• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Writers using flashy words for the sake of it?

R

RealJasonBourne

Example:

Collins' LAPD SEDAN bounces madly down a barely-existent dirt road
Click to expand...



Why use the words "bounces madly"? That literally has nothing to do with driving down a forest road. In the show there was no "bouncing madly", it was just a car driving.

So what if this guy wrote "Collins' LAPD SEDAN heads down a barely-existent dirt road"


Is it necessary to sound like a know-it-all cocky douchebag when writing a professional script?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I wouldn't call it being a know it all cocky douchebag, rather evoking the intended tone.

It's a bit over the top for my tastes, but it evokes a much stronger image when you read it than "Collins' drives his car." That inspires more creativity and excitement from the people using the the script.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think "bounces madly" is used here to make it sound like a bumpy ride as opposed to "heads down" which sounds like a smooth ride. Whether it turned out bumpy or smooth in the final execution is another story. I do run into the problem of feeling repetitive if I use the same words to describe things throughout a script so I will try to find a different way of saying or describing the same actions over the course of the script. Especially, imagine if you write a scene that is intercut between two people driving to the same place. It may sound weird to introduce both scenes as "Sally Bob drives." It would probably start that way in my first draft but it would irk me in the revision process. Now I like to think I'm no douche bag, but who really knows?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ahahah sry, I was just messing around when I wrote that.

It just kind of seems a little cliche. I'm wondering if it could possibly give off an amateur vibe if it's over done or not done right. Someone could probably tell if you don't put much thought into your word choice and choose a flashy word just for the hell of it right?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I wouldn't even call that 'flashy', myself. It's an efficient way of getting across the setting and tone of the scene intended by the writer. You could spend three or four more lines describing the rough terrain, or the fact that the car doesn't have the best suspension and so doesn't give the smoothest ride, or how incongruous a road-cruising police car looks driving at speed along a dirt track it's not built for... or you could just convey all that by writing that it "bounces madly" :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It works for me. "bouncing madly" and "barely-existent" creates a
clear image using few words. Not "know-it-all, cocky, douche bag"
or cliche. No amateur vibe and not even "flashy". Just descriptive
writing. Much better than "The car heads down the road."
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have always been a fan of saying it in as few words as possible. If one word gets the point a cross, why use two. It adds black to the page and it's more work for the readers. Plus the spec script usually gets chopped up before it makes to production.

If you are shooting it, write it however you want, it's your blue print. If you're writing in spec, well.... welcome to hell.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A little 'flash' is nice. As a script reader, it's nice to see someone who can draw my attention but using words descriptively AND concisely. A good script should convey to the senses what the scene is about. Scripts that are too bland run the risk of being ignored. It's a middle ground between being to over the top ("Blackism") and too bland. Those who recommend totally neutral language probably have not had to read lots of scripts.

"The car drove down the road" gets REAL OLD!

The reality is that a script will be altered several times due to many factors. You're goal is to draw in the reader/viewer, not predict how the script will be changed. Again, having said that, it's also important to be mindful not to get into detail over non-essentials or things that may change.

The important thing is that the script is not a creative writing exercise for English class. While long strings of adjectives setting a scene liberally sprinkled with sesquipedalian terms like "obstreperous" may impress Ms. Fingle, not so much a reader. Remember many readers are producers who want quick, easy reads that capture their imaginations. "Defiant" or "obstinate" work just as well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The same movie theater as before. Andrew marches in. Has one goal and one goal only now.
Click to expand...

I see "marches" used a lot for having a character move from one place to another and I'm wondering if that could make your script seem cliche to a producer?

Could that be seen as on-the-nose writing?


How else could you say "Andrew marches in." in a unique way?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
What is exactly the problem?

The sentence is clear and visual: the road is a road that can hardly be described as a road and it is full of holes and bumps, making the car bounce madly.

When I saw the title I thought you found some very exotic word during your quest for a richer vocabulary.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
WalterB said:
What is exactly the problem?

The sentence is clear and visual: the road is a road that can hardly be described as a road and it is full of holes and bumps, making the car bounce madly.

When I saw the title I thought you found some very exotic word during your quest for a richer vocabulary.
Click to expand...

lol I guess I misinterpreted bounces madly, I thought he was trying to say the driver is driving like a mad man.

I'm just paranoid when I write my script I dont want it to be seen as amateur if I throw in a bunch of words for the hell of it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
RealJasonBourne said:
I see "marches" used a lot for having a character move from one place to another and I'm wondering if that could make your script seem cliche to a producer?

