Introducing characters with ALL CAPS

[The Road Warrior]

I tend to use lower case with non speaking roles, minor characters, it's how it feels or looks in that particular script, there are rules but I prefer to let logic prevail at times over the the so called 'cast iron rules'. If you look at the writing guides, when they talk about this sort of thing there is a recommended way, but they also admit that none of it is carved in stone, and variations exist. Clarity or even a kind of logic that suggests the most useful way for the task at hand is probably the most important consideration for me.

[jcgary]

Screenwriting and its peculiarities are often about making things easier for the reader. Capping the names of characters when they first show up tells the reader to pay attention to who this person is. It tells a casting director that they need to hire someone to play the part. It tells the actor that this is the first scene they're in.

I can't stand unnamed characters unless they have one or two lines (COP or GUARD). Please never use THUG -- that's lazy. If a thug has a line, give him a name. Please never use COP 1 and COP 2. If there are two cops, give them names. I've seen scripts where by the end, they're up to COP 12 and COP 13. Ridiculous.

If someone doesn't have a line of dialogue, don't cap their name unless we spend an appreciable amount of time with the character. Maybe it's a NIGHT GUARD on his route through a museum. The MUMMY has awakened from his slumber. We follow the Night Guard through the entire museum, the Mummy stalking him and finally killing him. I'd cap the name in that case.

If the Mummy just walks by the night guard, I'd probably not cap it.

[Nexus9]

Originally Posted by jcgary

Screenwriting and its peculiarities are often about making things easier for the reader. Capping the names of characters when they first show up tells the reader to pay attention to who this person is. It tells a casting director that they need to hire someone to play the part. It tells the actor that this is the first scene they're in.

I can't stand unnamed characters unless they have one or two lines (COP or GUARD). Please never use THUG -- that's lazy. If a thug has a line, give him a name. Please never use COP 1 and COP 2. If there are two cops, give them names. I've seen scripts where by the end, they're up to COP 12 and COP 13. Ridiculous.

If someone doesn't have a line of dialogue, don't cap their name unless we spend an appreciable amount of time with the character. Maybe it's a NIGHT GUARD on his route through a museum. The MUMMY has awakened from his slumber. We follow the Night Guard through the entire museum, the Mummy stalking him and finally killing him. I'd cap the name in that case.

If the Mummy just walks by the night guard, I'd probably not cap it.

This is all a little too matter of fact. One man's "never do" is another man's "I have a choice and choose to do it this way." The fact is, it's just an opinion that using THUG is lazy, as, in my book, I find it redundant and pointless to name a character that holds an insufficient role in the narrative. If three thugs walk up to a woman is get their butts kicked, then it's THUG 1, THUG 2, and THUG 3.

The other fact is that many people see things as lazy that others don't. I've seen both sides of the argument for many of these, and neither side was really right or wrong so much as just simply coming from different perspectives. So a little less matter-of-fact, I think, is the better approach to this question.

[jcgary]

Originally Posted by Nexus9

This is all a little too matter of fact. One man's "never do" is another man's "I have a choice and choose to do it this way." The fact is, it's just an opinion that using THUG is lazy, as, in my book, I find it redundant and pointless to name a character that holds an insufficient role in the narrative. If three thugs walk up to a woman is get their butts kicked, then it's THUG 1, THUG 2, and THUG 3.

You absolutely have a choice about what names to cap and who gets actual names and who's called THUG 1 and THUG 2. I have a choice about what scripts I pass on and what scripts I recommend. I'd never ever pass on a script just because it used THUG 1 and THUG 2, but it's an annoyance of mine.

I was a professional script reader for more than ten years and I've got more than ten thousand scripts under my belt. You don't need to follow my advice, but I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass.

[FADE IN]

Originally Posted by jcgary

You absolutely have a choice about what names to cap and who gets actual names and who's called THUG 1 and THUG 2. I have a choice about what scripts I pass on and what scripts I recommend. I'd never ever pass on a script just because it used THUG 1 and THUG 2, but it's an annoyance of mine.

I was a professional script reader for more than ten years and I've got more than ten thousand scripts under my belt. You don't need to follow my advice, but I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass.

