Quoted from Demento You are. I'm not saying this in a negative way, but really, your conviction about this stuff has not faltered as the years have gone by.

When I strongly believe in something, I champion it.

When I strongly believe against something, I fight it.

I can't help myself.  Throughout the years, I have gotten into many fights (as in serious fights, physical fights, and fights with friends or family) over things that shouldn't really matter.

Quoted from Dreamscale When I strongly believe in something, I champion it. When I strongly believe against something, I fight it. I can't help myself.  Throughout the years, I have gotten into many fights (as in serious fights, physical fights, and fights with friends or family) over things that shouldn't really matter.

Well, I hope your passion has brought many positive things into your life as well.

It's definitely evident, strong and unfaltering when it comes to screenwriting. We can all attest to that.

Quoted from Warren I count 18, I think you need to burn the script, it's unsalvageable.

Hey, it was only 15! I am truly open to suggestions on how else to handle these situations.

One was to indicate two different characters were saying the same thing at the same time, especially since some readers appear allergic to Dual Dialogue. Besides, how would you handle it if three or four people were speaking at the same time? I don't want to explain why the script needs to be printed in landscape

The one at the base of page 72 is a lot of incidental action because it'd take half a page if separated into dialogue and action blocks, and wouldn't take nearly half a minute on-screen. The one in the middle of page 75 is also incidental action to get the comedic timing right without, again, consuming half a page for a few seconds' screen time.

It's not like the whole script is drowning in wrylies, but these two overloads appear close enough to each other to concern me.

Quoted from Lon Sorry for the late response.  Boy, this thread got busy, didn't it?

Hey - thanks for the detailed response/thoughts, Lon.

Sorry for the late response.  Boy, this thread got busy, didn't it?

Quoted Text So, when I say "format," I need first to explain that when I provide feedback on a script here on SS, it's with the purpose of the site in mind.  And the purpose of the site is to help new writers learn how to write a script.  At least that's how I've always seen it.  So when I say "format" it's not just about margins and indentations and how many characters wide dialogue should be, it's the actual language of screenwriting.  The kinds of verbs used, how to write good descriptions, and, just as important as what to write, what NOT to write.  Mind you, I'm not about to go into stuff like story structure, character building, inciting incidents, etc.  That's all stuff for another conversation.  This is all about format and presentation.

Your definition of format is broader than mine. I wouldn't include the actual language  used. But good to know your view.

Quoted Text 1. No extraneous description.  Keep it lean and clean. 2. Always begin a new scene with slug line: INT/EXT - LOCATION - DAY/NIGHT 3. Keep action/narratives to four lines or less. 4. No camera directions, no actor directions, no stage directions, no scene numbering 5. Include only what can be seen, heard or visibly represented on film. 6. Use active, present tense verbs.

Generally good advice (especially if you are talking to a newbie)  IMO. Recognizing there are exceptions. e.g., Sometimes INT/EXT is not even relevant (e.g., SPACE, HEAVEN, etc.). Sometimes one should include what can't be seen to better establish tone, interest. etc.

So I like the list, especially in context when advising a new writer. i.e., Here are some building blocks - learn them. Once you get them down, know what you're doing -  discard them as appropriate to create a more interesting, clearer, read.  

Quoted Text Things like margins, dialogue width, capping a character's name upon introduction -- these are format standards that every writer needs to meet.  There is no reason for ignoring them.  Learn them, abide by them.

Agree.

Quoted Text The soft stuff you mentioned -- stuff like asides, wrylies/parentheticals, as well as orphans, stacking action, scene transitions, etc.  Those are much more subjective.

Agree

Quoted Text My advice is to keep them to an absolute, bare minimum.  An orphan here and there, an occasional parenthetical, an editorial comment/aside -- one or two isn't going to completely sink a script.  If the writer can't think of a better way to sell a moment, so be it.  But it's when the writer relies on them, when they occur on every page and the script is filthy with them, that it becomes a problem.  It goes back to the writer trying to direct the movie, direct the actors, etc.

Partially agree. I am less worried about the number of them then I am with whether they are used effectively. i.e., we may have a different view of what "filthy with them are". I've already posted where I think they're effective - so won't beat a dead horse.

Quoted Text Piggie-backing on some stuff that's already been said about wrylies/parentheticals, my thoughts are that they should only be used to imply subtext.  There is no need to include incidental actions.

Don't agree.

I think they are effective when used for incidental action that occurs during dialogue.

e.g,

Dave takes a gulp of soda.

