Ah...something to talk about...it's been so dead here lately.

It always amazes me how peeps continue to pound on other peeps who try and help writers who don't know how to write.  I just don't get it, but then again, I think I do...maybe.

Those that keep barking about "rules" and format not being important in feedback are most likely the ones that don't see the mistakes...and/or why they are mistakes.

I've never been a very good dresser, so when someone who is tells me what I'm planning on wearing isn't a good idea, I thank them and make a change.

If I continuously drive to a certain place and it takes me 30 minutes each time, and then a friend tells me about a secret route that will get me there in 20 minutes, I try it out and if he's right, I thank him and make that my new route.

All this talk about commenting on character, theme, conflict, whatever is all great if you're dealing with a well written and conceived script in the first place, and IMO, those are very few and far between, both here at SS as well as in Hollywood, where we're given crappy movie after crappy movie.

When someone says they don't like this or that about your script, it's simply their opinion, and chances are very good they don't have a clue to start with.

BUT, when someone like myself says this and that are literally incorrect in your script, you can take it to the bank, as there's really no arguing it.  Thank me, make the changes, don't make the same mistakes on your next script, and you've become a better writer.

I know you value a well written script Jeff. I think we all do and as writers, we all should. However, IMHO, it is by far a lot harder to write a good story with great characters and meaningful theme than something that is grammatically correct. Therefore, again, IMO, everyone is willing to look past a few errors here and there if the story itself intrigues. Like you said, great concepts, with great stories and characters are far and few between. Hard to find even, so it's a treat when you come across one.  

Quoted from Grandma Bear I know you value a well written script Jeff. I think we all do and as writers, we all should. However, IMHO, it is by far a lot harder to write a good story with great characters and meaningful theme than something that is grammatically correct. Therefore, again, IMO, everyone is willing to look past a few errors here and there if the story itself intrigues. Like you said, great concepts, with great stories and characters are far and few between. Hard to find even, so it's a treat when you come across one.

Sure, but when you start reading a script that is a poor concept, a poor story, with nonexistent or poorly crafted characters, there's really no reason to even begin trying to change "everything" that needs changing.

Crap is crap, and if you write crap, why should others waste their time reading and making suggestions?

If something is good, sure, throw out some suggestions...I sure do.

I said a few errors here and there, not " poor concept, a poor story, with nonexistent or poorly crafted characters,".  

Quoted from Dreamscale Ah...something to talk about...it's been so dead here lately. It always amazes me how peeps continue to pound on other peeps who try and help writers who don't know how to write.  I just don't get it, but then again, I think I do...maybe. Those that keep barking about "rules" and format not being important in feedback are most likely the ones that don't see the mistakes...and/or why they are mistakes. I've never been a very good dresser, so when someone who is tells me what I'm planning on wearing isn't a good idea, I thank them and make a change. If I continuously drive to a certain place and it takes me 30 minutes each time, and then a friend tells me about a secret route that will get me there in 20 minutes, I try it out and if he's right, I thank him and make that my new route. All this talk about commenting on character, theme, conflict, whatever is all great if you're dealing with a well written and conceived script in the first place, and IMO, those are very few and far between, both here at SS as well as in Hollywood, where we're given crappy movie after crappy movie. When someone says they don't like this or that about your script, it's simply their opinion, and chances are very good they don't have a clue to start with. BUT, when someone like myself says this and that are literally incorrect in your script, you can take it to the bank, as there's really no arguing it.  Thank me, make the changes, don't make the same mistakes on your next script, and you've become a better writer.

Jeff, you old dog! Hope you're well.

When we are talking about format, it seems to me it comes down to two types:

1) Is it, quite literally, formatted correctly? Are there typos? Are there essential conventions being adhered to?

My feeling is no one disputes this is necessary. You're excellent at addressing this, as I have seen eldave is, too. You both offer detailed, forensic analysis on issues that act as barrier to getting to the story.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems no one is requesting this type of formatting critique be eliminated. Mostly, this type of analysis is beyond helpful to someone new to the screenplay writing craft. Without this help, they will make mistakes that interfere with the story they are trying to tell.

2) Then there is the like of asides, for example, which - at least to me, when done well - illuminate the story and read.

The task of the screenplay is surely to create a visual, desirable blueprint, and if the writer is able to do that whilst being creative and meeting the core competencies of expectation in format, then why not?

Of course, there is debate around how adroitly the writer is introducing the asides, and whether or not they are satisying point 1, but if we get bogged down in format for experienced writers (who do know the basic proficiency in format required), we risk missing the crucial elements such as tension, conflict, theme, character arcs, etc. That's when it becomes ineffective to go around in circles on format, IMO.

That then very much becomes a philosophical debate, and is often down to the personal preference of the reader.

