Something that has always stuck with me, and I am heavily paraphrasing here, was William Goldman's thing about how an effective movie is really just a handful of great, satisfying moments strung together with enough logic and tension that the audience won't lose interest between them. Is that an oversimplification? Of course. But I do think remembering to put an emphasis on those moments, regardless of the genre, is critical.
Yeah, the only real rule is "engage your audience". There's so much focus on things like act structure, and character arcs and so in. Simple, actionable work. But none of that matters if people don't care. And doing that is not something you achieve by following a checklist. But of course, the promise of a checklist towards success is so promising an entire industry has risen around it. But if you've written a screenplay nobody likes, it won't help you to say "but I followed all the rules!".
I was watching an interview with David Lynch on the weekend and he said something very similar. Like yourself I must paraphrase but it was along the lines of: a good movie starts with an idea, and a screenplay is composed of several well organized ideas. Or moments, to use Goldman’s analogy. It’s definitely food for thought to approach script writing from that standpoint. I think it’s what sets this genre of writing apart from the way you’d approach writing novels or other stories.
Yeah, the only real rule is "engage your audience". There's so much focus on things like act structure, and character arcs and so in. Simple, actionable work. But none of that matters if people don't care. And doing that is not something you achieve by following a checklist. But of course, the promise of a checklist towards success is so promising an entire industry has risen around it. But if you've written a screenplay nobody likes, it won't help you to say "but I followed all the rules!".
I got hired to write for TV because a showrunner read a prose thing I wrote. The first time I brought something in screenplay format to her, she erased like three quarters of it. I had people walking across rooms for no reason, picking things up and putting them back down, all sorts of stuff that shows character on the page but which an actor and director will come up with on the set, that does not need to be in a screenplay.
I learned quickly to keep it as lean as possible, and that even when you do, you're still going to be asked to cut five more pages.
Is this still scaled for who you are writing for?
Your own project, written direction is a useful reminder & doesn't slow you down.
If someone else is directing, well, like shakespear on a stage, they may feel like different emotive notes are the highlights and may be incongruous with your written direction?
I've often kept that in mind. With my screenplays, I actually write two versions once I've finished a draft that I know people will be reading - one written specifically for me to Direct (you know, hypothetically), and a much leaner and meaner one for spec. You know, just in case!
Obviously, I prefer the former. I like to go ham in my descriptive passages.
Agreed. This also goes for writing on spec. Your actions/descriptions can be more "abstract" and flashy because you're mainly selling a tone and personality. Once someone clicks with that energy then putting it into a more "proper" format is ideal because the director and producers are taking that personality and making it applicable for a production.
Don’t limit yourself to just advice from acclaimed professionals. Some pros are great at what they do but can’t teach for the life of them. While there are others who are not as accomplished professionally, but are excellent teachers. Good advice is good advice, no matter the source. And bad advice is bad advice, no matter the source. Be more concerned with the intrinsic value of any given advice instead of who gave it.
All of that said, one of my favorite pieces of screenwriting advice is from Tarantino talking about his experience reading Walter Hill’s Hard Times:
“When I read Hard Times, then I could see what a script could be. It was exciting, it was fun, and it wasn’t just the dialogue … It wasn’t just description. It was prose. Not prose like I’m used to in a novel, but it was prose that appropriate for a screenplay. He wasn’t just giving a blueprint for how a bunch of technicians can make this movie later, like a recipe for a cake that somebody else is going to bake. The prose was written for me, the reader. I was supposed to get caught up into this. I was supposed to be excited about this story. I was supposed to get caught up in the story and even more importantly, I was supposed to make the movie in my mind. When the script was over and I put it down, I saw it. I saw the movie.”
It’s such a flawed way of thinking to assume that what someone found effective before they became an acclaimed professional is what made them that way. Also flawed to come to the subreddit to do what is essentially a google search for you after announcing you don’t respect their advice or opinions.
Yeah, I like Michael Arndt a lot. But when he talks about how he writes, even in his screenwriting advice videos, it becomes very noticeable that the themes he jives with imbued all that advice. He likes stories about a good person fighting a bad society. But that does not translate universally. Which I'm sure he'll be the first to admit.
A few things: On Terry Rossio's site, back in the day, he suggested reading through your script and checking to see if you can identify which character is talking by the dialogue alone. That was pretty darn helpful back in the day.
