All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Following on from Demento's observation/question; the thing that I don’t understand is why you believe these things so strongly. You speak about what filmmakers expect or want, and what makes a good screenplay, but how has this information payed off for you personally? What tangible links do you have to the greater filmmaking community, and how do you know so strongly that what you say is gospel? You could talk about how it affects the read for you, but at the end of the day it’s only affecting you, I'd prefer to impress the majority.
It’s also very easy to open a pro script and see that the things you peach against are all quite prevalent.
I can’t remember the last script you put up that wasn’t a pisser or that came with a lot of excuses pre OWC as to why it would suck (drunk, rushed, etc.).
Personally, I'd love to see you put your money where your mouth is and write this amazing script that will have every filmmaker frothing.
I haven’t had any real success, as in, sold or optioned a feature that lead to bigger things, but I've had a few things made now, and people seem to like what I do, but all my scripts come with the issues you believe should hinder them. It literally makes no sense that you would continue to believe something that isn’t true.
At the end of the day I think sanity does prevail, when I was a newb on SS I got some strong criticism from you (and yes there is that one thing I still use), but anyone that hangs around long enough and read a lot of scripts will see that most of the things you stand firm on really aren’t a big deal. If these rules had helped propel your career or secured you a deal on a script then it would potentially be worth listening to, but at the moment what I’m doing is working just fine, and I break all the rules you believe exist.
Well, Warren, that's alot to respond to (see that "alot" in there?), but I'll try.
I've been writing my entire life. I've always enjoyed writing. Writing has always come very naturally to me. I majored in Technical Communications, which involved "alot" of creative writing and technical editing. Things "jump" off the page to me on first view. I see mistakes others don't see.
With my Communications degree, I learned much more than just the writing side of communications, but also the verbal side. Writing is merely the more "technical" aspect of communicating, but good communicators are hard to find these days, as most just don't quite get it...in terms of written or verbal communication.
How does that pertain to screenwriting, you ask, and what do I have to show for it? Well, I guess my true successes are of a personal nature, but I have turned down offers on 2 features, and both were in excess of $25,000. I was probably an idiot to do that, but I felt the offers were lowball, and 1 was to turn my script into a Chinese movie, with all new locales, and I would lose my rights to my script. I've also turned down an offer with a co-writer, in which we both would have had Screenwriter and Producer credits, because we knew what the powers that be were demanding was not the way to go.
There are definite rights and wrongs in everything. There are also grey areas and exceptions. I don't always stand with the crowd, as I'm not a follower. I know what's right and I know what's definitely wrong. For some reason, many things I say, are taken the wrong way, when it comes to those grey areas.
My Mom (no longer with us) always used to say, "Moderation in all things", and as I grew up, I rarely adhered to the mantra, and got my arse in trouble because of it. But, as I get older, I now see the wisdom in her simple words, and the reality isn't literally "moderation in all things", but more so, "be careful of going too far with something", because too much of a good thing or literally anything, is no longer a good thing.
When I first joined the merry SS band I was keen to get the views of the 'experts' on my scripts, Jeff's occasionally withering ones included
They were helpful and brought my scripts on in leaps and bounds, to the point where I think I more or less had the scripts into a format that they met Lon's checklist.
So my scripts now look 'standard' and I can concentrate on story, characters etc... the stuff Directors, Producers, Agents, Actors etc actually care about.
Personally, I like bold slugs, so a few years ago I put them in all my scripts - and the world didn't stop spinning, people didn't stop buying/making my shorts.
The only comments were from other writers, some did like them and some didn't... but I did so they stayed.
And I am totally comfortable with this because there is no 'rule book' that governs script format! That's right, no 'rule book' I've asked everywhere
There's just an evolving view of 'standard' that shifts slowly (with bold slugs becoming more popular
Even if there were such a book it would still just be screenwriters obsessing over it - not the gatekeepers we actually need to engage with - they just don't care.
So when you have finished your latest opus and you put it on SS for comment then it's you, the writer, who gets to choose which feedback to incorporate in your script.
So...
Bold slugs, go on be bold. You like wrylies, fine shame the devil and use them. Want to add some camera directions, do so, no one will die. Don't give a flying fck about orphans, leave them exactly where they are - they'll all move in the inevitable next draft anyway.
And that brings us back to the point of Col's original post...
Well, Warren, that's alot to respond to (see that "alot" in there?), but I'll try.
