Using BOLD in spec scripts

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

    Here's my guess:

    Back in the days of Xeroxed hard copies of scripts, bolded and italicized text could become lost in the generational errors created by copying copies of copies. Now, with PDF files, everybody has access to a digital copy. Digital copies don't experience generational errors when copied... unless you want to discuss errors in the underlying physical memory... which I don't. :-)

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

      Using bold caps to emphasis something surely works, but is it overkill by having it in every new scene heading? Is it annoying and distracting? Will it cause the reader to skim your narrative where his eyes DART to the highlighted headings?

      I remember when new writers use to copy William Goldman's style by using a CUT TO in order to indicate a new scene. Wasn't this overkill in indicating a scene change? The heading caps and double space indicated a new scene.

      Was using a CUT TO necessary just to indicate a new scene? The answer is, no.

      Now we have the use of bold caps to help the reader SEE it's a new scene. The use or not use of bold capped headings isn't as clear cut as using CUT TO because bold headings certainly make a new scene/location/time of day stand out from the narrative.

      The problem that I have with bold capped headings is that I find myself skimming the narrative because I'm being drawn to the next bold heading that's POPPING out at me. After all, isn't that the purpose to bold something. To have it POP out at the reader. Having so much of this type of emphasis annoys and distracts me.

      If I, as a reader, find myself skimming the story, I have to believe the bold capped headings is distracting other readers also. Now, this where I'm told that professionals are using this style and getting their work read and produced.

      I'm not saying scripts using this style aren't getting produced. I'm just giving my opinion on why -- I -- don't like that style. For those who do like this style you're free to use it without worry that it will somehow effect the merits of your story where it won't get produced.

      A script will be judged on whether or not it could be commercially successful. Not on the style that it is presented.

      I believe the reader's eye is more engaged with the story as it naturally flows, meaning no speed bumps jumping out at you screaming it's a new scene dummy.

      There may be a time when you could have a specific reason for bolding, either full or part, capped Master Scene Headings and/or Secondary Headings, such as to emphasis something complex where the story moves back and forth between different centuries, time periods, etc.

      You may want to bold in order to not confuse the reader. To have him orientated with what's going on, but what if you're someone who bolds all of the scene headings. Now what would you do to effectively emphasis something to the reader? The BOLD option is no longer effective.

      As for the issue with bolding and capping words, phrases and sentences in the scenes, my opinion is the same as with headings. I don't like to bold and in the very rare occasions where I need to emphasis a word, I'll cap or underline, whichever one is appropriate for what I want to get across.

      There's a thread in the past that goes more in-depth discussing the subject of capping words for effect. The thread is called "Capitalizing Verbs for Effect?":

      https://www.messageboard.donedealpro...highlight=caps

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

        Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
        Using bold caps to emphasis something surely works, but is it overkill by having it in every new scene heading? Is it annoying and distracting? Will it cause the reader to skim your narrative where his eyes DART to the highlighted headings?
        No, doing it with every slugline is a matter of consistency.
        I remember when new writers use to copy William Goldman's style by using a CUT TO in order to indicate a new scene. Wasn't this overkill in indicating a scene change? The heading caps and double space indicated a new scene.
        It wasn't a "William Goldman special," it was the industry standard. Everyone used "CUT TO:" for every slugline transition.

        Was using a CUT TO necessary just to indicate a new scene? The answer is, no.

        Now we have the use of bold caps to help the reader SEE it's a new scene. The use or not use of bold capped headings isn't as clear cut as using CUT TO because bold headings certainly make a new scene/location/time of day stand out from the narrative.
        You don't have to do anything you don't want to. No one is mandating you bold your sluglines. The simple fact is that everyone is busy and reading takes time. It's natural to skim. IMO, bolding brings attention to the sluglines, which I feel is important to the read. You may have a different opinion and choose differently, right?
        The problem that I have with bold capped headings is that I find myself skimming the narrative because I'm being drawn to the next bold heading that's POPPING out at me. After all, isn't that the purpose to bold something. To have it POP out at the reader. Having so much of this type of emphasis annoys and distracts me.
        Only thing I can say, is that if you're reading specs to produce them into films, you will probably have to get over nitpicking something so insignificant to the story. Which is what matters. Story matters. Ever read a Tarantino script?
        If I, as a reader, find myself skimming the story, I have to believe the bold capped headings is distracting other readers also. Now, this where I'm told that professionals are using this style and getting their work read and produced.
        So here's the thing... we don't write to impress "readers" we write to impress the people that can get a movie made, and the least of THEIR concerns is which format is most popular today. They are looking for the diamond in the rough and not concerned with insignificant formatting style variations.
        I'm not saying scripts using this style aren't getting produced. I'm just giving my opinion on why -- I -- don't like that style. For those who do like this style you're free to use it without worry that it will somehow effect the merits of your story where it won't get produced.
        IMHO, formatting style doesn't matter. Story matters. As long as you can read it, it's all good.
        A script will be judged on whether or not it could be commercially successful. Not on the style that it is presented.
        Exactly. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if you believe this, why do you care about the format style?
        I believe the reader's eye is more engaged with the story as it naturally flows, meaning no speed bumps jumping out at you screaming it's a new scene dummy.
        The simple fact is that people are in a time crunch. You ever read what an assistant's day is like? One of the girls at a big firm is still answering emails after 7pm. Thems long hours. It's easy to skim past sluglines. I find myself doing it when reading and reviewing other writer's work. Altering one's style is simply a tool to use as a way to help your work be received as much as intended.
        There may be a time when you could have a specific reason for bolding, either full or part, capped Master Scene Headings and/or Secondary Headings, such as to emphasis something complex where the story moves back and forth between different centuries, time periods, etc.
        As Yoda would say, "do or do not, there is no try." To me, consistency throughout the spec is important. Do it always or not at all with sluglines. There's really no in between.

