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

Formatting Question

Recently I've read a book called "You Screenplay Sucks: 100 Ways to Make It Great" and there was a strong advice to get rid of as much "the" in a script as possible.

So, here's the question: is it acceptable to not use articles before character's names such as BARMAN, COP #1 and etc.

Thank you in advance.
 
Yep.
Whenever possible clip your writing as short as barely possible.

The Cop enters the saloon and he walks up
to the barman behind the counter. The Barman
silently wipes glasses with a grimmace thinking
to himself he hopes the Cop isn't going give
him bad news.
<--- This last segment is called an "unfilmable" because you can't film what someone is thinking!
........................COP
.........Your missing wife has been found.

........................BARMAN
.........You're not going to bring her back,
.........are you?

........................COP
.........Isn't that what you wanted?

The Barman sets the glass down on the counter.

........................BARMAN
.........Not really. I tried pretty hard to get
.........her to run away in the first place.


Don't include anything in red.

Big time noobie error is to make a screenplay a narrow novel full of elaborate descriptions.
 
Last edited:
Wow.

With all the people writing books about screenwriting the “rules”
are getting more and more strange. Now “the” is considered bad
form?
 
It's a tough crowd. :grrr:

The good news is that bolding and underlining are increasingly acceptable!



And, of course, these nit picky industry "preferences" ONLY apply to spec scripts.
When it comes to playing writer/director - put in whatever you want.

That said, the better you get in this game and the more pre-professionals and semi-professionals that start looking at the screenplay it'd be increasingly important to begin adhering to industry standards.
You don't wanna look like an ignorant slob with a camera and a boom pole.
Game play goes on with script readings by both cast and crew.
Not to mention potential producers and financiers.
 
Last edited:
I live in Los Angles and I work in the business. One of the jobs I
have had is as a reader covering scripts. I have covered for
agents, small prodCo’s, producers with studio deals and studios. I
have read many of the screenwriting books - by no means all - and
have found that most of the “rules” to make a script great are
from the minds of the book writer. And they are irrelevant.

I have my preferences, I have my peeves. I’m glad to offer my
opinion on messageboards. But I have not written a book passing
off my years of experience as a reader as a set of “rules”.

If a guy Akers can make money telling writers how to make their
script great, I applaud him. And if any writer feels removing
“the” makes their script great (or even better) then that’s a good
thing.

To be fair I read some of the book on Amazon. His 100 list looks
fine. All good things for a writer to consider. And on the last
page of his introduction he quotes one of my top five favorite
films. Then he paraphrases that line: If you follow the checklist,
by the time you finish this books, you’ll be a better writer. I
have no beef with the writer. Good for him for making some money
writing a book.

I have read excellent spec scripts from unproduced writers who
break all the “rules” and I have read terrible scripts written by
writers who carefully read all the books and follow all the
“rules”.
 
Ray did a great example. Just BE CAREFUL that you don't drop out so much, that it reads like a text message. I read a recent script that required epic guessing to figure out what the writer meant.

The idea is that lots of what we say verbally is redundant. Many writers put down on paper exactly as they talk which makes the script unnecessarily long. If you look across genres and time periods, you'll see a huge range of what scriptwriters do in very successful scripts.

The Coen Brothers' scripts differ in style from Tarantino's (modern action). You'll see differences between comedies and drama. In general, you want to be succinct but not to the point of being telegraphically obscure.

If you carefully read Ray's example, you'll see everything he cut was superfluous. Reading only the black, it still reads like regular English. Here's an example of what not to do:
Code:
ORIGINAL:
     MAN, GIRL in car f**king.  RING TONE.  GIRL phone purse.

                        GIRL
          F**K!  It's my husband.

     Nibbles neck.  Phone falls.  MOANS.
This is a pretty intense scene but it really is so choppy it is hard to follow. Its unclear who and what is happening on the first read. The reason for being brief is to convey information so the reader/viewer doesn't have to re-read the segment. "Girl phone purse"? Who moans? Who's nibbling whose neck?
Code:
TELESCOPED:
       MAN f**ks GIRL in car.

