Producer's POV

[IWrite]

I read a great article by a producer regarding script submissions. I won't repost it here - because I don't want to violate the copyright, but I will reiterate a few points because I think it's important. Her basic point is that when she reads a script a part of her wants to love it - but another part of her is basically looking for an excuse to toss it into the reject pile - because each script is one in a very deep pile.

So these are some of the things that make her:

a) reject the script before she's even opened it
these are the obvious things - using anything other than cardstock (though she's not offended by color stock), binding with anything other than brads, including illustrations or artwork.

If the script is not bound correctly - she will reject it on sight.

b) reject after leafing through but before actually reading
longer than 130 pages, not in 12 point courier (I know some producers who are okay with other fonts, but since some are not you are wise to stick with courrier), lots of large blocks of description (use sparingly and break down the longer descriptions into short paragraphs, too many long passages of dialogue (speeches that are like a page long) if the margins are obviously cheated (not just the page margins, but the dialogue block margins as well), if it contains camera directions (this has been discussed ad nauseum on these threads - it is a deal breaker for many - so don't do it), too many wrylies - these are those parenthetical descriptions (sadly) (sarcasticaly), etc., and finally BAD GRAMMAR and TYPOS.

Again, if she leafs through and sees these things, she will not bother reading it at all.


Now the good part - Once she's reading she's looking for the following:

She wants to be sucked in from line one on page one. This means that you want your first description block to be interesting, unique and different. Which means that you shouldn't start your screeplay with a generic description. She wants to be absorbed in your story from the get-go.

She wants to be grabbed by your character from the first time he speaks. This means you should start your character off in an interesting situation and give him something interesting to say. She's looking for star quality in the role.

10 and 10. This is key folks and I hope you all pay attention to this because I think there's a misnomer on this board that if you're asked to submit - your script will be read in its entirety. I know some people on this thread who've served as readers doing coverage said they had to read the entire script and cover it - that may be so for readers doing coverage - but it's not the case for those higher up the ladder. And in some situations - submissions don't go through interns or readers and land directly in the development exec or producer's inbox.

So back to 10 and 10 this particular producer reads the first 10 pages - if you don't grab her by then SHE STOPS READING and throws it in the reject pile. If it does grab her - she reads the last 10. If she likes that as well she'll read the middle 90. Many, many producers do this. Some only read the first five. I usually read the first 10, but I almost always know by page three whether or not I'll be reading page 11. I think I've been wrong once.

Some other thing she says, is that if the script is to wordy and bloated, she may give you the benefit of the doubt and read up to page 20 - but if your still overwriting or putting in too many details - she'll stop.

I've seen so many excerpts of the first ten pages posted on this site - that just don't move or suck you in - and the reply received more often than not is that the script gets going in the next scene.

If the script doesn't start moving untill page 11 - then start your story on page 11. You can't dip your toe in - dive in from word one, page one.

[clockwork]

Most of her rules seem lifted from those god-awful "How to be a screenwriter," books, the ones that tell you writing a script is like filling out an immigration form; there are rules and the rules must be followed!

I know they're aimed at beginners and probably very useful to them but I just hate being told that my first act must be concluded by such and such a page and to never use parentheticals or camera directions or internal thought. I use them (very sparingly of course) and my agent has never told me I shouldn't, even at the earlier stages when he wasn't my agent. My experience thus far is that it doesn't matter as much as these books tell you they do as long as your writing is good and the story hooks the reader.

Now, I'm not advising writers to start pilfering their work with parentheticals. If you're a total newb to scriptwriting then you should probably take a look at 'the rules' but for the others, all I'd caution against is an over-use of them. Everything in moderation is a good philosophy.

I absolutely agree that a script should hook you by page ten and that typos and bad grammar are unacceptable. But your purpose as a writer is to serve the story, give it whatever it needs and worry about the rules later. There'll always be plenty of people to tell you what you've done wrong.

[IWrite]

My experience thus far is that it doesn't matter as much as these books tell you they do as long as your writing is good and the story hooks the reader.

Clock -

I think you missed at least part of the point - which is it doesn't matter how good your writing is if the things listed in a) and b) are visible in your script - because she (and some other producers that I personally know) won't even bother READING your script.

You also obviously didn't read very carefully - because she didn't say don't use any parentheticals - she said she doesn't read if she flips through the script and sees it is filled with them - the same goes for long blocks of dialogue and/or action. Obviously there may be a need for a lot of description in some types of scenes - but in many cases it's not necessary and the scenes are merely overwritten.

As for things like wrylies - even with the work for hire stuff I've done (scripts that don't need to be submitted or sold because I've been hired by a producer to write it) I've been cautioned about wrylies. Why? because actors don't like to be told how to do their jobs - or interpret a scene. And the goal is to submit the script to big name actors once it's complete. If you're doing YOUR job as a writer, the way the line should be read will be clear from the context and the actor will interpret the scene exactly how you intended. Same goes for camera directions - because directors don't want you doing their job.

But your purpose as a writer is to serve the story, give it whatever it needs and worry about the rules later.

This is true to a point. The story IS the thing. But the things pointed out by this particular producer are not about serving the story - they are about your storytelling choices. Too much description almost never serves the story - because it slows down the pace and the read. If you choose the right words and sentence structure you can in almost every case - turn a 1/2 page of description into a 1/4 page or less. It's all about how good you are with words.

I see you have an agent - which definitely makes a difference to some extent when your work is submitted, but I gotta tell you I've passed on as many agent submitted scripts that were boring, not engaging, overwritten, etc. as scripts submitted via queries. Having an agent does not magically make it okay for you to start pissing off the actor and director or being sloppy with format and form.

The tone of your post made me think of another point the producer made that I didn't include at the top of this thread. And that is if you think rules are made to be broken or that doing things differently make you original - you are wrong. The originality comes from the content - not from including long passages of description.

