Using "ING"

[nycineaste]

once you know how to not do it then you can get away with doing it a little. or alot when you have an in. rules for nobodies writing specs are different than the rules for produced writers with contacts. mamets scripts are full of ANGLE ON , whose gonna stop him.

the book "Your Screenplay Sucks" has a section called "physical writing" thats full of this stuff, its worth buying for that chapter alone

 

[SarahMilro]

I'm a bit confused. I hear constantly about not using ING in scripts, but I went through the academy awards scripts for 2012, good portion use it. Some regularly. Is that a perk of success or am I misunderstanding the rules.

The rule is: if it's in an academy award script, it's ok.

 

[vcassel]

The rule is this: stop pretending there's a secret cabal of producers and studios that are making up ridiculous rules that don't exist when you don't really know.

 

[SarahMilro]

Not a cabal. Common sense.

You don't look at academy award scripts and say "oh, they contradict what I hear on internet forums" and then go onto a forum to get the right answer.

The answer's in the script.

 

[vcassel]

Not a cabal. Common sense.

You don't look at academy award scripts and say "oh, they contradict what I hear on internet forums" and then go onto a forum to get the right answer.

The answer's in the script.

Common sense? Rejecting a useful grammatical tool (we're writers, remember?) because why? No one seems to know the origin of this silly "rule". Or many of the other "rules" for that matter. And if it's because of a guru's book, trust me, the people buying the scripts don't read those. Just tell a compelling story and don't believe the hype.

 

[SarahMilro]

Common sense? Rejecting a useful grammatical tool (we're writers, remember?) because why? No one seems to know the origin of this silly "rule". Or many of the other "rules" for that matter. And if it's because of a guru's book, trust me, the people buying the scripts don't read those. Just tell a compelling story and don't believe the hype.

If you want to rant about gurus and rules, you can do that on the billion other threads about those elsewhere.

All the OP needs to know for this thread, is to trust the ACADEMY AWARD SCRIPTS he's reading.

 

[Eric Boellner]

All the OP needs to know for this thread, is to trust the ACADEMY AWARD SCRIPTS he's reading.

Not to be contrarian, but the idea that Oscar-nominated/winning scripts contain the definitive "answers" as to the legitimacy of writing conventions is a very misguided argument. The only definitive source for what one "can get away with," aside from vcassel's point that there are no rules if the writing is good (which I would argue is only true if the breaking of the rules does not interfere with the reader's ability to read it quickly and understand it on at least a basic level), would be to read and study a large number of original spec screenplays from previously unknown writers which incited strong interest from studios. The screenwriting categories for the Academy Awards contain a very small percentage of debuting screenwriters, or writers who have broken in with those screenplays. And the fact is, you can "get away with" a lot more as a name writer than you can as an unknown. Sorkin, Roth, Zailllian, Morgan - these guys have a sort of impunity from "the rules," which themselves were largely ordained over the years for the sole purpose of making the slushpile easier to sift through. If you don't believe me, read Cormac McCarthy's spec script for The Counselor - it's written like some ungodly combination of dense screenplay and sparse novella.

You can also get away with a lot more if, say, you're working on assignment - either adapting a book, or writing from a pitch (your own or someone else's). And again if you happen to be the man directing the picture, or if it's an independent production: the first page of Oscar-nominated Beasts of the Southern Wild script includes uses of "We pan up to-", "We hear," and a line that begins: "A series of glimpses of-".

So while you can look to these screenplays as a guide for how to tell a good story and tell it well, if you're looking for what rules to follow and what rules to break, know your place in the industry before you go looking for examples to prove your point. If you're writing for the slush pile, there are rules, and they apply whether you're writing the next Chinatown or the next Heaven's Gate. While you may buck these rules as you see fit, you need to be aware that you can't follow up a college intern's rejection with a letter to his boss at Valve, saying: "But Benh Zeitlin used 'We hear-' in his script, and he was nominated for an Oscar!" The people who pull your script out of the slush pile give two f--ks less who broke the rules before you: if your insistence on breaking the rules has them tossing your script after page two, the blame's on you, not on Benh Zeitlin, not on the gurus, not on the reader. The reason newbie writers follow the rules is because every infraction is just another chance for the time-pressed, over-stressed, underpaid, anal-retentive, wannabe-writer who happens to be assigned your script out of the slush pile along with four others to read over the weekend... to put that motherf--ker down.

