Spec Screenplays Versus Shooting Screenplays Versus Continuity Screenplays...

[Jack Lynt]

So of course I truly do not want to break the I.T. rule against linking to another (in this case vaguely) similar webforum. I do not want to do that. I hope that I am doing this in a legitimate fashion acceptable to the I.T. TOS. I only cite the poster's I.D. for the sake of properly citing the author and the author's intellectual property, I suppose, properly. I truly hope that this is a legitate action and a way of presenting it here properly...

...because it's been really bugging me.

What odocoileus says seems contrary to what I thought I'd learned here on I.T. But he/she seems to speak from authority. So is he/she spreading misinformation? Or am I simply confused about what I thought I'd learned here from the pros on I.T? Or is there actually no contradiction between what odocoileus says and what you experienced pros have said here on I.T?

Please set me straight.

So, the OP on some writing forum asked about finding spec scripts online to read and to model their own scripts upon. Well, something like that.

In response...

odocoileus wrote:

The shooting script is the script. The only difference is that shooting scripts have numbered scenes. Other than that, they're the same.

odocoileus wrote:

This is a widespread misconception promoted by people who don't actually work in the film industry. Of course you can use shooting scripts as a model for format, storytelling approaches, how to stage scenes, and so on. No one is ever thrown by an occasional camera angle or POV shot. No one. Just not an issue.
The final draft of that script had everything you describe. The director didn't go through and add it. The writer put it in from the very beginning.

odocoileus wrote:

Of course new writers should use shooting scripts as models. Shooting scripts are what everyone reads and what everyone is familiar with. If you get staffed on a TV show, you'll be expected to write like that, right out of the gate. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't actually work in the Hollywood film and television industry. You want the pros' job, you do what the pros do. No training wheels.

Neal posted above about the confusion between continuity scripts and shooting scripts; that's part of the problem. Continuity scripts specify every shot and sound effect. Continuity scripts are a record of the finished film for copyright and other legal purposes, assembled after a film is edited and ready for distribution.

odocoileuse wrote:

Most of the scripts that are available are shooting scripts; they're fine to learn from and to imitate. Most pro scripts have the occasional camera angle; it's not a big deal, no one in the Hollywood film industry worries about that. Telling people they can't learn from these or imitate them is bad advice.

Most the work in Hollywood, for actors, writers, and directors, is in single camera episodic television. So everyone has seen those scripts and is familiar with that format. Almost all those scripts have a few camera angles. The occasional close-up, tracking shot, or angle-on in a script doesn't bother anyone. Just not an issue.

Directors don't go through scripts and add camera angles, that's a misconception. Directors work from shot lists and sometimes storyboards.

If you see a script with every shot and camera movement specified, you're looking at a continuity script, not a shooting script. Continuity scripts are assembled after the film is finished, for copyright and other legal purposes. No one should be imitating the formatting in continuity scripts. That should be clear enough.

Script readers in Hollywood do coverage on a wide variety of stuff. Feature and pilot scripts from established pros, feature and pilot scripts from aspiring newcomers, plus plays, novels, magazine articles, biographies, comic books, short stories. The readers are focused on the story, the characters, the way this particular piece of material fits in with the stated criteria and the overall goals of whoever they're reading for. Camera angles just don't come up as an issue.

Pretty much everything you've posted above is wrong. I'm (morbidly) curious as to where you got your information.

So what gives? Is odocoileuse mistaken? Is he/she correct? Am I confused? What is the truth?

Thanks!

 

[FantasySciFi]

The issue is whether you are "inside" or "outside" of the system. When you work inside for a television or production studio, you are often working closely with the production staff. You're getting notes. It's a middle ground between being an independent spec writer and a writer/director. Under that condition, putting in POV and other camera directions are already an implicit part of the writing process. So from that perspective, yes, if you're inside the film/tv industry, you will see less restrictive writing style.

When you are outside the industry, you are typically not given that luxury. Now, to be clear, that doesn't mean you can't use the occasional camera direction to spotlight a particular aspect of your story. However, most new writers know no moderation.

1. When you overly document your script, it becomes harder to read. Period. When you have a stack of 30+ manuscripts to plow through, you as a reader appreciate writers who can clearly tell a story.

2. Directors and producers will change the script. If you ever look at a produced script, you will have an array of colored pages, with scenes crossed out. There are tons of re-writing that goes on even during production. The idea that a writer's inclusion of shots is relevant is farcical. So if it's not relevant, why include it? While its inclusion may not raise eyebrows, it doesn't mean it's used.

3. With so many changes made in dialogue, settings, etc. a 'continuity script' is the final, legal record of what was actually shot. Usually, it doesn't include shot information either except as relevant. If you need to include a detail, then include it. However, to simply throw in shots to show you know what they mean can become tiresome. We don't need to DOLLY, COWBOY, OTS, etc. through your entire script.

4. Most directors and DPs will come up with a shot list and storyboard from which they will work. Again, these are often appended to the continuity script. Now if they are working from something outside of the script, then the question is why include specifics inside the script.

5. Filmmaking and television practices are dynamic. Screenwriting practices do change over time. Rules are guidelines to best practice. If your goal is to direct, a more detailed script might help in that regard. It will show how you visualize your film being shot. However, if your goal is to sell the story, that can work against you. By keeping to a more concise script, you make it readable. One thing I can guarantee, you will be held to a page limit. Don't waste space by putting in things only of interest to the camera operator or editor.

The comments are not wrong but must be taken in the context of being inside rather than outside a production environment. I fully agree with these statements:

... Most pro scripts have the occasional camera angle; it's not a big deal, no one in the Hollywood film industry worries about that. Telling people they can't learn from these or imitate them is bad advice.

Most the work in Hollywood, for actors, writers, and directors, is in single camera episodic television. So everyone has seen those scripts and is familiar with that format. Almost all those scripts have a few camera angles. The occasional close-up, tracking shot, or angle-on in a script doesn't bother anyone. Just not an issue.

Directors don't go through scripts and add camera angles, that's a misconception. Directors work from shot lists and sometimes storyboards. ... No one should be imitating the formatting in continuity scripts.

However, shooting scripts are not good models. Most of the shooting scripts I've worked with have lots of inclusions and exclusions. A shooting script is the workhorse in progress. If you ever have the opportunity to look at a multicolored shooting script, you will understand. As an actor, I've received script revisions. Working continuity as script supervisor, I've had to document on the script shoot sequences 34a, b, etc. A collection of pink, blue, salmon, etc. So I would argue that the initial spec script or the final continuity script are better models for aspiring writers outside of the industry for learning screenwriting.

6. Learning screenwriting comes in stages. First learning the formatting and structure. Second, learning to develop characters and dialogue. Third, mastering pacing and subtle elements of story. New writers have a toolbox and think that's all there is. The shots were included for camera operators/DPs. They are seldom necessary for telling a story. Transitions were included for editors. Again, FADE and MATCH CUT are not story elements. Now, they are useful in telling a visual story but unless you're the director, DP or editor who has final say, they are suggestions at best.

I had one person ask, "Why would you use a medium shot versus, say, a cowboy shot?" The answer is the Director and DP would make that call based on the scene and the actor. I have no reason to write that in a script. If I want to say, "Robert's hand twitches at the revolver handle by his side," that gives all the guidance they need to decide how they want to frame that on their shot list/storyboard.

Documenting what has been shot or what they want to see occurs after a script is purchased/optioned. So a screenwriter outside of the industry looking to get inside is better off learning the terms and then tucking them away until later. As an instructor, you're remiss if you don't teach them, but I'd rather teach them in conjunction with actual production skills where certain conventions make more sense and are practical.

Not all that Odocoilus says is 'wrong' or at odds with what really happens. However, in the context of writers who want to learn screenwriting, it can sound like a carte blanche for bad habits. Newbies are not known for restraint. Sometimes a point of view (POV) is a critical element of understanding the narrative. If someone is hiding in a closet from an attacker, it's useful to know the POV of the shot in an action line. However, if you document every instance, you unreasonably lengthen a script. Most of the time, the reader/audience is clever enough to know what's going on.

I have used this example several times. Shots, angles, etc. are like a strong spice. Use them sparingly. As I highlighted above, s/he says 'occasional use'. New writers tend to be very heavy handed. If someone says 'never' then it's probably wrong. With very few exceptions, most admonitions are simply guidelines that make writing clearer and easier to read.