Film scripts are blueprints for movies and you do need to follow the basic rules of the blueprint. Those books you pooh-pooh are guides to learning how to blueprint a story. Ever read a script that had 42 pages of set-up before the inciting incident? I have - it isn't pretty. Even though screenplays are blueprints, they also need to work on the page for the reader - scripts that are too bogged down in details or are filled with long gratuitous speeches - rarely, if ever, work for the reader.

[IWrite]

Dominic -

I can understand why you've received responses. The underwater visuals are OK - but what really nails this page is once you focus on Jason. Your images of the numbers, the files, the label "Meats" immediately make people curious. And you were smart enough to immediately jump to the construction site where we see the meat hook and Meats.

We're interested - we have no idea what's going on but we want to know - and that's the key. We want to turn to page two.

I hope everyone who reads this thread realizes the power of that first page when it's done right.

[clockwork]

IWrite,


If I thought that rules are made to be broken and that having an agent made it okay to start pissing off the actor and director or being sloppy with format and form, then I'd be a pretty unsuccessful writer.

You mentioned the tone of my post and if you interpreted it as me being flippant regarding respectful formatting or presentation then that wasn't accurate. I consider myself an intelligent, professional writer who values the reader's experience very highly. There are times when I positively agonise over the choices I make (I'm likely to spend a lifetime writing this post) so please don't assume I'm some know-it-all, punk kid dismissing yours. Let me try to explain a little further what I was getting at. And remember, nothing is gospel. It’s all opinion…

I think that a large part of this argument depends on whose point of view the rules are considered from and is perhaps something I should have made clearer. To the newer writer the rules are vital. To the more established writer, they are a useful reminder. I really believe there's a difference between the way they are viewed and I would say that the producer's advice you quoted was directed at the less experienced writer.

After all, the kind of things she mentioned are simple, first-floor rules that everybody should know if you're considering submission. In that regard, I think it's important for those who are unfamiliar with the basics. But for myself, as someone who is well aware of the fundamentals and respects the fundamentals, I implement them but try not to let my work to be dictated by them. I see too many exmaples of them being broken in scripts that have been produced to think differently.

I don't doubt these are her guidelines or that there are others who work similarly. I didn't contest that these rules are wrong or that she was wrong for using them or that you were wrong for being good enough to post them here. If a script is 'filled with parentheticals' as you said then of course it will get rejected but I didn't say people should fill their script with parentheticals, I cautioned against an over-implementation of the rules. You've read bad scripts that are filled with description and I know there are plenty out there but conversely, I've read scripts that have been so sanitised by the rules that they become stripped of excitement, passion, even clarity.

If there are people who reject scripts based on the criteria you mentioned then that is absolutely their prerogative to do so and I don't blame them. If I read a script that had ten pages of description before a word was uttered, I'd stop reading too. I just hate the idea of someone getting to a point in her work where she feels the need to take a little longer to describe something and sacrificing that desire because she's worried about it getting rejected on that basis.

So before you reply (and please do) just remember I'm not lambasting the idea of rules, I'm not encouraging parenthetical anarchy, I'm not saying you're wrong. My biggest worry is that writers will assume the rules are more important than a good story and engaging character. My dislike of scriptwriting books stems from this as they seem to focus more and more on cosmetic and aesthetic considerations. My point about serving the story was that writers can become so entrenched in the rules that the story suffers because of it.

I certainly take your point about how having an agent doesn't guarantee anything and that it doesn't give you a licence to write how you want but again, I didn't say that. I just said that my writing style, to date, has not been an issue with my agent or the people I've worked with. I can only give my opinion based on my experiences and this is what I've encountered so far.


As for wrylies... it's a controversial area. I try to avoid them because I agree about not directing actors and most books tell you to never use them. However, I find them over and over (with actor direction) in virtually every produced script I read.

So come back with anything you want to take issue with, I appreciated the points you made and I know this particular topic is an oft-debated, hot-bed of opinion. I don't consider myself the scriptwriting I-Ching (not even close) but please believe me, I'm not some uninformed punk either. I know you didn't call me that but I wanted to lay it out there. You can let me know you're not something as well if you like. Let's share.

clock

Btw, have you heard of the 'killing your orphans' rule?

[IWrite]

So come back with anything you want to take issue with, I appreciated the points you made and I know this particular topic is an oft-debated, hot-bed of opinion. I don't consider myself the scriptwriting I-Ching (not even close) but please believe me, I'm not some uninformed punk either. I know you didn't call me that but I wanted to lay it out there. You can let me know you're not something as well if you like. Let's share.

I have nothing to take issue with - you've explained yourself admirably. But as someone who is in development and as such has read more truly awful scripts than any human being should ever be subjected to - I do think it is important that people learn the basics of storytelling and screenplay structure before submitting a script.

I went to film school - I've got a sound education and I continued to educate myself once I had the degree. I realize not everybody can or chooses to take this route. But people who by a copy of Final Draft - download a dozen scripts from Drew's Scriptorama and then think they know how to write a script are in almost every single case fooling themselves. That wouldn't be a problem - except those people are SUBMITTING - to ME. Wasting my time, wasting paper. LEARN THE CRAFT.

When I moved out to LA in the mid-90's the only people buying screenwriting software were those who were in the business or serious about being in it. There were far fewer wannabes out there pursuing a career - and the ones that were serious - like me - moved their butt out here, networked, took crappy low-paying jobs and learned about the business and more importantly the craft. Now you can get the software anywhere, on amazon, in your local bookstore. There's nothing wrong with that. But far fewer people are putting in the time to learn how to write. How to tell a story, how to structure a script. And those people are SUBMITTING - to ME.

For those who don't take classes or workshops - books on screenwriting are the best way to learn about the craft - far better than solely relying on feedback on boards like this to learn and improve. Which many apparently do. And then they're SUMBITTING - to ME.

As for the wrylies et. al. I'm a writer as well as a development exec and I've been known to use the occasional wrylie myself. To my knowledge I've never had a script passed on due to overuse of wrylies - and since every spec I've ever written has wound up being either optioned or sold - I can attest to the fact that wrylies in themselves are not deal-breakers. However I also know that the more I write, the less wrylies I tend to use. And' I've read scripts that literally had wrylies on 85% of the dialogue passages - it gets annoying to say the least. And it's like of course the guy is annoyed his car just got crapped on by a bird - what else would he be?

