Scene location - near one's house - how to write them?

[Inarius]

I need to write a scene which happens near one's house. Should I write:

EXT. NEAR MAX'S HOUSE - NIGHT

or

EXT. A STREET NEAR MAX'S HOUSE - NIGHT

or

EXT. ENTRANCE TO MAX'S HOUSE - NIGHT

or what?

P.S. I know that the 3rd option sound good, but the characters on the scene are NOT standing near the entrance - they walk TOWARDS the entrance, and only at the end of the scene they get there.

 

[Birdman]

I figured you would object to that (as I did once.) I've explained this before, you are intruding into the jurisdiction of the director/actor.

...If I wrote a Violin concerto, I write down every note the way I THINK it should be. It's MY frickin' concerto! Am I infringing on the director when I write "diminuendo" within a stanza? ...or " fortepiano"? These words create the mood I intended with my musical piece and the symphony director has the musicians follow those guidelines. Do the violinists choose their own "mood" or their own "notes" when playing my concerto? NO! They play the damned concerto the way it was written. If they want to do a "different" version, more power to them ...but it's not my concerto if they do. It's an "adaption" of my concerto.

If I'm writing a movie script and I'm telling a story, ...then just like a concerto or a painting ...I'm going to write the damned thing to convey MY ideas. If a director wants to come along later and change things, that's his call ...but he's going to have to change what I originally conceived.

For a Director to insist that I not include words that end in "ly" or any adjectives or adverbs is infringing on MY jurisdiction as a script writer.

I have many stories regarding changes from actual experience as a writer
who has sold scripts to a writer who has been hired to re-write scripts. But
you're already freaked out enough.

...Yeah, I'm fairly freaked out. More like disappointed. I can easily see why so few Spec-Script writers actually make it. After my first screenplay (which I frickin' LOVE) I am totally appalled by the industry and the strange method of thought that forms its chemical makeup. I'm just going to write a novel to go with my screenplay and let it go at that.

...It also explains why so few movies are truly good.


-Birdman

P.S. I notice throughout all of my diatribes, nobody ever seems to chime in to agree with me on these things I point out. These debates draw hundreds of views ...yet nobody ever posts up that they agree with me or even can relate to my observations. ....It's lonely living on planet Logic.

 

[rayw]

Nothing tops off discussing how six different "professionals" can have six different rules for "Non-Noob Scripting" more than a Doomsday follow-up post reminding us all how unimportant we all are as scriptwriters.

EXACTLY!!!

Dude with the money is important.

Dude in charge of spending the money is important.

Peeps that put butts in seats via marketing = revenue are important.

Words on paper or hard drive are... pfft. Thhp!



Creatively, I think very much like a story creator.
Practically, I think much more like a producer.

I've got $X to spend and eighteen ways to spend it.
The producer in me wins.
The writer in me that wrote the unrealized seventeen stories remains hopeful - as I write another two dozen stories.

 

[Birdman]

Dude with the money is important.

Dude in charge of spending the money is important.

Peeps that put butts in seats via marketing = revenue are important.

Words on paper or hard drive are... pfft. Thhp!

...Every person you just wrote about are all doing what they do because of the words that YOU wrote on paper. Without those words they have nothing.


Ray, ...as God as my witness I will prove you wrong!

-Birdman

 

[rayw]

...Every person you just wrote about are all doing what they do because of the words that YOU wrote on paper. Without those words they have nothing.

While your script is off at the critquers I've got a homework assignment for you.
Get a hold of the DVDs with director/producer/actor commentaries for:

• Salt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(2010_film) - http://www.joblo.com/scripts/Salt.pdf
• Green Zone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Zone_(film) - http://www.joblo.com/scripts/Green Zone.pdf
• The Expendables http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expendables_(2010_film) - http://www.joblo.com/scripts/expendables.pdf

Read the screenplays.
With paper and pen read their wiki development & production notes, then watch the movies with the commentaries turned on, and watch all the bonus features.
You should have two or three pages of notes for each film about decisions made on set, in production, and in editing.

Compare to the script.

Understand who is important and why.

Ray, ...as God as my witness I will prove you wrong!

Gopherit.

 

[maz]

I figured you would object to that (as I did once.)

I've explained this before, you are intruding into the jurisdiction of the director/actor. Roberto eating pizza is the correct way to write it. Simply put, the director/actor will choose how to act it out. Your explanations above are all none of the writer's business. By writing an adjective/adverb you are predisposing the reader to a certain way to portray the scene.

