Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

[nickj]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

I agree with Geevie that you should fill every page with great dialogue and intriguing events. I'm not sure about compelling characters on each page, but what the heck, it's worth a shot.

What makes a screenplay compelling (to me) is mystery and conflict. Not so much dialogue. You have to be careful with mystery, but conflict is something you can't overdo.

[odriftwood]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

As a reminder I have this taped to my monitor

"WHY SHOULD I TURN THE PAGE?"

[Geevie]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

If you've done your job and filled every page with either interesting dialogue, compelling characters or intriguing events (or all three) then I would venture to guess that yes, the reader should be compelled to read more. That doesn't mean they have to be self contained - scenes aren't mini screenplays, they're building blocks for the entire story. And this is why each scene should be more interesting than the one before it.

[sarajb]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

To a certain extent, Iâ€TMd say being able to pick any page and become engrossed is a good goal, but not at the expense of story/flow and I don't think I'd say connectivity is ever a flaw. A screenplay shouldnâ€TMt read like a series of skits and I know thatâ€TMs not what youâ€TMre saying, and yet it would seem if you approached every three pages with that foremost in mind a series of skits may be what youâ€TMd end up getting.

Besides, how many people pick up a screenplay and start reading from the middle?

Edit: AhhhhhhI did it again!

[Deus Ex Machine]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

What I'm really asking about is the independence of the interestingness in each scene.

Yes, they should all be interesting but not independent. Stories are linear and build in what has come before, changing it with each scene to send it in a new but inevitable conclusion.

It goes without saying that each scene should have a purpose and filler should be cut. But like I asked in the OP, is it a realistic or worthy goal to have the reader be able to flip to a random page and instantly be intrigued?

Expecting to flip to a random page and be instantly hooked is not realistic.

Is dependence or interconnectness something that we should watch out for?

There is no way to avoid it. Stories are linear. If they were not linear they would be a clip show like America's Funniest Home Videos.

Certainly the author can and should take advantage of building upon previous information for suspense, intrigue, etc.; however, what if the scenes aren't interesting without the previous information? Is that a flaw? Should they necessarily be interesting by themselves? Should every single scene be like a complete, little microcosm of a screenplay in its own right?

See above.

[nickj]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

I think the question's been answered, at least indirectly. It's not necessary for the current page to be compelling. Only the next page needs to be compelling. Don't worry about pulling in the reader who flips to the middle of the story. If it happens, fine, but it's not necessary. Suspense is a building process.

[Corso482]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

What I'm really asking about is the independence of the interestingness in each scene. It goes without saying that each scene should have a purpose and filler should be cut. But like I asked in the OP, is it a realistic or worthy goal to have the reader be able to flip to a random page and instantly be intrigued? Is dependence or interconnectness something that we should watch out for? Certainly the author can and should take advantage of building upon previous information for suspense, intrigue, etc.; however, what if the scenes aren't interesting without the previous information? Is that a flaw? Should they necessarily be interesting by themselves? Should every single scene be like a complete, little microcosm of a screenplay in its own right?

[whistlelock]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

If, at any point, the reader can put a story, whether screenplay or novel, down and say

"well, I can pick this up later. There's nothing going on right now that I have to finish reading this moment. I should really check in to see if the paint has dried and the grass grew."

, then the writer has failed. Failed miserably.


The story should be entertaining and engrossing from the first page to the last.

[sarajb]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

Maybe, another way to put it is no page should be considered filler to get to the next â€eventâ€. They should all matter and be interesting, but also plot bearing and flow as a whole that can't be separated.

Edit: ****. I should have checked for new posts before posting this.

[Geevie]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

Exactly.

Which would be why they're called page turners.

[Deus Ex Machine]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

I agree.

Every page should propel the story forward and give you a reason to turn the page.

Stories are not about what happens, they are about what happens next.

If your pages do not pique the reader's interest and make the reader want to turn the page to see what happens next - you are dead in the water.

[Geevie]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

Every page should give you a reason enough to turn to the next one.

This doesn't mean you need to have a big event happen on every single page.

This just means you need to have something happening (dialogue worth reading, events that are interesting, characters that are compelling) on every single page so that you care enough to go on to the next one.

The four pages before the "whamo" should lead UP to the whamo.

[Deus Ex Machine]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

Joel Silver is credited with coining the "every five pages should have a whamo" phrase.

A whamo is often misinterpreted to be an explosion or a gun fight, in reality it is a heightened cinematic and dramatic moment.

If you read Sixth Sense you will see that it has a whamo on almost every five pages, and it doesn't have one explosion or gunfight.

[AaronB]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

Accomplishing that would be quite a feat...but I'd do it, if I could. You want the reader to get to the end of the screenplay, wish there was another page to turn, and wonder where the last hour went.

[Corso482]

Re: Should every 3 or so pages be interesting in themselves?

Every page should make you want to read the next one.

Every page.

Can anyone think of screenplays that actually accomplish this? The one thing I've read that I think best accomplished making every page interesting was the Da Vanci Code, although it was a novel, not a screenplay.