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.
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!
They're PRO writers, Warren. They can do whatever they please. Many of them are wrong "alot"!!!
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.
And what I was saying is that they are pointless to bring up because it is comparable to the big fish I almost caught.
Quoted from Dreamscale
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.
We will always disagree on this, there is no cap if you can effectively use something, and it’s easy to draw the conclusion that it would not be effective to use tons of wrylies, but you are not the authority that decides that line. Yes you can have an opinion on it, but you deliver your reviews as fact not opinion.
Quoted from Dreamscale
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.
You get me, brother?
This gave me a really good belly laugh, thanks for that
"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"."
Certain folk also believe that you can use wrylies, asides, orphans, but their opinions mean nothing for some reason. I don’t know the folks at wiki, but I do know some pretty awesome writers on SS.
It is grammatically incorrect, period.
"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."
This is pure comedy gold, I'm sitting here with the biggest grin.
This has literately never confused anyone ever in the history of the world. If this was a situation in your script it would be more than one sentence that would give the scene perspective. I also never said a lot was a word, you are the only person that believes it can make one word. You are now making up your own rules.
I think the bigger issue is that you can’t be wrong, you can’t back down, this is proven in the Fade to White thread where you literately defend every choice you made even when several people point out the same thing.
You have such a hard line that if you tell someone something they "can take it to the bank", but you will literally never take anyone else’s opinion, not even great writers on this site.
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.
Well of course you do, he's the only person that is barely saying something close to what you’re putting out there.
They're PRO writers, Warren. They can do whatever they please. Many of them are wrong "alot"!!!
This is a ridiculous way of thinking and circles back to what I've been saying. How do you know what us amateurs can and can’t do, you have not cracked into the industry. And the scripts in the industry have all the things you preach against. There are 'a lot' of conclusions that can be drawn from that, and I'm going to go ahead and say that the conclusions you’re drawing are incorrect.
If you think of your work as something bound by rules, then you have to accept that you'll eventually become a craftsman. There's nothing wrong with that. You'll do good work, that meets standards, other people that know the rules will go - "oh, look, he knows the rules, he knows what he's doing." But, you'll never become an artist. I don't mean to glorify the concept of an artist. But, artists go their own way. They aren't bound by a framework and that's how innovation happens. They offer their own unique view and put their own stamp on things. This is very important because it allows the craft to advance as well. New rules are set and we evolve. A new approach opens new doors and questions the way we use to do things. Art is about ideas. New ideas. Paint by numbers paintings aren't art.
If we all go - these are the rules, this is how it's done. We'll hit a standstill. It'll all be formulaic and the same.
People should experiment. Maybe your unique writing style will be something that becomes part of your brand. An identifier.
In the end, we've had all these discussions before. We've all seen that successful writers and many anonymous spec-writers have broken through without following any of these rules. So, more often than not they don't really matter to the people that matter.
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?
Absent an action line that creates the required clarity - Yes.
Quoted Text
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.
Lon - I'm confused on your stance. You start by listing legitimate reasons to use them (establish rhythm, incidental actions, etc. Then you conclude they have no place in a screenplay. i,e,m you would never use them for incidental action taking place at the same time as the dialogue?
Quoted Text
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.
I agree with this but would add that subtext can be provided by incidental action as well as dialogue.
Quoted Text
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.
The script for the Princess Bride is awash with parentheticals - every type you can think of from incidental actions to narrative subtext. I mean there are tons of them, This from just one page.
BUTTERCUPS FARM - DAY
BUTTERCUP is standing, holding the reins of her horse, while in the background, WESTLEY, in the stable doorway, looks at her. Buttercup is in her late teens; doesn't care much about clothes and she hates brushing her long hair, so she isn't as attractive as she might be, but she's still probably the most beautiful woman in the world.
BUTTERCUP Farm boy. Polish my horse's saddle. I want to see my face shining in it by morning.
WESTLEY (quietly, watching her) As you wish.
Westley is perhaps half a dozen years older than Buttercup. And maybe as handsome as she is beautiful. He gazes at her as she walks away.
GRANDFATHER (off-screen) "As you wish" was all he ever said to her.
DISSOLVE TO:
WESTLEY, outside, chopping wood. Buttercup drops two large buckets near him.