If you want a published expert to explain it, read Judith Weston's "Directing Actors" which has a section explaining why every director should cross out every adverb and adjective in a script's scene descriptions and blocking. It's a great book to read even if you are only planning on bing a writer. Probably worth more for your $$$ than a script reader.

I have to say I am dubious about this, as with just about any debate involving effective language use that invokes a supposed rule involving the word 'never' or 'always'. Adverbs are certainly overused in amateur creative writing (of which amateur screenwriting is just another form), but they still have their place and their uses. Yes, sometimes they may impinge on the director's role, but equally they are sometimes nothing short of essential to convey the action as it needs to be told. Over-zealous proscription in either direction is not conducive to effective writing, and is almost always a block on efficient communication, in my experience.

 

[maz]

P.S. I notice throughout all of my diatribes, nobody ever seems to chime in to agree with me on these things I point out. These debates draw hundreds of views ...yet nobody ever posts up that they agree with me or even can relate to my observations. ....It's lonely living on planet Logic.

I suspect it's because most people realise you're getting flustered over very little. Screenwriting format is easy, and made even easier by software packages that automate everything. If a script follows the main conventions and is free of egregious or excessive grammar/spelling errors, then I can't see any reader/producer/director turning their noses up at it just because you use INT/EXT when websites and blogs have different opinions about its use. There are very few showstopping syntax/compilation-style errors as there are in programming. Just concentrate on telling a good story, and making sure the script is written in an efficient and readable way following the basic conventions.

A similar thing applies to the way you bemoan the power of directors/producers over writers. It's the way it is, unless you're making the film yourself, so what's the point in getting annoyed over it? Screenwriters may be the star players (and while sometimes true, even that's debatable), but producers and directors run the sport.

 

[Inarius]

Why I can't write "is" or "are"? I don't get the problem here. This is not past tense. And why not "-ly"?
And why "we see", "we hear" is ok? WTF? We are audience, or readers. We don't see, hear, or take part in the story - the characters do. "Bob sees", or "Bob hears"... Seriously! As far as I know, screenplays must be present tense from third person. Where the hell "we" has come from?

 

[Birdman]

...Nixed my post.

-Birdman

 

[directorik]

Why I can't write "is" or "are"? I don't get the problem here. This is not past tense. And why not "-ly"?

You can. Some people don't like it. So what? Some people don't like
horror films - doesn't mean you can't write one.

And why "we see", "we hear" is ok? WTF? We are audience, or readers. We don't see, hear, or take part in the story - the characters do. "Bob sees", or "Bob hears"... Seriously! As far as I know, screenplays must be present tense from third person. Where the hell "we" has come from?

I don't like "we" in a script. Pulls me out of the story. Doesn't mean
a writer can't use "we"; doesn't mean if it's an excellent script I (as
a reader) will pass on it for that reason. But I don't like it.

 

[maz]

Why I can't write "is" or "are"? I don't get the problem here. This is not past tense. And why not "-ly"?
And why "we see", "we hear" is ok? WTF? We are audience, or readers. We don't see, hear, or take part in the story - the characters do. "Bob sees", or "Bob hears"... Seriously! As far as I know, screenplays must be present tense from third person. Where the hell "we" has come from?

It's not the use of "is" and "are" that are frowned upon, as much as the passive voice construction. This isn't because use of the passive is wrong (although lots of people will try to argue that, for some reason), but it is generally considered to detach the reader from the action, which is not recommended when you're trying to engage a reader in a story. As I mentioned earlier though, certain constructions exist in English for a reason, and there are times when they are unavoidable, and times when they are preferable. The huge 'amateur' sign, I would say, is using the passive voice to describe all the action in a screenplay.

But, as directorik says, if the story is good enough, it's still unlikely to be a dealbreaker.

"We see" and "we hear" is used a lot by amateurs when it isn't Bob hearing or seeing, but something the audience gets to see (the "we" is universal outside of the film). The problem with it is that it's inconsistent with the rest of how action is written in a screenplay, and can usually be avoided just by rephrasing the sentence.

But, as directorik says, if the story is good enough, it's still unlikely to be a dealbreaker.

 

[Birdman]

I will add that when I read MANY of the online movie scripts (yes, the ones made into movies) I read "We see" and "is" and "are" all over the place. As I also pointed out, the action blocks are very verbose and many times exceed the supposed "rule" of no more than 4 lines of action per paragraph.

Now the typical response when I point this shit out is, "Well, when you sell a bunch of movie scripts, then you can do the same."

