Can You...

Good thing you asked. Briefly, there have been changes in what screenplays look like.

You don't use camera angles, scene numbers all that stuff that you saw used in shooting scripts when you write a "Spec script", in other words a script you are trying to sell to somebody.

Don't use angles, don't put things all in caps except the first appearance of speaking character. Don't refer to camera, or use "we see" type things. All verbs in simple present tense.

Now, about description. Mostly, forget it. The director, casting director, art director, cameraman will be making those decisions. There is no point in a lot of detail regarding how somebody looks...he will look like who they hire. You give an idea of age, general appearance as briefly as you can pull it off. You can use a little flare here, but watch out about getting too poetic.
JIM FORD, mid thirties, athletic build and dressed like a Vegas pimp, enters and approaches Sally.

You are only giving minimum description necessary for the reader of the script to grasp your story. Creating the vision in the audience is not your job.

Screenwriting (and other kinds of playwriting) iis unique in that it is not written to be read by the audience. You have to know that going in.

There is very little room for poetry, and only very accomplished writers can pull off a lot of embellishment. Your main craft lies in creating succinct, clear action lines and perfect dialog. Your best bet is to try to use strong verbs that don't require adverbs.

There is a lot more to this, but I think that should answer your question. You should sign up on some of the screenwriting forums like Zoetrope and Triggerstreet and Script Swap...read online tutorials on format. Good luck

Depends, of course, on what you regard as extremely descriptive. Are you comparing your screenplay with recently written screenplays you've read? Maybe you could give some examples, e.g. some screenplays you've read that are similar to your style, and maybe others that are sparse and tight compared with your style? If you can work up the courage maybe post a sample of your own writing for dissection, er, discussion?

I read a lot of old scripts from the 40s and 50s, which are description heavy but nonetheless entertaining reads (my opinion). The Val Lewton collection is a typical example (CAT PEOPLE, GHOST SHIP, THE ISLE OF THE DEAD, etc.) and ditto the old Sci-Fi thrillers like THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD.

Alas the modern world just hasn't got time for big chunky paragraphs and half a page of description just to introduce a couple of characters. What you'll also find is that the screenwriters of yore could use whatever camera directions they wanted -- for example the Lewton screenplays are littered with shots, angles and all the tricks of the trade. Nowadays so many wannabe screenwriters are trying to break in that camera directions have become a no-no, viewed by many as a mark of the amateur, maybe because they're often used badly or gratuitously.

Methinks what you may have to do is step back and limit yourself to describing the basics of any scene and situation. A does this, B does that. Not CLOSE ON A or HIGH ANGLE ON B or whatever you're tempted to write. I've seen pros mention that the two main elements you have at your disposal to write your screenplay are ACTION and DIALOGUE. That's Action, not Description. By all means include important sound effects like A CRASH OF BREAKING GLASS which characters react to, but don't window-dress every scene.

Shrug, my thoughts, take 'em with a pinch of salt.

-Derek
My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies.

Where to post: see the "Sub-forums: Screenwriting" box above this message section? Click on the "Screenwriting Critique Board" link in the box.

There are many works-in-progress writing samples in the critique forum. Reading some of them may be educational, but I'd advise against it, stick with produced screenplays instead.

-Derek
My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies.

descriptive writing

you need to read some screenplays and see for yourself. the amount of description varies greatly. ie - i know a lot of people read Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon to see how those beautiful fighting scenes were written. ha! - the action lines were written like this:

They fight.

and i just read Sideways - which is a very different type of flick. there is stuff in there that some would argue were against the rules: feelings and what is going in the characters head/subtext that can only been seen with a very talented actor. it's a great example of storytelling. if you want to be descripting, i suggest you check it out. it's not like novel writing but you have to see for yourself.

The thing about Sideways is that it was adapted from a novel BY the director. Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor could write it any damn way they wanted because a) they knew it would get made and b) they knew Payne would direct it.

Specs are another animal altogether. Specs by unknown writers are a subset of that species. If you write a spec the way Taylor & Payne wrote Sideways it will appear that you don't know how to write a screeplay. Don't do it.

"I'll learn quickly, simply from reading others' works and especially from the critiques on others' work. I learn better from that than any of the ways that schools teach (though I should pick up a few up-to-date books on the basics)."

You may be learning the wrong things. Some scripts aren't the best examples, as IWrite pointed out.

