I found this to be an interesting article on different styles of screenwriting, which the author categorizes as "epic," "moderate" and "lean."  He uses the screenplays of Walter Hill to demonstrate his points.  

http://www.mypdfscripts.com/thelatest/writers-style-walter-hill

Look at the unbelievably sparse opening page of "Alien", which Hill rewrote with David Giler.  Talk about keeping it lean.

Thank you Ryan for posting this. Although I don't have time to check it out, it's on my list!!!

Off the top, I think my style of writing is the crazy style. Does that count.

G-d bless.

Sandra

Great post Ryan.  I remember reading something similar to this, but I can't place it for the life of me.  Now It's bugging me.  I have to find it.

Anyway, I think most fall under the moderate as well.

Ghostie

Sandra, I think your style is EPIC.  

Per the article, I think the LEAN approach is effective in some situations - especially when dealing with action - but I find whole scripts written like that annoying to read.

That isn't to say other people don't like it, but personally I would put a script down if it was written as a list of single words.  It's cool and novel that someone did but I wouldn't want to see it become a trend.  

Ryan, what's with the new avatar?

What do you mean that Walter Hill write Alien with David Giler?  Alien was written by Dan O'Bannon, story by Ronald Shusett.  Am I misreading something here?

I think I'm LEAN. I've had complaints about my incomplete sentences. The example scripts rarely break their lines of prose. I don't like that. Especially Alien. I think you should use the full width of the page. And rarely go over three lines IMO. But, try to break action where it makes sense. Like mini pragraphs.

Good article...

I came to SS not understanding certain things, so my action lines were way, way too long(and we're not even talking dialogue!). Over a period of learning, I got things pretty close to a bare minimum. But I've also decided it's time to start adding some description back, even the dreaded unfilmable, selectively chosen. But I do this with a purpose, and the coverage experience influenced that.

People, whether Pros or amateurs, read scripts fast. Very few if any will come anywhere near Jeff when it comes to absorbing stuff. That's just a fact, and we need to address it when writing.

In the coverage I had, there a few instances where the reader got things wrong. I went back to the script to see if it was unclearly written, and it was not. When someone is reading a script fast, you have to accept there will be mistakes. But if you know this when writing, you sometimes might want to take that extra step to make sure the reader got it right. You pick and choose your moments, of course, but what's worse: having the reader think "that half a line is unfilmable" or having the reader get it wrong?

I also found the car chase scene in that article interesting. Man, imagine what that scene looks like with all the Int.s and EXt.s? What flows better? What captures the feel of the scene better? And that's what we want in our scripts, to give the reader our story, get them to see what we see. All those slugs cluttering that scene would be a crime against story telling.

Slugs should be your bestest friends...Period!  Embrace them, hang out with them...party with them.  They will make your script sing if you nail it and get it down.

Kinda like chicks...the more, the merrier!

AYEE!!!!

I've known some chicks I could do without! Some I wished I had done without.

Quoted from Dreamscale Ryan, what's with the new avatar? What do you mean that Walter Hill write Alien with David Giler?  Alien was written by Dan O'Bannon, story by Ronald Shusett.  Am I misreading something here?

Jeff, please tell me you've seen Anchorman.   Hence the new avatar.  I just like changing it every once in a while.

Walter Hill and David Giler were brought on as script doctors, and by all indications, their contributions to the final film were huge.  Their version is pretty much the one Ridley Scott filmed.  Hill and Giler were credited as producers,  not writers, and I'm not sure of why exactly that was.  But I know its fairly typical that big budget films can go through small armies of writers, many of which never get mentioned in the credits.  Here is their script for Alien:

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/alien_shooting.html

But for a funny look at O'Bannon's original script, check out this article that Sniper posted earlier in the week that looks at early versions of well-known movies.  Alien(or Starbeast, as it was called) is one of the subjects.  

http://www.cracked.com/article_16716_7-terrible-early-versions-great-movies.html?wa_user1=5&wa_user2=Movies+%26+TV&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=recommended

I'm familiar with the movie Anchorman but I wouldn't sit through it unless someone was paying me handsomely.

Interesting about the alien writers...or not writers.  I always thought O'Bannon was the one...wonder what he has to say about this...

O'Bannon died last year so he ain't got shit to say anymore. When Alien first came out Giler and Hill were the credited writers but O'Bannon took the thing to arbetration and eventually got the writing credits (which is not entirely unfair - Hill and Giler made the script a much better read but the overall story didn't change all that much).

Oh, fu*k off! No-one comes close to Jeff's level of absorption? Kevin and Jeff the same person? Let me say this clearly: being incredibly anal (and largely truculent) does not a good reviewer make. Heretic, bert, Col (off the top of my head) ABSORB a script. Seriously, someone has to shout down this comment. No offence, Jeff, but it's this type of nonsensical view that's given you free rein to wreak havoc with your 'heightened' understanding.

