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.
The only thing that seems to come close is when we engage in a debate on a writing "rule." That really brings the peeps out.
I haven't been too active of late but I hope to get back on here again more regularly.
However, this is one of the reasons why I have drifted from the site. As you rightly pointed out, people love to get into the nitty gritty about rules rather than, as far as I can tell, talk about story and character which is far more important and, dare I say, interesting. Script discussion boards dry up fast but a thread with "format" or "rules" in its title gets serious traffic. It's a shame really.
I compare it to the predominant conversation in English club soccer/football right now which is all about the pending introduction of VAR (Video Assisted Refereeing) rather than talking about the game itself. Its equally as tiresome as talking about formatting ad nauseum.
Of course, learning the format and discussing the rules is part of screenwriting, I just feel the attention it receives is disproportionate to its importance.
Anyway, apologies for my non-related-to-OWC rambling.
And in all conversations I've had with Producers and Directors, the niceties of formatting have NEVER come up.
It seems to be just something the screenwriting community obssess over.
Perhaps because it is a lot easier to say "you've got an orphan" or it should be V.O. not O.C. than it is to actually provide constructive story/character feedback - which is by nature more subjective.
Of course there's need for some structure and standardisation in the script formatting but I just don't think it's anywhere near as important (to those who matter) as we think it is.
I'm now off to add some 'we see's to my latest script
Perhaps because it is a lot easier to say "you've got an orphan" or it should be V.O. not O.C. than it is to actually provide constructive story/character feedback - which is by nature more subjective.
Oh I would say there is no "perhaps" about it. That's the primary reason. As you say, it's far easier to comb through a script and say what is right and wrong on a formatting level while it takes a certain degree of critical thinking to discuss story, character and (I forgot to mention) theme. The fact that the latter is more subjective is not really an issue I think. Just add the caveat that this is your opinion and articulate it.
Don't really see the issue with commenting on formatting, to be honest. (I'm talking the basics here, not things like orphans etc).
If a writer hasn't bothered to learn the basics of formatting, it can be a precursor to what the story is going to be like - because they probably haven't bothered to learn about story structure, characterization, plot blah blah blah.
Never knowingly spoken to producers or directors - so no idea what they look for - but I would imagine they don't mention it because it's a basic that's expected to be there. Like if the formatting is fine no one will comment because no one has noticed, but if it's terrible it sticks out. Kinda like if you are buying a house you wouldn't be like "It has running water, excellent" - but if it didn't you would be like "no running water? WTF!" - Sorry about this, I am terrible at explaining myself.
Also, again I have no experience so don't know, but generally don't we have to get past script readers first before a producer or director see's it? aren't they generally writers themselves who can and will pick up on formatting issues?
Where am I going with this? I dunno - I guess when people point out formatting things on my scripts, I find it helpful. There are always other reviewers who point out story elements.
I haven't been too active of late but I hope to get back on here again more regularly.
However, this is one of the reasons why I have drifted from the site. As you rightly pointed out, people love to get into the nitty gritty about rules rather than, as far as I can tell, talk about story and character which is far more important and, dare I say, interesting. Script discussion boards dry up fast but a thread with "format" or "rules" in its title gets serious traffic. It's a shame really.
I compare it to the predominant conversation in English club soccer/football right now which is all about the pending introduction of VAR (Video Assisted Refereeing) rather than talking about the game itself. Its equally as tiresome as talking about formatting ad nauseum.
Of course, learning the format and discussing the rules is part of screenwriting, I just feel the attention it receives is disproportionate to its importance.
Anyway, apologies for my non-related-to-OWC rambling.
Hey col!
Hope you’re well. Been a while!
My view on it is that the formatting discussions are fine, but they shouldn’t get an outsized focus, which does sometimes happen. I tend to avoid commenting on format, preferring to offer views on story and characters; is there tension, is there conflict, is it filmmable, etc. I also like to offer my own ideas on plot, which are just out out there for consideration rather demand. And then tend to explicitly state that others will address any obvious formatting issues. Agreed that producers and directors generally don’t care about formatting (on the assumption the script meets a basic minimum proficiency in the art).
When it comes down to splitting hairs on things like asides, some people love that type of philosophical debate, which is fine by me. The solution to ensure the board doesn’t get swamped in one type of discussion is to introduce more story and character debates.
Was on YouTube yesterday, watching J Nolan on Larry King, and a question was asked... ‘what attracts you first; character or concept?’, which I thought was a great discussion starter!
On things like OWC (and maybe this is already done, as haven’t been involved in one for a long time), there can be an optional template for reviewers to tick off format, plot, story, theme, characters, tension and conflict; a sort of matrix to analyse the scripts.
However, this is one of the reasons why I have drifted from the site. As you rightly pointed out, people love to get into the nitty gritty about rules rather than, as far as I can tell, talk about story and character which is far more important and, dare I say, interesting. Script discussion boards dry up fast but a thread with "format" or "rules" in its title gets serious traffic. It's a shame really.
Of course, learning the format and discussing the rules is part of screenwriting, I just feel the attention it receives is disproportionate to its importance.
This.
I'll add that I've seen a turn on these boards (I can't speak for elsewhere) in the last couple years. That is, there's never really an actual debate anymore. The vast majority of folks (all but one or two specific people, really) essentially repeat the same things (professional writers don't follow rules, industry folks don't really care, that it's more important to focus on plot/character, that rules are important when you're starting out but flexible when you have more experience, etc.) with little to no opposition. Thread after thread, the conversation always seems to pan out the same way and usually with the exact same people.
Is this fun for anyone? Of course, I don't have to be involved, but I'm genuinely curious at this point. After so many years, I've got rules discussion fatigue way more than actual rules fatigue.
I haven't been too active of late but I hope to get back on here again more regularly.
However, this is one of the reasons why I have drifted from the site. As you rightly pointed out, people love to get into the nitty gritty about rules rather than, as far as I can tell, talk about story and character which is far more important and, dare I say, interesting. Script discussion boards dry up fast but a thread with "format" or "rules" in its title gets serious traffic. It's a shame really.
I compare it to the predominant conversation in English club soccer/football right now which is all about the pending introduction of VAR (Video Assisted Refereeing) rather than talking about the game itself. Its equally as tiresome as talking about formatting ad nauseum.
Of course, learning the format and discussing the rules is part of screenwriting, I just feel the attention it receives is disproportionate to its importance.
Anyway, apologies for my non-related-to-OWC rambling.
Concur. To me there are two types - when you see a newbie with out any clue as to format, etc - then some rules discussion is valuable.
When you get into the asides, parentheticals, orphans issues on an otherwise solid script it it a tedious and pointless discussion.
The Rules/formatting discussion fatigue is mainly going to affect seasoned screen writers who are tired of the focus being on writing 'errors' and not story, theme, characters, dialogue etc.
I'm posting feedback on a script later with lots of suggestions re formatting because the amount of simple errors is actually detracting from the read. For those starting out I think it's necessary to give some direction.
Also, one more comment regarding ditching the rules 'when we know what we're doing already'. By all means experiment , example: I loved what Dan Gilroy did with Nightcrawler, but...
I have a particular fondness for FADE IN being written at the top of a script. It signifies for me ooh, this is the start of something special - hold onto your hats!
I do not understand why people ditch that. To me it's like doing away with the info music /drum roll prior to a movie starting.
When you get into the asides, parentheticals, orphans issues on an otherwise solid script it it a tedious and pointless discussion.
Can't agree more.
Not that I'm against discussing the rules/formatting issues, they are really important, they define what makes a script a script, but... when the script is solid, is it really necessary to put so much emphasis on them? And, most importantly, is it constructive? Just thinking out loud...
If a writer hasn't bothered to learn the basics of formatting, it can be a precursor to what the story is going to be like - because they probably haven't bothered to learn about story structure, characterization, plot blah blah blah.
This.
Keep in mind that a script will have already gone through at least one set of hands before it ever reaches the producer, and those hands typically belong to a studio reader, who DOES pay attention to formatting and presentation. And more often than not, the quote above is their assumption as well, that if this writer couldn't even put forth the effort to learn proper format, they probably didn't put forth the effort to learn how to structure a story or create three dimensional characters, either. By presenting your script with bad formatting, you've already shot yourself in the very foot you're trying to get in the door.
Let us not forget that we're talking about Hollywood here, the film industry. Appearances matter. Even with screenplays. There is a standard you are expected to meet as a screenwriter. There is certainly some wiggle room, and a strong story can sometimes penetrate the bad impression that poor formatting can make, but why risk it? Just learn the damn format and stick to it.
Think of it this way: would you rather a producer tell you they turned down your script because the story didn't interest them, or that they turned down your script because the formatting was so poor that they didn't even bother reading it?
A good story might get passed over due to distractingly bad formatting, but no one is going to produce a bad story because the formatting was excellent.
Think of formatting your script as wearing a decent suit to an interview. It demonstrates a certain level of seriousness, but in the overwhelming majority of cases doing better than “decent” won’t score you any extra points.
Even if they fall in love with your feature spec script, it’s still going to get mangled into a shooting script before anything gets filmed.
Keep in mind that a script will have already gone through at least one set of hands before it ever reaches the producer, and those hands typically belong to a studio reader, who DOES pay attention to formatting and presentation. And more often than not, the quote above is their assumption as well, that if this writer couldn't even put forth the effort to learn proper format, they probably didn't put forth the effort to learn how to structure a story or create three dimensional characters, either. By presenting your script with bad formatting, you've already shot yourself in the very foot you're trying to get in the door.
Let us not forget that we're talking about Hollywood here, the film industry. Appearances matter. Even with screenplays. There is a standard you are expected to meet as a screenwriter. There is certainly some wiggle room, and a strong story can sometimes penetrate the bad impression that poor formatting can make, but why risk it? Just learn the damn format and stick to it.
Think of it this way: would you rather a producer tell you they turned down your script because the story didn't interest them, or that they turned down your script because the formatting was so poor that they didn't even bother reading it?
Lon:
I think it important to define "format" in the context of your point. Some format rules are like typos - i.e., there is an objective wrong or right. e.g., regardless of how great I think a script might be, I would point out to the writer the need to put DAY or NIGHT (or whatever - MORNING, etc) at the end of their header. etc. And I agree with you that these things ought to be clean as a whistle.
It's the soft ones that bother me - asides, parenthetical, etc that often can enhance a read that some folks will hammer on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On the rules and formatting... it's been the best part of a few years since I've written anything seriously. In that time I've worked in film, produced a short, and generally got myself au fait with the process of making films, but completely abandoned screenwriting; have also been out of film for about 3 years, as I decided to enter the corporate world for $$.
Anyway, life story and contextualising over, I want to get writing properly, and am a little rusty on the rules.
So I have a formatting question!
When you open on black, with sound and a super... is this the correct introduction?
ON BLACK
An alarm clock buzzes non-stop.
SUPER: In dreams begin responsibilities. YEATS, W.B.
FADE IN:
INT. OLLIE'S FLAT - BEDROOM - MORNING
Daylight streams through closed curtains.
I know how basic, this is, but I've completely forgotten! Many basics like this have left my head.
I will post the first 12 pages or so of a story I first posted on SS over 10 years ago, which at that point was a 3-pager. It will be an incomplete story, but feedback will be hugely helpful.
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.
All good thanks, mate. Good to be back on SS.
For sure, you can never be 100% on how experienced a writer is (unless you do know), but I guess the main point is not letting the usage of asides, wrylies or whatever else to distract from the story. It's fair to say that the aside or flourish doesn't work for the reviewer, but to not let that define the script.
I think it's absoluely cool to offer any advice that is intended to be useful. Film is a collaborative process, and SS, as its best, mirrors that collaborative nature.
I've actually posted a basic format question I need help for, so please help me on that one!
On the rules and formatting... it's been the best part of a few years since I've written anything seriously. In that time I've worked in film, produced a short, and generally got myself au fait with the process of making films, but completely abandoned screenwriting; have also been out of film for about 3 years, as I decided to enter the corporate world for $$.
Anyway, life story and contextualising over, I want to get writing properly, and am a little rusty on the rules.
So I have a formatting question!
When you open on black, with sound and a super... is this the correct introduction?
ON BLACK
An alarm clock buzzes non-stop.
SUPER: In dreams begin responsibilities. YEATS, W.B.
FADE IN:
INT. OLLIE'S FLAT - BEDROOM - MORNING
Daylight streams through closed curtains.
I know how basic, this is, but I've completely forgotten! Many basics like this have left my head.
I will post the first 12 pages or so of a story I first posted on SS over 10 years ago, which at that point was a 3-pager. It will be an incomplete story, but feedback will be hugely helpful.
IMO - what you have is clear. So mission accomplished. An alternate for you to consider.
BLACK SCREEN
The incessant BUZZING of an alarm clock.
SUPER: In dreams begin responsibilities. YEATS, W.B.
FADE IN:
INT. OLLIE'S FLAT - BEDROOM - MORNING
Daylight streams through closed curtains.
These are real nits and again - what you have is clear enough. But the reason for my suggestions:
If you start with ON BLACK - does a sound (buzzing) really go on something? That's why I prefer just BLACK SCREEN
"Incessant" sounds like a more irritating description than "non-stop".
Some of these "rules" that writers obsess about are editing choices and are IMO nothing writers should dabble in. Unless they also happen to be experienced editors. Just tell the story and let others do what they do best.
However, this is one of the reasons why I have drifted from the site. As you rightly pointed out, people love to get into the nitty gritty about rules rather than, as far as I can tell, talk about story and character which is far more important and, dare I say, interesting. Script discussion boards dry up fast but a thread with "format" or "rules" in its title gets serious traffic. It's a shame really.
Going back to the original post before I add my 2 cents.
This seems like a pretty odd reason to drift from the site because this only really affects you as much as you let it. If someone comments on your script regarding format/rules and you either disagree or don’t care then just let it slide off your back, no harm done. You are also free to comment on the hundreds of scripts on the site in any way you see fit, if you would prefer to focus on story, character, theme, no one is stopping you. So I see this as a personal problem not a site problem.
As far as my personal thoughts on the 'rules' and other associated issues go; I think they have a place.