I'm the guy who mentioned use of the moniker "THUG" and I was surprised when it was described as being "lazy," but I opted to not debate the point, to each his own yunno.

I've sort of tend to go the other way and use FIRST THUG, SECOND THUG, and THIRD THUG whenever I have a buncha unspeaking thugs running loose in a scene or scenes, simply because I think the expression is easier to read. But again, to each his own.

FIRST THUG or ...

THUG 1 (which is read "THUG ONE").

We all choose.

But thanks for the affirmation that it isn't necessarily "lazy writing"!

[Nexus9]

Originally Posted by jcgary

You absolutely have a choice about what names to cap and who gets actual names and who's called THUG 1 and THUG 2. I have a choice about what scripts I pass on and what scripts I recommend. I'd never ever pass on a script just because it used THUG 1 and THUG 2, but it's an annoyance of mine.

I was a professional script reader for more than ten years and I've got more than ten thousand scripts under my belt. You don't need to follow my advice, but I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass.

Ten years and ten thousand scripts or not, as you said, this is simply an annoyance of yours. And the danger, with that much experience, is that advice given based on personal pet peeves often comes out as being affirmative and the only solid truth to how something is done. And what happens is that newer writers get confused and try to write to please everybody instead of just writing a strong script that works.

And I don't think you're pulling things out of your ass, but I know professional readers and writers that have their own list of what's "lazy" writing and what's not, and each list is different from the next. I just don't 't think personal pet peeves should drive the advice someone gives. At least not in such a matter of fact way. Because we, as the ones giving the advice, must remember that these people aren't writing for just our personal benefit; there are a lot of readers that won't care about the same things others do. I had one professional writer (a good friend of mine) who swore it was a big no-no to use (pr-lap) to indicate dialogue happening before the official transition into the next scene. Called it amateurish writing and said that it's never used. The truth is, it is used, and I've had other professionals say that they prefer the use. So when people get too matter of fact, new writers get tense and start writing to please people, not knowing what toes they are stepping on and what toes they are not. That's when you start getting questions like: "Is it okay to [insert rule that actually isn't a rule]?" And this ties a writer up. The little things, that all in all, don't matter.

[Takezo]

Yeah, every main speaking character should be capped when first seen and introduced.
Minor characters who speak do not need caps, like Thug 1, Waitress, Cop, etc.
These are "bit parts" and they come and go... but if you see them in more than one scene or sequence then they are more than a bit.

Some people even bold and cap the names.

This is for the reader/breakdown guys/directors and so on so they can get a handle on the thing.

T

[Jcorona]

EXT. BUS STOP - DAY

LAURA BRAXTON (30's), petite in stature but scared of absolutely nothing, smokes, waits for the bus.

A NAKED MAN with a gun runs past, slows, awaits her frightened reaction.

Her eyes shift down toward his crotch, back up, she exhales, bored.

NAKED MAN
What?

LAURA
Nothing.

NAKED MAN
B1tch.

He takes off, rounds the corner.

A COP with his police dog sprints up from the same direction the Naked Man came from.

COP
Did a naked man run past here?

Laura exhales, even more bored.

LAURA
I didn't see nothing.

COP
Dammit!

He takes off with his dog.

Laura hops on the bus, rides away, unfazed.

That's how I'd personally do it if we don't see the NAKED MAN or COP again. So that's all the names I'd give them. The cop dog wasn't important so I left him as is and Laura is a main character so I intro'd and capitalized her. I was just trying to make the read as easy as possible in showing one of Laura's traits in this example.

I don't find using COP, NAKED MAN, THUG etc. distracting at all.

This is just me.

Corona

[jcgary]

Let me clarify! I use descriptors as names occasionally. I'll say AGENT or COP or NAKED GUY or DRIVER or PILOT when necessary. I just try really hard not to fall into the habit of using them all the time, and if I've got more than one COP, I'll give them actual names. Like I said above, I've seen scripts that take numbering characters to an absurd level, and I've seen THUG used in so many hundreds of scripts that I just can't stand it anymore.

To disagree with Takezo, I'd say every speaking role should be capped.

[Butch Jarvinen]

THAT clears that up, now where's my book of NAMES?