The advice and rantings of a former Hollywood script reader turned TV writer (SUPERMAN AND LOIS) who is tired of seeing screenwriters make the same mistakes, saving the world from bad writing one screenplay at a time. Learn what it takes to get your script past one of these mythical Gatekeepers.
For most of us, the dawn of a new year is the impetuous to look forward. The next twelve months are a blank page waiting to be filled with story that - hopefully - will be better than the 12 that proceeded it. This year, the start of 2019 is provoking me to look backwards and reflect, for it brings us closer to the 10th anniversary of this blog.
My first post appeared in this space on January 29, 2009, in a post laying out the mission statement of this blog. At the time, there were few resources available from the perspective of a script reader and I wanted to contribute to the screenwriting community from the perspective of the guy who says "no" to a lot of writers for many of the same reasons. My still-evolving vision of this site was that it would be a repository of "Don't do this" or "I'm sick of this" and the occasional gossipy detail about films I'd seen go through the development process.
Because there seemed to be a risk in slinging some dirt about how a few agencies dealt with the coverage process, I opted to hide behind a pseudonym. Since the definition of my job was to be a gatekeeper, I settled on... Zuul the Gatekeeper in what I'm sure was an obvious attempt to invoke the pen names of those who wrote for sites like Ain't It Cool News. The blog was titled "The Bitter Script Reader" because I sought something immediately reflective of what the site was about, even as I made ironic use of the retort many writers used when presented with unfavorable coverage.
Because "Bitter Script Reader" seemed like such a mouthful, I doubted anyone would take to using it as my name, hence the brief adoption of "Zuul," stolen from GHOSTBUSTERS. For some reason it escape my imagination that people could just call me "Bitter." Before long, that became the preferred moniker, though, and so if you ever wondered why my email was "ZuulTheReader at Gmail" now you know.
As I look at my first few months of posts, I see a lot of things I would be unlikely to do today. After having spent a number of years reading scripts where the formatting alone was a warning that the next hour was unpleasant. As I soon discovered, even just advising people on formatting leads to people complaining you're being a "formatting Nazi." This isn't helped by the complaints of pros who loudly argue against any "rules" and act as if anyone giving guidance is some kind of flim-flam man.
"No one ever passed on a script because it was in the wrong font! No one ever passed on a script because their action paragraphs had seven lines instead of three!" Yes, that's true. But good writers often forget there are a lot of things they do innately BECAUSE they are good writers. They're not consciously following rules because they have internalized so many facets of writing in a way that keeps them from making these kinds of mistakes on instinct.
In other words, they think they're rule-breakers, but the truth is that they're operating on such a higher level that they've forgotten how those at the very start of the race still need guard rails. So when I say, "Don't turn in a script written in Times New Roman. It tells me you don't know what you're doing!" a retort of "CHINATOWN would still be CHINATOWN in Times New Roman" is kind of missing the point. I often look at a script as a job interview for a film and when I go to a job interview, I dress the part.
I wish I'd found a better way to express that at the start of posts on formatting rules. It would have saved me a lot of emails over the years from people taking exception to the idea of a writing rule rather than looking for the "note behind the note" of this DON'T.
But if you want a look back on how I addressed formatting in the early days of the blog, jump into the Wayback Machine and take in these posts:
I adapted a screenplay based on a RomZomCom novel about a married
couple on the verge of divorce that repairs their relationship
after/due to a zombie outbreak. I thought that since it was a
RomZomCom that focuses on a bickering married couple (I'm aware that
it sounds like a similar premise to Shaun of the Dead, but thought it
would fall into the "same, but different" category) and not a dreary
zombie flick about a group of survivors holed up somewhere would give
it enough commercial appeal to at least be a direct to DVD film.
I hosted my script on the Black List, paid for two reviews, and much to
my dismay each came back as 5 overall with no individual scores higher
than a 6, and each review had a 4--one review gave me a 4 for
characters, and one gave me a 4 for plot.
The weaknesses discussed in each review focused on a lack of character
development, particularly the couple's relationship--which I agree
with and have ideas for fixing--but the "Prospects" section of each
review stated that my screenplay wasn't unique enough to stand out
from other zombie movies.
Obviously, since no category was higher than a 6, there are also
issues with dialogue and plot (which may be linked to character
development) that need to be fixed, but in your opinion, would it even
be worth the time to re-write the script focusing on developing the
relationship of the couple? Or, given the fact that there are already
so many zombie movies, is my premise not even unique enough to have
any commercial appeal? How do you know when it's time to just give up
on a script completely?
First, as far as knowing when to give up on a script, check out this video post.
But to further that discussion, I think it's important to consider the larger context here. I think that no matter how good the script is, you're going to be fighting against that knee-jerk reaction of, "Not ANOTHER zombie movie!" Zombies, like vampires before them, have hit total saturation point. If you think there are a lot of produced films about either of those entities, you need to remember that for each one of those, there are hundreds of specs all trying to cash in on that genre's success.
