Final Draft... "Tight"

[Stella8]

I am one of those simple folk who use their computer like a glorified typewriter and that's about it, never really exploring the bells and whistles...

After writing several scripts I have only just today...

discovered under "page layout" (on Final Draft 6) that you can change "normal" to "tight" or "very tight" and cut out 7-15 pages in the process...

So my question: can you get away with this?? I think TIGHT looks pretty similar to NORMAL... or is that just a no no and easily caught by an experienced eye??

Any tips to trim a bit of fat on FD would be welcome?


thanks

Stella

[Revisionist]

Messing with font size, margins, etc... is no way to trim fat. And that's exactly what "tight" is doing. Managers and producers will catch it... and unless the script is damn dynamic for an overlength script... will roundfile it.

'Fraid you'll have to do it the old fashioned way... One word, one sentence, one scene at a time...

[PurpleCurtain]

I think "tight" is okay, though as I recall, "very tight" looks pretty bad.

When I need to trim fat, I often take an hour or two and just go through the script and look at lines that are one or two words long, whether in action or dialogue and see what I can do to trim down the paragraph (again, whether it's in action or dialogue) to kill that one line. I don't mean where an ENTIRE paragraph is two words (though those can often be cut, too :) ), but in cases like the following:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ZZZ.


I'll do whatever I can to get rid of those overhanging ZZZ's and therefore cut the line. Do that enough times, and pages melt away. Going through a script with that sort of fine-tooth comb also puts me in a mood to reevaluate other little things that seem crucial when I'm drafting but strike me as expendable when I have 125 pages and would prefer 118, etc.

My most recent script went from 133 pages to 116 in the course of a three-hour editing session. I also cut a few scenes, but 80% of it was just trimming this or that bit of action to get something from 3.25 lines to 3, etc. I can always cut at least a few pages from a script just by doing that.

[JakeSchuster aka Ostroff]

The 'Curtain is right on. I find trimming those little hanging lines makes a real difference. Also turning expressions such as "what are" to "what're" and, if the idiom is right for your character, "got to" to "gotta", "what are you" to "whaddya", and so forth. Contractions can really tighten up dialogue.

[VLBarnhill]

When I need to trim fat, I often take an hour or two and just go through the script and look at lines that are one or two words long, whether in action or dialogue and see what I can do to trim down the paragraph (again, whether it's in action or dialogue) to kill that one line. I don't mean where an ENTIRE paragraph is two words (though those can often be cut, too ), but in cases like the following:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ZZZ.
I do this exact same thing! I call those buggers "orphans." The right term might be "widows." (Anyone know which it is?) I refer to this as part of the cosmetic clean-up, which comes after I (usually) do the following:

<!--EZCODE LIST START--><ul><li>If needed, play with the right margin. Anything from 1/2" to 1" is acceptable. As I understand it, this margin is the ONLY one that can be adjusted without sending up red flags.</li><li>I sometimes get real anal and go on an "ING" witchhunt. (There are very few "ing's" in my scripts, with the exception of dialogue.)</li><li>A tougher one to do, the dreaded "AND" seek-and-destroy mission. Wherever possible, I replace the word "and" with a "," (comma).</li></ul><!--EZCODE LIST END-->
;)

[Pen Dragon]

I thought I could get away with using "tight" too. But there's a discernible difference between "normal" and "tight" when you print the script. Not quite as noticeable on your monitor in Final Draft. "Very tight" isn't usable IMO, either is "loose". Dunno why they're even included as options.

[Stella8]

thanks for the tips fellow trimmers. I am actually pretty good at this too. I just was giddy to find that little do dad "tight" thingy and hoped it might take some of the work out of my hands but alas....

I do move the one inch header/footer to .75 inch. Do people really notice this?... Wow, what about saving the trees people!!

[VLBarnhill]

Top and bottom margins, from what I've been taught, are not negotiable. 1 inch is the standard.

Certain fundamentals help control the

1 page = 1 minute

formula.

That's why I don't mess with those two, or the left margin.

:smokin

[scripter1]

I call them chads.

And it actually is quite fun to remove them. It's a great mental exercise. It makes you look really hard at your word choices, sentence structure and especially the dialog.
I find it also pushes me into the thesaurus for new words that are more exciting.

The [ ing, and ] witch hunt are great as well.

The only real way to trim fat is to cut scenes and paragraphs that don't SLAM the movie forward. If it ain't vital and it's swelling up, Cut, cut, cut.

Give your script an appendectomy.
Take it's tonsils out.

[ComicBent]

STELLA8 WROTE: I do move the one inch header/footer to .75 inch. Do people really notice this?... Wow, what about saving the trees people!!
If you are really talking about the 'header' and 'footer', these should not be at 1" in the first place. You want the header and footer to be around 0.3-0.5" from top and bottom, respectively. The script margin (excluding header and footer) is supposed to be around an inch at top and bottom. It does not matter if you are off a little.

And, to answer your previous question about 'tight', etc., it depends on the font that you are using. If you are using Courier Final Draft, do not set the spacing on anything but normal. That will give you the appropriate six lines per inch.

But with some other Courier fonts, whose default line spacing is looser (e.g., Courier New), you can use 'tight' or 'very tight' and get closer to the desired six line per inch.

Ray

[filmcarver]

ComicBent is very good at the format stuff.

And he is exactly right. I use Courier 10 BT (Corel) and on "very tight" I get a crisp font that does not look at all crowded on the page and prints nice and medium dark.

It's hard to find that perfect combo. It really does depend on the script and how balanced it looks in the first place on the pages.

[refriedwhiskey]

Cole & Haag's book specifies a 10 pitch font (10 characters per inch) that's 12 pts high. I guess if the 10 in "Courier 10 BT" refers to the pitch rather than the point size, it could be okay. But computer fonts are generally designated in pt sizes rather than pitch, since most computer fonts these days are proportional fonts (i.e., different letters have different widths, so it's pointless to talk about characters per inch).

Scripts really should be written in a non-proportional font, so every inch always equals 10 characters. That's not just an arbitrary rule. There's a practical reason for it, just like there is for the way you set your margins: the 1 page=1 minute guideline. Some computer fonts are non-proportional (every letter gets equal width), but not all Courier fonts are non-proportional.

[ComicBent]

Being a great lover of desktop publishing, I have at least nine different Courier fonts. The best of the printing fonts is definitely Courier10 BT. It does not display as crisply on screen as Courier New, but you can always switch to Courier10 BT when you print. You do have to tinker with the line spacing to decrease it somewhat if you want to shoot for six lines per inch.

The '10' does not refer to point size. The name of the font is a bit misleading. It presumably refers to 'characters per inch'. Ten is the number of characters that you get per inch in a truly monospaced 12-point Courier (Courier of any flavor).

The 'Courier Old' that comes with MMS2K is also pretty good, though skinnier than than Courier10 BT. Courier Old is similar to Courier Final Draft.