Re: Montage or quick shots?
Is there room for a third camp here? One that says it's worthwhile understanding the traditions and techniques used by screenwriters for the past hundred years. And that, even so, story is king.
Personally, I question the value of telling a new writer that there are no rules. For example, in general, it's good to be mindful of writing in an active voice in a script, using strong action verbs. So a new writer hears this and then thinks that he needs to eliminate all passive writing. Clearly that's not the case, but it's really something you need to get a feel for. And it is something that is extremely helpful to become conscious of when you first start writing.
Same with the dreaded "we see." I've seen newbie scripts where the use of "we see" is absolutely unnecessary. In general, we see everything you describe in a script. Yet, there are times when most writers will use a "we see." For example, in many openings we see something like this: "We're soaring over a desert landscape..."
And about montages... Typically, montages do not include dialogue. Lots of times they are written without slug lines to conserve space. If you'd like to see how montages are traditionally formatted, check out Cole & Haag, or The New Hollywood Standard.
And bolded slug lines... Not the standard for features. Some very successful TV writers and others have adopted them for feature scripts, but the vast majority of scripts are still written without them.
One last thing, the argument that whatever a pro says is right, and whatever you find in a sold script is okay is just plain silly. I've seen John August misuse a common screenwriting term. Is that a knock against his writing? Of course not. John August's blog is absolutely invaluable. But it doesn't mean he's always correct. Just because Quentin Tarantino spells like he does in Inglourious Basterds, does that mean that it's okay to throw away your spellchecker? Don't be silly. Would I have preferred reading IB without all the horrendous spelling. Damn straight.
Originally posted by sc111
View Post
Personally, I question the value of telling a new writer that there are no rules. For example, in general, it's good to be mindful of writing in an active voice in a script, using strong action verbs. So a new writer hears this and then thinks that he needs to eliminate all passive writing. Clearly that's not the case, but it's really something you need to get a feel for. And it is something that is extremely helpful to become conscious of when you first start writing.
Same with the dreaded "we see." I've seen newbie scripts where the use of "we see" is absolutely unnecessary. In general, we see everything you describe in a script. Yet, there are times when most writers will use a "we see." For example, in many openings we see something like this: "We're soaring over a desert landscape..."
And about montages... Typically, montages do not include dialogue. Lots of times they are written without slug lines to conserve space. If you'd like to see how montages are traditionally formatted, check out Cole & Haag, or The New Hollywood Standard.
And bolded slug lines... Not the standard for features. Some very successful TV writers and others have adopted them for feature scripts, but the vast majority of scripts are still written without them.
One last thing, the argument that whatever a pro says is right, and whatever you find in a sold script is okay is just plain silly. I've seen John August misuse a common screenwriting term. Is that a knock against his writing? Of course not. John August's blog is absolutely invaluable. But it doesn't mean he's always correct. Just because Quentin Tarantino spells like he does in Inglourious Basterds, does that mean that it's okay to throw away your spellchecker? Don't be silly. Would I have preferred reading IB without all the horrendous spelling. Damn straight.
Comment