To stand out from the crowd, you're going to need an incredibly inventive take. The first spec that springs to mind is MAGGIE, which was on the Black List a few years ago. This was a zombie script with a twist - it treated zombie-ism as a slow-progressing disease and focuses on a 16 year-old girl who's gradually turning into a zombie over six weeks. I've read MAGGIE and it really plays less like a horror movie and more like a terminal illness movie that uses the supernatural trappings to dress it up a bit.
I'll confess I wasn't a huge fan of the script. I admired its cleverness in how it set up its concept, but it wasn't a script that left me with a burning need to see brought to the screen. But I can't dispute that it found an approach to zombies that no one else was doing and it did it on a budget.
With your script, you need to be brutally honest in deciding for yourself if you're bringing anything new to the table. With a genre like that, it's going to take more than just another set of characters working through their issues amid a zombie attack. What's unique beyond those characters? ZOMBIELAND didn't work just because it was four colorful characters - it was because the story started at a point where zombies had almost completely taken over the country and it treated that situation with a bit more irreverence than we'd seen. We're given the doomsday scenario, but it's made darkly funny rather than brutal.
Is your script doing something that no one else's is? Or is it merely a well-executed example of elements that feel familiar at this point?
Alessandro asks: Is there any room for a character arc in a short movie script? (15 mins max)
Absolutely. Just to pull from two examples I've featured on the blog, check out "Violet" and "Man Crush." Both of them are under five minutes and were produced by students participating in Campus MovieFest.
Daren asks: I've always liked the format for THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER script - with the absence of traditional sluglines. Using instead things like "IN JACK'S OFFICE" as the heading. Dan Gilroy's NIGHTCRAWLER script used the same style. I also really liked the bold. Both scripts were lean/fast reads.
Anyway, question - is it okay to use similar formatting as long as you're consistent? I'm not talking about using a non courier font or messing with margins/dialogue and character spacing, but would the use of non traditional sluglines or bolding your script really turn off a reader/producer that much (assuming the story is great and script well written of course)?
I don't see this thing too often so I can't speak to what the exact reaction would be. I'd presume that once the script got to the point of being budgeted, the non-traditional slugs are going to drive your line producer crazy.
Speaking as someone who reads a lot of scripts, I always get thrown by this because it makes it harder to scan and identify specific scenes easy. The extra line break before that scene heading and the "INT." is really easy too look for when one has to scan back for a particular sequence.
I'm one of those who tends to feel that any time you stray outside the normal format, you're making it harder on the people reading your script. The last thing anyone should want to do is force the reader to make extra effort. I never want to have to rely on the benefit of the doubt. There's a reason that every formatting program defaults to the standard sluglines. They're universally recognized.
I don't think straying from the format will hurt a brilliantly written script, but if your writing already has the reader assessing it on the borderline AND they're having to work harder to keep track of things, you're probably dead.
Cody sent in a question somewhat related to Tuesday's post:
Your post today somewhat coincides with my question. Last week during my screenwriting group in LA, one of our members (always highly critical, yet never brings their own pages) chastised me for using words that he said "a reader might not understand." The words were both used in description, they were "kitschy" and "eponymous." He said readers are looking for any reason to toss your script aside and too big of words might cause them to do that. I read you blog, Amanda's and countless others and have never heard this. Thoughts?
I don't think those two words are too obscure, so I can't say I'd figure you have anything to fear from them. So long as they work in context, words like that shouldn't be a problem.
Your friends might have a point, though. If - IF - you're using a few too many "thesaurus" words, that might result in a scenario like the ones your friends posit. There's nothing wrong with some word variety, but if you're so focused on using "intelligent" words that EVERY word sounds like it belongs on a vocabulary test, then you might have a problem.
There's a scene from Friends that is a good demonstration of what I'm talking about. Joey has to write a letter of recommendation and he's worried about sounding stupid, so Ross convinces him to use the thesaurus to dress it up a bit. Joey runs the entire letter through the thesaurus word-by-word and picks the smartest sounding word for each one. This results in a letter that... well... just click here.
I'm not saying that's your problem, or even if that's what your friends are reacting to, but keep it in mind.
Michael writes in with a formatting question:
What is the hard and fast rule when it comes to reading a Scene Heading at the end of page? Should it always
be avoided, as Trottier says, or are there exceptions?
I found my script has many pages ending by starting a new scene but the character speaking doesn't show up until the next page.
If I push all my scene headings down to start the next page, I end up with an additional page added to the script count and several pages
where there's a heavier block of white space at the bottom of the page.
What is more acceptable to the reader? Seeing bigger gaps at the bottom of the page or seeing a Scene Heading
and maybe one or 2 lines of description, but nothing else.
This one's an easy one - put the scene heading at the top of the next page. Final Draft should do this automatically, in fact. I'm a big believer in making your script look as professional as possible, so that's the direction I'd go in.
Beyond that, it's a little confusing to turn the page and be launched into the description. A scene heading at the bottom of the page might get skipped, forcing the reader to turn back. It's a minor detail, but another point that falls under the "don't break the flow of the read" rules.
I got a question from a reader named Norm recently:
I have a question though as a professional reader in Hollywood. Does grammar matter in a script? There's this debate raging on the forums over at Stage 31 at the moment and people are swearing that grammar is in fact not important at all in a spec and that studios will simply hire people to fix it. I would love to get the opinion of an actual script reader on this. If you read a script with bad grammar, would you still give it the stamp of approval?
