The Guide to Standard Spec Formats

[VPTurner]

Does one exist? My Complete Guide to Standard Script Formats book is pretty old now, but interestingly enough I saw one still sitting new and for sale on the shelf at Barnes & Noble the other day. How much of that information is still viable? I used it when manually setting up a word processor a long time ago, but now Final Draft does that for me automatically.

Which of these apply (or not) to spec format today?

1) Capitalize character names the first time they appear in the script
2) Do not number scenes
3) Do not use parenthetical direction (see example below)
4) Do not use references to camera and camera angles
5) Do not use "we see" and "we hear"
6) Do not capitalize sound effects or sound references
7) Do not use "MORE" and "CONTINUED" for scenes that break from one page to the next
8) Do not use "MORE" and "CONT'D" for dialogue broken by action
9) Do not use scene transitions like "Cut to:" or "Dissolve to:"

What am I missing? What is not accurate? What will a reader expect to see from an experienced, working writer?

Thanks!

 

[Beeblebrox]

Which of these apply (or not) to spec format today?

1) Capitalize character names the first time they appear in the script

I do.

2) Do not number scenes

There is no point to doing this in a spec script.

3) Avoid parenthetical direction

Doesn't matter.

4) Avoid references to camera and camera angles

Generally, it doesn't matter. But you do want a nice smooth read, and I find that referernces to camera angles can mess up that flow.

5) Avoid "we see" and "we hear"

Doesn't matter.

6) Do not capitalize sound effects or sound references

I'd say don't bother, but it really doesn't matter.

7) Do not use "MORE" and "CONTINUED" for scenes that break from one page to the next
8) Do not use "MORE" and "CONT'D" for dialogue broken by action

I don't do this, but I can't see why it would matter.

What am I missing? What is not accurate? What will a reader expect to see from an experienced, working writer?

An experienced working writer probably isn't going to the readers who will be reading your script. So they're not going to mistake you for one regardless.

While formatting and style matter somewhat, you have to write coherently and tell a good story with interesting characters. No one expects you to have experience or be a working writer. They want a script that will make a good movie. Do that and the rest is academic.

 

[VPTurner]

Some of those were hard, fast rules not long ago and would often dictate whether or not your script made it past a reader. It's interesting that you say they don't matter. Things have definitely changed if this is the case.

Numbering scenes only applies to shooting scripts or scripts in pre-production for budgeting. This hasn't changed.

Camera direction is for the director, not the spec writer. Same goes for parenthetical direction. Unless you're planning to direct the film yourself, avoid them. Give the actors some latitude to develop the character. Unless parenthetical direction is crucial to the plot, leave it out. I can't imagine this would ever change, but stranger things have happened.

I will present as much professionalism as humanly possible regardless of expectations. There is no sense in throwing red flags around and advertising that you are inexperienced. The sign of a professional is knowing your craft. Anything less presents to prospective clients that you are not serious about pursuing a career. Always put your best foot forward.

Presentation is everything.

 

[directorik]

Those things do matter. Formatting and style are very important.

It’s an excellent checklist, VP. I would change the word “avoid” to “Do not”.

 

[clive]

I don't want to get into an argument about this issue... and I'll start off by saying this: if the script is phenomenal, grabs the reader's attention and holds it for ninety pages... then formatting won't matter

However, most of the formatting issues in scripts are there for a reason... So, here goes:

1) Capitalise character's name first time they appear in the script

This is a good idea, because, although you may have all the characters straight in your head, it's easy for readers to get confused by who is who... putting a character's entrance in CAPS helps the reader keep that stuff straight, which in turn makes it an easier read.

I can't tell you how many scripts I've read where I'd lost track of the characters by page six.

2) Do not number scenes

The only reason for sticking to this rule is because it's industry standard and showing you know the difference between a spec script and a shooting script helps readers have confidence in you as a writer. In real terms there is no good reason for not numbering scenes (except for the fact that people will sneer if you do). In fact, my first producer asked for scene numbers on spec scripts so it was easier for him to give notes.

