I'm reading this script, and ...

[WriteumCowboy]

It would never make it through the maze of an unknown writer trying to get someone in Hollywood to read it. The first 7 pages are descriptive action sequences over a period of time and with NO dialog. Dialog starts on page 7.

It's 132 pages long.

There are 20 "Cut to:" 's in the first 12 pages.

There are loads of "FRONT ANGLE.CU. "PROTAGONIST'S" FACE", WIDE ANGLE, THE SCREEN GOES BLACK

There are no descriptions of the characters.

Quite a few, "we see"'s in the descriptive narrative.

"Protagonist is now sitting with a nice, mild mannered man:"

The writer uses characters such as "OLDER MAN(50S), YOUNG MAN (AROUND 15), MAN, ANOTHER MAN, MARRIED MAN, WOMAN, etc.

Oh, by the way. This writer, who is also the Director, has a very good, or even impressive, resume on IMDB. As a director, he is said to be one of the most up and coming directors as of today.

By the way...the script is very enjoyable to read and looks pretty damn good after just 18 pages. Good for the writer, cause if I tried that (and I have) I get ripped a new one by the script analyzers, screenwriting teachers and critics.

I have the script because I'm auditoning for a bit part.

Guess Wm.Goldman was right....."nobody knows nothing".

I just keep thinking about the Hollywood readers who would dump the script after the first couple of pages. They would have missed a good script in what is looking like a great story.

Well, at least it's greenlighted, has a well know director and an Oscar winning actor attached to start.

 

[Lilith]

And you are auditioning... Way to go! Best of luck, break a leg, etc.

 

[Unknown Screenwriter]

Hmmm...

It would never make it through the maze of an unknown writer trying to get someone in Hollywood to read it. The first 7 pages are descriptive action sequences over a period of time and with NO dialog. Dialog starts on page 7.

It's 132 pages long.

There are 20 "Cut to:" 's in the first 12 pages.

There are loads of "FRONT ANGLE.CU. "PROTAGONIST'S" FACE", WIDE ANGLE, THE SCREEN GOES BLACK

There are no descriptions of the characters.

Quite a few, "we see"'s in the descrtpive narrative.

"Protagonist is now sitting with a nice, mild mannered man:"

The writer uses characters such as "OLDER MAN(50S), YOUNG MAN (AROUND 15), MAN, ANOTHER MAN, MARRIED MAN, WOMAN, etc.

Oh, by the way. This writer, who is also the Director, has a very good, or even impressive, resume on IMDB. As a director, he is said to be one of the most up and coming directors as of today.

By the way...the script is very enjoyable to read and looks pretty damn good after just 18 pages. Good for the writer, cause if I tried that (and I have) I get ripped a new one by the script analyzers, screenwriting teachers and critics.

I have the script because I'm auditoning for a bit part.

Guess Wm.Goldman was right....."nobody knows nothing".

I just keep thinking about the Hollywood readers who would dump the script after the first couple of pages. They would have missed a good script in what is looking like a great story.

Well, at least it's greenlighted, has a well know director and an Oscar winning actor attached to start.

Well no offense but it sounds exactly like a shooting script and IN a shooting script, ANYTHING GOES. That means it's already been read by the readers, broken down, modified into a shooting script.

Additionally, you say that the writer/director is heavily credited on IMDB... Meaning he has a reputation. Any writer who has an established reputation can get away with using the WE SEES... Since he's also the director and has a reputation, he already knows what he wants so he can describe the characters as bleak as he likes. In other words, producers and studios already have a certain amount of TRUST invested in this guy so whatever he wants, he gets.

Michael Mann can write a script in the worst possible manner and any studio would jump at the chance to finance it. He can have as many: "FRONT ANGLE.CU. "PROTAGONIST'S" FACE", WIDE ANGLE, THE SCREEN GOES BLACK --as he wants and nobody at the studio level will care because they know that based on percentages, he's going to make a successful film.

The same goes for all reputable writer/directors with established careers and reputations.

With respect to William Golman's quote...

NOBODY KNOWS NOTHING... He wasn't talking about screenplay formatting or writing... He was talking about how nobody in Hollywood or anywhere else knows what kind of movie is going to be successful at the boxoffice.

EDIT: I forgot to mention... Good luck with the audition...

filmy

 

[WriteumCowboy]

I wonder if there were any readers involved.