I'm sure we've kinda discussed this before. Most questions of this nature can be boiled down to these guidelines:
Make your writing look as professional as possible. Thousands of scripts come into each company a year. It's a deluge - and most of those scripts are bad. So people are going to have ways of thinning the herd. Some of you are going to argue that it's not fair that someone might toss your script aside without giving it a full read. To that I say, "When someone on American Idol has the wrong look, the wrong attitude and their voice is not only weak, but completely lacks technique, do you really need to hear them sing a three-minute song in it's entirety?" Don't give your reader any reason not to remain engaged with the story. If your grammar is so atrocious that one has to re-read some passages over and over again to understand what happened, that's not a good thing for you.
If someone retorts "I read a Tarantino script and he misspells everything! No one cares!" punch them in the face. YOU are not Tarantino. When you write a film that grosses $100 million, jump-starts several careers and gets nominated for Oscars, then fine, get lazy and write it your way.
If the script is a great story, brilliant concept and flawless characters, and it happens to have poor grammar, then yeah, I'd probably still give it a Consider. But here's the thing - writers who care enough about their work to turn in something that exceptional aren't going to invest that much care and then shit the bed when it comes to grammar. The people who stand out from the crowd well enough to break in almost always agonize over showing their work in the best possible light.
Why buy a tux and then wear sneakers with it?
My Talkback question to you: Why does this question keep coming up? Why must this be a debate on screenwriting boards? If all of you are intending to be professional writers who take pride in your work, why are you not kicking the assses of the lazy hacks looking for validation on how to cut corners?
The biggest fights I see on screenwriting forums are over little pissy shit like this: should sluglines be bold? How much should I underline and italicize? Readers like me often jump in with suggestions or guidelines on how to make your script more appealing. Most people are appreciative, but there's one asshole who says, "You wouldn't flunk David Koepp over a formatting and grammar nitpick, so ergo formatting doesn't matter!"
Actually, that belligerent asshole probably doesn't know the meaning of the word "ergo."
My point is, I get the curiosity. I get seeking the advice of people on the inside. What I DON'T get is why you guys waste so much energy fighting over this stuff. If you really believe grammar doesn't matter, then don't waste your time berating everyone. Hell, let them waste their time getting their grammar perfect while you beat them across the finish line.
Similarly, if you know there are benefits to a more professional look to your script, and some jerk in the forums tells you that the gurus know nothing, the bloggers know nothing and that you're an idiot for caring so much, why do you need that dickhead's approval of your method?
So I had a couple questions regarding the aesthetics of formatting. The first concerns my opening: Im doing a cold open with a couple voices having a phone conversation over black, then I do a "fade in" over the opening image I want for the script and to get the story underway, but If I've already started with a cold open, then should I just start the next scene with a basic slugline and get on with it? If I do start with the fade in, should this automatically start on the next page regardless of how long the previous page was? Having a "Fade In" start in the middle of the page looks awkward, but then so does a half blank page.
If I understand you right, the way you probably want to do it is put VOICES OVER BLACK at the top of the scene during the phone conversation. Then at the conclusion of that talk, do FADE IN as opening of the scene.
My other question regards superimpositions: Do I always have to use "superimpose:" or "super:" What about just centering the locale or date or what have you, and being done with it? I feel like the less "script jargon" the better, it keeps the reader in the story and makes it more visual, but I also don't want to confuse my reader... I know these may seem like trivial questions, but if you've got a great handle on your story, structure, and character development (Which of course is always the primary concern) all those little formatting tricks help make a great script stand out from all the other great scripts because it LOOKS as good as it READS; you see and hear the film even better. At least I've noticed that I do.
This is probably one of those "if it feels right, do it" responses. I think it needs to be clear that the text will be superimposed on the screen and the way you say you're going to do it doesn't necessarily make that clear. Putting the date and time in quotes might make it more apparent, but if everything else in your script works, I don't think this can hurt you too much.
Last week on Twitter, I expressed my incredulity that a Done Deal Pro thread on whether or not to use "we see" in your screenplay had grown to 8 pages in only about a day or so. I know in the past that both Scott Myers and I have been surprised at just how drawn out and contentious these arguments over formatting minutiae can become. It's almost as if people are more passionate about how they write than they are about writing good material, and that's just sad.
Naturally, this only provoked a dozen or so people to ask me on Twitter what I thought about the use of "we see."
As with a lot of these nuances, the answer tends to be "It's okay if you use it in moderation, preferably sparingly."
When I write, I try not to use it unless absolutely necessary. I know there are a few pros who took such exception to the "NEVER use this" advice that they actually counted how many times they used it in their writing and then noted that such usage surely didn't prohibit the script from being sold.
My feeling is that 90% of the time it's redundant. Your action descriptions are supposed to be all visual, so if you're writing it, the assumption is we're seeing it. After all, you don't write "We hear" before every line of dialogue, do we?