 

[Jack Lynt]

Thank you very much for shedding light on that, FSF. Your taking the time is very much appreciated. I can be dense. Often.

 

[mad_hatter]

Although it doesn’t really help answer your questions, I saw THIS yesterday and thought I’d post it up here. It’s what Simon Barrett, the writer, refers to as his “shooting screenplays” for ‘You’re Next’ and ‘The Guest’.

I haven’t read the entirety of either of them, but instantly these strike me as what I expect a spec screenplay to look like, not a shooting script.

Also, it’s interesting to note that Barrett’s rule-breaking begins immediately. In the ‘You’re Next’ screenplay, right there on page one are a number of instances where he write how people are “doing” something, rather than that they “do” it. For example, if I were to write “Sweating, TALIA, a woman in her 20’s, rolls over on to her back, naked. She is lying on a queen size bed.”, I would expect to be corrected on this. Due to what I’ve been taught previously, I’d probably write “TALIA, a woman in her 20’s, drips with sweat, as rolls over on to her back, naked. She lies on a queen size bed.”

The same goes for ‘’The Guest’. When we are first introduced to David, the young man, we are told that he “RUNS” along the road. In the next action block, we are told he is running and that “his breathing is quiet and regular”. And why on earth is that first RUNS capitalised?

I understand that there are rules and that rules are made to be broken, but this isn’t something I’ve ever really heard of as being one of the rules that it’s ok to break. I was under the impression that, on screen, people had to do something; they couldn’t be doing it.

Anyway, again it doesn’t help answer any questions raised here, but it may spark an interesting debate as the rights-and-wrongs of screenwriting.

 

[Guanto]

SPEC SCRIPT / SCREENPLAY
The spec script, or what most people refer to simply as as the screenplay, is what you want to focus on as a writer. Period. In fact, unless you are directing your own screenplays, you'll probably never write a shooting script (and thank your stars for that). The spec script describes the settings, characters and action and contains the dialog. This is how you tell/pitch/present your cohesive linear highly readable story to the world. For all intents and purposes this is the film (as long as you still believe the lifeblood of a film is story). The spec script is also your actors bible. This is their source for the DNA of the characters, where they're at, what they do and what they say.

And absolutely yes the screenplay should be void of crew and camera commands of any sort. Writing in bits like angles and equipment movements is a legacy issue. Producers and actors don't want to read that, it kills the flow of your story as they muddle through that crap trying to watch a movie in their head. Also a director isn't going to take direction from you, they are going to do what they want to do. Leave the production work to the crew. And along these lines remember to not tell an actor how to act, that is their job. Give them the action and the words but let them portray and deliver it. A wiseman once said that once a good actor learns your lines they are no longer your lines, they are the characters lines. IOW, unless crucial to the scene, leave out all the extraneous coaching between dialog like "Penelope pauses" or "Bartholomew nervously smiles". An actor will react instinctively and accordingly (hopefully) to the action and/or conversation they are experiencing in the moment. The beats and smirks that happen organically over the course of a take are what will ultimately be, and probably what you ultimately want.

SHOOTING SCRIPT
If you win the lotto one day then a spec script gets turned into a shooting script, by a completely different writer or team. The shooting script is the unforgiving blueprint that describes each and every shot of a scene. As you write a shooting script you are actually editing the movie in your mind. This is also where you call out the type of shot (OTS, Med, CU, Pan, dolly, etc). The shooting script takes the easy to read and broad stroke picture that the Spec Script paints and deconstructs it into its tinniest moving parts. This is where a single sentence in your lean and mean easy-to-follow screenplay ("Bartholomew and Penelope fight to the death.") becomes a 2 page 40 shot section of your shooting script with each blow and parry carefully described in full detail depicting not only how it specifically happens but how it technically gets shot. Hopefully the person writing the shooting script is tight with the fight choreographer. The shooting script can use much looser non-formatted language to describe the action, and it rarely contains dialog. Typically it just says "Character line". If your actor needs a line (What? They haven't been working with the Spec Script for weeks memorizing lines!?) then the script supervisor will be on hand saving the day flipping between both the Spec and Shooting script depending on who (director or actor) needs what during the shoot(s). So the shooting script is the production crew blueprint, the linear road map for how to visually produce the story of the screenplay. It doesn't read nice as a whole and it's jammed with all the ridiculous details that the spec script should be void of. But remember it is in linear order... unlike the dreaded...

SHOT LIST
The shot list is yet another document involved. It takes the individual shots of the Shooting Script and yanks them out of order to pair them with similar shots, for maximum efficiency in the field. This means shot 1.3 and shot 7.6 from your shooting script are back to back in your shot list because they are both MED shots of Bartholomew in the same setting/position delivering lines. Where this gets really fun is if scene 5.8 is a CU of Bartholomew flicking the cigarette out of his mouth. How well does your continuity guy know the story when it comes time to shoot S7.6? >GULP!<

CONTINUITY SCRIPT
Totally different animal and nothing you would want to learn from. This as someone else mentioned happens after everything is locked and in the can. Done and done. This is not creative or really even writing, it's more transcribing. The continuity script is just someone reverse engineering a movie showing on the screen into a script on paper. Including things like opening credits and specific actual sound effects burned into the file (as opposed to a suggestive bit of onomatopoeia from the original screenplay). 'Published' screenplays in a bookstore (Wait, are there bookstores anymore?) are just these things, they don't resemble the original spec script in the least. I also think the close captioning people request these.

So in the end everyone needs to be insanely familiar with the Spec Script. This screenplay is what floats around in everyone's head, the movie playing in their brain. It is the source everything else comes from. With the screenplay fresh in his mind, the director will then refer to the shooting script like a set of instructions from IKEA as he strives to build the spec script he first read (and hopefully therefore envisioned) for the masses.

DISCLAIMER - If you are fortunate (read as masochistic) enough to be the one directing your own screenplay then by all means feel free to disregard everything, its all wide open and fair game. Personally I still try to keep the separate components intact and follow them accordingly, but in the end its all on me, my desire for filmmaking efficiency and clarity... or lack their of.

 

[maz]

Also, it’s interesting to note that Barrett’s rule-breaking begins immediately. In the ‘You’re Next’ screenplay, right there on page one are a number of instances where he write how people are “doing” something, rather than that they “do” it. For example, if I were to write “Sweating, TALIA, a woman in her 20’s, rolls over on to her back, naked. She is lying on a queen size bed.”, I would expect to be corrected on this. Due to what I’ve been taught previously, I’d probably write “TALIA, a woman in her 20’s, drips with sweat, as rolls over on to her back, naked. She lies on a queen size bed.”

The same goes for ‘’The Guest’. When we are first introduced to David, the young man, we are told that he “RUNS” along the road. In the next action block, we are told he is running and that “his breathing is quiet and regular”. And why on earth is that first RUNS capitalised?

I understand that there are rules and that rules are made to be broken, but this isn’t something I’ve ever really heard of as being one of the rules that it’s ok to break. I was under the impression that, on screen, people had to do something; they couldn’t be doing it.

Anyway, again it doesn’t help answer any questions raised here, but it may spark an interesting debate as the rights-and-wrongs of screenwriting.

I have no idea who Simon Barrett is, but I think the obsession with rules is a red herring. The purpose of a spec screenplay is to tell a good story coherently, readably and efficiently. The 'rules' can help with these objectives (especially for new writers), but they are not the only way to achieve them.

Learning to be disciplined is great, but it's too easy for the discipline to become more important than the story. Ultimately, a dull story perfectly formatted is never going to do better than an amazing story with a few 'rules' broken and writer idiosyncrasies along the way. Writing is an art, and artists should never be bound by rules - they should learn the techniques and conventions and guidelines of their art, and be aware of them, but not actually be restrained by them.

I should caveat all this by saying I know nothing about anything

 

[trueindie]

Although I've never worked in a professional setting, I'm almost 100% sympatico with this odocoileuse person. Whether I agree with everything he said or not, I agree with most of it. And what FSF said was also going through my mind, regarding whether you're inside or outside the industry. My brain was thinking along those lines.

But honestly, can anybody name somebody, who used to be on the "outside" and sent a script someplace with perfect formatting, story structure, and perfect everything that the script writing books and instructors say you should have, and then got hired and got his script made into a film? I'm sure it's happened. I'm just curious how many times it's actually happened and when it last happened and to whom?

