To Bold Or Not To Bold?

I have never seen bold in a script. Ever. I've read hundreds and not a single thing has been bolded. Capped is a different story, but never ever bolded.

No bold.

Joe

I've seen bolded words in Joss Whedon's Serenity script. That's the only one I've seen it in so far. The others I've read have all been caps and the occasional italics in dialogue for emphasized words. I think he used bold in place of italics. I haven't read it in a while so I don't remember for sure.

If you like reading them that way there's no harm in bolding them, but unbold them before you submit. A few writers do it, a few producers even like it from what I've read, but at the end of the day it's non-standard so it's safest not to.

Of course, there may be a different rule for TV scripts, I wouldn't know. At the BBC writersroom some of the scripts have bold scene headings. On the other hand, some are also green. Doesn't mean they were submitted that way

occasional italics in dialogue for emphasized words

Click to expand...

Hmm, now I always thought we were supposed to underline for emphasis rather than use italics... Anyone care to comment?

It doesn't matter. Many people worry about all that stuff while readers can't even make it past page ten of the script.

Scripts are passed on because they're badly written - not because of the use of bolds or underlines.

If you want to do something that's not status quo, I suggest you do it in moderation.

John Logan underlines his sluglines and runs them left margin to right. It hasn't hurt his career in the least.

As always, pro screenwriters get to do whatever the hell they like, while aspiring/spec screenwriters are advised by most gurus to stick to the "industry standard."

stuckupmyownera said:

Hmm, now I always thought we were supposed to underline for emphasis rather than use italics... Anyone care to comment?

Click to expand...

This question has popped up before. Scripts are still submitted in standard Courier 12 and italicized Courier sometimes isn't obvious at first glance and/or doesn't photocopy well. Whereas underlines show up better. So if you absolutely must emphasize something... crucial dialogue or a big reveal... I'd advise you underline rather than italicize. Shrug, each to their own. If in doubt, don't do it!

-Derek

I have seen bolding used only on character names and only in SOME scripts I download from the internet, and only of already-produced scripts. And this seems to be a recent (past ten years or less) development in Hollywood. I have also only sometimes seen italics for unique moments in a script where a great deal of excitement/tension is taking place. Both boding and italics are easilly done via a word processing program, but NOT so easilly done with a typewriter (especially an old fashioned Underwood). And so my general feeling is: if it can't be done with an Underwood, it's automaticlly to be viewed as unconventional, unorthodox, and very risky for a newb to try and get away with.

Also, there are a few technical things I worry about when embarking upon these unconventional formatting styles:

1) A faxed page of your script might very well screw up any attempts you made to use italics. So the intended emphasis can get lost.

2) If an electronic copy of your script gets re-cast from Final Draft into Microsoft Word or into Rich Text Format, etc, sometimes any special font styles you employed can get lost in translation, depending upon which transfer protocol was used. So if it ain't ASCII-friendly, DON'T DO IT!

We cross-posted, Derek.

dpaterso said:

As always, pro screenwriters get to do whatever the hell they like, while aspiring/spec screenwriters are advised by most gurus to stick to the "industry standard."


This question has popped up before. Scripts are still submitted in standard Courier 12 and italicized Courier sometimes isn't obvious at first glance and/or doesn't photocopy well. Whereas underlines show up better. So if you absolutely must emphasize something... crucial dialogue or a big reveal... I'd advise you underline rather than italicize. Shrug, each to their own. If in doubt, don't do it!

-Derek

Click to expand...

Underlining CAN be done with an Underwood.

I don't abide by the philosophy that pros can get away with it while amateurs cannot. That doesn't make sense since the industry doesn't create that divide. Amateurs compete with pros all the time on the marketplace. Why would you want your script to look amateur?

I make my living judging material from both pros and amateurs, and it behooves an amateur to do whatever a pro does. Doesn't that make sense?

This issue and rationale is tantamount to an English teacher telling a student not to begin a sentence with the word "But." One grows up thinking it's the wrong thing to do.

It isn't.

The rationale behind that philosophy is that when most people start a sentence with the word "But," they end up with an incomplete sentence. However, if you're skilled enough to know the difference between a complete & incomplete sentence, then starting a sentence with "But" is acceptable.

Ditto with any of the "rules" in screenwriting.

The fear is that an amateur will abuse or misuse a technique. Many screenwriting books and teachers tell writers to avoid flashbacks. Writers begin to think that flashbacks are a poor device to tell a story. Arthur Miller made very good use of them in DEATH OF A SALESMAN. The problem is that most writers aren't Miller. And their flashbacks are sloppy, expository, redundant and pace killers.

These rules have been birthed and professed by self-proclaimed gurus who don't work in the business and know little about the inner workings of script selection. I have an MFA from NYU in dramatic writing and learned all these "rules." When I moved to Hollywood following graduation, I discovered that none applied.

All is fair when finding ways to communicate the drama and emotion of your screenplay to the reader. Just use them in moderation.

For instance, one of the big rules we always hear is "Never write anything in a script that cannot be filmed. Do not include characters' thoughts."

Makes perfectly good sense.

STEINBECK'S POINT OF VIEW is a spec script that earned (potentially) the highest payday for (solely) screenwriting in history. And it breaks the "characters' thoughts" rule on almost every page.

Good writers can get away with anything - pros or amateurs - because they make it work.

If it works, it's successful. If it fails, it isn't.

To paraphrase an old chestnut: There are no rules in screenwriting. Break them at your own peril.

Wot he said!!!

Agree, agree, agree

I think creativexec has stated it perfectly.

Write a good script.

But why draw attention to yourself by doing strange things like bolding the scene headings or underlining them, or by using "innovative" formatting?

Sidenote: It really is all right to begin sentences with coordinate conjunctions like and, but, or.

Yeah! Creative's reply was the bomb. Bold was back in the day stuff. Most readers too young to know that so... will most likely think it's just weird. Why gamble. Great point Creative on the 'don't use flashback'. preachings. As you said... if done right' won't matter. Them gurus need to quit speakin of which they know not---- 'cause a lot of people take it as gospel. Flashback is a heckuva technique that saves time( not effort) to give the reader/viewer invaluable back-story without the tedium. Bye for now.

Breaking "rules"...

I see bold and italics used all the time in pro scripts. It's not a big deal. I'm sure this has already been mentioned in this thread, but here it is from me:

Nobody is going to toss your script because you've broken some of the so-called "rules." No, they're gonna toss your script because the writing stinks.

Give us a great story with interesting characters uttering fab dialogue... and if you want to bold your scene headings or italicize a few words here and there, hey, go for it.