You'll do much better buy reading books, taking classes, or getting a mentor. That way you can learn from bona fide industry people.

Except that most books...and almost all classes...are not taught by industry professionals.

You read the books and they tell you all sorts of weird stuff. A favorite is cluttering your head with camera angles and such you will probably never use.

You get off into story analysis and protagonists and character arcs and a lot of stuff that you may very likely not need. And certainly not unitl you can produce a clean. properly formatted script.

Read done scripts, keeping in mind that they are not spec scripts so you can filter out certain things. And start using peer sites like Zoetrope and Triggerstreet...review some scripts, post on their forums, read scripts that are doing well, upload your scripts for critique. You will learn a lot. The more you do it, the more you will also learn what advice to keep and what to pass on.

write -

i hope you don't take this the wrong way, but overall you sound like someone who thinks they know more than they actually do. Either that or you are purposely giving really, really bad information - which is not a very nice thing to do.

I learned what I know by going to film school where I was taught by... industry professionals and by working in the industry both as a writer and in development for almost ten years.

First of all - I don't know what books you've been reading, but the best ones are in fact written by industry professionals. I don't have one book that says you should use camera angles, etc. In fact in Syd Fields book Screenplay - which is 25 years old - the very first thing he says about format is using such things are the sign of an amateur - so obviously it's been out of vogue for quite some time.

Secondly you said quote: "You get off into story analysis and protagonists and character arcs and a lot of stuff that you may very likely not need"

Story analysis, progtagonists and character arcs are what you may call the keys to scripts - or stories of any kind. A story without a solid plot and multi-layered character is a lousy story and hence a lousy script. To tell someone that they may not need this stuff is like the worst screenwriting advice I've ever heard.

And finally reading scripts by other newbies on sites like Trigger Street or Zoetrope is not a smart way to learn the craft - as many of the scripts posted on these sites are by people who don't know the craft either. The blind leading the blind is a recipe for disaster as well as lots of bad advice on screenwriting message boards.

Read produced scripts by experinced writers to see how it's done correctly.

As I said, I don't know if you are purposely giving bad advice, or just don't know any better. If you don't know any better I would suggest - to quote a great line of dialogue from a great movie about the business (Swimming with Sharks) "Shut up. Listen. Learn."

UCLA, Cal State, NYU, USC, Columbia, New York Film Academy etc all have classes taught by industry professionals. I would assume everyone here has the intelligence to check out any program to make sure that the instructors are industry professionals. I would never suggest anyone here take classes from no name, uncredited school.

Some professional screenwriters like Will Martell (he has written a lot of cable movies) also teach seminars.

I think IWrite is right about you, Write. I think you are deliberately giving out bad info.

"And start using peer sites like Zoetrope and Triggerstreet...review some scripts, post on their forums, read scripts that are doing well, upload your scripts for critique. You will learn a lot."

These people haven't been able to sell their own work. Many of them have never even been anywhere near a studio. Hardly the best place to learn.

The two books I wish I'd read when i first started:

THE SECRETS OF ACTION SCREENWRITING by William C Martell - Really a must read. Applies to all genres, not just action. Cheaper from his website www.scriptsecrets.net which is also a great screenwriting resource.

HOW NOT TO WRITE A SCREENPLAY by Denny Martin Flinn - Great for the basics. By the time I got round to reading it I already knew the bulk of the things Flinn writes about but it was still a good refresher. Wish I'd read it earlier though. Would have saved a lot of time and effort I'm sure.

The short answer is: You can do anything you want, as long as you tell a good story.

The long answer is: the other guys give you some good advice on "shooting script" vs. "spec script." Even then, it depends on the production... some directors would not use a "shooting script" because everything is in his head and he wants to change things around. The truth of the matter is, once you sold the script, you have not a lot of influence on how the film is going to be shot (what angles, what props to use, what sets...) as a writer.

It's a different matter if you happen to be the director, too (say, you're James Cameron). Then you can be as detailed as you want, since you will be the one filming it.

But if you're just trying to sell it, keep it brief.

I write, there was no call for your personal attack. The fact that you assume you know so much and I don't tends to make one wonder why you don't take your own advice.

I know film school students thing that all these labels and critical devices are "keys to good scripts". But in fact they are not. Writing well cannot be taught.

Reading made scripts is invaluable...like seeing films. People should know that few of them are spec scripts and not to write like the pros do in critical ways...like using camera direction, and like getting away with things that spec submissions can't. You pick this up...forums like this help.