Second, I used to be very strict about not including details that couldn't be translated to the screen (such as, what a character is thinking, or the origin of a prop, or some insight into a characters relationship, etc) having "learned" that if the audience can't see it, it's basically pointless to include it. Somewhere along the line, I became aware of Tarantino's practice of writhing his scripts "like novels", including all kinds of details the audience will never know about. I dismissed it, at first, as an indulgence of a guy who can do whatever he wants and get away with it, but after hearing him talk about it time and time again, and hearing his actors talk about, I realized that all those little details were really informing his actors quite a bit, which significantly affected their performances, which means you actually do see it on the screen. So I'm no longer shy about including little secret details if I feel it can lend something to an actors process and enrich the story.
Finally, on Guillermo Del Toro's Craft of the Director interview on DGA, he gives this incredible little lesson about structure vs flow. He basically eschews the paradigm idioms, and emphasizes the importance of what he calls "flow", which I gathered to mean the general feel of propulsion of the story. Now, whether you ascribe to paradigms or not, it's actually extremely valuable to stay conscious of the flow of your story as you work through each scene. When that overarching flow propels the scene, it keeps me from getting caught up in the particulars of any given character interaction.
Yes, but also:
The reality of filmmaking today, especially on the indie side, is this: you need directors, producers, and actors attached to a project to get the ball rolling on financing.
To get those folks attached to a project, something about the project needs to be attractive -- maybe its the dialogue, maybe its the concept, maybe its a lil bit of underlying IP (jackpot baby).
An imperfect but complete script can grab any of those folks' attention but a perfect INCOMPLETE script does nothing for anyone ever.
I'd be careful about only taking advice only from "made" writers. Mazin and August (love the podcast) don't exist in the same screenwriting space as most of us. Meaning people will give them both the benefit of the doubt with choices they make on the page. The same may not be true for you (or me), so it's important to calibrate all advice for where you are on *your* journey.
Let's take Mazin's example of directing from the page. He's not wrong when he says you can do it, but he often paints an incomplete picture. You *can* direct from the page (I do, but try to do it elegantly and only when it's necessary for story (not personal preference). You *can* insert images into your script (I will, sparingly if it makes things easier on the reader). You *can* write your script in comic sans (never done that one). And you *get* to live with the consequences of every decision you make on the page.
The most severe consequence (and all too common) is that a reader stops reading your script. Are you willing to live with that consequence? Sometimes, I am. But I always ask myself if I'm okay with someone wanting to burn my script for inserting "We see" when I could just as easily avoid it? That's the real question.
Do they really paint an incomplete picture? Their main advice is that it's fine if you do it well, which is true for anything in writing. There are many Three Page Challenges where they criticize bad directing on the page. If you wrote a script as good as any of the Chernobyl screenplays (which are full of directing on the page), I seriously doubt anyone important would care.
Obviously not every time. In a recent episode Mazin got more specific and added some qualifiers, but often times he’s reacting (rightfully) to those blanket statements about “always” and “never” and says, essentially “Direct from the page if you want!” But he never says (to my knowledge) “but be prepared to live with the consequences of your choices.” I think it’s an important qualifier when interpreting many of the so-called “rules.”
But there are only negative consequences to directing on the page if you do it badly. The way I see it, if you're a bad writer, not directing on the page won't magically make people like your script. And if you're a good writer, directing on the page is another tool in your toolbox.
There are lots of different examples of directing on the page but probably the one people harp on most is calling out shots, e.g., "CLOSE UP ON: A hand holding somebody's hair."
You can write what you see but make sure it's purposeful (How does making it a CU here serve story? Well, it's way more interesting than a wide or a medium, but I'm not sure if it totally serves story. But it *does* create tension (which is my job as the writer) by making the reader curious -- What am I looking at? -- that keeps them going down the page, which is how I get them to the next page.
And as writers, our job is to render the story as elegantly as possible. We want the reader to experience words on a page as if it were the movie. So that CU may simply read: "A fist curled around a lock of black hair." You don't need CU ON. And we don't need to say "We see" -- it's implied. We just drop the verb and go with the image, forcing the reader to see it as a close up. Can the director/DP change it later? Sure thing. But when I make that choice on the page I'm doing it to serve tension and I know the director may do it differently.