DAVE
You know what I'm thinking?
(burps)
This could use some whiskey.


The wrong way:

Bob bites into a burnt piece of bacon.

In your Mary example - as you wrote it - made sense because Mary pours the coffee before she speaks. However, if it is this:

Mary grabs a pot of coffee, approaches Bob as he bites into a burnt piece of bacon.

MARY
So what do you think?
(pours coffee)
Any good?

I think it works effectively. That being said, I think either way is fine and would not find a reason to comment on it when reviewing a script.

Quoted Text A couple other things.  Capping sound FX -- it's an old practice that writers used to help the film's sound designer, as a courtesy.  But even if they're not capped, the sound designer's job is to scour the script looking for moments where sound FX are needed, so capped or not, they're going to find them.  Hell, they may even find some you didn't think to cap.  So cap them, don't cap them, I don't think it matters.

Agree

But there are many instances where caps come into play.  They can be helpful to direct the reader's eye without outright including camera directions, like...

Quoted Text Bob's hand slides to the PISTOL tucked into his waistband. Or they can be helpful in selling the impact of a moment: Mary looks over the railing of her 20th story patio to see the streets below SEETHING WITH THE LIVING DEAD!

Agree

It's nice to see I'm not completely alone here.

But, Dave, back to your last example about the breakfast/bacon/coffee scene.  Here's my point.

You're recommending using a wrylie to show when the coffee is being poured, right?  And you're recommending doing it this way, because it will save a couple lines.

But, who cares about the coffee being poured?  How in the world will that action serve any purpose in a script?  It's a detail that is not remotely necessary and would never (or should never) be added to the scene, because it doesn't matter.

In such a scene, or in any scene, for that matter, there are lots and lots of things going on that are not included in the spec script.  You see what I'm saying?

Quoted from Dreamscale It's nice to see I'm not completely alone here. But, Dave, back to your last example about the breakfast/bacon/coffee scene.  Here's my point. You're recommending using a wrylie to show when the coffee is being poured, right?  And you're recommending doing it this way, because it will save a couple lines. But, who cares about the coffee being poured?  How in the world will that action serve any purpose in a script?  It's a detail that is not remotely necessary and would never (or should never) be added to the scene, because it doesn't matter. In such a scene, or in any scene, for that matter, there are lots and lots of things going on that are not included in the spec script.  You see what I'm saying?

I know it's just an example, but you can argue the inclusion of showing her pouring the coffee (assuming she isn't a waitress!) adds subtle characterisation. It shows her as waiting on him, perhaps even subservient; as she is pouring the coffee, he is complaining about the burnt bacon.

So we learn a little about the dynamic of their relationship through this one wrylie, and the power imbalance that seemingly exists. I thought Lon's breakdown was excellent, and you could argue this wrylie is using character actions to convey meaning. You can, of course, say it can be written as an action line to achieve the same ends, but that then goes back to the intent to lower page usage.

Also, if I was reading for the part, the subtle, unpoken characterisations would stimulate ideas.

Quoted from Dreamscale It's nice to see I'm not completely alone here. But, Dave, back to your last example about the breakfast/bacon/coffee scene.  Here's my point. You're recommending using a wrylie to show when the coffee is being poured, right?  And you're recommending doing it this way, because it will save a couple lines. But, who cares about the coffee being poured?  How in the world will that action serve any purpose in a script?  It's a detail that is not remotely necessary and would never (or should never) be added to the scene, because it doesn't matter. In such a scene, or in any scene, for that matter, there are lots and lots of things going on that are not included in the spec script.  You see what I'm saying?

Christ sakes,  Jeff!

No! I'm not saying any of that.

I'm saying I like the wrylie when the quick action takes place during the dialogue.

I used the coffee example to follow up on the example listed. Not to get into a debate about the importance of a coffee related action block. So just pretend there's arsenic in the coffee. Important now?

Good grief

Good grief, indeed!

Now, we have Andrew saying that someone pouring coffee during breakfast shows character and relationship traits!

This is a no win situation.

Next OWC, my entry will be the one with 75% of the action lines written as wrylies, and most likely, the shortest of the bunch.

You guys better keep loving on the action wrylies and rate my script up there!!!  

Quoted from Dreamscale Good grief, indeed! Now, we have Andrew saying that someone pouring coffee during breakfast shows character and relationship traits! This is a no win situation. Next OWC, my entry will be the one with 75% of the action lines written as wrylies, and most likely, the shortest of the bunch. You guys better keep loving on the action wrylies and rate my script up there!!!