BUTTERCUP Farm Boy. Fill these with water -- (a beat) --please.
WESTLEY As you wish.
She leaves; his eyes stay on her. She stops, turns -- he manages to look away as now her eyes stay on him.
GRANDFATHER (off-screen) That day, she was amazed to discover that when he was saying, "As you wish," what he meant was, "I love you."
He averages about two a page
Final note on this because I don't want to be misconstrued. I DO NOT think it is a mistake not to use wrylies in the same manner I do. If in your style you prefer complete action lines - great. I'll never look at one and conclude that should be a wrylie. I jsut don't think other writer's use of them in the areas I have discussed is wrong either.
If you think of your work as something bound by rules, then you have to accept that you'll eventually become a craftsman. There's nothing wrong with that. You'll do good work, that meets standards, other people that know the rules will go - "oh, look, he knows the rules, he knows what he's doing." But, you'll never become an artist. I don't mean to glorify the concept of an artist. But, artists go their own way. They aren't bound by a framework and that's how innovation happens. They offer their own unique view and put their own stamp on things. This is very important because it allows the craft to advance as well. New rules are set and we evolve. A new approach opens new doors and questions the way we use to do things. Art is about ideas. New ideas. Paint by numbers paintings aren't art.
If we all go - these are the rules, this is how it's done. We'll hit a standstill. It'll all be formulaic and the same.
People should experiment. Maybe your unique writing style will be something that becomes part of your brand. An identifier.
In the end, we've had all these discussions before. We've all seen that successful writers and many anonymous spec-writers have broken through without following any of these rules. So, more often than not they don't really matter to the people that matter.
Absent an action line that creates the required clarity - Yes.
Lon - I'm confused on your stance. You start by listing legitimate reasons to use them (establish rhythm, incidental actions, etc. Then you conclude they have no place in a screenplay. i,e,m you would never use them for incidental action taking place at the same time as the dialogue?
I agree with this but would add that subtext can be provided by incidental action as well as dialogue.
The script for the Princess Bride is awash with parentheticals - every type you can think of from incidental actions to narrative subtext. I mean there are tons of them, This from just one page.
BUTTERCUPS FARM - DAY
BUTTERCUP is standing, holding the reins of her horse, while in the background, WESTLEY, in the stable doorway, looks at her. Buttercup is in her late teens; doesn't care much about clothes and she hates brushing her long hair, so she isn't as attractive as she might be, but she's still probably the most beautiful woman in the world.
BUTTERCUP Farm boy. Polish my horse's saddle. I want to see my face shining in it by morning.
WESTLEY (quietly, watching her) As you wish.
Westley is perhaps half a dozen years older than Buttercup. And maybe as handsome as she is beautiful. He gazes at her as she walks away.
GRANDFATHER (off-screen) "As you wish" was all he ever said to her.
DISSOLVE TO:
WESTLEY, outside, chopping wood. Buttercup drops two large buckets near him.
BUTTERCUP Farm Boy. Fill these with water -- (a beat) --please.
WESTLEY As you wish.
She leaves; his eyes stay on her. She stops, turns -- he manages to look away as now her eyes stay on him.
GRANDFATHER (off-screen) That day, she was amazed to discover that when he was saying, "As you wish," what he meant was, "I love you."
He averages about two a page
Pro script Dave, the rules are different. So your argument is irrelevant.
This is a ridiculous way of thinking and circles back to what I've been saying. How do you know what us amateurs can and can’t do, you have not cracked into the industry. And the scripts in the industry have all the things you preach against. There are 'a lot' of conclusions that can be drawn from that, and I'm going to go ahead and say that the conclusions you’re drawing are incorrect.
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.
I'm sorry, I literally haven’t stopped laughing about this and wanted to circle back. How often do you talk or write about lots that this is so important to you, and that you need to defy the laws of grammar so that it's not an issue?
So... Rules don't matter? Fuck it. I'm taking my pants off AND I refuse to use apostrophes from this point forward. I shall also cap and underline character names ALL of the time. And never again will I start a script with Fade In. Pants are off people. The pants. Are off.
Pages: 
Author
The Rules - Formatting fatigue
Logged
Locked Board