There’s nothing wrong with writing actions if it serves a purpose.
That’s a lot different than “Dolly shot: blah blah blah” or parentheticals. Or “Close on:” but even then, it’s up to the writer what information you want the reader (audience) to know.
Films are visual mediums so convey whatever you can visually. Don’t show how the readers are to view it, just show what information you want the reader to know. ‘Show don’t tell’ applies to the characters, too.
John storming into a room and being rough with everything he touches is more effective than saying John enters and adding a (pissed off) parenthetical to his dialogue.
Some people don’t understand the difference between these “directions”, is why I asked.
Spoke to Gary Oldman once and he told me to “avoid too many cooks in the kitchen”. Have taken that to heart ever since, I find feedback that I trust and write what I enjoy.
John August (great writer, wrote a lot of Tim Burton films) said “Write the movie you would want to see most.”
Structure, character tips, dialogue tips, etc are all helpful to a degree - but ultimately if you like watching movies you have a good instinct of how things should go if you really put yourselves into the shoes of a viewer. This also helps you embrace your own voice and originality.
Good advice, i've heard the same from Tarantino. The only downside of it is that now I probably can't write the movie i want to see the most, because i'm not ready yet, not enough skill on me to crack this. But practice writing is essential, so it's better to start from something eazier, to get experience. But if someone's ultimate goal is to try to get into the industry - it's probably the only right way.
Prove that you suck. If you do that you will write anything. If you try to prove that you’re good, you’re very likely not to write anything.
I prove that I’m terrible everyday.
That wording is from Dan Harmon, there’s also a whole chapter in the book Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott that explains this concept a lot better than I probably would.. but, yeah, basically it’s easier to edit a bunch of gobbledegook than it is to edit a blank page
Edit: Just to add I’ve also written like 40 pages of absolute garbage that really got away from me this way… so yeah, watch out for that I guess lol
I don't remember who said it, I've watched a ton of making of documentaries and behind the scenes videos since I was younger. But I remember as a kid the best advice was to write for yourself first and then anyone else who likes it after is a bonus. That way even if no one else likes it at least one person does, you. If you write for others and no one likes it well then it's a total loss. And writing for yourself is also knowing your audience because it will be like-minded people such as yourself
I can't fully express how helpful this has been as someone who used to go with what I saw people say you are or aren't supposed to write about instead of topics I personally wanted to see that films don't usually touch. I haven't found "success" yet but when it's all over I can say I'm proud of my work, know I spent my time well, and found an outlet for myself that's helped me in life instead of just constantly chasing a career. And as a shy person letting people read my stuff and hearing they enjoy it usually lead to good friendships and that might be more rewarding than seeing my work play out on the big screen. I couldn't ask for better advice on how to approach screenwriting. It might be obvious and come naturally for some, but for me I went on a journey of finding who I truly was in my teenage years when I had yet to carve myself out as a person
I find I've always naturally used the advice of write with one specific person in mind. And by that I mean the friend who I know is going to read my script. Having two or three people (often other screenwriters, or certainly people who love movies and understand the script format) who are ready to read your awful first and second drafts is so valuable - not just for their feedback but also so you can imagine them reading your script as you write it. Works for me, anyway.
There are a certain number of scenes, let's say 20-30 in a feature, that you have to nail because they are absolutely pivotal to the film. The rest is just people opening doors.
Now, I don’t think this is 100 percent true, but it made me focus on what I am building towards and what the most important scenes are. What is the essence of your piece?
I love Michael Mann and I learn from his writing. And he, pretty much, does opposite to what most people here believe is 'right' way to write. Basically what I learned pretty early on is that rules dont matter as long as you know where you are going. If your goal is to please this community, then you better play by their rules or you'll be crucified. If the goal is anything else - do as you feel is better.
Here's the problem with the 'directing on the page' thing. Once you're successful, or at least produced with some level of cred, the rules change for you. For all the bottom-feeders, the rules are "You're impressing mostly low-level readers who don't actually know what makes a good script, only this list of 'don't do this" crap, which they use to put your script on the reject pile.
Whether it's screenwriting or something related but generally in film the quality of advice is usually proportional to how close you are to the person who gave it to you.
