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.
See, mate - you just created a stop sign - number of wrylies. VO, etc 10 is not too many.
First of all, I did not create anything, nor did I "stop" reading Warren's script.
As I just said in my last post - If a writer is going to use VO for a character's thoughts, there is no "too many", in terms of the written script...but in a filmed version, you're not going to come across VO's all that often, and in most movies, you won't come across a single one.
In terms of wrylies, if you're saying it's perfectly fine to use more than 1 wrylie per page, I disagree with you completely, because a wrylie's use should be few and far between.
Warren, I just looked back at my feedback for your "Crazy in Love" script. Then, I opened up the script, and did some quick counts, just to see if I was wrong in what I wrote.
Here's the quick tally (and it may be off, as I did this quickly)...9 page script with 10 VO's, 4 OS's, and 10 wrylies.
I don't know how anyone could argue that there aren't an awful alot of these 3 things for a short, and IMO, WAY TOO MANY!
Peeps liked your script. That is obvious, as it "won". I liked it too, and gave it 3 out of 5 stars. If you lost the vast majority of the wrylies and OS's, nothing in the story would change, you'd save half a page, and I would have given you 4 stars. The VO's are a personal choice and each one is necessary, if that's the route you wanted to go. For me, it was confusing at first, because of them, and secondly and maybe even more importantly, I don't think they'll work in a filmed version as you envision, but what do I know?
This is exactly my point, every (O.S.), and (V.O.) was there for a purpose. The internal dialogue was a stylistic choice I actively made because that’s how I wanted to tell my story. For every bit of (O.S.) dialogue, the same point applies. The way I see it filmed in my head (and it is my story to tell) that dialogue is off screen. If it wasn’t written that way you would assume the camera is on that talking character, that’s not what I wanted.
All the wrylies either make it abundantly clear who is being addressed in conversation. In a group setting this would otherwise be unclear. The other wrylies help with setting the scene I want in a more economical way than writing it in action, as Dave mentioned in a previous post.
Everything was thought out, nothing was done unintentionally. If I lost all the (O.S.), (V.O.), and wrylies it would most definitely impact the story I wanted to tell.
"I don't know how anyone could argue that there aren't an awful alot of these 3 things for a short, and IMO, WAY TOO MANY!"
Yes in your opinion, and it was not a point argued by the vast majority. I would also like to point out, that for someone who is hell bent on correct format and grammar you still write “alot”, and I believe in the Fade to White thread argued that it was a style choice. Alot is not, and has not ever been a word in the way you use it, unless you’re talking about the town in India? Which I don’t think you are. I’d think at the very least you’d would want to be consistent.
First of all, I did not create anything, nor did I "stop" reading Warren's script.
As I just said in my last post - If a writer is going to use VO for a character's thoughts, there is no "too many", in terms of the written script...but in a filmed version, you're not going to come across VO's all that often, and in most movies, you won't come across a single one.
In terms of wrylies, if you're saying it's perfectly fine to use more than 1 wrylie per page, I disagree with you completely, because a wrylie's use should be few and far between.
Did not say you stopped reading the script. The stop sign was your metaphor for a rule. I.e you were creating a rule.
It is fine to use a wrylie per page. Warren used them perfectly.
This is exactly my point, every (O.S.), and (V.O.) was there for a purpose. The internal dialogue was a stylistic choice I actively made because that’s how I wanted to tell my story. For every bit of (O.S.) dialogue, the same point applies. The way I see it filmed in my head (and it is my story to tell) that dialogue is off screen. If it wasn’t written that way you would assume the camera is on that talking character, that’s not what I wanted.
I get what you're saying. I just wish you'd get what I'm saying.
I understand completely how OS works and why a writer would use it, but you also have to understand how it's perceived in a read - it's confusing at first, because it is not a common thing to use, as you, the writer, are not the Director, and your goal in a Spec script is not to direct the action in such minute ways.
Think about any conversation in a film or TV show. We do not always "see" the person who is talking. We may see another character listening. Hell, we may see a hot big titted babe walk by, but the general assumption in screenwriting is not to have the writer pick and choose when the camera is on the person talking.
Bottom line is that it's confusing to the reader and completely unnecessary.
All the wrylies either make it abundantly clear who is being addressed in conversation. In a group setting this would otherwise be unclear. The other wrylies help with setting the scene I want in a more economical way than writing it in action, as Dave mentioned in a previous post.
Everything was thought out, nothing was done unintentionally. If I lost all the (O.S.), (V.O.), and wrylies it would most definitely impact the story I wanted to tell.
Again, I get what you're saying, but I disagree. You may say all those wrylies were necessary, but they clearly were not. In fact, I doubt anyone would have issue if you had ZERO wrylies.