You can either tell a story or you can't. You have characters that live and move and affect the story or you don't. If you think film school or reading 20 books changes that, or helps it...fine. You're in business.

But beware the "sophomore curse"...wherein those who have a few years of schooling and tend to talk about school stuff because it's all they know assume they know it all.

Because there is another criterion going on...you either sell your writing or you don't. Until you do, you are not a professional. So what you know is qualified by that. You might keep that in mind. Or just observe the normal courtesy of keeping academic discussions from spilling over into personal comments on people. the lowest form of discourse.

write4details said:

Because there is another criterion going on...you either sell your writing or you don't. Until you do, you are not a professional. So what you know is qualified by that.

Click to expand...

Well then I guess by your definition I would be a professional.

The truth is that writing talent cannot be taught - but screenplay structure must be learned. And I don't care how many scripts you read - if you don't know what an inciting incident is or what it's supposed to do or where in a script it belongs - you're gonna have a problem. You can in fact be taught tools to give a character a growth arc. There are actually very simple methods you can employ. But if you don't know what they are, and they don't come to you by devine intervention - then you're stuck. Whereas if you know the tools you can use your talents to employ them.

The fact is talent by itself is not enough nor is just having knowledge of the craft - in order to succeed you need to have a combination of both. But reading scripts will not automatically give you what you need to know. Where reading scripts comes into play is once you know what you need to know you can see how an expert uses the tools you learned. If you don't learn the tools it's kinda like thinking you can play like clapton just by listening to him - but you really need to learn the chords before you can emulate him.

And I do apologize for the personal attack, but I still think your advice was horrendous.

No, as a matter of fact, not knowing what an "inciting incdent" or a "protagonist" or a "threshold guardian" is does not in any way cause any problems writing a story or a script.

It's like all those books and videos that analyze tennis game and golf swings...they have all these 7 point programs and special terms. But guess what, the natural athlete just gets up there and blasts around and starts sinking his shots. The duffer reads book after book and still gets nowhere.

Once again...these terms are not structural realities like one would study to erect a skyscraper. They are crtitical terms that are applied for discussion reasons to works that have already been written. Shakespeare didn't sit around wondering what page to spring his inciting incident or who was the protagonist or if there was a properly shaped character arc....he just wrote stories.

Just as I said that any story needs a beginning, middle and end and therefore will of necessity be critiquable (is that a word?) as 3 acts, so will any story have "inciting incidents" it's hard to imagine a story without one. You don't need to study dramatics to tell somebody, "Hey, does this anecdote have a point?"

These schema are virtually useless to use in creating a script if you have a story and characters. They might be of use if there are problems.

But many of them are purely academic and can be seen not to apply to lots of good films. Anybody who thinks the "protagonist" question is a real one has only to go on a screen forum and ask who was the protagonist of "Sideways" or "Lord of the Rings" or something and watch the interpretations pile up. In fact it is NOT necessary to have a classic protagonist or single main character. (Any good love story proves that out immediately....is Romeo or Juliet the main character and/or protagonist?)

The whole character arc, personal growth thing is equally silly. A fad, actually. In fact, THOUSANDS of fine films and great world literature do NOT treat a hero that way. The hero is complete, the human dream of action. He doesn't enter the plot in order to change: he rides in to either affect change or prevent change and rides out the same man he was. There is nothing boring or one-dimensinal about this. (Whereas there definitely are those elements in all the tacked on "personal arcs" we see in recent films--I watched a forum thread go on for weeks about the hero of "Diehard" having growth and character arc.

What I am suggesting is that people avoid getting trapped into these things and allow them to determine their work. I doubt the good writers do that, but I like for newbies to be exposed to the idea that their own stories and talent count for more than somebody else's formula for what a story should be like. If you want to write soap operas, learn forumlae. If you want to write ground-breaking films, come up with stories and characters and unique ways to tell them.

write4details said:

What I am suggesting is that people avoid getting trapped into these things and allow them to determine their work. I doubt the good writers do that, but I like for newbies to be exposed to the idea that their own stories and talent count for more than somebody else's formula for what a story should be like. If you want to write soap operas, learn forumlae. If you want to write ground-breaking films, come up with stories and characters and unique ways to tell them.

Click to expand...

