Producer's POV

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,


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?

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?

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.

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.

"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

IWrite said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

JustinoXXV said:

Also, Clock, who is your agent?

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

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

12 pages of backstory...

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.

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

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?

One page or less is all it takes

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.