Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

    Today I received an email from Write Brothers (the company that makes Movie Magic Screenwriter and Dramatica). As a customer (although I think non-customers can subscribe too), they send me articles about the basics of screenwriting from time to time. This one is titled: "TOP 5 Mistakes Aspiring Screenwriters Make" by Michael Ferris. You can read it here:

    http://www.screenplay.com/t-mferris-...so%40inbox.com

    Here's the part that prompted me to start this thread:

    MISTAKE #1: They use camera directions.

    Let me simultaneously grab my megaphone, bullhorn, soapbox, and bully pulpit, and trumpet this announcement once and forever:

    MODERN SPEC SCRIPTS SHOULD NEVER CONTAIN CAMERA DIRECTIONS.

    (And by this, I mean both explicit camera directions and implicit camera directions: Using "IMAGES OF" or "WE SEE" is every bit a camera direction as "CAMERA TRACKS.")

    To use them is a cardinal sin, especially in this age. Like the use of "beats," scripts used to have more camera directions. But with the rise of The Director, they have been eliminated from the words on the page. Essentially, it pisses off a director when you tell him how to shoot the movie, and it confuses actors because they don't care about camera directions.

    Yes, I know: You've read William Goldman's screenplays. Even the ones written today, and he uses 'em. You've read David Koepp's, and darn it if there weren't a crap-ton of camera dictates in his scripts.

    Well, allow me to kill the suspense: because they are William Goldman and David Koepp, they can do whatever they damn well please. .

    The fact is, those guys are established, and what goes for them does not go for you. They can write whatever they darn well please and get away with it (Exhibit A: INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL? Sigh.)
    Not only have we had dozens of professional screenwriters tell us otherwise in this forum and in other places (blogs, podcasts), but anybody who reads screenplays (and I don't read that many) knows this is utter bullsh*t (and by "screenplays" I don't mean just scripts by established pros but also Nicholl finalists and first sales by unknown writers).

    I'd prefer Write Brothers would put more effort into fixing the bugs in Screenwriter 6 or releasing version 7 (which they recently said will be out in 2014) instead of propagating wrong ideas about what aspiring screenwriters can and can't do on their specs.

    From an amateur to other amateurs: Don't listen to this nonsense. Use WE SEE and PULL BACK TO REVEAL as you see fit. Sometimes a camera direction is the best and most economical way to communicate your ideas.

    (This applies to most screenwriting don'ts you may have heard of.)

  • #2
    Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

    I think the problem is that if "advice givers" talk long enough, they will inevitably start contradicting themselves or speaking in false absolutes. I've seen it from the working pros, too. I don't know why people become addicted to both offering and receiving advice. If I could figure it out, I'd have a pretty good story idea.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

      Hear, hear, Dr. Vergerus.

      And now starteth a 56 page thread of the same old back and forth.
      M.A.G.A.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

        56 page-long thread? If that's what it took to discredit these myths once and for all, it'd be worth it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

          I agree. But unfortunately, it won't. Even though it should. Even though it's been commented on many, many times. Remember the "angle on" thread?
          Last edited by SundownInRetreat; 01-15-2014, 10:55 AM.
          M.A.G.A.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

            Uh, if that monstrous "We see ... " thread didn't exactly drive home Dr. Vergus's well-made point, I'm not sure what would possibly suffice. Further wonder they provided any consensus on whether it's one or two spaces between sentences either. Anyway, I do agree that the author's might sticking to writing code.

            Maybe I'll head back and check the "We see ... " thread out again. See y'all sometime in the future...
            " Don't really like writing. But I do like having written." Vince Gilligan, Breaking Bad.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

              Yes, it's advice like this that starts long debates on camera directions, especially the use of "we see."

              I would think by now most members realize that when it comes to creativity you never say: NEVER. It stifles one's creativity and imagination.

              I suggest a writer use whatever tool he feels he needs to convey clarity, emotion, excitement, surprise, etc.

              I do suggest to use these tools for a purpose and not to overuse them.

              For example, a writer who is also looking for a directing career might overuse camera directions. This would be fine for him and his potential film crew, but for some readers this may be distracting for them to be able to immerse themselves in their story. (I said some readers, Jeff Lowell.)

              If a script is loaded with camera directions and "we sees," will it be tossed in the trash can? If the reader has any integrity, it won't be. It'll be judged on the merits of its story elements.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                The saddest part is that some unsuspecting newish writer might assume the Michael Ferris giving said advice is this Michael Ferris and give the advice some weight.

                In reality, it's this Michael Ferris.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                  I think the best of screenwriters will see this advice in the beginning and then follow it, but after a while they will branch out and read more and learn more and realize they don't have to do it this way. Over time they will develop and grow and create their own style. Hopefully.

                  The only problem is if they learn habits they have difficulty breaking. But really, I think in the long run, a good writer will eventually realize that this advice is a load of crap.
                  Chicks Who Script podcast

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                    Originally posted by emily blake View Post
                    I think the best of screenwriters will see this advice in the beginning and then follow it, but after a while they will branch out and read more and learn more and realize they don't have to do it this way. Over time they will develop and grow and create their own style. Hopefully.

                    The only problem is if they learn habits they have difficulty breaking. But really, I think in the long run, a good writer will eventually realize that this advice is a load of crap.
                    This exactly.
                    Everyone starts with a book or something that gets the first word on the page. But as a writer, you have to continue to learn and grow. That includes browsing 56 page threads and seeing what other people think.
                    If you're unable to keep an open mind to all of the different techniques/rules/guidelines in writing, you're going to find yourself in trouble.
                    SL35
                    Potent dreamer. Newb disclaimer.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                      Originally posted by Dr. Vergerus View Post
                      From an amateur to other amateurs: Don't listen to this nonsense. Use WE SEE and PULL BACK TO REVEAL as you see fit. Sometimes a camera direction is the best and most economical way to communicate your ideas.