All these rules, rules, rules, rules. What it does it takes away the joy from the story. I remember reading a test script to an audience full of filmmakers (my favorite crowd), and after I was done reading and was waiting for the critiques, one of them said to me "You mentioned all those camera angles, you're not supposed to mention camera angles." I mean..... not "hey your story sucked," "your dialog is dry and not believable," "the chronology is out of whack," "why would she jump into the lake of fire, that makes no sense,"... no... it was "you have camera angles." How is that a critique? of my story? We get so wound up in the rules, we can't see beyond them.

Personally I actively include camera angles, as it keeps me visually engaged in my story as I'm writing. I don't do it because of any rule. I do it because it helps me visualize my film. That's all.

Anyway... if I don't stop now, I'll have an aneurysm, thinking about filmmakers. And like Maz, I also don't know anything about anything. Just without the smiley face.

 

[FantasySciFi]

@Richy You're welcome
@TrueIndie, MadHatter & Maz, I agree 100%, "rules" should not cramp creativity. They are simply ways to help people learn.

It’s what Simon Barrett, the writer, refers to as his “shooting screenplays” for ‘You’re Next’ and ‘The Guest’. ... Also, it’s interesting to note that Barrett’s rule-breaking begins immediately. ...

It's important to realize that it's not a spec script but a shooting script. Most "rules" are meant to help a script get into a producer's hands so it can be optioned or purchased. Once that's happened, it gets modified into the shooting script. As I mentioned before, a shooting script can be radically different. Looking at the drafts of the initial Star Wars scripts can be equally enlightening. I'd really like to have seen his original spec script to compare it with the final shooting draft.

The same goes for ‘’The Guest’. When we are first introduced to David, the young man, we are told that he “RUNS” along the road. In the next action block, we are told he is running and that “his breathing is quiet and regular”. And why on earth is that first RUNS capitalised?

In a shooting script, capitalization often marks props and significant elements for the AD or production. Again, the shooting script IS NOT a good tool for learning screenwriting. The continuity script often reflects the movie as it appears on the screen. This is useful when a movie is successful to see what makes for a good script. It is also helpful to compare it against the original spec script--what was used to sell the idea in the first place. Sometimes there is a wide difference between the spec script and the movie actually made.

It could be that the close up RUN scene was shot against a greenscreen. It could be to signal this is a tracking shot on the shotlist. Since this is the shooting script, it could mean many things. This is not the spec script. Again, most "rules" are for spec scripts.

... CONTINUITY SCRIPT
Totally different animal and nothing you would want to learn from. This as someone else mentioned happens after everything is locked and in the can. Done and done. This is not creative or really even writing, it's more transcribing. ....

Guanto does a good job summing everything up succinctly. I only disagree that sometimes very successful movies are quite different from their spec. If I want to learn to write a successful film, reading the transcript of a successful movie can be helpful. However, you need to be cautious. What appears in a continuity script doesn't necessarily follow good practice. When you see what the writer originally wrote and what was finally produced, you can learn much.

The thing about filmmaking is that it is a collaborative endeavor. The writer gets the ball rolling but is not the final creative authority, at least not until s/he has a significant readership (J.K. Rowling, E.L. James, etc.). If you're a brand new screenwriter, chances are your script will be changed significantly. Most people will remember a film for its director or actors, not the writer.

Each writer needs to develop their own style. When writing for spec, use the 'rules' as guidelines to "color inside the lines". You will seldom be dinged for minor "infractions". Where most new writers get into trouble is they think that being a rebel will get them noticed. Trust me, for every script you submit there are 100 more just as hungry and eager writers who can "stay inside the lines". It's easier to toss a poorly formatted one and move on. It's as if the writer says, "I don't respect your time because I'm better." Perhaps, but if s/he pisses off the gatekeeper, what's the point? Once you've proven yourself and are inside the system, the rules loosen up. Once one's work is inside an art gallery, other artists consider him/her a peer. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but it's the way it works.

 

[Guanto]

All these rules, rules, rules, rules. What it does it takes away the joy from the story.

I was in the same headspace you are in right now at one time in my life. It turns out the rules aren't that bad, its like learning any new craft or technique. The more you actual sit down and just write the faster these things are a non-issue. In fact these "rules" actually help your story shine through and not be weighted down by BTS filmmaking jargon. They are there to prevent clutter, as crazy at that may seem at first blush.

In all seriousness, have you considered writing short stories, comics or novels. No rules per se and I cant think of a friccin' movie right now that wasn't first a book, if not a trilogy. Sadly.

I remember reading a test script to an audience full of filmmakers (my favorite crowd), and after I was done reading and was waiting for the critiques, one of them said to me "You mentioned all those camera angles, you're not supposed to mention camera angles." I mean..... not "hey your story sucked," "your dialog is dry and not believable," "the chronology is out of whack," "why would she jump into the lake of fire, that makes no sense,"... no... it was "you have camera angles." How is that a critique? of my story? We get so wound up in the rules, we can't see beyond them.

They weren't wound up in the rules, they just couldn't hear your story through all the mucky-muck. They couldn't envision it. Every time they got sucked into a tense or a funny moment you started telling tales of giant pieces of clunky equipment being lugged around by sweaty grips. Nothing takes you out of a story faster. People don't read-think that way - to process a camera angle and then jump back into a story. That sorta stuff is not for telling your story, it's for constructing your story into a film. A completely different step.

Personally I actively include camera angles, as it keeps me visually engaged in my story as I'm writing. I don't do it because of any rule. I do it because it helps me visualize my film. That's all.

Short of discovering time travel* you really want to start weening these things out of your Screenplays if you plan on the Spec Script being the last thing you touch in the process.

And remember it's also wasting your precious time. Time that should be focused on making your story better, tighter and more poignant. If you write "CLOSE UP of a mans face" in your spec script you not only broke the flow of someone reading your story, you have to also accept that a director is never going to even consider that notation because that is what they get paid for, or at least what they are passionate about. They are going to either follow the shooting script (where it has been changed to a medium close-up.) or they are going to do whatever they want to do with it in the field based on their experience and their talent and the moment/environment. But the one place they are never going to take a camera shot cue from is the writer and his spec script, ever. So why put it there at all. Instead I would challenge you to convey a close up of a mans face by actually writing it. "Sweat squeezes from the dirty pores of the mans face as he squints his eyes." No mention of a camera shot and no curtains being abruptly pulled back to suddenly take readers out of the moment. And to boot it's a more compelling visual and guess which way the writer of the Shooting Script or the director himself is going to want to frame this? It's like a form of subliminal mind control through good writing.

Here is a question to ask yourself. In a perfect world would you want to be directing the films you are writing? If you don't have a clear division in your mind of "I want to tell a story and I want to let a director make the story into a movie" then this may be the case. You may be heading into the dangerously unhealthy territory of the auteur. And as I mentioned in my previous dissertation (sorry about that by the way) that is quite a different ball of wax as you're the only guy who will ever see this stuff - so it can be crayon on a napkin let alone calling out camera shots before every line of dialog. HOWEVER... I would still err on the side of separation of spec and shooting for all the reasons mentioned.

I'll say again that you could consider non-screenplay writing, no rules, but also note no camera movements. Another option to help you channel your vision would be to jot down notes for a shooting script simultaneously during your creative process. No one will ever look at them, but it may help you sleep better at night and, leaving that stuff out of your spec script, will definitely make your story more accessible to the people who can do something with it. Hell, you could also just go ahead and write the shooting script if you dare. Hollywood will round file it immediately upon receipt, but on the same token you could make some local indie director pee his pants. But man I'd really start to think of them as two separate entities, spec and shooting, if you're really serious about making something happen.

*Time travel - Don't get me wrong, there was a time long ago when this stuff was commonplace and that's why there is a legacy about these things, whether its flustered new screenwriters or a couple of spots in a contemporary screenplay for an academy award winning picture. But those things were put in there because it was such a secret society writing them. A privileged country club safeguarding their secrets like Solomon's masons. As these extraneous esoteric camera movements were phased out of spec scripts it actually opened the doors to the masses. People could suddenly just write a story instead of an encrypted shooting screenplay script list hybrid thingy. I'm telling you this is a good thing.

Guanto does a good job summing everything up succinctly. I only disagree that sometimes very successful movies are quite different from their spec.