The one clear exception has already been pointed out somewhere in that thread - that "we see" is valuable when we're trying to limit what the audience sees and then replicate that limitation for the viewer. Someone noted that in an Indiana Jones script, there's a "we see" that introduces a character wearing a fedora and leather jacket, though he's only shown from behind. Obviously, the "we see" is used to offer that description and give the impression that the character is Indiana Jones when that is not in fact the case.
So it's definitely useful when limiting the information the reader has. I wouldn't dispute that at all.
However, as with capitalizing and underlining, this "rule" exists because there are always a healthy sampling of newbies who overindulge. I once read a script that started nearly every paragraph with "we see" and after a while it just got to be annoying. It was a pretty clear PASS. However, I hasten to add that the Pass wasn't because of the "we sees," just that the "we sees" were merely symptoms of this writer's lack of skill.
If all the dialogue in a script sucks, the answer is not "Never write dialogue," it's, "learn to write better dialogue." And if all the uses of "we see" in a script reach such an epidemic proportion that it becomes cluttered and annoying to follow, the answer is "learn to use the tool properly."
I've heard it said from credible sources that if a screenplay follows this or that structure guru's structure to a fault, and has beats exactly where a particular beat sheet says to place them, many readers will simply toss the screenplay.
Hogwash.
I've tossed out many scripts for having no structure, for following no discernible pattern, but to throw out a script because the inciting incident occurs on p. 12 and the Act Two turning point occurs on p. 25 is utter idiocy. That's no less stupid that a reader who would throw out a script because the inciting incident happens on p. 14 rather than p. 12.
Having said that, if your inciting incident doesn't happen until p. 20, there's a problem. If it takes 40 pages to get to anything resembling a turning point, there's a problem. Those are major pacing issues and if there's nothing in the first 15-30 pages to really hook the reader, yeah, you're screwed.
But I've never heard of a reader saying "The structure in this script is too textbook! Beggone! To the waste bin with thee!"
Having said that, there are a few of these screenwriting gurus who seem to be a bit full of themselves and seem to come up with their own overly-complicated methods purely so they can charge an arm and a leg just to hook in some poor saps to take their courses. I like McKee, and he's earned his cred as a "guru." The late Blake Snyder certainly did too. Syd Field? No question, so don't think I'm lumping them in with the ones I dislike.
Whether or not this is true for you or not, what are some things that will make you immediately disregard a script?
Too long. Too short. Too many brads Not enough brads Opening is too funny Opening is not funny enough Characters with bland names Characters with weird names Setting is too unusual Setting is too conventional Too much description Not enough description
In all seriousness, and I hope this doesn't come off too curt, this blog is full of posts about the things that turn me off, either right away or over the course of a script. Check out the archives.
But since it can't be stated enough - this is the sort of shit that really counts against you before I've read one word:
The wrong font.
Too long - which for you should mean anything over 120 pages. Give a guy like me a 135 page script and you might as well have stamped PASS on it yourself.
First several pages filled with excessive wordy description. Screenplays have more white space than text. If your first page looks more like a novel than a screenplay, I'm going to assume you don't know what you're doing.
I'm not allowed to PASS right away based on any of that stuff but you can be sure none of that will endear you to me.
Let me start by stating how depressed I was to find you are not repped.
After a joke like the one above, are you still surprised?
If you don't have an agent, well, let's just say it doesn't make a poor amateur like myself feel better. Good goals though.
Is it distracting to the reader to incorporate different screenwriting styles or does it add to the style of the script?
I've been reading a ton of screenplays lately. A move I should have made before I even attempted to actually write one. I noticed how some writers use different tools to convey the same meaning.
Example: when stating the age of a character, some choose (21), while others go with the simple, 21.
I'm sure there's a Formatting Nazi who's even more rigid than I who will cringe at this, but I'm not sure it makes a great deal of difference. I've seen both, though the (21) format is FAR more prevalent in the pro scripts I read. Either one is preferable to not including the age at all, or saying "She's 45, but looks 30" which is a maddening description that leaves me wondering "So who am I supposed to imagine here, Sandra Bullock or Katie Holmes?"
He continues:
Another example: when transitioning, some simply end the sentence. Start a new logline. Others will give the ol' ... at the end ... then use a simple logline like "KITCHEN", bypassing the "INT" and "DAY".
Misha Green uses it a lot in Sunflower.
Goes into the ...
DINING ROOM
... where Eve is setting the table with plastic utensils.
What do you think? If I give character names or just transition from scene to scene using different techniques, is it too distracting, or is that what people write about when they write about style? I'd hate to think I have to stick with one way throughout the entire script.
Minor point: you're actually talking about sluglines not "loglines."
I tend to favor the full sluglines, and again I see that a lot more in the pro scripts.
I hesitate to bring up secondary sluglines because I've seen instances on other boards were doing so conjures up all sorts of raving madmen who have such raging hard-ons for secondary slugs that they drag you into a fight about style, to the point where just engaging them ends up escalating the debate to such a degree that YOU end up sounding like the crazy one.
Here's my personal rule of secondary slugs: use them only in cases of sub-locations within a larger set. Example:
INT. BALLROOM - NIGHT
The wealthy mingle and socialize, as JAMES VANDERMEER (30) makes his way to...