My response to that is, as usual, "Well how the hell did they sell their first script in the first place if it was chocked full of Nooby-ass, rookie-looking formatting errors?"

I appreciate directorik's attempt of reassuring the new script writers that things are not as bad as it seems, but being the pragmatic realist that I am ...the facts don't seem to add up. What I see that "sells" DOES NOT MATCH UP with what we are told will sell.

Again, ..........fucked up industry.

- Birdman

 

[Inarius]

maz, what do you mean "passive"? As far as I know, passive is:

Bob feeds the dog = Active
The dog is fed by Bob = Passive

Or do you mean something else?

P.S. If a car explodes, I can write "The car explodes". If a rain begins, I can write "A rain begins". I don't understand why people write "We see as the car explodes" or "We see as the rain begins. It adds more excess words to the text and takes us away from the story.

 

[Birdman]

It's for substituting a camera cue. If you want to secretly direct a camera in your script you could use. "we see".

EXAMPLE:

Circling behind Bob, we see many people handing him papers. We see Bob getting smaller and smaller. We see thousands of people surrounding Bob as he shrinks even smaller.


....so the camera curved around Bob and then went upward to show a panoramic view. It can be written in other ways without "We see" but some feel this is a better way. ...I don't.

- Birdman

 

[directorik]

I appreciate directorik's attempt of reassuring the new script writers that things are not as bad as it seems, but being the pragmatic realist that I am ...the facts don't seem to add up. What I see that "sells" DOES NOT MATCH UP with what we are told will sell.

When you believe poor information you will be confused and freaked out.

You see with your own eyes, doing your own research what sells. Yet you
choose to believe the people who say if you do not follow their rules you
cannot sell a script.

Is that really a pragmatic realist?

 

[Birdman]

When you believe poor information you will be confused and freaked out.

You see with your own eyes, doing your own research what sells. Yet you
choose to believe the people who say if you do not follow their rules you
cannot sell a script.

Is that really a pragmatic realist?

...Ouch! Very good point. I will ponder that.


(I think I have addressed this more clearly in Fantasy Sci-Fi's post). The part about the "other professions".




-Birdman

 

[FantasySciFi]

A script is a "blueprint" not a "computer program". As a programmer myself, I know the difference. But even using your analogy, there are similarities.

As a programmer, you have a choice of data structures to choose from--queues, trees, lists, stacks, etc. Programming style dictates that you be clean and document what you write. If you compare the program of an experienced programmer with a new programmer you will see worlds of difference.

A new programmer often has tons of commented code with unoptimized features and makes poor use of data structures or algorithms (a bubble sort as compared to a heap sort, for instance). Programs are often longer then needed and tend to rely on "cheap memory and computational power". They tend to have a disdain for more experienced programmers.

Experienced programmers tend to have programs which rely more on optimization to accomplish tasks more efficiently with more speed and less memory. They tend to build in error checking and reuse objects. The comments are more directed at troubleshooting. They often are more flexible using the appropriate language for the task rather than the language they learned in school.

In programming the goal is a fast, light weight, memory efficient application. A script is no different. Most new writers get a new tool and use it for everything. Most new programmers do the same thing--"Pascal is the language for everything! Python is the language for everything! etc."

For me, a script is a "blueprint". A good writer lays out the story in a compelling style (art) that can be quickly realized as a movie (craft). As anyone who has done construction knows, a blueprint can be altered when it conflicts with zoning requirements. The final interior decoration may also change its appearance. While load bearing walls stay the same, a hole may be punched through for an entryway if that's what the new homeowner wants. It doesn't mean the script is "valueless" but the builder and/or homeowner have the final say, not the architect. Like writer/directors, architect/builders have much more control over the appearance of the final blueprint's realization.

Let me be clear, being identified as a "new writer" or "noob" doesn't mean that a script will be rejected. It does mean that it will probably need to be re-written or handed off to another more experienced writer before it can be produced. As Directorik and I have repeatedly said, most "rules" are really guidelines to help new writers be successful--save them from themselves. The less work a producer has to do to go from script to screen, the more likely the writer is to sell his/her script. Hopefully that is what the writer wants. If a writer truly wants a faithful representation, then s/he needs to produce it.

Just like any field, writing 'style' fluctuates. There will always be hold-outs. In programming, there are those who hold steadfast to COBOL and FORTRAN and eschew C/C++ and newer languages. For screenwriters, stacked action statements, Blackisms, etc. go in and out of fashion. However, it's important to bear in mind the purpose of a script is to be made into a profitable movie.