       Phone rings.

       GIRL paws her phone from purse to see caller while MAN thrusts.

                       GIRL
           F**K!  It's my husband

      MAN nibbles her neck.  Phone falls.  Girl moans.
Still tight but it conveys a bit better the flow of action.

Also be very careful of taking any screenwriting advice too literally. Writers are like pidgeons. Whatever works for them even once becomes superstitiously locked inside their heads as the only way to ensure continued success even if that had nothing to do with it. If you're writing a screenplay that you will film, learn how to tell a good story and properly format it, but you don't need to go crazy. If you are sending it off, you need to be very top on format and story but recognize your audience--the reader or studio exec--needs to get the idea fast. (The idea that every studio exec is illiterate and likes clipped sentences is an overgeneralization. Plus to even get that far, it needs to pass through very literate readers!)

It's invaluable to read books because eventually you see the commonalities. Story, structure, format all begin to become synergistic. It is VERY IMPORTANT to read LOTS of actual scripts. That is really where you see theory in practice. And where you see every "sacred rule/advice" given by a scriptwriting guru is violated with equal success. Write concise, clean sentences. Don't be afraid to use adverbs (-ly) but limit them. They can be crutches. The only other area where you will find differences is expressing motivation.

Ray wrote about "unfilmable" shots. In general, you never write what can't be seen. However, it is sometimes necessary to convey context for the actor and reader. It all depends on your script and how you present it. Ray wrote:
Code:
The Barman  silently wipes glasses with a grimace [color="red"]thinking 
to himself he hopes the Cop isn't going give him bad news.[/color]

Ray is 100% right that you can't see inside the characters head. If you write "We see/hear..." or "He/She thinks ...", you need to stop and look at that. You have the option of describing how the barman would act--"glances up anxiously then focuses intent on scrubbing the glass." Your second option is just to add the comment.
Code:
The BARMAN silently wipes glasses with a grimace.  His body tightens
anticipating bad news.

                   - OR -

The BARMAN wipes the glasses with a silent grimace, bracing himself
for bad news.
Again, the action is tied in with the motivation. In writing the script, we are telling a story but we are also offering guidance to the actor and director. You will find gurus who will argue against that as well, but in my experience, actors are grateful for some guidance in creating subtext. DON'T tell them how to act but give general information. And by creating action lines along shots, we are helping the directors visualize. That doesn't mean either will take what we've written and follow it, but it gives a blueprint to start the building process.

Write well and write it to be readable. Good luck.
 
Tip top legit points & perspectives, gentlemen.


Now, a writer should know he/she's getting into ridiculous territory when they start debating the merits and weaknesses of separating with periods or stringing with commas.

To use FantasySciFi's example:
Code:
MAN nibbles her neck.  Phone falls.  Girl moans.

versus...

Code:
MAN nibbles her neck, phone falls, girl moans.

Yeah. That's getting sorta ridiculous.
Sorta.

Pick one and be consistent with it.
or
Pick one. Be consistent with it.
or
Pick one, be consistent with it.
:lol:

There's some infinitesimal nuance between reading the difference between these, but here's the deal with spec scripts: readers (production assistants) are very often capricious gatekeepers to their direct bosses, the director or producer.
If you irritate the delicate eyes of the reader for weenie format etiquette transgressions the screenplay may be shelved a few pages in.
I haven't experienced this, but I've run across many stories of such.

"Well... What about the actual STORY?"

Yeah, that baby kinda got thrown out with the bathwater.

However, in the defense of the delicately eyed readers/PAs, first, they got a job to do and that's not wasting the boss' time with rubbish, second, if a writer doesn't respect the trade enough to consistently adhere to format conventions there's a good chance the story structure, plot points, character development and a whole litany of structural elements are FUBAR and the reader is justified in cutting their losses.