I stated that as is, whether a shooting script or not (I refer to these as a production script), the writer still breaks a lot of "rules" but the story stands on it's own. Anyone who reads the script entirely can see the great promise it holds, especially since the director was the writer. One can also see that the directions of camera angles were in the original drafts and not added as an after thought. Since the writer knew he was directing, it seems very appropriate. As a director it only enhances the reading enjoyment, and education for me.

My point was that those in favor can break all the rules they want, but still the point is that the "readers" who would have been the gatekeepers of an unknown writer would have canned the script before they read it.

The final point is this is a great script and I am learning a lot form it on content, progression and development of story and how the writer is creating a great conflict within the protagonist. I'm curious to see how it is resolved.

As for Bill Goldman's quote, am I breaking a rule by taking it out of context and applying it to a different situation that seems to me to be appropriate? If so, maybe Wm. will forgive me.

Filmy, I do not want to get into a pissing match with you. I only wanted to speak about an interesting subject matter (to me, at least) and if you were the one to take offense, I'm sorry you did.

RR

 

[clive]

One of my favorite screenplays is "Withnail and I" by Bruce Robinson, I read it often and in it Bruce breaks every rule it is possible to break about writing a screenplay.

He has these huge dense action sequences that are impossible to film, and contain additional jokes, just to amuse the reader.

The film rambles, it's distinctly lacking in structure and the style it's written in is novelic rather than screenplay.

Of course when Bruce wrote this he'd done it off the back of writing "The Killing Fields" and fundamentally could do no wrong.

But there are two important points, the first is that Bruce Robinson's dialogue and characterisations are so superb that, like FIlmy said in another thread, "The quality shines through."

The other one is more personal -- I've always been a good writer -- have won a shed load of awards for it -- but, using Bruce's approach to formatting and writing screenplays has always led to rejection by the industry.

Now I had two eye openers last year, the first was completing a £350,000 feature film that wouldn't sell, the other was sending out my screenplay to a producer [directorik] on this board who very generously told me it that "because of the formatting it was difficult to read."

[This is the same screenplay that is now getting lots of producer attention since I rewrote and reformatted it]

Now, to put this into perspective, my screenplay for No Place [my completed feature] contained all the elements that you mention occur in the screenplay that you're auditioning for. A generous helping of "WE SEES," huge lumps of description and a non-traditional protagonist who is killed by the antagonist without consequence at the end of the movie.

My cast loved the script, the lead actor in it was a Mobil Award Winning Playwrite and he thought it was the best thing he'd read in years.

However, the truth is that the script had three killer faults:

1) The protagonist had no personality [insufficent character development] so nobody cared about him.
2) The inciting incident that should have been in Act 1, about page twenty, doesn't occur until page 50 -- so the front of the film is painfully slow.
3) The film isn't high concept and can't be easily explained in one sentence that would persuade a person to go see it.

Now I guess if I'd had Brad Pitt and Jack Nicholson in the film none of that would have mattered, but as an indie using no name actors the only opportunity I have to shine is in the quality of my script and in the way that I shoot it.

My attitude has always been that my screenplays have to be better than Hollywood in order to do business.

You're right, there is no "right way" to make a movie, no formula that guarantees sucess -- however, my experience is that following the rules leads to better screenplays and a more positive industry response.

Of course until I get another film completed and tested in the fire of the industry it's impossible to say whether I'm now on the right track -- maybe I'm just a bad writer!

At the moment all I can say is that since adopting industry standard formatting, doing extensive character background and structuring my screenplays to a four act structure, I've been getting a much more positive response to my scripts from the indsutry -- and more importantly than that I can see a real improvement in my scripts. I enjoy reading my scripts now.

You're right that there is no reason for this to turn into a pissing contest, and if you've found valuable information about screenwriting from this script you want to share I'll be the first to note it down in my writing notebooks.

Good luck with the audition, it's always nice to work on a film where the script is a page turner.

 

[Beeblebrox]

By the way...the script is very enjoyable to read and looks pretty damn good after just 18 pages. Good for the writer, cause if I tried that (and I have) I get ripped a new one by the script analyzers, screenwriting teachers and critics.

That the script is a very enjoyable read is the important lesson. None of that other stuff matters if the story and characters are good. Of course, you should still write cleanly and efficiently, but in my experience with agents and producers, a few "we sees" and "cut tos" never got a script tossed in the garbage.