3) Avoid parenthetical direction

Only matters if you're using it to tell the actors how to deliver lines...

JOHN (angrily)
Stick your bloody formatting!

If you have to put (angrily) into your script, then you've blown the writing... it should be obvious from the context how the line is delivered. So, in general, emotional direction in parenthetical indicates poor quality writing. It's one of those short cuts that people take when they don't know how to write a scene properly.

4) Avoid references to camera and camera angles

and

5) Avoid "we see" and "we hear"

These REALLY, REALLY matters... because people write camera angles and use phrases like "we see" when they are writing the script from the POV of a passive audience member. Scripts loaded with "we see" and "we hear" and camera angles, also tend to be loaded with passive verbs...

John is sitting at the table. We see Jane entering the door. The Barman is polishing the glasses.

The problem with scripts written from a passive POV, is they become very, very tedious to read.

Scripts read better if the reader is immersed in the world of the film, rather than passively watching the end result. For that reason alone, both camera angles and "we sees" are both signs of poor writing technique.

This rule isn't about an industry standard... it is about the difference between good writing and bad. There are also exceptions... you're more likely to get a "we hear" or a "we see" in the first paragraph of a script because you're taking the reader into that world... but a script that is all written passively, is a script that probably sucks.

6) Do not capitalize sound effects or sound references

Some readers really hate this... some really like it. I hate it; my script mentor likes it. It's never going to be a deal killer and only becomes an issue if the script isn't strong enough.

7) Do not use "MORE" and "CONTINUED" for scenes that break from one page to the next
8) Do not use "MORE" and "CONT'D" for dialogue broken by action

Again, unlikely to be a deal killer. I've heard people argue it ruins the flow of the read... but again, if you've got people hooked ... etc, etc

An experienced working writer probably isn't going to the readers who will be reading your script. So they're not going to mistake you for one regardless.

While formatting and style matter somewhat, you have to write coherently and tell a good story with interesting characters. No one expects you to have experience or be a working writer. They want a script that will make a good movie. Do that and the rest is academic.

Bebblebrox is right... you have to have great characters, and a great story. If your story is all of those things people will let things slide.

However, with 98% of the scripts written and submitted to the industry being practically unreadable formatting is one of the ways you reassure the reader that they are in a safe pair of hands. I know from my own experiences that I'll pick up a script and merely by glancing at the layout of the first page, I can tell if the script is going to be worth reading. I know how that sounds... but the truth is, badly formatted scripts are always bad scripts. I've yet to read an exception.

Now, I believe it's possible that I might miss a great script, simply because I was prejudiced against it by the way it was laid out... but, if I know that I'm not the only one who makes those kinds of decisions... and most agents and producers have much less time to waste on a script than I do.

I don't know of anyone in the industry whose heart doesn't sink when they're handed a script in 18pt times new roman, with no proper slug lines and all the dialogue in caps.

I've never been a patient reader... and I'll put a script down the second I start losing the will to live (usually by about page three).

There is one more reason for not only formatting your script correctly, but also for using some kind of recognisable structure. Producers and agents don't read scripts, they send them out to readers to get script reports. Script readers are ALL frustrated screen writers whose starting point is that they know more than you... so, in general you've got a very, very tough audience. These guys will grade your script, often from checklists... if you haven't gone to the trouble of learning how to format a script, they are going to assume you also can't tell the difference between an inciting incident and a denouement... for which they will crucify you.

 

[directorik]

This is always a very contentious topic. For reasons I can never
understand.

Of course a phenomenal script will grab the readers attention - I
don’t think any of us will disagree with that. But the fact is,
the truly phenomenal script is rare. The vast majority are
terrible. A very small percentage are good enough to get that all
important read.

On my part, I am limiting my comments to the spec script written
by an unproduced writer.

Readers are only human. We have lives outside of our job and we
hope to enjoy some of that time just like the writer does. When
faced with a stack of 5 scripts we have taken home over the
weekend, we want a smooth, simple read.