MAYOR SWANSON'S TABLE
He sits down, then looks across the room at...
SENATOR BIGOT's (pronounced Bee-Go) TABLE
Now, my feeling is that one room in a larger house doesn't count as a sub-heading. So I'd write INT. DINING ROOM, INT. KITCHEN, and so on.
At the end of the day, though, these are really, really minor nuances. Using the wrong font is a much bigger deal than alternating between either of the options you're asking about above.
Ever wonder what happens if you fail to follow the formatting rules I often warn about? You become fodder for jokes like this one at the Hollywood Roaster.
"1,000th wannabe screenwriter decides to 'break all the rules'"
When Illinois native Fred Durnett vowed to write “an edgy script that wasn’t confined to the tired old three-act structure,” the 24-year-old barista had no idea he was setting a record as the 1,000th newbie to attempt the feat.
He also didn’t realize he was writing a shitty script.
“I’ve never been big on following the rules,” said Durnett. “Plus I’m special, so there’s that. I’m basically so talented that I can break all the usual screenwriting conventions without even knowing them.”
I question if this is a fake story because I'd swear I've read this script. Many, many times.
I bold my slugs, it's something I've been doing since I went pro about a two years ago ... I got turned onto by another writer and really like it ...
The thing is, when I bold my slugs, then I only use one space before the slug, not two ... the idea is that two spaces is generally there to let the reader know the following is a slug ... if the slug is bolded, there's no need for a double space, the bold lets the eye know it's a change in scene.
I do that and I really dig how it looks and reads, myself. And the producers who've picked up my work have never complained about it (and they've certainly given me a shitload of notes about other things, so if they didn't like it, they would) ... and I've never heard anything else from anyone, and have also seen a few bolded slugs scripts from other writers.
I just wondered, what's your take? I"m not trying to cheat, my scripts all fall into the respectable parameters ... the thing just looks and reads better, in my view.
For me, bolded slugs are a little bit of an annoyance. It's pretty far down on my list of pet peeves, but I've found them distracting in the few scripts I've read. I suppose a part of that could be that I'm so used to the regular way that anything else "looks wrong." I can't really speak to how other readers might perceive it because this has never really come up in any conversations I've had when I've shared pet peeves with colleagues.
If that's the only formatting liberty you're taking, it's probably not too bad. I can see it tripping a reader's mental red flag because it's a pretty conspicuous deviation, but it's relatively minor compared to not including page numbers, having the wrong font, the wrong spacing, having more than four lines in an action paragraph and giving camera direction.
Still, it could be a calculated risk in terms of earning the reader's skepticism off the bat. No good script will get a pass because of some bolded sluglines - but if the result is that they're too distracting I could see it impacting the read on a subliminal level.
To the best of my memory, I haven't seen too many professional scripts that have bolded sluglines, if that makes a difference to you.
Time and time again, I am told not to include CUT TOs, musical artist names, word capitalizations, underlining, and the various other gimmicks professional screenwriters use to make their screenplays more engaging and readable, and yet, time and time again, I see these things used in spec. screenplays that have been optioned or sold or are making their rounds in Hollywood, including those by previously unproduced or unknown writers. What gives? Should these things be in a spec or not?
Hey Mark, good question and a relevant one for me this week actually.
First, I'd dispute the notion that CUT TOs, capitalizations, and underlining makes a screenplay "more engaging and readable." Often it does the exact opposite. "CUT TO" is one of those redundant directions if you think about it. If you're changing scenes, a cut is presumably going to be involved, right? I just read an egrigious misuse of CUT TO just this week. The writer not only had an average of four or five of them a page, he also put them in the left margin instead of the right. By p. 30 just the sight of a CUT TO made my eyes bleed.
The same goes for capitalizations and underlining. If you use them at all, use them sparingly. Here's a good rule of thumb - anything that makes the script harder on the eyes is bad.
WHICH is easier TO READ? A sentence WITH A LOT of capitalizations and LOWER CASE WORDS - plus some UNDERLINING.... (OOPS! Blogger APPARENTLY won't LET me UNDERLINE!)
Or a more conventionally written sentence that rarely employs those gimmicks, if AT ALL, and only for emphasis?
Yeah, I know the old rules used to say to capitalize every sound effect, prop, action, or motion. That's generally not done as much anymore.
As for musical artist names and the names of specific songs, I say don't do it. This is one of those "rules" that is bent on occasion, but writing "As they kiss, Feist's 1234 crescendos" will just make you look like an amateur. Now, I've actually read a few scripts recently that were centered on garage bands, which naturally meant a number of scenes where we were told the band was playing The Ramones, Bon Jovi and a few others. Technically the correct way to do this would be to say, "They play a rock song like Livin' on a Prayer or Born to Run." I'd say that as long as it's clear that this song could be swapped out for another song without affecting the plot, go for it.
What you don't want to do is have a scene where we're told that an Avril Lavigne song comes up on the jukebox at a particular time, and then inform the reader in an aside that this song also inspired your plot. (Yes, I have actually seen this.)
