How important is voice in screenwriting?

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #61
    Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

    Originally posted by sc111 View Post
    I'll play.

    A green 1965 Mustang races toward a young mother with a baby stroller crossing the intersection. She pulls back as the car roars by, inches away. The baby giggles.
    I like the giggle.

    I kind of cheated on mine.

    Code:
    A WOMAN, mid-twenties, gawks at her smartphone screen while
    pushing a BABY CARRIAGE along a busy street. She let's go of
    its handle, mutters under her breath and starts jabbing at
    the keyboard on her phone.
    
    The baby carriage slowly starts rolling down the sidewalk,
    then picks up speed as it heads into the street.
    
    The Woman, oblivious, is now yelling at her phone, while
    typing wildly.
    
    Tires screech. Horns honk. Drivers scream.
    
    In soundless slow motion the baby carriage rolls sedately
    through traffic, inches from the swerving, onrushing cars,
    then gently bumps up against the curb on the opposite side -
    where it safely rests.
    
    The Woman, still staring at her smartphone, blindly gropes
    for the baby carriage handle. She looks up - then left and
    right - her brow furrowed in confusion.
    
    The phone beeps, drawing her attention. She's gone again.
    STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?I couldn't manage 1 line no matter how ha

      Damn, I couldn't manage 1 line no matter how hard I juggled.

      The signal says WALK.
      A MOTHER with a pram looks both ways.
      All clear.
      She steps out onto the crossing.
      Baby giggles and smiles.
      The ROAR of a supercharged engine builds.
      A TRANS-AM BLASTS PAST THEM.
      Missing her baby by inches.

      MOTHER
      Motherfvcker!

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

        Some good ones!

        It's probably a sad state that there're some people out there who think this 80-character/1-line string is just perfect:

        A mother. Her stroller. An approaching car... a near miss!

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

          FADE IN:

          INT. FACTORY - DAY

          A new stroller rolls off the assembly line. A robot-arm
          swoops down and clutches the stroller - gently stacks the
          stroller with hundreds of other strollers.

          (insert intersection scene)

          Now we have the makings of a writer's voice.
          "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
          - Clive Barker, Galilee

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

            Can the typical movie audience member figure out the writer's voice from just watching the movie?
            "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
            - Clive Barker, Galilee

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

              I can tell a Woody Allen film from an Aaron Sorkin film from a Preston Sturges film from a Diablo Cody film...

              I’m not sure about a typical audience member, though. I try to write something I like, rather than worrying about the audience.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

                Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                Centos, what you talk about that’s on a Guru’s DO NOT list is minutia. To use or not according to a writer’s personal taste and style. Will the use or not use get a script sold or rejected, no. It’s the concept and execution of the major elements that will achieve that outcome. Will their use or not use hurt a writer’s voice. For those writers who overuse these minutia elements, in my opinion, they already hurt their voice. For those who use the DO NOTs in a effective and purposeful way, yes. Strictly following the DO NOT list will hurt their true voice.

                My problem with you, Centos, is that you have a narrow-minded opinion whenever the discussion turns to a DO NOT list, which is if a writer follows it, they’re writing will be ugly, mangled, etc., writing. This is not true. I demonstrated this fact with my previous post with examples “A” and “B.”
                Okay, Joe, I didn't read your A & B samples before. A quick scan of your post made me believe we pretty agreed that the "never dos" were basically good advice when not taken to the extreme. What you don't understand about me is that I did take the advice to the extreme (and I'm not the only one). I'm bitter about that and I believe it stunted my writing. Just do a Google search for "ing" verbs in screenplays and you'll find people writing stuff like this ...

                In the world of spec screenplay writing there should be no/almost no -ing or -ly words.

                Correct: Tom flies over the clouds.
                Incorrect: Tom is flying over the clouds.

                Correct: He takes off quick, but lands slow.
                Incorrect: He takes off quickly, but lands slowly.

                However, if you're writing for your own production - feel free to do it any way you want.
                Although spec screenplay format is primarily for attempting to sell a spec screenplay it's also good to put in front of investors and professional cast & crew.
                No one else cares, especially if you're the director.
                And then they get this kind of response from newbies.

                good post, i learned something today! :yes:
                And guess what? That newbie is going to be doing what I did. Searching through his scripts and "correcting" out all the "ing" verbs. And writing stilted crap in the process. I don't know how I got to that point. It's been ten to fifteen years ago, but I know it didn't come naturally. I had to have read it somewhere. And I know people corrected me when I didn't follow the "rules."

