Write To Your Budget With Quentin Tarantino

[VBoheme]

I know this has probably been dropped here before, but it bears repeating.

Backstory - Reservoir Dogs had its entire heist scene axed, though the movie still worked. Becauseeeeee, Tarantino wrote to his budget. He didn't try to fake a scene he knew he wouldn't have the money for. More advice for the low-budget writer/director/producer/jacks-and-jills of all trades around here, but it applies as much to those writing on spec. And also a good lesson on why the story > a single scene/idea.

http://scripteach.com/?page_id=117

 

[Birdman]

Well, yeah. That's kind of the point, isn't it? He figured out a way to make it work. Your argument wouldn't make sense if he hadn't - no one would know who he was. And the fact remains that before he made Reservoir Dogs nobody knew who he was, so the success of the film had nothing to do with ti being a Tarantino film and everything to do with the film itself.

First off, you get bonus points for using Petty in an argument. ...He's my go-to man on many a debate.

One thing to consider is that Tom Petty didn't "break the rules". He was just a good ol' rocker just like anyone else. There is no rule in rock and roll that you must have a Kelly Clarkson voice. You used "American Idol" as an example ...but then again, I doubt you'll ever see "Reservoir Dogs" showing up on "The Family Chanel" anytime soon either.

Now, I call them "rules". Others call them "guidelines"...but the fact is that there are certain "rules/guidelines" we are supposed to follow as script writers. If WE DON'T FOLLOW THEM, then we incur the scornful wrath of our fellow script writers, scouts and producers.

My script analyst said I should reduce my script down to 110 pages max. This is a professional scrip analyst who has a pre-determined number floating around in his head as to what a script's length should be. It didn't matter about the scenes and dialogue that made up the pages of my script...it was the fact that it needed to be 110 pages or less. ...That sounds more like a "rule" to me.

So when you say "so the success of the film had nothing to do with it being a Tarantino film and everything to do with the film itself" I argue that's not really the case.

My argument is that had Tarantino posted his script here on IndieTalk he would have gotten his ass ripped open. Two years after the movie was made those very same posters would be worshiping him as a god.

If you want to point at the center of what made "Reservoir Dogs" work, it's the fact that Tarantino happened to be in the right place at the right time. YOU might have a "rule breaking" script right now. It may make "Reservoir Dogs" look like child's play. But if you posted it right now, all of us would totally shred it in our endless flow of vile follow-up posts,

Unless you catch a break (like Tarantino did) you have to abide by the rules ....just like everyone else.

-Birdman

 

[Inarius]

Birdman, I think if you break all possible rules, but somehow make a lot of people love your project, nobody will even bother to point out the rules you've broken. Well... there will be a few people that will... but if your project turns to a huge success, you know where to tell them to go, right?

I have a friend who takes the best movies/books/PC-games/comics stories and says they are stupid and don't worth a shit. That's because he only looks at technical elements, only on rules. But he's NOT a professional critic, and NOT employeed by one of those industries. And with such an approach, he probably will never be...

I think the most important thing is to let the audience feel emotions. When they do, they care less for how much you stick to the rules.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

First off, you get bonus points for using Petty in an argument. ...He's my go-to man on many a debate.

One thing to consider is that Tom Petty didn't "break the rules". He was just a good ol' rocker just like anyone else. There is no rule in rock and roll that you must have a Kelly Clarkson voice. You used "American Idol" as an example ...but then again, I doubt you'll ever see "Reservoir Dogs" showing up on "The Family Chanel" anytime soon either.

My point there is just that what works in one context may not work at all in another; when that context is a broadly generalized set of rules - either about what constitutes a good script, or what constitutes a good pop star, etc - the application of the rules may or may not be appropriate depending on your goals. Tom Petty wouldn't get past the initial audition on American Idol, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be successful as a musician - and also doesn't mean the American Idol judges would be wrong to dismiss him if he doesn't fit the criteria they've established for what they're looking for.

Now, I call them "rules". Others call them "guidelines"...but the fact is that there are certain "rules/guidelines" we are supposed to follow as script writers. If WE DON'T FOLLOW THEM, then we incur the scornful wrath of our fellow script writers, scouts and producers.