For me, running over format isn't too interesting when I read a script, but I will say if I think the writing is getting in the way of the story. I much prefer to let others touch on format - even in the case of point 1, where the writer is new - because the core element is always the story; is it cohesive? does it have an internal logic? are characters fully fleshed? do motivations make sense? And so on. Because even poorly formatted scripts may have a golden story lurking underneath.

I think col is suggesting we should place greater emphasis on story when reviewing, but I don't think that's the same as saying format in unimportant.

At the end of the day, everyone's input is important and serves a purpose, because I firmly believe people commenting are doing so from a good place.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I said a few errors here and there, not " poor concept, a poor story, with nonexistent or poorly crafted characters,".

I know you did, Pia, but what I'm saying is that the vast majority of scripts are of poor quality, in terms of story, and characters///and characters' actions, and dialogue, and just flat out stuff that comes across as real.

If you want to tell a story about Carli the rainbow fox, then, by all means, go for it, but don't think I'm going to help you our with the story and characters and the like.  But, I will tell you how poorly it's written.

Quoted from Andrew Jeff, you old dog! Hope you're well. When we are talking about format, it seems to me it comes down to two types: 1) Is it, quite literally, formatted correctly? Are there typos? Are there essential conventions being adhered to? My feeling is no one disputes this is necessary. You're excellent at addressing this, as I have seen eldave is, too. You both offer detailed, forensic analysis on issues that act as barrier to getting to the story. Maybe it's just me, but it seems no one is requesting this type of formatting critique be eliminated. Mostly, this type of analysis is beyond helpful to someone new to the screenplay writing craft. Without this help, they will make mistakes that interfere with the story they are trying to tell. 2) Then there is the like of asides, for example, which - at least to me, when done well - illuminate the story and read. The task of the screenplay is surely to create a visual, desirable blueprint, and if the writer is able to do that whilst being creative and meeting the core competencies of expectation in format, then why not? Of course, there is debate around how adroitly the writer is introducing the asides, and whether or not they are satisying point 1, but if we get bogged down in format for experienced writers (who do know the basic proficiency in format required), we risk missing the crucial elements such as tension, conflict, theme, character arcs, etc. That's when it becomes ineffective to go around in circles on format, IMO. That then very much becomes a philosophical debate, and is often down to the personal preference of the reader. For me, running over format isn't too interesting when I read a script, but I will say if I think the writing is getting in the way of the story. I much prefer to let others touch on format - even in the case of point 1, where the writer is new - because the core element is always the story; is it cohesive? does it have an internal logic? are characters fully fleshed? do motivations make sense? And so on. Because even poorly formatted scripts may have a golden story lurking underneath. I think col is suggesting we should place greater emphasis on story when reviewing, but I don't think that's the same as saying format in unimportant. At the end of the day, everyone's input is important and serves a purpose, because I firmly believe people commenting are doing so from a good place.

What up, Andrew?  Long time, bro.

It may have been Dave who brought up the stuff about asides and the like, but you're talking about that here as well.

You say that writers who know what they're doing don't need to be told about such things, but what about when you're not familiar with the writer?  How can you know?

Well, I guess you can know when you read a wonderfully formatted, mistake free script that entertains, right?  But what if that wonderfully formatted, mistake free script that entertains, has cheesy lines like, "like a hungry lion attacking its prey", or, "faster than a cheetah", or how about, "as quietly as a mouse"?

Know what i'm saying?  Some asides will work, most will not.  And, it's those writers that don't get why some work and most don't, but for some reason, they think they need to try and throw some in to make their work jump off the page.

That's what I try to guard against.

Jeff, I'm sorry but I must correct you:
It's 'quiet as a mouse'.
...
Hmm, seems Col has drifted off again. Oh, the irony.

To be fair to Jeff, he once complimented me on an aside...

I know, shocking!

Quoted from LC Jeff, I'm sorry but I must correct you: It's 'quiet as a mouse'.

Well, actually, it depends on how it's used, but however it's used, it ain't gonna work.

Quoted from Andrew Maybe it's just me, but it seems no one is requesting this type of formatting critique be eliminated. Mostly, this type of analysis is beyond helpful to someone new to the screenplay writing craft. Without this help, they will make mistakes that interfere with the story they are trying to tell.

Overall, your post was pretty much spot on.

This is specifically what I want eliminated:

THE WRITING IS BAD BECAUSE:

- You used an aside.
- There's an unfilmable
- You use a parenthetical
- etc.

While some "format" issues are perfectly clear, they are not the ones that start the debate - typically anyway. It's when some one concludes that the use of the types of items I listed above (and some others) constitutes bad writing.

IMO, those that limit their writing to what can be seen or heard are shortchanging their work.

Take something like this from QT:

The French Farmer sits down on the stump he was previously chopping away at, pulls a handkerchief from his pocket, wipes sweat from off  his face, and waits for the Nazi convoy to arrive. After living for  a year with the sword of Damocles suspended over his head, this may
very well be the end.