Use -ING all you want. Just don't ***** and moan if the aforementioned reader decides your screenplay reads too slow to recommend to his/her boss. Different execs, readers, directors, actors, etc. all have different pet peeves about screenplays they have to get through: some are as simple as "F--king hell, does EVERY script I get have to open on a messy apartment and an alarm clock going off?!" while others might cite your zeal for adverbs as perfect justification to merely pretend they read your entire script before writing their coverage and throwing it in the pass pile.

But like I said, if you're not writing for the slush pile... well, then I really don't even know why you're asking/talking about "rules" in the first place.

 

[vcassel]

...aside from vcassel's point that there are no rules if the writing is good (which I would argue is only true if the breaking of the rules does not interfere with the reader's ability to read it quickly and understand it on at least a basic level)...

Exactly what I'm getting at. Whenever I hear newbie writers further propagate the lie of "the rules", the more flabbergasted I am by such a ridiculous conceit. Besides basic formatting tics particular to screenwriting, THERE ARE NO RULES! There's no consortium of producers out there who've agreed upon standards you must adhere to in order to "make it". Just write a compelling story in a sensical and exciting way and maybe, just maybe, it'll be something they're interested in. That's it! These people aren't getting together and telling screenwriting gurus what you guys need to do or not do in order to sell your script. 95% of these books contradict each other and are complete B.S.

I'm sorry, but it's just so absurd what some of you guys propagate to each other. If your script didn't sell, I assure you it's not because you wrote "running" instead of "runs". If a reader didn't recommend your AMAZING and SALABLE script because of that, he or she would be fired. FIRED. If your script didn't sell, it's because it isn't any good or it's simply not what they're looking for at this time. That's it.

So yeah, write in present tense because it's simply a more immediate and compelling read most of the time and put the subject before the verb so as to not confuse people. But for &%$#'s sake, don't throw away useful temporal grammatical tools following the bizarre didaticism of other newbies WHO LIKELY HAVEN'T SOLD ANYTHING AND HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO. Be a writer, not a sheep.

End rant.

 

[SarahMilro]

Not to be contrarian, but the idea that Oscar-nominated/winning scripts contain the definitive "answers" as to the legitimacy of writing conventions is a very misguided argument. The only definitive source for what one "can get away with," aside from vcassel's point that there are no rules if the writing is good (which I would argue is only true if the breaking of the rules does not interfere with the reader's ability to read it quickly and understand it on at least a basic level), would be to read and study a large number of original spec screenplays from previously unknown writers which incited strong interest from studios. The screenwriting categories for the Academy Awards contain a very small percentage of debuting screenwriters, or writers who have broken in with those screenplays. And the fact is, you can "get away with" a lot more as a name writer than you can as an unknown. Sorkin, Roth, Zailllian, Morgan - these guys have a sort of impunity from "the rules," which themselves were largely ordained over the years for the sole purpose of making the slushpile easier to sift through. If you don't believe me, read Cormac McCarthy's spec script for The Counselor - it's written like some ungodly combination of dense screenplay and sparse novella.

You can also get away with a lot more if, say, you're working on assignment - either adapting a book, or writing from a pitch (your own or someone else's). And again if you happen to be the man directing the picture, or if it's an independent production: the first page of Oscar-nominated Beasts of the Southern Wild script includes uses of "We pan up to-", "We hear," and a line that begins: "A series of glimpses of-".

So while you can look to these screenplays as a guide for how to tell a good story and tell it well, if you're looking for what rules to follow and what rules to break, know your place in the industry before you go looking for examples to prove your point. If you're writing for the slush pile, there are rules, and they apply whether you're writing the next Chinatown or the next Heaven's Gate. While you may buck these rules as you see fit, you need to be aware that you can't follow up a college intern's rejection with a letter to his boss at Valve, saying: "But Benh Zeitlin used 'We hear-' in his script, and he was nominated for an Oscar!" The people who pull your script out of the slush pile give two f--ks less who broke the rules before you: if your insistence on breaking the rules has them tossing your script after page two, the blame's on you, not on Benh Zeitlin, not on the gurus, not on the reader. The reason newbie writers follow the rules is because every infraction is just another chance for the time-pressed, over-stressed, underpaid, anal-retentive, wannabe-writer who happens to be assigned your script out of the slush pile along with four others to read over the weekend... to put that motherf--ker down.