        You may want to bold in order to not confuse the reader. To have him orientated with what's going on, but what if you're someone who bolds all of the scene headings. Now what would you do to effectively emphasis something to the reader? The BOLD option is no longer effective.
        Certainly don't agree with this thinking. ALL my sluglines are bolded. It isn't effective to bold only a FEW sluglines are bolded and not others. All sluglines are important.
        As for the issue with bolding and capping words, phrases and sentences in the scenes, my opinion is the same as with headings. I don't like to bold and in the very rare occasions where I need to emphasis a word, I'll cap or underline, whichever one is appropriate for what I want to get across.
        I'm thinking you'd hate a JJ Abrams script. Would drive you bonkers.
        There's a thread in the past that goes more in-depth discussing the subject of capping words for effect. The thread is called "Capitalizing Verbs for Effect?":
        My manager, after sending out one of my scripts, has never returned with a comment about my bolded sluglines or my all caps in the action lines and my style is definitely similar to JJ"s. I've never had a single note on format from any producer, reader or executive, so to me it's a non-issue.

        I think there's a lot of flexibilitiy.

        Just a different POV.
        "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

          finalact4, must you challenge me on everything... I... say... Now, I have to take the time, which I don't have much of, and respond.

          Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
          My manager, after sending out one of my scripts, has never returned with a comment about my bolded sluglines or my all caps in the action lines and my style is definitely similar to JJ"s. I've never had a single note on format from any producer, reader or executive, so to me it's a non-issue.
          -- I mentioned a writer's taste and style won't get his script rejected. It's all about the concept and its execution.

          Finalact4 says:

          "No, doing it with every slugline is a matter of consistency."

          -- I get this. I was going deeper into the matter as to the goal/motivation for a writer to bold Master and Secondary Scene Headings.

          "It wasn't a 'William Goldman special,' it was the industry standard. Everyone used 'CUT TO:' for every slugline transition."

          -- "Everyone"?

          This is such a rookie mistake to use a blanket statement in a debate. Before challenging me on this, you couldn't have done just a little research on the subject? If you did, you'll see that there were plenty of writers from the 40s to 80s who didn't employ the use of "CUT TO:" in their scripts to indicate a new scene.

          William Goldman is well known for his use of CUT TO's between scenes. I believe he mentioned in one of his books why he refused to stop using it when the trend was to drop it to have more cleaner and leaner scripts.

          finalact4 says:

          "bolding brings attention to the sluglines, which I feel is important to the read."

          -- So, for the past decades of capping and double spacing the Master Scene Headings, this wasn't effective enough in bringing attention to the slugline.

          Yes, bolding brings a stronger attention to the slugline, but that was the point of my post. Is it really necessary? Is it overkill? Does it annoy and distract? Does it weaken the effectiveness of bolding to emphasis something important?

          finalact4 says, "we don't write to impress 'readers' we write to impress the people that can get a movie made."

          -- To get people to greenlight movies you first have to impress the readers, but again, if a reader is professional, he isn't gonna let any biases of a writer's taste and style effect his judgement on the merits of the story.

          You can bold and cap the whole script if you want. Sure, it'll annoy the reader, but if the concept and execution is a winner it'll get produced because money is what drives the Major Studios.

          finalact4 says:

          "Do it always or not at all with sluglines. There's really no in between."

          -- Uh-oh, now you've done did it. You sprouted a "RULE" to a creative community. Prepare yourself for the wrath of Jeff Lowell.
          Last edited by JoeNYC; 01-16-2017, 05:13 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

            Nope, her entire post made perfect sense. It's a great relief to see non-dogmatic attitudes bloom.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

              I've read a lot of spec scripts. Probably around 20% used bold sluglines.