And script analysers, screenwriting teachers, and critics aren't buying your script. They may or may not be important for you in learning the craft, but producers and agents are who you have to impress, and if they don't mind a little screen direction (and I don't know any who do), then who cares what those others think?

 

[clive]

if the story and characters are good

That's the key point isn't it.

Fomatting becomes less of an issue if the story and characters are COMPELLING.

If they're not, then it's back to studying structure, and working at character development.

And script analysers, screenwriting teachers, and critics aren't buying your script.

True, but with a producer you get one chance to pitch the script, if the script isn't ready that closes that door.

The problem with being a screenwiter is that it's impossible to see you own writing objectively, you need someone on your side, who will read the script with fresh eyes and will be able to honestly tell you it's strenghts and weaknesses.

Script Analysis is a vital part of script development.

a few "we sees" and "cut tos" never got a script tossed in the garbage.

Proabably not, but imagine you're a producer and you can read twenty scripts a week. You know that 98% of them will suck, and you've a stack of three hundred scripts waiting on your desk.

Your experience of reading scripts tells you that a writer who sticks a camera direction on page one, will do it throughout and that usually this means the script will suck. So you toss it.

You also know that a script with lots of white space is easier to read, so you flick through it without reading. If the script is dense with blocks of description your experience tells you that this script will suck, so you toss it.

So, in the early stages of reading the producer is looking for reasons to toss the script, because they want to waste as little time as possible if the script sucks. As they know that almost everything they read will suck, their natural inclination is toss the script.

This means that the first couple pages have to do a few really important jobs, hook the reader in by being compelling is one -- but more importantly the writer has to reassure the reader that they are competent.

One of the easist ways to do that is to write in the format that readers associate with professional writing.

There is one other point --

A screenwriter can write:

EXT - A BUSY STREET - DAY
We see a truck coming up the hill on the wrong side of road - CU of the driver's scared faces as they turn out of the way -- We see the truck tire burst -- The truck crashes. -- A Mexican gets out of the truck and we see him run away.

or on the other hand writes:

EXT - SAN FERNANDO FREEWAY - DAY

Rush hour traffic -- moves slowly though the heat haze of this scorching morning.

JANICE (27), a bleary eyed para-legal, steers her battered HONDA CIVIC with one hand -- applies LIPSTICK with the other.

A TRUCK HORN BLARES!

Janice whips her attention from her mirror -- sees a MAC TRUCK plow through the traffic in front of her -- cars thrown left and right -- the truck bearing down on her!

She jerks the sterring wheel hard -- throws her arms over her face -- SCREAMS.

The truck smashes through the HONDA CIVIC -- spins it end over end.

The truck tire BLOWS.

Out of control it smashes into the CENTRAL BARRIER -- slides in a shower of SPARKS to a juddering halt.

Scrambling wearily from the wreckage VICTOR RODRIGUEZ (43), a muscular Mexican, wearing beat up farm clothes and a straw cowboy boots -- he staggers through the gridlocked CARS, clutching his blood soaked left arm.

SIREN IN THE DISTANCE.


And the point -- well bottom line is that they are both the same script, same film -- only difference is, one is written in SPEC SCRIPT STYLE, the other is what I see most days from indie writers.

Problem with WE SEE and Camera Direction is that they promote lazy writing and it usually means the writer doesn't fully explain what's happening.

They therefore make the script less compelling. And that, as we already agree, means the script gets tossed.

 

[Beeblebrox]

Script Analysis is a vital part of script development.

I'm not suggesting otherwise (or at least valuable objective critiques, where ever it comes from).

My point is that too often teachers and critics get hung up on academic issues and rules that don't really exist ("if you write 'we see" then big shot producer will throw your script in the garbage!"). It's roughly the equivalent of your grade-school teacher telling you "they won't let you get away with that stuff when you get to college!". Bollocks. The real world is far LESS demanding in terms of these academic rules than teachers are. But far MORE demanding in terms of story and character viability.

Proabably not, but imagine you're a producer and you can read twenty scripts a week. You know that 98% of them will suck, and you've a stack of three hundred script waiting on your desk.

Your experience of reading scripts tells you that a writer who sticks a camera direction on page one, will do it throughout and that usually this means the script will suck. So you toss it.