Use -ING all you want. Just don't ***** and moan if the aforementioned reader decides your screenplay reads too slow to recommend to his/her boss. Different execs, readers, directors, actors, etc. all have different pet peeves about screenplays they have to get through: some are as simple as "F--king hell, does EVERY script I get have to open on a messy apartment and an alarm clock going off?!" while others might cite your zeal for adverbs as perfect justification to merely pretend they read your entire script before writing their coverage and throwing it in the pass pile.

But like I said, if you're not writing for the slush pile... well, then I really don't even know why you're asking/talking about "rules" in the first place.

The most misguided thing you can do is ignore the ACADEMY AWARD WINNING script in favor of advice from a stranger on a forum.

Your argument is that the script isn't a good guide because it's written by a pro who can get away with sh|t others can't.

I think it's a poor argument.

Not least because "original spec screenplays from previously unknown writers which incited strong interest from studios" do use the things that you mention "shouldn't be used.."

Exactly what I'm getting at. Whenever I hear newbie writers further propagate the lie of "the rules", the more flabbergasted I am by such a ridiculous conceit. Besides basic formatting tics particular to screenwriting, THERE ARE NO RULES! There's no consortium of producers out there who've agreed upon standards you must adhere to in order to "make it". Just write a compelling story in a sensical and exciting way and maybe, just maybe, it'll be something they're interested in. That's it! These people aren't getting together and telling screenwriting gurus what you guys need to do or not do in order to sell your script. 95% of these books contradict each other and are complete B.S.

I'm sorry, but it's just so absurd what some of you guys propagate to each other. If your script didn't sell, I assure you it's not because you wrote "running" instead of "runs". If a reader didn't recommend your AMAZING and SALABLE script because of that, he or she would be fired. FIRED. If your script didn't sell, it's because it isn't any good or it's simply not what they're looking for at this time. That's it.

So yeah, write in present tense because it's simply a more immediate and compelling read most of the time and put the subject before the verb so as to not confuse people. But for &%$#'s sake, don't throw away useful temporal grammatical tools following the bizarre didaticism of other newbies WHO LIKELY HAVEN'T SOLD ANYTHING AND HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO. Be a writer, not a sheep.

End rant.

I think you're ranting this sh|t up as you go along.

We know there are no formatting rules. But if you're looking for the answer to something, look at the script.

BTW, unless you can show me your long list of impressive imdb credits, then you're a newbie too.

BTW, you shouldn't be arguing with me, you should be arguing with Eric Boellner, who is suggesting that there are rules to follow.

 

[Eric Boellner]

The most misguided thing you can do is ignore the ACADEMY AWARD WINNING script in favor of advice from a stranger on a forum.

I always love hearing this argument, because by its nature, it's self-invalidating. It's like two Europeans arguing about American politics, and one insisting that the other shouldn't be listened to because he's not even American...

Your argument is that the script isn't a good guide because it's written by a pro who can get away with sh|t others can't.

I think it's a poor argument.

Not least because "original spec screenplays from previously unknown writers which incited strong interest from studios" do use the things that you mention "shouldn't be used.."

My argument is merely that when you want to run for mayor, you study successful mayoral campaigns, and when you want to run for president, you study successful presidential campaigns. There's a reason for the distinction between "pro" and "amateur" screenwriters, and it's because they're in completely different leagues, and operate under different parameters.

Like I said, you can look at an arbitrary list of award-winning screenplays for answers, or you can use a proven scientific approach: defining your market (the slush pile) and studying successful sales in that market (original specs that came up from the slush pile (via newbie writers)).

It's like they say, "Dress for the weather you have, not the weather you want."

Your argument is simply that these scripts, which are largely nominated through a political campaign process rather than mere worth or quality (read THR's coverage of the Governor's Awards this year, or their story on Michael Fassbender not doing the Oscar gamut this year), but which are admittedly of often great quality, are the shining example of what you can and can't do with your own script. My argument is simply that you're telling people to dress for sunshine, and they're going to get wet. No one on this board is campaigning their script for an Oscar this year, but I'm sure there's a few here who are hoping to make it in the slush pile at a management firm or lit agency.

BTW, you shouldn't be arguing with me, you should be arguing with Eric Boellner, who is suggesting that there are rules to follow.

