What do you look for when evaluate a screenplay?

[Angelshare1]

I wrote a screenplay and gave it to a collegue to read who went to film school and has taken writing courses. He liked it but he made a comment that I had a lot of camera shots and narrative in it. Stuff like "We see John approach the TV. He turns it on and sits in the chair." Then it goes into the dialogue. Also I have a montage while a character is narrating so as the character is speaking, I have a lot of "We see a man trying to get into a cab...".

Is this okay in a screenplay? I plan on filming this myself and I'm not selling or piching this to anyone so I can get away with stuff like that.

How do you read a screenplay without narration and know what the heck is going on?

 

[RockmanX3]

Alot of established writers use "We see... etc". It's all a matter of opinion.

 

[Postmaster]

What do I look for?
First thing I read is Page 17 and 25 (aprox.)

If nothing significant happens here, something went wrong.

Never mind that "we see" stuff. There a re a lot of "screenplay fascists" out there. that insist it´s a deal breaker.
Then you read famous, successful screenplays just to find out they are full of this "We see" and other so called No-Gos.

Frank

 

[Finnegan]

I wrote a screenplay and gave it to a collegue to read who went to film school and has taken writing courses. He liked it but he made a comment that I had a lot of camera shots and narrative in it. Stuff like "We see John approach the TV. He turns it on and sits in the chair." Then it goes into the dialogue. Also I have a montage while a character is narrating so as the character is speaking, I have a lot of "We see a man trying to get into a cab...".

Is this okay in a screenplay? I plan on filming this myself and I'm not selling or piching this to anyone so I can get away with stuff like that.

How do you read a screenplay without narration and know what the heck is going on?

The writer can write "we see..." if what the audience sees is important to the story. I think what your friend is saying is that you as the writer are very rarely allowed to write in camera movements, shots, or angles because how it is shot is up to the cinematographer and director. This is, of course, unless you are Kevin Smith or Quentin Tarantino, where you're the writer and the director - those guys can get away with it.

 

[JonathanLB]

Even as the writer-director, I still don't put that in there. I prefer to write a clean spec screenplay so that it's easily readable for everyone right from the start, including producers I may be looking to work with, etc.

I hate "we see" I just think it's hokey. I don't like first person pronouns in formal writing and I still consider anything written for a professional purpose to be formal writing. Of course "we see" it, it's int he damn screenplay, which is a guide to what happens on the screen. There's no use to write that there at all. "John approaches the TV. He turns it on and sits in his chair," or whatever. I don't get what "we see" accomplishes besides being folksy and hokey, it just is awkward to read. But that's just my opinion, some people still do it, I just don't like it.

As for what I look for when I'm looking at a screenplay, I think structure is one of the key things I look for. It's hard to say what I look for in a quick way, but I can tell you that anyone in the industry can evaluate a screenplay in a few minutes without having read it and be right 90% of the time at least, if not 95% of the time. When I had a meeting with a production company that I'm just now entering into business with for my screenplay, they hadn't read it all yet, they only had read the first 10 pages (because I had just sent it over before the meeting), but the first thing one of the producers said was, "It's the right length." That is a huge factor. It was a 97 page screenplay (now it's 95) so he knew it was in the ballpark of what an indie film on a low budget should be. If it was 147 page comedy he'd immediately know I was an amateur with no clue what I was doing, without actually reading any of the script.

Also if you look through the screenplay and find large chunks of dialogue on a consistent basis, this is a red flag, as most dialogue should be pretty quick and 3-4 lines at most. Not huge chunks of 10 liners. Same with description -- it should be broken up, not massive blocks of text. Things like this are easy to look over in a few minutes and tell whether the writer knows what he's doing. Also the basics like slug lines.