Basically, if it's easy to tell that you've been dying to put this "awesome" song in a movie and wrote the scene just to do that, we'll probably peg you as a clueless newbie. Programming anything more than two songs sets this alarm bell off in a big way.
Before I get a bunch of emails citing exceptions, I'll point out that good writing trumps all. No one ever got a PASS because they capitalized one too many sentences or dared to put "More Than a Feeling" in their spec. (But seriously, are you clueless? That song is nearly a million to license!) But you'd better be a damn good writer, because if you pull that stuff you pretty much burn any goodwill from the reader.
And usually the people who break these "rules" break them frequently. As I said, even though they have their place in screenwriting, they should be used SPARINGLY. The fools who specify outrageously expensive songs tend to list five or six specific songs; those who like to use underlining to draw attention to the point then use it every page, to the point where its value becomes meaningless, and so on.
Yes, guys like Tarantino can turn their work in scribbled in crayon on the back of a placemat and it'll still be treated better than the most perfectly formatted newbie script. But an aspiring screenwriter who commits a major writing no-no and then complains "David Koepp did it, nyah!" is really missing the point.
It's not surprising when some first-timers make these mistakes out of ignorance. They just haven't done their homework - even though some of this stuff is pretty basic. However, if you know that there are certain rules, why fixate on figuring out all the minute exceptions and how to break them?
Bottom line, ideally you won't put them in a spec. If you do, make sure it doesn't pop up enough that your reader goes, "Again? Have they ever read a screenwriting book?"
By the way, as I was typing this, I found a recent post dealing with capitalizations from Scott over at Go Into The Story. I don't agree with him 100%, but it's worth noting what he says about a selling script and a shooting script
As an actor, Dan Callahan has appeared in 14 films over the last seven years, but lately his career has taken him in a different direction – screenwriting.
His current project, Demoted, is in post-production and stars Michael Vartan (“Alias”), David Cross (“Arrested Development”), Sean Astin (The Lord of the Rings), Sara Foster (“90210”), and Constance Zimmer (“Entourage”). Last year, his first feature College, co-written with Adam Ellison, was released by MGM. The film was directed by first-time director Deb Hagan and starred Drake Bell, Andrew Caldwell, and Kevin Covais.
The film was neither a critical nor financial success. (Rotten Tomatoes currently rates it at 6% fresh.) When I touched base with Dan, however, I asked him to send me the draft of the script that sold (dated January 6, 2006). During the read, I discovered interesting differences between the draft the studio bought, and the film that they released.
Dan was kind enough to sit down with me for a 90-minute chat that should be of interest to every aspiring screenwriter. Over the next five days, we’ll trace the entire experience of becoming a working screenwriter, from finishing the script, to getting an agent, to making a sale, to dealing with notes from producers and studios; the sort that could change the entire shape of a movie.
The Bitter Script Reader: Thanks for sending me the script. It’s interesting to see the version that sold versus the version that was produced
Dan Callahan: A lot of differences.
BSR: Yeah. Many, many differences. And some stuff that was totally verbatim. Half that trailer was verbatim from your original script.
DC: There’s moments that are, and there’s moments that are totally different.
BSR: We’ll get to this later, but I couldn’t help but notice going through the reviews that a lot of the stuff you got hit over wasn’t in the original script.
DC: Probably not. I could probably sit here and point out those differences and why it was a problem that they were taken out. And I think it affects the movie. But we’ll talk about that.
BSR: Was College the first script you wrote?
DC: Yeah.
BSR: Really?
DC: I studied writing in college. I was an English major with an emphasis in writing. As a kid, I’d write stories, was always creatively inclined. Art inclined. I definitely leaned toward that kind of thing. I always liked the creative writing and I didn’t like any other type of writing. I’d never want to be a journalist or write research papers. That I sucked at and didn’t enjoy. Things like create a story, I’d love to do. So while College was basically my first script, it wasn’t like I’d never written anything before.
I’d studied many forms of writing. I didn’t realize you could make a living writing movies. I never thought that there was someone out there who made a living doing that. I used to make a lot of films when I was a kid, like in school when you had to build some sort of history project… more times or not I’d option for some sort of film-oriented project. So in a weird way I was already doing this sort of stuff. I just never thought about sitting down and actually writing a film until much later.
BSR: And as far as structuring it, how did you get started?
DC: It wasn’t like I just sat down and wrote a movie. There was a class in school, a director from NYU would come out and teach like a screenwriting course: the basics. We probably had to write a short piece or something at the end of the class, so I got an idea of that. Then for me it was reading a lot of scripts, which I think is the best thing. BSR: Yeah, so you can see how other people do it.
DC: Yeah, you know. You read a lot of stuff and I’ve always been reading scripts. To this day I would read everything I could get my hands on. Bigger scripts and what’s selling so I know what’s selling and what other writers are doing. At the end of the day it’s hard to be too original [because] so many movies have been made, so many stories have been told. And there’s things you can learn from other people’s scripts like somebody’s style, or a device and it’s something you can incorporate into your scripts…. And also just the proper structure. Half the time you’ll read an amateur script and anyone who’s written or read a lot of scripts knows immediately if that guy knows what he’s doing or not. You know what I mean?