I would agree with this statement. A finished movie can vary violently from the original spec script which means the continuity script is nothing like the spec script. Hopefully I didn't say anything to the contrary. I just carried it further into the fact that studying continuity scripts wont help you write better or even proper spec scripts as they have their own set of conventions and formatting because they are just transcriptions of a finished product. As a creative you wouldn't want to be in the business of writing them either, it's just parroting. Beyond this maybe there is something to be learned from the changes that were made in the movie vs the spec script, but there are so many variables of why a shot was changed or a scene removed that I can't fathom you could glean anything from it. But to just realize the reality of how the end result is often different than the recipe, sure, but then I'd just watch the movie (with original screenplay and remote in hand) to find those variances personally.

 

[trueindie]

I was in the same headspace you are in right now at one time in my life. It turns out the rules aren't that bad, its like learning any new craft or technique.

Funny thing is, that when I started out, I was trying to learn all the rules, as I didn't know anything about anything in filmmaking ( I still don't). Then I saw filmmakers trying to apply all these rules. I myself tried to apply a few. And I came to the fast conclusion, maybe to my own detriment, that I better steer clear of these rules. So I suppose I had the opposite experience.

In all seriousness, have you considered writing short stories, comics or novels. No rules per se and I cant think of a friccin' movie right now that wasn't first a book, if not a trilogy. Sadly.

I've written a few. I'm not sure they're anything special, but I like them.

They weren't wound up in the rules, they just couldn't hear your story through all the mucky-muck. They couldn't envision it. Every time they got sucked into a tense or a funny moment you started telling tales of giant pieces of clunky equipment being lugged around by sweaty grips. Nothing takes you out of a story faster. People don't read-think that way - to process a camera angle and then jump back into a story. That sorta stuff is not for telling your story, it's for constructing your story into a film. A completely different step.

You're probably right. But I've read enough screenplays with camera movements in them, to come to the conclusion that this is not always the case.

And remember it's also wasting your precious time. Time that should be focused on making your story better, tighter and more poignant. If you write "CLOSE UP of a mans face" in your spec script you not only broke the flow of someone reading your story, you have to also accept that a director is never going to even consider that notation because that is what they get paid for, or at least what they are passionate about. They are going to either follow the shooting script (where it has been changed to a medium close-up.) or they are going to do whatever they want to do with it in the field based on their experience and their talent and the moment/environment.

Sure. They can change it to a medium close-up, if they felt that was right. They could also keep my "CLOSE UP of a man's face," if they felt that was the right thing to do. Just because they can change it, doesn't mean it can't be put in there.

But the one place they are never going to take a camera shot cue from is the writer and his spec script, ever. So why put it there at all. Instead I would challenge you to convey a close up of a mans face by actually writing it. "Sweat squeezes from the dirty pores of the mans face as he squints his eyes." No mention of a camera shot and no curtains being abruptly pulled back to suddenly take readers out of the moment. And to boot it's a more compelling visual and guess which way the writer of the Shooting Script or the director himself is going to want to frame this? It's like a form of subliminal mind control through good writing.

I suppose. But I've read a lot of books and screenplays, and watched a lot of movies, and have my own opinion, on what "good writing" is. I have my preferences on authors and writing and writing styles. I'm not sure that there is some definition on "good writing," that all the authors I enjoy fall into.

Here is a question to ask yourself. In a perfect world would you want to be directing the films you are writing? If you don't have a clear division in your mind of "I want to tell a story and I want to let a director make the story into a movie" then this may be the case. You may be heading into the dangerously unhealthy territory of the auteur. And as I mentioned in my previous dissertation (sorry about that by the way) that is quite a different ball of wax as you're the only guy who will ever see this stuff - so it can be crayon on a napkin let alone calling out camera shots before every line of dialog. HOWEVER... I would still err on the side of separation of spec and shooting for all the reasons mentioned.

You have me pegged . I write for myself, and so I suppose I am in a "dangerously unhealthy territory," and you're also correct in the sense that nothing I've done is worth more than a crayon and a napkin, as far as I can tell.

I'll say again that you could consider non-screenplay writing, no rules, but also note no camera movements. Another option to help you channel your vision would be to jot down notes for a shooting script simultaneously during your creative process. No one will ever look at them, but it may help you sleep better at night and, leaving that stuff out of your spec script, will definitely make your story more accessible to the people who can do something with it. Hell, you could also just go ahead and write the shooting script if you dare. Hollywood will round file it immediately upon receipt, but on the same token you could make some local indie director pee his pants. But man I'd really start to think of them as two separate entities, spec and shooting, if you're really serious about making something happen.

I usually write what you might call shooting scripts, as I write for myself. I'm under no illusion, that were I to follow the rules as you've generously taken the time to lay out (much appreciated by the way ), and write spec scripts for Hollywood, that anybody would be calling me anytime soon. So I spend my days writing low budget mickey mouse stuff that I can afford to shoot on DSLRs. That's pretty much my life.

*Time travel - Don't get me wrong, there was a time long ago when this stuff was commonplace and that's why there is a legacy about these things, whether its amongst new screenwriters or a couple of spots in a contemporary screenplay for an academy award winning picture. But those things were put in there because it was such a secret society writing. A privileged country club safeguarding their secrets like Solomon's masons. As these extraneous esoteric camera movements were phased out of spec scripts it actually opened the doors to the masses. People could suddenly just write a story instead of a encrypted shooting screenplay script list hybrid thingy. I'm telling you this is a good thing.

Look, I can't really disagree with you, as what you say has been written in books. And I don't have a resume or any experience that can disqualify these assertions. So you're probably right. I just don't know who got successful following these rules. I can name at least two people whose first scripts were full of camera angles and spelling mistakes and formatting errors, who became Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson. I'm not saying every filmmaker should try to be them. But all I'm saying is that any good spec script analyst would have thrown their scripts in the waste basket (at least according to Lawrence Bender, Tarantino's producer). But the usual comeback when I mention this is "well who do you think you are? You're not Tarantino." And to that I have no retort. So again, you're probably right. But let me know if you can think of someone who came out of the blue, totally an outsider, who got in because of "rules" that lead to "good writing." By the way, if you read William Goldman's scripts (Butch Cassidy, All the President's Men, Misery), even he includes camera movements every now and then. So I don't know if I should follow William Goldman, or some scriptwriting rule.


Good Stuff Guanto Hope you didn't have to grind your teeth through all my bullsh*t. I typically make it a point to argue with filmmakers for no reason, other than my own personal amusement . So don't take what I say seriously.

Cheers,
Aveek

 

[Jack Lynt]

Wow great info and thoughtful insights, guys! I for one think I have a much better picture of this than before your help here. Thank you very much!

And such thoughtful and well-articulated "dissertations" are always very much appreciated, not anything to apologize for. Please keep them coming.

Personally, then, in my very limited experience, I think I like it both ways. I like such rules as: no camera angles, no shot directions, always use active voice, always keep it present tense, don't mess around with capitalizing things etc. I like them because they really do seem to help you keep the writing at its leanest, uncluttered, most direct, most potent. On the other hand, I like to hear that you won't necessarily be dismissed, either, for including a camera angle here or a camera angle there.

 

[Guanto]

I've written a few. I'm not sure they're anything special, but I like them.

It might be worth re-exploring. I dunno. I do know you'll have none of the stress or concerns or questions you've raised here... but I'm sure it will dig up others.

Sure. They can change it to a medium close-up, if they felt that was right. They could also keep my "CLOSE UP of a man's face," if they felt that was the right thing to do. Just because they can change it, doesn't mean it can't be put in there.

But what I'm saying is if they did happen to use a close up for a shot that you also wanted as a close up, it wasn't because you put it there, it was luck (or good writing that left them no other choice). I'm saying the words (CLOSE UP) that you are taking your precious time to type won't be referenced at all as it's in the wrong place. Shooting script writers and directors, unlike everyone else in the world including producers, are conditioned to ignore these notations in a spec script when prepping it for actual shooting. Producers OTOH tend to stew over them as they try to get through your first page. Try to ween if you can my friend, cast aside that visualization crutch of calling out commands for a film crew - and refocus that energy into writing your story. If you tell me a man is squinting, or a man draws his gun, or a man is standing in a vast desert by golly I as the reader am going to make my own appropriate camera shot in my minds eye, and so is the director, or the fella plodding through your story to build a blueprint for filmmaking... and if you write the passages well enough they should arrive at the same camera shot choice you had intended, on their dime, during the right phase of the project. Everybody wins. Including you, because your spec script just got leaner, and meaner and very very readable. Nobody wants to sit out on their front porch in their wicker rocking chair drinking a wine spritzer and enjoying the summer breeze while reading through the instructions of how to put together a particle board armoire. They want to read a story.