I've been writing my entire life. I've always enjoyed writing. Writing has always come very naturally to me. I majored in Technical Communications, which involved "alot" of creative writing and technical editing. Things "jump" off the page to me on first view. I see mistakes others don't see.
With my Communications degree, I learned much more than just the writing side of communications, but also the verbal side. Writing is merely the more "technical" aspect of communicating, but good communicators are hard to find these days, as most just don't quite get it...in terms of written or verbal communication.
How does that pertain to screenwriting, you ask, and what do I have to show for it? Well, I guess my true successes are of a personal nature, but I have turned down offers on 2 features, and both were in excess of $25,000. I was probably an idiot to do that, but I felt the offers were lowball, and 1 was to turn my script into a Chinese movie, with all new locales, and I would lose my rights to my script. I've also turned down an offer with a co-writer, in which we both would have had Screenwriter and Producer credits, because we knew what the powers that be were demanding was not the way to go.
There are definite rights and wrongs in everything. There are also grey areas and exceptions. I don't always stand with the crowd, as I'm not a follower. I know what's right and I know what's definitely wrong. For some reason, many things I say, are taken the wrong way, when it comes to those grey areas.
My Mom (no longer with us) always used to say, "Moderation in all things", and as I grew up, I rarely adhered to the mantra, and got my arse in trouble because of it. But, as I get older, I now see the wisdom in her simple words, and the reality isn't literally "moderation in all things", but more so, "be careful of going too far with something", because too much of a good thing or literally anything, is no longer a good thing.
I once caught a fish and it was this l....................................l big! While those examples are great, it's fair to say they hold no real value, and a deal is never made until money actually changes hands. For most of us that have had scripts optioned, we know how quick it can go south.
I feel like you are slightly relaxing your stance to "be careful of going too far with something", and why are you the one that decides where that line is? Wouldn’t that be subjective? I’ve never advocated for the overuse of wrylies or asides, I don’t think anyone has, so in my opinion I only use them where required, but then in your opinion they are overused. This is the point I’m trying to make, what makes you qualified to be judge and jury on the subject?
Also, you aren’t doing your cause any favours by continuing to use a made up word (alot), it goes against everything you apparently stand for, and in my opinion weakens your argument. If it’s okay to break an actual, real, existing grammatical rule (a lot vs alot) then why is it not okay to break made up rules?
C'mon guys. I used a simple little set-up of a woman pouring coffee to a man biting a burnt piece of bacon to illustrate how to use, and how not to use, a parenthetical. Yeah, some writers use parentheticals to indicate incidental actions. But let me ask you -- does removing the parenthetical action affect the course of the story?
No, it doesn't. Like, ever. Unless you're attempting to establish a rhythm -- such as suspense, or to illustrate tedium -- incidental actions, be they in the action/narratives OR parentheticals, serve no purpose whatsoever. Therefore, thus and so, they have no place in a screenplay.
Using a parenthetical to display subtext, on the other hand, does serve a purpose. Primarily, it reveals character. And as we all know (or at least, SHOULD know) dialogue exists for two reasons: to convey information, and to illustrate character. Everyone uses subtext; people rarely say exactly what is on their mind. And movie characters are no different.
Remember Wesley in The Princess Bride? Whenever he said "As you wish," what he really meant was "I love you." That reveals something about the character, it adds to our perception of him. And a good actor will know how to include the unspoken subtext. Watch how Carey Elwes delivers the line in the movie. We hear his voice recite the words, but we see from the twinkle in his eye and his slight little grin what he really means when he says them.
That's what parentheticals are for. Subtext. Anything else, you're just trying to direct the scene. Again, that's not the writer's job.
That's what parentheticals are for. Subtext. Anything else, you're just trying to direct the scene. Again, that's not the writer's job.
There are a lot of pro writers that are using parentheticals wrong then. I'm sorry but I'm just not buying this. I think subtext comes through in dialogue and action, While I don’t disagree that it could be used for subtext (although I don’t think this is the most effective way to illustrate subtext, and I personally think it’s a lazy way to do it), I personally don’t use them this way, and I don’t feel I’m using them incorrectly. Where does it say that this is the way to use them?
I’m sorry, but of course we want to direct the scene, it’s our bloody story. What directors do with it after that is there problem. Tell your story the way you want to tell it!
I once caught a fish and it was this l....................................l big! While those examples are great, it's fair to say they hold no real value, and a deal is never made until money actually changes hands. For most of us that have had scripts optioned, we know how quick it can go south.
It holds value to me and that's all that really matters.