Could that be seen as on-the-nose writing?


How else could you say "Andrew marches in." in a unique way?
Click to expand...

Marching is not just moving.
It is walking with power and confidence. It implies some kind of forcefull violence, even if it is used in a non-violent context.
It is a total opposite of entering politly and shy.
But it is not a brutal as kicking the door out of the frame.

Words are used for their subtleties.

Moving is a neutral way of describing a translation (the mathematical meaning of that word!) from point A to B.
Running says something about the pace.
Marching says something about the 'energy' and sometimes intention.
Sneaking says something about intention.

And so on...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Then change it up. That's where a good thesaurus can come in handy. Is he 'stomping' or 'charging' due to anger? Is he 'storming in' with urgency or 'saunters' with assuredness? Or you can describe it.

"The movie theater doors push open. Andrew pauses, his face resolute, before he charges once again to deal with X."

This gives a feeling sense to the scene for both the actor and director. As a writer, I expect the director and actor will have their own interpretations. And the line allows for that wiggle room.

'Marches' is fine because it also conveys a sense of how Andrew walks. Just as we might say a horse 'canters', 'gallops', etc. "One the nose" writing is a different beast.
Code: 
The detective holds the bloody wound and looks up.  A
bloody knife lies near the body.
             DETECTIVE
    He stabbed me.
Blood + knife = wound. Like yeah? Unless the scene is purposefully a lie, you don't say what everyone already knows and sees. On-the-nose is about dialogue exposition, not scene descriptions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FantasySciFi said:
Then change it up. That's where a good thesaurus can come in handy. Is he 'stomping' or 'charging' due to anger? Is he 'storming in' with urgency or 'saunters' with assuredness? Or you can describe it.

"The movie theater doors push open. Andrew pauses, his face resolute, before he charges once again to deal with X."

This gives a feeling sense to the scene for both the actor and director. As a writer, I expect the director and actor will have their own interpretations. And the line allows for that wiggle room.

'Marches' is fine because it also conveys a sense of how Andrew walks. Just as we might say a horse 'canters', 'gallops', etc. "One the nose" writing is a different beast.
Code: 
The detective holds the bloody wound and looks up.  A
bloody knife lies near the body.
             DETECTIVE
    He stabbed me.
Blood + knife = wound. Like yeah? Unless the scene is purposefully a lie, you don't say what everyone already knows and sees. On-the-nose is about dialogue exposition, not scene descriptions.
Click to expand...


A great summary, but I would add that even that extreme last example can be acceptable depending on the context. For example, if the detective has just been stabbed by a dear trusted associate, and he is saying in surprise, shock, pain and disappointment "He stabbed me.", then that's not necessarily on-the-nose - it s conveying plot and character information.

It's an extreme counter-example to your extreme example, but it's important that writers think about why something is inappropriate rather than just "the book says this, so I can't have this bit of dialogue".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maz said:
A great summary, but I would add that even that extreme last example can be acceptable depending on the context. For example, if the detective has just been stabbed by a dear trusted associate, and he is saying in surprise, shock, pain and disappointment "He stabbed me.", then that's not necessarily on-the-nose - it s conveying plot and character information.

It's an extreme counter-example to your extreme example, but it's important that writers think about why something is inappropriate rather than just "the book says this, so I can't have this bit of dialogue".
Click to expand...
You're right. That's a good point. Mine was a quick example with my only point being that one-the-nose is a dialogue issue, not a scene description issue.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
WalterB said:
Marching is not just moving.
It is walking with power and confidence. It implies some kind of forcefull violence, even if it is used in a non-violent context.
It is a total opposite of entering politly and shy.
But it is not a brutal as kicking the door out of the frame.

Words are used for their subtleties.

Moving is a neutral way of describing a translation (the mathematical meaning of that word!) from point A to B.
Running says something about the pace.
Marching says something about the 'energy' and sometimes intention.
Sneaking says something about intention.

And so on...
Click to expand...

Thanks.

The reason I got so paranoid with marches is because I was attempting my first script and after reading a few other scripts I noticed I subconsciously used the word "marches" for mine. I wrote "The army marches towards them".

I was worried my script might seem cliche or paint-by-numbers style.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, armies do marche, don't they?
That how it is called.
If calling a tree a tree, because it is a tree, is a cliché, we can throw away the whole concept of language...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top