When it fit the script - I've used flashbacks and v.o. narration and in one case used v.o. over the flashback - but it was in fact in service to the storytelling and not done out of laziness or because I couldn't figure out a better way to do it. But far too many writers use v.o. in place of good storytelling. I recently received a submission that had 12 pages of backstory V.O. narration at the start. 12 MINUTES of nothing but v.o. narration detailing every episode in this guy's life!! The only reason I got to page 12, because with each page I turned, I couldn't help but wonder "how long does this go on?" It was not engrossing by any means and I knew by page two it was a pass.

I've never heard of the "Killing orphans" rule - but I'm quite familiar with the concept of "killing your babies" I've slaughtered a stadium-full in the course of my rewrites.

As for what I am or am not - since I'm a strong advocate of showing, not telling - I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

[clockwork]

You could start a whole new thread on the craft. I don't know if I could even accurately define what "the craft" means. I feel I KNOW the craft and if pressed to a definiton, I'd say I think it's discovering and learning the things that are intuitive to me now like economy, engagement and truth to a premise. I honestly don't know. What do you think 'the craft' is? Or are you referring to it on a more technical level, like the producer's guidelines you posted?

Whatever it is, I know I've earned it. I started writing when I was thirteen which at that time was obviously just a hobby but as I got older it took hold and I knew it's all I wanted to do. I was lucky enough to go to a university and get a degree under the mentorship of an industry veteran who read and undeniably improved my work through guidance and honesty and who, more than anything else, made me want it. I was a good writer before meeting him, I don't think he could have helped just anyone but I think I'd be a few years behind in the progress department if we'd never met. Since then it's been self-education. I find I'm always learning and improving. Thankfully. And I do enjoy it. I mean, I look forward to solving a nasty structural problem or sculpting a crisis point. I don't think I plan enough before starting a script but I'm getting better at it.

I've never been a reader so I can't empathise with what you've seen over the years but whenever I tell people I'm a writer, I get the usual, "Yeah, I've thought about doing that," response. Like it's something they'll get around to one day. And in fairness, now I know you're a reader, you will obviously have a much better understanding of the quality levels that are out there. I suppose if I were reading script after script of bad writing I'd be reminding people of the basics too. Like I said, I didn't mean to imply you were wrong to do that. I feel kinda bad now.

Anyway, the killing your orphans rule.

It says that if you have a sentence in the description part of your script that spills over to the next line like this.

Then that one word, 'this' should be deleted and the sentence restructured because it's all alone on the line, an orphan, taking up too much room. Like I said, probably a journalism thing where space is valued, column inches and such. I first encountered it in a recent screenwriting book and I didn't much like the idea but I catch myself chopping and changing to accommodate this rule from time to time and it drives me nuts! I wish I'd never read it, I spend twice as much energy doing that than just getting on with the rest of it.

Killing your babies, yes I've killed plenty too. I don't know, I find something enjoyable about it. It's tough to do obviously but when you know it's happening to the benefit of the script and you've economised or solved a pacing problem it's worth it. I find something deeply satisfying in re-reading something and realising, "Hey, I don't need any of this."

What you are or aren't... well, from this brief exchange I know you're not faking it. Whatever that means. Though I'm sure there's plenty around who are.

Do you consider yourself influenced by the work you read? What I mean is, does the constant onslaught of bad material affect you as a writer, do you get disillusioned at all?

[IWrite]

Actually Clock - I'm not a "reader" I'm a development executive. I look for projects and I shepard the projects the production companies either option or buy through a myriad of rewrites, revisions, etc. until they are ready to go. Almost all scripts need revisions once they're bought - whether it's because they're just not there yet, or because changes need to be made to accomodate the talent, the budget, a change in location, etc. I've never had a screenplay that was ready to go as is. And I've always had to do rewrites on my own scripts as well once a producer was attached. It's just the nature of the beast.

Sometimes we have interns who do coverage, but sometimes we don't and other times we're so swamped that I read alot of them myself. Or don't read them as the case may be.

By craft I was talking about the art of storytelling. Building a story, creating multi-dimensional characters and having a character arc, pace, climax, denoument. You need to know the basics of a story before you can tell it in any medium. And then with screenplays, there are other things that need to be considered because it's a visual medium. The technical stuff is part of it - but only a small part. When I come across description that expresses the internal thoughts of a character (which is fine for a novel, but not for a screenplay) it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Because it is such a basic technical thing - and then it is immediately apparent that this person never bothered to learn what a screenplay is - or else they learned it and decided to ignore it. If it can't be seen or heard on-screen it has no place in a screenplay. I've read screenplays that in the descriptions references what happened off-camera in between scenes. i.e. Frank and Carol return from dinner. They went to Marty's, Carol had the meatloaf. I kid you not. I've read things like this in scripts submitted to a production company. And these were not comedies - the writers just didn't know what they were doing.

As for being influenced by the stuff I read - I am always energized and thrilled when I read something great - it makes me want to write even more than I normally want to write. I am sad when I read a script by someone who obviously has no talent - because no matter how much they understand the craft they don't possess the innate ability to create and tell a story - and that is something that can't be taught. And I know that their dream will never come true, and that's sad to me.

And I am annoyed and angered by those who don't bother to learn the craft - talented or not. I sacrificed a hell of a lot to do what I love. I dedicated myself to it at the cost of many other things. I learned what I needed to know to pursue my passion - and it just pissses me off when people are not willing to put in the sweat and the grunt work - and then have the audacity to waste other people's time. And it is a waste of time to read a script by someone who doesn't know how to write one. There are so many avenues out there to learn at this point in time - many right in the privacy of your own home - there's absolutley no excuse for not doing so. None.