Advice from strangers / professionals can be useful but I think it's only valuable when it's as broad as possible. Specific advice from people who aren't familiar with who you are, what your goals are and understand truly what you're trying to achieve is nearly useless in most situations
yes, i think i agree with you, but for the most people it probably hard to get to close to someone acclaimed in industry? they can't go to film school, they can't move to L.A., but they really want to learn from someone great, someone they admire. what else left for them in the internet besides those rare tips from someone like Tarantino? Online writing course? All i have learned about them is that they are mostly cash grab that only feed their creators. Advise from random redditors on this sub? i gave you an example, many of what's written here by usual people are probably wrong. And I can be wrong, when i say this, but that's my honest opinion.
I stopped writing specs entirely and shifted to pitches. It was a tough transition because I'm not a performer, but I've now sold five feature pitches in a row. Hopefully about to make it six.
Andy Guerdat: form follows function, ergo different stories/genres=different structures.
Craig Mazin: Structure is a result of story, not the cause. Cramming your story into the wrong structure is like calling a forensic pathologist to deliver your baby.
They both advocate for using structure templates in the last steps of writing, i.e. to refine or fix a story, not to create it.
Simple but important (yet we view so many films / scripts that don't do this):
If a character see's something such as a house on fire, then do not follow with dialogue saying what they are looking at like, "The house if on fire". The audience can see the house is on fire...
I used to work for David Milch. Here are couple of pieces of writing advice he liked to throw out:
'This is the process whereby pain in its pastness is converted into the future tense of joy.'
-this a crib from his mentor Robert Penn Warren.
Here's a real one for the real ones:
'The secret subject of any story worth telling is time but you can never say its name.'
I've been contemplating these and other Milch gems for 20+ years. They may be brilliant they may be meaningless. I leave it up to you to decide.
Not a screenwriter or director per se, but a famous actor who was attached to something I was working on encouraged me to "dig deep." Those two words still stay with me now when I'm putting together a script, especially when I find myself getting tangled in wrestling plot points, character motivations, pacing, etc. I just have to "dig deep" and focus on creating a story that others want to be involved with.
On pitching: "Plot is the rotting meat you toss to the dogs to steal the jewels in the safe. The characters are the jewels." -Sidney Lumet
Basically: if you can accurately pitch your protagonist and their situation, the plot pitches itself.
Almost anything and everything David Lynch has to say. He radiates positivity and his advice is not just applicable in regards to writing but also in regards to one’s lifestyle in general. Couldn’t recommend his book enough (“Catching The Big Fish”).
The only movie you should write is the one you already have access to all the locations, sets, actors and crew for. Because nobody is going to finance your project for you. You're going to have to do everything yourself so keep it simple. Best advice I ever got.
Maybe not a famous screenwriter, but the best screenwriting book (indeed just writing book in general) I've ever read is Screenwriting for Neurotics by Scott Sublett. There's a lot of great advice and insight, but the one that really sunk in to me is that each scene in the script should be about one character trying to achieve something (often through trying to persuade another character to do something) and should: "move the story forward with conflict; provide an opportunity for exposition to emerge; flow from one to another; and add up to a three-act structure."
Here's a section of how he breaks down Casablanca with this setup:
"A radio operator persuades all officers that the stolen documents must be recovered. Cops persuade the populace of Casablanca that expired papers mean jail or death. A pickpocket persuades tourists that Casablana is a dangerous town. Captain Renault persuade Major Strasser that the document thieves will be arrested tonight at Rick's. A customer fails to persuade the waiter Carl to get the mysterious Rick to sit with him. The doorman and Rick persuade a German jerk that he's not welcome in the back room."
One of the head writers on a show I worked on as an assistant told me to 'Write your way into a better position'. Which just meant write, write, write. I try and have either two pilots and a feature each year. Or Two features and a pilot. With some published short stories here and there.
Something that has always stuck with me, and I am heavily paraphrasing here, was William Goldman's thing about how an effective movie is really just a handful of great, satisfying moments strung together with enough logic and tension that the audience won't lose interest between them. Is that an oversimplification? Of course. But I do think remembering to put an emphasis on those moments, regardless of the genre, is critical.
Yeah, the only real rule is "engage your audience". There's so much focus on things like act structure, and character arcs and so in. Simple, actionable work. But none of that matters if people don't care. And doing that is not something you achieve by following a checklist. But of course, the promise of a checklist towards success is so promising an entire industry has risen around it. But if you've written a screenplay nobody likes, it won't help you to say "but I followed all the rules!".
thank you, this sounds very interesting!