I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I believe it's best to learn the guidelines and formulas before you break or bend them. The most innovative architects were trained in the basics to understand form, perspective, etc., and the best impressionist painters learned the basics of painting before trying their hand at something more advanced. Basketball players drill the fundamentals for thousands of hours before using behind the back spin moves. Screenwriting is first and foremost a craft.

The accepted film paradigms - more or less simply use a specific language to describe the basic elements of storytelling and to provide a blueprint. And as I said on another board - whether you use the paradigm or not - it is best to understand the terminology - because it is the language of this industry and these terms do in fact come up in conversation. For example in a pitch meeting it is not uncommon to be asked what the inciting incident is or something about the character arc. And when a project makes it into development the story is broken down by first act turning point, et.al. So whether you use the paradigm to build a story or not you need to be able to apply the terminology.

The other thing is that film - as a medium - dictates the type of stories that can be told and in some ways the way they can be told. Many novels cannot be adapted or don't work as films because the protag's struggle is primarily internal - and internal struggles do not translate well to film. I'm not saying it can't be done - but it is very difficult because film is a visual form of storytelling - and internal struggles are not a natural fit.

And again I disagree that having an idea for a story and having characters is enough. I hear a lot of pitches that are great story ideas - then I read the scripts and there's no ability to tell the story or develop those characters and it's often due to a lack of understanding of how to do so. The 3 act structure et. al. are tools for doing so. And learning them can only help - not hurt. Not learning them on the other hand - can be a huge detriment.

I wouldn't exactly call a character arc silly or a fad - characters have been changing (or punished for not changing) back to greek mythology and the Bible.

You cannot try to be groundbreaking you and your ideas either are or aren't. Breaking the accepted formulas for the purpose of being different almost always fail. Charles Kaufman - who is perhaps the most innovative writer today, not only works in the normal paradigm - he also started his career writing sitcoms - an extremely rigid format right down the pace of the jokes.

you know what i hate, i hate when people say that the wheel isn't really a wheel and cars don't need them cause the jetsons don't have wheels. hey, the jetsons don't have wheels, why do i need an inciting incident. why does my character need to grow and learn?

I've heard the debates on character arcs for years. Here's my take on it.

Generally speaking (because they have always been exceptions to the rule) most popular films had trends towards character arcs which reflects society in some ways.

Early in film history, heroes had almost no change. They were fearless, they embodied everything we mortal moviegoers lacked. They ate their spinach, made their beds everyday and always listened to their mothers. But the change they underwent throughout their story was how they were tempted by external forces. The temptation was enough to show change or they were faced with a change but rejected it after great thought.

The horrors of wars, depression and reality made it impossible for us to see people that were all too perfect. We wanted to see people down and out make it to the top.

The advent of the anti hero or dark hero, created character flaws that we can relate to, since as a society we wanted to see our heroes reflect real people.

In the seventies, a hero usually had a very minor arc. A popular one was "The cop trying to quit smoking and every-time he lights one up something prevents him and then at the end when he can smoke in peace, he throws the pack away." Thus began the blueprint to what I like to call Fighting Internal Demons, which is done in almost every film these days.

The eighties had more of the same big with a slight mix of earlier, happier days. Even Indiana Jones in Raiders had very little arc. He's just as afraid of snakes in the beginning as in the end, he doesn't profess his love and guilt to Miriam. But he does bring her along and does try to save her and given the choice between treasure and the girl, he does choose the girl, where we felt in the beginning he wouldn't have.

The other popular hero was the Quitter. Someone who would quit just as things got tough, but would come running to save the day when it really mattered-- at the last second.

Today, we want our heroes to fight demons (see the seventies). Last Samurai, Dances with Wolves, Hidalgo, all have alcoholics haunted by a past mistake who must overcome them before they can overcome their journey at hand.

The bottom line, however, is that all heroes have some change, whether it be minor or major. Even Snake Pliskin went from a selfish person to a selfless one.

Excuse my rambling. Still early in the day.

The greatest stories -- ones that stay with you for a LONG time -- are those in which the protagonist/hero goes through some change. Even when you're speaking of archetypical characters such as Indiana Jones.

Lord of the Rings -- almost everyone changes at the end.
The King and I -- both the hero and the heroine change.
American Beauty -- the change is subtle, but by the end, the protagonist/anti-hero has an enlightenment about life itself. And that's the irony.
Superman II -- widely regarded as the best of the series. Clark Kent went through a metamorphosis, then he came back stronger, wiser, and better.
Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia... the list goes on and on...

Agreed, Ray.