BSR: I know exactly what you mean.
DC: Like the structure’s off and you know that this is a problem. Odds are it’s not gonna be a good script because they’re not even gonna have it in the right structure, or format, which is all just part of being a professional writer. You’ve [probably] seen those scripts that have been randomly sent out and they’ve taken no effort to take the time to research how are scripts written. “How do I present them to people?”
BSR: “What font do I use?”
DC: All that stuff is really important to making your script look professional. And if your script looks professional, people are going to take it seriously and they might actually read it. But if your script comes in Word, or some other form, or it’s got some elaborate cover page… all that stuff [will probably keep it from being taken seriously.]
BSR: Yeah, it’s like “Strike One, Strike Two” before they even open the cover.
DC: This was stuff I didn’t even know until I was looking at professional scripts. It’s important to do that stuff so that it looks professional. So for me, reading scripts by professional writers who are out there selling, that’s the best education - that’s better than any screenwriting course or any of these books…. I’d rather sit down and read twenty scripts of working screenwriters and see what they do and try to mimic that as opposed to some guy who’s just teaching a screenwriting course, but never worked as a professional screenwriter. It’s two different things.
There’s writing and there’s the business and they go hand in hand. The more professional your scripts look, the more seriously you’ll be taken as a writer. Reading scripts was the first thing that got me… before I ever wrote College, I had read a ton of scripts. Nowadays with the internet and having access to scripts online, there’s no reason someone can’t go and find scripts and read, look at it, and go get Final Draft…. Access to interviews of writers, and some of my favorite books are just interviews with writers and how they did it.
[A short digression about DVD commentaries follows, leading me to remark on Star Trek: Generations commentary by Ronald D. Moore and Brannon Braga as a rare example of writers having the chance to be candid about all the different influences on the screenplay and why certain choices were made.]
DC: Yeah, and it would be nice to be honest about the process and why certain decisions were made. Why the studio wanted this, and this is how it turned out because of that, for either good or bad. [Most people] just watch the movie and that’s it. They don’t think about all the thought that went into every single line of dialogue, or every scene….
BSR: Or scenes that had to be cut, and so on. To get back to the writing, how long did it take you to write the first draft?
DC: I don’t know exactly, but it took a couple months. It was not a quick process. You’d think College is such a simple idea but part of that script was finding exactly how it was gonna work and where it was gonna go. It wasn’t something where we had a very big treatment. We had a really rough idea of what we wanted and essentially I just wanted to take high school and college and pair them together. The original idea was that it was gonna be a college town that was dominated by the local college and you have a group of high school kids and they’re always put down by the college kids that run this town. Never allowed into parties, they’re made fun of because they’re in high school and younger… That was the original idea… and they’re sort of fed up with dealing with this…
They want to meet the college girls and this is sort of how they do that. That sort of stemmed into “Is there another way to bring those two worlds together?” And that led to “What is something everyone has been through?” Most people have done college visits and once you open that up there’s many different ways. Is it with their parents? Is it not with their parents? Why are they going to this particular college? That opens up a whole new world of ideas, and the only movie that we’d seen that did that was PCU, which we liked, so we were surprised it hadn’t [been done.]… None of them had done the most simple thing you could do, the college visit.
BSR: Most everybody would relate to that. Everyone goes off for these weekends.
DC: PCU did it with a single kid and we felt there was more that we could do with the general idea. That was the start of it and then I’d say that after a couple months we had that first draft.
BSR: How did the two of you divide up the work on that? Were you always in the room together? Would you pick scenes? Would one of you write and the other rewrite?
DC: We didn’t write together. We wrote primarily by email. Some of the stuff I had written before Adam got involved because I’d had the idea for a while. Often when I get an idea, a scene will pop into my head and so I’ll write it down and it’ll give me a gauge as to if it’ll work.
BSR: Give you a tone to work off of.
DC: Yeah, it sort of sets the tone. For instance, there’s a scene where a kid in the cafeteria gives a speech about what happened to him…
BSR: The speech in the trailer.
DC: It’s this crazy, long speech that was the first thing I wrote for College. In fact, I wrote that before I even told Adam the idea. That speech kinda sums up the whole movie and it set the whole tone for the movie. From there it was “how do we take this speech?” Either we’d do the opposite of it and none of this shit would happen to [our lead characters] or they have an even crazier weekend. So then we just started bouncing ideas back and forth.
BSR: Figuring out the beats of the story.
DC: Exactly. Then the only time we sat in the room together was after the script was bought and [we had to do rewrites.] Mostly it was talking on the phone and shooting email back and forth. I’d write up a scene and send it to Adam. He’d do something and send it back. Just that process.
BSR: How do you handle disputes?
DC: I don’t remember any huge differences. The way that movie is, there are only certain things you could do. A lot of times you’ve written yourself into a position where your characters can only do one or two choices. You’d think there’d be ten different options but there’s really not because it wouldn’t make sense [for that character to do some of those things]... We work it out one way or the other. Often it was trying it one way, and you’d read it and it doesn’t work. So you go maybe the other way, and it’s like “Oh he was right.”