In case anyone is curious: my remark on Jeff's absorption was not about his giving a better or more qualified review than anyone else. Or even that he understands a script better than anyone else. What I was alluding to was the fact that he reads a script very, very closely for details. Few do that.

Why did I single him out? Because I also know that Jeff takes a purist approach when it comes to things like unfilmables, and I think that's something that's well known here among regulars. I included 3 unfilmables in my last script, fully knowing that Jeff would have a problem with them. But I out them there so that the reader who is reading quickly, such as a coverage reader, would have no con fusion on those important scenes.

So the post above was just to explain that. Really fairly obvious.

I'll expand a little on my writing point with an example.

In a feature I recently wrote, I had a scene where a bomb was attached to a car cigarette lighter. There was a little subtlety in the dialogue, deliberately there, and I didn't want the audience to get confused as to which car had the bomb in it. In a film, there would be some closeups on the lighter, maybe some dramatic music. But I didn't want to include that kind of stuff in the script. What I did was add about a half a line making sure people reading understood the bomb was in this car.

I knew the half line was unfilmable. I knew Jeff would object to it, and he did. But
I put the line in there so the reader working quickly would not be confused. I would rather risk the reader be annoyed by a tiny unfilmable than he be confused about what's going on. That was my point.

I'm not suggesting do it all over the place. But having them here and there in your script could be helpful. I had 3 in a 112 pages script.

Stellar article, Ryan!
I'd love to get my mitts on that Point Blank script.
I'm a big fan of the film, which Gibson remade as "Payback".
Super exciting for me to slide down Hill's cascade of pages.
Bold strokes from someone throwing rocks at Hollywood's glass houses.

Gets me psyched for a Walter Hill OWC! ;D

E.D.

That's a really good idea, Brett.

Quoted from mcornetto Per the article, I think the LEAN approach is effective in some situations - especially when dealing with action - but I find whole scripts written like that annoying to read. That isn't to say other people don't like it, but personally I would put a script down if it was written as a list of single words.  It's cool and novel that someone did but I wouldn't want to see it become a trend.

Walter Hill is one of my influences as a writer and director. I switch from moderate to lean in writing. Depends on the script.  Yet, when I go "haiku" my peers start the tomato toss after they put me in the pillory. Not just this site, but a few others too.

It's interesting to note that they mention "Wild Bill" was written Epic as that was one of Hill's weaker films. Last Man Standing was decent redo of Kurasawa, (by "decent" I mean tolerable) but I felt the film to be somewhat uneven.

I'm curious how Broken Trail, the TV cable film from '07 was written.

Quoted from leitskev That's a really good idea, Brett.

Gracias, senor Kevin.
I'm sure the powers that be already have a spiffy OWC in mind.
Perhaps, it's good enough to store in the OWC idea bank for future reference.
However, I'm debating a Walter Hill pass at Lie Detector.
Take a directorly staccato stab at the material to see how it hits the page.

E.D.

Quoted from Dreamscale I always thought O'Bannon was the one...wonder what he has to say about this...

Unless one finds a part article or interview, I suspect O'Bannon wouldn't say a whole lot :-/

(He passed away in 2009)

Just read Tarantino's Django Unchained. I have to say, I don't like the way this is written, it's one seriously tough chug. If an unknown posted this on SS, I'd wager most people wouldn't make it past page 5, or maybe even the title page. It's certainly EPIC, but a poor example of economical scriptwriting. It's only because 'Tarantino' wrote it that people will read it. Yes, Tarantino has made some great films, some okay film, but don't  forget, he has also made clunkers like 'Deathproof'. A film about featuring Tarantino's foot fetish and pointless character dialouge, does not an entertaining film make.

I have to admit, when I read the script a couple of months ago, I found there were a lot of odd things too, even if you ignore writing style. The dialogue seemed very unusual at times, and much of what happened and the way it happened  seemed very unlikely to me. The story has its moments, and I have no doubt the film will be entertaining, but on many levels, if this script was written by a nobody, it would have absolutely no chance.

That's the way it usually is and the way it's usually going to be.  People need to understand this, as it's something I harp on over and over again.

It always amazes me when people tell young writers (and even experienced writers) to read Pro scripts to see how it's done.  Or, literally, to read QT scripts and see how a master puts a plot together with immaculate dialogue and attention to detail.

Uh...yeah...right.

I seriously get a good belly laugh when I read this from various people, including "industry" insiders.

I mean, the reality is that very, very few can write/think/conceive like QT or other big Pros.  But if they could, and if they did literally write like them, no one would read their shit anyways.  Same with Cameron, who's known for writing 200 page scripts loaded with detail that no Spec script in its right mind would even attempt to get away with.