Now for those of you you say, "I want to do something different. I don't want my protagonist to be a cookie cutter hero. I want the audience to see something totaly new and fresh. I want to blow the doors off the establishement!!"

Good for you. Try it, but keep in mind that change is usualy a slow and gradual process dictated by society norms. Rapid change usualy ends in failure. Coke vs. New Coke proved that.

Films are the same, more or less. We are used to seeing our characters in a certain way. It's expected for them to change because that is the way it has always been. It takes a major social/political change to effect people's ideology and expectations. 9/11 changed the way we see villians. Bonnie and Clyde changed the way we see heroes.

I'm not saying to make a cookie cutter hero that changes exactly the way we expect him too, but atleast fall in lines with the familiarity we have with stories we already know. Any changes you make should be subtle, backhanded and itch at you long after you leave the theatre. It should however, fall within certain paramaters that are realistic and believable.

If you do a drastic change from the norm, you need to make it based on societies' trend towards that change.

Now this may all sound like BS and it probably is, but it's something to think about.

I wrote a script in which my hero was a classic Cary Grant type and fit with the film's genre and the story's time period. However, most people who read it said he doesn't change and that was bad. He did actually, but in a way we haven't seen for decades, not the way people see heroes today. I could have defended my decision and it would still be on my shelf, but I made a minor tweak and people like it better. It's getting read atleast.

More ranting. I need a cup of coffee. I'll get down of the high horse now.

No, destination...they aren't really rules and if they apply to everybody then they aren't anything than can be violated, they fall into place naturally.

Are you aware of the term "ad hominem"? It's not just an adjuration against personal commentary in a discussion, it's a logical fallacy: something people hide behind when logical arguments fail them or are beyond their ability.

As a matter of fact, I've been a professional writer for many years. I think a quick read-over would kind of indicate that my posts are pretty well thought-out and handled. Yours is sort of thrashing around and disrailed. I don't know what it is you are trying to defend, or against what, or why you bother, but you might want to think about that.

The reason you haven't sold any scripts is not because you didn't study theory hard enough. Maybe you should start thinking of other reasons for that and working on them. One good tool might be an open mind not only towards what others say, but towards you own inner voices. This can make a big difference.

There are also the anti-heroes, and the heroes that don't fit the norm. How about, say, Natural Born Killer (the film inspired the Columbine kids...)? Or even the guy in American Beauty. They're not your typical heroes, and that's why the films stand out.

The truth, though, is that a lot of producers/agents/studio heads are business people. They have an accountant degree. They're not artists. They don't understand what an artist tries to accomplish, to set himself apart. They want more of the same things. Even the "used-to-be-cutting-edge" studios like Miramax has become so big and mainstream, they lose certain edge in their films.

As artists, we have to maintain our visions and integrity and passion. As business people, however (you do want to sell your script and work in Hollywood, don't you?), we do have to compromise...

The question is: where is the line when we start selling our souls?

One place, especially for young writers, would be when they start doing things the way somebody else wants them to, rather than following their own nose.

The way you handle MBA's is to baffle them with bullshit. If you have a good story, they are just wanting blather they can pass up to their superiors. You provide them with it.

Actually, a good strategy might be, if questioned about one of these format gizmos, would be to look like you're trying to not to pity them and say, "Well, yes that WAS the way people analyzed things back in the pre-post-mod, but we both know that's so last week. I try to throw a sop to the "old school", but still keep to modern pressure point theories and adapt Asian feng-chiao structure as it applies."

Or some such.

This is not music. You don't need to learn years of theory and harmony to write. (An art form with almost no technical substrate has it's drawbacks, but it sure cuts learning curve) Many people have sat down in their sixties and written their first novel, then sold it. Learning screencraft takes a couple of months, unless you're on a crash program.

People who get insecure about the idea that their syllabus might not be necessary to creating are actually suffering to an extent from limited outlook--for every Hero's Journey or Dramatic Pyramid or whatever there are dozens of other ways of slicing stories(Freudian, Marxist, Third Force, Broadway, post-modern, etc, etc)--for CRITICS. Actually for writers it's a lot simpler than that.

There are only about three or four principles about writing stories that are of any use (and talented writers grasp them or warp them instinctively). There are a handful of tips and hacks that help out.

Almost NOTHING that somebody claims is a "rule" and gets pissed off if you don't bow down to is worth a damn. (A principle that can actually be applied to wider areas of human experience.)