BSR: How many drafts did you go through and how long before you knew it was ready to be shown to people?
DC: There were a ton of drafts… because for me, I rewrite a lot. So by the time we did one or two or three drafts, we’d done so many options…. I went back through some of the College stuff the other day and we had about 200 pages of material that was alternate versions of scenes. I would take a scene and write it five different ways, and then go with the version I liked best. So in a way, my rewrites were happening all the time…. Almost to a fault because it slows me down.
I’ll spend days rewriting, where some people can just blow through a draft and get it done and fix it up later. I have a really hard time doing that because if it doesn’t feel like where it’s supposed to be, it’s hard for me to get into it. I end up rewriting until I get to the point where I feel it’s finished to me. Later, you’ll get a note that changes that, but at the time I’ve taken it as far as I can…. I could probably write two more movies out of the [extra] stuff I have. I tend to overwrite, just because I like to have options. Which also helps later when I get done because I’ve tried a lot of what people are going to suggest. I’m not saying it’s the best way. It’s not the quickest way. And with College it probably came because we didn’t have it so outlined out. BSR: You had more of a wide-open playing field.
DC: There are a lot of different things you could do with that middle section [of the script.] It’s a long, long process. We waited a long time to show it to people. We waited until we felt like we’d taken it as far as we could take it, and were sick of it, that now it’s like “Let’s show it to people.”
The rewriting is important because when you do decide to show it to an agent or a producer, you’re not gonna get a second chance, so you have to keep rewriting this thing to the point… that you’ve got it locked down as much as you can. [The notes you get from friends] might be the same notes you get from the studio, so you might as well get them now and get them fixed, so that when you get the agent he’s not coming back with notes you could have gotten months ago. You might not get him to read that next draft.
It helps to write with a partner because you’re constantly giving each other notes. You’re fixing each other’s problems. It’s someone else to filter material through. By then you hope that you’ve got a solid enough draft to start showing people.
BSR: Which leads to the question everyone is waiting for… once you get it to that point, how do you get an agent?
And we’ll end today’s segment on that cliffhanger. Come back tomorrow for the answer to the question I certainly get asked the most often: “How do you get an agent?”
Last week I went to pick up scripts from one of my jobs, and the assistant handing them over – a good friend and fellow screenwriter, by the way – saw me flip through a few pages of one of the offerings. Even before I had a chance to say anything, he remarked, “I know. I hate when they do that too. I can hardly read them like that.”
The infarction in question? The writer used Times New Roman font instead of Courier. And I completely understood what my buddy meant.
To the layman, there’s no difference between Times and Courier, but to a reader who’s gotten used to the formatting, there’s a world of difference. I can skim through a Courier script quickly and retain a lot of it, but put the same script in Times and speed-reading because a lot harder, as if I developed a learning disability. Part of this has to do with the fact that Times font is a little smaller, but I’m certain there’s something at work here on a subliminal level. It’s as if there some kind of psychosomatic script-reader autism that one can develop, where deviations from the format cause difficulty in reading comprehension. As silly as it sounds, several readers have backed me up on this.
This is all just a long-winded way of saying that when submitting your script, be sure its in Courier or Courier New 12 point font. Any other size or font will throw off the “actual” length of your script when the error is corrected. I’m not immune to this. I wrote my first script in Microsoft Word at Times New Roman 12 point font. It came out at 118 pages… until my error was pointed out to me and adjusting the font inflated the script by a good 15 pages if I remember correctly.
Oops.
Spacing errors are equally annoying, particularly egregious ones. You might think we’d never notice if you cheat the side or bottom margins, or expand the dialogue margins in order to keep the page count down. Trust me, we’ll know. We read a 12 scripts a week so we can pick out inaccurate margins without even looking hard. It’s another one of those things that screams “mark of an amateur” but more importantly, by squeezing more words onto a page, it again makes reading a harder on your reader’s eyes.
It probably sounds arbitrary when a reader harps on formatting as a major factor in the read, but it definitely has an impact. It’s called an “industry standard” for a reason. That’s the way a script is supposed to look. To put it another way, if you were applying for a job at a law firm, you wouldn’t go in wearing a torn T-shirt and flip-flops, would you? No, you’d dress for the job you wanted because being a smart interviewee, you’d know that presentation is an important determiner of how people perceive you. When screenwriting, consider your format the wardrobe for your job interview.
Final Draft (and every other scriptwriting program might seem expensive) but it is worth every penny. Not only will you not have to figure out how to create a template with your word processing program, but you’ll win points with your reader.
Before I was a TV writer (Superman and Lois), I read scripts in Hollywood for over ten years. In that time I worked for Oscar-winning production companies, and one of the "Big Five" agencies, among others. I'm here to share what I've learned.... mostly because I'm sick of reading bad scripts.
I was the guy you need to get past at the agencies and production companies; the first one in the office to read the script.
Please NO requests to read your material. All such queries will be ignored and deleted unread.
I do NOT have a notes service so please don't send me an email asking about rates. And in case it wasn't clear the first time - DO NOT ASK ME TO READ YOUR SCRIPT!