Climbing off my high-horse now.
IWrite

[JustinoXXV]

The bottom line, though, is that writers who are serious enough about writing will find ways of developing their writing. It may take them time, but they'll get there. If things aren't working out, they'll figure out what the problems are and address them.

As for the first 10 pages, while they certainly need to be there, the entire SCRIPT needs to be there.

Even if the first 10 pages are flawless, the script could water down by Act II. So then such a script still isn't going to get PURCHASED or OPTIONED. So that's why I mentioned readers having to read the entire script and write a coverage report.

And even if a producer really enjoyed reading a script, that still doesn't mean you've gotten anywhere. Can the script be produced at a reasonable budget? Are there actors who can fit the parts? What's the political climate of the country? Okay, there are actors who can play these parts, what's their schedule like and can we attach them. There are many other factors that can be considered as well. Having a good script in and of itself is still no sure way to getting PRODUCED.

Along these lines, not every producer or agent deals with every genre. And scripts that work for the main market LA, may not work for secondary markets like NY or London. Alternatively, some indie scripts don't have a snow ball's chance in hell in the main LA market, so they may need to go to NY or London.

And I might add, Iwrite, as a development executive it is a part of your job, since you LOOK for projects, to WADE through stuff of lower quality. It comes with the territory.

[JustinoXXV]

I should use my own scripts as an example. In one of my scripts the protagonist is Indian (South Asian). There basically are NO Indian stars in Hollywood, so taking this script to LA will basically be a waste of my time.

It would be kind of hard to have this done in NY as well, though it might work as an indie script. London, on the other hand, has a lot more Indians as a percentage of the population. So I've found it a lot easier to get read on this project in Britain, and now I'm taking the excellent feedback I got from a development executive and rewriting that particular script from scratch. And then I'll send it back to him.

But no matter what shape this script is in, the Indian protag would basically not work in LA.

I'm also going to say that even if by some miracle a screenwriter managers to get sold, well...................

There are a ton of screenwriters who have just one or two credits. Selling a script or getting a writing assignment and having the project bomb and win a Razzie doesn't do much good for you. Once your work finally makes it to the screen (difficult), the public will be the judge, jury, and executioner of your work. They'll vote at the box office. Some screenwriters do a breakthrough, acclaimed project and get a lot of attention. Screenwriters who are able to get gig after gig or sell spec after spec are a rare breed. So when all is said and done, I think SimonSays was right. It does come down to the TALENT of the screenwriter, and that can't be taught. Too bad she got into so many fights.

[IWrite]

Justino -

I never said it wasn't part of my job to read scripts - I said I'm not a "Reader" - which I'm not. Readers are generally lower-level positions in development. Often interns. I'm in charge of development. And yes readers may have to read the whole script and do coverage - but the hire ups don't have to and often don't bother. The point of coverage is to evaluate and brief the producers et.al. on the script. If it hasn't been pre-screened, and I get it directly, I'm not gonna waste my time reading something that I know from page three isn't working - there's no one for me to brief - I am the "briefed".

And I accept the fact that not every script is golden. My point was that people who don't bother to learn the craft have no place submitting until they do. I stand by that. If you want to write as a hobby, go ahead - futz around, don't bother learning proper format or the basics of storytelling - but don't waste the buyer's time - and that's what production companies are to writers - buyers or potential employers. We're a guild signatory, we pay a hell of a of lot money to screenwriters (often more than guild minimums) - the least the writers can do is take the time so they know what the hell they are doing before expecting that kind of payday.

You are correct that the entire script has to be good. My point was that many people who post here have very weak starts and claim it "gets going later" and my point is - if the beginning isn't good, people ain't hanging around until it gets good.

Yes there are many reasons scripts are passed on - but I can honestly say that the bulk of my passes on submissions that don't come through agents are passed on because they're not good enough. And in many cases, that determination is made in the first couple of pages. Maybe not fair - but it's the reality.

And as for some production companies not doing certain genres - it's the writer's responsiblity to do their homework and submit to producers who do projects in their genre. We don't get a lot of submissions in the wrong genre, because those we reject at the query stage.

[JustinoXXV]

"And as for some production companies not doing certain genres - it's the writer's responsiblity to do their homework and submit to producers who do projects in their genre. We don't get a lot of submissions in the wrong genre, because those we reject at the query stage."

When all is said and done, that's why it's best for the writer to have an agent. The writer won't really know on the grand scale of things whose looking for what at any particular time (and yes, I'm aware of all those websites claiming to have said information).

The nice thing about the British film industry is that they generally don't do queries. People just mail in whole scripts. Even some departments at the BBC take unsolicted scripts. But of course, if you send your stuff to them that script had better be good.

IWrite has just given us the reasons why many prodcos not only don't do queries, they only accept work through agents. The agents job is to keep crap out of the market and connect quality writers with quality producers (because there are a lot of so called producers who couldn't produce $100, much less a movie)

This is off the subject, but I'll two of the times I visited Los Angeles and stayed in hostels. And there were people who called themselves development execs and producers who stayed in a hostel. One deranged so called development exec told me she'd worked at SONY and for Spike Lee (yeah right). LA is full of lunatics. LOL

[clockwork]

When I come across description that expresses the internal thoughts of a character (which is fine for a novel, but not for a screenplay) it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Because it is such a basic technical thing - and then it is immediately apparent that this person never bothered to learn what a screenplay is - or else they learned it and decided to ignore it. If it can't be seen or heard on-screen it has no place in a screenplay.

I agree and really strive to incorporate this rule into my work but I'd be lying if I said I didn't from time to time. I like to think I've developed my own writing style over the years but part of that style has been influenced by the way others write and it seems that so many of the scripts I've read (and I'm talking about screenplays of the films you can see in a theatre or buy on DVD) are becoming increasingly informal in their formatting. As I said previously, it's hard to be a stickler for the rules when you can find them being broken in pretty much every screenplay you pick up. The only scripts I've read which seem 100% by the book are Kubrick ones.

My question is, do you disapprove of camera directions, internal thought or whatever in any quantity or is it an over-abundance of them you dislike, making the script too distracting to read?