But it is our job to find good scripts, so nothing is a “deal
breaker” if the script is exceptional. However, it’s only human
to do a quick thumb through of the scripts we cover to decide the
order in which we will read.

As a writer you want yours read first or second, not last. And
many readers will see sounds and effects and even props in caps,
see the “we sees” and direction in the parentheticals and put
that script on the bottom of the pile. There is no good reason to
not use the most recent, acceptable format and style. Finding
creative ways to write visually without using camera angles can
make you a better writer. Learning how to write emotionally
without using parentheticals can only make you a better writer.

clive is spot on! Readers that aren’t frustrated writers are wanna
be development exec’s. Readers often have a check list and we are
a very, very tough audience. Writers hate that, but the more
writers understand the process the better their chances are.

On the encouraging side, we all want to read a good script. We
want to be the one who finds that phenomenal script.

At the spec level the goal of the writer isn’t to show how well
you can pick camera angles, or to show how well you can direct
the actors performance or to use caps to help out the sound
designer or property master.

But bottom line, if any writer feels they must do these things,
that they cannot get their story across without sounds in caps,
direction in the parenthetical and “we see” - then use them.

 

[VPTurner]

Excellent feedback. Exactly what I needed.

I love this place!

Actually, a couple more questions on this topic. I've read (and heard) that describing specific wardrobe or appearance unless necessary for plot or characterization should also be limited or avoided. Is this still the case? This is why they hire a wardrobe department for the production and also gives the casting department a wide berth.

For bit parts (even non-speaking roles), do you give them a name, or is it appropriate to just give them a designation? An example, referring to TWO ARMED SECURITY OFFICERS as "Officer #1" and "Officer #2". I have one scene in particular has the two armed officers as well as TWO HOSPITAL ORDERLIES, "Orderly #1" and "Orderly #2" and TWO PARAMEDICS. Reading through the scene is a bit cumbersome. None of them have speaking roles, just hand gestures and action. Cuts down on the budget.

At least one more addition to the list:

9) Do not use scene transitions like "Cut to:" or "Dissolve to:" (editor's job).

Is the use of "FADE IN:" and "FADE OUT:" at the beginning and end of the spec script still customary, or are these now omitted?

 

[Beeblebrox]

I'll start off by saying this: if the script is phenomenal, grabs the reader's attention and holds it for ninety pages... then formatting won't matter

Frankly, being phenomenal, grabbing the reader's attention, and holding it for ninety pages should ALWAYS be your goal. And if you do that, formatting won't matter. And if you don't, formatting won't save you.

I typically find that good story, good use of language, and good formatting go hand-in-hand. I've rarely ever read a script with a good story that wasn't also well written (both are, admittedly, rare).

 

[Beeblebrox]

This is always a very contentious topic. For reasons I can never
understand.

You got me. I'd say if someone is on the fence, then stick with the conventional wisdom. I mean these "rules" take, what, 45 seconds to learn. Just do it and move on to the important stuff - like characters and story.

 

[clive]

Actually, a couple more questions on this topic. I've read (and heard) that describing specific wardrobe or appearance unless necessary for plot or characterization should also be limited or avoided. Is this still the case? This is why they hire a wardrobe department for the production and also gives the casting department a wide berth.

For bit parts (even non-speaking roles), do you give them a name, or is it appropriate to just give them a designation? An example, referring to TWO ARMED SECURITY OFFICERS as "Officer #1" and "Officer #2". I have one scene in particular has the two armed officers as well as TWO HOSPITAL ORDERLIES, "Orderly #1" and "Orderly #2" and TWO PARAMEDICS. Reading through the scene is a bit cumbersome. None of them have speaking roles, just hand gestures and action. Cuts down on the budget.

At least one more addition to the list:

9) Do not use scene transitions like "Cut to:" or "Dissolve to:" (editor's job).