When I started writing I knew nothing, and I didn’t have a site like SS to help me along, so I read books, lots and lots of books by the 'gurus' and I read a lot of scripts. One thing I could tell very quickly is that there is a way to write a script. Obviously everyone has their own style, their own little things they do that set them apart, but for the most part a script looks like a script. That led me to believe that whether written or not there was a convention on how to write a script.
So I went ahead and learnt all those rules, I know them back to front at this point. My first script was so rule heavy that it was wooden, it had no life, but dammit it was formatted correctly in the eyes of the gurus.
I can honestly say that not many of my scripts on this site have a lot criticism about the writing (other than those from Jeff, that I largely ignore), and for the most part the comments I get are things like "really well written", "Solid writing - good craftsmanship", "Expertly written", and “The writing was excellent", or the writing isn't commented on at all. This means that the comments that follow are generally on story and associated elements. I truly think this is because I still strive to write within the rules, for the most part.
In the years I have been a part of SS I have developed my own style, do love a good aside, I definitely see the value in a well-used wrylie, if the best written block of action has an orphan, who cares, and if I think that some out-of-the-box method of doing something will either enhance or clarify my story I am sure as hell going to use it. But in saying all of that, I learnt the 'rules' which really are conventions more than rules and I still largely apply them and I think it benefits my writing to an extent.
I used to comment heavily on format because that’s what I knew, now when I comment on format I will generally add that it may be a personal preference thing or that it really doesn’t matter too much, but that for me personally it affected the read in one way or another. Sure, use camera directions, we sees, lots of passive writing, an overload of wrylies, but this will more than likely change the reading experience for me if it isn't done in a way that does not benefit the story.
I can honestly say that not many of my scripts on this site have a lot criticism about the writing (other than those from Jeff, that I largely ignore)...
Oh, Warren, c'mon, man. Really?
On other such threads, you've admitted several times that things I have said on your scripts have helped you and many things I've brought up, you still do to this very day, although you wouldn't say exactly what those things are.
First off, thanks Libby for moving my tangential post to a new thread. Sorry again for hijacking the OWC thread.
Good to see people are debating it and, honestly, I'm heartened to see most people are in general agreement with me. I just wish this would manifest itself on the boards more.
My point was mainly regarding the disproportion of conversation about rules in comparison to story, character, etc. I didn't say (and I don't think anyone else is saying this either) that discussing rules is not important. I explicitly said it was. What I’m saying is that it’s not important as the latter yet it seems to get way more attention.
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.
Hey man, I’m good, I hope you are well too. Thank you for understanding my point and articulating it far more eloquently.
Not that I'm against discussing the rules/formatting issues, they are really important, they define what makes a script a script, but... when the script is solid, is it really necessary to put so much emphasis on them? And, most importantly, is it constructive? Just thinking out loud...
Yep, I’m agreed with you two. That’s what I was getting at.
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.
- You seemed to have missed my central point (assuming you are responding to my comment). I’ve reiterated it above and it was also expressed by Andrew (better than I ever could), Dave and Phil so I won’t repeat it again.
This seems like a pretty odd reason to drift from the site because this only really affects you as much as you let it. If someone comments on your script regarding format/rules and you either disagree or don’t care then just let it slide off your back, no harm done. You are also free to comment on the hundreds of scripts on the site in any way you see fit, if you would prefer to focus on story, character, theme, no one is stopping you. So I see this as a personal problem not a site problem.
- Well it affected me in as much that finding discussion about character, plot, etc was scarce while every thread about rules/formatting had 50+ comments. That doesn’t really interest me. Anyone who has conversed with me on here about their work or mine will know that I talk about the former first and foremost and formatting is secondary. So yeah it’s a personal problem in that it was becoming harder and harder to find meaningful conversation and this was related to the site and the direction it had, as far as I could see, increasingly taken. Of course, I’m not suggesting this was some guided, concerted change, it’s just how it felt to me. Hence, I drifted from it. Don’t see how that’s an odd reason.
I have a particular fondness for FADE IN being written at the top of a script. It signifies for me ooh, this is the start of something special - hold onto your hats!
I do not understand why people ditch that. To me it's like doing away with the info music /drum roll prior to a movie starting.
I can only speak for myself but I ditch it sometimes because I don’t envision a particular opening scene fading in. Simple as that. A lot of films start like that and many don’t. Some start in the middle of the action. So why should it be this standardised thing on the page when it’s not standardised on screen?
I've moaned about this before on here I'm sure. It really bugs me because I remember entering a competition once which docked me points because I didn’t write FADE IN: due to the fact that I didn’t see the script starting in that manner. It was a stylistic choice. This, to me, is a prime example of adherence to the rules taking precedence over common sense, creativity, practicality. Its silly.
And yes, the irony/hypocrisy of me getting into this in light of my original comment is not lost on me
I've moaned about this before on here I'm sure. It really bugs me because I remember entering a competition once which docked me points because I didn’t write FADE IN: due to the fact that I didn’t see the script starting in that manner. It was a stylistic choice. This, to me, is a prime example of adherence to the rules taking precedence over common sense, creativity, practicality. Its silly.
This is a great example, not for being silly, but for showing the importance of certain things...like using FADE IN to start your action. Yeah, there are lots of ways to do this without using FADE IN, but skipping it completely shows that you're simply bucking the system, IMO.
Here's a quick analogy (I love analogies!).
I hope we all understand that when driving, a stop sign and/or a red light both signify the need to stop (momentarily for a stop sign and until the red light turns green).
Well, what about if it's really late at night/early morning, and no one is on the road? Or, how about if you're out in the country and again, no one is within miles of you? Do you stop because you've been trained to stop, or simply blow through it, because common sense tells you that the rules don't have to apply here, as there's simply no reason to stop with no one around you?
If you routinely blow through read lights and stop signs, chances are good you're going to get a ticket, as video cams are popping up everywhere, or maybe it's simply a trap and a cop is waiting out of sight.
But, what also happens is that you're now telling yourself it's OK to break the rules (the law) when you deem it to be OK, and that's where the problems begin.
I think it important to define "format" in the context of your point. Some format rules are like typos - i.e., there is an objective wrong or right. e.g., regardless of how great I think a script might be, I would point out to the writer the need to put DAY or NIGHT (or whatever - MORNING, etc) at the end of their header. etc. And I agree with you that these things ought to be clean as a whistle.
It's the soft ones that bother me - asides, parenthetical, etc that often can enhance a read that some folks will hammer on.
This right here is pretty much it for me, and I think it's an extremely important distinction to make, generally speaking. I try to be more tolerant about that kind of thing nowadays to allow writers some room to experiment.
That said, I once read a parenthetical in an amateur script that was eight lines long, a full-on paragraph stating exactly why or how the attached four-word line should be said. By the time I finished reading the jumble of nonsense in that parenthetical I had essentially lost the rhythm of the scene and, by extension, lost sight of its purpose.
Shit like that doesn't tell me that the writer is experimenting... it tells me that they have never read and perhaps have never even laid their eyes on a screenplay in their life, and probably figured it'd be easy because they wrote a short play once or some B.S.
Do I think people get too hung up on the rules? Yes, I do. Do I think the rules should be bent or broken when they need to be? Yes, absolutely.
Do I also think that the rules are there for a reason, namely to avoid unfortunate incidents like the above? Yep!
This right here is pretty much it for me, and I think it's an extremely important distinction to make, generally speaking. I try to be more tolerant about that kind of thing nowadays to allow writers some room to experiment.
That said, I once read a parenthetical in an amateur script that was eight lines long, a full-on paragraph stating exactly why or how the attached four-word line should be said. By the time I finished reading the jumble of nonsense in that parenthetical I had essentially lost the rhythm of the scene and, by extension, lost sight of its purpose.
Shit like that doesn't tell me that the writer is experimenting... it tells me that they have never read and perhaps have never even laid their eyes on a screenplay in their life, and probably figured it'd be easy because they wrote a short play once or some B.S.
Do I think people get too hung up on the rules? Yes, I do. Do I think the rules should be bent or broken when they need to be? Yes, absolutely.
Do I also think that the rules are there for a reason, namely to avoid unfortunate incidents like the above? Yep!
This is a great example, not for being silly, but for showing the importance of certain things...like using FADE IN to start your action. Yeah, there are lots of ways to do this without using FADE IN, but skipping it completely shows that you're simply bucking the system, IMO.
Here's a quick analogy (I love analogies!).
I hope we all understand that when driving, a stop sign and/or a red light both signify the need to stop (momentarily for a stop sign and until the red light turns green).
Well, what about if it's really late at night/early morning, and no one is on the road? Or, how about if you're out in the country and again, no one is within miles of you? Do you stop because you've been trained to stop, or simply blow through it, because common sense tells you that the rules don't have to apply here, as there's simply no reason to stop with no one around you?
If you routinely blow through read lights and stop signs, chances are good you're going to get a ticket, as video cams are popping up everywhere, or maybe it's simply a trap and a cop is waiting out of sight.
But, what also happens is that you're now telling yourself it's OK to break the rules (the law) when you deem it to be OK, and that's where the problems begin.
Using your analogy.
No one is really arguing to run the stop sign. They are debating two things:
- What is a Stop Sign? - What does running that Stop Sign mean?
For me, asides, unfilmables, wrylies, bold headers and a whole host of other things are not Stop Signs. When I read reviews that contain stuff like - you used a wrylie, there's an orphan, there's an aside, I generally learn nothing as it carries the same weight as if someone had said you used a verb or a noun. Worse, when I read comment that concludes the writing is bad because of the existence of these elements, I think the commenter is simply inaccurate and hope the writer ignores them.
Same for things like V.O. and O.S. e.g., When someone points out their existence - like they're inherently a bad thing, (or a Stop Sign in this analogy) it's useless - because they're not stop signs. Conversely, if someone is making an argument that - hey. I think the scene would work better if the character actually said the line versus just thinking it because (insert reason)- then I'm listening. I may end up disagreeing - but I'm listening.
And then there is the weight given to the things that are reasonably construed as Stop Signs. As an example, I think scripts should generally start with FADE IN. That being said I can remember a single instance where I noticed if it was there or not. It's a nit and should be given the weight of one in terms of the overall writing.
Films can start over black or why captions/supers, in which case the fade wouldn't come until after that.
It can also be a creative decision to not open on a fade and instead hard-open from black, either to accentuate the tone of the story or to achieve some other creative purpose.
In any of these cases, starting with FADE IN is a creatively stifling element that's only still in people's minds because of tradition. In reality, it's kind of a dinosaur, since the only logic that dictates its use are scene transitions, which have been all but abandoned in spec writing for over a decade.
I do start most of my work with FADE IN unless in the event of the above-mentioned cases, but I mostly do so out of habit.
Films can start over black or why captions/supers, in which case the fade wouldn't come until after that.
It can also be a creative decision to not open on a fade and instead hard-open from black, either to accentuate the tone of the story or to achieve some other creative purpose.
In any of these cases, starting with FADE IN is a creatively stifling element that's only still in people's minds because of tradition. In reality, it's kind of a dinosaur, since the only logic that dictates its use are scene transitions, which have been all but abandoned in spec writing for over a decade.
I do start most of my work with FADE IN unless in the event of the above-mentioned cases, but I mostly do so out of habit.
The FADE OUT at the end doesn't serve much more of a purpose than to signify the script is over. The transition to the closing credits could be an iris or something else entirely. I might be misremembering, but I think the original Star Wars trilogy pre-lapped the theme and cut to the credits?
At the opposite end of the spectrum was Return of the King which just... wouldn't... stop... fading... out. I think the Collector's Edition box set had a whole extra DVD of additional endings
The left-justified FADE IN is basically a salutation letting you know you're on the first page of the script. The FADE OUT actually gets in my way because I like to have the denouement leak into the closing credits (because I wouldn't want them squished into an unreadable mess if the movie ever gets made and makes its way to TV).
I still put FADE OUT on the last line, but nothing is really fading there.
This is a great example, not for being silly, but for showing the importance of certain things...like using FADE IN to start your action. Yeah, there are lots of ways to do this without using FADE IN, but skipping it completely shows that you're simply bucking the system, IMO.
Here's a quick analogy (I love analogies!).
I hope we all understand that when driving, a stop sign and/or a red light both signify the need to stop (momentarily for a stop sign and until the red light turns green).
Well, what about if it's really late at night/early morning, and no one is on the road? Or, how about if you're out in the country and again, no one is within miles of you? Do you stop because you've been trained to stop, or simply blow through it, because common sense tells you that the rules don't have to apply here, as there's simply no reason to stop with no one around you?
If you routinely blow through read lights and stop signs, chances are good you're going to get a ticket, as video cams are popping up everywhere, or maybe it's simply a trap and a cop is waiting out of sight.
But, what also happens is that you're now telling yourself it's OK to break the rules (the law) when you deem it to be OK, and that's where the problems begin.
Again, you are missing the main point of my argument so I'll paraphrase what I said in response to Libby...
I don't use FADE IN: if I don’t envision a particular opening scene fading in. A lot of films start like that and many don’t. Some start in the middle of the action, "in medias res" (Its a Latin term so its gotta be legit, right?) I only use FADE IN: if I want the opening scene to fade in. Simple as that.
Anyway, goddammit, I'm now mired in a conversation about FADE IN: on a thread called "Rules - Formatting Fatigue". I'm obviously part of a problem I flagged
The FADE OUT at the end doesn't serve much more of a purpose than to signify the script is over. The transition to the closing credits could be an iris or something else entirely. I might be misremembering, but I think the original Star Wars trilogy pre-lapped the theme and cut to the credits?
At the opposite end of the spectrum was Return of the King which just... wouldn't... stop... fading... out. I think the Collector's Edition box set had a whole extra DVD of additional endings
The left-justified FADE IN is basically a salutation letting you know you're on the first page of the script. The FADE OUT actually gets in my way because I like to have the denouement leak into the closing credits (because I wouldn't want them squished into an unreadable mess if the movie ever gets made and makes its way to TV).
I still put FADE OUT on the last line, but nothing is really fading there.
- I have the same approach to FADE OUT: Some endings fade out, others don't. It depends. It should be a creative choice, not mandatory.
No one is really arguing to run the stop sign. They are debating two things:
- What is a Stop Sign? - What does running that Stop Sign mean?