[clockwork]

There are two distinctions to this thread and to my own arguments that seem to be getting muddled together.

There are screenplays written by bad writers, filled with examples of lengthy description, camera angles, parentheticals, wrylies and everything else; the kind of script that at a glance is clearly not good enough. I agree and have stated as such that this is unacceptable and that I wasn't encouraging such rule-breaking or anything similar.

BUT there are plenty of screenplays out there, as I said, almost every one I've ever read that has scattered examples of rule-breaking.

My argument isn't about defending amateur screenplays that have ' a dozen wrylies in the first act.' It's about screenplays written by professionals who have mastered the craft but who still indulge in the occasional infraction and whether this is okay or if it is inappropriate in any volume.

I think we can all agree that superfluous wrylies or pages of description are wrong. What I'm interested in is opinion relating to one's degree of adherence to the rules.

[JustinoXXV]

Clock, if you haven't sold anything, even if you have an agent, it's best to follow all of Iwrite technical rules.

Plenty of people who have reps still never sell anything.

If you've written a long line of box office hits or you are the screenwriter/director/producer you could probably write the script in crayon if you want to.

Also, these scripts you see for movies out there are shooting scripts. So of course they have camera directions, angles, etc in them. They've been added by the director.

As for internal thought, I've never met anyone in the business who approved of internal thought.

Also, Clock, who is your agent?

There are shitty agents and managers who send out bad scripts and who will never close a deal.

[Joe Calabrese]

There are only 3 things needed to be in place for a possible sale. A producer must...

LOVE your story, characters, plot, etc...
HAVE the money to make it.
Feel somewhat comfortable that it can MAKE MONEY for them.

Then and only then will a producer buy it from you.

BUT...

They have to read it first and if your script is riddled with pet peeve mistakes, it may not get past the first ten pages, by either the hired or interned reader or the big guy himself.

Whether or not a producer will pass because of wrylies, poor formatting, say not shown, it all depends on what that producer's pet peeves are.

If Mamet wrote a script on old napkins with a finger paints it would be read and read till the end, but us newbies do not have that luxury or clout.

Although, it the formatting sucks but he manages to read it till the end and loves it, has the cash and it can make money for him, he may still buy it, just might not use you as the person to do the rewrites because you may have proven you can't do the job due to your carelessness, poor writing, inability to follow direction, etc...

Just as you wouldn't go on a job interview at a law office with ripped jeans and sneakers or hand in a resume written on coffee stained paper, why would you put things in your script that MAY turn a reader off, especially when you can find other, more creative ways to do the same thing.

[clockwork]

If you read any of my work, you'll have a very hard time finding instances of broken rules. I'm as professional and conscientious as they come. The point I'm trying to make is; I don't think I've ever read a script (first draft, second draft, shooting, post) that hasn't broken the rules in one way or another. I don't believe that this is justification for breaking the rules, I think sticking to the rules is solid, vital, no-brainer advice. I'm just saying that it happens. And that's all.

Also, Clock, who is your agent?

There are shitty agents and managers who send out bad scripts and who will never close a deal.

The agency that represents me is a small London-based group that has writers and directors on the books for almost every major television series here in Britain as well as a number of very successful feature projects. One of their clients, Andrea Arnold, won the best short film Oscar at this year's ceremony. Their most recent US sale was for 'The Interpreter' as they represent the two writers who developed the story. So, no, they're not shitty agents. I'm very fortunate to be with them.

[IWrite]

First of all - I want to point out the rules I posted - which are not rules per se, but are a view from the other side of the submission envelope - are not mine. They were in an article written by a producer and I shared some of them on this board, because that producer is not the only producer who stops reading after the first few pages - or doesn't read at all.

Personally, I always crack open the script and read at least the first few pages - even if the dreaded copyright symbol and wga reg. # is on it.

I'll also read scripts that are not in Courier - but there is a problems with scripts that are not in courier - and that is you don't get an accurate read on the length. Courier is a fixed font. Every single letter (even spaces) are the same width. Almost all other fonts are proportional - the wider letters take up more space across. The narrower letters take up less space. Because of this you don't get a true page count. A 100 page script in Times New Roman may will be 118 or more in Courier. Since a page in 12 pt. courier - comes out to approximately a minute of screentime - you can see the issues with scripts submitted in other fonts. They are longer scripts and therefore longer films than they appear to be. This is one of the main reasons that Courier remains the industry standard. There is in fact a method to the madness and not just a stubborn, archaic grip on how it was always done.

My question is, do you disapprove of camera directions, internal thought or whatever in any quantity or is it an over-abundance of them you dislike, making the script too distracting to read?

This is a great question Clock - overuse of anything that is considered a no-no is a no-no. But some things are acceptable if it's a matter style. The problem is new writers have rarely developed a style or they assume using internal thoughts or whatever is "their style". I've read some truly great, truly riveting descriptions that break some of these rules. But these rule breakers are in the context of an overall style of writing. I write a lot of comedy - and sometimes my descriptions break some of these rules - but whenever I do - which is rare - the rulebreaker is so funny that you don't mind that I'm breaking it.

But until one has truly developed their own narrative voice - and it is possible to do so even in a screenplay format - it's best to not even bend those rules.

[clockwork]

But until one has truly developed their own narrative voice - and it is possible to do so even in a screenplay format - it's best to not even bend those rules.

Great advice, Iwrite. Thanks. I think we've exhausted most of this discussion now but before I go, I wanted to do something else. I'll post below some excerpts from familiar screenplays with examples of what I would technically call rule-breaking. What I'm interested in, if anyone wants to post a reply, is what you personally think of each excerpt. This isn't me trying to justify my own rule-breaking, I'm not saying anything is right or wrong. I'm well aware that these scripts are written by established, seasoned writers who can draft a screenplay using a lipstick dispenser clenched in their foot if they want to. What I want to know is, how do you rate the choices made by each writer. Is their 'infraction' effective/ineffective, would you have done it any differently, that kind of thing.