Not one time has camera direction been the signal to me of bad writing. Bad writing is usually the culprit, whether there's camera direction or not. And a well-written script is well-written whether it's got camera direction in it or not.

In either case, camera direction is not the defining attribute of a badly written screenplay. And every script my agent has sent me to show me what just sold or some hot new property has had camera direction or "we see" in it to some degree or another.

It's simply not that big of a deal.

You also know that a script with lots of white space is easier to read, so you flick through it without reading. If the script is dense with blocks of description your experience tells you that this script will suck, so you toss it.

It doesn't tell me the script will suck, but it does certainly make it harder to read. I'll usually toss it out of laziness.

So, in the early stages of reading the producer is looking for reasons to toss the script, because they want to waste as little time as possible if the script sucks.

Every producer I know is looking for reasons to KEEP READING, not stop reading. They want good scripts and they want them desperately. I've read scripts well beyond the point at which I knew they sucked, because I wanted them to be good and wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Usually, I'll give up around pages five to ten. For some it's page two or three. Either way, it's not that much time wasted.

One of the easist ways to do that is to write in the format that readers associate with professional writing.

Well, yes, of course. But "we see" isn't a question of format. It's a question of style.

And the point -- well bottom line is that they are both the same script, same film -- only difference is, one is written in SPEC SCRIPT STYLE, the other is what I see most days from indie writers.

Except that's not the only difference. The first example is MUCH shorter and less descriptive. A more accurate comparison would be:

We see a truck coming up the hill on the wrong side of road - CU of the driver's scared faces as they turn out of the way -- We see the truck tire burst -- The truck crashes. -- A Mexican gets out of the truck and we see him run away.

versus:

A truck comes up the hill on the wrong side of the road. The driver turns his scared face away. The truck crashes. A Mexican gets out of the truck and runs away.

Unlike your other example, NOW the only difference actually is "we see" and camera direction. And as you can see, NEITHER of these examples is particularly compelling, with or without it. Your second example is better, not because of the lack of camera direction, but because it's more dramatic and has more emotional beats.

 

[clive]

The truth is we would probably agree on what constitutes good and bad writing.

And I agree with you that WE SEE and CAMERA DIRECTION by themselves will not sink a script.

My point is this --

99 times out of a 100 inclusion of WE SEE and CAMERA DIRECTION is an indication that the writer has NOT fully described the scene, or built the emotional intensity. It almost always means that the writer still hasn't fully got the scene down on paper at it's full intensity.

When you give them notes to that effect, rather than deal with the problems they roll out excuses...

Of which "But I know hundreds of sucessful scripts that include camera directions" is top of the list.

The point isn't about the WE SEE and the CAMERA DIRECTIONS...

It's about the fact that it's easier to make excuses than it is to face the possibilty of an extensive rewrite or that our writing could possibily improve through change.

But excuses don't sell scripts, script development does.

And more importantly if our intention is write the best possible screenplays, why would we resist the opportunity to improve our writing?

Most writers use WE SEE as a knee-jerk way of starting a sentence, when actually they could and should go back and find a more powerful way of getting the scene across.

Let me show you --

EXT - SAN FERNANDO FREEWAY - DAY

We see rush hour traffic moving slowly though the heat haze of this scorching morning.

JANICE (27), a bleary eyed para-legal, steering her battered Honda Civic with one hand. Close up of her mouth in the mirror as we see her applying lipstick.

We hear a truck horn blare!

We watch Janice whip her attention from her mirror. We see a Mac Truck plowing through the traffic in front of her. We see cars thrown left and right. We see the truck bearing down on her!

She jerks the sterring wheel hard. She throws her arms over her face. She SCREAMS.

The truck smashes through the Honda Civic. We see it spin end over end.

The truck tire BLOWS.

We see the truck smashing into the CENTRAL BARRIER. Watch it sliding in a shower of SPARKS to a juddering halt.

Scrambling wearily from the wreckage VICTOR RODRIGUEZ (43), a muscular Mexican, wearing beat up farm clothes and a straw cowboy boots. We see him stagger through the gridlocked CARS, clutching his blood soaked left arm.

We hear sirens in the distance.