For me, asides, unfilmables, wrylies, bold headers and a whole host of other things are not Stop Signs. When I read reviews that contain stuff like - you used a wrylie, there's an orphan, there's an aside, I generally learn nothing as it carries the same weight as if someone had said you used a verb or a noun. Worse, when I read comment that concludes the writing is bad because of the existence of these elements, I think the commenter is simply inaccurate and hope the writer ignores them.
Same for things like V.O. and O.S. e.g., When someone points out their existence - like they're inherently a bad thing, (or a Stop Sign in this analogy) it's useless - because they're not stop signs. Conversely, if someone is making an argument that - hey. I think the scene would work better if the character actually said the line versus just thinking it because (insert reason)- then I'm listening. I may end up disagreeing - but I'm listening.
And then there is the weight given to the things that are reasonably construed as Stop Signs. As an example, I think scripts should generally start with FADE IN. That being said I can remember a single instance where I noticed if it was there or not. It's a nit and should be given the weight of one in terms of the overall writing.
Damn, you guys are killing me! This stuff is so simple, it's just shocking how it keeps coming up...over and over again.
Why would anyone debate what a stop sign or red stop light is...or for? It's universally recognized as 1 of the most important "rules" of the road, and they are 1 of the main reasons why we can all drive in relative safety.
Why would anyone debate what running the stop sign or red stop light would mean? It's pretty obvious that if you run stop signs and stop lights, while traffic is around you, you'll cause/be in accidents and you'll get tickets for the infractions.
What I tried to bring up is how this universal driving rule really doesn't matter at all when others aren't on the streets (and cops aren't watching to give you a ticket).
Stop signs and stop lights aren't bad things. Actually, they're great things and without them, driving would be a true nightmare.
Rules aren't bad things, either. They're there for a reason.
Somehow you and others have this strange thing in your heads that screenwriting "rules" and formatting are bad things and inhibitors.
Orphans, asides, wrylies, and the like do not fall into any rules that I'm aware of, so I'm confused how/why they keep popping up on threads like these.
Orphans, asides, wrylies, and the like do not fall into any rules that I'm aware of, so I'm confused how/why they keep popping up on threads like these.
Because you continue to treat them as stop signs (rules). See your comments on any OWC ever.
On other such threads, you've admitted several times that things I have said on your scripts have helped you and many things I've brought up, you still do to this very day, although you wouldn't say exactly what those things are.
Give The Kid some credit.
I was waiting for that Yes that one thing is breaking up my action into shots. I still definitely do that. I said largely, not entirely.
Like your review of my last script that included a lot of comments about my use of (O.S.), (V.O.), and wrylies. I’m happy with the way I use them, and it isn’t incorrect so I don’t worry about that criticism.
Because you continue to treat them as stop signs (rules). See your comments on any OWC ever.
Dave, c'mon now. In your above quote, you're insinuating that "stop signs" and "rules" are bad.
In my analogy, I said the opposite. I said they are 1 of the most important reasons that driving isn't utter chaos and life threatening.
I also said when other cars aren't on the road, these things don't do anything to prevent chaos and death, as in they don't really matter unless a cop sees you and gives you a ticket.
When you throw your work out to the world to see and read, any good reader "sees" when things are overlooked, done poorly, incorrectly, or just shouldn't be there.
An orphan by itself is not a problem at all...unless it's the result of poor writing or editing.
A wrylie here and there can be important to the script, but when used in excess, it's a deterrent to the read.
A smart, witty, unique aside can add to a script. Asides popping up all over the place is again a deterrent to the read.
I don't understand where the confusion is coming from.
Dave, c'mon now. In your above quote, you're insinuating that "stop signs" and "rules" are bad.
In my analogy, I said the opposite. I said they are 1 of the most important reasons that driving isn't utter chaos and life threatening.
I also said when other cars aren't on the road, these things don't do anything to prevent chaos and death, as in they don't really matter unless a cop sees you and gives you a ticket.
When you throw your work out to the world to see and read, any good reader "sees" when things are overlooked, done poorly, incorrectly, or just shouldn't be there.
An orphan by itself is not a problem at all...unless it's the result of poor writing or editing.
A wrylie here and there can be important to the script, but when used in excess, it's a deterrent to the read.
A smart, witty, unique aside can add to a script. Asides popping up all over the place is again a deterrent to the read.
I don't understand where the confusion is coming from.
Quite the contrary. I didn't say stop signs are bad. I said calling something a stop sign that is not one is bad. Please re-read my post.
You view certain things as stop signs that simply are not. Like wrylies as an example. Hope that is clearer.
I've never called anything a stop sign, other than an actual red stop sign, as in my analogy.
I don't know where you are coming from on me viewing certain things as stop signs, or what that even means.
I am now even more confused.
Hmm.
Try looking at your comments on the top 5 in the last OWC as an example. You treat VO, wrylies, etc. Like they are rule violations . By that, you merely note their existence in a script as if by their use the writer is doing something wrong.
I was waiting for that Yes that one thing is breaking up my action into shots. I still definitely do that. I said largely, not entirely.
Like your review of my last script that included a lot of comments about my use of (O.S.), (V.O.), and wrylies. I’m happy with the way I use them, and it isn’t incorrect so I don’t worry about that criticism.
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?
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?
See, mate - you just created a stop sign - number of wrylies. VO, etc 10 is not too many.
Try looking at your comments on the top 5 in the last OWC as an example. You treat VO, wrylies, etc. Like they are rule violations . By that, you merely note their existence in a script as if by their use the writer is doing something wrong.
Dave, maybe we both have too much time on our hands today, but I think you know I enjoy a good friendly debate, so i have to continue.
A VO is a personal choice a writer can make, and it's not often used. If that's the route the writer chooses, then that's all fine and dandy with me, and every single time a character gives us a VO, it needs to be shown, obviously. There's nothing wrong with using VO's, and it rarely even comes up, as most characters speak out loud.
Wrylies are another beast altogether, and IMO most peeps do not really know how to uee them correctly and/or effectively. A wrylie here and a wrylie there is not a problem, if used correctly, if used in a way that enhances the read, and/or if it helps the reader understand/see something clearer.
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.
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.
As I said above, which you didn't comment on...here lies the problem.
You can say you like that 1 sequence as you wrote it with the wrylie...I have no issue with that.
But, I think you're saying you like that better in every situation like that, and as I noted, in a dialogue heavy type script, where action is few and far between, you could very easily be doing this many times per page.
Is that really what you want a script to look like?
Yeah, moderation in all things...except maybe hot chicks, alcohol, good food, money, free time....FUCK...OK, I'll stop. But, you see where this could lead if you truly think this is a superior way to write action?
As I said above, which you didn't comment on...here lies the problem.
You can say you like that 1 sequence as you wrote it with the wrylie...I have no issue with that.
But, I think you're saying you like that better in every situation like that, and as I noted, in a dialogue heavy type script, where action is few and far between, you could very easily be doing this many times per page.
Is that really what you want a script to look like?
Yeah, moderation in all things...except maybe hot chicks, alcohol, good food, money, free time....FUCK...OK, I'll stop. But, you see where this could lead if you truly think this is a superior way to write action?
No, I didn't respond as I did not find the argument very compelling. It's like arguing the use of one voice over would lead to a script with all voice overs. That the use of one flashback would lead to a script with all flashbacks. And obviously you know I don't like using this device for all action lines or even most action lines since you read my stuff and you know I don't. In other words advocating the use of parentheticals when you think it makes for a better read and no way advocates for the use of parentheticals all the time.
I have already detailed several instances where I think the use of parentheticals can enhance the writing. Why don't you deal with those?
Ps. I'm done. Not much more to say. Will give you last word
Wow, the back and forth between Jeff and Dave has me somewhere between amused, intrigued and depressed...and backs up my original claim.
Anyway, I think the root of the conflict here is that some people consider all instances of straying from format convention to be worthy of comment, to be flagged, to be struck down as categorically wrong while others see them as on a sliding scale, a gradation of degrees. Some formatting rules you should not break, others are negotiable, dependant on style or preference.
The former I will mention once, recommend a change and move on, the latter will only get an internalised "That's not how I would do it but fair enough, its the writer's choice" and not detract or distract from the reading experience. It allows me to focus on the more important elements of the script.
So the problem I see with taking the hardline approach that any deviations are worthy of comment is that you see lengthy reviews on here of solidly written scripts where 95% of the review's content is about these niggly format issue with very little about the script itself. That is what disheartens me as this type of review is nominally helpful but mostly a waste of energy and rather tedious.
I've only been here a short while, but since I joined I have pretty much read every comment and review posted.
Personally, I haven't noticed an imbalance in reviews between format and story. If the formatting is horrible then I can't read the story (basic formatting, the type of stuff that really hinders the read). I'll make a comment saying that it should be properly formatted and move on, if they then improve the formatting and re-post, I'll be able to read the actual story and I'll be able to comment on that.
If something is formatted correctly (I.E the basics) then I have noticed that most reviews are a healthy mix of more advanced formatting issues/Story/Grammer and spelling. Some reviewers focus more on one area than others, some helpful reviewers comment on everything.
So... are we talking about a problem that doesn't exist? or am I blind to it?
I joined the site 11 years ago and although I haven't always been a consistently active member, I check in on a regular basis and this is the pattern I've noticed over that period of time. Even more so now since, as others have mentioned, the site is pretty dead between the OWCs...or when a format/rules based thread pops up of course.
Anyway, I'm repeating myself again.
I should also make it clear that I love this site. It has helped me a lot and I've met some cool people/great writers on here.
No, I didn't respond as I did not find the argument very compelling. It's like arguing the use of one voice over would lead to a script with all voice overs.
Dave, this is not even remotely on subject here. C'mon, man!!! As I posted at least once, probably a few times, let's all be clear, that if a writer makes the personal choice to have his character(s) "speak" with VO, then every single time that happens, you'll have a VO...and it could be alot...which is fine, as it's the nature of the VO beast.
That the use of one flashback would lead to a script with all flashbacks.
Same exact thing here. If a writer decides to use Flashbacks to tell their story, every time there's a Flashback, it has be be labeled as such, and Flashback heavy scripts/movies, will have alot of them (hey, I have 1 of those Flashback heavy scripts myself). Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
And obviously you know I don't like using this device for all action lines or even most action lines since you read my stuff and you know I don't. In other words advocating the use of parentheticals when you think it makes for a better read and no way advocates for the use of parentheticals all the time.
Well, I know you never used to be all in on action wrylies, but based on this back and forth, that may have changed, but that's not really the point again. My concern is that writers who don't know what they're doing will all of a sudden think it's perfectly OK to have loads of wrylies in their scripts. And based on the last OWC, that appears to be true.
I have already detailed several instances where I think the use of parentheticals can enhance the writing. Why don't you deal with those?
I have absolutely no problem with a wrylie here and a wrylie there, where necessary and/or the better way to go. The issue is when they start to pile up, when they literally stick out. Saying it's perfectly fine to have 2 or more wrylies on every page opens the door for abuse.
I've mentioned this before on here, but there is a series of interviews with screenwriters hosted by producer Micheal De Luca, they're on DVDs from the mid-2000s. In one episode with writer Billy Ray (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0712753/), Billy says that one thing most writers neglect are wrylies. He teaches writers to use wrylies and to use them often because it's his opinion that you can enhance your story with them.
Now, whether he's right or wrong is a debate we can save for another day. My point is, a sought-out Hollywood writer uses wrylies, encourages others to use them and they fit his philosophical approach to storytelling on paper.
He has his approach, you can have yours. Clearly, people can be successful with different approaches. This cannot be disputed. We've seen screenplays get posted here that have sold for numbers none of us we'll likely see, that have been written in a manner that would have members here check out by page 2.
What I want to know is why is it that every time these threads pop-up, Dreamscale chimes in with his opinion, which he presents as fact, as the right and only way to go. Then he goes on for pages debating and defending his stance. This is not criticism, I honestly want to know why these screenwriting conventions and rules are so important to him, despite the fact that it has been proven time and time again that highly successful and critically acclaimed writers do not follow them.
Why are you so passionate about this subject Dreamscale, and why are you so set in your ways?
DEMENTO (motions to each) He has his approach, you can have yours. Clearly, people can be successful with different approaches. This cannot be disputed. (several in the audience raise their hands to start objecting, but elect to let DEMENTO finish) (others point to the orphan) We've seen screenplays get posted here that have sold for numbers none of us we'll likely see, that have been written in a manner that would have members here check out by page 2. (deep breath) What I want to know is why is it that every time these threads pop-up, Dreamscale chimes in with his opinion, which he presents as fact, as the right and only way to go. Then he goes on for pages debating and defending his stance. This is not criticism, I honestly want to know why these screenwriting conventions and rules are so important to him, despite the fact that it has been proven time and time again that highly successful and critically acclaimed writers do not follow them. (faces DREAMSCALE) Why are you so passionate about this subject Dreamscale, and why are you so set in your ways?
(several in the audience raise their hands to start objecting, but elect to let DEMENTO finish) (others point to the orphan)
Please write this as a description/action line next time. Also: It should be: 'to object' and delete: 'elect to...' And format that non-indented line to match the rest.
He has his approach, you can have yours. Clearly, people can be successful with different approaches. This cannot be disputed. We've seen screenplays get posted here that have sold for numbers none of us we'll likely see, that have been written in a manner that would have members here check out by page 2.
- I'm in full agreement with the caveat that the amount at which its advisable to stray from certain rules depends on how established you are as a writer...but yes, the kernel of what you are saying is true, and thankfully so. Jesus, how dull would screenplays be otherwise?
I won't comment as to why Jeff is so vocal about this except to say he has always been as far as I've seen him on here. I doubt he's gonna change now and why should he? This is what he believes. However, let's be fair, he's not alone.
What I'm more curious about is that, on the basis of this thread anyway, most people seem to concur about the relative importance of story/character over formatting so why doesn't the discussion boards here reflect this? Even those in the majority seemed to get dragged into these debates against the minority so it ends up being the dominant topic of conversation.
To answer my own question, I think I know why. As I said in response to Anthony's post earlier, its just much easier to nitpick over fussy rules than have an analytical discourse about more abstract stuff like story, character, theme and so on. (Who cares if its subjective? I'd much rather someone reviews a script by what it did/didn't to them emotionally or dramatically, regardless of how misguided their opinions may be, rather than a step-by-step technical check list)*
Thus, some people bail out of a script prematurely under the pretense of "its unreadable, poorly formatted" so they don't have to contend with that. They just list a bunch of errors, however slight, and click post.