And that's really the point about wrylies - they're 98% unnecessary! If someone speaks with a certain dialect, yeah, use a wrylie. If someone whispers, use a wrylie. Otherwise, it's a personal choice that some like me will bring up when they're there in abundance, and no one will bring up if they're not there at all.
"I don't know how anyone could argue that there aren't an awful alot of these 3 things for a short, and IMO, WAY TOO MANY!"
Yes in your opinion, and it was not a point argued by the vast majority. I would also like to point out, that for someone who is hell bent on correct format and grammar you still write “alot”, and I believe in the Fade to White thread argued that it was a style choice. Alot is not, and has not ever been a word in the way you use it, unless you’re talking about the town in India? Which I don’t think you are  I’d think at the very least you’d would want to be consistent.
"but what do I know?"
This is hypothetical, right?
I always write "alot"! I may be incorrect, but I bet the "word" is only used in dialogue in my scripts, but I could be wrong.
Maybe I should set my next script in this town in India, so I wouldn't be making that mistake over and over.
And, yeah, it's hypothetical, as I really don't know all that much about all that much.
Did not say you stopped reading the script. The stop sign was your metaphor for a rule. I.e you were creating a rule.
It's not a metaphor, it is a rule! And it's a rule that many will argue when it happens on a quite secluded road, because the effect the rule was created for, no longer applies...as many are arguing here about why these certain rules shouldn't be rules at all.
[quote=eldave1It is fine to use a wrylie per page. Warren used them perfectly.[/quote]
Can you imagine reading a 100 page script with 2+ wrylies on every single fucking page? Really?
You can say Warren's use of the wrylies was perfect all you want, but as I said earlier to Warren, if he chose to use ZERO wrylies, not a single person, including you, Dave, would bring it up...because they would not be missed at all.
They are unnecessary. To me, unnecessary things in writing are a waste, and when they waste a line per use (other than action wrylies, which I personally just don't like), unnecessary is the least of the problems.
It's not a metaphor, it is a rule! And it's a rule that many will argue when it happens on a quite secluded road, because the effect the rule was created for, no longer applies...as many are arguing here about why these certain rules shouldn't be rules at all.
[quote=eldave1It is fine to use a wrylie per page. Warren used them perfectly.
Can you imagine reading a 100 page script with 2+ wrylies on every single fucking page? Really?
You can say Warren's use of the wrylies was perfect all you want, but as I said earlier to Warren, if he chose to use ZERO wrylies, not a single person, including you, Dave, would bring it up...because they would not be missed at all.
They are unnecessary. To me, unnecessary things in writing are a waste, and when they waste a line per use (other than action wrylies, which I personally just don't like), unnecessary is the least of the problems.[/quote]
You're wrong. They actually save lines. Read the examples I posted earlier in this thread . With a wrylie you can save 3 full lines when conveying action.
Warren used the in this way - saved a ton of lines
It's not a metaphor, it is a rule! And it's a rule that many will argue when it happens on a quite secluded road, because the effect the rule was created for, no longer applies...as many are arguing here about why these certain rules shouldn't be rules at all.
[quote=eldave1It is fine to use a wrylie per page. Warren used them perfectly.
Can you imagine reading a 100 page script with 2+ wrylies on every single fucking page? Really?
You can say Warren's use of the wrylies was perfect all you want, but as I said earlier to Warren, if he chose to use ZERO wrylies, not a single person, including you, Dave, would bring it up...because they would not be missed at all.
They are unnecessary. To me, unnecessary things in writing are a waste, and when they waste a line per use (other than action wrylies, which I personally just don't like), unnecessary is the least of the problems.[/quote]
Wrong. They actually save lines. Read the examples I posted earlier in this thread . With a wrylie you can save 3 full lines when conveying action.
Warren used the in this way - saved a ton of lines
Wrong. They actually save lines. Read the examples I posted earlier in this thread . With a wrylie you can save 3 full lines when conveying action.
Warren used the in this way - saved a ton of lines
I just relooked at the wrylies. None of them are necessary at all. The vast majority are all directional, as in where the dialogue is going. None of them save lines, because none are necessary.
It's nice to see how much you love this script and writer, but my points are all valid here.
BTW, how can you say that an action wrylie can save 3 whole lines? It can save 2 lines, not 3, but that's only if the "action line" is necessary.
I just relooked at the wrylies. None of them are necessary at all. The vast majority are all directional, as in where the dialogue is going. None of them save lines, because none are necessary.
It's nice to see how much you love this script and writer, but my points are all valid here.
BTW, how can you say that an action wrylie can save 3 whole lines? It can save 2 lines, not 3, but that's only if the "action line" is necessary.
They were all used effectively. Made things more clearer.
Saves 3 lines when you count the extra blank line avoided.
Saves 3 lines when you count the extra blank line avoided.
Your points are not valid.
You're assuming that it would take an "extra" Action/Description Line to include what the wrylie states. That's not necessarily going to be the case, depending on how you write it.