1) - "Almost Famous" by Cameron Crowe
The scene - Jeff and has band are giving a radio interview.

INT. RADIO STATION -- NIGHT -- SAME TIME 65

Quince raises his head and continues on-the-air. The same
song is still ending.

QUINCE
Look at the dogs, wearing the funny
hats. Juggling just for you. Freaks
and family...

Penny shoots William a look. Do you believe this guy?

QUINCE (cont'd)
It's Quince, with Stillwater. Here.
Live. It's the Night Circus.

The band scoots closer to the microphone, ready to talk.
Quince continues, looking meaningfully at the band. They are
waiting... eager for a chance to speak.

QUINCE (cont'd)
Every minute a baby is born somewhere..
Life. Death. Hermetically sealed
bags of human emotion. Bags of love...
bags of kindness?
(suddenly, turns)
How'd you get together?

As Jeff eagerly speaks, Quince lowers his head and listens...
feels... the words of his guests.

JEFF
Well... not to get into a "me" thing...
this is Jeff talking... but I did start
the band, some time, actually, ago.
This is back when we were the Jeff
Bebe band, and I placed an ad in a
magazine called Peaches looking for a
guitarist and Russell Hammond answered.

Quince nods, head bowed, swaying slowly.

QUINCE
(with deep understanding)
Peaches.

Jeff watches Quince's head lower. It's hard to know when to
talk with Quince. The depth of his mellowness is tough to get
in rhythm with.

JEFF
I think he was a gift from God,
actually. Nobody plays like Russell
Hammond.

RUSSELL
(sorta moved)
Well, shit. Thank you.

He instantly realizes he's slipped, on the air.

RUSSELL (cont'd)
Ooops. Better hit the delay button.

All eyes turn to Quince, whose head stays down, grooving to
some inner beat. He says nothing. The band looks at each
other. We become increasingly aware that Quince may now be
asleep. Long silence. William shares an amazed look with
Penny. Quince is definitely asleep. Russell leans forward
and continues talking quietly, with hilarious sincerity.

2) "As Good As It Gets" - By Mark Andruss & James L. Brooks.
The scene - A restaurant where Carol is waiting on Melvin.

CAROL
Bryan says he doesn't care how
long you've been coming you ever
act like this again you're barred
for life. I'm gonna miss the
excitement, but I'll handle it.

There is in Carol's attitude toward Melvin some
ingredient of self-satisfaction -- that she is the only
one in the place who can handle him. She starts to clear
the table.

MELVIN
The table's fine if it had some
cholesterol on it. Two sausages,
six bacon strips, fries, three
eggs over easy and coffee.

CAROL
You're gonna die soon with that
diet, you know that?

MELVIN
We're all gonna die soon. I will.
You will. It sure sounds like
your son will.

ON CAROL

Stunned. Some crazy street-freak has slipped under her
perfect guard and momentarily devastated her. Melvin
senses that he's gone way too far. He wipes his knife.

CAROL
If you ever mention my son again,
you will never be able to eat here
again. Do you understand? Give me
some sign you understand or leave
now. Do you understand me...
(adds truthful label)
you crazy fuck? Do you?!?

A beat and then Melvin nods, hardly breathing -- backing
down.

CAROL
Okay. I'll get your order.

3) All The President's Men by William Goldman
The scene - Woodward & Bernstein develop their Watergate investigation.

A TYPEWRITER

clicking away. The words "INTERVIEW WITH X. SEPT. 14" are
visible. There is music in the background, really blasting
away, Rachmaninoff or worse.

We are in WOODWARD's apartment and BERNSTEIN is dictating
notes from the BOOKKEEPER interview. It's very late, and
BERNSTEIN has notes on everything, matchboxes, and it's hard
for him to read. They're both really excited, BERNSTEIN from
his coffee jag, WOODWARD by what BERNSTEIN's dictating.

BERNSTEIN
I couldn't believe what she told
me. Eight cups of coffee worth.

WOODWARD
Go on, go on--

BERNSTEIN
--we've got to find out who the five
guys are--the five with access to
the slush fund--they were aware of
the break-in.

WOODWARD
Then tomorrow's grand jury indictments
will just be bullshit.

BERNSTEIN
It goes very high--we've got to find
out where--

WOODWARD
--we will--

BERNSTEIN
--she was really paranoid, the
bookkeeper.

WOODWARD
That happens to people.
(he goes over, turns
the hi-fi on even
louder. Shouts--)
OK, go on.

The noise blasts away as BERNSTEIN and WOODWARD hunch
over the typewriter. It's a moment of genuine exhilaration.
Paranoid, sure, but for the first time, they're really on to
something; it's all starting to split open...

4) And finally, I just couldn't resist tossing in something by Shane Black so we have - The Long Kiss Goodnight by Shane Black
The scene - Charly and Mitch are attempting to rescue Charly's daughter.

UP ABOVE, ON THE HILL

CHARLY fires shot after shot. Every time she squeezes the
trigger, someone dies. No such thing as wounded, we're talking
St. Peter looks up from a magazine and says holy shit, it's
the lunch rush at Kate Mantilini's.

BACK DOWN BELOW

The smoke clears and Mitch sees the tanker. Right there,
thirty yards away. Yellow UTILITY BOX. No one in the way.

CHARLY (V.O.)
*End run, Mitch, go wide*!

He breaks for the truck.

CHARLY (V.O.)
*No, Goddamn you, they got you
flanked...*!

Everybody fires a gun.

MITCH GETS HIT

Takes one high in the chest, SPINS him...!

UP ON THE HILL

CHARLY SPRAYS on full auto, DICES TO TATTERS the combat
zone,extinguishing the gunmen, too little too late because

MITCH IS IN DEEP

BAM--! bullet takes out his right arm, fuck *you*, buddy,
doesn't miss a beat, simply tosses the gun over to the other
hand and KEEPS SHOOTING, blows that fucker down and now
he's staggering into the trees, and collapses, and HITS... And
lies very still and bleeds.