You have me pegged . I write for myself, and so I suppose I am in a "dangerously unhealthy territory," and you're also correct in the sense that nothing I've done is worth more than a crayon and a napkin, as far as I can tell.

If you are saying you envision yourself prepping your own shooting script and shot list and then funding and directing your own spec script... well let me say you are batshit crazy... and then let me say welcome to the club. If this is the case then again to some extant all bets are off, go nuts. But you may find, as well as potentially seasoned crew or actors that join you, that there may have been something to keeping these scripts, these tools, separate and distinct.

If you just want to write and trust others to handle your vision, then it may be really good practice to start to challenge yourself in the ways I've described.

I usually write what you might call shooting scripts, as I write for myself.

OK but be aware, and not afraid, there isn't really a grey area of what one might call a shooting script. It's just as much a controlled document as a spec script, but in different ways of course.

So I spend my days writing low budget mickey mouse stuff that I can afford to shoot on DSLRs. That's pretty much my life.

Well now we're getting somewhere, so you are an auteur. You poor bastard. It's a curse I tell you... a curse! (as I fold down my collar to reveal the scarred bite marks upon my own neck).

Even though I keep telling you to do whatever you want if you're going to be shooting your own stuff, perhaps you've picked up on the fact I really don't mean it. What I have learned is when i rolled into a read through with my ironed out screenplay void of lets just say a few of the amateur trappings, and a fully fleshed out shooting script that leaves nothing to the imagination, I had all of my mickey mouse actors suddenly looking up towards me in a different light. You should see the projects these local actors get involved with, and the stuff they are handed as a "Screenplay"... and the crew... oh the crew... even if by "crew" I mean two guys... your brother and your cousin... both of whom have never worked before... when they see that shooting script and know exactly what they will be doing at all times, well it's a thing of beauty, often structured and laid out better than their day to day life. Once I made the decision to just operate at this level (because after-all I can, its just me in my home office with my PC and unlimited nights and weekends to do nothing but hone and perfect, right?) with the scripts it just made everything a little better. People, average people, theater majors, wanna-be actors, or even angel investors who want to fund their first film - these people who have never seen a screenplay before - all could read my story in one fluid motion. And the people who read screenplays on a more regular basis, if they were to happen upon these scribings of mine, I would be confident that they took a pass on the basis of story... and not petty rule breaking (which again is so easily overcome with just more writing) or unreadability. The kiss of death. I don't want any of those variables in my mind. Who would. I wish I could give you a money back guarantee that if you write your screenplay as a spec script and your shooting script as a shooting script you will have a more hassle free workflow, a more fulfilling experience and a more polished product that came in under budget (whether that's time or money).

And let me reiterate, I am not saying Camera Shots are taboo and you aren't allowed to touch them. Again by all means I'm saying if you are into that sorta thing then there is simply a more appropriate place to not only include them, but to expound upon them in great detail, the shooting script.

I can name at least two people whose first scripts were full of camera angles and spelling mistakes and formatting errors, who became Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson. I'm not saying every filmmaker should try to be them.

I think you are too preoccupied with this aspect of the topic. Also we're not talking about spelling or even formatting errors here. We're talking about the correct cues being in the correct document. But I'll bite.

Don't model yourself off of Tarantino's heroes journey. He had friends, big friends, asking him to write his first screenplay ever and they would take care of the rest. That is a bit of an anomaly. And even then he had co-writers and/or people rewriting his stuff after it was optioned. This was partly because Tarantino was always writing for himself to direct, it just took a second for him to get the opportunity. And his current spec scripts, even though they are handwritten by him, for him, have come a long way (in design, not content) as he has been more than forthcoming about in several interviews.

Do model yourself off his cool retro vibe and disdain of CGI - there's not enough of these guys out there.

As far as William Goldman see my previous bit about time travel.

Not familiar with PTA but why get hung up on this stuff? It won't help your forward momentum. "But look, he did it that way" is just not the quagmire to get stuck in. For every one rebel without a crew there is a hundred guys (pretty sure that's the actual ratio) saving their camera shots for the shooting script and writing very visual screenplays where the shot call outs aren't needed anyway.

Here's how I see it - having to tab in X amount of times, double space this, indent that, all caps this, brass fasteners for this, plot whammy at exactly the half way point, yada yada yada. Now there are some rules, rules, rules, rules. Get miffed about that stuff and you have a case, though you'd end up following it anyway like the rest of us to eliminate those variables. But brother I am telling you something simple like taking out the camera movements, that's nothing, it will only improve the subsequent processes of making a film and as a bonus force you to become a better writer. But don't take my word for it.

But the usual comeback when I mention this is "well who do you think you are? You're not Tarantino."

Well as you saw that was not my comeback. But then again I have been called unusual.

I wouldn't make any of this about resumes, level, success or even quality. Focusing on that garbo will just waste your precious creative reserves and to what end? To this point I'll even clarify when I say good writing I am in no way talking about subjective opinionated judgement of your creations, but rather talking about using descriptive passages to describe what a reader should see, and how close they should see it, VS. a callous and alien CLOSE UP suddenly disrupting the pace of your narrative, especially when that notation should instead be included in that "other" equally as important tool..... for the most part (Shit see, I just gave you that, I'm turning into a softie here)

Good Stuff Guanto Hope you didn't have to grind your teeth through all my bullsh*t.

I'm happy to report this has been the furthest thing from arguing that I can recollect in a long time.

It is clear by your receptiveness and coherent non-defensive responses that you have the capacity to absorb and redirect if you so choose.

If I can save just one soul...

p.s.

The craziest part of all of this... 'including Camera Movements in a spec script' is just one of like a dozen high profile issues running rampant in screenplays - ah if we only had a free year to discuss.

 

[Guanto]

On the other hand, I like to hear that you won't necessarily be dismissed, either, for including a camera angle here or a camera angle there.

No of course not. A little PAN buried in the middle of your spec script won't sink a great (notice I actually didn't use the word "good" there) spec script. But eventually you, as the writer, will grow to see that little PAN as a blemish on your sweeping epic... and that's when you know you have ascended. I can't believe i just wrote that. But anyway yeah it hit me in the face one day like a ton of charcoal briquets.

The whole idea behind all of this is to challenge writers to only write what a viewer will see on the screen. The audience, or even your reader(s), doesn't perceive close ups and mediums or even pans. If they do the film was made poorly, something is broken. Instead they need to be whisked away, lost in the story and along for the ride (fingers crossed). Movie goers don't realize there are cameras and crews or even actors when they watch a well made film. A spec script should be the same way. The main push of your writing sessions (among other things) should be to exclude these items for the betterment of the readability and immersiveness of the story, and ultimately the betterment of the tedious process, with oh so many moving pieces, of making the story come to life on the big screen (meaning the iPad mini of course).

 

[FantasySciFi]

... I can name at least two people whose first scripts were full of camera angles and spelling mistakes and formatting errors, who became Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson. I'm not saying every filmmaker should try to be them. But all I'm saying is that any good spec script analyst would have thrown their scripts in the waste basket (at least according to Lawrence Bender, Tarantino's producer). But the usual comeback when I mention this is "well who do you think you are? You're not Tarantino." And to that I have no retort. So again, you're probably right. But let me know if you can think of someone who came out of the blue, totally an outsider, who got in because of "rules" that lead to "good writing." By the way, if you read William Goldman's scripts (Butch Cassidy, All the President's Men, Misery), even he includes camera movements every now and then. So I don't know if I should follow William Goldman, or some scriptwriting rule.

Well, in fairness, Tarantino's writing style is dialogue heavy which affects the pacing. Let's be realistic, 15 minutes of mundane dialogue at the diner? Really? But he has a good sense of action and story. Again, people confuse the Director Tarantino with the Writer Tarantino. You can like one and disagree with the other. Tarantino, in true indie style, worked all aspects of production. However, it was not his first script. In 1983 he wrote and acted in an unfinished short "Two Love Birds in Bondage". He then helped a friend (Lawrence Bender) as actor/writer/director in 1987 with "My Best Friend's Birthday". In 1989, he appeared as an Elvis impersonator on "Golden Girls" and acted in an indie horror "Vegetables". He helped to significantly re-write "Past Midnight" and was given credit as "Associate Producer". During that time he scraped up $30K to shoot his own film, "Reservoir Dogs" (his 4th script). He and Bender managed to snag Harvey Keitel which added $1 M to the pot. The film was successful and opened up doors. So he never really shopped around his spec script, he shot it himself.