I think it important to define "format" in the context of your point. Some format rules are like typos - i.e., there is an objective wrong or right. e.g., regardless of how great I think a script might be, I would point out to the writer the need to put DAY or NIGHT (or whatever - MORNING, etc) at the end of their header. etc. And I agree with you that these things ought to be clean as a whistle.
It's the soft ones that bother me - asides, parenthetical, etc that often can enhance a read that some folks will hammer on.
Sorry for the late response. Boy, this thread got busy, didn't it?
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.
I've read countless screenwriting books since first becoming interested in the craft many years ago, and while they all have their own suggestions (and many even contradict one another) there are a handful of guidelines they almost all agree on:
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.
These are, by and large, the rules of spec script writing -- which is itself by and large the type of script a new screenwriter will be writing. And the reasons for these spec writing rules are...
1. Too much description, the script becomes a traffic jam. A whole lot of noise, very little progress. 2. Not including slugs, the reader loses sense of progression and location. 3. Action/narratives kept to four lines because huge chunks of text are off-putting and make it feel like a chore to read. Plus, if you're using that many lines, clearly you're ignoring #1. 4. No camera/actor/stage directions or scene numberings because you're the writer, not the director, not the production designer, not the acting coach. It's not your job to direct the movie, it's your job to structure an interesting story and populate it with interesting characters. 5. No one can see what a character is thinking, no one can see motivation. Find a way to show us what they're thinking. 6. Active, present tense verbs because the idea is to make the reader feel as though the movie is happening in the now, playing right in front of them.
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.
The soft stuff you mentioned -- stuff like asides, wrylies/parentheticals, as well as orphans, stacking action, scene transitions, etc. Those are much more subjective. 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.
As I'm fond of saying, the writer's job is the what; let the director worry about the how. There's an anecdote I read many years ago from Scream screenwriter Kevin Williamson. One day during pre-production, director Wes Craven commented to him that he didn't know how to hide the killer's clothes so that the audience wouldn't instantly recognize who it was. To which Williamson replied, "That's not my problem. I'm just the writer." And he was right.
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.
The wrong way:
Bob bites into a burnt piece of bacon.
MARY (Pouring coffee) So, what do you think?
BOB (lying so as not to hurt her feelings) Yum!
The right way:
Mary pours Bob a cup of coffee as he bites into a burnt piece of bacon.
MARY
So, what do you think?
BOB ("Yuck!") Yum!
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.
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...
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!
But as with any subjective bit of formatting, better to keep these things to a bare minimum. Above all, when it comes to telling your story, if you're ever stuck and unsure how to write something, keep it simple. Always go for clarity first.
He has his approach, you can have yours. Clearly, people can be successful with different approaches. This cannot be disputed. We've seen screenplays get posted here that have sold for numbers none of us we'll likely see, that have been written in a manner that would have members here check out by page 2.
What I want to know is why is it that every time these threads pop-up, Dreamscale chimes in with his opinion, which he presents as fact, as the right and only way to go. Then he goes on for pages debating and defending his stance. This is not criticism, I honestly want to know why these screenwriting conventions and rules are so important to him, despite the fact that it has been proven time and time again that highly successful and critically acclaimed writers do not follow them.
Why are you so passionate about this subject Dreamscale, and why are you so set in your ways?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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...
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!
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.
I�ll just chime with my favourite Stephen King quote about writing:
It is the story...not he who tells it
Now I�m off to add some extra wrylies, orphans and shit to the time travel feature I�m working on. May even delete FADE IN just for fun. Hang on, I�m gonna open with a wrylie!!
But not an orphan They get used quite alot
(BLACK STUFF GRADUALLY DISSIPATES)
INT. BFD CONFERENCE - MID MORNING POSSIBLY 11:17AM MAYBE CLOSER TO 11:18 JEFF, ANDREW and DAVE whack their slugs on a table 😬😬 A fourth slug sits on the table but it’s so long and unwieldy it’s owner STEVIE is (O.S) 😂
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?
Priceless.
The only possible time alot would be confused with a lot with a mysterious double meaning ( and even this is a stretch) is when the specific thing Warren would be sitting on is a effing lot.
So that's where you landed on this? You misspell it to create double meaning??
Would it be:
"I love you a lot - or
"I love you alot - or
"I love you allot (like there is a specific allocation of love) - or
I�ll just chime with my favourite Stephen King quote about writing:
It is the story...not he who tells it
Now I�m off to add some extra wrylies, orphans and shit to the time travel feature I�m working on. May even delete FADE IN just for fun. Hang on, I�m gonna open with a wrylie!!
But not an orphan They get used quite alot
(BLACK STUFF GRADUALLY DISSIPATES)
INT. BFD CONFERENCE - MID MORNING POSSIBLY 11:17AM MAYBE CLOSER TO 11:18 Jeff, Andrew and Dave whack their slugs on a table 😬😬
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.
Well, here, you shoot yourself in the old proverbial foot, as Libby brought up.
There is obviously a cap to using action wrylies (if that's the 1 issue you're referring to here). You and Dave could use them is every single dialogue block! Don't you get that? Unless you have 2 (or more characters) sitting there, standing there, while conversing, you could forego action/description lines (for meaningless unnecessary detail, and use your beloved action wrylies. You could also include meaningful detail, and again, just forego the line.
Don't you get that? Imagine how it would look and read! Wait...until the next OWC...I'll show you how it will look and read!
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.
Yes, it is grammatically incorrect to use "alot" in any business, professional, student report, essay, or even article in a publication. It's not an issue in posts. It's not an issue in dialogue. If you come across this in an action/description line, by all means, bring it up.
"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'm not sure how or why you would say this. If something means completely 2 different things, how could it not confuse you? And how or why are you now saying you never said "a lot" was a word? It's used as a word, no? It's understood as a word. But that understanding can be confused very easily in so many ways because the 2nd "word" is also a noun....it's a thing.
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.
No, that's completely wrong again. Of course I'll always defend my choices and be clear why that choice was made, but I totally listened to certain peeps and I cut so many pages of meaning less banter, added parts to up the tension, etc. Dude, trust me on this (although you never will), I have absolutely no problem saying I'm sorry, or I was wrong. I do it "alot", actually...and I learn from it...and I try not to do whatever it was that was wrong.
I've posted several analogies on this thread, and 1 had to do with getting from point A to point B. If the way I'm taking, which I'm taking because from my experience, I believe it's the best way, isn't actually the best, I'll take the new way and when I see it's indeed faster/easier, that's my new way!
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.
Again, completely untrue. When I'm wrong, I admit, thank whoever found the mistake, and correct it.
You're actually the epitome of what you just accused me of. Completely and literally!
You're a good writer, Warren. We all know that and acknowledge that. That doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. Actually, you make a ton of mistakes in every script you write. Peeps don't seem to realize that, though, and that's a great thing for you.
When you're called out, you can't for the life of you agree to the mistake. And, my friend, is going to be your downfall...or maybe your Achilles's Heal.
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.
I don’t think anyone is specifically saying this. There are conventions to screenwriting, how far you are willing to push the envelope is up to you. If whatever you are doing is clarifying or enhancing your story you should do it, such as wrylies, asides, and an orphan that finishes a damn good line of action. It is not a convention to underline a character name, you are more than welcome to not use FADE IN and it will change your story in no way what so ever.
This is a very extreme way to look at a very simple issue and you haven’t made much of a valid point, in my opinion.
I know you and Jeff are buddies, but I can honestly say there are better writing mentors to look to.
You're a good writer, Warren. We all know that and acknowledge that. That doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. Actually, you make a ton of mistakes in every script you write. Peeps don't seem to realize that, though, and that's a great thing for you.
Since you are among the elite that notices these mistakes, have you ever considered writing a book, an ebook maybe? On the topic of the most common pitfalls of screenwriting. The rules of screenwriting.
I do not mean this sarcastically. I'm for real. I would like to see the rules you live by codified. Or is there a book by someone else that you follow?
There is obviously a cap to using action wrylies (if that's the 1 issue you're referring to here). You and Dave could use them is every single dialogue block! Don't you get that? Unless you have 2 (or more characters) sitting there, standing there, while conversing, you could forego action/description lines (for meaningless unnecessary detail, and use your beloved action wrylies. You could also include meaningful detail, and again, just forego the line.
Don't you get that? Imagine how it would look and read! Wait...until the next OWC...I'll show you how it will look and read!
Yes - we are obviously advocating for the elimination of action blocks and replacing them with wrylies.
It's an inane argument to suggest because some advocates the use of something in some instances (or in are case, arguing that it is not wrong to use them) they are advocating it must be done in all instances.
Quoted Text
I'm not sure how or why you would say this. If something means completely 2 different things, how could it not confuse you? And how or why are you now saying you never said "a lot" was a word? It's used as a word, no? It's understood as a word. But that understanding can be confused very easily in so many ways because the 2nd "word" is also a noun....it's a thing.
Dave rolls over.
"A lot" is not a word. It is not understood as a word. It is never confused when spelled "a lot" because lot is a noun. I am never confused by "a lot."
Maybe I will start using :
abunch (bunch is a thing too) aboatload (although boatload not really a noun) etc.
Since you are among the elite that notices these mistakes, have you ever considered writing a book, an ebook maybe? On the topic of the most common pitfalls of screenwriting. The rules of screenwriting.
I do not mean this sarcastically. I'm for real. I would like to see the rules you live by codified. Or is there a book by someone else that you follow?
Again, I'm really asking.
HA!!!
I should...I could...but I doubt anyone would read it, other than the super fine folks on SS.
Man, listen, I just try and help peeps. Whenever I can, in all walks of life. You guys and gals don't know me personally, but I'm not talking BS.
If anyone doesn't find my critique valid, my advice solid, by all means, blow it off as the ravings of a crazy idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
I disagree completely, but again, it's something that shouldn't matter, either way.
You asked why in the world should anyone listen to little old me, and I gave my reasons why.
These are not real reasons, only ones you somehow believe are valid.
Quoted from Dreamscale
Well, here, you shoot yourself in the old proverbial foot, as Libby brought up.
There is obviously a cap to using action wrylies (if that's the 1 issue you're referring to here). You and Dave could use them is every single dialogue block! Don't you get that? Unless you have 2 (or more characters) sitting there, standing there, while conversing, you could forego action/description lines (for meaningless unnecessary detail, and use your beloved action wrylies. You could also include meaningful detail, and again, just forego the line.
I stand by my point, I said you can use too many, I noted that you are not the authority on what that number is. If used effectively it is okay. I don’t think you could use a million effectively. There is obviously a limit, that limit is decided by the effectiveness of their use not by you.
Quoted from Dreamscale
Don't you get that? Imagine how it would look and read! Wait...until the next OWC...I'll show you how it will look and read!
So now you're already setting us up for your next OWC piss-take script. How about you write something decent instead and show us all how it’s done?
Quoted from Dreamscale
Yes, it is grammatically incorrect to use "alot" in any business, professional, student report, essay, or even article in a publication. It's not an issue in posts. It's not an issue in dialogue. If you come across this in an action/description line, by all means, bring it up.
The issue is that alot is not a word and it is not used effectively if you decided to use it as alot. You don’t get to decide how the English language works. Sure you get to decide how to use it, which is just plain incorrect, but you don’t get to decide how it works.
And again it’s an issue because it goes against everything to preach, you actively don’t address the actual issue and focus on points and ideas that have little to no relevance to the argument.
Quoted from Dreamscale
I'm not sure how or why you would say this. If something means completely 2 different things, how could it not confuse you? And how or why are you now saying you never said "a lot" was a word? It's used as a word, no? It's understood as a word. But that understanding can be confused very easily in so many ways because the 2nd "word" is also a noun....it's a thing.
I guess it doesn’t confuse me because I'm not an idiot (before anyone gets into an uproar, I'm not calling Jeff an idiot, we are both expressing our views), I am however calling anyone that would be confused by this a down right idiot.
Quoted from Dreamscale
No, that's completely wrong again. Of course I'll always defend my choices and be clear why that choice was made, but I totally listened to certain peeps and I cut so many pages of meaning less banter, added parts to up the tension, etc. Dude, trust me on this (although you never will), I have absolutely no problem saying I'm sorry, or I was wrong. I do it "alot", actually...and I learn from it...and I try not to do whatever it was that was wrong.
It is hard to trust you on this because I have never seen you concede a point. The 'a lot' one would be any easy one to do because it is LITERALY wrong, but you won’t even do that.
Quoted from Dreamscale
I've posted several analogies on this thread, and 1 had to do with getting from point A to point B. If the way I'm taking, which I'm taking because from my experience, I believe it's the best way, isn't actually the best, I'll take the new way and when I see it's indeed faster/easier, that's my new way!
Again, never seen this happen.
Quoted from Dreamscale
Again, completely untrue. When I'm wrong, I admit, thank whoever found the mistake, and correct it.
When?
Quoted from Dreamscale
You're actually the epitome of what you just accused me of. Completely and literally!
You're a good writer, Warren. We all know that and acknowledge that. That doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. Actually, you make a ton of mistakes in every script you write. Peeps don't seem to realize that, though, and that's a great thing for you.
When you're called out, you can't for the life of you agree to the mistake. And, my friend, is going to be your downfall...or maybe your Achilles's Heal.
Sure I'll take the vailed insult.
I know I make mistakes and I take the notes and better my writing, on every script I write. That is just complete BS. I don’t even know how or why you can say that. I don’t think there is one script I’ve posted on SS where I haven’t listened to and taken the advice of other writers. This statement honestly blows my mind.
This is a very extreme way to look at a very simple issue and you haven�t made much of a valid point, in my opinion.
I know you and Jeff are buddies, but I can honestly say there are better writing mentors to look to.
Extreme? I'm not even wearing my nipple-tassels yet!
Obviously, I was being sarcastic with my post. Except for the "pants off" part. Dead serious there.
Yeah, I like Jeff. He uses his own free time to read my terrible screenplays and give me sound advice. I appreciate everyone's advice. I don't blindly follow that advice, but I do always consider it. If someone takes their free time to read something I barfed out, then the least I can do is consider what they are saying.