********************************
Now as I said, it's clear that these guys are established writers who can pretty much do what they like, that's not the issue. The issue is the gut reactions to the choices they've made. For example, if you got all four of these scripts to read and they were from unknown writers, which of their 'mistakes' would bother you the most, which do you actually quite like and so forth.

[zagoraz]

Hey Iwrite... that 12 pages of backstory with voiceover you mentioned sounds an awful lot like the first 12 pages of "A Magnuson Invention" that I posted on here awhile back for review. Was that the example you were using to make your point? If so, I don't think you should be using script samples posted for critique on a screenwriting message board as examples from your development job. If I'm wrong and you were using something else, my apologies. Just sounded eerily coincidental.

[Joe Calabrese]

Sounds a lot like a lot of scripts out there. I doubt he was referring to yours zag.

[IWrite]

No Zag -

I was referring to a submission I received at the production co.

All my references are to actual submissions - because that's my beef that people are submitting before learning the craft.

I applaud people who post pages on boards like this - because they are looking for feedback so they can improve their writing.

Now, if I were to ever receive a submission from YOU that started with 12 pages of backstory v.o. narration - I'd be more than just a little pissed - since you have been told that it's a bad way to start a screenplay. You know better now, no excuses.

Clock -

It DOES make a difference that you are referring to established writers (and 3 academy award winners at that) and that's the point. The fact is some producers never would have even read those samples you posted if they'd thumbed through the script and seen those things - IF those scripts were written by unknowns. If a script from Cameron Crowe comes in - we're reading it. IMMEDIATELY. We're probably making several copies and we're all reading it simultaneously. But if the same submission is made by clock - it's going into a pile with two dozen other unrepped specs that we will hopefully get to in the next few weeks and because that pile is so high we're only committing to reading the first 10 or so.

What you need to understand is that scripts written by unestablished writers are viewed differently from the get-go. And a script submitted by an agent by a writer with no credits - still gets more scrutiny than a script submitted by the very same agent - by a writer who has some credits under his belt.

Most importantly with the huge number of wannabes querying on a daily basis - a much larger number of poorly written scripts are out there - and those poorly written scripts contain an inproportionate amount of rule breaking - which is more often than not a lack of understanding of said rules.

Look at this this way - you send out 27 queries, finally, finally, finally - you get a submission request. You hit on a producer who is interested in your idea - which is a challenge in itself. Not every producer searching for a romantic comedy is going to like YOUR rom com concept even if your logline is strong and your query well-written. Maybe they've got another rom com in development that's also set in silicon valley, or maybe they have something against silicon valley or maybe one of a million things that will have the concept not resonate with them.

But you find one. You send the script, they open it, they thumb through it - they see a wylie, then another, then another, then two on one page, then they see a camera angle and a piece of dialogue that takes up the whole page. They take the script and toss it in the reject pile. 26 rejections, and you just blew your first (hopefully not only) shot because you decided "storytelling choices" were more important than following rules. That's just stupid. Would the screenplay have collapsed without the wrylies? Would it have ruined the scene without (angrily) written above the line "get out of my house!"? Was the use of a camera angle really make or break? If the answer to any of those questions is yes then your screeplay probably has other problems that need to be addressed. The same goes for any rule-breaking.

Hedge your bets, don't do it.

[clockwork]

All great points, IWrite and I agree with you 100% but you didn't really answer my question which was, if those four scripts came to your desk and had been submitted by unknowns, would you reject them for those particular instances of rule-breaking? Which bothers you the most, which doesn't? I'm interested in your personal opinion on the four examples. Forget that they've been written by established writers and hypothesise about how you'd react to them if you got them to read. Do you know what I mean?

[IWrite]

All great points, IWrite and I agree with you 100% but you didn't really answer my question which was, if those four scripts came to your desk and had been submitted by unknowns, would you reject them for those particular instances of rule-breaking? Which bothers you the most, which doesn't? I'm interested in your personal opinion on the four examples. Forget that they've been written by established writers and hypothesise about how you'd react to them if you got them to read. Do you know what I mean?


Clock - it is impossible for me to answer the question the way you want it answered - for one thing you have posted individual scenes which are taken totally out of context. Unfortunately Joe, deleted the thread in "share your work" when I went through a very solid excerpt that was posted and showed my internal monologue while reading it. The fact is when you are reading a submission and evaluating it for whether or not you want to produce it - or represent it - it's a totally different mindset then if you are reading it for any other reason. You are taking a macro and micro look simultaneously. You are juding 5 things at one time.

You also posted samples where the writing is so far superior to 99.99999% of anything out there - even other produced stuff. The one thing that all of these scenes have in common - is that each and every one of the writers has an engaging style - very few writers find their voice until they have several scripts under their belt. And many never find a style as good as these writers.

The truth is if your writing is totally engaging, nobody will even notice when the rules are being broken - the best advice I can give on this matter would be that unless or until someone IN THE BUSINESS comments on the fact that your writing is totally riveting - assume that its not and that therefore your rule breaks will be noticed and possibly held against you.

[Ron239]

You should be able to tell after reading just a few paragraphs or a page whether a script is the work of an amateur or a professional.
All these other arguments about formatting are a crock of baloney. :Lecture:

[IWrite]

Ron -

It's not just a question of amateur or professional. Do you have any idea how many specs written by credited writers never get bought? I've had scripts submitted by respected agents for established clients that were unbelievably weak and flat.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that once a writer knows how to do it right, that automatically means he always does it right.

[Joe Calabrese]

Let's be cool guys-- been a rough day for all of us, especially me.

[clockwork]

Clock - it is impossible for me to answer the question the way you want it answered - for one thing you have posted individual scenes which are taken totally out of context.

I just thought what I was proposing might be a bit of fun. Don't know if you've noticed but there isn't a lot of that around here. Wasn't looking for a Deep Discussion, just something along the lines of,

"I think that Cameron Crowe's internal thoughts like, 'Penny shoots William a look. Do you believe this guy?' don't even register as a mistake or a broken rule to me, but I find Shane Black's, 'BAM--! bullet takes out his right arm, fuck *you*, buddy,' a little distracting."