While I imagine vcassel and I have at least slightly different views of the idea of "rules" in screenwriting (I do believe there are rules, but only insofar as you know what game you're playing), I believe much of what I refer to as "rules," he mentions in his last post as "formatting tics." It's the same concept: the only reason to write screenplays a certain way is to make it flow as evenly as possible for the reader, and not to distract them with something that's going to take them out of the story.

 

[vcassel]

BTW, unless you can show me your long list of impressive imdb credits, then you're a newbie too.

This is akin to a "nanna-nanna boo-boo". I've worked as a reader; worked in development on projects in production at Laika, Kerner, Paramount, and Warner; and I have a pilot in early stages of production. I'm not an Academy winning pro, but I'm no newbie. I feel I'm in a great position to give advice to new writers because I see first hand what sells everyday. And what really does it is the building of relationships. You write a script, you send it out, you take a meeting, you start again. Until trust is built between you and whoever hires you.

BTW, you shouldn't be arguing with me, you should be arguing with Eric Boellner, who is suggesting that there are rules to follow.

I'm not, really. I was agreeing with Eric's point. And I think he makes a really great additional point on making everything flow as evenly as possible for the reader. That's not to say you shouldn't whack them upside the head with something they weren't expecting every once in a while .

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Use -ING all you want. Just don't ***** and moan if the aforementioned reader decides your screenplay reads too slow to recommend to his/her boss. Different execs, readers, directors, actors, etc. all have different pet peeves about screenplays they have to get through: some are as simple as "F--king hell, does EVERY script I get have to open on a messy apartment and an alarm clock going off?!"

[scrippet]
INT. BED ROOM -- DAY

JOE shoots upright in his bed, wiping the corners out of his eyes, surrounded by junk and trash, the cleaning lady gave notice years ago.
Where was I? Oh, yeah.

Joe bounding out of bed, stark naked, having forgotten that the fourth wall camera was in operation, races to the bathroom.

LATER (after a long piss that seems to take hours on screen)

JOE
It was all a dream.

SUBTITLE: 5 days before

[/scrippet]

 

[Rolf Silber]

INT. BED ROOM -- DAY
JOE shoots upright in his bed, wiping the corners out of his eyes, surrounded by junk and trash, the cleaning lady gave notice years ago.
Where was I? Oh, yeah.
Joe bounding out of bed, stark naked, having forgotten that the fourth wall camera was in operation, races to the bathroom.
LATER (after a long piss that seems to take hours on screen)
JOE
It was all a dream.
SUBTITLE: 5 days before

Reads like a script from Houllebecq. Not for Oscar but maybe special section of European film awards. Tip: The longer the piss, the better the award....

And about everything else: If it works, it works. Or: If it's working, it's working.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Reads like a script from Houllebecq. Not for Oscar but maybe special section of European film awards. Tip: The longer the piss, the better the award....

And about everything else: If it works, it works. Or: If it's working, it's working.

Wow... maybe there's a market for my wunderstücke yet...

 

[SarahMilro]

My argument is merely that when you want to run for mayor, you study successful mayoral campaigns, and when you want to run for president, you study successful presidential campaigns. There's a reason for the distinction between "pro" and "amateur" screenwriters, and it's because they're in completely different leagues, and operate under different parameters.

Like I said, you can look at an arbitrary list of award-winning screenplays for answers, or you can use a proven scientific approach: defining your market (the slush pile) and studying successful sales in that market (original specs that came up from the slush pile (via newbie writers)).

It's like they say, "Dress for the weather you have, not the weather you want."

Your argument is simply that these scripts, which are largely nominated through a political campaign process rather than mere worth or quality (read THR's coverage of the Governor's Awards this year, or their story on Michael Fassbender not doing the Oscar gamut this year), but which are admittedly of often great quality, are the shining example of what you can and can't do with your own script. My argument is simply that you're telling people to dress for sunshine, and they're going to get wet. No one on this board is campaigning their script for an Oscar this year, but I'm sure there's a few here who are hoping to make it in the slush pile at a management firm or lit agency.

Twaddle.


You're basically saying don't use "We pan up to-", "We hear," "A series of glimpses of-" etc.


When it's pointed out that scripts use these all the time, you say,


"oh no, they're written by pros and they don't count 'cause pros get away with sh|t. Look at original spec screenplays from previously unknown writers which incited strong interest from studios."