These are rules designed to create a product that fits neatly into the current general market for scripts. If your goal is primarily to write and sell scripts to hollywood, those rules are based on what they're looking for. They're designed to get your script past a reader, or agent, and to take advantage of what is likely to be a very brief amount of time and attention initially being focused on the script. Your script has to read well, and has to do so from the very beginning.

My script analyst said I should reduce my script down to 110 pages max. This is a professional scrip analyst who has a pre-determined number floating around in his head as to what a script's length should be. It didn't matter about the scenes and dialogue that made up the pages of my script...it was the fact that it needed to be 110 pages or less. ...That sounds more like a "rule" to me.

Exactly - because a reader or agent may look at it and say "180 pages! Nobody's laying down the budget for epics these days...pass" and never actually read the script at all. Your audience has a very specific set of criteria for what they're currently looking for, and if your script falls outside of those criteria it probably won't even be considered, let alone read - because there are plenty of others that do fit those criteria, and they just don't have the time for all of them. If your script analyst knows that there's currently little market for spec scripts that run over 2 hours he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't tell you to cut it down below that length.

That's a very different thing than writing a script which you intend to produce & direct yourself as an independent film. In that case what you're trying to create is something that will entertain & captivate an audience over the course of the film's running time. Once you've got butts in seats for the next couple hours you have a lot more latitude to play with standard conventions and break the 'rules'. You're playing to a very different audience than you are with a script you're trying to sell.

My argument is that had Tarantino posted his script here on IndieTalk he would have gotten his ass ripped open. Two years after the movie was made those very same posters would be worshiping him as a god.

And if he'd been primarily trying to create a script to sell to hollywood they'd have been right - the Reservoir Dogs script wouldn't be a good one to shop around. But that's not about whether it would work as a movie - just whether it would have been likely to sell as a generic script in the market. Different goals, different contexts, different rules.

Unless you catch a break (like Tarantino did) you have to abide by the rules ....just like everyone else.

Or you just have to make your own films, rather than trying to sell your scripts - two very different goals and contexts. When you're selling a script, the script itself is the one and only product and it has to sell itself - there's no poster, no reviews, no word of mouth, no trailer, no commercials, nothing else to grab your audience's attention.

 

[Inarius]

110 pages? But the limit is 120. WTF?

 

[HaloUnionProductions]

It's all about making something look big budget with a little budget. That's why post production skills are so valuable these days.

 

[FantasySciFi]

... If anyone in this IndieTalk forum posted up a script like "Reservoir Dogs" minus the heist scene and having all of the exposition included, the loooooooooong opening café scene and having everyone slooowly gathering together in that butt-numbingly long "Ear Scene", ..... they would have had their ass handed to them in no less than one hundred follow-up posts from vehemently-disappointed posters who feel all of that needless exposition really grates on them.
-Birdman

I personally agree with you. As a movie viewer, I thought the diner scene was too boring, irrelevant, and unnecessary. I don't think he's a particularly good director either. Fortunately, his later movies actually use good cinematographers and editors so we see less talking heads sequences. Robert Richardson did an excellent job with "Django Unchained". Tarantino writes pithy dialogue but lots of his movie characters feel relatively flat and cardboard to me. None of them have depth of feeling, just anger, stereotypic actions, and one liners. His redeeming grace is that he has interesting stories.

On the director scale (Ed Wood = 2 to Spielberg = 10), I'd put Tarantino as a solid 6. Now for those of you who are going to take issue, I'm simply sharing my opinion. Everyone has their own take. However, a review of IMDB comments on their message board (by other movie viewers) tend to echo my sentiments (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1853728/board/nest/228689214?ref_=tt_bd_1). But before anyone flies off the handle, I mention this only because IDOM's comments are particularly germane.

That's a very different thing than writing a script which you intend to produce & direct yourself as an independent film. ... And if he'd been primarily trying to create a script to sell to hollywood they'd have been right - the Reservoir Dogs script wouldn't be a good one to shop around. But that's not about whether it would work as a movie - just whether it would have been likely to sell as a generic script in the market. Different goals, different contexts, different rules.