As for William Goldman, he was accomplished well before "Butch Cassidy". In fact, his brother James was a playwright and screenwriter. He lived with him and together they wrote two theatrical productions. He had written several novels and plays before ever writing a screenplay. His first screenplay was actually commissioned by Cliff Robertson. So to say he was an unseasoned artist, an 'outsider', would be untrue. "Butch Cassidy" was actually his fifth screenplay.

And Paul Thomas Anderson worked as a production assistant (PA) on several projects. His short, "Cigarettes & Coffee" was his second major project which he wrote, directed and acted in. It cost him $20K to produce. However, it screened as Sundance which earned him "insider" status and a production contract as a director.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but to dispel the notion that "shunning convention" happens in first time screenplays. If you choose to break the rules, (1) you make the film yourself (Tarantino, Anderson) or (2) you are already "inside the system" (Goldman). A subsection of (2)--being inside the system--is having an agent.

Before someone brings up Diablo Cody (Brook Busey), she was a publishing powerhouse before she wrote the script "Juno". She wrote for the "City Pages", "Jane", "Entertainment Weekly" before writing her memoir "Candy Girl". Yes, the shooting script is replete with "rule violations". Her agent prompted her to write the screenplay and used his connections.

This works quite well if you're also an actor with an agent like Shane Black. Joel Silver produced "Lethal Weapon" and "Predator". Shane acted in "Predator". Again, not so much a coincidence that Shane's agent took the script of "Lethal Weapon" to Silver. I'm not saying that is the reason the film was made, but being "inside" allows for exceptions. Silver went on to work with Black to polish the script.

If you're a union actor, maybe your agent can help peddle your scripts. If you're crew, you can cautiously bring up having someone read your script. If you have crew/cast connections, maybe you can shoot it yourself. If you've published books or had your plays produced, you're in a good position being "inside". It doesn't hurt to live in LA, Chicago, New York or Atlanta where there's an active film industry. Toronto or Vancouver in Canada. The notion of a script as a "golden lottery ticket" to riches is overly hyped. Most successful screenwriters have been at their work for sometime in various roles in front and behind the camera or as accomplished writers in other media.

Again the people you mentioned are not "outsiders" with "first time" scripts. I am not discounting their talent or saying they are "lucky", most had major 'inside' successes come with their 4th or 5th productions. Success in the entertainment industry is about networking and being active in the industry, whether actor, writer or director.

I'd still advise a conservative approach. When you're on the "outside", it can be tough and feel like you're held to a higher standard. But the truth is most "inside" scripts abide by the same guidelines. It's the exceptions that stand out. If there's an exception, you can be sure that the reason is the writer is "inside" via routes (1), (2) or (2a).

 

[trueindie]

If I can save just one soul...

Unfortunately for the both of us Guanto, I'm incorrigible by nature, and quite beyond redemption through my general everyday behavior. As a result, I'm now working on my second self funded feature (very low budget). I can already hear your heart breaking for my future .

I also wanted to make the point that I don't model myself after Tarantino or PTA, because I don't consider myself to be even be close to the clipped off toe nails of either of them. I just mentioned them as an example for inspiration purposes, however tenuous the link.


@ FantasySciFi
Okay so let's talk about Tarantino. The general opinion seems to be that he was always a genius and a natural behind the camera. The fact of the matter is that his first movie, "Two Love Birds in Bondage" was such a disaster, you won't find it anywhere, nor will you hear him talk about it, because it was such a disaster. When he got hired for Reservoir Dogs as the director, one of the financiers ( I think Monte Hellman) wanted to see Two Love Birds to see what this director could do, and Tarantino refused to show it to him, because it was so bad. I'm not saying that he isn't a natural, but it's hard to be a natural, when you don't have cameras to play around with all day, and film was so expensive to shoot on, in those days. Tarantino, didn't become Tarantino, until he attended Sundance Labs under the tutelage of Terry Gilliam, who was his mentor there. This all happened after Harvey Keitel said "yes" to Reservoir Dogs. Which was the reason Hellman and Gladstein got on board in the first place.

Also, according to the BTS video that I have of Reservoir Dogs on my DVD, Lawrence Bender, his friend and to this day, his producer, describes how he felt when he had to send a copy of Reservoir Dogs to Harvey Keitel, through the wife of his acting teacher. According to Bender, he was absolutely embarrassed that he had to send that script that was replete with spelling errors. So yes, no spec script reader ever read the script, but that was the point I was making. That had a spec script writer read that script, they would have thrown it away. So my point was, either name me the person, the first timer, who got in through the gates, by playing by the rules, or I guess, I will continue to believe, that the gates are forever closed to me. And I will just have to go about creating my own gate, like Tarantino did through Bender's acting teacher's wife. And so, I needn't worry about the rules. As worrying about them isn't going to get me anywhere anyway. I still don't hear anybody throwing names of script writers who get through the doors by the regular "process," whatever that is.

That's the point I was making when I mentioned Tarantino and PTA.

Now you are right, that PTA has a whole different trajectory, and actually has the perfect trajectory that any one of us could actually dream of accomplishing. He got accepted, was recognized for his talent, got funding for a film and made Hard Eight, and then went on to bigger and better things.

Okay, William Goldman may not have been an outsider. I don't know anything about him other than the movies I've watched of his, and his scripts that I've read, but as far as I'm concerned, Tarantino and PTA are outsiders who got in. PTA got in through the process, and Tarantino lucked out, in my opinion. And William Goldman, ousider or insider, puts in camera moves (although low key moves), whether it's distracting to directors or not (also a point I was making).

But let's say we disagree on whether they're outsiders or insiders. Do you have any example of an outsider, in the last decade (a time frame more applicable to us, as the industry landscape has changed since the days Tarantino and PTA were aspiring filmmakers) that became an insider by embracing convention?

I'm not saying shunning convention is the way to go. All I'm saying is that the idea that embracing convention is some sort of cure, is equally ridiculous. So all I'm saying is, I don't think either one is more advantageous than the other. All I'm saying is that, I'll try to make my own plan and see what happens.

As Guanto has so eloquently explained, this is probably a hair brained approach. But I've already started my process. The train has left the station. I'm committed, and I can't get off. I can only do what I can do. I don't think anybody will buy my scripts. So I have no choice but to write for myself, as I can't pay anybody to write for me. So really, for me, story structure, rules, process, these things are academic and for forum discusssions. My story isn't perfect. That's okay. I'm just trying to finish my film to see what happens. Are there issues with dialog and exposition and what not. Sure. But I can point those out in any movie. I'm not making a masterpiece. I'm making just another movie, as far as I'm concerned. I have a few plans, none of them conventional. None of them have anything to do with Festivals, and I still think I can make it. I still think I can sell my film. I'm probably a fool, but we'll all know in a few months.

What else can I say? The traditional route holds no advantages for me. I'm one in a million, and I don't think I'll rise above the crowd. So I have to do it my own way. I'm good at certain things, bad at other things. I try to focus on whatever I perceive to be my strengths (probably foolishly assuming they are my strengths). Conventions and rules, I find only make me worse, they don't make my work better, unlike Guanto's experience. I just don't find concentrating on convention to hold any sort of benefit for me in my situation. But everyone's situation is different. I'm just giving you my situation.

Cheers
Aveek

ps. ooooof... good discussion. That was quite a lot of stuff.

 

[Guanto]

ps. ooooof... good discussion. That was quite a lot of stuff.

Agreed. Well done lads.

I'm also glad the OP got a little sumpin' sumpin' out of this.

And trueindie man I remember my first beer too. It doesn't mean your second one won't go down smoother based on a few ideals you may have reluctantly gleaned from an unwarranted typhoon of forum wordsmithing from yours truly.

Best of luck (Sincerely).

