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

Why are scripts in the format they're in?

A

Aspiring Mogul

I'm looking at several scripts as examples for my work, and, yes, I have several scenes being fleshed out. But I'm curious as to the format. The description of the scene is done in paragraph form, like a novel, but the dialogue places the speaker and his lines at the center of the page.

So we would have something like this:

Hero and bad guy are alone in the desert. Hero takes out his pistol.

Hero (pointing pistol at bad guy)
Drop your weapon!​

Bad guy drops his sword and raises his hand.

Bad guy
I surrender.​
Click to expand...

Why are scripts in this format? Thanks for the education. :)
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
FantasySciFi said:
Code: 
[B]                                TOM
             After being stuck in that jury room for
                   (fork jabs into the pancakes)
            twelve effing hours with Howard, I 
            needed this![/B]
In the example above, the action occurs DURING the dialog. However, that doesn't mean it's generally accepted. In one sense, the dialogue and the action are both "scene shots". Used in this way it passes information to the actor. Some actors dislike it. Some directors dislike it. You're 'directing' from inside the script rather than telling a story.

It could equally be written:
Code: 
                                TOM
             After being stuck in that jury room for -

his fork jabs into the pancakes

                                 TOM
            - twelve effing hours with Howard, I 
            needed this!
Some writing gurus will tell you 'never'. It's often because newbies go crazy and substitute it for action lines. Scripts littered with parentheses will often get rejected. It's not about saving space but having a clear, readable script. Actions should occur outside of dialogue. They're shot setups. On the rare occasion it may be needed, be concise. It should add to the immediate context of the dialogue and not be standalone. The situations when you would include an action in a dialogue, though, are extremely few.
Click to expand...


...Fantasy: That bolded text is the method Inarius was referring to. And from what I understand nobody says to do it that way. It would save space in the long run, but it's generally not accepted.


Inarius said:
FantasySciFi, ok thanks

I can't even do like this?

Code: 
				JACOB[B] (looks up)[/B]
		Wake me up, alarm clock!
Click to expand...

...Can'tdo it, guy! I know what you're going through. You're burning through pages at an alarming rate and it's bothering you. The same thing happens to me. You just have to find more creative ways to get your information across with less words.

It is not necessary to include "looks up" since the actor is referencing the alarm clock. The reader can draw his own visual. The example you are using is expositional, though. He already knows it's an alarm clock. A better way would be:

Code: 
                               JACOB
                        (to alarm clock)
                           Wake me up.

...It is permissible to use a parenthetical in this case as the reader wouldn't know who Jacob was talking to as they would if they were watching the movie.

-Birdman
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Code: 
                               JACOB
                        (to alarm clock)
                           Wake me up.

That's kinda different. Jacob sees a fictional world (it's a Sci-Fi). He doesn't believe his eyes, so he looks at the sky and says "wake me up, alarm clock", as if he is dreaming.

If he just said "Wake me up", and suppose that the actor really looks up, the people who watch the movie will think he talks to God, not to alarm clock. And that doesn't fit the character, because he is Anti-Religios.

But I got the point. Thanks
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Birdman said:
Code: 
                               JACOB
                        (to alarm clock)
                           Wake me up.

...It is permissible to use a parenthetical in this case as the reader wouldn't know who Jacob was talking to as they would if they were watching the movie.
Click to expand...

....although, presumably the preceding action would describe him looking to the alarm clock. This would allow the reader to understand that Jacob is speaking to the alarm clock. It would only really be necessary to put this here in parenthesis, if their were other characters (or objects, I suppose) that Jacob could be speaking to.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jacob sees a fictional world (it's a Sci-Fi). He doesn't believe his eyes, so he looks at the sky and says "wake me up, alarm clock", as if he is dreaming. As a joke, of course. He doesn't see the alarm clock and speak to it :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Inarius said:
Code: 
                               JACOB
                        (to alarm clock)
                           Wake me up.

That's kinda different. Jacob sees a fictional world (it's a Sci-Fi). He doesn't believe his eyes, so he looks at the sky and says "wake me up, alarm clock", as if he is dreaming.

If he just said "Wake me up", and suppose that the actor really looks up, the people who watch the movie will think he talks to God, not to alarm clock. And that doesn't fit the character, because he is Anti-Religios.