These were not options, these were offers, but again, that doesn't matter here and I only bring these kind of things up when someone literally challenges me.
I feel like you are slightly relaxing your stance to "be careful of going too far with something", and why are you the one that decides where that line is? Wouldn’t that be subjective? I’ve never advocated for the overuse of wrylies or asides, I don’t think anyone has, so in my opinion I only use them where required, but then in your opinion they are overused. This is the point I’m trying to make, what makes you qualified to be judge and jury on the subject?
The line of how far is too far is obviously nonexistent...unless of course, you're dealing with parameters that literally state what the max's are for this and that.
How long should a scene play out and how long is too long? It depends on the scene...and the writing...and what's going on.
How many times should you use profanity in a script? It depends on the script...on the characters, the settings...the tone...the rating you're writing for...etc.
How many orphans are acceptable?
How many wrylies are OK?
How many times can you start an action/description line with "He", "She", or a character's name?
It all depends, right? On so many things, right?
But, you know what else? All these "things" and basically everything that's been brought up on this thread, have a cap of acceptability...or just being too many. They really do.
It's hard/impossible to put a cap on each thing, but for me, IMO, at least, too much is just too much, and I know when it's too much.
Also, you aren’t doing your cause any favours by continuing to use a made up word (alot), it goes against everything you apparently stand for, and in my opinion weakens your argument. If it’s okay to break an actual, real, existing grammatical rule (a lot vs alot) then why is it not okay to break made up rules?
As to "alot" or "a lot", I'm actually glad you brought this up.
First of all, the vast majority of the time I use the word is in informal communication = posts, texts, etc.
Secondly, used in dialogue, there really aren't any errors, based on made up words peeps use, pronunciations, etc. I also use the "words" "redonkulous", "redorkulous", and "unfuckingbelievable", too.
Third, if you look it up under "a lot" on wiki, you see that certain folk believe it will at some time become "acceptable", as right now, it's considered to be "nonstandard".
But 4th, and most importantly to me, there is an actual reason why I have ALWAYS spelled it this way. "a lot" isn't "a" word...it's 2. "a lot" has another completely different meaning, as used in such a line as, "Warren sits down outside a lot.", as referring to you sitting next to a "lot". But, do you see the dual meaning of the line I wrote? It could mean 2 completely different things, as the other would be that Warren sits down outside a great deal of times.
C'mon guys. I used a simple little set-up of a woman pouring coffee to a man biting a burnt piece of bacon to illustrate how to use, and how not to use, a parenthetical. Yeah, some writers use parentheticals to indicate incidental actions. But let me ask you -- does removing the parenthetical action affect the course of the story?
No, it doesn't. Like, ever. Unless you're attempting to establish a rhythm -- such as suspense, or to illustrate tedium -- incidental actions, be they in the action/narratives OR parentheticals, serve no purpose whatsoever. Therefore, thus and so, they have no place in a screenplay.
Using a parenthetical to display subtext, on the other hand, does serve a purpose. Primarily, it reveals character. And as we all know (or at least, SHOULD know) dialogue exists for two reasons: to convey information, and to illustrate character. Everyone uses subtext; people rarely say exactly what is on their mind. And movie characters are no different.
Remember Wesley in The Princess Bride? Whenever he said "As you wish," what he really meant was "I love you." That reveals something about the character, it adds to our perception of him. And a good actor will know how to include the unspoken subtext. Watch how Carey Elwes delivers the line in the movie. We hear his voice recite the words, but we see from the twinkle in his eye and his slight little grin what he really means when he says them.
That's what parentheticals are for. Subtext. Anything else, you're just trying to direct the scene. Again, that's not the writer's job.
I think I agree with you 100%, Lon.
And, I've never ever said that using a wrylie here and there is a bad thing...it's just not something anyone should be "overusing", which is subjective, or using on a normal basis, as it's just not the right way to go.
If this thread was a short, it could be called, 'Swinging BFDs'.
The clunk of BFDing on the virtual table is hilarious!
There should absolutely be a collaborative short written from this, and on that I'm not joking.
Modelled after Reservoir, each participant assumes a "Mr" moniker.
eldave - Mr. Wrylie Jeff - Mr. Rules
And so on.
I'm in! Those were the days when peeps actually did do the sort of thing you brought up. Where's fucking Stevie, when we need him? And, I don't think old Stevie has ever used a fucking action wrylie!!!
Great to see the views and thoughts on show. SS at its best!
Pages: 
Author
The Rules - Formatting fatigue
Logged
Locked Board