I read that back and all the pace and emotional tensions has been pissed out of it. -- and all I've done is inserted We See and We Hear, and taken the verbs from active to passive [which tends to be the consequence of using We see, which is a passive description of an observation, not the action itself]

But hell, I'm open minded --

Prove me wrong. Show me how it's possible to retain the we sees and we hears and make that scene as powerful as it was without them.

I am genuinely open to anything that improves my writing.

 

[Beeblebrox]

The problem, Clive, is that notes about "we see" aren't really notes. They're cosmetic, easy to change, and allow a critic to critique without really critiquing. I'm not making excuses for bad writing. I'm simply saying that pointing out cosmetic issues like "we see" is like pointing out that the page numbering should be in the right corner instead of the left. Who cares? If the script is good, it doesn't matter. If the script is bad, it doesn't matter.

And in your example, again, the problem isn't the "we see"s. It's the repetitive and boring sentence structure. And believe me, you don't need "we see" to have repetitive and boring sentence structure.

But if I make a few cosmetic changes:

We see rush hour traffic moving slowly though the heat haze of this scorching morning.

JANICE (27), a bleary eyed para-legal, steers her battered Honda Civic with one hand. Close up of her mouth in the mirror as she her applies lipstick.

A truck horn blares!

Janice whips her attention from her mirror. A Mac Truck plows through the traffic in front of her. We see cars thrown left and right. The truck bears down on her!

She jerks the sterring wheel hard. She throws her arms over her face and SCREAMS.

The truck smashes through the Honda Civic. It spins end over end.

The truck tire BLOWS.

The truck smashes into the CENTRAL BARRIER. Watch it sliding in a shower of SPARKS to a juddering halt.

Scrambling wearily from the wreckage VICTOR RODRIGUEZ (43), a muscular Mexican, wearing beat up farm clothes and a straw cowboy boots. He staggers through the gridlocked CARS, clutching his blood soaked left arm.

We hear sirens in the distance.

I've kept in "we sees" that are relatively innocuous and cut down on the repetition. There's nothing in the script at this point that you wouldn't see in some recently purchased Hollywood spec.

Perhaps you feel that "we see" lends itself to bad writing, and maybe there's something to that. But in almost no case ever have I seen a script that would be otherwise improved but for the lack of camera direction. Like I'm saying, that's almost always the least of the problems.

 

[clive]

Fair point.

As usual we're managing to disagree, whilst agreeing with each other

Nobody likes a critic who nitpicks for the sake of it -- my only point is that anyone who rights off a script editor's notes as nit-picking without seeing if the script could be improved isn't doing their career any favours.

 

[Unknown Screenwriter]

I wonder if there were any readers involved.

You can pretty much bet that somebody read it. Probably a reader or two before anyone else...

One can also see that the directions of camera angles were in the original drafts and not added as an after thought.

Again, no offense meant and I'm not making a pissing match out of this but I don't understand how one could possibly KNOW that the "directions of camera angles" were in the original draft... Sure, it could happen but at this point, it's just speculation.

I stated that as is, whether a shooting script or not (I refer to these as a production script), the writer still breaks a lot of "rules" but the story stands on it's own. Anyone who reads the script entirely can see the great promise it holds, especially since the director was the writer.

Well the only "rules" I know of are the "rules" in screenwriting books and the "rules" that the screenwriting gurus throw at you in their seminars... None of which ARE actually rules... More like recommendations so a spec screenplay doesn't bog down in the reading stage. I'll be the first one to admit that an outstanding screenplay is an outstanding screenplay IF it IS AN OUTSTANDING SCREENPLAY. Having said that, there's a lot of crap that can bog down the reading of an outstanding screenplay... LOL. Even so, it's easy to ignore all the "extras" in lieu of a great STORY. But that's the rub, isn't it? You can have a screenplay full of all kinds of things that bog down the reading and if there's a good story there, it should still come shining through. In this case, the story apparently does since the film's in production. But again, this is also a writer/director with an established career and reputation. Such people are almost always "allowed" to write or submit screenplays this way... Especially when they have a 3-picture deal. The "deal" is the trust that the studio has placed in the writer, director, or writer/director. The deal almost always transcends the "rules."

My point was that those in favor can break all the rules they want, but still the point is that the "readers" who would have been the gatekeepers of an unknown writer would have canned the script before they read it.