But I got the point. Thanks
Click to expand...


Code: 
                               JACOB
                        (to imaginary alarm clock)
                           Wake me up.

...Than this is the way you can handle it.

-Birdman
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Inarius said:
What if I write:

Code: 
                               JACOB
                            (to the sky)
                           Wake me up, alarm clock!
Click to expand...
You should not put action in parentheses. It isn't that you can't, it's
that you shouldn't. What is in the paranthetical should only be directly
connected to the reading of the line. All action should be written in the
action paragraph.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mad_hatter, saving space.

directorik, I understand, but "to the sky" is rather a reference than action. It's like "to Bob". And what about Birdman's suggestion

Code: 
                               JACOB
                        (to imaginary alarm clock)
                           Wake me up.

Can I get away with that?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Fine. If it's so important to you to include those words in the paranthetical
then do it. Frankly you shouldn't even use "to Bob" in the paranthetical.

The screenplay is less about saving space and more about clear writing.
The people who read the screenplay (not "readers" but the dozens of people
making the movie) are expecting elements to be in the expected place.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
Fine. If it's so important to you to include those words in the paranthetical
then do it. Frankly you shouldn't even use "to Bob" in the paranthetical.

The screenplay is less about saving space and more about clear writing.
The people who read the screenplay (not "readers" but the dozens of people
making the movie) are expecting elements to be in the expected place.
Click to expand...

Directorik, what Inarius has going on in his movie is something that would be hard to convey on film. His character is talking to objects (and I presume "people") who don't really exist or are in his imagination. Personally, I think he needs to find a different approach for showing the two worlds his character is living in rather than having him speak to the sky (or to imaginary objects). A movie is a visual media. People won't be entertained watching a guy talking to himself. We need to see and understand the world as his character sees it.

I can also see poor Inarius burning through pages of script trying to bounce back and forth between realities, so I understand his concern for saving space.

That being said ...

Everything I have read about screenplay writing says that a parenthetical can (and should) be used when a character is addressing something in dialogue that doesn't translate to the reader like it would on film. For instance: if "Bob" is facing "Sally", "Rob" and "Joe" and Bob says "I want you to leave while I talk to the others". ...how would you know which character Bob wants to leave?

True, you could add an extra line of action and point out that Bob is speaking to "Sally" ...but if you get a fast-paced scene where Bob is issuing out orders to individuals within a group, a parenthetical becomes necessary.

Code: 
              Bob
          (to Sally)
You need to leave the room.
           (to Joe)
Get Directorik on the phone.
           (to Rob)
Make a cash offer for Inarius' Screenplay.


...Why are you so against using a Parenthetical in this way? It's not telling the actors what to do or how to act. It's providing them the correct people for which to do their acting.

-Birdman
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Birdman said:
His character is talking to objects (and I presume "people") who don't really exist or are in his imagination.
Click to expand...

No, he is not. :)
Jacob visits a fictional world. This world is real in my story, not imagined. So instead of saying the common "I must be dreaming!" or something like that, he says "Wake me up, alarm clock!". Basically, it's the same meaning. He simply can't believe his eyes, astonished. And he is a bit humorous character.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Inarius said:
No, he is not. :)
Jacob visits a fictional world. This world is real in my story, not imagined. So instead of saying the common "I must be dreaming!" or something like that, he says "Wake me up, alarm clock!". Basically, it's the same meaning. He simply can't believe his eyes, astonished. And he is a bit humorous character.
Click to expand...

I see no reason why it couldn't be phrased as

Code: 
Jacob looks up
                  JACOB
        Wake me up, alarm clock!

To be quite frank, I don't even see it necessary to include where he looks - looking up is not the only way an actor can convey that they are astonished. I would personally suggest writing in a way that conveys without doubt that Jacob is astonished, without simply directing him to look somewhere.. He could be looking for literally any reason.

I'm just a Cinematographer - I'm no professional writer, but when I receive a script with an overuse of parentheses (and it happens much more often than it should) it immediately screams amateur/inexperienced writer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
I see no reason why it couldn't be phrased as

Code: 
Jacob looks up
                  JACOB
        Wake me up, alarm clock!