              I guess I'm dense because it doesn't really effect me one or the other.

              Now too many slammers (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), that's a different story.
              "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

                Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
                Now too many slammers (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), that's a different story.
                -- It's ironic. StoryWriter displays her dislike for "slammers" by slamming me.

                StoryWriter, all I did is what other members are doing and that is participating in a screenwriting community, giving opinions on different subjects.

                finalact4 posted some opinions that I didn't agree with. It seems like you want to bully me into silence. Unfortunately, your tactic of bulling may be effective on a new writer, but it won't work with me.

                I felt finalact4's opinions on some issues, just like finalact4 felt about my opinions, needed to be addressed. StoryWriter, you call what I did "slamming." I call it a discussion on a screenwriting topic.

                P.S:

                Maybe you're upset about the part where I referred to one of finalact4's opinions as being a "rookie mistake" for making a blanket statement. This was tough love.

                finalact4 said during William Goldman's day "everyone" used CUT TO: for every slugline transition. Before making blanket statements, I would like to get members to research the matter first. Otherwise, when they challenge what I say without researching the matter to prove I'm wrong, I have to take the time, which I don't have much of, and respond.
                Last edited by JoeNYC; 01-17-2017, 04:55 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

                  As more than one of you has used it, it's "affect," y'all, not "effect," and "judgment," too.

                  It seems to me that bold Scene Headings could be effective with a certain style of writing (writer's choice, there), or that bold Scene Headings could be useful for a particular story subject (such as a police drama, maybe), or that bold Scene Headings could even be the trademark for the writer who chooses to use it for a particular genre, such as "Horror," for example (since bold Scene Headings seem to horrify some folks).

                  Personally, I don't use them or even like to wade through them when reading a screenplay (to me, it's akin to the "shouting" implied by ALL CAPS in text messages and forum threads), but for any entity or anyone who wants to buy the screenplay that uses them and wants it changed, it's an easy "fix." The times, they are a-changin'. At day's end, I wouldn't let a script with bold Scene Headings affect my judgment of the main ingredient, which is Story.
                  Last edited by Clint Hill; 01-17-2017, 06:32 AM.
                  “Nothing is what rocks dream about” ― Aristotle

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

                    Originally posted by StoryWriter View Post
                    Now too many slammers (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), that's a different story.
                    Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                    -- It's ironic. StoryWriter displays her dislike for "slammers" by slamming me.
                    Dude, try not to be so sensitive: "slammers" doesn't refer to "slamming" other posters, it's simply an alternative term for exclamation marks (hence the "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"): http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...-point/274687/

                    As for bolding sluglines, I mainly do it to make my scripts (which tend to be longer than average) a little shorter: I think non-bolded sluglines need two carriage return spacings to properly stand out, whereas bolded sluglines only need one.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

                      Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
                      Dude, try not to be so sensitive: "slammers" doesn't refer to "slamming" other posters, it's simply an alternative term for exclamation marks (hence the "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!")
                      -- Oh, StoryWriter was doing a funny and not accusing me of slamming finalact4. Ooops, sorry, StoryWriter.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts.

                        Originally posted by kenklmn View Post
                        It's been a long time since I used a typewriter, but I don't remember bold type on a typewriter. Maybe some of the fancier ones - like an IBM Selectric - had it, but not the cheaper ones I used.
                        Type over. That's how we used to do it... and how they used to do it in the 30s and 40s and 50s.

                        - Bill
                        Free Script Tips:
                        http://www.scriptsecrets.net

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

                          Cuneiform on clay tablets is my preference. And yes you can bold it, but you have to do it before the clay dries.

                          Mailing out a script on clay tablets is where one demonstrates ones level of commitment. A tablet is about one pound so a regular script is 120 pounds a comedy 90 pounds. Shipping can get pricey.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

                            I bold the sluglines. It helps give me a visual cue on flow. It also serves as a reminder from a budget standpoint and keeps me from bouncing around too much.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts

                              For me, this is also a readability issue. Without something to distinguish the slugline from the scene text, everything starts to look the same. I don't generally do any formatting tricks in a script that can't be done with a typewriter so I prefer underlining slug lines.

                              Originally posted by TheConnorNoden View Post
                              I don't tend to do anything gimmicky in my scripts. No CAPS dotted throughout etc. That being said I just tried the bold scene headers thing and think I can get on board with it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Using BOLD in spec scripts.

                                Originally posted by wcmartell View Post
                                Type over. That's how we used to do it... and how they used to do it in the 30s and 40s and 50s.

                                - Bill
                                Bolding with a typewriter is kind of hit or miss for me. My Royal 41 was pretty good with it but the Olivetti Lettera 32 wouldn't bold until about 3 passes.

                                Underlining a slug is also an option. It's mainly a readability thing for me - otherwise the slug lines and scene text become indistinguishable.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X