I'll have to disagree with you on this point and actually agree with Beeblebrox... None of the readers I know would dare toss away or pass on a screenplay JUST BECAUSE of formatting errors and the use of WE SEES... i.e, the "rules." When they're told to read a script, they read a script. Now they might thumb through that script and based on the "rules" that script might find a place on the bottom of the stack but eventually, it's going to get read. And, if there's a good story there, most GOOD READERS will find it. However, story elements are not a GOOD STORY. A good story consists of good characters, structure, obstacles, twists, theme, goal, arc, etc... If none of these exist in the story, then sure, it's going to be passed on.

The reader should never have to read through a script that contains a lot of story elements and then surmise that "if the story elements were placed in the right order, the characters were better fleshed out, the protagonist's goal was more clear, etc., then you would have a good screenplay. That's not the reader's job. Those elements would already have to be there for there to be a good story... Apparently, this writer/director has a good story and all the elements were in an acceptable order for the "good story" to come through in the script irregardless of how many "rules" he might have broken.

The final point is this is a great script and I am learning a lot form it on content, progression and development of story and how the writer is creating a great conflict within the protagonist. I'm curious to see how it is resolved.

Good point. No pissing here.

As for Bill Goldman's quote, am I breaking a rule by taking it out of context and applying it to a different situation that seems to me to be appropriate? If so, maybe Wm. will forgive me.

Not at all. Again, no pissing here but since you mentioned the quote and I am familiar with it, I just felt that it was used incorrectly to describe what you were describing. He was talking about boxoffice success and not the "rules" of screenwriting. I felt that you quoting the quote was pretty much like saying "William Goldman says it's okay to write like this writer/director."

Had I never met William Goldman... Had I never sat in three of William Goldman's speaking engagements, I might not have said anything about it... But since I have and I've listened to the advice he's given to people aspiring to become screenwriters, I felt that you used the quote incorrectly since he advocates correct formatting and structure.

Filmy, I do not want to get into a pissing match with you. I only wanted to speak about an interesting subject matter (to me, at least) and if you were the one to take offense, I'm sorry you did.

Offense? Not at all. I take no offense at any of this stuff... I'm simply chiming in when I feel something should be clarified as this is also a very interesting subject matter to me as well. I re-read my reply and don't see any real pissing match going on... Maybe a few disagreements WORTHY of discussion... But isn't that what IndieTalk is about?

filmy

 

[knightly]

this thread is fun to watch! I think the part that Clive is failing to articulate, but seems just near the surface of each post is:

The specific no-nos pointed out in this thread (camera direction, we sees, etc.) although accepted in this case are generally symptoms of far more sinister screenwriting behavior...even if this script is good and contains them.

 

[WriteumCowboy]

Finished the script. The Protagonist fails to arc, but the "second" lead makes some interesting choices.

Since it is an adaptation of a famous novelist, the script is faithful to the original story. Should make for some spectacular scenes and opportunities for several good actors to show their wares.

Sorty of greed, obsession and choices. Great fodder for a good filmmaker.

 

[davidchecker]

We see yet another Indietalk thread wind down to its collegial conclusion.

C.U. - On a weary moderator lighting a hand-rolled cigarette, savoring that first breath of nicotine.

PULLBACK - He turns away and gamboles lazily down a hallway of mute shadows, as we hear his FOOTFALLS play taps to the fading light of another day in Babylon.

FADE OUT

(everytime I read my early stuff, I cringe at the amount of "we see" and C.U.s and "Mary (25), an attractive secretary")

 

[clive]

this thread is fun to watch! I think the part that Clive is failing to articulate, but seems just near the surface of each post is:

The specific no-nos pointed out in this thread (camera direction, we sees, etc.) although accepted in this case are generally symptoms of far more sinister screenwriting behavior...even if this script is good and contains them.

Yes! And if I'd just written that and then shut up I would have got fifteen pages done yesterday instead of thirteen.

We see yet another Indietalk thread wind down to its collegial conclusion.

Clever -- "Collegial" can mean either a consensus of equal colleges or acting like college students!

I wouldn't want to place money on which you mean, or what's been achieved here

But seriously -- I do think this has been a useful thread.

For those of us who've been kicking around for a while, and have made some progress as screenwriters, it's easy for us to talk in generalisations that can be missinterupted by those with less experience and knowledge.