Besides that the structure matters the most. I don't care what length the screenplay is, 90 pages or 120 pages, I still want to know what is at stake or what this film is about by the 10th page. I better know at least what is going on by then. If I have to read until page 20 to figure out what is happening there is a problem with the structure. Another issue is more detailed, but when I'm reading it, no matter the genre, there should be a progression of dramatic tension. Even in a romantic comedy there is still going to be greater and greater stakes, and the obstacles are going to increase, otherwise there is a problem. Put simply, in another type of genre I mean, you can't have your character's life threatened on page 40, then on page 60 he's in danger of being late with a credit card payment. I just saw the protagonist's LIFE in danger, I really don't care about whether he won't be able to get a good APR on his new MasterCard It has to progress in a fashion where the stakes are constantly rising, which is not only important to a film but important to keeping your readers' interest. It will make them keep turning the pages, wondering what happens next, and how will the protagonist get out of this mess.

Or notice in something like Mrs. Doubtfire, the lie starts small -- it's supposed to be just Daniel trying to see his kids a bit more, he's going to an extreme with it, but he never intends it to get out of hand. Then pretty soon the stakes keep rising because now the kids like MRS. DOUBTFIRE, not Daniel, now he has to figure out how to cook, he has to maintain this bigger and bigger lie, even making a social worker believe they are two separate people in the same apartment, while she is visiting, etc. The reason it's so funny is because these stakes continue to increase, and pretty soon Mrs. Doubtfire is supposed to meet the family at the same restaurant at the same time as Daniel is supposed to meet with a TV producer, and THAT is funny, that is high stakes as the lie has gotten out of hand. I mention that film because it's one of my favorites, one of the great comedies in my opinion, and also because my romantic comedy script is similar in that it is about a lie that continues to grow and the more the protagonist attempts to cover it up or control the situation, the more uncontrollable it is, much like another favorite of mine Sim0ne (with Al Pacino, by Andrew Niccol).

There is a LOT to look for in a script, needless to say, but the basics are where a lot of people screw up, which is sad because there are so many books on screenwriting I really don't think it's that difficult. You come up with a good story, you outline it, you make sure that it is exciting and fun and interesting and can sustain a feature, then you make sure the structure is working, and now you write it into a screenplay. It's not EASY, but it's not rocket science either.

 

[David W. Richardson]

I'm curious. Can you give an example where "we see" is necessary, and the sentence could not be phrased in a better way?

"We see a car pull slowly to the curb." === "A car pulls slowly to the curb."

"We see Angela glance over Michael's shoulder." === "Angela glances over Michael's shoudler."

Even things which we see, but the characters don't, can be handled.

"We see a bomb hidden under the table." === "A bomb is hidden under the table. Angela and Michael are unaware of its presence."

I'm struggling to find any reason for "we see".

 

[Blaine]

When I read a script I like to see it used sparingly if at all. I don't find it too objectionable if it's only used a couple of time in a script, though I agree with chapelgrovefilms that it can usually be phrased in a better way. I'm less critical of it in a first draft because I "know" the writer will take care of it in their rewrites...at least, I hope they will.

 

[Nektonic]

When I read a script I like to see it used sparingly if at all. I don't find it too objectionable if it's only used a couple of time in a script, though I agree with chapelgrovefilms that it can usually be phrased in a better way.

I think there are a few times here and there that the use of we see can be useful or even necessary, but only when it is really necessary, and not for just a stylistic choice.

Most professional script readers aren't going to suddenly throw out a script that they are enjoying if one or two uses of we see pop up through out the script.

I'm less critical of it in a first draft because I "know" the writer will take care of it in their rewrites...at least, I hope they will.

A trick I used to use before I became more familiar with the various rules of screenplay formatting and style was to just use we see and not worry about it while working on the first draft. Then when I was in the rewriting phase, I would weed out all of those pesky we sees. That method allowed me to focus on just getting the story down on paper in the initial writing phase.

 

[Zak Forsman]

when i read a script I flip to page 30, read every third word, then go immediately to page 99 and read only the dialogue -- out loud and backwards. if there is no page 99, I chug a beer and read page 66 while standing on my head. works every time.

all right, just having some fun there... but truthfully, i'm in the middle of reading scripts for my next feature, a thriller, and what i'm looking during the first ten pages is for it to absolutely "sing" with compelling dramatic elements and appealing dialogue, otherwise I move on to the next.

 

[Batutta]

Courier.

 

[Charli]

just tell me the story as visually as possible

 

[agcohn]

I'm curious. Can you give an example where "we see" is necessary, and the sentence could not be phrased in a better way?