To be quite frank, I don't even see it necessary to include where he looks - looking up is not the only way an actor can convey that they are astonished. I would personally suggest writing in a way that conveys without doubt that Jacob is astonished, without simply directing him to look somewhere.. He could be looking for literally any reason.

I'm just a Cinematographer - I'm no professional writer, but when I receive a script with an overuse of parentheses (and it happens much more often than it should) it immediately screams amateur/inexperienced writer.
Click to expand...


Do you have a personal bias against parenthetical use? It is a tool in the script writer's arsenal and is there for a specific purpose. True, "overuse" can be an issue ...but an equally bad issue would be a producer having a personal opinion against an element of script writing that prevents him from recognizing a good script.

If a script writer uses all tools available and does so appropriately, then anyone with a "personal bias" against any of these tools deserves to miss out on a quality movie script.

...Same goes for the script writer who overuses the same tools in question.


-Birdman
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
... but when I receive a script with an overuse of parentheses (and it happens much more often than it should) it immediately screams amateur/inexperienced writer.
Click to expand...
+1


It screams something like this:

flash_alarm_animated_gif_by_ethan132-d4pw09s.gif
!!NUBE!!
flash_alarm_animated_gif_by_ethan132-d4pw09s.gif


:yes:​
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Same question to you, RayW,

Do you have a personal bias against the parenthetical tool? Do you find yourself saying, "Uh ohhhh!" As soon as you see one being used?

In the painting world, you don't find art critics saying "Nothing screams amateur like someone who uses a red sable brush!" Or "I hate it when artists use a lot of alizarin crimson".

If the tool is used as it is designed, then you shouldn't have a problem with it. Some people's scripts may require more than others based on the chemical makeup of the script. Do you "punish" them because they "used that damned writing tool"?

Lastly, many of you say, "used too often". ...Define that! Is it three times? ...Seven? ...Nine? When does RayW say, "Okay, you've crossed the line, buddy!"?

-Birdmam
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Birdman said:
Do you have a personal bias against the parenthetical tool? Do you find yourself saying, "Uh ohhhh!" As soon as you see one being used?
First, all of this only applies to spec screenplays.
If you're the writer/director/producer/editor/marketer/chief toilet cleaner you can pretty much do WTH you want.

However...

The moment you stick one of these hillbilly tasmanian bum wipers in front of someone who knows what they're SUPPOSED to be looking at, according to long established generally accepted industry standards, the cat's out of the bag that A) you really don't know WTH you're doing and/or B) you display a general disrespect for the industry.
I'm all for thumbing your nose at good causes, but fighting the standard is largely just indicative of professional immaturity.

I CAN goto work in a clown suit instead of a monkey suit and perform my tasks equally well and use "ur" and "i" instead of "your" and "I" in my professional communications, but... somehow...
No.

No bias.
Just recognition of an indication.

Do you "punish" them because they "used that damned writing tool"?
No punishment.
Just an awareness of the probability of other "issues" arising exponentially just arose.

Lastly, many of you say, "used too often". ...Define that! Is it three times? ...Seven? ...Nine? When does RayW say, "Okay, you've crossed the line, buddy!"?
Click to expand...
When my fears are confirmed in story structure.
Watch enuf director/actor/producer/editor/writer commentaries and you reallize pretty much just how immaterial the writer really is.
The writer IS NOT the one footing the bill for production.
They ain't much more highly regarded than craft services.

"Just do your job and get over yourself. We ain't holding up the show for you, Bub."​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
From "A Few Good Men":

Code: 
                                  KAFFEE
                         Gotcha.
                              (beat)
                         And Santiago is... who?

                                     JO
                              (beat)
                         The victim.

                                     KAFFEE
                              (to SAM)
                         Write that down.
                              (to JO)
                         Am I correct in assuming that these 
                         letters don't paint a flattering 
                         picture of marine corps life in 
                         Guantanamo Bay?

....and one of the most famous scenes in movie history, saturated with needless parenthetical use:

Code: 
                                     KAFFEE
                              (quietly)
                         Did you order the code red?

                                     JESSEP
                              (beat)
                         I did the job you sent me to do.

                                     KAFFEE
                         Did you order the code red?

                                     JESSEP
                              (pause)
                         You're goddamn right I did!


...Fucking amateurs! I get so sick of seeing this shit! ...Bin that script!!

-Birdman
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top