That would be an additional 3 lines, but your wrylie is going to take up 1 additional line, for a max savings of 2 lines.
You're assuming that it would take an "extra" Action/Description Line to include what the wrylie states. That's not necessarily going to be the case, depending on how you write it.
That would be an additional 3 lines, but your wrylie is going to take up 1 additional line, for a max savings of 2 lines.
Wrong. Example (I added line numbers so you can see): With the Wrylie
DAVE in the car. An unopened beer can is nestled between his legs.
A COP approaches, peers through the open window.
1.COP 2.License please. 3 (re: the beer can) 4.You been drinking?
Without the wrylie
1.COP 2.License please. 3. 4.The Cop looks at the beer can. 5. 6.COP 7. You been drinking?
4 lines vs 7 lines = a max savings of 3 lines.
But for shits and giggles, let's forget math and say it's only 2. You champion the elimination of orphans to save one line. Why not champion the use of wrylies to save 2???
Aside from the obvious line savings, wrylies can be used to write effectively and efficiently.e.g.,
To avoid dialogue confusion related to the intent of dialogie
GRANNY How did you like my stew? It’s an old family recipe.
BILL (sarcastically) I hated it.
For quick, significant actions
GARY Son of a bitch. You got blood on my shirt! (kicks the body) And now my shoe!
To provide clarity to whom dialogue is directed when there are multiple characters in a scene.
DAVE is in TOM's face.
DAVE You don't know anything about writing (at Mary) You agree, right?
So, in addition to saving space, they can provide other writing advantages. And - yes, they can be misused as is the case with all writing conventions. BUT - their effective use or misuse has nothing to do with the volume. To count wrylies and determine that it's bad once they reach a certain limit is simply bad advice to a writer because there is nothing inherently wrong with them and in many cases they can enhance the writing (and save lines as well).
Instead, if you have a problem with the specific use of one - comment on that - e.g., the writer could have written this better by.....
Wrong. Example (I added line numbers so you can see): With the Wrylie
DAVE in the car. An unopened beer can is nestled between his legs.
A COP approaches, peers through the open window.
1.COP 2.License please. 3 (re: the beer can) 4.You been drinking?
Without the wrylie
1.COP 2.License please. 3. 4.The Cop looks at the beer can. 5. 6.COP 7. You been drinking?
4 lines vs 7 lines = a max savings of 3 lines.
But for shits and giggles, let's forget math and say it's only 2. You champion the elimination of orphans to save one line. Why not champion the use of wrylies to save 2???
Aside from the obvious line savings, wrylies can be used to write effectively and efficiently.e.g.,
To avoid dialogue confusion related to the intent of dialogie
GRANNY How did you like my stew? It’s an old family recipe.
BILL (sarcastically) I hated it.
For quick, significant actions
GARY Son of a bitch. You got blood on my shirt! (kicks the body) And now my shoe!
To provide clarity to whom dialogue is directed when there are multiple characters in a scene.
DAVE is in TOM's face.
DAVE You don't know anything about writing (at Mary) You agree, right?
So, in addition to saving space, they can provide other writing advantages. And - yes, they can be misused as is the case with all writing conventions. BUT - their effective use or misuse has nothing to do with the volume. To count wrylies and determine that it's bad once they reach a certain limit is simply bad advice to a writer because there is nothing inherently wrong with them and in many cases they can enhance the writing (and save lines as well).
Instead, if you have a problem with the specific use of one - comment on that - e.g., the writer could have written this better by.....
Or...
"A COP approaches, peers through the open window, eyes the open beer."
It's all a matter of choice and IMO, a wrylie or more per page just doesn't help me like the script. Think about how easy it would be to use these action wrylies in place of action lines...you could have almost all action wrylies in a heavily weighted dialogue heavy script.
"A COP approaches, peers through the open window, eyes the open beer."
It's all a matter of choice and IMO, a wrylie or more per page just doesn't help me like the script. Think about how easy it would be to use these action wrylies in place of action lines...you could have almost all action wrylies in a heavily weighted dialogue heavy script.
So you prefer this:
A COP approaches, peers through the open window, eyes the open beer.
COP License please. You been drinking?
To this:
A COP approaches, peers through the open window.
COP License please. (re: the beer can) You been drinking?
Okay. I don't. I think the latter is much more reflective of what's happening and makes the dialogue clearer and just reads better and I think most folks would agree with me (just guessing).
Regardless, now we are talking about writing style and not a wrylie count rule. Much better discussion. The difference is this. If you were advising me that it could be clearer to write it like (your example), I would consider it, politely thank you and ultimately still disagree. Think my way is clearer. Conversely if your advise was in the form of - "you could eliminate your wrylie by doing this - nope - not listening. Cause they're ain't anything wrong with a wrylie.
Pages: 
Author
The Rules - Formatting fatigue
Logged
Locked Board