I actually agree with some of what you and Dave have been saying. Story and character are more important than proper format. There's nothing wrong with putting your own flavor on your writing. In fact, I believe you should strive to do so.
I also agree with a lot of what Jeff's been saying. Rules are there for a reason. You can still have your own voice and follow the rules. You can bend the rules sure, but you shouldn't flat out disregard them.
Jeff, over the millions of years you and I have both been here, you have reviewed more scripts, especially features, than anyone else that I can recall. You definitely have a lot to offer as far as helping people. IMO though, your delivery could need some tweaking. As writers, we appreciate feedback, but sometimes if the feedback is harsh it can really crush a writer's spirit. Or at least the will and energy to want to implement your advice in a rewrite. I know you're a big teddy bear or a fluffy badger, whichever you prefer, why not show some of that softer side when giving your feedback? Your feedback is valid, just served like a blow to the head with a frying pan sometimes.
Jeff, over the millions of years you and I have both been here, you have reviewed more scripts, especially features, than anyone else that I can recall.
Let's be honest, he has reviewed the first two pages of 99% of the features he's opened here.
This is why I want his book. So others can read it, learn and he can reach at least page 10 before he checks out.
What's great about Jeff is that he's a real stickler for rules and use of language in scripts. Like the biggest one here. It really irritates him and he's very pedantic. So, it gives off the impression that he's a sophisticated man. But when you read his movie reviews, you see that he really loves nudity in movies, he really loves it when women show their breasts. Like really. This is super important to him, he always points it out. He's a fan of gore, not just regular gore, like super gore. This is a man that gave a glowing review to I Spit On Your Grave 2 (yes, I remember). I find it all so fascinating.
Jeff, over the millions of years you and I have both been here, you have reviewed more scripts, especially features, than anyone else that I can recall. You definitely have a lot to offer as far as helping people. IMO though, your delivery could need some tweaking. As writers, we appreciate feedback, but sometimes if the feedback is harsh it can really crush a writer's spirit. Or at least the will and energy to want to implement your advice in a rewrite. I know you're a big teddy bear or a fluffy badger, whichever you prefer, why not show some of that softer side when giving your feedback? Your feedback is valid, just served like a blow to the head with a frying pan sometimes.
I agree that Jeff provides indepth reviews, I think the issue, at least in terms of this argument, is not the way it's delivered but that a lot of the information is given as fact and gospel with no wiggle room, and in reality that just isn't the case.
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!
Yeah, there are a lot of pro writers that break the rules. Know why? Because they're pros. They can afford to. They've earned that kind of wiggle room. They've already proven that they can successfully tell an interesting story with interesting characters, and in format, following guidelines. And so, since it's already known they can deliver the story and character goods, they get some slack on the format.
It's no different than any other profession, really. Once you've established that you can do the job well and follow the rules, you get promoted, and with promotion comes more freedom to do things your way.
There are expectations a new writer is going to have to meet, whether they agree with them or not. Talk about pro writers, even Tarantino, whose scripts IMO have gotten to the point where they're practically unreadable because of all the asides and unfilmables and self-indulgences he wallows in on every page, started out writing spec scripts, in format, following spec script guidelines. Sure, he might have pushed certain format/guidelines boundaries, but his stories were strong enough that they made those small foibles forgivable. And now that he's proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he's a fantastic filmmaker -- and, just as important to note, since he directs his own scripts and doesn't have to worry about another director not getting the jist of his writing -- he can bend the rules over the desk and boink them silly if he wants, and no producer on earth would give him shit for it.
As I mentioned previously, the purpose of this site is to teach new writers how to write a screenplay. Not how to write a screenplay incorrectly. And you don't teach someone how to do a thing by first telling them to ignore the rules. That would be crazy, like, I don't know, some reality star who has never held a political office in their life being handed the presidency. I mean, can you imagine? It would just be one giant cluster-fuck.
Let's be honest, he has reviewed the first two pages of 99% of the features he's opened here.
This is why I want his book. So others can read it, learn and he can reach at least page 10 before he checks out.
What's great about Jeff is that he's a real stickler for rules and use of language in scripts. Like the biggest one here. It really irritates him and he's very pedantic. So, it gives off the impression that he's a sophisticated man. But when you read his movie reviews, you see that he really loves nudity in movies, he really loves it when women show their breasts. Like really. This is super important to him, he always points it out. He's a fan of gore, not just regular gore, like super gore. This is a man that gave a glowing review to I Spit On Your Grave 2 (yes, I remember). I find it all so fascinating.
Oh boy...
Brother, back in the day, I read entire scripts with no prompting and I gave extremely detailed reviews, not just format type things, but story situations that made no sense.
No one reads whole scripts anymore...OK, not NO ONE, but very, very few. It's great when you see a review of the first 10, because that's basically all anyone is going to give these days.
Do I like nudity and gore in movies? Hell yeah, I do. Do I appreciate movies where there is none of that? Hell yeah, I do.
I Spit on Your Grave 2 was a good flick. It took chances. It pushed the envelope for me.
Note my reviews of other genre movies. Rom Coms, even!
Dude, I bet I've reviewed more flicks on SS than anyone else. If you don't agree with my reviews, add it to all the "Pro Critics" reviews you don't agree with.
Am I a "sophisticated man"? Dude...I can be, when I need to be. I'm a Kid at heart, though, and if that's a bad thing, I won't apologize.
Yeah, there are a lot of pro writers that break the rules. Know why? Because they're pros. They can afford to. They've earned that kind of wiggle room. They've already proven that they can successfully tell an interesting story with interesting characters, and in format, following guidelines. And so, since it's already known they can deliver the story and character goods, they get some slack on the format.
It's no different than any other profession, really. Once you've established that you can do the job well and follow the rules, you get promoted, and with promotion comes more freedom to do things your way.
There are expectations a new writer is going to have to meet, whether they agree with them or not. Talk about pro writers, even Tarantino, whose scripts IMO have gotten to the point where they're practically unreadable because of all the asides and unfilmables and self-indulgences he wallows in on every page, started out writing spec scripts, in format, following spec script guidelines. Sure, he might have pushed certain format/guidelines boundaries, but his stories were strong enough that they made those small foibles forgivable. And now that he's proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he's a fantastic filmmaker -- and, just as important to note, since he directs his own scripts and doesn't have to worry about another director not getting the jist of his writing -- he can bend the rules over the desk and boink them silly if he wants, and no producer on earth would give him shit for it.
As I mentioned previously, the purpose of this site is to teach new writers how to write a screenplay. Not how to write a screenplay incorrectly. And you don't teach someone how to do a thing by first telling them to ignore the rules. That would be crazy, like, I don't know, some reality star who has never held a political office in their life being handed the presidency. I mean, can you imagine? It would just be one giant cluster-fuck.
Lon - don't think anyone disagrees with the premise that a screenplay should be written correctly. The issue is what is correct or incorrect.
Yeah, there are a lot of pro writers that break the rules. Know why? Because they're pros. They can afford to. They've earned that kind of wiggle room. They've already proven that they can successfully tell an interesting story with interesting characters, and in format, following guidelines. And so, since it's already known they can deliver the story and character goods, they get some slack on the format.
It's no different than any other profession, really. Once you've established that you can do the job well and follow the rules, you get promoted, and with promotion comes more freedom to do things your way.
There are expectations a new writer is going to have to meet, whether they agree with them or not. Talk about pro writers, even Tarantino, whose scripts IMO have gotten to the point where they're practically unreadable because of all the asides and unfilmables and self-indulgences he wallows in on every page, started out writing spec scripts, in format, following spec script guidelines. Sure, he might have pushed certain format/guidelines boundaries, but his stories were strong enough that they made those small foibles forgivable. And now that he's proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he's a fantastic filmmaker -- and, just as important to note, since he directs his own scripts and doesn't have to worry about another director not getting the jist of his writing -- he can bend the rules over the desk and boink them silly if he wants, and no producer on earth would give him shit for it.
As I mentioned previously, the purpose of this site is to teach new writers how to write a screenplay. Not how to write a screenplay incorrectly. And you don't teach someone how to do a thing by first telling them to ignore the rules. That would be crazy, like, I don't know, some reality star who has never held a political office in their life being handed the presidency. I mean, can you imagine? It would just be one giant cluster-fuck.
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes...and no...
Only the political thing do I disagree with. But the QT thing, so damn true...
Yeah, there are a lot of pro writers that break the rules. Know why? Because they're pros. They can afford to. They've earned that kind of wiggle room. They've already proven that they can successfully tell an interesting story with interesting characters, and in format, following guidelines. And so, since it's already known they can deliver the story and character goods, they get some slack on the format.
This is not true. We've seen funky looking spec-scripts from unknown writers sell in the past. They have been discussed here. There was a 45 page feature with no dialogue that sold a few years back. There have been different examples that have been discussed here.
While it's understood that if you follow "the rules" people will think you know what you're doing, especially if you're submitting it yourself. What's FAR more important is to have a good agent and a good concept to sell. In that case, you can add POV, TRACKING SHOT, and use all the wrylies you want. It probably won't make any difference.
Yeah, there are a lot of pro writers that break the rules. Know why? Because they're pros. They can afford to. They've earned that kind of wiggle room. They've already proven that they can successfully tell an interesting story with interesting characters, and in format, following guidelines. And so, since it's already known they can deliver the story and character goods, they get some slack on the format.
It's no different than any other profession, really. Once you've established that you can do the job well and follow the rules, you get promoted, and with promotion comes more freedom to do things your way.
There are expectations a new writer is going to have to meet, whether they agree with them or not. Talk about pro writers, even Tarantino, whose scripts IMO have gotten to the point where they're practically unreadable because of all the asides and unfilmables and self-indulgences he wallows in on every page, started out writing spec scripts, in format, following spec script guidelines. Sure, he might have pushed certain format/guidelines boundaries, but his stories were strong enough that they made those small foibles forgivable. And now that he's proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he's a fantastic filmmaker -- and, just as important to note, since he directs his own scripts and doesn't have to worry about another director not getting the jist of his writing -- he can bend the rules over the desk and boink them silly if he wants, and no producer on earth would give him shit for it.
As I mentioned previously, the purpose of this site is to teach new writers how to write a screenplay. Not how to write a screenplay incorrectly. And you don't teach someone how to do a thing by first telling them to ignore the rules. That would be crazy, like, I don't know, some reality star who has never held a political office in their life being handed the presidency. I mean, can you imagine? It would just be one giant cluster-fuck.
People keep saying this, but how do you know this is the case? Can you provide a specific example of a pro's first amateur script and then one of their later pro scripts? Or is this just something you've been told a thousand times by other amateurs that aren't actually in the industry? Or have you personally experienced this?
If you can write a compelling story with great character development and arcs, and a theme that resonates with an audience then the rules you think exist aren't going to matter. I believe that correct spelling and grammar is important because there are defined rules. I don't think wrylies, orphans, or asides are important if used effectively and efficiently.
I don't think you are encouraging creativity if everyone has to stick to the rules, which again don't exist. There are conventions and they are ever changing.
QT is possibly the worst example, the guy is a force of his own and one of millions of writers in the world. Their are people that completely stand out in every area of life, using QT to make an argument with regards to the greater screenwriting community is laughable.
This is not true. We've seen funky looking spec-scripts from unknown writers sell in the past. They have been discussed here. There was a 45 page feature with no dialogue that sold a few years back. There have been different examples that have been discussed here.
While it's understood that if you follow "the rules" people will think you know what you're doing, especially if you're submitting it yourself. What's FAR more important is to have a good agent and a good concept to sell. In that case, you can add POV, TRACKING SHOT, and use all the wrylies you want. It probably won't make any difference.
Invariably in discussions like this, someone comes up with the "but there was this one writer" or "there was this one script." Those are exceptions. And consider for a minute that for all we know, the agent took on the writer because they were in an Army unit together, or the prodco brought her script because their children go to the same day care, or the writer's cousin was the studio head's high school girlfriend. Or it could even be that the prodco met with the writer and just decided, you know what, he's a really nice guy, very open to communication, no ego in the way -- what the hell, let's buy his script. We can hire someone else to improve it.
Yes, shitty scripts get picked up, and they end up making for shitty movies. IF they get produced, that is. Is that what a writer wants on their resume? Shitty movies? If you've ever followed the trades regarding a flop, it's almost always the writer who ends up taking the blame. Not the bad direction, not the lousy acting -- the writer. The actor can complain that the writer didn't give them enough on the page to work with. The director can say he filmed what was there as best he could. But the writer can't blame anyone. Low man on the totem pole, y'know.
It does no good at all to talk about the one guy who got away with breaking all the rules, when the overwhelming majority can't get away with it. And again, I have to ask, in a field so packed to the gills with competition, why on earth would you risk lessening your chances by ignoring the same guidelines that everyone else is expected to follow? Set your script apart with superior storytelling and stronger characters, because all the camera angles and wrylies in the world can't save a shit script.
Yes, shitty scripts get picked up, and they end up making for shitty movies. IF they get produced, that is. Is that what a writer wants on their resume? Shitty movies? If you've ever followed the trades regarding a flop, it's almost always the writer who ends up taking the blame. Not the bad direction, not the lousy acting -- the writer. The actor can complain that the writer didn't give them enough on the page to work with. The director can say he filmed what was there as best he could. But the writer can't blame anyone. Low man on the totem pole, y'know.
This discussion is about format (Formatting fatigue), no movie was ever shit on screen because of bad format, come on now.
If the writer is being blamed it’s because he wrote a shit story, plain and simple. No amount of following the rules or correct format is going to make a shit story better.
It’s hard to keep this discussion on the rails when the arguments being raised don’t directly relate to the issue.
It does no good at all to talk about the one guy who got away with breaking all the rules, when the overwhelming majority can't get away with it. And again, I have to ask, in a field so packed to the gills with competition, why on earth would you risk lessening your chances by ignoring the same guidelines that everyone else is expected to follow? Set your script apart with superior storytelling and stronger characters, because all the camera angles and wrylies in the world can't save a shit script.
Good formatting and "rules" won't save a shit script either.
And it's not just one script, you can find a lot of examples. Two years ago there was 70 page feature that had colored paragraphs in it! The agent that discovered it and the company that bought it didn't care. That script for the babysitter had whole pages with just one sentence in all caps! Several times.