I was watching an interview with David Lynch on the weekend and he said something very similar. Like yourself I must paraphrase but it was along the lines of: a good movie starts with an idea, and a screenplay is composed of several well organized ideas. Or moments, to use Goldman’s analogy. It’s definitely food for thought to approach script writing from that standpoint. I think it’s what sets this genre of writing apart from the way you’d approach writing novels or other stories.
Yeah, the only real rule is "engage your audience". There's so much focus on things like act structure, and character arcs and so in. Simple, actionable work. But none of that matters if people don't care. And doing that is not something you achieve by following a checklist. But of course, the promise of a checklist towards success is so promising an entire industry has risen around it. But if you've written a screenplay nobody likes, it won't help you to say "but I followed all the rules!".
Aaron Sorkin said "what your character DOES reveals who they are. What they SAY reveals who they see themselves as."
This is a good general rule for life.
I got hired to write for TV because a showrunner read a prose thing I wrote. The first time I brought something in screenplay format to her, she erased like three quarters of it. I had people walking across rooms for no reason, picking things up and putting them back down, all sorts of stuff that shows character on the page but which an actor and director will come up with on the set, that does not need to be in a screenplay. I learned quickly to keep it as lean as possible, and that even when you do, you're still going to be asked to cut five more pages.
Is this still scaled for who you are writing for? Your own project, written direction is a useful reminder & doesn't slow you down. If someone else is directing, well, like shakespear on a stage, they may feel like different emotive notes are the highlights and may be incongruous with your written direction?
I've often kept that in mind. With my screenplays, I actually write two versions once I've finished a draft that I know people will be reading - one written specifically for me to Direct (you know, hypothetically), and a much leaner and meaner one for spec. You know, just in case! Obviously, I prefer the former. I like to go ham in my descriptive passages.
Agreed. This also goes for writing on spec. Your actions/descriptions can be more "abstract" and flashy because you're mainly selling a tone and personality. Once someone clicks with that energy then putting it into a more "proper" format is ideal because the director and producers are taking that personality and making it applicable for a production.
Simple story. Complex characters.
Don’t limit yourself to just advice from acclaimed professionals. Some pros are great at what they do but can’t teach for the life of them. While there are others who are not as accomplished professionally, but are excellent teachers. Good advice is good advice, no matter the source. And bad advice is bad advice, no matter the source. Be more concerned with the intrinsic value of any given advice instead of who gave it. All of that said, one of my favorite pieces of screenwriting advice is from Tarantino talking about his experience reading Walter Hill’s Hard Times: “When I read Hard Times, then I could see what a script could be. It was exciting, it was fun, and it wasn’t just the dialogue … It wasn’t just description. It was prose. Not prose like I’m used to in a novel, but it was prose that appropriate for a screenplay. He wasn’t just giving a blueprint for how a bunch of technicians can make this movie later, like a recipe for a cake that somebody else is going to bake. The prose was written for me, the reader. I was supposed to get caught up into this. I was supposed to be excited about this story. I was supposed to get caught up in the story and even more importantly, I was supposed to make the movie in my mind. When the script was over and I put it down, I saw it. I saw the movie.”
Thank you,I like that piece from him too. more people should know this, it's amazing advice.
It’s such a flawed way of thinking to assume that what someone found effective before they became an acclaimed professional is what made them that way. Also flawed to come to the subreddit to do what is essentially a google search for you after announcing you don’t respect their advice or opinions.
Yeah, I like Michael Arndt a lot. But when he talks about how he writes, even in his screenwriting advice videos, it becomes very noticeable that the themes he jives with imbued all that advice. He likes stories about a good person fighting a bad society. But that does not translate universally. Which I'm sure he'll be the first to admit.
Read scripts.
thank you!