I can tell you that because it's my gut reaction. I don't need to read the whole script to know I feel that way. I know you're being a great person by offering advice but I'm not necessarily looking for advice, just to hang out with like-minded people and shoot the breeze about stuff that's interesting but really not that big a deal.

I'm not getting at you IWrite because you've always responded courteously and cogently to my posts and I'm very thankful for that but it seems (from other posts I've read as well) that people are very guarded here and no-one's interested in the fun of it. Everyone's way too serious. I mean, I can't believe that people let themselves get so out of control that they have to be banned. I lurked for a long time before first posting because the idea of getting into a heavy exchange where confrontations are almost inevitable was terrifying to me. I finally posted because I considered myself no better or worse than anyone here, merely amongst my peers. I find it hard enough to meet people who share my interests in the real world.

Like I said, I just wanted to have a little fun with what's turned into a very serious conversation. I know I asked a lot of serious questions earlier on but I was trying to turn it around.

But anyway, I respect your opinion. I just wanted you to know that I wasn't badgering you for the Holy Truth of rule-breaking. Just wanted a friendly chat as though we were all sitting in a room together, talking shop but having fun. If you interpreted my post about wanting your opinion on the excerpts as being a deep question that I wanted deep answers from, then I'm sorry, I should have expressed myself more clearly. If you still want to toss in your two cents, I'd love to hear it.

Let's be cool guys-- been a rough day for all of us, especially me.

Joe, you're a saint.

[Mac H.]

Ok - along the lines of 'I'm going to think about this as a bit of fun' (and since I'm officially a nobody, my opinion is worth every cent you're paying) ...

>Penny shoots William a look. Do you believe this guy?
I'd use this line, simply because I don't have the skill to say it any other way.
How else can you describe it? It describes visually the look she's shooting him. The English language doesn't enough phrases for various expressions. Heck - the English language took a huge step forward when the word 'Doh' was invented.

It's similar to ..
>Jill glares at her husband. Someone's going to sleep on the sofa tonight.

>Quince continues, looking meaningfully at the band. They are
waiting... eager for a chance to speak.
Again - it's just a way of explaining the way they are standing etc.
Doesn't 'bump' me at all.

>We become increasingly aware that Quince may now be
asleep.
I use 'We' far too much, so I'm hardly going to point the finger !
And the reason I use it too much - it doesn't 'bump' me at all...


>There is in Carol's attitude toward Melvin some
>ingredient of self-satisfaction -- that she is the only
>one in the place who can handle him.
I get 'bumped' by the 'There is in Carol's attitude ..' It seems a bit oddly worded. I wouldn't be bothered by 'Carol's attitude towards Marvins has ..'

The rest of the descriptions of what happens (like 'Some crazy street-freak has slipped under her perfect guard' and the 'adds truthful label' wrylie) don't bump me (they seem to read Ok) but look a bit odd on the page. Stupid reasoning, I know.

>All The President's Men by William Goldman
I didn't get bumped at all reading it. I felt like I was there. Kinda liked the 'paranoid' bit with the hi-fi, too...

But as for Shane Black ...

The 'local' references like 'Kate Mantilini' ? I can figure it out (and look it up on the web) but the last thing I want to do in an action sequence is figure out Woodland Hills dining habits.

But the way it's written always sounds like an excited kid whose high on red Kool-Aid, but still telling you about that great scene in Terminator while he's bouncing off the walls. I guess that communicates the scene 'feeling wise' but I can't visualise what is ACTUALLY happening.

(Note: I translated 'cordial' to 'Kool-Aid' to explain a local reference. Which is more than Shane Black did for me...)

Mac

[clockwork]

Yeah, I had to look up what Kate Mantilini was as well. I figured it was a restaurant or a diner; maybe someone more California-located can fill us in on the specifics.

I've used internal thought along the lines of Cameron Crowe's "Do you believe this guy?" once or twice. I think it slips by without raising a huge red flag. I've definitely used 'we' before although I'm definitely conscious that I maybe shouldn't. I can type an internal thought without thinking about it but I usually have to justify my 'we'' usage. I've used it in sentences like, "Dawn and David speak quietly at the side of the room. We can't make out what they're saying." I just get the picture in my head of the reader saying, "Oh, we do, do we?"

I don't know what it is, but I love the line in As Good As It Gets, "some crazy street freak has slipped under her perfect guard..." it's unnecessary obviously but I think it adds a whole new level to just how stunned she is. And if you've seen the film, Helen Hunt's reaction at that point is exactly how you'd imagine it after reading that line.

Shane Black's writing, as you said, is like hearing about the film from an excited friend or something. It all reads very quickly and it draws you in. There were earlier points in the 'Long Kiss' script that were pretty different to what you usually find. It was something like,
'The trunk of the car opens and we're staring up at Timothy and One-Eyed Jack. Remember him?' Which I'd never have the balls to write but Shane Black is the one who famously put something way out of left field into one of his scripts, I think Lethal Weapon, along the lines of, this is a big explosion/this is a really nasty guy/this is a serious shootout... "but you're a Hollywood executive, you already knew that."

I'm sure someone on the forum knows the exact quote. But he sold The Long Kiss Goodnight for 4 million I think so, Jeez, what can you say?

[scripter1]

hide rule breaking.

Each example was interesting and full of conflict or action.
THINGS were HAPPENING!!!
The story events justify the rule breaking.
The story itself creates the opportunity to use that type of wording.

In most novice scripts the story and writing is so bland that common mistakes stick out like a sore thumb. Things like the examples above come off as heavy, too explanatory, breaking format, plain dumb, or smart alecky.

The novice writer relies on wrlylies and explantion because they instinctively know the story isn't carrying itself but they aren't aware how to fix it.
They do the easiest thing, overwrite. They don't KNOW any better.
It's like when you know a joke isn't funny and so you try to explain it.
You have to learn about timing and delivery and content.

The pros are......well, the pros because they have learned or have the gift of great storytelling.