I agree that people should follow screenwriting conventions, especially if you're a nobody. However, don't over-focus on that. Focus on your story, developing a concept, characters. When you reach the point to have your script read by the proper person, as long as it looks like a script, it'll be probably good enough.
If you obsess about the rules, you'll follow them, then you'll feel a sense of accomplishment because you will have written a screenplay the "right way", when in fact you would have done nothing of note.
It does no good at all to talk about the one guy who got away with breaking all the rules, when the overwhelming majority can't get away with it. And again, I have to ask, in a field so packed to the gills with competition, why on earth would you risk lessening your chances by ignoring the same guidelines that everyone else is expected to follow? Set your script apart with superior storytelling and stronger characters, because all the camera angles and wrylies in the world can't save a shit script.
But you were the one that brought up QT? I don’t think anyone has singled out a specific writer or script. I'm saying that I have seen the 'rules' broken in practically every pro script I have ever read.
Why can’t the overwhelming majority get away with it? Can you provide one once of truth to this statement?
No one said that a camera angle or wrylie could save a script, but when used effectively they can clarify or enhance a script. And in the same way no amount of rules can save a shit script.
Good formatting and "rules" won't save a shit script either.
And it's not just one script, you can find a lot of examples. Two years ago there was 70 page feature that had colored paragraphs in it! The agent that discovered it and the company that bought it didn't care. That script for the babysitter had whole pages with just one sentence in all caps! Several times.
I agree that people should follow screenwriting conventions, especially if you're a nobody. However, don't over-focus on that. Focus on your story, developing a concept, characters. When you reach the point to have your script read by the proper person, as long as it looks like a script, it'll be probably good enough.
If you obsess about the rules, you'll follow them, then you'll feel a sense of accomplishment because you will have written a screenplay the "right way", when in fact you would have done nothing of note.
Brother, back in the day, I read entire scripts with no prompting and I gave extremely detailed reviews, not just format type things, but story situations that made no sense.
No one reads whole scripts anymore...OK, not NO ONE, but very, very few. It's great when you see a review of the first 10, because that's basically all anyone is going to give these days.
Do I like nudity and gore in movies? Hell yeah, I do. Do I appreciate movies where there is none of that? Hell yeah, I do.
I Spit on Your Grave 2 was a good flick. It took chances. It pushed the envelope for me.
Note my reviews of other genre movies. Rom Coms, even!
Dude, I bet I've reviewed more flicks on SS than anyone else. If you don't agree with my reviews, add it to all the "Pro Critics" reviews you don't agree with.
Am I a "sophisticated man"? Dude...I can be, when I need to be. I'm a Kid at heart, though, and if that's a bad thing, I won't apologize.
Several people read complete feature scripts on this site. Many of them are done through p.m. I've done about 20 that way. I've only been here 8 years. I've never seen your review of a feature script. Given your time here I assume most of that was in the past or done privately. If so good on you
People keep saying this, but how do you know this is the case? Can you provide a specific example of a pro's first amateur script and then one of their later pro scripts? Or is this just something you've been told a thousand times by other amateurs that aren't actually in the industry? Or have you personally experienced this?
If you can write a compelling story with great character development and arcs, and a theme that resonates with an audience then the rules you think exist aren't going to matter. I believe that correct spelling and grammar is important because there are defined rules. I don't think wrylies, orphans, or asides are important if used effectively and efficiently.
I don't think you are encouraging creativity is everyone has to stick to the rules, which again don't exist. There are conversations and they are ever changing.
Spot on. Not only have I never seen a Pro script from the time that they were an amateur, I've never seen a pro state that when they were in amatuer they followed certain conventions and abandon them when they became a pro. I guess I would entertain the argument if I ever saw a shred of evidence supporting it. My intuition tells me it's just the opposite. A pro wrote a certain way when they were in the amatuer, found success, and still write that way today.
i can't keep up with responding to each post, but I can say that Lon is correct in what he's saying,, Warren is incorrect in most of what he is saying, and I'm worried that Dave has a hard on for Warren.
OK, easy, now peeps. I think Dave is a great writer and good peeps. No offense sent that way.
Warren? Well...I think he's a good writer.
Me...well...I'm me and I'm going to keep on being me, and if you disagree with what I say, that's cool. Just don't keep shooting that foot.
i can't keep up with responding to each post, but I can say that Lon is correct in what he's saying,, Warren is incorrect in most of what he is saying, and I'm worried that Dave has a hard on for Warren.
OK, easy, now peeps. I think Dave is a great writer and good peeps. No offense sent that way.
Warren? Well...I think he's a good writer.
Me...well...I'm me and I'm going to keep on being me, and if you disagree with what I say, that's cool. Just don't keep shooting that foot.
Well we all know you definitely can keep up, you’ve done it in the past. But in having to do that you’d have to answer some questions that I don’t think you can answer honestly without actually seeing how crazy some of your arguments are. It's a lot easier to say Lon is correct, I'm incorrect, and then have a go at Dave. Can’t really say no offence when you clearly sent one his way. Just saying no offence doesn’t cancel it out.
We all know you won’t change, that’s not an issue for anyone. My hope is only that new writers might read this and be able to make up their own mind.
In an evidence based world, I can prove that almost every pro writer breaks the rules. I can prove that no rule book exists, I can prove that amazing films have been made by writers that break all the rules. I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence from Lon about his claims about pro writers vs amateur writers. It’s all anecdotal at best.
You have also avoided practically every question regarding your qualifications to deliver these rules and how they relate to the real world of screenwriting.
I think any rational person can see from this thread what is right and wrong, so in essence the objective has been achieved
I don’t need to prove you wrong, you do that all by yourself.
It's a lot easier to say Lon is correct, I'm incorrect, and then have a go at Dave...
Well, in my defense, he only says I'm correct because I am.
Look, I'm here to share what I've learned through experience. You guys keep mentioning exceptions. But here's the rub -- if those exceptions were the norm, they wouldn't be called exceptions.
I'm happy to share my knowledge with those intent on learning, but otherwise, I have no interest in doing a lazy person's homework for them. You want sources? Do like I and many others actually serious about learning this craft do: Read a lot of scripts. Every script you can get your hands on. See for yourself why clean, formatted scripts are easier and less frustrating to read than others. See how much easier it is to judge a script on its story and characters when you don't have to wade through a metric ton of intrusive details and ANGLE ONs and (while pouring coffee)s. Visit other screenwriting sites, check out screenwriting blogs. Plenty of pros have one, and you can find all kinds of anecdotes, many of which -- surprise, surprise! -- discuss the importance of learning format and following guidelines.
I've been through development hell more than once. And never once have I been asked "Hey, where are all the camera directions?" Or "Dude, why are all your descriptions so concise?" And I promise you I have never, ever been told, "Hey, Lon, you know what this script really needs? A shit-ton of wrylies."
For the gazillionth time, this is all about helping new writers learn the craft. You're doing them no favors insisting that it's okay to break the rules simply because one guy out of a thousand somehow managed to sell a shitty script.
I really don't know what else there is to say, so I'll call it quits here.
Best of luck, new writers. Keep learning, keep writing.
And I promise you I have never, ever been told, "Hey, Lon, you know what this script really needs? A shit-ton of wrylies."
I doubt you've gotten the opposite as well. "You know, I was loving the script but there on page 97 I saw a wrylie, fifth one in the script. I was really hoping to find out how this one ends, but dammit I refuse to read this wrylie shit."
Very well put! Thank you Lon, for driving that formatting point in clearly.
May I add that WE SEE also so many CUT TO unnecessary words that does nothing but put speed bumps into the reading. These CONTINUOUS use of wasted words IMO adds nothing. SMASH CUT this wastes and move on to telling the story.
Hurray, I got one of my pet peeves DISSOLVED off my chest!
Well, in my defense, he only says I'm correct because I am.
Look, I'm here to share what I've learned through experience. You guys keep mentioning exceptions. But here's the rub -- if those exceptions were the norm, they wouldn't be called exceptions.
I'm happy to share my knowledge with those intent on learning, but otherwise, I have no interest in doing a lazy person's homework for them. You want sources? Do like I and many others actually serious about learning this craft do: Read a lot of scripts. Every script you can get your hands on. See for yourself why clean, formatted scripts are easier and less frustrating to read than others. See how much easier it is to judge a script on its story and characters when you don't have to wade through a metric ton of intrusive details and ANGLE ONs and (while pouring coffee)s. Visit other screenwriting sites, check out screenwriting blogs. Plenty of pros have one, and you can find all kinds of anecdotes, many of which -- surprise, surprise! -- discuss the importance of learning format and following guidelines.
I've been through development hell more than once. And never once have I been asked "Hey, where are all the camera directions?" Or "Dude, why are all your descriptions so concise?" And I promise you I have never, ever been told, "Hey, Lon, you know what this script really needs? A shit-ton of wrylies."
For the gazillionth time, this is all about helping new writers learn the craft. You're doing them no favors insisting that it's okay to break the rules simply because one guy out of a thousand somehow managed to sell a shitty script.
I really don't know what else there is to say, so I'll call it quits here.
Best of luck, new writers. Keep learning, keep writing.
Lon: All due respect, mate - really.
But the argument is really not about breaking rules. It's about what is a rule.
Proper scene headings, CAPPING character introductions, proper font and spacing, no typos are clearly things that all writers should adhere to. Amateurs and Pros should adhere to those guidelines.
When it comes to things like the effective use of wrylies, asides, unfilmables, etc we are debating if they - those things - are breaking the rules and, if so, does the disadvantage they bring outweigh the advantage.
Take our poor typo (let's use "alot" just for shits and giggles). It clearly is a typo and there clearly is no writing advantage from misspelling a word. Same would be true for several other rules/conventions - there is no upside.
Others are more subtle. Let's take the nasty unfilmable - Some are effing great - they really help the reader with tone, character description, etc. Some are there just for pure exposition and should go.
The answer invariably always becomes - you can't do these things if you want to be a pro one day despite the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that they pros didn't do the exact same thing as amateurs, think about the logic loop that creates. Let's use wrylies.
1. Don't use wrylies if you wanted to be a Pro.
I looked at a bunch of pro scripts. They had some asides and wrylies in them. So - now what?
2. Write like an amateur until you become a pro.
But why? If pro scripts are selling than shouldn't I --
3. No - pros wrote like amateurs before they were pros. They didn't use wrylies.
How do you know? No a shred of evidence. But even if true - should I emulated the best pros now??
4. No - you should write in your own unique way - don't be a copy cat.
But my own unique way includes wrylies and --
5. Write like an amateur.
My only real grind here is my distaste for those comments that are in the nature of - you made a mistake because you:
- Used an aside - wrylie - unflimable - - etc.
Because I simply believe that they are not inherently mistakes and in fact may have been the very best thing to do. Like anything, used incorrectly, they may be bad writing.
I doubt you've gotten the opposite as well. "You know, I was loving the script but there on page 97 I saw a wrylie, fifth one in the script. I was really hoping to find out how this one ends, but dammit I refuse to read this wrylie shit."
Very well put! Thank you Lon, for driving that formatting point in clearly.
May I add that WE SEE also so many CUT TO unnecessary words that does nothing but put speed bumps into the reading. These CONTINUOUS use of wasted words IMO adds nothing. SMASH CUT this wastes and move on to telling the story.
Hurray, I got one of my pet peeves DISSOLVED off my chest!
I doubt you've gotten the opposite as well. "You know, I was loving the script but there on page 97 I saw a wrylie, fifth one in the script. I was really hoping to find out how this one ends, but dammit I refuse to read this wrylie shit."
This is not the issue, Frank...not even close.
The issue would be 2, 3 unnecessary wrylies on Page 1, followed by more on Page 2 and Page 3.
The issue would be 2, 3 unnecessary wrylies on Page 1, followed by more on Page 2 and Page 3.
Moderation in all things is a smart way to play.
Frank, you're right. Jeff, you're wrong. Note the use of the term unnecessary. Any Riley that is unnecessary maybe a problem as is the case with many other writing elements. The term unnecessary is key here.. you merely count them
I’m not even sure “necessary” is the right word here. That slithering mass of wrylies is not NECESSARY in the Princess script, but I think that
VIRIDIANA So that means you two... (AMITY and TERTIARY CHARACTER 1) ... and you two... (TERTIARY CHARACTER 2 and TERTIARY CHARACTER 3) ... and you two... (DORINDA and TERTIARY CHARACTER 4) ... and you two. (HOLLY and EDITH)
reads better than
VIRIDIANA So that means you two, and you two, and you two, and you two.
Viridiana indicates the pairs Amity and Tertiary Character 1, Tertiary Character 2 and Tertiary Character 3, Dorinda and Tertiary Character 4, and Holly and Edith.
Even after one has a good idea of what their story is, there are a lot of judgement calls in getting it written down so people can understand it and not lose interest.
(Character names simplified for the example, hope that was obvious)
I don't want to go full on social justice warrior here, but it would be good to get more female perspective. This conversation is all guns blazing; there's been very little movement on substance, and the conversation has proven impervious to attempted humour distractions, which kind of drives home the point col was making in the first place.
Pia, you've done as well as anyone on this site - like, anyone - in terms of getting features and shorts produced; what's your experience and view?
Rather than go circular on whether something is a rule, why not branch out the discussion to talk about networking? Lon was right to highlight how some scripts will sell.
Hollywood is a pure networking game. Sydney (where I lived for a while) has a thriving shorts scene, with largley grant-based funding for features, which again drives home the essential nature of networking. London is wrapped up in the BBC & Channel 4, plus Working Title, and a couple of smaller prodcos, so again, networking is the name of the game.
The UK studios (Shepperton, Pinewood, etc) are largely outsourced location for US productions seeking tax breaks; this limits opportunities for fresh blood. I've worked on films from start to finish with budgets ranging from practically zero to £500,000 to £100,000,000+; the consistent factor for crewing up is contacts, especially the higher up the chain you go. The whole industry is built on networking, which leads to sycophancy, which leads to anger and frustration. Film sets are often unhappy places. The world of a writer trying to get in is tough. So, long story short, more focus should be given to networking, IMO; and story. Always story.