                      (This applies to most screenwriting don'ts you may have heard of.)
                      It's not that I necessarily disagree with you or with the same sentiments expressed by professional screenwriters - but - a lot of readers find these things irritating.

                      WE aren't writing for directors. Or actors. Almost ever. We are writing for readers. We have to get by them first. Loglines are for producers, scripts are for readers, rewrites are for directors.

                      The fact is, these things just are not necessary. Maybe the reader you need to love your script won't GAS about these things. But I've read enough posts from readers who do, to just skip them.

                      WE SEE have to be the two most unnecessary words in screenwriting. I mean, is someone else seeing it?

                      As writers, whatever we are writing, we never want to insert ourselves into the story or do anything that disturbs the reader's suspension of disbelief. These things do that. They serve no purpose in the spec script. They might negatively impact the reader. There is no argument in their favor.
                      wry

                      The rule is the first fifteen pages should enthrall me, but truth is, I'm only giving you about 3-5 pages. ~ Hollywood Script Reader

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                        It's not about what's necessary or not, it's about writing something that involves the reader and gives him a clear picture. Some people find it easier to achieve this using WE SEE, others use slightly overwritten action paragraphs, others will use different combos of italics+bold+underline, etc. Whatever works. That's the argument in their favor you were looking for.

                        I can understand it if a sensible reader is bothered by stylistic choices when reading a story that doesn't hold his interest, but if that reader is given a good screenplay and decides to stop reading it or give negative coverage because the writer used WE SEE or whatever, well, that reader is an unprofessional moron. It would be like a car reviewer (they probably go by other name, but it'll do) writing a bad review about a perfectly fine car just because he didn't like the color of the one he tested.

                        Whenever I hear this argument of "not annoying the reader" I can't help but think the person defending it doesn't really trust his material. "Hey, my script isn't that great; let's avoid anything that the reader might not like, so that if the read is breezy he may overlook its flaws." That's very unlikely to happen.

                        I'll say it again: if WE SEE takes the reader out of the story, he probably wasn't that much into it to begin with. I find this easier to believe than some bitter failure looking for camera directions to condemn perfectly good screenplays.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                          Originally posted by wrytnow View Post
                          There is no argument in their favor.
                          If I could play devil's advocate here, I'd bet good money that any reader would prefer "WE SEE-" vs a six-line description trying to communicate the same thing with much less clarity and brevity because the writer's afraid of violating a rule.

                          That said, I find the arbitrary rules to be a benefit to my own writing more often than I see them as a hindrance. And like you said, WE SEE is almost always unnecessary. Just write what is seen. Instead of "We see the boots of soldiers, storming through the mud," it's "The boots of soldiers, storming through the mud."

                          Instead of "ANGLE ON: Julie's wedding ring, as she fiddles with it absently," it's "Julie's wedding ring. She fiddles with it absently."

                          This is absolutely directing from the page, because I'm telling the reader exactly what to see here, but it's more concise than WE SEE or ANGLE ON.

                          The one move I haven't figured out how to circumvent is when you need the camera to pull back so that something new comes into view.

                          I'm personally of the opinion that as writers, it IS our job to direct from the page. We write in images. People like to say the screenplay is a blueprint, as if that means it's not an exact thing... but do blueprints not include exact measurements? When was the last time you saw a blueprint just scribbled in crayon? If the reader isn't visualizing exactly what you want him/her to, you're not doing your damn job. YMMV.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                            Originally posted by wrytnow View Post
                            It's not that I necessarily disagree with you or with the same sentiments expressed by professional screenwriters - but - a lot of readers find these things irritating.

                            WE aren't writing for directors. Or actors. Almost ever. We are writing for readers. We have to get by them first. Loglines are for producers, scripts are for readers, rewrites are for directors.

                            The fact is, these things just are not necessary. Maybe the reader you need to love your script won't GAS about these things. But I've read enough posts from readers who do, to just skip them.

                            WE SEE have to be the two most unnecessary words in screenwriting. I mean, is someone else seeing it?

                            As writers, whatever we are writing, we never want to insert ourselves into the story or do anything that disturbs the reader's suspension of disbelief. These things do that. They serve no purpose in the spec script. They might negatively impact the reader. There is no argument in their favor.
                            Sorry dude, but this is just newb-thinking. And so, so, so wrong. The pros have gone over it here enough times (and were signed as unknowns doing this stuff) so too the amateurs who've been signed by doing all this. If you don't like "we see" then cool, that's you, but to say they're unnecessary and scarifying is just so, so, so wrong.

                            Everything you're saying, right down to jolting the reader out of the story, is pure newb-myth-regurgitation. Of course, you may insist you're no newb but I gotta (nicely) call you on this. It's level-zero thinking and so, so, so not true. Please search for the "angle on" thread to see why. Also the two "myths of screenwriting" threads, one of which is by Derek Haas.

                            You say you've seen enough posts from readers who've been negatively affected - where? The pros, ex-readers, creatives (both here and elsewhere) as well as resident DDP writers have all testified to the contrary. I guarantee the bulk of "readers" you refer to are not professionals.

                            And here endeth my involvement - nothing more to say and anything else will be regurgitation of my own.
                            Last edited by SundownInRetreat; 01-15-2014, 11:25 AM.
                            M.A.G.A.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths

                              only 55 pages to go on the "we see"/camera angle detour of the "Spreading erroneous screenwriting myths" thread...

                              Dr. Vergerus nailed it.
                              Last edited by MJ Scribe; 01-15-2014, 11:00 AM. Reason: spelling
                              " Don't really like writing. But I do like having written." Vince Gilligan, Breaking Bad.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X