Or you just have to make your own films, rather than trying to sell your scripts - two very different goals and contexts. When you're selling a script, the script itself is the one and only product and it has to sell itself - there's no poster, no reviews, no word of mouth, no trailer, no commercials, nothing else to grab your audience's attention.

The entertainment business is a combination of skill, practice, hardwork, networking and often luck. Now 'luck' means recognizing and seizing an opportunity that presents itself. Tarantino and others have. But as pointed out what I can do as a DIRECTOR who brings to life my own script is different from being a WRITER trying to convince someone else to buy my script and bring it to life. As IDOM put it, "[they are] two very different goals and contexts."

Ultimately, as a filmMAKER, you create your VISION. As a filmWRITER, you create your STORY. Whether you love, hate or are indifferent to Tarantino, you need to respect his dedication to telling a story AND translating that to the screen. The same is true for any writer/director and filmmaker.

110 pages? But the limit is 120. WTF?

Only beginners think in absolutes. Practically, nobody wants to sit in a theater for more than two hours. That translates to roughly 120 pages, at one page per minute (again an approximation). Given you also have credits and lead-ins, allowing for six minutes or so, 110 pages is a good guideline for feature script length. Generally writers are urged towards 90 pages. A story may need more or less. As a writer, my duty should be to telling the story well and succinctly.

As I mentioned before, the closer one's writing matches the producer's needs, the better the chance of optioning. Given the choice of buying a producible script or cutting/re-writing a lengthy script, producers will prefer the former. There is no "rule" that cuts off a script at 120 pages, it's about common business sense. Every two pages can be a one day shoot, costing thousands in productions expenses. Even for the no/lo-budget indie, there's a cost in time and resources. If you go over 120, you need to have a damn compelling story that will keep viewers anchored to their seats for those additional minutes. A bored audience leads to bad reviews which means low box office revenues.

As with any thing, if you pick up your camera to shoot your own script, there is no "rule" that can't be broken--though the consequences rest squarely on your own shoulders. A lot of these "rules" are practical guidelines that have been distilled from years of collective movie making wisdom. We don't have to agree with it or follow it, but it certainly behooves us to understand it.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

If you go over 120, you need to have a damn compelling story that will keep viewers anchored to their seats for those additional minutes. A bored audience leads to bad reviews which means low box office revenues.

Another aspect of this is that if you're a new/unproven screenwriter it's pretty safe to assume that your script is longer than it needs to be. Writing or directing - editing is an acquired skill. You have to learn to 'kill your darlings" and that can be a very hard thing to do. Placing what seems like an arbitrary restriction - like 90, or 110, or 120 pages - on yourself can force you to re-evaluate the importance of everything in the script and figure out what is truly necessary to the story. As an exercise it can be useful to go even farther - can you tell the story effectively in 60 pages? 45 pages? How much can you take away and still make it work?

 

[Birdman]

Tom Petty wouldn't get past the initial audition on American Idol, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be successful as a musician - and also doesn't mean the American Idol judges would be wrong to dismiss him if he doesn't fit the criteria they've established for what they're looking for.

...Again, I would agree with you if American Idol represented the full force of the music industry. It doesn't! It's just a tiny fraction of what a musician can access to make it in the music industry. The Screenwriting equivalent might be "The PAGE Fellowship" or some other high-profile contest.

The music industry is made up of Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., Warner Music Group, and EMI Music Group. Out of these giants you get the famous record labels like RCA, Columbia Records, Atlantic Records, Etc. Etc..

The movie industry is made up of Warner Bros., Disney, NBC Universal (Universal Pictures), Columbia TriStar (Columbia Pictures), and FOX Entertainment (20th Century and Paramount), etc.

In both the music AND the movie industry you have a WIDE VARIETY of options for you to sell your art. A Tom Petty could sell his particular talent just like Trent Resnor, Marilyn Manson and Michael Buble could sell their own particular "style".

However, ....try writing your OWN FRICKIN' STYLE of movie script and you're drummed out of the industry at page 121 (or god forbid you have your address on the title page). Suddenly all the shit you regularly see showing up on the movie screens around the world (lots of exposition, "On-the-Nose" dialogue, flat characters, butt-numbingly long films) is NOT ALLOWED to be accessed by the Spec Script writer.