And I stand by it.

A story is a compression of life, so whilst the day to day pouring of coffee may have no significant meaning (although it can), you absolutely can argue - credibly - the action can be indicative of the power dynamic on-screen.

What the f*ck do you think actors are doing when they read the script?! They are looking for nuances to grow their character, and the screenplay should look to craft those openings.

Quoted from Andrew And I stand by it. A story is a compression of life, so whilst the day to day pouring of coffee may have no significant meaning (although it can), you absolutely can argue - credibly - the action can be indicative of the power dynamic on-screen. What the fuck do you think actors are doing when they read the script?! They are looking for nuances to grow their character, and the screenplay should look to craft those openings.

OK, hold up here a minute. This is getting a little out of hand crazy, IMO.

First of all, the coffee pouring line was a quick example someone threw out to show how using an action wrylie would save a couple lines, as apposed to throwing an action/description line, in the middle of dialogue that's going to be continued.

Now, out of the blue, you're saying that line is important because it shows character and relationship traits?  You're reading that in, Andrew.  That's not why it was included in the example.

You're simply trying to side with those that are saying this is the way to do it, and now you're somehow saying why the line is important.  That's crazy, brother!

Let's step away from screenwriting for a second and check out this scenario...

A man proudly walks along a busy street, in a notorious gay section of a city, wearing a pink shirt.

What does that tell you about him?  Does it mean he's gay?  Does it mean he's so secure in his masculinity that he can wear a pink shirt proudly in this area?  Does it mean his wife is very poor at doing laundry, because the shirt was actually white, but was tossed into a load of reds?  Could it mean his buddies bet him $20 that he wouldn't wear a pink shirt and walk along this  busy street of a notorious gay section of the city?  Or, is pink his girlfriend's favorite color, he wants to impress her and get into he panties, and to get to her apartment, he has to walk through this area?

Quoted from Dreamscale OK, hold up here a minute. This is getting a little out of hand crazy, IMO. First of all, the coffee pouring line was a quick example someone threw out to show how using an action wrylie would save a couple lines, as apposed to throwing an action/description line, in the middle of dialogue that's going to be continued. Now, out of the blue, you're saying that line is important because it shows character and relationship traits?  You're reading that in, Andrew.  That's not why it was included in the example. You're simply trying to side with those that are saying this is the way to do it, and now you're somehow saying why the line is important.  That's crazy, brother! Let's step away from screenwriting for a second and check out this scenario... A man proudly walks along a busy street, in a notorious gay section of a city, wearing a pink shirt. What does that tell you about him?  Does it mean he's gay?  Does it mean he's so secure in his masculinity that he can wear a pink shirt proudly in this area?  Does it mean his wife is very poor at doing laundry, because the shirt was actually white, but was tossed into a load of reds?  Could it mean his buddies bet him $20 that he wouldn't wear a pink shirt and walk along this  busy street of a notorious gay section of the city?  Or, is pink his girlfriend's favorite color, he wants to impress her and get into he panties, and to get to her apartment, he has to walk through this area?

I know it was a throwaway example, hence prefacing my initial comment with it!

Don't be so paranoid; I'm not out to get you or to side with anyone! I think you're good fun and a good guy, Jeff. I said earlier in the thread there is great value to your forensic analysis of scripts. This was not an attempt to get you!

Just simply saying an action (whether it be wrylie or an action line, and my initial comment said both would work) can be used for subtle characterisation. That is absolutely valid. Actors, in particular, get down to the minutae to develop the character.

The only reason I used that example - and was obviously freestyling, and shooting from the hip! - was because it had just been used.

Nothing more, or nothing less than that!

Absolutely don't want to get in a back & forth; obviously if you mock me, I will vebrally slap back!

Anyway, enough of this!

I didn't mean to mock you, Andrew, and I also don't think you're out to get me.

But I am serious in saying that peeps very often try to read way too much into something that actually means very little to nothing, as I see it all the time, and always have to laugh.

Quoted from Dreamscale When I strongly believe in something, I champion it. When I strongly believe against something, I fight it.

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 reads 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.

Quoted from Dreamscale I didn't mean to mock you, Andrew, and I also don't think you're out to get me. But I am serious in saying that peeps very often try to read way too much into something that actually means very little to nothing, as I see it all the time, and always have to laugh.

It's all good, mate.

We just have different perspectives on things, which is cool.

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...