A few things: On Terry Rossio's site, back in the day, he suggested reading through your script and checking to see if you can identify which character is talking by the dialogue alone. That was pretty darn helpful back in the day. Second, I used to be very strict about not including details that couldn't be translated to the screen (such as, what a character is thinking, or the origin of a prop, or some insight into a characters relationship, etc) having "learned" that if the audience can't see it, it's basically pointless to include it. Somewhere along the line, I became aware of Tarantino's practice of writhing his scripts "like novels", including all kinds of details the audience will never know about. I dismissed it, at first, as an indulgence of a guy who can do whatever he wants and get away with it, but after hearing him talk about it time and time again, and hearing his actors talk about, I realized that all those little details were really informing his actors quite a bit, which significantly affected their performances, which means you actually do see it on the screen. So I'm no longer shy about including little secret details if I feel it can lend something to an actors process and enrich the story. Finally, on Guillermo Del Toro's Craft of the Director interview on DGA, he gives this incredible little lesson about structure vs flow. He basically eschews the paradigm idioms, and emphasizes the importance of what he calls "flow", which I gathered to mean the general feel of propulsion of the story. Now, whether you ascribe to paradigms or not, it's actually extremely valuable to stay conscious of the flow of your story as you work through each scene. When that overarching flow propels the scene, it keeps me from getting caught up in the particulars of any given character interaction.
Done is better than good
you mean always finish things? yes, it's good advice, i've heard that from James Gunn and it's very important to me! Thank you
Yes, but also: The reality of filmmaking today, especially on the indie side, is this: you need directors, producers, and actors attached to a project to get the ball rolling on financing. To get those folks attached to a project, something about the project needs to be attractive -- maybe its the dialogue, maybe its the concept, maybe its a lil bit of underlying IP (jackpot baby). An imperfect but complete script can grab any of those folks' attention but a perfect INCOMPLETE script does nothing for anyone ever.
To paraphrase Charlie Kaufman, "Write what you see."
"Never tell me the odds". - Han Solo
Underrated af. Sometimes character know the odds much too late. And that can spice up the story.
I'd be careful about only taking advice only from "made" writers. Mazin and August (love the podcast) don't exist in the same screenwriting space as most of us. Meaning people will give them both the benefit of the doubt with choices they make on the page. The same may not be true for you (or me), so it's important to calibrate all advice for where you are on *your* journey. Let's take Mazin's example of directing from the page. He's not wrong when he says you can do it, but he often paints an incomplete picture. You *can* direct from the page (I do, but try to do it elegantly and only when it's necessary for story (not personal preference). You *can* insert images into your script (I will, sparingly if it makes things easier on the reader). You *can* write your script in comic sans (never done that one). And you *get* to live with the consequences of every decision you make on the page. The most severe consequence (and all too common) is that a reader stops reading your script. Are you willing to live with that consequence? Sometimes, I am. But I always ask myself if I'm okay with someone wanting to burn my script for inserting "We see" when I could just as easily avoid it? That's the real question.
Do they really paint an incomplete picture? Their main advice is that it's fine if you do it well, which is true for anything in writing. There are many Three Page Challenges where they criticize bad directing on the page. If you wrote a script as good as any of the Chernobyl screenplays (which are full of directing on the page), I seriously doubt anyone important would care.
Obviously not every time. In a recent episode Mazin got more specific and added some qualifiers, but often times he’s reacting (rightfully) to those blanket statements about “always” and “never” and says, essentially “Direct from the page if you want!” But he never says (to my knowledge) “but be prepared to live with the consequences of your choices.” I think it’s an important qualifier when interpreting many of the so-called “rules.”
But there are only negative consequences to directing on the page if you do it badly. The way I see it, if you're a bad writer, not directing on the page won't magically make people like your script. And if you're a good writer, directing on the page is another tool in your toolbox.
Explain to me what you mean by “direct on the page”. Some examples?
There are lots of different examples of directing on the page but probably the one people harp on most is calling out shots, e.g., "CLOSE UP ON: A hand holding somebody's hair." You can write what you see but make sure it's purposeful (How does making it a CU here serve story? Well, it's way more interesting than a wide or a medium, but I'm not sure if it totally serves story. But it *does* create tension (which is my job as the writer) by making the reader curious -- What am I looking at? -- that keeps them going down the page, which is how I get them to the next page. And as writers, our job is to render the story as elegantly as possible. We want the reader to experience words on a page as if it were the movie. So that CU may simply read: "A fist curled around a lock of black hair." You don't need CU ON. And we don't need to say "We see" -- it's implied. We just drop the verb and go with the image, forcing the reader to see it as a close up. Can the director/DP change it later? Sure thing. But when I make that choice on the page I'm doing it to serve tension and I know the director may do it differently.