                But on to your Sample A & B and my C, and comments (I might get to the your newest sample, but I don't have the time right now. Sorry.).

                Sample A:
                Code:
                We see Mary is sitting on the bed. Bob is pacing back and
                forth in front of her. He goes to the window and opens the
                curtain.
                
                BOB’S POV:
                
                The strong wind and rain is pelting the window.
                
                We hear a faint sound of a woman screaming. Bob quickly walks
                toward the door and listens. A chilling silence has replaced
                the screams.
                
                Bob quickly opens the door and starts to walk out of the
                room.
                The only thing I use "we see" for is something "we" see but the character in the story doesn't. I've never used a camera direction (though I have seen them used effectively).

                Sample B:
                Code:
                Mary sits on the bed. Bob paces back and forth in front of
                her. He goes to the window and opens the curtain. Bob watches
                the strong wind and rain pelt the window.
                
                A faint sound of a woman screaming.
                
                Bob hurries toward the door and listens. A chilling silence
                replaces the screams.
                
                Bob whips open the door and rushes out of the room.
                I, personally, think this is a little stilted. I think you can make it more dramatic by writing something like this ...

                Sample C:
                Code:
                Mary is sitting on the bed while Bob paces restlessly in
                front of her.
                
                He stops, opens the curtain. Watches as the rain pelts the
                window.
                
                A SOUND. Faint, in the distance ...
                
                A WOMAN'S SCREAM.
                
                Bob rushes to the door. Listens.
                
                Eerie silence.
                
                He rips the door open. Runs down the hall.
                You'll notice that this even more "extreme" then your sample B. That's because (in my opinion) when something dramatic is happening, that's when the sentences and paragraphs naturally become short and "jabby." It's your establishing shots (description) where you'll normally find the "ing" verbs. I call "ing" verbs "description," because it's usually not much different than describing static background. "Secretaries talking on the phone. Men arguing in the corner around the water cooler. Joe strides through the door and beelines for the Chief's office." Joe's action should stand out from the background action.

                At any rate, I hope I made a point. I'm taking a trip tomorrow and my wife wants me to pay attention to that, so I'm feeling kind of rushed now. I think there's WiFi where we're going so I'll try to come back to this tomorrow.
                STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

                  Originally posted by catcon View Post
                  Some good ones!

                  It's probably a sad state that there're some people out there who think this 80-character/1-line string is just perfect:

                  A mother. Her stroller. An approaching car... a near miss!
                  It looks like I missed the point. Sorry.
                  STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

                    Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                    Can the typical movie audience member figure out the writer's voice from just watching the movie?
                    Yes. Definitely if the writer is Shane Black.
                    "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

                      Voice is such a vague and all-encompassing concept that it would, in fact, be difficult to recognize a "voice" in some films. But someone who is familiar with writers who possess a distinctive voice will see the author's fingerprints in some films, as Jeff Lowell says here:
                      I can tell a Woody Allen film from an Aaron Sorkin film from a Preston Sturges film from a Diablo Cody film.
                      Woody Allen's voice is that of the neurotic, self-absorbed intellectual who always messes up his relationships or fails some way or another to achieve happiness. Or something like that.

                      Voice cannot exist until the components of voice have undergone repetition. It is sort of like the way that a line has to have two points. One point is something with an X,Y coordinate and is real and is meaningful, but it is not a line until another point is established. And then we really need a third point to see if the line is going to continue in the same direction. Voice is something like that. You can invest it with expectation that the next artistic instance will continue the direction that the voice seems to be taking.

                      On a different issue ...

                      I wish that people would stop worrying about the -ing verb/verbal issue. If you are a native speaker of English, then you can pretty much depend on your ear tell you whether something is correct or not. Two points of advice:

                      (1) The present progressive (with the -ing word) is often helpful in establishing a scene when it opens, as in:
                      Mary is sitting on a couch.
                      (2) Other verbs, for the sake of brevity in a script, tend to be simple present (not progressive with the -ing), as in:
                      John paces in front of the couch where Mary sits.
                      We have already established the static image of Mary (that Mary is sitting on a couch). We can use the simple present to continue the scene.