Frank, you're right. Jeff, you're wrong. Note the use of the term unnecessary. Any Riley that is unnecessary maybe a problem as is the case with many other writing elements. The term unnecessary is key here.. you merely count them
Dave, c'mon. I do not "merely count them". And if I did, what number would I say is too many? As mentioned earlier, it's impossible to say at what point is it too many.
"unnecessary" is the word here for sure, and it doesn't only pertain to action wrylies.
Dave, c'mon. I do not "merely count them". And if I did, what number would I say is too many? As mentioned earlier, it's impossible to say at what point is it too many.
"unnecessary" is the word here for sure, and it doesn't only pertain to action wrylies.
You do count them. Next time you object to one try being specific about the problem with a specific wrylie rather than your normal do many wrylies rant
You do count them. Next time you object to one try being specific about the problem with a specific wrylie rather than your normal do many wrylies rant
If there are too many, I will let it be known.
If there are VO's thrown in for no reason, other than the writer trying to completely direct the shot, I will let it be known.
The shorts are well and truly rocking AA! Am going to my hometown in winter for my dads 80th with the kids. Will be wearing them shorts no matter how cold it is 👍🏻👍🏻
The shorts are well and truly rocking AA! Am going to my hometown in winter for my dads 80th with the kids. Will be wearing them shorts no matter how cold it is 👍🏻👍🏻
Look, I'm here to share what I've learned through experience. You guys keep mentioning exceptions. But here's the rub -- if those exceptions were the norm, they wouldn't be called exceptions.
I’ve asked you to share what you’ve learnt twice now by giving examples and you are yet to show me one.
I haven’t mentioned exceptions. I’m telling you that the norm is to break all the rules you hold so dear, because those rules don’t exist. Again there are writing conventions that are ever changing.
I'm happy to share my knowledge with those intent on learning, but otherwise, I have no interest in doing a lazy person's homework for them. You want sources? Do like I and many others actually serious about learning this craft do: Read a lot of scripts. Every script you can get your hands on. See for yourself why clean, formatted scripts are easier and less frustrating to read than others. See how much easier it is to judge a script on its story and characters when you don't have to wade through a metric ton of intrusive details and ANGLE ONs and (while pouring coffee)s. Visit other screenwriting sites, check out screenwriting blogs. Plenty of pros have one, and you can find all kinds of anecdotes, many of which -- surprise, surprise! -- discuss the importance of learning format and following guidelines.
I am intent on learning, and that is what I have done. I am telling you that practically every pro script I have ever read does not follow the rules, as discussed in this thread. I have not found any evidence to support your claim. I am asking not only for myself but for all the other new writers to show me evidence of the claims you are making. If you were serious about proving your point or helping new writers you would show us what you’re talking about. I'm still interested to see an example of a pro’s first script verses their later scripts. I can’t find this, so if you know just point me in the right direction.
I've been through development hell more than once. And never once have I been asked "Hey, where are all the camera directions?" Or "Dude, why are all your descriptions so concise?" And I promise you I have never, ever been told, "Hey, Lon, you know what this script really needs? A shit-ton of wrylies."
I didn’t realise you were in the industry. I don’t know your name so I can’t check your IMDb, but I'd love to read some of your work and see what films you’ve worked on.
No one has ever advocated for a shit ton of wrylies. I've also not said add a whole lot of camera direction. This is the problem with the people on the wrong side of this argument, to try and prove a no existent point you exaggerate your claims, you and Jeff have both done it more than once in this discussion. Keep on point, make your point with proof of what you’re saying. I’m more than happy to see your IMDb and see what big productions you’ve worked on so I can understand your insider knowledge.
At the moment I know you as Lon, the guy who’s made wild claims he can’t back up.
For the gazillionth time, this is all about helping new writers learn the craft. You're doing them no favors insisting that it's okay to break the rules simply because one guy out of a thousand somehow managed to sell a shitty script.
More over-exaggeration, no one has insisted anything. I'm talking about using wrylies, asides etc. to help clarify or move your story forward. God this is like arguing with an antivaxer.
Again I have not mentioned a specific guy or script, that’s something only you keep dragging into the conversation. I'm saying that almost every pro script, great films, award winning scripts have broken the rules. Can you please send me a link to the rule book? Where do I buy it?
I'm more than happy to be proved wrong but you haven’t made one attempt to actually do that. Jeff has never sold anything, to my knowledge he’s only had one short made, 10 years ago, how has his writing benefited him? I don’t know you so I'll wait to see your list of produced films that have been made because of your excellent formatting.
To anyone - Lon will more than likely not be that forthcoming. Can any long time members point me in the direction of one of his scripts?
For some odd reason, you and a few others just keep mentioning "rules". Why?
Have you seen me say anything about this rule or that rule? No, because all these rules you hate so much aren't even out there.
What we're trying to help writers with is what's right, what's wrong, and why. We're talking simple formatting and how to make your script look and read great.
There are absolutely no rules that hold me back. I'm sorry it seems like you're so affected by these rules.
Most of you are still (pick a side) trying to convince the other side that you are right and they are wrong.
Have none of you worked out yet that you are all equally fixed in your opinions and there appears to be no swaying the other?
Another word for 'rules' is Industry Standard Formatting which we advise for Newbs getting into screenwriting.
Personally, I blame Col. Fatigue indeed.
This is a Screenwriting Class thread presumably to educate writers on the preferred ways of screenwriting when starting out so their script is easy to read. . Try summing up your learned advice, (for those starting out) not going around in circles, and then for goodness sake agree to disagree.
For some odd reason, you and a few others just keep mentioning "rules". Why?
Have you seen me say anything about this rule or that rule? No, because all these rules you hate so much aren't even out there.
What we're trying to help writers with is what's right, what's wrong, and why. We're talking simple formatting and how to make your script look and read great.
There are absolutely no rules that hold me back. I'm sorry it seems like you're so affected by these rules.
I'm feeling pretty good, no skin off my back. I stand by and can support every argument I’ve put forward. The only reason I am persisting with this conversation, and have been since yesterday, is for the sheer comedic value. For every legitimate point made you give me another brilliant nugget of wisdom.
Again, changing the argument to suit your needs, and still not a shred of evidence to prove your point. Jeff, what have you achieved in the industry to show your methodology works? Other than the legendary script that you didn’t want to sell to the Chinese? Can you or Lon actually take the time to address the very valid points Dave and I have made?
How do you know what is right? What are your credentials? I can tell you that the pros are working outside of the formatting guidelines you’re trying to uphold. Not a singled out pro, all of them. And if we are going to go back to the “but they’re pros they can do what they want” argument, there are still many points that haven’t been addressed with regards to that earlier in the thread.
I realise no rules hold you back, you aren’t even bound by the rules of the English language. How can you argue with a trailblazer like that?
Most of you are still (pick a side) trying to convince the other side that you are right and they are wrong.
Have none of you worked out yet that you are all equally fixed in your opinions and there appears to be no swaying the other?
Another word for 'rules' is Industry Standard Formatting which we advise for Newbs getting into screenwriting.
Personally, I blame Col. Fatigue indeed.
This is a Screenwriting Class thread presumably to educate writers on the preferred ways of screenwriting when starting out so their script is easy to read. . Try summing up your learned advice, (for those starting out) not going around in circles, and then for goodness sake agree to disagree.
This goes further than standard formatting, I don’t think anyone has argued that there aren’t formatting conventions.
I've summed up my learned advice several times. That is that pro scripts will bend and break conventions if it adds to the sorry, clarifies something, or enhances readability. I’ve never said don’t follow the conventions, I’ve said they are always changing and definitely can be broken.
Quoted Text
then for goodness sake agree to disagree.
Never!!!!
If they had a shred of evidence or insider knowledge to support their claims, then sure. Until that point they are just plain wrong, simple as that
Really, anyone? I'd like to see you all sum up your advice.
And stop beating a dead horse.
Again, this side has summed up its advice several times. Yet to hear from the other side.
Is it harming anyone by beating a dead horse? It hasn’t turned into outright abuse or name calling, well at least none that I’ve typed out It’s just been strong, passionate debate. Is that not allowed? If people are over it they don’t need to click on, add to, or read the thread.
I think there is something larger at work, here - using all of those things that are "against the rules" well or poorly. And that comes down to using them "correctly", and I think that comes down to ignoring both the arbitrary "don't do this" and the arbitrary "the rules don't matter" and realizing that what matters is knowing how to use them.
My thing has always been "tools not rules" - that things like "we see" or using some camera angle in your script isn't going to get you kicked out of Hollywood. But you are using these things *for a reason* and not just willy-nilly. You are using the best tool for the job. When you pick up a sledgehammer to pound in a finishing nail, the advice you are going to get is "Never use the sledgehammer!" Because the advice is specific to the case. And when you get general advice, you may get "Never use the sledgehammer" because it is a tool that is rarely used in construction. But there may come a time when you need to pound a beam in, and the sledgehammer is the perfect tool. So you bring it out.
I think the whole "rules" thing is really about using the right tool for the job, and that means knowing how each tool works. Neither "the rules don't matter" or "you must follow the rules" are the solution because neither addresses how the tools work. It's not that a pro can get away with using "we see" (or whatever), it's that a pro knows how and when to use those things. And anyone can mis-judge and mis-use a tool - but when a pro does it it is a small "mistake" in a work with few mistakes; when a new writer mis-uses a tool, it may be a small "mistake" in a work filled with "mistakes". Those other "mistakes" may be character we do not care about or a scatter-shot story or many other issues that make that small "mistake" seem like the last straw."
Don't look at the "rules", look at the reasons behind them. That's what matters.
I'm just a middle-of-the-road screenwriter- ie: not new but not yet getting paid at pro level. But I'm pretty darn sure If people use them correctly, they can get away with it, too.
So when a pro breaks the rules, it's not because they're pros (Lon) it's because they think it gives the best read on the page. To assume otherwise is unfounded and counterintuitive - yes, they are professional screenwriters. They committed to it, they beat the odds and made it, and it's their life. It's like some guy, or guys sitting at home and watching pro baseball players and chuckling about their lack of fundamentals. It's ignorant and obnoxious.
It's like some guy, or guys sitting at home and watching pro baseball players and chuckling about their lack of fundamentals. It's ignorant and obnoxious.
On the flipside of the coin, wouldn't it be ignorant and obnoxious to tell aspiring young baseball players that the fundamentals don't matter?
Warren, Warren, Warren...man oh man. I'm not going to keep quoting you, because it does now good, but I will respond...again.
It's not me moving the topics to what I want to discuss and ignoring what's being said, or not providing requested information....it's you, Brother! You!
You asked me what qualifications I had to divvy out advice, and I responded in detail. You immediately said that's all fine and dandy but it means absolutely nothing. And you continue to ask and make fun of what I told you, which ain't cool, period.
But, now you seem to have this new topic about who is and who isn't qualified to give advice and try to help peeps.
Because I haven't sold a feature script for significant money and/or notoriety, I'm not qualified to help peeps who have no idea what they are and what they're not doing?
Is a guy or gal who sells a script for $25,000 that gets turned into an absolutely horrible, dumbass DTV movie more qualified? Because he sold a "crappy script" somehow?
I'll just say it again, there's right and there's wrong, and then there's damn grey areas.
I don't care who write the script...I give feedback, good or bad, based on what's on the pages. No one should ever throw out as a reason for anything, "Well, they're a Pro writer, if they did it, there's obviously nothing wrong with it."
That's BS, my brother. Flat out BS, and you need to at least consider what I'm saying, because I really don't see how you could argue that.
I think there is something larger at work, here - using all of those things that are "against the rules" well or poorly. And that comes down to using them "correctly", and I think that comes down to ignoring both the arbitrary "don't do this" and the arbitrary "the rules don't matter" and realizing that what matters is knowing how to use them.
My thing has always been "tools not rules" - that things like "we see" or using some camera angle in your script isn't going to get you kicked out of Hollywood. But you are using these things *for a reason* and not just willy-nilly. You are using the best tool for the job. When you pick up a sledgehammer to pound in a finishing nail, the advice you are going to get is "Never use the sledgehammer!" Because the advice is specific to the case. And when you get general advice, you may get "Never use the sledgehammer" because it is a tool that is rarely used in construction. But there may come a time when you need to pound a beam in, and the sledgehammer is the perfect tool. So you bring it out.
I think the whole "rules" thing is really about using the right tool for the job, and that means knowing how each tool works. Neither "the rules don't matter" or "you must follow the rules" are the solution because neither addresses how the tools work. It's not that a pro can get away with using "we see" (or whatever), it's that a pro knows how and when to use those things. And anyone can mis-judge and mis-use a tool - but when a pro does it it is a small "mistake" in a work with few mistakes; when a new writer mis-uses a tool, it may be a small "mistake" in a work filled with "mistakes". Those other "mistakes" may be character we do not care about or a scatter-shot story or many other issues that make that small "mistake" seem like the last straw."
Don't look at the "rules", look at the reasons behind them. That's what matters.
I'm just a middle-of-the-road screenwriter- ie: not new but not yet getting paid at pro level. But I'm pretty darn sure If people use them correctly, they can get away with it, too.
So when a pro breaks the rules, it's not because they're pros (Lon) it's because they think it gives the best read on the page. To assume otherwise is unfounded and counterintuitive - yes, they are professional screenwriters. They committed to it, they beat the odds and made it, and it's their life. It's like some guy, or guys sitting at home and watching pro baseball players and chuckling about their lack of fundamentals. It's ignorant and obnoxious.
I agree with this.
I think the issue is that Jeff has decided that he is the authority on when too much is too much, but he has no proof or credientals to back his claims. I've never said he can't have an opinion on the matter, he could say something like; I feel you have too many whatever and this is the reason and this is how it could be done better. That's not what he does. For one of my scripts he literally went and counted the wrylies, voice overs, and off screens and told me there were too many. In my opinion every single one was needed and every single one was well/correctly used. I have seen them all used in pro scripts in similar ways, and personally I would prefer to emulate a pro than an amateur.
No one is saying that you should throw everything you know about writing out the window. There are very well know and established conventions, we all know that.
The argument is that they can be broken, and they can be broken by amateurs to enhance your storytelling.
On the flipside of the coin, wouldn't it be ignorant and obnoxious to tell aspiring young baseball players that the fundamentals don't matter?
Exactly.