If your date can't even brush her teeth and hair do you really wanna go down town?
For really?
There's a stack of other product competing for their time and attention.
stack%20of%20screenplays.thumbnail.png
 
Last edited:
Most readers are paid professionals. Of course you read the few
and far between “horror” stories because no one writes about the
“standard” and the “usual”.

I know I get defensive when it comes to readers and this is
exactly why. For every 50 readers doing their job well there is
one who does a poor job. For every 200 scripts that get a “pass”
because the script is not good enough, there is one pissed off a
writer. That writer tells the story of the “delicate” reader who
passed on their script because of a few broken “rules” and that
story is spread around.

You haven’t experienced it Ray and neither have I. I have been a
reader (never a PA) and I have known and still know many readers.
I have never met one whose eyes are so delicate that they shelve a
good script because of some broken “rules”. Never. I have worked
for bosses who have fired readers because they do not do their
job. Each time that script is covered again buy a reader who takes
their job as seriously as the writer did.

Sorry for the rant.

The main reason scripts are passed on is because they are not
good. These rules, told over and over again by writers selling
books do not come into play when covering scripts. And neither
does the delicate eyes of a reader. Did you know that most companies
pay the reader a nice bonus if a script they sent up to their boss
is optioned? We LOVE finding great script that our bosses like.

And now I read a new rule or guideline or suggestion to avoid
"the".
 
No rant apology needed.
I 100% believe you and would encourage others to follow your lead on the subject to mine.

You experience trumps my anecdotes by exponential factors.

And "most" stories submitted DO suck!
I have read enough of those to tell a few pages in. :)
 
If you irritate the delicate eyes of the reader for weenie format etiquette transgressions the screenplay may be shelved a few pages in.
I haven't experienced this, but I've run across many stories of such.

Neither have I. And the readers I've worked with aren't picky about such details. The major issues are large, repeated formatting blunders--typos, misuse of words, grammatical errors, gross misspacing, etc. I haven't met too many readers with delicate eyes.

I hear such stories too, then I read the manuscripts they submitted. It's not because of minor issues such as punctuation but egregious problems of pacing, spelling, story and structure.

Often writers who are rejected are equally superstitious and attribute rejection to petty reasons which never seem to include their own poor writing. I've dumped scripts, not because of punctuation, but because the writing is just bad. Readers don't have the luxury of giving writers feedback. As Ray points out, there is always a stack of potentials.

The good news is that practice does make a better writer. And that these books, despite sometimes ridiculous suggestions, do help.

Going back to Kebab's original question: "is it acceptable to not use articles before character's names such as BARMAN, COP #1 and etc.?"

When you treat a job as a proper name, yes, drop the "the". We wouldn't say "The TOM picks up a glass." In that case "BARMAN picks up a glass." If you use it like a general noun, using "the" is okay. "The barman ...". If the barman is going to be a major character with a name, you might as well give him a name in the beginning. "TOM WELLS (30s), the barman, picks up a glass."
 
It's really useful information. Thank you everyone.

Due to you experience as a reader, Directoric , may I ask you one little question? Is it OK to always write character names in caps?
I feel like it makes reading easier.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you, Fantasy. I have a character in a script whose
only “name” is Stranger. I use that as his name - never using “the
Stranger”. I can’t imagine why it is considered proper script
format to drop “the” when using Cop or Barman as in the example
ray posted.

If it is, and if this is being taught by Akers in his book then
all I can really muster is; Wow.

If you irritate the delicate eyes of the reader for weenie format etiquette transgressions the screenplay may be shelved a few pages in.
I haven't experienced this, but I've run across many stories of such.
We all hear these stories. Have any of us ever read the script in
question? The assumption of these stories is readers are so (picky,
delicate, petty, hard-assed, jealous) they shelve good script because
of any format error. Yet I have never read any of the script that
are the subject of these stories.