"We see a car pull slowly to the curb." === "A car pulls slowly to the curb."

"We see Angela glance over Michael's shoulder." === "Angela glances over Michael's shoudler."

Even things which we see, but the characters don't, can be handled.

"We see a bomb hidden under the table." === "A bomb is hidden under the table. Angela and Michael are unaware of its presence."

I'm struggling to find any reason for "we see".

Generally for things like your last example, "We see a bomb hidden under the table," which is half the length of your alternative sentence.

Or "We see his face for the first time." etc is shorter than "His face is visible for the first time," which doesn't even carry quite the same meaning.

If "we see" streamlines a line of action, or more clearly expresses an image or action, I have no problem using it.

 

[dougspice]

Agreed. I think it can be useful for situations of dramatic irony – where the audience is supposed to see something the characters do not.

As a general rule, beware of rule nazis, especially when it comes to writing. People who never break a rule also rarely accomplish anything of any importance.

"We see a bomb hidden under the table."

= concise, competent writing.

"A bomb is hidden under the table. Angela and Michael are unaware of its presence."

= unnecessarily verbose, awkward, bad writing.


To answer your larger question: I look for it to be good. In order to do that, I first have to look for it not to be bad. This is incredibly easy to do, takes less than 5 minutes usually. Most scripts are terrible and they are easy to spot.

The ones that pass this initial test, well, that's a little tougher to judge. Did the characters speak to me, did they feel like real people, did I care about the situations they were in? There's a lot of criteria that can vary depending on genre and a host of other factors. But knowing how to write is first and foremost, and most people can't.

 

[dougspice]

(I should however add that in the two examples you gave, I can't see any justification for "we see.")

... the first thing one of the producers said was, "It's the right length."

You say they actually bit on this script? Because that certainly sounds like damning with faint praise to me.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Agreed. I think it can be useful for situations of dramatic irony – where the audience is supposed to see something the characters do not.

As a general rule, beware of rule nazis, especially when it comes to writing. People who never break a rule also rarely accomplish anything of any importance.




= concise, competent writing.



= unnecessarily verbose, awkward, bad writing.


To answer your larger question: I look for it to be good. In order to do that, I first have to look for it not to be bad. This is incredibly easy to do, takes less than 5 minutes usually. Most scripts are terrible and they are easy to spot.

The ones that pass this initial test, well, that's a little tougher to judge. Did the characters speak to me, did they feel like real people, did I care about the situations they were in? There's a lot of criteria that can vary depending on genre and a host of other factors. But knowing how to write is first and foremost, and most people can't.

I disagree. Remember that one of your goals when writing a scene is to have the length of the scene roughly translate to 1 page = 1 minute on the screen. Brevity and conciseness aren't necessarily your allies here. How many seconds will the bomb be seen on the screen, so that the audience can establish and recognize it? One? Two? Three or more? Remembering that you are going to write "We see a bomb under the table" only once, but the editor may cut back to it several times in the course of the scene. Your writing needs to be more than just about description -- it needs to be about being visual AND giving it the proper sense of timing and pacing.

Say you're writing a scene in which your main character gets up on a stage with a band and sings "The Star Spangled Banner". You can write "Chad sings "The Star Spangled Banner" to a hushed crowd.". But that doesn't have the same impact on your reading audience as the actual singing of the song will have on the movie audience. You need to convey that sense of timing, presence and impact. And, if you want your page count to equal your minutes count, then you need to fill up enough space in the script -- creatively -- to cover the amount of time it takes for Chad to sing that song.

"We see a bomb hidden under the table" may be "concise" and "competent", but is it GOOD writing? Does it tell us everything we need to know? Do the characters know the bomb is there? How much time is there before the bomb goes off? Where is the TENSION in this? After all, there's a BOMB under there!

We're not looking for the fewest words to convey an idea. We want to create full-blown images in the reader's mind. Our goal is to keep the reader in the moment, by making the timing of events translate properly to the written words.

That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Try this....

"A BOMB sits on the floor beneath the table, ticking off the seconds. 35...34...33...32... Chad and Amber quietly continue their meal, completely unaware of the deadly device that lies mere inches from their feet."