                      But, yes, you can switch back to present progressive if the sense of the sentence and the natural use of English argue for it, as in:

                      The phone rings, and Mary answers. John sees that she is smiling.

                      The bottom line: Quit following rules about writing from people who have no knowledge of English grammar and style.

                      On a final issue ... I am quoting someone else's quotes here:
                      Incorrect: He takes off quickly, but lands slowly.
                      Correct: He takes off quick, but lands slow.
                      Let's ignore the questions of air speeds involved in taking off and landing. Let's look only at the grammar.

                      Anybody who really believes that the "correct" example is preferable to the "incorrect" example is an ignoramus.

                      The "incorrect" form is actually the form that you want if you are going to use the sentence at all. The -ly adverbs are perfectly correct. You could use *quick* and *slow* as adverbs if you are writing in a very colloquial manner, but they are in no way preferable, as if an -ly adverb were a toxic element that would spoil your writing.

                      "The fact that you have seen professionals write poorly is no reason for you to imitate them." - ComicBent.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

                        Originally posted by ComicBent View Post
                        ...On a different issue ...

                        I wish that people would stop worrying about the -ing verb/verbal issue....
                        I use the old "get in late, get out early" rule (oops, let's call it a "concept" instead of a "rule") to help address many gerund issues in my writing.

                        "Jenny sits on the chair" is hellishly boring. And do we really need to see her performing that action? Imagine a snarky director who reads that and thinks I'm trying to suggest it's important:

                        "No, really! When you read the whole script you'll see why it's critical!"

                        At the start of a scene, in addition to describing the location, we have to establish and place the characters who are there. If they're already in-place, it's hard to avoid these "ings". But neither do we want to describe every little action; that is, how they got to where they are.

                        Time to apply a little "get in late" thinking to the scene:

                        "Jenny is sitting in the chair" tells us she's already in it.

                        However, that's pretty boring, so add some action, like "Jenny is sitting in the chair, half asleep, as Frank barges through the door."

                        If seeing Jenny's menial action of applying her derriere to the chair is necessary somehow, at least use a more interesting verb: "Jenny plops into the chair", or how about, Jenny is "splayed out on" or is "ensconced" in the chair, though some will still complain about the "is".

                        Let's face it, the "rules people" will get you coming and going, so let's just focus on the story.

                        However, it really is worth pondering the "get in late, get out early" concept, both at the scene level and at the story level. While it can influence your word choices, as above, it boosts the pacing and can shorten the overall scene/script.
                        Last edited by catcon; 05-14-2018, 06:06 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

                          In many cases, the reader's mind can fill in mundane details without having to bog down action lines with micro-managed descriptions that will bore the reader to death. Using ComicBent's example with Mary and John:

                          Mary -- in a leather recliner, half asleep when --

                          John throws open the door and barges in.

                          MARY
                          What the fvck are you doing here!

                          It's a given that Mary is seated because we tell the reader she's half asleep. Throw in a detail like 'leather recliner' to bring the image into sharper focus. And the dialogue tells us Mary has been startled awake.

                          All the mundane details are filled in by the reader's mind. Setting up the confrontation between John and Mary is the important issue -- not agonizing over "Mary is sitting" or "Mary sits" or "Mary is seated."

                          Is it grammatically correct? No. Because -- in my opinion -- action lines are far closer to poetry than prose written in complete sentences. A line of poetry establishes a visual image much like an action line establishes a camera shot.

                          Some shots require only broad strokes. Other shots require more precise detail. If you're describing a 15-year old kid defusing a bomb with shaky hands as he watches a "How to defuse a bomb" you-tube video with English subtitles, by all means micro-manage away.

                          But don't waste the reader's time over-describing Mary nodding off in a chair.

                          What does this have to do with the elusive ghost in the machine we call voice? When a writer throws off the shackles of the must do-s/never do-s, it helps to free up the imagination to dare to go where few other screenwriters have gone before.

                          When industry execs say they seek a "fresh voice," they're not talking about action lines. They want a story, a point of view, they haven't seen ten thousand times before.

                          One could play with the wording of action lines and add witty writer asides a la Shane Black but, if it's a seen-it-before story with a blah theme and trite point of view, there's no way you're going to trick an industry reader into thinking you're delivering a fresh voice.

                          Shane Black didn't shoot to fame with Lethal Weapon because he wrote pithy action lines with witty asides. He essentially created a new sub-genre with the STORY. And that took out-of-the-box imagination. Everything else was icing on the cake.