One would think that a year or so later, when the writer has finally
reached some success he would mention this in an interview and
show the script and the "weenie format etiquette transgression" that
caused his otherwise good script to be shelved.

I would like to submit for consideration that this had never actually
happened. I'm not saying every reader is perfect - I'm not even
suggesting that no reader has ever suck a good script out of spite.
I'm wondering how much trust we should put into these stories.

Kebab, using uppercase draws attention and in my opinion slows
down the read rather than making it easier. Since the 1970's the
character name is in caps on the first introduction and never again.
 
"MAN nibbles her neck. Phone falls. Girl moans." Let's say this example is from a GREAT script. But, it's written like this "The man nibbles at her neck. She drops the phone and MOANS". I believe that a reader would be able to see that it's a GREAT script, and look past the THE and sentence structure. If they can't, then they SUCK at their job. But, thankfully some readers aren't morons, and someone will eventually realize it's a great script and it will be sold.

If you go to some of these script review sites and just look at the first few pages of these scripts, you'll see why "formatting" is important. But, these "No The" rules are IMO optional. Writing a "competent" screenplay is HARD. Show don't tell is hard to accomplish. That's why so many scripts are passed on.

To defend the "No The" rule would be if a writer goes overboard with their description. I've seen many scripts good and bad ones where this happens. For example "The man nibbles her rosy red juicy neck. The phone falls from her manicured fingers and bounces off the leather interior. She MOANS blah blah blah.

Write a compelling story where the story is told not shown, and eventually with a lot of hard work, it should find a buyer.
 
I would like to submit for consideration that this had never actually
happened. I'm not saying every reader is perfect - I'm not even
suggesting that no reader has ever suck a good script out of spite.
I'm wondering how much trust we should put into these stories.
So, it's mostly an screenwriting equivalent to an urban legend.
No kidney thieves.
No giant albino alligators in the sewers.
No petty readers.

Sounds very good to me.

I'll discontinue spreading such deceptions.
 
Just one more question. I've read on one site that names of characters which don't have any dialogues should always be written in lower-case. Is that true? I've never heard of it before.
By the way, when an animal character appears, should I write its name in caps?
 
Last edited:
Still on topic, sort of. It was suggested not only to read books about screenplay writing, but to also read screenplays. Any suggestions on sites to get screenplays? I've looked on Amazon, and picked up 1. But most of what I see on Amazon, look more like transcripts of what eventually was the final cut of the movie. I'd like to see the original script, which has all scenes (those that made it into the final cut, and those that didn't).

Thanks for a point in the right direction,
Jeff
 
1 - All characters that have more than a token "man in the background" or "doorman" presence in the story need at least an all caps first reference, but certainly no description.

Code:
Dick and Jane approached the Manhattan condo entry, greeted by the doorman.

               DOORMAN
     Good evening, Mr. Smith and
     Mrs. Jones

               DICK
     Good evening, James

               JANE
     Good night, James

As they entered they didn't notice the man with a teacup dog.

Now, if that man with the teacup dog becomes significant - then you might all cap THE MAN.
And certainly if James the doorman is to become a notable character, like in THE GRADUATE, then you'd at some point all cap either JAMES or DOORMAN.
Otherwise, if it's just a one off (could very well end up on the cutting room floor, so to speak these days) then don't worry about it.


2 - Animal characters definitely do receive all cap introductions. Their deviance from humanity does not exclude them from the identification of characters.
If you had pots and pans playing bridge with the plates and glasses they'd all have ALL CAP intros.

Fair enough?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12721428/Professional-Screenplay-Formatting-Guide
 
Yeah, with minor characters we're almost splitting hairs in the subjective territory.

How minor is minor?
Is one line of dialog minor enough to exclude?
Are two minor actions equal to one minor dialog?
If the person says "Yeah" and "No", and that's it, is he/she REEEALLY a "Character"?

I dunno.
On the scene judgement call. :)
 
Back
Top