 

[dougspice]

I disagree. Remember that one of your goals when writing a scene is to have the length of the scene roughly translate to 1 page = 1 minute on the screen. Brevity and conciseness aren't necessarily your allies here. How many seconds will the bomb be seen on the screen, so that the audience can establish and recognize it? One? Two? Three or more? Remembering that you are going to write "We see a bomb under the table" only once, but the editor may cut back to it several times in the course of the scene. Your writing needs to be more than just about description -- it needs to be about being visual AND giving it the proper sense of timing and pacing.

I disagree, emphatically. My one and only goal when writing a scene is to write a good scene, and make sure that good scene works as part of a good script. If you think there's something else beyond that, I encourage you to re-evaluate your position.

 

[BitMaestro]

I look for a well-written screenplay, which is a lot more involved than it sounds. For example:

The problem with "we see" is that it forces you to use passive voice/gerund nouns/state of being verbs; there's always a stronger, more active, more evocative way to (re)write anything written with such. No, that doesn't mean that this other way is *always* better, but the vast majority of the time, it is.

To use the example provided:

"We see John approach the TV. He turns it on and sits in the chair."

First, as others have noted, in this particular case, the "we see" is completely unnecessary. But going further, even without the "we see", "John approaches the TV. He turns it on and sits in the chair." this tells me nothing about the character, much less the story. So a well written screenplay would either cut the moment entirely or make better use of it. i.e. how is John feeling? and how does this manifest in his behavior? someone who's manic will "approach" the TV differently and sit in the chair differently from someone who's suicidal.

And someone with a 60" plasma and leather recliner is different from someone with an old 13" portable with rabbit ears and a ratty, old futon. And both of those are different from someone with a 60" plasma and a ratty, old futon. etc.

So why go to this extent? Three reasons:

1) the easiest way to get talented people to want to work with you is to show them that you are at least as talented as they are, if not more so.

2) the more work that's spent writing (when it's relatively cheap) the less work will have to be done later (when it's expensive)--i.e. would you rather figure out how you're going to show that John is suicidal while it's just you and your typewriter or when it's you and everyone else in the production standing around on set?--and the better you allocate your resources, the better the finished product.

3) to a writer, words matter. Especially in a screenplay where they are so limited.

Another example of different issues is the "bomb" line:

"A bomb is hidden under the table. Angela and Michael are unaware of its presence."

Note that the second sentence is a "tell". i.e. you are telling the reader something without showing how you will make it clear to the movie viewing audience. Heck, if I'm going to be really picky, how will the viewer even know that the thing under the table is a bomb?

Also, by showing the bomb first, you have POV issues. Whereas, if you show the people first, and get us to identify with them...

EXT. SIDEWALK CAFE - DAY.

A waiter weaves his way through the crowded tables and sets down a
small bowl of ice cream with two spoons between a twenty-something
couple, Angela and Michael.

Michael scoops up a spoonful of ice cream and feeds Angela. Angela
reciprocates by scooping up a spoonful of ice cream, but instead she
dabs it on Michael's nose. As they exchange smiles...

UNDER THE TABLE

A block of C4 with wires running to an LCD readout that silently counts
down: 0:59 ... 0:58 ... 0:57 ...

While that's far from perfect--what do you expect? I just wrote it up--it's clear, active and cinematic.

And that's only a few writing issues, no discussion of storytelling (yet) - M

 

[David W. Richardson]

Extremely well said, BitMaestro! Thank you!

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

"We see..." is something I do not like reading when I read a screenplay, because it only serves to remove me from the illusion of the fictional world I have entered by reading the story. Thus breaking my experience of becoming the protagonist if only for 110 pages. But if you are writing the script purely for yourself, as an indie you will direct, and you do not need feedback so much from others for rewrites, then you can write it pretty much any way you want to, including any font, any style, break any rules-- so just have fun. :2vrolijk_08:

...... I have a lot of "We see a man trying to get into a cab...". Is this okay in a screenplay? I plan on filming this myself and I'm not selling or piching this to anyone so I can get away with stuff like that...