writing is good - then you trust that the orphan is justified. If it’s shit - you don’t. But if it’s shit, orphans are the least of your worries.

True that

Quoted from Grandma Bear I've had a few scripts produced by now and I have never ever heard a producer/director/filmmaker ever mention orphans. Not sure they would even know what that is. What they do care about is story, characters and great endings. Twists almost guarantees interest in your script, but even without that, the ending has to be good. Just my three cents of course.

Agree.

Jeff, there were two orphans in your post.

Just like the two orphans in your undie less world  

Quoted from stevie Jeff, there were two orphans in your post. Just like the two orphans in your undie less world

There may be many orphans running around the world because of my freeballing ways...but the world will never really know.

I think that if you had a hundred orphans it may be wise to cut some action down for space, but otherwise I don’t see a problem.

When I finish writing the script (Are we ever really finished) I do a run through for orphans, etc.

If I can omit the orphan with a better written sentence - yes I do it.  If not I leave it. As was said story comes first.

Quoted from Dreamscale Either way, adding pages by use of a 'writing mistake" is never a good thing...IMO, at least.

An orphan is not a writing mistake. It's simply a matter of aesthetics and has always been that. Never heard of anybody padding their work to make a page count. Why would they do that? Who gave them a page count?

I'm under contract to adapt classic novels into audio plays of so many chapters of 3-400 words each. What do you think happens if I go over 400? Nothing. It's a matter of professional pride to me that I hit between 3-400 words per chapter, but I can hit 420 even and be fine. 280? Yeah, that's fine too.

Word count, page count... orphans... that's for writers that never get anywhere to worry about, IMO.

Quoted from DustinBowcot An orphan is not a writing mistake. It's simply a matter of aesthetics and has always been that.

Dustin, if you read my 1st post on this thread, you would see that I said the vast majority of orphans are caused by poor writing and I stick to that.

The orphan itself is merely the unwanted result of writing a crap line.

Quoted from DustinBowcot An orphan is not a writing mistake. It's simply a matter of aesthetics and has always been that. Never heard of anybody padding their work to make a page count. Why would they do that? Who gave them a page count? I'm under contract to adapt classic novels into audio plays of so many chapters of 3-400 words each. What do you think happens if I go over 400? Nothing. It's a matter of professional pride to me that I hit between 3-400 words per chapter, but I can hit 420 even and be fine. 280? Yeah, that's fine too. Word count, page count... orphans... that's for writers that never get anywhere to worry about, IMO.

I think if you read some of these comments more closely you'll see we're talking about an over-reliance on those things.  Anything in moderation is fine, but when it occurs multiple times on every page, that's a clear indicator of a writer who has not done their homework.  And I don't know about you, but when I see a script like that, the first thing I think is "If the writer didn't bother to learn format, which is the first thing you see when you open a script, they probably didn't bother to learn the really important stuff like how to build and structure a story or create three dimensional characters, either."  Essentially, they're shooting themselves in the very foot they're trying to get in the door.

It's worth keeping in mind that by and large, writers on this site are amateurs, writing spec scripts.  There are no Tarantinos here, no Kevin Smiths, no David Koepps, no Brian Helgelands.  These aren't long-established writers who can afford to buck format and guidelines, these aren't writers under a contract which gives them the freedom to ignore page counts.  Format, presentation and page count matter at this level.  To tell these aspiring writers otherwise is simply setting them up for failure.  And while I'm aware that screenwriting is a highly competitive field, I don't feel it necessary to sabotage people who are still learning the craft.

Quoted from Dreamscale Dustin, if you read my 1st post on this thread, you would see that I said the vast majority of orphans are caused by poor writing and I stick to that. The orphan itself is merely the unwanted result of writing a crap line.

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.

In all cases, each line should be killer. An orphan, rather than being an indicator if 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, 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 not the problem. Bad writing is.  

Quoted from Lon I think if you read some of these comments more closely you'll see we're talking about an over-reliance on those things.

Perhaps you are talking about on over-reliance but I'm just talking about orphans. What does an over-reliance mean in respect to orphans? How does one rely on an orphan when writing a screenplay, or, indeed, any type of prose (as it is frowned on in all disciplines aside from certain poetry as far as I'm aware)?

And there is the key phrase, frowned on. It is only other writers and, in the old days, typesetters that care about orphans

Quoted Text Anything in moderation is fine, but when it occurs multiple times on every page, that's a clear indicator of a writer who has not done their homework. And I don't know about you, but when I see a script like that, the first thing I think is "If the writer didn't bother to learn format...

I disagree. It merely, at that point, shows a writer that doesn't care about orphans. The odds of this happening multiple times per page are pretty slim.

Quoted Text They probably didn't bother to learn the really important stuff like how to build and structure a story or create three dimensional characters, either."  Essentially, they're shooting themselves in the very foot they're trying to get in the door.

Why would you need to learn that stuff? We grow up with stories all around us, how simple is it to copy what you see? Maybe needing to learn that stuff is the problem.

Quoted Text It's worth keeping in mind that by and large, writers on this site are amateurs, writing spec scripts.  There are no Tarantinos here, no Kevin Smiths, no David Koepps, no Brian Helgelands.  These aren't long-established writers who can afford to buck format and guidelines, these aren't writers under a contract which gives them the freedom to ignore page counts.  Format, presentation and page count matter at this level.  To tell these aspiring writers otherwise is simply setting them up for failure.  And while I'm aware that screenwriting is a highly competitive field, I don't feel it necessary to sabotage people who are still learning the craft.

How ridiculous. People fail due to varying reasons, even just bad luck, blaming it on using too many orphans in a script is plainly delusional.

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.