Like large companies running legacy mainframes, Hollywood studios keep turning out the products that made the money in the past. It may be shortsighted, but IBM does the same thing with its products. Try selling your app directly to a software firm and you'll probably be ignored. Sell it online successfully, and suddenly Google or another company will buy it off your hands for millions. Newer firms are coming in and making millionaires, just like many indie studios. Often they are inventor/CEOs like our writer/directors. Just as some apps do surprisingly well, so do some scripts. Most, however, do not. It's just about whim of the marketplace. A reader, like a consultant, will suggest how to 'tighten up your code' and 'position your product' to be more successful in marketing.

@Inarius: I can only repeat my advice regarding location. Write from the perspective of the camera. If you're watching the action from inside the vehicle, use INT. If from outside, use EXT. If the action is happening on the other side of a transparent barrier (X is inside while Y is acting outside, or vice versa), use I./E. These situations are extremely rare. Again, no one will reject your script because of which one you use if you have a great story. The purpose is to help create a suggestion of camera perspective. It will be the FINAL DECISION of the DIRECTOR how to shoot a scene unless you choose to be the writer/director. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Extensive use of I./E. is like using "GOTO" statements all through a program to direct program flow. Often there is a better, more direct way. I try to encourage new writers not to get hung up on details or over think a situation. Often there is no exact right or wrong, just more preferred ways that make a script more easy to sell.

There is nothing wrong with adverbs and adjectives. But as pointed out, there are different views by those who produce movies that actually need to use the scripts. What a writer/director puts in the script reflects their personal style that they will actually want to see. What a writer puts into a script is basically a recommendation. Like it or not, it's the reality. If I option your script and it says "frantically eating pizza" and I decide that he's leisurely chomping on a burger, guess who has final say.

I had an art teacher tell me, I need to add blue and red to my white clouds. What? Clouds are white. But when she took the brush and showed me, it made them stand out and look realistic. The same is true with any writing. Artists will differ in aesthetics. For new artists, perspective and proportion are often the biggest challenges. How do you make something look "close" and not just "big". Or use 3 point perspective in a scene. New screenwriters have the same problems. Not that the idea behind the composition is bad, it just doesn't show the balance and development. You don't need to be an artist to see when something is 'unaesthetic' or the artist has potential but hasn't fully developed his/her talent. If you want to show a piece in a gallery, it needs to be visually appealing or you need to have your own gallery. Producers are just as discriminating. Just because you think your work is a genius doesn't mean that gets into a gallery. Nor does it mean the critics will agree.

Everyone starts as a newbie or 'noob'. That doesn't mean rejection. It means extra work will be needed by whoever options your script. And depending on the producer, they may think it's worth it. However, it comes down to money. If you want to make money selling your script, you want to look as professional as possible. You want to move from query letter, to script request, to option/sale, to re-write/finish, and to production. For most writers, the goal is to get to the money part (option/sale). Many scripts are optioned/bought but are never made into movies. If it gets that far, it's the proverbial icing on the cake.

 

[Inarius]

Circling behind Bob, we see many people handing him papers. We see Bob getting smaller and smaller. We see thousands of people surrounding Bob as he shrinks even smaller.

....so the camera curved around Bob and then went upward to show a panoramic view. It can be written in other ways without "We see" but some feel this is a better way. ...I don't.

Of course there are other ways.

Many people hand papers to BOB.

As far as I know, if you want the camera to focus on a character/object/sound/effect, you can write the target's name in Caps. No need camera directions, and thus no "we see". That's not the screenwriter's job.

When you believe poor information you will be confused and freaked out.

You see with your own eyes, doing your own research what sells. Yet you
choose to believe the people who say if you do not follow their rules you
cannot sell a script.

Is that really a pragmatic realist?

That's a good point. I just remember an Ukrainian businessman saying, - "To make a business profitable, the first priority must be on what should be done, not on what should be avoided".

 

[Birdman]

First off, I commend you (FSF) and Directorik for some astute commentary.

(1) If you compare the program of an experienced programmer with a new programmer you will see worlds of difference.

(2) A new programmer often has tons of commented code with unoptimized features and makes poor use of data structures or algorithms.

(3) Experienced programmers tend to have programs which rely more on optimization to accomplish tasks more efficiently with more speed and less memory. They tend to build in error checking and reuse objects. The comments are more directed at troubleshooting. They often are more flexible using the appropriate language for the task rather than the language they learned in school.

Okay, I highlighted these programmer references in your follow-up. You have very clearly illustrated the difference between a noobie programmer and a more experienced one. I did interactive programming using Asymetrix Toolbook Instructor for training classes and DHTML websites. I agree with all that you have said.

