Page one. Life or death.

It's true in novel writing, short story writing, and screenplays. Even stage plays. Actually, most writing that I can think of as well.

Especially so in screenplays, since you have a finite number of pages and a fairly strict format to follow. If you don't hook the reader with the first line, first page, why would they read on? Don't bury the good stuff in the later pages; start great and pull the reader into and through the whole work.

truthhurts said:

This question is posed to anyone who enjoys reading screenplays, but hearing from a professional reader would be appreciated.
I know from my own experience as well as from what I read about this undertaking that the first page is probably the most important part of a screenplay.
Is that true?
Often it's said that an experienced reader can tell if an sp is good simply from the first few sentences.
When I read a script, it's usually pretty easy to spot 'bad' writing, and sometimes I don't bother continuing if I think page one is a mess.
You hear so much about the imprtance of "A good logline" "The rules of screenwriting" "Three act structure" etc. etc.
All important, certainly.
Yet, isn't it to your benefit to spend an inordinate amount of time making sure that page one is great, and to take this a step further ...
... shouldn't the very first paragaph, typically the first action lines, be near perfection of scene setting and character description while staying hard a fast to the rules of screenwriting?

Click to expand...

I don't know that a first page necessarily has to knock me out -- but what it definitely needs to do is to draw me in. It can be a small scene or a moment where I'm not even quite sure what's happening that's going to be resolved fifty pages later -- but whatever it is, it needs to draw me into the story.

I've worked as a story editor, as a reader, I went to NYU grad film school -- and I can't tell you how many script I've read that start with an alarm clock going off and someone we don't know getting up in the morning and just doing morning stuff. They brush their teeth. They get dressed. They eat their breakfast.

And the question I've always had with scripts that start this way is -- when is the story going to start? This is all just "stuff." It tells us nothing about anything.

And don't buy that junk about "introducing the characters."

"Characters" get introduced in the midst of story-telling -- not prior to the story commencing. We discover who and what a character is by observing them in the *midst* of story -- not separate from story.

As I said just recently, I used to say that the story should begin on page one, but these days I say that the story really should begin at least a few pages *before* page one. We really should have the sense, when we open the script, that we've actually arrived a bit late at the theatre, that we've walked in a little bit late and the action has already commenced -- we're right in the middle of things now -- and what's happening on screen is really interesting but nobody has explained anything -- and we really have to hurry to sit down and really pay attention to catch up and figure out what's going on.

We no longer live in a world of establishing shots or establishing narrations -- you have to get right into the middle of things and if explanations are necessary, you've got to wait until the "hook" of the story has drawn the reader/viewer deep into the story before you take the necessary breath to deliver that exposition.

NMS

Page ones

Totally agree with NMS for all works in any format: whatever it is, however you start, it has to draw you in.

You have to want to turn the page, and it doesn't just stop with page one because the reader has to want to turn page 2, then 3 and so on. If the start is good then the reader will be more likely to be on your side for future pages, so the probability of them binning a script because of a typo on page 81 is very low.

And I'm not saying save your errors until the end either, because the failing of a lot of screenplays - and novels - is to rush the end in a way that leaves the reader feeling like there's something missing.

So the end has to be at least as good - probably better - than the beginning.

And the middle bit has to be pretty damned good too.

Every story needs to have a beginning, middle and end, though not necessarily in that order (I paraphrase a well-known quote).

Off point I know, but just thought I'd lob it in anyhow.

I now have to drive 650km, which is another story, hopefully with a great ending.

Me personally, I've always tried to hook people in within the first 10 pages (average of 10 minutes). I was told that's all I have to prove to someone that the script is good and worth a read.

Mind you, I'm an unproduced writer and have no credit and nothing happening on my writing right now - just sharing.

Page one is huge. More than anything, I think you want to show that you can write. I mean, you've gotten the script this far, so your reader most likely has some idea that the overall concept holds water--not in all cases, but hopefully. So your top job is to show that this will be a worthwhile experience. That if they hang with you for the 100-ish pages, they'll be entertained, moved, and/or thrilled.

If they're not by page 10, well, you're pretty much buggered.

But don't listen to me. Read the scripts of movies you think knock you out from the first scene. Best one I've ever read is The Hangover. A close second is Tonight He Comes. That script rocked from the first paragraph. It's also, incidentally, a great example of how a good script turns into a terrible movie (Hancock).

I think dialogue in a screenplay must be wonderful. The rest of the writing, not so much. Other than dialogue, you don't film the writing.

It's what happens that hooks me, and how what happens will look on the screen, not wonderful writing.

Jamesaritchie said:

I think dialogue in a screenplay must be wonderful. The rest of the writing, not so much. Other than dialogue, you don't film the writing.

It's what happens that hooks me, and how what happens will look on the screen, not wonderful writing.

Click to expand...

And how, when all a reader, or a producer, or an exec has, is simply "the writing" -- will any of them have any idea about "what happens" and how what happens will look on the screen -- except by way of that writing -- which, if it's wonderful writing, they will know how wonderful those things are going to be, whereas, if that writing is crap -- they never will, and chances are, neither will anybody else, because your script won't sell.

Screenplays aren't stage plays. They aren't just dialogue with the occasional, "exits stage right" here and there.

And anybody who thinks that that's going to sell or that the stuff in between the dialogue doesn't matter -- or because the nature of a screenplay requires that our writing be exceptionally concise and thus, since you're not writing much, what you write doesn't really matter -- is kidding themselves.

There are only two kinds of writing in a screenplay -- the stuff that doesn't matter -- which you should cut out, and the stuff that's there.

And the stuff that matters. Every bit of it.

That's because, even though the audience in the theater never sees the words you write, the people who are potentially going to create the movie for those people will see it -- and that script is the one and only chance that you will have to create your vision of what that movie will look like.

And the only tools you have to create that vision in the minds of the readers of your screenplay are the words you very carefully choose and the tools of prose that you employ in assembling those words to create a sense of place, character, tone, and emotion.

All of the things that the actors, the director, the D.P., the creators of the sound and score will deliver to the finished film -- you have to deliver to your script through your selective use of language alone in order to approximate for the reader the experience of sitting in a theater and watching the movie that you see in your head.

NMS