Writers need to learn how to write, first.  That includes the basics of grammar, sentence structure, and SPELLING. From there, they need to learn the basics of script writing, including format, structure (yes, I said structure, but note I didn't say typical 3 act structure), and everything else that makes script writing so different from prose writing.  From there, writers need to watch movies and see what works, what doesn't work, and why.

A unique, solid writer's voice does not need to make for an irritating, tough, long Slog of a read.

Quoted from leitskev In case anyone is curious: my remark on Jeff's absorption was not about his giving a better or more qualified review than anyone else. Or even that he understands a script better than anyone else. What I was alluding to was the fact that he reads a script very, very closely for details. Few do that. Why did I single him out? Because I also know that Jeff takes a purist approach when it comes to things like unfilmables, and I think that's something that's well known here among regulars. I included 3 unfilmables in my last script, fully knowing that Jeff would have a problem with them. But I out them there so that the reader who is reading quickly, such as a coverage reader, would have no con fusion on those important scenes. So the post above was just to explain that. Really fairly obvious.

I know that Jeff is a purist with regards to asides. I'm not. I appreciate them. I often see his notes and scrutiny and I know it comes from loads of study on screen and paper. It's interesting to me because I come at things from a very very very blank slate. I actually like it that way because I pull from varied sources that include some film, but mostly a lot of reading material and life. I guess from that perspective it's received with a different kind/level of filtering.

I found it interesting the

Three Types of Screenwriters:

Epic
Moderate
Lean

I've done and continue to do all three. Sometimes in the same script. I don't have a preference if it's well written and given to the particular story or time and circumstances in the story.

And this:

Film International: How did you teach yourself screenwriting?

Walter Hill: The usual story – read a lot of scripts, saw every possible movie. Wrote a lot at night. My big problem was finishing – I must’ve written twenty-five first acts – abandon and move on, abandon and move on. This went on about three years. Funny thing, once I was able to finish a script, I was able to make a living at it right away.

**I still do this. In the past, I've forced myself to finish things even if I knew they weren't "done". You only learn to play and instrument by playing an instrument.

Sandra

I learned from experience that pretty much anyone who reads your script, whether they are paid to(coverage) or someone doing you a favor, is reading fast and will miss key things that can make a huge difference in understanding and appreciating a script. I do it myself reading other scripts, and when the writer straightens me out, it changes everything sometime.

So I believe in trying to write lean and mean, but saving a few asides to use as points of emphasis, to make sure the reader doesn't miss something important. It drives Jeff crazy because from his perspective it wasn't needed. By I can't assume that with every reader. I sent a script for coverage and the reader, who basically liked the script, made some basic mistakes. For example, I had a brother and sister in the role of antagonists, and somehow the reader thought they had an incestuous relationship. Asides don't fix all of those problems, but they can fix some, at least to make sure the reader gets the critical stuff,

I see in pro scripts that asides also can be used to entertain the reader. I think as long as these are limited there should be no harm in it. Some people read a lot of scripts; give them a little entertainment. But functionally, you could also argue these are a form of directing, but walking lightly in doing so. They make sure the right tone is established, things like that.

But what the freak do I know.

One other thing. Lean and mean might really be the preferred route for non-pro writers. I think you really have to be confident in your writing, and should have quite a bit of writing under your belt before you try to take chances with creating a unique style.

Quoted from leitskev One other thing. Lean and mean might really be the preferred route for non-pro writers. I think you really have to be confident in your writing, and should have quite a bit of writing under your belt before you try to take chances with creating a unique style.

I think you're right, Kevin. I'll just kind of be half jesting when I say:

What have I got to lose?

Most important, if a person's seriously going for any kind of pitch, I think a person should have maybe a dozen good features as well as a good number of short scripts. That way someone doesn't say, "Yeah, that's pretty good. What else d'ya got?"

And like you just said, that's only going to come from a lot of work under your belt. You start to get the inner "spidey sense" going.  ;D

Sandra

I agree, except a dozen features might be a little on the high side. I have 5, and I'm hoping to have them all rewritten and in shape by the end of the year. Whether I decide to try my hand at pitching after that, who knows, probably not. But I don't know if I want to wait until 12. It kind of depends on how my next feature goes, which I won't be able to start til next year, I don't think. But if I feel I've really finally got the process down, we'll see. Also depends on whether I think I have a really marketable script yet.

I do think you're right, though. Have a bag full of scripts! Unless you are some other kind of professional writer, in which case you get a little more rope to play with.

This was a very good article, amazing the differences in style and how he reverted back and forth. I'm a big fan of the Peckinpah's The Getaway and The Warriors.

It just goes to show how it can depend on the content and style of the story as to how a writer chooses to depict it on the page.

His lean style was sharp, visceral and fast but I still appealed to his more moderate approach also. The better the writing, the more of it the reader is willing to read thus the more description the writer him/herself can get away with.

Always good to see (at least for me anyway) people championing the idea of there being more than one way to successfully write a script.