It's not "American Idol" ....It's a sub-culture of "fear" the permeates the Spec Script community to where any new talent is completely scared shitless to do ANYTHING that may be considered "breaking the rules" that someone established long, long ago.

It's a "Catch 22". People want crazy, off-the-wall movies that break the rules and excite people. They want NEW talent to write these films ...So they then demand that the "new talents" all subscribe to a clean, precise, cookie-cutter mindset and not do anything that may "raise eyebrows" or "Flag your script". Then if some script with all the crazy "rule breaking" shit we love miraculously manages to slide through all of the "Safe Script Filters" and makes it to the silver screen ...we celebrate the script writer as a god.

The best example I can provide is "Bodybuilding"

I've watched bodybuilding instructional videos from all kinds of famous body builders. They have all kinds of "rules and regulations" regarding what you are supposed to do to build muscle. They show how you are supposed to lift slowly and carefully, (2 seconds up - 5 seconds down), proper stance, proper diet, you name it. If you want to get big ...that's how you do it! THEN I'll see a video of these same bodybuilders eating a Whopper for lunch and in the Gym they are breaking every single rule that they've pushed so hard in the industry. They break the rules THEY established themselves.

I remember asking in a forum once, "So why does he say you are supposed to do lift one way, then in the gym he does it the complete opposite?" and the response I get is, "When you get to be as big as he is, then you can break the rules".

I get the same responses in the movie industry. Nobody seems to grasp the "Catch 22" in any of this.

-Birdman.

 

[Birdman]

I personally agree with you. As a movie viewer, I thought the diner scene was too boring, irrelevant, and unnecessary. I don't think he's a particularly good director either. Fortunately, his later movies actually use good cinematographers and editors so we see less talking heads sequences. Robert Richardson did an excellent job with "Django Unchained". Tarantino writes pithy dialogue but lots of his movie characters feel relatively flat and cardboard to me. None of them have depth of feeling, just anger, stereotypic actions, and one liners. His redeeming grace is that he has interesting stories.

On the director scale (Ed Wood = 2 to Spielberg = 10), I'd put Tarantino as a solid 6.

...I don't think he's a great director either, but I DO enjoy his movies. I like his particular style of movies. I enjoy confrontational dialogue (Like Jules terrorizing Brett and his gang in "Pulp Fiction") and I love the slash'em-up "Kill Bill" themes. It just so happens that Tarantino focuses on a genre that I enjoy.

My Screenplay is chocked full of pithy dialogue, flat characters and probably "needless" exposition, but then again, I'm not writing "On Golden Pond" and Meryl Streep will probably never be cast in anything I ever write. I also think I have a hard time getting that through to whomever reads my script. And it seems that if you have a "Kill Bill" type of character ....then expect to get your Spec Script slammed by the analysts for lack of a dynamic character arc. Rules! ...Must.... Follow.... the.... Rules!

Tarantino is to movies what Rob Zombie is to music. Neither of them will ever touch the warm, innermost parts of our souls or help us reach some higher level of spiritual being ...but they DO have their own special little "entertainment-value" niche in our lives.

Lastly,

SOME movies lend themselves to having characters be a certain "flat" way so that they can pull of their roles in a more realistic way. I think it would have been a mistake to have "Mr. Pink" finding his inner soul and blossoming into an exciting character arc in "Reservoir Dogs" just like it was to have the Terminator saying, "I know now why you cry." ...He's a frickin' ROBOT, people! ...C'mon! ...He exterminates scores of humans with a blazing Gatling gun. ....We're not at ALL concerned about him being in touch with his inner self.

-Birdman

 

[Inarius]

I think Torantino knows how to let the audience feel the story. That's what important. What I don't like is that many of his characters kinda repeat each other.

Only beginners think in absolutes. Practically, nobody wants to sit in a theater for more than two hours. That translates to roughly 120 pages, at one page per minute (again an approximation). Given you also have credits and lead-ins, allowing for six minutes or so, 110 pages is a good guideline for feature script length. Generally writers are urged towards 90 pages. A story may need more or less. As a writer, my duty should be to telling the story well and succinctly.

1 page/min is actually a HUGE approximation, probably even a suggestion. I don't have so much experience in writing, but I've seen how sometimes 30 seconds of my vision how it should be on screen, can vary between 2-3 action lines and 2 pages (!). But yes, the overall 120 pages probably make a 2 hours movie.

Why I'm asking about absolutes? Because I've already heard of scripts rejected because of exceeding the limit by 5-10 pages. And I don't wanna make stupid mistakes. It's like to get a fine from a cop, not for driving crazy or drunk, but just because you've forgotten your driving license at home.

 

[IndiePaul]

Just a note, Tarantino scripts are typically very verbose - well over 110 pages. He goes into a lot of detail that would kill most newbie writers chances.

The 110 page limit for spec scripts is recommended by many. Why? It's due to the one-page-per-minute guideline. So 110 page script is approx 110 minutes on-screen so nearly a 2hr movie already - that's already too long. Hollywood would likely cut it to 90 mins.

The 110 recommended limit is also there because many new screenwriters do not understand how to write tightly, you can pack an amazing movie into 90-110 pages. Far too many write >110 pages that contain many uninteresting scenes that a pro would cut. Many also use non-tight writing that delays the read and adds no value to the screenplay - also aspects that a pro would cut.

As for the missing bank heist scene. I personally really wanted to see it, and missed not having it in the movie. The movie 'Heat' made up for that. However, the dialogue in Reservoir Dogs blew me away - so I loved the movie regardless. For many, it was a game changer. If you include DVD sales, it make a great deal of money for the backers and obviously launched Tarantino's career (prior he had been writing whilst working in a video store).

 

[Inarius]

I still don't understand how "120 recommended" turns into "110 recommended".

Far too many write >110 pages that contain many uninteresting scenes that a pro would cut.

Very well. I'll learn what kind of scenes he cuts, and next time I'll know how to right more tightly. We learn from our experience, from failures.

P.S. I have my script exactly at 120 pages. I have to confess, a large part of it is spent on transitions and short-lined dialogues.

 

[Birdman]

I still don't understand how "120 recommended" turns into "110 recommended".

...Well, I thought the same thing, too. All the contests have 120 pages as a standard. But if you submit your 110 page script in for a review, you can bet your sweet ass you'll be told, "Knock it down to 100 pages."

P.S. I have my script exactly at 120 pages. I have to confess, a large part of it is spent on transitions and short-lined dialogues.

...One of the "Rules" that adds to the +120 pages issue is the fact that you HAVE TO HAVE some action text whenever there is a scene change. That adds up to a LOT of text after a while. Even if you have a couple of characters not doing anything different at all, it's merely a "scene change", then you have to have action text ....because that's the rules!

I wonder if Tarantino has scenes without any action text?

-Birdman

 

[cheeseandachallenge]

if you submit your 110 page script in for a review, you can bet your sweet ass you'll be told, "Knock it down to 100 pages."

I'm not a script writer (I write my own stuff currently, but don't have ambitions of being a writer), so I'm just spitballing here.

But perhaps, as Indiepaul suggested, newbie writers tend to overwrite and have a lot of filler. So you're told to cut it down to tighten it up some more. It may just be a generalised and informal rule, that's that what a script reviewer will tell you - to make sure it's been tightened adequately.

So you're told to cut it down, not because it's a rule that it should be 110 pages (instead of the standard of 120), to shed the fat of the script.

 

[Inarius]

Birdman, I have enough action lines. There are short enough. But I have a lot of one-line dialogues, like:

                       BOB
            What's going on?

                       JILL
            I know everything now, Bob!

Bob nods and looks at the crowd out of the window.

                       BOB
            Look...

                       JILL
            How could you?! I trusted you!

                       BOB
            I had no choice...

You see? One line dialogues. I have many of them. And also those scene transitions, intercuts... Many short scenes. There are also many times when people watch news on TV, so there are BROADCAST and END OF BROADCAST lines.

Oh, and... English... that language grammar. In Russian and Hebrew I could write 1-2 word sentences. English makes it almost impossible. English is more strict language. (Currently I'm talking about action lines)

What I'm saying is that if you read my script, you'll say that it's a 100 min film, not 120.

 

[Birdman]

Inarious,

I'm not questioning your use of action lines. I'm sure you have that covered. I'm just pointing out that we are considered "new writers" who are not skilled at "writing tightly". WE have to use 110 pages or less ...whereas a Tarantino can do the exact same script at 150 pages.

The "action line" comment I made was pointing out a "rule" that forces a script writer to add in a bunch of text when it may not be really important at all.

So the rule is, "Write tightly ...but make sure you have action text after a slug line whether it needs it or not."

-Birdman

 

[Inarius]

Inarious,

I'm not questioning your use of action lines. I'm sure you have that covered. I'm just pointing out that we are considered "new writers" who are not skilled at "writing tightly". WE have to use 110 pages or less ...whereas a Tarantino can do the exact same script at 150 pages.

The "action line" comment I made was pointing out a "rule" that forces a script writer to add in a bunch of text when it may not be really important at all.

So the rule is, "Write tightly ...but make sure you have action text after a slug line whether it needs it or not."

-Birdman

You don't "have to" use action lines if you don't want to. I just can't imagine how a script can be without them. Only dialogues?... That's not a poem or a prose.

In most cases I use action lines after slug lines, because I feel I need to. Suppose you open a scene. Don't you think you need to introduce it's background? Who is in the scene? How many people? What are they doing? Or what is generally happening? The "scene exposition" should come first of all, don't you think? It's for the story, not for the rules. But the 110 pages instead of 120 can be really daunting.

 

[Birdman]

You don't "have to" use action lines if you don't want to. I just can't imagine how a script can be without them. Only dialogues?... That's not a poem or a prose.

In most cases I use action lines after slug lines, because I feel I need to. Suppose you open a scene. Don't you think you need to introduce it's background? Who is in the scene? How many people? What are they doing? Or what is generally happening? The "scene exposition" should come first of all, don't you think? It's for the story, not for the rules. But the 110 pages instead of 120 can be really daunting.

Here, Inarius,....I'll help you out: (LINK)

"Following a Slugline is the "Action" (sometimes called "Action Lines" or an "Action Block") which describes what is happening at the scene (in present tense) and which characters are involved. Important: You always need to add an Action Block (no matter how short) after every Slugline. An Action Block can be one sentence of description or an entire paragraph of description and action."


...So, do you have a line of action text after every single slugline?

-Birdman

 

[FantasySciFi]

I have to confess, a large part of it is spent on transitions and short-lined dialogues.

DON'T INCLUDE TRANSITIONS IN A SPEC SCRIPT. Transitions are a DIRECTOR'S decision, not yours. Period. One or two to help emphasize a pivotal scene are fine. But on every page, it unduly lengthens the script, filling it with stuff that will be ignored. Seriously. Only the writer who is hired to create the SHOOTING SCRIPT needs to put in transitions. Any writers who put them into a spec script are shooting themselves in the foot. A spec script writer is paid for STORY not DIRECTION.

As for dialogue, the best advice is use it only when necessary. The visuals of your scene should fully convey the action of the scene. What can't be gathered from looking at the picture, should have sound and/or dialogue added to complement the visuals. Using your example.

                       BOB
            What's going on?

                       JILL
            I know everything now, Bob!

Bob nods and looks at the crowd out of the window.

                       BOB
            Look...

                       JILL
            How could you?! I trusted you!

                       BOB
            I had no choice...

Assuming the audience has been attentive up to this point, they've already witnessed how Jill has learned about everything. They don't need to be told that fact. Similarly, Bob is looking out the window, he doesn't need to say "Look". "How could you?" is answered in the next response "I had no choice". It really doesn't add anything to repeat it. Sometimes an easy "fix" is to move around dialogue and action to another character.

Bob pours himself a drink when Jill storms in and slaps it
from his hand.

Sounds of a crowd gathering build outside the window.

Jill's eyes tear as she runs over and looks out.

                       JILL
            To think I trusted you!

                       BOB
            Did you leave me any choice?

He looks over at her as he drops ice into a new glass.

From 5 exchanges down to 2 exchanges. The biggest difficulty in learning to write dialogue is to learn when you don't need to say something. We're all guilty of that. Even pro's. That's why having an outside eye read over a script can be invaluable. The best test of a scene--courtesy of David Mamet--is when you can take away the dialogue and still understand the scene. If you do that with your scene and mine, you'll notice the difference. What sense do you have of each character given the comparison?

Bob nods and looks at the crowd out of the window.

                            VERSUS

Bob pours himself a drink when Jill storms in and slaps it
from his hand.

Sounds of a crowd gathering build outside the window.

Jill's eyes tear as she runs over and looks out.

He looks over at her as he drops ice into a new glass.

And in doing so, I use only 14 lines instead of your original 16 lines. I always try to use visuals and action in place of words. I frame the actions in my mind as camera shots but allow the director to decide how to interpret them.

WE have to use 110 pages or less ...whereas a Tarantino can do the exact same script at 150 pages.

Dude, for the gazillionth time, HE IS SHOOTING HIS OWN SCRIPT. Pick up a goddamn camera and you can shoot your own 133 page script. Period. End of Story.

"Following a Slugline is the "Action" (sometimes called "Action Lines" or an "Action Block") which describes what is happening at the scene (in present tense) and which characters are involved. Important: You always need to add an Action Block (no matter how short) after every Slugline. An Action Block can be one sentence of description or an entire paragraph of description and action."

...So, do you have a line of action text after every single slugline?
-Birdman

Yes and No. The first time you introduce a location, you always want to describe it. After that, unless there are changes, the location slugline does not require description. Now when you introduce a scene, obviously something is happening there or why introduce it? It is a good idea to describe the activities going on there to help set the stage (pun intended) for the dynamics of that scene. It's good to know, for example, who is present and where they're located in relationship to each other. So in this sense:
READY (slugline), SET (setup description), ACTION (launch into the scene).

INT. ELEVATOR - DAY  [READY]
The elevator opens empty as Roger steps in and the doors
close behind him.  He notices it's padded and ultrasleek. [SET]

He watches as the button lights flash, the numbers climbing
higher until

the door swooshes open to a small waiting group.

He draws a deep breath and steps out.

....
INT. ELEVATOR - DAY  [READY]
The door opens and inside Robert and Liz chat, his arm
stretches up behind her head and her body relaxed. [SET]

They stop, quickly stiffen and look up and away, like teens
caught flirting and go silent.

Roger smiles and steps inside.
...

There are times when you simply don't need to describe a scene but action is still occurring.

INT. DOUG'S CAR - DAY    [READY]
Doug slips into the car and closes the door.  [SET]

Reaching into his coat, he pulls out his cell phone and
dials Trish.

                         DOUG
           Hey.  Wondering if you gave any thought
           to having dinner with me tonight.

If there is no action (which can be description, dialogue or "activities"), there is no "scene" (slugline). You don't just list a collection of sluglines. Something ALWAYS follows a slugline. What follows has been called "an action block" by some. The following would be wrong:

EXT. WOODS - NIGHT

EXT. DEEP WOODS - NIGHT

EXT. CABIN - NIGHT

Without an action block, these make no sense and tell nothing. Compare that to:

EXT. WOODS - NIGHT
Heavy breathing.  

A half naked woman runs wide-eyed with frequent glances 
over her shoulder.

EXT. DEEP WOODS - NIGHT
A howling far off.  Running of dogs' feet.

She screams as she trips on a branch.  She stands and
limps towards a faint light through the trees.

EXT. CABIN - NIGHT
She comes through a clearing and runs to the front
porch.  She pounds on the door, tears streaming down
her face.

                         RACHEL
        Please!  Let me in!

A slugline is followed by an action block.

 

[Inarius]

...So, do you have a line of action text after every single slugline?

In most cases I do. The times I don't, is when there are simultaneous actions on 2 scenes, and when I switch to one of the scenes a 3rd or 4th time only to write a dialogue line, I don't use action lines, because I've already done this. I don't want to explain the same thing over and over again. However, I do add action lines if there is something new happening on one of the scenes.

DON'T INCLUDE TRANSITIONS IN A SPEC SCRIPT.

By transitions I don't mean CUT TO, SMASH TO, DISSOLVE TO and etc... What I mean is FLASHBACK, TV NEWS BROADCAST, END OF FLASHBACK, END OF BROADCAST... I think these are transitions too, and unlike the first ones, they ARE a part of the story.