 

[FantasySciFi]

But let's say we disagree on whether they're outsiders or insiders. Do you have any example of an outsider, in the last decade that became an insider by embracing convention? (a time frame more applicable to us, as the industry landscape has changed since the days Tarantino and PTA were aspiring filmmakers)

Well, you could scroll through the roster of the Writers Guild and exclude those who also directed their own scripts. People are hired for television writing pools, script editors, readers, etc. all the time. You don't always see their names on blockbusters, if at all. Even 'reality tv' has writers. Production studios will engage readers and script consultants. Everyone passes through gatekeepers. Don't blame the gatekeepers. It's their job to keep the barbarians from Tinsel Town. And to be honest, 80-85% of the scripts I've read had far more serious problems than camera angles to warrant a pass.

So to answer your question, no, I can't. Everyone I know has been proactive and became an 'insider' before achieving box office success.

Writing is a personal style, so I respect your decisions. More to the heart of your question is "What is convention?" Different studios can have different conventions. Convention can have a broader interpretation as career path. For me, 'inside' means 'active in'. Many 'inside' writers started as readers, PAs, etc. As a gatekeeper, the reader's role is to enforce convention by embracing it. Being a gatekeeper automatically makes for an odd mix of 'outsider' and 'insider'. 'Outside' for many professionals means never having stepped on a film set or been active. By getting on the set as AD, actor, videographer, PA, and other roles, I learned about production which has helped inform my writing. It's true for many writer/directors. I strongly encourage other writers to do the same. The problem I see is that many people mistake an 'insider' for an 'outsider'.

If you want an example, consider Michael Arndt. Most people, hearing his story, would think he's an 'outsider' at first. In this Q & A he talks about his first script "Little Miss Sunshine". This talk on Fora.TV gives an excellent firsthand account. Pay attention to his points during the later Q&A. I have a great respect for him. Now for disclosure, he worked as an assistant to Matthew Broderick. Yes, he was also a reader. It was his girlfriend's agent at Endeavor who shared his script which secured him his own agent and contract deal. However, the point being he was active in the industry which helped to make connections. That doesn't happen if a writer chooses to not get involved, to remain 'outside' resting comfortably in an armchair. In that case, you need to already have established yourself with a multivolume book series and millions of fans.

Of course major films are written by 'insiders'. The "secret" to become an 'insider' is to do something inside the industry; there is no excuse for remaining an 'outsider' if one wants to be successful. It's so easy to do nowadays. Becoming an 'insider' isn't about embracing conventions but personal drive. If you're an 'outsider', you don't want it badly enough. Be forewarned that once an 'insider', while conventions are looser, performance expectations are higher.

 

[trueindie]

And to be honest, 80-85% of the scripts I've read had far more serious problems than camera angles to warrant a pass.

Exactly. Thank you. This is really the thrust of the point I usually try to make with filmmakers. There are 85% (for the sake of argument) other things wrong with the script/the movie/the lighting/the sound/the whatever, and the filmmaker is worried about the rules s/he read in a book written by someone who never wrote a winning screenplay or made a movie. We waste our time and energy, I think. But again, I've never written a winning screenplay or made a successful movie. So I'm full of it too . But that's really what gets me to discuss these things, when we say "this is the way, and you didn't follow this or that, so you're script/movie isn't good enough." Of course we should say these things when our films don't meed technical specifications, but c'mon. we spend too much time worrying about formatting and commas, and three point lighting, and not enough time discussing actors/acting and sound.

If you want an example, consider Michael Arndt. Most people, hearing his story, would think he's an 'outsider' at first. In this Q & A he talks about his first script "Little Miss Sunshine". This talk on Fora.TV gives an excellent firsthand account. Pay attention to his points during the later Q&A.

Thanks for the link. I'll watch it in full soon.

Be forewarned that once an 'insider', while conventions are looser, performance expectations are higher.

Now wouldn't that be a nice problem to have to worry about

Cheers

 

[Guanto]

Deceivers! Ya'll said this thread was winding down.

And to be honest, 80-85% of the scripts I've read had far more serious problems than camera angles to warrant a pass.

Spot on, but the takeaway got skewed.

What FantasySciFi likely meant is those scripts warranted a pass because they had both, or multiple, issues on both presentation and content. It's generally not one or the other exclusively because it is typically very hard to get to the content, no matter how good, if the presentation is clunky or distracting.

Exactly. Thank you. This is really the thrust of the point I usually try to make with filmmakers. There are 85% (for the sake of argument) other things wrong with the script/the movie/the lighting/the sound/the whatever, and the filmmaker is worried about the rules s/he read in a book written by someone who never wrote a winning screenplay or made a movie.

But you can't just blissfully ignore that worry... you have to really remove it... fix it. You will ALWAYS have to worry about all the other stuff you mentioned, and far more, with much of it being way out of your control or technical grasp. But not the former, that's easily eliminated before a single scene is blocked or second of footage is rolled. You can't will something to build itself, and you can't will people not to point out you should have used weld instead of solder if you do build it yourself. You can ignore all the people who point it out I suppose, but that's not working for you either, or I'd have no posts from you to read in this string.

Otherwise, as you are alluding to in theory and personal experience, a writer who bucked the basics in the name of punk rock or whatever is left wondering if that pass was indeed because the characters and story sucked (invaluable feedback on every level) or if it was because they didn't speaky the language? A 100% preventable fate... not unlike teen pregnancy.

For me, being left with that gut-wrenching what if worry was a far worse nightmarescape than the statistically probable pass itself, and that was motivation alone to get past it. And quickly I might add. This is all a very "no film school" obstacle. Far more do-able than things like kelvins, f-stops, color space, YC Waveforms and 180 degree rules, which ironically are probably given the utmost precedence and respect in shoots with purposely unconventional screenplays. I mean you can just type whatever and however you want on a piece of paper, who cares right, but when it comes to say getting proper exposure with the camera, well you have to do that "right" of course, so lets watch 100 tutorials on the correct order for color correction/grading and the correct settings for shutter speed when shooting 24p on a dslr, because that stuff is all techy it has to be by the book. Oh the irony. Alas, formatting and structure is the easy part, the vastly universal part. I eliminated it from my worry checklist straight away. I said to myself, Myself, remove all of these silly variables and chinks in the armor so that all you have to worry about is the story and the message... and it's success (however defined) on its own merit alone.

I didn't want to make a career of being bitter because a potential backer, producer, or lowly crewmember with some previous experience might care about standards and formatting issues in an established craft. That is not the arena I want to enter, in fact I wanted to rip even the most remote chance of them busting me on stupid stuff right out of their arsenal of weapons that are already poised to shoot me down anyway. It was the one advantage I had on the battlefield, something, a rarity I might add, that I and I alone could control. Mwah ha ha! Mwah ha ha ha ha! Now if I allow myself to become vulnerable for a moment an additional motivator for me is also that I didn't want to be embarrassed or perceived as an ill-informed leader to any of these people/connections/allies I may cross paths with in this autuer journey I am self selecting. In contrast, when conversations start up in the pub about working on cars, the NFL and politics I get uncomfortable and sheepish. My palms secretly sweat. I am out of my element and everyone around me seems to be in the know, on top of their game, and... well... damn it OK smarter than me. That's a shitty place to be in. So if I am going to make movies, or just write movies, well then I am going to make damn sure that is my thing. I'm going to own it and I am going to be the rockstar at the pub when that conversation comes up. This is what I want to do, I will master my domain and strive for greatness in all aspects, especially the fundamentals, because I can knock that out in my own time with 100% accuracy and nothing left to chance (as opposed to "Wait, you did get white balance right?"). And remember I am not talking about the big dumb blockhead in the tavern who can physically play football better than me, because thats the equivalent of me saying "Oh yeah, double click this file, see, I can make a better movie than you". Way too easy. No, no I'm talking about the guy that knows what all those flags and penalties and terms mean and everyone around him nodding their head and looking to him for answers and tips for the sportsbook and wondering why his fantasy football team (BTW is FF like Blood Bowl by GW?) is just mopping everyone up. I need to be that guy just as much.

I'll enter broken horse dead record mode, to say it's the same for anything really, but because it's art it sometimes can get a wild west free-for-all label on first approach, like there isn't a 101, which then results in repulsion and resistance upon realizing it's not a sandbox (although the story is!). I was on the frontlines when everyone went into HTML5 kicking and screaming. I remember when shooting in this frivolous "HD" stuff was just showing off and wasting resources. Most recently 'Save for Web' being removed from Photoshop CC 2015 was the end of the world. "Why do they keep changing stuff and adding more rules, I just want to create!" -- It seems I find myself looking in on this same old story unfolding more and more. I had to fight to climb out of that fishbowl and be looking at it from the outside though. I earned it... like Daredevil did from Stick. Strangely I wish I could apply these principals to other parts of my life where I'm far more foolish and stubborn and that have far greater ROI than screenwriting. Ah passion.