                          If you read Charlie Kaufman's scripts -- Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind -- you'll find his action lines are quite straightforward with few to none verbal tricks. But -- damn -- consider the imagination driving those STORIES.

                          I'll get off my soapbox, now.
                          Last edited by sc111; 05-14-2018, 09:06 AM.
                          Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

                            Originally posted by Centos View Post
                            I, personally, think this is a little stilted. I think you can make it more dramatic by writing something like this ... I hope I made a point.
                            Yes, you did.

                            Your point is that if you don’t like a writer’s style and voice, you’ll rewrite it in your own style and voice, which in your own subjective belief, makes for a more dramatic writing.

                            I figured after all these years, with the way you’re still carrying on about a Guru’s DO NOT list, you still didn’t understand my point with examples “A” and “B.” This is why I posted a page of my actual writing that’ll be sent out into the marketplace. You and others may pick a sentence or paragraph and rewrite it (please don’t) to your own personal taste and style, but this misses the point of the Guru’s DO NOT list discussion.

                            On a side note to the members: When giving feedback, the majority of writers hate it when a reviewer rewrites them by changing their style and voice into the reviewer’s.

                            I suggest, for example, in a situation where you find a new writer has a habit of overwriting his action/descriptions to demonstrate to him how he can lose the fat and unnecessary details without losing the intention he wanted to get across to the reader by rewriting a select paragraph, or two, but strive to retain his style and voice by using his own word choices, sentence construction, etc. Sometimes I’ll replace a boring verb with an evocative verb to demonstrate how to give the read some emotional punch.

                            Centos, the reason I gave the “A” and “B” examples in the “Are Screenwriting Gurus Muddying the Waters” thread was because you made a statement: “And many of the gurus are emphatic that you absolutely eliminate them, not just avoid them. Unfortunately new writers often follow them to the ‘letter of the law’ –- resulting in stilted, horribly mangled writing.”

                            My point of the demonstration of examples “A” and “B” was to get across with example “B” that even if a writer follows the list “slavishly” by not using “we sees,” adverbs, camera angles, present progressive tense form, etc. their writing will not result in stilted, horribly mangled writing, though you still believe with my latest post of example “B” that it’s stilted and proceeded to rewrite it in your own style and voice. This is just your subjected opinion. Others might not have a problem with it, just as others don’t have a problem with the use of what’s on a Guru’s DO NOT list.

                            The fact is, and this is what’s important, using, or not using what’s on a Guru’s DO NOT list is a personal choice and whatever choice, “A” or “B,” a writer makes, it’s not wrong.

                            Even, Centos, if a writer chooses to present his story without using one “ing” word in the whole story.

                            The use, or not use, will not get a member’s script rejected. The industry doesn’t care about this minutia. What matters to the industry is concept and execution of the major elements that would achieve a great, marketable story.
                            Last edited by JoeNYC; 05-14-2018, 02:21 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

                              God help me, I know the voices of half the posters on this thread.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: How important is voice in screenwriting?

                                Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                                Yes, you did.

                                Your point is that if you don't like a writer's style and voice, you'll rewrite it in your own style and voice, which in your own subjective belief, makes for a more dramatic writing.

                                I figured after all these years, with the way you're still carrying on about a Guru's DO NOT list, you still didn't understand my point with examples "A- and "B.- This is why I posted a page of my actual writing that'll be sent out into the marketplace. You and others may pick a sentence or paragraph and rewrite it (please don't) to your own personal taste and style, but this misses the point of the Guru's DO NOT list discussion.
                                I really don't have time to waste arguing with a crank. I'm fed up with everything I write being taken out of context by you. I basically agreed with from the beginning (moderation). It appears that you're just damned determined to be offended. I also said I would try to get to your actual writing sample - definitely not interested in that now.

                                My point, since I either didn't make it very well, or you chose to be purposely obtuse about it, was that I WOULD use the radical style I was running down earlier - in certain situations. That was all I was trying to say. I was exaggerating your version writing in the B example.

                                As for your A sample, it's not realistic. I've NEVER seen anyone write something like that. NEVER. So I exaggerated the "do nots" and you exaggerated the "dos." Both of us were trying to make a point.

                                But keep being offended if you want to be. I no longer give a crap one way or the other.
                                STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X