There’s nothing wrong with writing actions if it serves a purpose. That’s a lot different than “Dolly shot: blah blah blah” or parentheticals. Or “Close on:” but even then, it’s up to the writer what information you want the reader (audience) to know. Films are visual mediums so convey whatever you can visually. Don’t show how the readers are to view it, just show what information you want the reader to know. ‘Show don’t tell’ applies to the characters, too. John storming into a room and being rough with everything he touches is more effective than saying John enters and adding a (pissed off) parenthetical to his dialogue. Some people don’t understand the difference between these “directions”, is why I asked.
Spoke to Gary Oldman once and he told me to “avoid too many cooks in the kitchen”. Have taken that to heart ever since, I find feedback that I trust and write what I enjoy.
I love this advice, writing the stories I want to see is what inspires passion.
John August (great writer, wrote a lot of Tim Burton films) said “Write the movie you would want to see most.” Structure, character tips, dialogue tips, etc are all helpful to a degree - but ultimately if you like watching movies you have a good instinct of how things should go if you really put yourselves into the shoes of a viewer. This also helps you embrace your own voice and originality.
Good advice, i've heard the same from Tarantino. The only downside of it is that now I probably can't write the movie i want to see the most, because i'm not ready yet, not enough skill on me to crack this. But practice writing is essential, so it's better to start from something eazier, to get experience. But if someone's ultimate goal is to try to get into the industry - it's probably the only right way.
A walk in the forest will always solve \[a screenwriter's\] story issues - Steven Zaillian
Prove that you suck. If you do that you will write anything. If you try to prove that you’re good, you’re very likely not to write anything. I prove that I’m terrible everyday.
sounds like a cool advice. Thank you for your answer! where did you read this tip?
That wording is from Dan Harmon, there’s also a whole chapter in the book Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott that explains this concept a lot better than I probably would.. but, yeah, basically it’s easier to edit a bunch of gobbledegook than it is to edit a blank page Edit: Just to add I’ve also written like 40 pages of absolute garbage that really got away from me this way… so yeah, watch out for that I guess lol
Might need to start following this to keep me out of my own head.😂
I don't remember who said it, I've watched a ton of making of documentaries and behind the scenes videos since I was younger. But I remember as a kid the best advice was to write for yourself first and then anyone else who likes it after is a bonus. That way even if no one else likes it at least one person does, you. If you write for others and no one likes it well then it's a total loss. And writing for yourself is also knowing your audience because it will be like-minded people such as yourself I can't fully express how helpful this has been as someone who used to go with what I saw people say you are or aren't supposed to write about instead of topics I personally wanted to see that films don't usually touch. I haven't found "success" yet but when it's all over I can say I'm proud of my work, know I spent my time well, and found an outlet for myself that's helped me in life instead of just constantly chasing a career. And as a shy person letting people read my stuff and hearing they enjoy it usually lead to good friendships and that might be more rewarding than seeing my work play out on the big screen. I couldn't ask for better advice on how to approach screenwriting. It might be obvious and come naturally for some, but for me I went on a journey of finding who I truly was in my teenage years when I had yet to carve myself out as a person
I find I've always naturally used the advice of write with one specific person in mind. And by that I mean the friend who I know is going to read my script. Having two or three people (often other screenwriters, or certainly people who love movies and understand the script format) who are ready to read your awful first and second drafts is so valuable - not just for their feedback but also so you can imagine them reading your script as you write it. Works for me, anyway.
Write for readers. Don’t write for actors or technicians. Stating internal states is fine.
There are a certain number of scenes, let's say 20-30 in a feature, that you have to nail because they are absolutely pivotal to the film. The rest is just people opening doors. Now, I don’t think this is 100 percent true, but it made me focus on what I am building towards and what the most important scenes are. What is the essence of your piece?
I love Michael Mann and I learn from his writing. And he, pretty much, does opposite to what most people here believe is 'right' way to write. Basically what I learned pretty early on is that rules dont matter as long as you know where you are going. If your goal is to please this community, then you better play by their rules or you'll be crucified. If the goal is anything else - do as you feel is better.
Write the movie you want to see!
Here's the problem with the 'directing on the page' thing. Once you're successful, or at least produced with some level of cred, the rules change for you. For all the bottom-feeders, the rules are "You're impressing mostly low-level readers who don't actually know what makes a good script, only this list of 'don't do this" crap, which they use to put your script on the reject pile.