The purpose of the script is to give the reader a clear idea of your story. They need to be able to visualise the film... and more importantly, it needs to hold their attention. The amount of detail you put in regards description of wardrobe and character is therefore about making the story clear, not about instructing the wardrobe department. Now, there is a fine line between those two positions...
Mainly though, it's about intention. If you leave out all description of how people appear, then you're missing out on a huge part of how people judge who the character is... and, at the same time running the risk of the reader not being able to distinguish the characters. An incredibly common fault in many, many scripts.
For that reason it's vitally important to give the reader a clear picture of the character... and this includes wardrobe.
What you don't need to do is go into minute detail of changes of clothing, unless it relates to either the plot or it reveals information about the character.

It's a similar point with minor characters... most readers can retain about ten characters straight in their heads, so those need to be your principles... after that, it's a mistake to burden the reader with too many names, when a description makes everything clearer. In lots of situations FAT CUBAN COP, is way better than DETECTIVE RICO.
HERNANDES... especially when all FAT CUBAN COP does is yell an insult from the other side of the locker room.

Transitions in spec scripts just get in the way of the read... However, sometimes as film makers we use a dissolve to indicate passage of time in a scene... in a spec you'd get away with suggesting a transition... but, the correct way to deal with this is to type

LATER:
and then continue the scene.

both FADE In and FADE OUT at the start and end continue to be a script tradition

(sorry, don't have time to proof read the above... so, please forgive typos etc)

 

[VPTurner]

You got me. I'd say if someone is on the fence, then stick with the conventional wisdom. I mean these "rules" take, what, 45 seconds to learn. Just do it and move on to the important stuff - like characters and story.

They may only take 45 seconds to learn, but so far the research involved has taken two days. Once this thread is done, you're right. It will take however long to read and understand what is written here to learn what one needs to know about spec format.

And one is not born with conventional wisdom. You learn, then do. Wisdom follows. One day soon, like you, I will take this all for granted.

As for skipping proper format and going straight to story and character, one does not build a house without first pouring the foundation.

 

[Beeblebrox]

As for skipping proper format and going straight to story and character, one does not build a house without first pouring the foundation.

Formatting is not your foundation. It's your window dressing.

 

[VPTurner]

Formatting is not your foundation. It's your window dressing.

But from what rik and Clive say, it is far more important than you proclaim. A window dressing is optional. If it's not the foundation, it's certainly part of the plumbing that goes into it.

Just curious, are you a produced screenwriter? I'm talking mainstream feature, not necessarily independent and not one you produced yourself - heck, I'm an optioned and produced screenwriter if we're talking independent. EDIT: Please don't take this wrong. I'm just trying to understand if your observations are based on real-world dealings in the industry or personal opinion. In the 20 years I've been studying and practicing screenwriting off and on, your views completely contradict everything I've heard and read regarding getting your script past a reader, so I'm just trying to sort it all out.

 

[Beeblebrox]

In the 20 years I've been studying and practicing screenwriting off and on, your views completely contradict everything I've heard and read regarding getting your script past a reader, so I'm just trying to sort it all out.

You are certainly free to do whatever you want with your script. Like I said, it's easy to stick to the letter of the law. I just don't think it matters very much. But also like I said, I haven't really had to deal with readers.

And while I have been produced, I'm speaking from my experience being repped as a writer by one of the more well-known boutique management companies. So both from my own work and the work of screenwriters at a fairly high level, the formatting you're talking about has never, ever, not once, ever been an issue. Never. I've read countless screenplays sent to me by me rep for projects they've sold or are sending out. They are all different in terms of writing style. Some writers use "we see." Some don't. I've personally got two scripts currently being read by producers for multi-million dollar projects, despite the occasional smattering of "we see," "cut to" or "angle on."

And by window dressing, I mean that these minor details are EASILY changed and polished, but only AFTER you've done the REAL work of creating a kick-ass script.