So when I say "We see" should never appear in a screenplay, it's not because it's a rule written down somewhere by some academic that we obey blindly, it's because it can lead to passive, repetitve, uncompelling screenplays.

And when Bebblebrox says it's OK to use "We see" he doesn't mean that it's acceptable to start every sentence that way, but that within a well written piece, that's predominantly written in spec script style, an ocassional "we see" isn't going to kill your script at reading.

Anyone unsure about how they feel about it can now compare the three different versions of the same script and figure out for themselves which way they prefer.

One of the underlying reasons that people use "We see" and insert camera directions is because it is constantly hammered home that in screenwriting you have to "show me, don't tell me" and that movies are a "visual" medium. So it would make sense to believe that the screenplay is just an account of what a passive observer would see if watching in the cinema. But unfortunately that's not the case.

In truth, a Spec Script is much more aural than visual, in that the use of descriptive language takes the same [similar] form you'd use if you were telling someone a story round a campfire.

So, sat round a campfire you wouldn't say -- We see a dark, foogy country road

instead you'd say -- It was a cold, dark winter's night, the fog was so thick you could barely see your hand in front of your face.

Round a campfire it's natural for us to heighten the descriptive elements, because we know that it makes the story more interesting... in fact this is the most natural form of story telling.

Truth is that a good screenplay is very, very similar.

 

[Beeblebrox]

One of the underlying reasons that people use "We see" and insert camera directions is because it is constantly hammered home that in screenwriting you have to "show me, don't tell me" and that movies are a "visual" medium.

I can't speak for anyone else, but sometimes it's just the simplest and most efficient way to express something.

Using one of your examples:

SIREN IN THE DISTANCE.

I'd much rather read AND write it this way:

We hear a siren in the distance.

It's less awkward; it's a complete sentence. There are several ways to write this, of course, but the second version is simple, straight-forward, clear, and efficient. It's as acceptable, IMO, as any other way to write it.

 

[clive]

It's less awkward; it's a complete sentence. There are several ways to write this, of course, but the second version is simple, straight-forward, clear, and efficient. It's as acceptable, IMO, as any other way to write it.

Interesting!

But there's another way to look at it.

The choice between: SIRENS IN THE DISTANCE

and: We hear sirens in the distance

Isn't a matter of personal style, it's a matter of pace.

"We hear sirens in the distance" implies this section of the script is concluding -- the full sentence indicates a wind down of the pace. You're telling the reader "OK, you can relax now."

SIRENS IN THE DISTANCE, implies that the action is continuing, that the pace isn't dropping at all.

Slipping between between lyrical full sentences and stacato short ones is how I control the speed of the read.

It's not a case of "We hear sirens in the distance" is better, period -- neither is "SIRENS IN THE DISTANCE"
... it's horses for courses.

 

[clive]

Sorry to doubled post, but I've a script deadline to hit, so time is short.

Thought we might draw a line under this by agreeing the following:

An ocassional "We See' used in the right place, to slow the pace of a sentence or because it flows better, might be a good thing. Although some writers, myself being one, prefer to avoid using it completely.

The opening pargraph of "Eternal Sunshine" has a action description which goes "We see his face for the first time" and who is going to argue with Kaufman? [Me probably] LOL! Actually, the Coen brothers used it in exaclty the same way in opening of Bad Santa. [Doh!] ... OK so there's one legimate use -- damn it!

Camera directions, whilst being terribly bad form in a spec script, proabably aren't going to get the script binned, if the rest of writing is impeccable. Although some writers, myself being one, prefer to avoid using it completely.

However, endemic use of We See can indicate other problems with the writing -- most notably repetitive sentence structure and passive rather than active sentences. As both of these rob the story of intensity and pace, they can be a bad thing, if you're trying to keep the pace up adn the reader engaged.

Bebblebrox and myself would proabably agree that we have slightly different approaches to screenwiting, and that neither of us is likely to adopt the other's approach... anyone undecided can have a look at the various script excerpts and make their own minds up.

Now, Bebblebrox, if there's anything you'd like to add to that list, or disagree with feel free to add whatever post script you want, because as much fun as this has been -- I'm done here.

 

[davidchecker]

"We see" seems to be used even in Hollywoo shooting scripts, when what we see is especially crucial to the story, or a big suprise...any other time is freakin' redundant. Now is this thread dun or wot?