Now, ....what if you (as an experienced programmer) found that when you finally made it to the top of the programming food chain (like IBM, Microsoft or Google), that most all of the programs you encountered were constructed the same way that all of the noobie inexperienced programmers did?

In just about EVRY PROFESSION I can think of, the more professional and "rule following" you are, the higher classification you get in that field.

Take "Billiards" or "9 Ball".

When I started out shooting pool, ...I sucked! I made all the stupid mistakes one usually makes. After I read books, studied technique, observed the 9-ball masters and watched their videos ...I got much better. When you get to the top of the food chain in pool shooting world, you find the very best competitors and they ALL have CLEARLY DEFINED PRFESSIONAL TECHNIQUE! You wont find ANYONE in a national championship competition who uses "nooby" technique or sloppy strategies.

Same goes for Bowling. Same goes for darts. Same goes for Basketball, Baseball, Football ...You name it!

It seems like "Screenplay Script Writing" is in its own special little world where you learn, learn, learn to do the right things, perfect your scripting, sharpen your technique and master your skills ....only to find the upper crust of the Hollywood screenplays resemble the noobie shit you did waaaaay back in the beginning.

...So this is why I say it's "Fucked up".

For me, a script is a "blueprint". A good writer lays out the story in a compelling style (art) that can be quickly realized as a movie (craft). As anyone who has done construction knows, a blueprint can be altered when it conflicts with zoning requirements. The final interior decoration may also change its appearance. While load bearing walls stay the same, a hole may be punched through for an entryway if that's what the new homeowner wants. It doesn't mean the script is "valueless" but the builder and/or homeowner have the final say, not the architect. Like writer/directors, architect/builders have much more control over the appearance of the final blueprint's realization..

...I had my house built from a blueprint. The builders modified the hell out of the blueprints to make "special things" that I wanted to happen. They added 2 extra feet to the basement so I could work on my paintings along with a myriad of other changes.

When I walk out to the street and look at my house ......IT STILL looks just like the blueprints indicated it would. Sure, many things changed, but the house I saw in the illustration is the one that's sitting on my lot right now!

Now YOUR definition of a Screenplay being a "blueprint" is completely different than Rayw's, Chimps and several others. Their version of a "blueprint" is that I write a damned screenplay. The "Director" comes along and scraps everything I wrote and substitutes his own. My "vision" regarding the movie is tantamount to NOTHING!

If I take Chimp's, Rayw's and the other's take on what a "blueprint" is and apply it to the "house building world" ....the house ends up being something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the blueprint. It doesn't look anything like the original illustration.


So who's right? ...You? ....Chimp? .........Rayw? ...............Nobody?

Why can't you all agree on something as basic as what a Screenplay actually is?



-Birdman

 

[maz]

maz, what do you mean "passive"? As far as I know, passive is:

Bob feeds the dog = Active
The dog is fed by Bob = Passive

Or do you mean something else?

P.S. If a car explodes, I can write "The car explodes". If a rain begins, I can write "A rain begins". I don't understand why people write "We see as the car explodes" or "We see as the rain begins. It adds more excess words to the text and takes us away from the story.

Yes, that is what is meant by passive and I assume that is what the references to "is" and "are" concern. There are times when it is essential, or advisable, or preferable, but generally it distances the reader from the scene when the reader should be drawn in.

 

[maz]

It seems like "Screenplay Script Writing" is in its own special little world where you learn, learn, learn to do the right things, perfect your scripting, sharpen your technique and master your skills ....only to find the upper crust of the Hollywood screenplays resemble the noobie shit you did waaaaay back in the beginning.

...So this is why I say it's "Fucked up".

There are two explanations for what you observe. Firstly, the publicly available scripts for Hollywood movies are likely to be shooting scripts, rather than the first speculative approach, or are written by someone commissioned to write the script in the first place. If you know you're already being paid for a script, then you don't need to work to sell it by sticking quite so rigidly to arcane style recommendations.

Secondly, I'd say there's arguably another principle at work, namely that you have to know the rules to break the rules. Experienced writers who know what should be avoided and why can navigate the minefield of acceptability perfectly well in a way that a noob can't. Their scripts share stylisitic idiosyncracies, perhaps, but in terms of the point of a script (telling a story efficiently), they are most likely leagues apart.

And again, screenwriting is not science. There is no holy grail of the correct way to write anything. There are a few conventions, and there is personal style. Beyond that, the only thing that matters is STORY.