 

[VPTurner]

You are certainly free to do whatever you want with your script. Like I said, it's easy to stick to the letter of the law. I just don't think it matters very much. But also like I said, I haven't really had to deal with readers.

It's nice to see both perspectives, so thanks for presenting an alternate.

And while I have been produced, I'm speaking from my experience being repped as a writer by one of the more well-known boutique management companies. So both from my own work and the work of screenwriters at a fairly high level, the formatting you're talking about has never, ever, not once, ever been an issue. Never. I've read countless screenplays sent to me by me rep for projects they've sold or are sending out. They are all different in terms of writing style. Some writers use "we see." Some don't. I've personally got two scripts currently being read by producers for multi-million dollar projects, despite the occasional smattering of "we see," "cut to" or "angle on."

I broke practically every single rule I listed above except margins and spacing with my first script. I was reading and using scripts like Close Encounters, Adventures in Babysitting, and Poltergeist (actual copied scripts from a Hollywood book store) as style references. I also have Michael Crichton's draft of Jurassic Park, and it's no wonder they pulled in another writer. His version was not that good. The first draft of Poltergeist (what I have) was clearly written for an "R" rating as it had much more foul language and nudity. So, yes, even the big name writers get revised and replaced. I actually learned the "we see" and "we hear" style from some of those scripts.

And by window dressing, I mean that these minor details are EASILY changed and polished, but only AFTER you've done the REAL work of creating a kick-ass script.

Got it.

I think I've spent enough time on this. Time to focus on character and story.

Thanks for all the great feedback.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I do.



There is no point to doing this in a spec script.



Doesn't matter.



Generally, it doesn't matter. But you do want a nice smooth read, and I find that referernces to camera angles can mess up that flow.



Doesn't matter.



I'd say don't bother, but it really doesn't matter.



I don't do this, but I can't see why it would matter.



An experienced working writer probably isn't going to the readers who will be reading your script. So they're not going to mistake you for one regardless.

While formatting and style matter somewhat, you have to write coherently and tell a good story with interesting characters. No one expects you to have experience or be a working writer. They want a script that will make a good movie. Do that and the rest is academic.

You know, this ^ was just what I needed to read.

Seriously. You'll probably think I'm nuts, but reading this strangely cheered me up.

Thanks.

 

[Beeblebrox]

So, yes, even the big name writers get revised and replaced. I actually learned the "we see" and "we hear" style from some of those scripts.

Of course they do, but it isn't because they wrote "we see." I'd LOVE to read a script in which the only problem was the writer not following these superficial rules. But as I stated previously, that is rarely the case, even at the higher levels in the business. When I'm discussing script notes with a producer or another writer, it's ALWAYS about the story and the characters. It's NEVER about these rules.

I think I've spent enough time on this. Time to focus on character and story.

Awesome.

 

[clive]

Scripts tend to fail for a number of reasons. The biggest failures tend to be related to character and plot development.
Generally the most common thing you'll see is a script where you have twenty characters all called things like Biff, Billy, Jimmy, Micky and Marky. Biff, Billy, Micky and Marky are all the same age, hold the same views and talk the same way. When you pick up the script, Biff, Billy, Jimmy and Marky will be sitting at a table having a conversation... a conversation that pretty much explains the plot and the back-story.
BIFF
Hey, Billy... how's it hangin?
BILLY
Good Biff, after my seven years in Special Forces it's really good to get home to Little Goretown and hook up with my childhood sweetheart, who is building a new house on the Apache pet Cemetery
MICKY
Are you worried that the cursed cats and dogs of the Native American's in that site will murder everyone in this room, apart from you and your girlfriend in the next 90 minutes?
BIFF
Not really, because as I was raised by my Navajo grandmother, I should be able to use magic to save at least my girlfriend. Sorry guys, but I won't remember this until the last act.
MARKY
That's OK Biff, we deserve to die because we agreed to ruin our acting careers by appearing in this awful movie.

etc etc
and this goes on for about seven pages.

Then there are movies where the plot just doesn't make any sense because the writer started their script with no planning in place.