Now, some peeps will say - horrible! Look at that unfilmable in the last line. I found it perfect. It created tension, made we really feel for the farmer and is a reader I loved it.

Yes - I'll see newbies use them and it is clear that they don't know the general guideline.

e.g., DAVE comes up home. He's upset. He just got fired from work.

meh.

Same with asides. If they help me get to know a character better or really set the tone for a scene - God love em.

Parentheticals (wrylies) are another far too criticized tool. Apparently some fok decades ago taught people never to use them. That's horrible advice.

They can create clarity when their are multiple characters in a scene. e.g.,

DAVE is in TOM's face.

DAVE
You don't know anything about writing
(at Mary)
You agree, right?

Or save a line or two.

e.g.,

DAVE in the car. An unopened beer can is nestled between his legs.

A COP approaches, peers through the open window.

COP
License please.
(re: the beer can)
You been drinking?

Without the wrylie one would have to write:

COP
License please.

The Cop looks at the beer can.

COP
You been drinking?

Results in an extra line of action and two blank lines. The parenthetical allows you to convey in 7 lines (including blanks) what would take seven without it.

But regardless, someone will come along and say WRYLIES!!!

Don't listen.

And never listen to the writing is bad because of the use of these devices. If you are enjoying the read, are not disturbed by the format/style used - then you know the writing is solid.

"Rules" not withstanding.

And finally this - if the rules were all that important, those who adhered to them the most strictly would be the ones selling scripts. That is simply not the case.

My opinion anyway.

Quoted from eldave1 ... Parentheticals (wrylies) are another far too criticized tool. Apparently some fok decades ago taught people never to use them. That's horrible advice. They can create clarity when their are multiple characters in a scene. e.g., DAVE is in TOM's face. DAVE You don't know anything about writing (at Mary) You agree, right? Or save a line or two. e.g., DAVE in the car. An unopened beer can is nestled between his legs. A COP approaches, peers through the open window. COP License please. (re: the beer can) You been drinking? Without the wrylie one would have to write: COP License please. The Cop looks at the beer can. COP You been drinking? Results in an extra line of action and two blank lines. The parenthetical allows you to convey in 7 lines (including blanks) what would take seven without it. But regardless, someone will come along and say WRYLIES!!! Don't listen. And never listen to the writing is bad because of the use of these devices. ... My opinion anyway.

Dave, you just gave a textbook perfect example of how to use wrylies correctly.
The advice to never use them is wrong, yes. It's about using them minimally however, not littered throughout the script and only when needed imho.

Nobody who has an ounce of scriptwriting knowledge could object to your example.

As a matter of fact I will borrow your example for a review I'm doing, if you don't mind?

The opposite of this is when Newbs do this:

MARGARET
(angry)
You're grounded for a week, Peter!
No TV,! No video games! No phone!

PETER
(whining)
Oh, jeez Mum, that's just not fair!

The dialogue speaks for the tone.

Notice the overuse of exclamation points too.
Newbs often do this. Then they learn more cause hopefully it's pointed out.

Quoted from LC Notice the overuse of exclamation points too. Newbs often do this. Then they learn more cause hopefully it's pointed out.

Overusing exclamation points is something I used to really struggle with. Still think I may go a bit overboard with them occasionally.

Quoted from LC Dave, you just gave a textbook perfect example of how to use wrylies correctly. The advice to never use them is wrong, yes. It's about using them minimally however, not littered throughout the script and only when needed imho. Nobody who has an ounce of scriptwriting knowledge could object to your example. As a matter of fact I will borrow your example for a review I'm doing, if you don't mind? The opposite of this is when Newbs do this: MARGARET (angry) You're grounded for a week, Peter! No TV,! No video games! No phone! PETER (whining) Oh, jeez Mum, that's just not fair! The dialogue speaks for the tone. Notice the overuse of exclamation points too. Newbs often do this. Then they learn more cause hopefully it's pointed out.

Thanks, Libby. Also totally agree with avoiding using them to Express emotions.  One exception might be sarcasm where the tone isn't obvious or implied.

I’m reading the script for Heat(1996) one of my top 3 films (though I’ve always hated the ending - it was sorta boring lol)  anyway the director Michael Mann wrote the script so I guess he could use any formatting in it.

But it does use interesting slugs: here is an example of one and the scene following...


EXT. CHINESE RESTAURANT - NEIL - NIGHT

and everyone else exits fron the restaurant, say their goodbyes and go to their cars: Neils Lincoln, Chris’s SevilLe, Cerrito’s Sedan de Vi1le, Towner to a restored El Camino.

Every slug in the script pretty much includes the first char in the next scene which is quite cool.

Also the Amy Brennemann char is actually a Chinese woman in this script which obviously got changed to Amy when they shot it.

Carry on chaps! 😂😂