And also, to a point someone else brought up, is there really something wrong with sports fans sitting at home criticizing a Pro athlete? Hell, no, there's not.
It's just like writing, there's goods, there's bads, and there's just OKs, and Pros in every facet of life not only make mistakes, they sometimes go flat out wrong.
Warren, Warren, Warren...man oh man. I'm not going to keep quoting you, because it does now good, but I will respond...again.
It's not me moving the topics to what I want to discuss and ignoring what's being said, or not providing requested information....it's you, Brother! You!
You asked me what qualifications I had to divvy out advice, and I responded in detail. You immediately said that's all fine and dandy but it means absolutely nothing.
But, now you seem to have this new topic about who is and who isn't qualified to give advice and try to help peeps.
Because I haven't sold a feature script for significant money and/or notoriety, I'm not qualified to help peeps who have no idea what they are and what they're not doing?
Is a guy or gal who sells a script for $25,000 that gets turned into an absolutely horrible, dumbass DTV movie more qualified? Because he sold a "crappy script" somehow?
I'll just say it again, there's right and there's wrong, and then there's damn grey areas.
I don't care who write the script...I give feedback, good or bad, based on what's on the pages. No one should ever throw out as a reason for anything, "Well, they're a Pro writer, if they did it, there's obviously nothing wrong with it."
That's BS, my brother. Flat out BS, and you need to at least consider what I'm saying, because I really don't see how you could argue that.
The issue is that you have decided to be the authority on the grey issues. This was about those grey areas, wrylies, asides, camera angles, voice overs, orphans.
I have addressed every point you have made, or tried to, if I’ve missed anything feel free to point it out and I will address it. Still waiting for a whole lot of info from your side that I know isn’t coming.
I think I might tap out here, we will both hold firm on our ideas.
Like I said, any rational person will be able to read this thread and be able to make up their own mind.
You can keep on keeping on. Your advice on the grey areas will still be largely ignored.
I liked this one:
Quoted Text
And you continue to ask and make fun of what I told you, which ain't cool, period.
What you have told me is nothing tangible, it’s nothing we can see, nothing we can truly know. All we have to go by are your pissers and excuse laden OWC scripts. If you’re feeling bad about your achievements in the screenwriting community that’s all you. I'm just pointing out the facts. No fun has been made.
Like I said, any rational person will be able to read this thread and be able to make up their own mind.
You can keep on keeping on. Your advice on the grey areas will still be largely ignored.
What you have told me is nothing tangible, it’s nothing we can see, nothing we can truly know. All we have to go by are your pissers and excuse laden OWC scripts. If you’re feeling bad about your achievements in the screenwriting community that’s all you. I'm just pointing out the facts. No fun has been made.
I'm out, continue
Well, there you go again, and I agree that most rational peeps will read this and make up their mind, but you really shouldn't be so confident that the masses will be siding with you and your smug smartass tude.
I have no bad feelings about my achievements and/or lack of achievements. This is a hobby for me, but I am passionate about it, as SS has taught me so much and provided so many great times.
Again, you ignored the things I brought up about why someone should be eligible to give feedback and try and help peeps out, if they don't have any industry successes.
I've said this for many years on such threads and I'll say it again here.
Just because someone sold a script or 3, has nothing to do with their talent as a screenwriter. And when that 1st Sale was official, that writer was absolutely no better a writer than he was the day before it sold. Absolutely no different.
I know you said you're out, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, as I think it's quite important.
Well, there you go again, and I agree that most rational peeps will read this and make up their mind, but you really shouldn't be so confident that the masses will be siding with you and your smug smartass tude.
I have no bad feelings about my achievements and/or lack of achievements. This is a hobby for me, but I am passionate about it, as SS has taught me so much and provided so many great times.
Again, you ignored the things I brought up about why someone should be eligible to give feedback and try and help peeps out, if they don't have any industry successes.
Okay, last one.
Anyone is eligible to give feedback, anyone at all. Even if they know nothing about screenwriting they can still have an opinion on the story.
I’ve never directly said you aren’t eligible. The point I have continually hammered on about is that by all the evidence, like great scripts written by great writers, show us a different picture to the one you’re painting. I’m talking about pro writers whose scripts have been turned into good or great films. I’m talking about writers that I look up to and want to emulate.
You and Lon keep mentioning crap writers, I’ve never told anyone to look up to a crap writer or to take advice from a crap writer. I’m saying look to writers who have made films you like, read their stuff, they will have undoubtedly done things you (Jeff) believe are incorrect.
The issue is not that you aren’t eligible to give feedback because you haven’t had any success, it’s that you have hard-line opinions on what makes a good script, and those hard-line opinions can be disproved by reading good pro scripts. To say that they didn’t write that way when they were amateurs is an unfounded claim.
I’ve pointed out that I've had no real success either, but I base what I know about the craft, in terms of what this discussion is about, on ideas and scripts that have been written by writers that have found success.
Quoted from Dreamscale
I've said this for many years on such threads and I'll say it again here.
Just because someone sold a script or 3, has nothing to do with their talent as a screenwriter. And when that 1st Sale was official, that writer was absolutely no better a writer than he was the day before it sold. Absolutely no different.
I haven’t disputed this. A crap writer is a crap writer.
I think there is something larger at work, here - using all of those things that are "against the rules" well or poorly. And that comes down to using them "correctly", and I think that comes down to ignoring both the arbitrary "don't do this" and the arbitrary "the rules don't matter" and realizing that what matters is knowing how to use them.
My thing has always been "tools not rules" - that things like "we see" or using some camera angle in your script isn't going to get you kicked out of Hollywood. But you are using these things *for a reason* and not just willy-nilly. You are using the best tool for the job. When you pick up a sledgehammer to pound in a finishing nail, the advice you are going to get is "Never use the sledgehammer!" Because the advice is specific to the case. And when you get general advice, you may get "Never use the sledgehammer" because it is a tool that is rarely used in construction. But there may come a time when you need to pound a beam in, and the sledgehammer is the perfect tool. So you bring it out.
I think the whole "rules" thing is really about using the right tool for the job, and that means knowing how each tool works. Neither "the rules don't matter" or "you must follow the rules" are the solution because neither addresses how the tools work. It's not that a pro can get away with using "we see" (or whatever), it's that a pro knows how and when to use those things. And anyone can mis-judge and mis-use a tool - but when a pro does it it is a small "mistake" in a work with few mistakes; when a new writer mis-uses a tool, it may be a small "mistake" in a work filled with "mistakes". Those other "mistakes" may be character we do not care about or a scatter-shot story or many other issues that make that small "mistake" seem like the last straw."
Don't look at the "rules", look at the reasons behind them. That's what matters.
I'm just a middle-of-the-road screenwriter- ie: not new but not yet getting paid at pro level. But I'm pretty darn sure If people use them correctly, they can get away with it, too.
So when a pro breaks the rules, it's not because they're pros (Lon) it's because they think it gives the best read on the page. To assume otherwise is unfounded and counterintuitive - yes, they are professional screenwriters. They committed to it, they beat the odds and made it, and it's their life. It's like some guy, or guys sitting at home and watching pro baseball players and chuckling about their lack of fundamentals. It's ignorant and obnoxious.
I've said this for many years on such threads and I'll say it again here.
Just because someone sold a script or 3, has nothing to do with their talent as a screenwriter. And when that 1st Sale was official, that writer was absolutely no better a writer than he was the day before it sold. Absolutely no different.
So...
When someone claims that a pro writes with the use of wrylies, asides, etc - they are not doing so simply because they can get away with it - they probably always did it. Yes?
Did this post about how people focus too much on format and not enough on story turn into a post focused too much on format and not enough on story?
I say be the change we want to see.
There are a ton of poorly formatted scripts just waiting for us to read. Don posts them all the time.
Crack one open, note the formatting issues, but focus on the intangibles: Story, characters, plot, theme, feeling...
I love seeing that a newly posted script has no comments. It's a blank canvas. The writer is obviously new and malleable. They're primed for growth and all it takes is a few words of encouragement to get them to the Oscars where they will spend their entire acceptance speech thanking me which will totally piss off their wife/husband/mother/agent/studio head... But that's not my fault. I can't help how awesome I am.
Really, anyone? I'd like to see you all sum up your advice.
And stop beating a dead horse.
I think this is a good idea, Libby.
1. I think there needs to be a different thread for each distinct topic (we could build an inventory of issues as we go).
2. Someone should write the main article. Then someone should be allowed to imbed the counter view (if there is one) withing that main article. Then that specific post would be locked - but peeps would be allowed to make comments on the thread.
I'll start by posting one on parentheticals. Jeff, Lon, or anyone for that matter could volunteer to write the counter view (if there is one).
Jeff - if you are still reading this thread, you could write one on Scene Headings. You're killer in that area.
When someone claims that a pro writes with the use of wrylies, asides, etc - they are not doing so simply because they can get away with it - they probably always did it. Yes?
I have never made a comment about what you're asking, Dave.
My point here is that just because someone has "credentials", doesn't mean their script is any better than if it didn't sell, and they are not a better writer.
Warren was asking for credentials over and over, as if without them, there's no reason to listen to that person.
But, then he said a crappy writer is a crappy writer, whether or not they sold a script.
1. I think there needs to be a different thread for each distinct topic (we could build an inventory of issues as we go).
2. Someone should write the main article. Then someone should be allowed to imbed the counter view (if there is one) withing that main article. Then that specific post would be locked - but peeps would be allowed to make comments on the thread.
I'll start by posting one on parentheticals. Jeff, Lon, or anyone for that matter could volunteer to write the counter view (if there is one).
Jeff - if you are still reading this thread, you could write one on Scene Headings. You're killer in that area.
I have never made a comment about what you're asking, Dave.
My point here is that just because someone has "credentials", doesn't mean their script is any better than if it didn't sell, and they are not a better writer.
Warren was asking for credentials over and over, as if without them, there's no reason to listen to that person.
But, then he said a crappy writer is a crappy writer, whether or not they sold a script.
So, I was left confused once again.
My point was that many have said here, and perhaps it was not you, when a writer points out that a pro writer have used something like and a side or a parenthetical, the only reason they're doing it is that they can get away with it. Conversely, my suspicions is that they always wrote that way. That's it.
Doesn't that contravene why this thread was started? -- too much emphasis on formatting and not enough about story/characters/theme/plot.
I don't think a separate thread on formatting in writing techniques contravenes the intent of this thread. I view it is a thought that was generated from this thread. That's why I posted my first one and a difference thread all together
Dave, isn't that the intent of the Screenwriting FAQ thread? Not saying it couldn't use some updating, just that I think this was already started some time back in the prehistory of SS.
Dave, isn't that the intent of the Screenwriting FAQ thread? Not saying it couldn't use some updating, just that I think this was already started some time back in the prehistory of SS.
No, I don't think so. The intent of the thread that I'm proposing if to give newbies a place to go 2 view a position on a rating format or style topic without having to go through 200 post to get the gist of an issue. I think that is along the lines of what Libby suggested for this thread. I will let her and others decide if it's a value. If not, they can just delete it.
I was thinking we could merge threads but then I looked at yours Dave and it's spectacularly good so perhaps Don might agree to it being a Sticky thread along with the others planned for the Screenwriting Class thread.
I'll have a look at the others (listed above) in more detail but I think they were in the form of a debate and not a 'How To'.
And will also wait for Don and Pia, Blondie and Bert to weigh in.
I think the idea for having these basics front and centre is a good one cause I think most people tend to start a new thread rather than doing a search to see, for example, if Parentheticals or any other formatting discussions have been covered before.
I don't think a separate thread on formatting in writing techniques contravenes the intent of this thread. I view it is a thought that was generated from this thread. That's why I posted my first one and a difference thread all together
Oh I see! Basically taking the points out of this thread and placing them into separate concise threads... Sorry, I misunderstood.
I was thinking we could merge threads but then I looked at yours Dave and it's spectacularly good so perhaps Don might agree to it being a Sticky thread along with the others planned for the Screenwriting Class thread.
It's a string that hasn't been washed in a long time
Actually, an example would be the first six threads of the Screenwriting Class board. They stay at the top even if some normal thread has more activity.
It's a string that hasn't been washed in a long time
Actually, an example would be the first six threads of the Screenwriting Class board. They stay at the top even if some normal thread has more activity.
I just spent the last 90 minutes catching up on this thread and found it both amusing and enlightening.
My profession (what pays the bills) entails regulatory and corporate compliance with writing as a hobby(definitely doesn't pay ANY bills). Professionally speaking, there are policies (overarching context of how we work), standards (the rules/ do's and don'ts), and procedures (how we do what we do within the rules). When there aren't standards, we develop best practice to give guidance to achieve the optimum result.
I respect everyone's input on this subject and have learned a lot in the last two+ years on SS. I almost quit writing after my first OWC (thanks to Jeff's comments) until I went back and read my entry and found that Jeff was absolutely correct (thanks Jeff). Since then, I've accepted and appreciated everyone's input (shout out to Dave, Warren, Col, Ghostwriter,...the list goes on).
I just spent the last 90 minutes catching up on this thread and found it both amusing and enlightening.
My profession (what pays the bills) entails regulatory and corporate compliance with writing as a hobby(definitely doesn't pay ANY bills). Professionally speaking, there are policies (overarching context of how we work), standards (the rules/ do's and don'ts), and procedures (how we do what we do within the rules). When there aren't standards, we develop best practice to give guidance to achieve the optimum result.
I respect everyone's input on this subject and have learned a lot in the last two+ years on SS. I almost quit writing after my first OWC (thanks to Jeff's comments) until I went back and read my entry and found that Jeff was absolutely correct (thanks Jeff). Since then, I've accepted and appreciated everyone's input (shout out to Dave, Warren, Col, Ghostwriter,...the list goes on).
Hmm, just delving some more and discovered in the FAQs this Sticky that George was kind enough to collate some time ago, and it includes Wrylies, amongst many other things.
Obviously info can get overlooked when the info is already there and ripe for the picking. Do people look for an answer to their question before creating a new thread?
Seems not a lot. We need to promote the information already accessible for ourselves and Newbs.
Separate Stickies would be more noticeable...
Dave has kindly updated Parentheticals. What about the other categories, folks?
Pages: 
Author
The Rules - Formatting fatigue
Logged
Locked Board