But, apart from the bad ideas, bad dialogue and complete lack of structure to most scripts, one of the biggest problems is the way the script is written.

Script writing is hard because you have to give enough information for the reader to visualise the film, but at the same time keep the pace flowing... therefore you have to be able to sum up characters and make their uniqueness and interesting qualities leap out in just a few words... you have to be able to clearly describe action without getting bogged down in details... you have to be able to plant clues in scenes, which then pay of later in the story in such a way that people remember the link... and you have to be able to write realistic dialogue, without it becoming realistic (or boring in other words).

The reason most scripts suck incredible amounts of ass, is because most people can't tell a good idea form a bad one, an original idea from a cheap rip off of an existing film, they then have no idea how to create a believable character or how to put them in a situation that is interesting to watch... then, even if they can do all of the above, they don't have the writing skills to get on the page the ideas they have in their heads.

Understanding formatting is just one very small part of that process... but Bebblebrox is dead right, it's one very, very small component of a much more complex problem...perfect formatting will never save a bad script.

Where formatting is useful to the reader, is as an indication of the writer's ability to research. As has been said, it only takes a couple of days to figure out the difference between good and bad formatting... therefore anyone who hasn't taken the time to find that out, also won't have done any research into three/four/nice act structure... won't have read anything about the significance of having an inciting incident in the first ten pages... won't the difference between a protagonist, antagonist, stakes character and mentor... won't understand the structural differences between single and mulit-protagonist screenplays... won't understand why Pixar favors the "Heroes Journey" as a structural approach or where that came from.

By far the biggest problem in the script writing business is people's belief that screen writing is easy and that pretty much anyone can do it, without any training, practice or research. Not only that, many people believe that merely by having an idea for a film, it qualifies them to write the script; that their years of watching movies means they know how to write them... I mean, how hard can it be.

Well, of all the resources that Hollywood needs to function, camera operators, actors, producers, editors... etc. etc. the only thing that is constantly in short supply is good scripts. If you blew up every Hollywood star and every Hollywood director tomorrow, they'd be replaced in 24 hours... if you took out twenty of the top screenwriters the industry would suffer. We'd have a couple of years of "Snakes on a Plane" before they found some new talent.

 

[directorik]

This is what is great about this place - different people coming
to the table with different experiences.

Beeblebrox is a produced screenwriter with an agent. At his level
most of these points don’t matter. He believes format is window
dressing.

I have been a reader for several agencies and prodCo’s that read
unproduced writers. At that level all of these points matter. I
believe format is the foundation.

I think takes more than 45 seconds to learn the “rules” because
there are so many disparate opinions, articles and books out
there. I see no reason to not learn and follow all the points VP
brought up.

I think we all agree that following all of these “rules” will not
make a poor story sellable and following all of them to the
letter won’t harm an excellent script.

So I come to the conclusion - follow them.

 

[barnaclelapse]

That's a really good point about the misconception of how easy it is to write a script. I've been writing for most of my life, and I've been a writer for a little over a decade. I've moved into a lot of different writing mediums since I started out with short fiction. And I can honestly say that one of the most difficult formats by far is script writing. I was kind of lucky in that I started out writing stage stuff, and I was immedietly thrust into a situation where I was working with professionals and seeing that first play I wrote adapted to the stage for a major theater festival in Richmond, Virginia. I do think that gave me some decent ground to make the jump to screenwriting, which I finally did after a good three or so years of dragging my feet on it.

But the thing is, even though I did go into it with a little bit of an idea of what to do, I quickly learned that there was still so much to understand and take in if I was going to be at all serious about this.

Formatting is something that I'm still damn near retarded about, but I'm also still struggling with a lot of other concepts and ideas. And though I think I'm doing a lot better, I know without question that I still have a hell of a long way to go.

So...the point?

I guess I'm just saying it's good to see that I'm not the only one.

I mean, that goes without saying, but it's nice to actually see it, too.