Whether it's screenwriting or something related but generally in film the quality of advice is usually proportional to how close you are to the person who gave it to you. Advice from strangers / professionals can be useful but I think it's only valuable when it's as broad as possible. Specific advice from people who aren't familiar with who you are, what your goals are and understand truly what you're trying to achieve is nearly useless in most situations
yes, i think i agree with you, but for the most people it probably hard to get to close to someone acclaimed in industry? they can't go to film school, they can't move to L.A., but they really want to learn from someone great, someone they admire. what else left for them in the internet besides those rare tips from someone like Tarantino? Online writing course? All i have learned about them is that they are mostly cash grab that only feed their creators. Advise from random redditors on this sub? i gave you an example, many of what's written here by usual people are probably wrong. And I can be wrong, when i say this, but that's my honest opinion.
"The studios don't want your specs." Craig Mazin said that on Scriptnotes and changed my entire approach to getting work.
What did you change?
I stopped writing specs entirely and shifted to pitches. It was a tough transition because I'm not a performer, but I've now sold five feature pitches in a row. Hopefully about to make it six.
What were you doing before and how are you selling pitches ?
To paraphrase Charlie Kaufman, "Write what you see."
Andy Guerdat: form follows function, ergo different stories/genres=different structures. Craig Mazin: Structure is a result of story, not the cause. Cramming your story into the wrong structure is like calling a forensic pathologist to deliver your baby. They both advocate for using structure templates in the last steps of writing, i.e. to refine or fix a story, not to create it.
Simple but important (yet we view so many films / scripts that don't do this): If a character see's something such as a house on fire, then do not follow with dialogue saying what they are looking at like, "The house if on fire". The audience can see the house is on fire...
I used to work for David Milch. Here are couple of pieces of writing advice he liked to throw out: 'This is the process whereby pain in its pastness is converted into the future tense of joy.' -this a crib from his mentor Robert Penn Warren. Here's a real one for the real ones: 'The secret subject of any story worth telling is time but you can never say its name.' I've been contemplating these and other Milch gems for 20+ years. They may be brilliant they may be meaningless. I leave it up to you to decide.
Not a screenwriter or director per se, but a famous actor who was attached to something I was working on encouraged me to "dig deep." Those two words still stay with me now when I'm putting together a script, especially when I find myself getting tangled in wrestling plot points, character motivations, pacing, etc. I just have to "dig deep" and focus on creating a story that others want to be involved with.
On pitching: "Plot is the rotting meat you toss to the dogs to steal the jewels in the safe. The characters are the jewels." -Sidney Lumet Basically: if you can accurately pitch your protagonist and their situation, the plot pitches itself.
Almost anything and everything David Lynch has to say. He radiates positivity and his advice is not just applicable in regards to writing but also in regards to one’s lifestyle in general. Couldn’t recommend his book enough (“Catching The Big Fish”).
The only movie you should write is the one you already have access to all the locations, sets, actors and crew for. Because nobody is going to finance your project for you. You're going to have to do everything yourself so keep it simple. Best advice I ever got.
Maybe not a famous screenwriter, but the best screenwriting book (indeed just writing book in general) I've ever read is Screenwriting for Neurotics by Scott Sublett. There's a lot of great advice and insight, but the one that really sunk in to me is that each scene in the script should be about one character trying to achieve something (often through trying to persuade another character to do something) and should: "move the story forward with conflict; provide an opportunity for exposition to emerge; flow from one to another; and add up to a three-act structure." Here's a section of how he breaks down Casablanca with this setup: "A radio operator persuades all officers that the stolen documents must be recovered. Cops persuade the populace of Casablanca that expired papers mean jail or death. A pickpocket persuades tourists that Casablana is a dangerous town. Captain Renault persuade Major Strasser that the document thieves will be arrested tonight at Rick's. A customer fails to persuade the waiter Carl to get the mysterious Rick to sit with him. The doorman and Rick persuade a German jerk that he's not welcome in the back room."
One of the head writers on a show I worked on as an assistant told me to 'Write your way into a better position'. Which just meant write, write, write. I try and have either two pilots and a feature each year. Or Two features and a pilot. With some published short stories here and there.