I've never read a book on screenplay writing, although I see it's been cited in this convo alot. I just went in with the attitude of how I approach any new skill. How do the fulltimers in the trenches do it day to day everyday, what is industry standard. I guess I didn't want to be the guy putting my meta tag data on the end of my html document instead of the top, just because Dreamweaver allows me to. I didn't want to be Gordon Ramsey adding sugar to my souffle last on my TV show if lowly housewives everywhere have been adding sugar first in their 10 X 10 kitchens for decades. I wanted to sit down at the Haufbro Hause and be able to tell a killer original German folktale without tripping over my words or being judged as the amerikanisch wanna-be who is pretending to be from the motherland, or knowing anything about it. I don't know if it's a When in Rome sorta mindset... or just a basic sense of wanting to first learn the language before weaving the tale. I was fortunate enough to have experiences, and peers, just barely skin deep enough in the industry to confer and confirm, but I swear my plan of attack was previously set in stone prior to their guidance and reassurance. And as I mentioned in an earlier diatribe, that feeling of confidence I got when I dropped my blueprints down was just worth everything to me, all of the effort and research and trial and error I front loaded on screenwriting, even if half of them had never seen a screenplay before... let alone worked on one.

I do still feel there is an unhealthy amount of fear and focus and glorification being put on "Look there's a maverick over here who made it and his spec script was actually about a sentient behemoth camera moving through the world told in POV". Man there are enough things against us in the world, consciously siding with a few lotto winning 1%ers who all had big friends, and since have refined their techniques after being "in" awhile, just lessens the already abysmal odds. And the effort spent on identifying and justifying them, that's time better spent on becoming the writer others will debate about.

But again, as always, if doing all of this strictly for ones self for the entirety of the process, and the people who are working off of whatever blueprints they are handed understand clearly what's happening, then it doesn't matter. But you then also have to be OK with your Script Supervisor calling you out in an interview.

However, the witch hunt is still not going to end, no matter how fast or far you run. Bear in mind you'll be in the same boat, different ocean, down the road with the same project. Because if you are handing an outside party a finished product, a completed film, then they will have to cut through a separate set of nasty variables before they can embrace (judge) your story... scary, sometimes subliminal (to the average audience) things like production value, acting, edits, music, look and feel, and all things technical. They've got a sea of shit to swim through before they can perceive your film as pure enjoyable escapism or pick up on its wit, or deep meaning. Well the same goes for when you are handing people "just" a screenplay, which is all we were talking about here to start with, they are going to have to chew through the fat to get to the meat. They will be judging it on formatting, and other issues, before they can ever get to your story. Not just because it didnt adhere to the basic (super easy) rules, but also because it inhibited them reading through and therefore envisioning a fluid, uninterrupted tale. Just like when YouTube sputters and stops when you're trying to watch something, or worse yet, like a commercial! Because desiring to read a story in a screenplay format, smoothly, is an inherent part of that discipline, now-a-days, and it's how people who read screenplays for a living, or as a scholar, or for fun (this is a fictitious category of human, sorry) are wired. Here is something to consider... just because you are better at some aspects of filmmaking, or they come easier to you, isn't a good reason to be OK with how one set of peers judges your project in a later phase (finished film) and not OK with how another set of people hold it to a different set of criteria in an earlier phase (screenplay). It's all the same. And yes, it's exhausting trying to be bullet proof if you are "doing it all". A building inspector walking through a new house with live wires hanging from the ceiling can't see the breathtaking Frank Lloyd Wright influenced architecture. It's like unboxing that table top game that seemed so cool but the rule set ends up being convoluted and impossible to follow. It's not laid out like the other rulesets you're used to reading. It destroys the whole experience and your gaming group loses interest and quickly moves on to the next game (Settlers of Catan? Wait, no, Space Hulk!) Or the video game that should have been so fun to play, but the GUI sucked balls so bad it rendered it unplayable. Why didn't they design it like the others that look slick and are so functional. Why didn't they listen to their player feedback in beta?

trueindie you yourself confessed here your dream is to have people give you feedback on a spec script that is void of formatting and best practice critiques. The power to achieve that dream is in your superior intellect and nimble fingertips.

You can't brainwash them into not seeing these things anymore than you can reprogram a debugging script to ignore error in your codes or Word to initially not underline bad grammar and spelling mistakes. Look at the comical trouble all the iSheep have with their overzealous autocorrects for crying outloud, it can't be stopped. And there's not enough bullets in the country to assassinate them all or to forcibly rig the jury at gunpoint before you step into the courtroom. Besides for everyone you kill two more pop up in their place.

You can however fight them using a reverse tactic. Simply give them nothing to take potshots at.... except your story.

 

[trueindie]

Holy sh*t Guanto . You're passion in a bag. And it's all good and positive and helpful passion too. Very nice sir.

I guess I am a When in Rome sorta guy... or just have a basic sense of wanting to first learn the language before weaving the tale.

...

I do still feel there is an unhealthy amount of fear and focus and glorification being put on "Look there's a maverick over here who made it and his spec script was actually about a sentient behemoth camera moving through the world told in POV".

...

I guess I didn't want to be the guy putting my meta tag data on the end of my html document instead of the top, just because Dreamweaver allows me to. I didn't want to add the sugar last if Betty Crocker took the time to publish hundreds of things that says I should add it first.

Okay. Let me just state, that I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. Nor am I putting in the sugar last, just because I can, even if Betty Crocker says to put it in first. I'm arguing my position because I actually don't agree with the position that seems to be the established position. I just don't agree with it.

I'm speaking from my position as a director (a position so far I've held in my head and in the movies I've directed). All I know my friend, is that when I read someone else's script, I like it better when camera moves are included. I don't have to agree with the moves, but if I have some idea of what the writer was thinking, I actually prefer it.

That's my position. That's why I prefer camera moves. It puts me closer to the head of the writer, whether I agree and maintain the vision or not. Not because I want to write some "look at this cool move" to impress anybody. (So if I become a famous director tomorrow, make sure you include camera moves HAHAHAH)

That's all man. But I will concede this much to you. Were I to re-write one of my scripts to send to a spec-reader, I'd probably take your advice and reformat everything, and get rid of the camera moves.

So I guess what I'm saying is... you're absolutely 100% correct.

But you then also have to be OK with your Script Supervisor calling you out in an interview.

Oh you should be on my set . It's pretty much my way or the highway. And that makes everybody upset. But for some reason, they stick with me (Some people I've worked with over 6 years, and they argue with me every minute. One guy wanted to hit me when we first met. He's the nicest guy on the planet, and I drove him crazy. He's helped me in almost every movie I've shot). And I don't do the my way or the highway thing just because I can. I do it, because I have more information about the script, the funding, the timing, and what I want to accomplish. They may be only thinking about the best lighting situation for that shot. But I know from experience, every time you add another light, there's going to be another "Hey, there's a reflection on that door, and we need to readjust" or some such mishap, which will set my shoot back another half hour, that I cannot afford. So as a director I "settle" which results in an argument with the DP, who is of course correct in his position. But so am I. And we're going to skip that light. And that's that. Because I only have 3 more hours to shoot at this location, and two other scenes to shoot. But that means I have an unhappy DP, and a shot that's not good enough. What can I do? My resources are limited.

And to get back to my point. IF I were to send my script anywhere, then yes, I think you are correct, and I would follow your advice and FSF's advice, and not mine. But as of now, that situation has not arisen. So I do whatever makes me happy. And camera angles make me fu**ing excited, to think about my movie that way. It makes me fu**ing happy. So I do it. (Edit: I only do it if it's necessary. In the movie I just shot, there are almost no camera moves. Except for one shot, everything is hand held. No moves to describe at all)

Cheers Guanto. Thank you for that awesome response. It felt like a genuine effort to correct the path of a stray. And you did all that without a single condescending tone. And it was truly appreciated. You're a true evangelist, a nice guy. There are not enough of you in the filmmaking community.

Welcome to indietalk indeed