When it's pointed out that those scripts use these things all the time too, you start rambling on about mayoral vs presidential campaigns.

 

[Eric Boellner]

You're basically saying don't use "We pan up to-", "We hear," "A series of glimpses of-" etc.

Would love to know when I said not to use those turns of phrase. As I said, my argument has never been "Follow these rules," or "Disregard these rules," but merely that if you're going to look at a certain category of scripts for the answers to the questions of what you can get away with, your prescribed category - the "ACADEMY AWARD SCRIPTS!" - might not contain the best examples.

Regarding the rest of your post, I don't have much to say honestly, though I'd prefer it if, when altering things I've said, you wouldn't use quotation marks that imply a direct quote.

I'm also thrown off a little by your "...you start rambling..." bit. If you don't want to have this discussion, I don't understand what you're still doing in this topic. And if you do want to have this discussion, I don't know why it has to become personal for you. I have an admitted tendency to ramble, but if I made perfectly clear comparisons to illustrate my points, so if it's simply that my posts are too long for you to waste your time on, I'd be more than happy to recommend simply that you don't.

I hope I'm not merely taking the bait here. I've noticed your propensity, since joining a few months ago, toward resurrecting long-dead topics, instigating arguments, and never backing down. While you've made some points worth making, you seem hell-bent on winning wars that no-one else is waging. So I don't know if you just have a very aggressive personality or if you're just trolling for s--ts and giggles, but either way, I've made my arguments and I look forward to more discussions like this. Hopefully next time, we can find just a little more balance and place emphasis on the content of our arguments rather than their delivery.

 

[Rolf Silber]

Wow... maybe there's a market for my wunderstücke yet...

You can always claim that it's "Berliner Schule". Anything sells with that label like currywurst.

 

[SarahMilro]

Would love to know when I said not to use those turns of phrase.

It's implied in your posts throughout, like below

You can also get away with a lot more if, say, you're working on assignment - either adapting a book, or writing from a pitch (your own or someone else's). And again if you happen to be the man directing the picture, or if it's an independent production: the first page of Oscar-nominated Beasts of the Southern Wild script includes uses of "We pan up to-", "We hear," and a line that begins: "A series of glimpses of-".


Use -ING all you want. Just don't ***** and moan if the aforementioned reader decides your screenplay reads too slow to recommend to his/her boss.

---

I hope I'm not merely taking the bait here. I've noticed your propensity, since joining a few months ago, toward resurrecting long-dead topics, instigating arguments, and never backing down. While you've made some points worth making, you seem hell-bent on winning wars that no-one else is waging. So I don't know if you just have a very aggressive personality or if you're just trolling for s--ts and giggles,

It's not aggression, just banter.


If you're referring to my use of the word "twaddle" earlier, well I think that's on a par with your use of the word "misguided," so we're being equally aggressive or passive or passive aggressive or whatever.


If I resurrect old posts, it's because there haven't been many new posts, so it's just banter or comment on a topic.

 

[Eric Boellner]

It's implied in your posts throughout, like below...

Right, my fault. Wasn't clear about my point, which is that a screenwriter should only be mindful of the "rules" (such as, don't use "We see-", "We pan up to-" or "We hear-") insofar as they understand the risk they're making. That risk is simply that any given reader might be distracted by your infractions of "the rules," regardless of who set those rules and why and whether they actually serve a purpose (they do*). Like I said, we're catering to college interns who have little time and plenty of opinion. As much as I disdain the idea of playing by the rules, I have to face the realities of the market I'm serving, and honestly, the imposition of these rules, however arbitrary, forces me to get creative with how I say things. Instead of writing, "We see the boots of soldiers as they charge through the mud and the water," I have to find a way to imply that image as specifically as I can without "directing" the reader: "Combat boots strike water and mud, pair after pair - as they charge." For me, it's just about choosing battles wisely. I break more than enough rules in the structuring of my scripts, I'm not going to forsake formatting altogether. Hell, if I submitted a script laid out like McCarthy's "The Counselor," some dev exec would probably go American History X on my ass.

As for the aggression/banter bit, I can see where you're coming from. I tried to pare my initial response down as much as I could, ha. In any case, I did enjoy this discussion. Now for that discussion on screenwriting gurus someone brought up... :thumbsup: