• A special natural ability or aptitude.
• A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment.
• Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.
• A person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity.

• That’s the way I write…
• That’s part of my voice…
• The rest of my script is so good that all that shit doesn’t matter…
• The blueprint is there…
• If I change it, it won’t be my script anymore…
• I’m shooting it myself so none of that is a big deal…
• Nobody cares about passive sentence structure…
• They’ll know what I’m talking about…
• So and So did the same thing in their script that sold…
• I’ve read a zillion scripts that were worse than mine…

• An art, trade, or occupation requiring special skill, esp. manual skill.
• Skill; dexterity.
• To make or manufacture (an object, objects, product, etc.) with skill and careful attention to detail.
• People who perform a particular kind of skilled work.
• Skill in an occupation or trade.

62 Responses to “Do Yourself a Favor”

1. Paco on Sunday: 8 February 2009|1955

   ouch.i just sent my spec out to 3 producers on friday.i am looking at it now and its full of passivce voice an week action verbs.shit.

2. geoff on Sunday: 8 February 2009|2001

   Long time lurker. I have never even thought about passive voice in action and description and now that I thinking about it, I dobut I pay that much attention to my action verbs.

   All this really maters?

   geoff

3. Unk on Sunday: 8 February 2009|2003

   So does spelling.

   Unk

4. neil brimelow on Sunday: 8 February 2009|2021

   I agree with the weak action verbs, and especially the formatting part. What I have seen in the scripts that I have read, is the overuse of purple prose in the action verb department. There is a fine line of picking a good action verb, and overdoing it by using too much purple prose.

   Then there is the formatting problem that I see over and over today. Screenwriters I talk to who do not stick to convention always cite “Well, look at Shane Black, or look at (insert successful screenwriter here) they didn’t use proper format, and look how well they turned out!”

   I have no problem if a script breaks or bends the rules here and there, if it is above and beyond the norm, but sadly 99% of the scripts out there that break formatting convention are horrific.

5. Ryan on Sunday: 8 February 2009|2047

   So does spelling. LMAO!

   I’m guilty of passive sentence structure and weak verbs. That’s something I have got to train myself on… Gotta make that a habit.

   Along the lines of Neil. I want to make sure I’m doing everything I possibly can to make this look THE ILLUSION OF PERFECTION. I’m not out to bend any rules.

6. Mike on Sunday: 8 February 2009|2051

   I’m just a lowly advertising copywriter, but I’m compelled to comment on this.

   Because it’s almost the exact same advice I got in my adschool master’s program.

   Shorter the better. Get to the point. Don’t assume anyone has time to read your ad. Don’t let there be any point at which somebody feels comfortable putting it down.

7. Steven on Sunday: 8 February 2009|2249

   I have written my first screenplay and have sent it in to a couple of contests. How important is the use of Secondary headings?
   I believe my play has none. I thought that with good writting and a great story, minor imperfections were overlooked? And if really great, major errors would be forgiven? Thanks

8. Zane on Sunday: 8 February 2009|2344

   I majored in English and writing in college and one of the first things we learned is to eliminate all unnecessary instances of passive voice in your writing (which amounts to 97% of them)

   Also, fuck those adjectives and adverbs and get down to the ACTION; verbs are your power words, while adjectives and adverbs tend to slow the flow of your writing and make it weak. This is not Absolutely to say that we Must be Most Careful to Never use Lame, Flowery, Thesaurus-generated adjectives and adverbs, but beware: too many of them make you sound moronically stupid and unintelligent.

   DICTON (word choice) is huge too. This may be something to focus on during a 3rd or 4th rewrite – but since every scene in your script needs to convey SPECIFIC types of emotion(s), you might as well choose words and phrases that connote the same feeling you need to convey.

   For example, there’s an aesthetic difference between “inhaling a rail of cocaine” and “doing a bump” – one phrase connotes gross, addictive behavior; the other sounds kinda cool.

   If those rumors about studio execs hiring English majors to be readers are true, then this stuff matters. Really.

9. Eric on Monday: 9 February 2009|0017

   Screen writing = writing. Good writing = not using passive voice, strong verbs, good spelling, etc.

   As an English major, and someone who has studied writing for a long time, I’ve been told and heard many people say something along the lines of “English/writing essays is pointless, because there is no right answer.” True, there may be no one right answer in writing but there are wrongs answers: passive voice, weak verbs, etc.

   As a new screenwriter, I’ve been reading scripts a bunch of produced scripts and they illustrate all the principles of good writing, not just good screenwriting.

   The only thing is it makes me realize how much rewriting I have to do on all of my scripts!

10. Unk on Monday: 9 February 2009|0125

    Crazy shit because WOW… Most of what I read is LITTERED with passive voice.

    Paco,

    Ouch INDEED.

    geoff,

    I think I answered you already. I’m sure there will be SOME out there that it might not matter to but most it will.

    My point being that this is simply a red flag that a mere pass on the script should take care of assuming one knows the difference between passive and active voice. The same goes for weak action verbs. Remember… The spec is YOUR RESUME. If you take the copy of your resume that’s been lining your birdcage and send it to someone for a job, do you really think you’re gonna get the job?

    neil,

    Agreed.

    Ryan,

    The ILLUSION OF PERFECTION is pretty easy to learn and once you learn it, it sticks with you.

    Mike,

    Exactly.

    Steven,

    Use of secondary headings aren’t nearly as condemning as formatting, passive voice, and weak action verbs but it’s always NICE to know that someone knows how to use them. Sometimes, a scene BEGS for their use and that’s when we really like to see them.

    Zane,

    It’s TRUE and since it’s true, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

    Eric,

    Can’t tell you how many English majors get it wrong.

    Unk

11. LA on Monday: 9 February 2009|0233

    Advice to anybody writing anything: Do not copy someone else’s STYLE. It doesn’t work. It even doesn’t work if you’re copying yourself.

    Example:

    Notice how the dialogue in Quentin Tarantino’s super-shitty Death Proof is trying to be as cool as Pulp Fiction, using the same sort of dialogue (beat, play of words etc.) but failing miserably? Death Proof’s dialogue was actually such a rip off of Q’s glory days it made me cry: why can’t someone as original as QT come up with something new? I think this is a prime example of crappy on the nose dialogue… It worked in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction but it sure as hell didn’t work in Death Proof.

    Same goes for Burn After Reading… What a disaster. Sounded to me like the Coen bro’s recycled a bunch of deleted dialogue, shoved it into a boring plot structure and started filming with their heads up their butts. I want 2 hours of my life back PRONTO!!!

    For the sake of movies please write something properly formatted, skillfully written and above all… ORIGINAL; don’t copy what has already been done to such an extent it’s not even acceptable if done by the original writers themselves…

    Monday morning frustrations galore…
    LA

12. Karel on Monday: 9 February 2009|0411

    On Saturday I did a session with a client who showed me his first draft. It was a delight. Hardly any typos, no formatting errors.

    As a result we could dig straight into the stuff that matters. Which means he got much better value for money within the time allocated.

    Here’s an idea: don’t send out your script too quickly after completing ANY draft. Allow for some time to let it rest. Then reread it with fresh eyes.

    Another challenge I see is that with each next draft it becomes harder to see what’s wrong with it.

    It feels to me you need to let it rest longer after each subsequent draft to generate the same level of improvement. It’s kind of like the law of diminishing returns.

    But hey, what do I know. I’m not even a writer, I’m only a consultant! (LOL)

13. Karel on Monday: 9 February 2009|0418

    I almost forgot to mention… This one sounds so OBVIOUS, but it’s the most common mistake I see in scripts by beginning writers (don’t laugh):

    Make sure your hero is driving most of the scenes.

    Yes, this assumes a single-protagonist situation.

    I yet have to find a good multi-protag script by a beginning writer.

14. Joshua James on Monday: 9 February 2009|0747

    On the flip side:

    Most of my arguments via changes for scripts is usually about WHAT PLAYS … In my experience, many if not most folks don’t know how a scene plays … or a story, for that matter.

    I have no problem making cuts, changes, etc … and I have done so because I’ve taken the time to understand my script better, because I work hard not only at improving my script but improving how I write, and I think I’m better today than I was last year or two years ago …

    And i hope to be even better next year.

    But I’d say one of the most frustrating elements is the assumption that because someone else has a note, it must be right.

    Not all notes are spot on, or right … I’d say the hardest thing I’ve had to learn is WHO to listen to and WHO not to listen to, and it changes depending on time and space.

    And as I said above, quite often people miss subtext and point and ask you to put something in that’s on-the-nose and blunt …

    And they ask that because they don’t see how it plays.

    I had that with the last thing I wrote that got shot, which was rewritten and butchered by the director, who is just simply unable to see how scenes play or actors act, he only sees pictures, nothing else.

    And it was assumed, because I was a writer, that I didn’t know what I was talking about.

    Now the film has a lot of problems because they didn’t pay attention.

    It mirrored what I learned in theatre writing plays … a lot of people have ideas and theories on art, but many don’t know what actually plays (what works when it’s on its feet) and they’re the ones who argue voraciously for what they want (to be fair, a great many of the same people then write screenplays) … they’re the first to go on about collaborating, which means, to them, you do what I want and I ignore what you want – LOL!

    I think, for me, the thing I’m struggling with even to this day is who to really take heed of and who not to … because writers do need feedback, if not from a teacher or a mentor or a director than an audience … what we write doesn’t exist in a vacuum, so we need feedback.

    But finding the RIGHT feedback, the feedback that makes what we do work more efficiently, differentiating between that and the chaff, that’s the hard thing … cuz there’s gonna be a lot of chaff.

    Like Campbell’s hero journey, one never knows if one is speaking with a shaman or a trickster.

    Or both.

    That was a mini-rant, Unk … sorry man!

15. Joshua James on Monday: 9 February 2009|0750

    BTW, I really liked COLORS … LOL!

16. Tom on Monday: 9 February 2009|0818

    Josh,

    I agree 100% on your point about finding the right people to receive feedback from.

    In my experience, there are three key ingredients to look for in someone providing feedback: experience, temperament and intention.

    Experience: They need to know what they’re talking about.

    Temperament: This one is somewhat tied to the third quality and I think is related to Josh’s comment on people not knowing how something plays. Much like UNK’s example of the two bulls, a person giving feedback shouldn’t be rash. When critiquing something, one should consider it as a whole. If one hastily reads through something, they may focus in on something that seems off, but when given the proper amount of reflection and consideration makes sense.

    Intention: This is simple: Is the person giving the critiquing trying to display how smart and insightful they are, or are they trying to make the piece better.

17. Chris on Monday: 9 February 2009|0928

    Friedberg/Seltzer must be masters at removing red flags.

18. Matches Malone on Monday: 9 February 2009|1000

    I’ve actually already known most of these rules except for the weak action verbs one. Will have to pass onto my writing partner. Thanks!!!

19. emily blake on Monday: 9 February 2009|1028

    Ahem.

    All true. Absolutely we all need to remove passive voice and weak verbs from our scripts, but it is easier said than done. Just now I wrote that last sentence in passive voice, then laughed and rewrote it to be active. Even for the most English majory of us, it takes concentration and rethinking your whole writing method to fix all that, and nobody’s going to get it overnight because in your daily life you rarely if ever think about how you say things. You just say them.

    But after the story is perfect and the characters are developed and the theme is established, we should all do one more pass, concentrating just on this issue before we turn in anything.

20. Laura Deerfield on Monday: 9 February 2009|1031

    I find the people who want to fight for their passive voice/weak verbs especially frustrating. I wonder what English classes they took, and wonder about the ability of their teachers – because it was drilled into me to use active sentence construction, and precise language.

    My teachers were exceptional. I was fortunate. But that still seems like a page one lesson on writing anything, whether it be essays or screenplays.

    And yes, even with years of training as a writer, including studying for an MFA in poetics, I still need to edit and revise to catch the weak language in my work. “Writing is rewriting.”

    Or, as Will Shetterly said: “The great thing about revision is that it’s your opportunity to fake being brilliant.”

21. Christopher on Monday: 9 February 2009|1622

    I agree, Laura. Awesome quote!

    Great post, Unk!

22. Mike D on Monday: 9 February 2009|1726

    Unk — something you said just smacked me upside the head and KNOCKED ME ON MY ASS … :)

    You mentioned writing action longer than one minute on a page. Or under one minute on a page… I realized that I haven’t really been mindful of that. I *think* I’ve been doing it instinctively, because I try to keep the prose condensed. But I’d much rather be in control of it. Would you happen to know of an example somewhere? I get the concept … but, I learn better by example.

    Thanks!

23. Unk on Tuesday: 10 February 2009|1532

    Josh,

    There are absolutely other elements that usually need attending to… I don’t argue that point AT ALL.

    The point of this post however was that the elements I’ve mentioned are TO ME, STANDARD BASELINE REQUIREMENTS for getting through the HOOPS assuming of course that the rest of your script is up to par.

    I also agree with you about notes… Unless the person giving the notes has your story’s best interest — its INTEGRITY at heart, you have to take ALL notes with a grain of salt. Again, not what I’m discussing in the post but important to mention none the less.

    From what I’ve personally seen and heard over the years, most of those giving notes, never even attempt to understand where the writer was coming from. There was no meeting of the minds. There was no investigation as to the goal of the story. When there is no meeting of the minds, then the person giving notes is pretty much coming from their own perception of what makes a great screenplay.

    Maybe NOT even a great film.

    Everybody writes notes based on some kind of opinion… Some that try to get you to write a spec that simply has a better chance of tackling the reader and those that try to get you to write a script that will make a great film. Some might attempt to do both.

    But I’ve always felt that the best notes come from some who’s invested a little bit of time getting up to snuff about the story, it’s characters, and what the writer’s intention is/was.

    I also hear what you’re saying about HOW IT PLAYS… But damn… What you write might not play the same way to someone else. And, if that person’s a fireman who doesn’t know shit about screenwriting and films, then more grains of salt may be required before you indulge those kinds of notes… LOL.

    By the same token… Just because someone else is a screenwriter doesn’t mean they know anything and everything so it always falls back to the integrity of the story and characters.

    BUT LET ME SAY THIS… THERE IS VERY OFTEN A FINE LINE TO TIGHTROPE HERE.

    Why?

    Because just as you wrote what you wrote, I’ve seen many MANY specs where the SHIT JUST DOESN’T PLAY. Even after the screenwriter explained it to me… IT JUST DOESN’T PLAY. At least not the way THEY THINK.

    But hey… That’s how EVERYTHING in the universe is… Ultimately, YOU have to be the one to make the decision about which notes work and which notes DO NOT WORK when it comes to YOUR WORK.

    But getting back to basic standard requirements… LOL. Picture a conveyor belt leading into a producer’s office. On top of this belt is an extremely long single file of spec scripts.

    They all look the same except for a few here and there that contain 3 brads or have bright colored cardstock colors. Maybe a few have graphic designs on them. Maybe some even have those nifty little screws to hold them together… LOL.

    Do you think all those make it into the producer’s office? Nope. Somebody standing alongside the conveyor belt is plucking those odd-looking specs right off while all the ones that basically have the same look just keep on moving toward the office.

    The next layer of assembly line workers pick up the scripts that are left and feel their weight… They flip through looking for talking heads and action paragraphs taking up a third or more of a page… LOL.

    Shitcan.

    But since that conveyor belt is simply moving too fast to read each script, the assembly line workers KNOW from previous experience that they can and will pretty much be able to filter most of the obvious shit before any of the scripts hit the office.

    No… Passive voice probably isn’t one of the things they’ll find on the conveyor belt but trust me when I tell you it will certainly be one of the first things someone notices when they actually pick the script up and start reading it.

    Shitcan.

    My point again being that it’s no different from an assembly line of quality assurance workers picking the bad m&ms off the conveyor belt before they’re bagged and distributed. All the odd ones are removed prior to bagging.

    And to take that to the extreme… You buy a bag of m&ms, open it up, pop one in your mouth… Hmmm. It doesn’t taste right. It doesn’t feel right in your mouth. What do you do?

    Shitcan.

    Why?

    Because you’ve still got an entire bag left to go through.

    Tom,

    Agreed.

    Chris,

    I doubt it… Once you’re IN, YOU’RE IN. Then you can do what you want but if it were me, I’d still remove the red flags. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve personally been told how nice it was for someone to read my script because all the red flags were removed. If I’ve heard that once, I’ve heard it a hundred times. And, from what I’ve personally gathered from that experience is that removing the red flags very often gives the reader not finding them the impression that what they are about to read just might be that needle in the haystack. In other words, It looks like a duck. It smells like a duck. It weighs as much as a duck. Hopefully, it will read like a duck.

    Now think about that for a minute…

    It’s no fucking different than that post I made a while back about the screenplay competition where the newsletter gave out little tips to get your script read. LOL. Had that newsletter been talking about getting your scripts read by people in the industry and NOT screenplay competition judges — no problem.

    Meaning that when your spec is full of little red flags before someone even begins to read, what do you REALLY AND TRULY THINK THEIR MINDSET WILL BE AS THEY READ THROUGH?

    Do you think they will silently root for your script as they read? Or, do you think that they will look for even more red flags?

    Personally, I’d rather have red flags not even be something a reader is even considering or thinking about when they read my script. Just like making sure an m&m looks good… Having the right shape, size, color, etc., so do we have to make sure our specs are polished and cleaned up enough to get bagged.

    Then it’s up to the consumer.

    Because when you get a rejection slip from a prodco, they aren’t gonna say, “Hey Stupid… We shitcanned your script because of all the passive voice, incorrect formatting, typos, and weak action verbs.”

    They’re just gonna say something nice like, “Hi Stupid… We recently finished reading your screenplay and while it was an excellent read, we have to pass on it at this time.”

    I’d prefer they simply tell the truth… Better for THEM — better for US.

    Matches,

    You’re welcome…

    emily,

    Ahem. LOL.

    Laura,

    Or, as Will Shetterly said: “The great thing about revision is that it’s your opportunity to fake being brilliant.”

    Love it! And OH SO TRUE. Thanks!

    Christopher,

    Thanks! Hope it helps even if it’s just a little…

    Mike D.,

    I see this ALL THE TIME.

    The worst is when someone obviously doesn’t want to take the time to write out ALL the action so they write something like this…

    Underwritten:

    EXT. BATTLEFIELD – DAY

    Thousands of men fight each other with WHIPS, CHAINS, KNIVES, SPEARS, and SWORDS.

    Overwritten:

    EXT. BATTLEFIELD – DAY

    A WARRIOR looks at all the dead bodies laying around him on the battlefield as he runs toward a spear that someone else has obviously lost during the raging battle. Blood and gore are everywhere the eye can see. He steps over body after body on his way toward the spear, picks it up off the ground and holds it tightly in his hands as he watches FIFTY OFFENSIVE WARRIORS coming toward him all the while thinking about his true love waiting for him back home.

    In the first example, I’m given a visual that OBVIOUSLY takes more time to visually depict if it were up on the screen as compared to what is actually written. I see scripts all the time that contain several examples of this.

    In the second example, I’m given a visual that depicts all these little elements when in fact, the writer intended for the character to simply pick up a spear and start fighting. I see this all the time as well.

    Unk

24. Joshua James on Tuesday: 10 February 2009|1559

    Hey Unk,

    Appreciate the response … and I certainly agree – it doesn’t hurt to make sure a screenplay reads well … which means removing signs that say, “badly written” … so I’m for sure not arguing for passive voice, under or overwritten, etc. Nope, I think scripts should be as well crafted as possible.

    I have my own pet peeves, with all writing … I hate first person present … but then again, that’s exactly how FIGHT CLUB was written, and that’s a great fucking book.

    And I realize that about the conveyor belt … which is also why, as you know, many GOOD scripts get passed on in addition to the millions of crappy ones …

    shit, Warners had SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, not the script but the actual MOVIE, had it, watched and and didn’t think it’d make money so they let it go.

    I do wish that there were more allowance for individual voice in writing of screenplays … like there is in novels, comics, etc … often is seems like people are intent to stamp that out (they say that they’re not, but they are) when a lot of the screenwriters we admire certainly DO have such a voice (from Bill Goldman on down to Tarantino) – but don’t read anything into that, it’s just a thing I have. A lot of the people we all admire do things that a spec writer should never do, after all, but they make it work because of their own unique storytelling voice.

    And I wish more “voices” were encouraged like that.

    For me, I wish the majority of gurus and what-have-you (this isn’t focused at you or anyone particular, but the stack of screenwriting books I have on my desk) focused more on HOW TO WRITE WELL rather than what NOT to do …

    The HOW IT PLAYS is a particular bone with me, maybe because I was a playwright and have put up a bunch of plays before an audience and seen them work … so I’d say I have a better than average sense of what plays, in fact, a lot better than average … and it’s the most frustrating thing in the world to get notes from someone who doesn’t seem to have the first clue what a “beat” is.

    I’m not complaining, mind you … just sharing my frustration – LOL! It’s our lot in life, after all.

    I remember Jerry Seinfeld being interviewed somewhere, and he talked about network notes and what have you, how frustrating it was to have to explain “funny” to someone who doesn’t do it for a living and most of the time, doesn’t get it. I’m not a comedian, but I felt that.

    Anyway, not disagreeing with you or complainin’ or anything, just conversatin’ on the subject -

25. Unk on Tuesday: 10 February 2009|1641

    Josh,

    Gotta tell ya… While I agree with you about the books and gurus, I really don’t agree with you about the industry.

    My experience is that the industry as a whole — a few readers aside — is in fact looking for a VOICE when they read new specs.

    Trust me when I tell you that EVERYBODY wants to find the NEW Tarantino. And then they want that new Tarantino to be consistent.

    Notice I did not say they want to find the new Diablo Cody — no disrespect meant there either.

    BUT…

    That still requires your material to get through the Hollywood Hoops of the industry and several of them just happen to be those discussed here and in the post.

    Yes, you are absolutely correct… There are screenplays — maybe even BRILLIANT screenplays not finding their way to production because the assembly line workers plucked it off the conveyor belt — it doesn’t even get read but the all red flags aside, it’s BRILLIANT.

    One in ten-thousand of those gets read.

    So knowing that, maybe a little housework is in order…

    Maybe not. LOL.

    Unk

26. Joshua James on Tuesday: 10 February 2009|1842

    Sure, we’re not disagreeing at all on the substance of what you’re saying in your post – I want to say, we’re off topic a bit, but it’s good to exchange on it … and in a way, it’s a real pleasure to hear your view of it … I WANT them to want a voice, I do … so if I’m wrong about that, that’s something I’m truly HAPPY to be wrong about.

    Because to me, VOICE matters more than anything in a story.

    And granted, I ain’t in LA, and most of the industry contacts I have are probably not in the same circles you run in … so I hope and pray that some of the shit I’ve seen are aberrations and not the norm.

    Of course, as you know, Tarantino’s work was consistently turned down in the beginning, for quite awhile … so sometimes while I get that people are looking for new voices, I don’t always know (and again, I’m not disagreeing with you, just sharing what I’ve seen and heard) that they (they being the universal industry they) recognize it when they see it, y’know?

    I’m not even talking about my own work … I read a spec script by another writer that BLEW me away, it was awesome, it was a great concept and if made well, an award winner.

    I showed it to some industry folks who agreed that the writing was excellent – but no one really recognized just how earthshakingly good it was … I think, in time, the script will find a home (and an agent) because the writer is churning out more scripts and will eventually not be denied.

    But then again, it may not.

    To me, and I’m again just sharing, that’s the real bitch of the profession …

    Risk is hard, and according to what I’ve read, a lot of the people reading / evaluating scripts are paid to NOT take risks, I think, but to minimize them … and it’s a risk to champion a spec by an unknown writer, even one that’s good.

    And it jives with a lot of what I’ve read and seen.

    Sure, once one gets established, you jump over some of the hurdles, and that’s the goal, right? Now no one cares that Tarantino can’t spell … but it did matter at one point.

    he had to write a bunch of scripts and he also had to have people championing his work and it took awhile to get going.

    In a way, I’m sort of adding on to what you’re saying, it’s not enough to write a great script in a great voice, you have to write more than one (like QT did) and you have to keep pushing your work.

    I get that. It’s simply frustrating at times. Then again, I just read an old interview with Joss Wheden who shared some of the obstacles and frustrations he’s had on major projects (he had a great script for ALIEN RESSURECTION that got scrapped because THOSE IN CHARGE didn’t get it or see how it played) so I guess this screenwriting thing is a zen riddle that never goes away – LOL!

    Sorry for hijacking the thread and going off topic, dude. But thanks for the exchange …

27. Unk on Tuesday: 10 February 2009|1919

    Josh,

    I happen to know that QT’s work was turned down quite often because of the red flags… LOL. He stuck with it and eventually got Harvey Keitel to give it a read and as they say, the rest is history.

    Had those red flags NOT been there for so long prior to Keitel reading it and other specs QT wrote, who knows what might have happened.

    As for recognizing a VOICE… You’re right. If I had to break it down, my estimate would be something like 2 in 10 are going to actually recognize a VOICE and that ASSUMES that the script was actually read.

    Many many many times, the script is NEVER read because of whatever reason… Of course you do receive your very polite rejection letter… LOL.

    Risks? LOL. NOBODY wants to take a RISK. Not readers, not producers, not even studios. Which is one of the main reasons it takes so long to break in. It is MY experience that readers are too worried about their jobs so they choose the NUMBERS GAME of reading… i.e., they pass on specs that other producers pick up as they WAIT for that ONE LONE SPEC that really does make the earth move. But every now and then, one spec will come along and make them want to recommend but they won’t because they don’t want anyone up the chain to disagree with them.

    Unk

28. Shazia on Tuesday: 10 February 2009|2228

    Hey Unk,
    I’ve been a silent reader of your blog. What resources (books?) would you suggest for a newcomer to learn the craft of exclusively formatting?
    Thanks
    Shazia

29. Unk on Wednesday: 11 February 2009|0040

    Shazia,

    Here you go:

    The Screenwriter’s Bible

    The Complete Guide To Standard Script Formats: Part 1

    The Hollywood Standard

    These are what I’ve used… Anything else I get out of reading other screenplays.

    Unk

30. Mike D. on Wednesday: 11 February 2009|0658

    Unk,

    Thanks for the examples on over/under writing! That makes it perfectly clear. Definitely something I can be more mindful of now.

31. emily blake on Wednesday: 11 February 2009|1003

    So Unk, are you suggesting we write the technical way until we get paying jobs, then once we have the eye of Hollywood we’re allowed to express ourselves?

32. Pitch Guy on Thursday: 12 February 2009|0011

    Great cold, hard advice. I like it.
    It takes a polarizing ability to really see your work for what it is, and some humility to do what needs to be done. Love it!

    http://www.pitchinghollywood.com

33. A Writer’s Attitude « The Writer’s Review on Thursday: 12 February 2009|1505

    [...] that stressed the critical importance of patience.  A few days ago Unknown Screenwriter’s “Do Yourself a Favor” post mentioned something [...]

34. Shazia on Thursday: 12 February 2009|1850

    Thanks Unk! I ordered them.

35. Unk on Thursday: 12 February 2009|1855

    emily,

    Nope.

    What I am suggesting so that you create longevity for yourself in this business is to simply EMBRACE the elimination of red flags to the point that IT now becomes part of your voice… Part of your expression.

    It’s no different than say building a house or doing anything that requires SOME repetition…

    You finish framing a house and wiring for the electrical. Maybe even the plumbing. These are red flag areas to a building inspector and as such, they take just a little harder look-see during the inspection of the home.

    If your wiring is too droopy or you’ve hammered a nail too close to it, RED FLAG. Maybe your fire stops are too loose or don’t quite fit they way they should. RED FLAG. Maybe you completed your framing and wiring in such a way that the inspector can’t even SEE it. RED FLAG. Too many or not enough electrical outlets. RED FLAG.

    Sure… When you stand in the middle of a street, it looks like a house is being built but upon further inspection, you find out that a fucked up house is being built.

    AIN’T NO DIFFERENT to ME…

    But the interesting thing is that the building inspectors have their favorite contractors… They know from EXPERIENCE that when they go inspect one of their favorite contractors’ homes, there will be no red flags and thus, they aren’t looking quite as hard.

    AIN’T NO DIFFERENT to ME…

    Meaning that it’s just as easy — once you learn it — to write without red flags as it is to leave them in and once you do learn how to write that way, your voice — YOUR EXPRESSION — will embrace the non-existence of red flags and your writing will be the better for it not to mention opening more doors.

    Trust me when I tell you that a writer with NO RED FLAGS — even a pro writer — is the EXCEPTION to the rule i.e., YOUR WORK STANDS APART.

    Like you want it to.

    Unk

36. Ashley Meyers on Friday: 13 February 2009|1415

    I agree with Neil Brimelow’s point. I’ve read a lot of scripts where the writer is in love with their own writing. They use strong action verbs alright but half of them make me pick up my dictionary.

    Commenters above (and pretty much everwhere people talk about screenwriting) mention Shane Black but he doesn’t use a lot of passive voice and weak action verbs. I don’t really see him breaking lots of rules. I just looked over your list of pet peeves and I really don’t see a lot of them that he’s breaking. What red flags would one of his scripts really have? He takes some liberties with screenplay formatting but their pretty minor and they work to speed the reading up not slow it down. Pick up a copy of ‘The Last Boyscout’ – the writing is compelling as hell and that’s why he’s had a good career.

37. Unk on Friday: 13 February 2009|1734

    Ashley,

    The only commenter that mentioned Shane Black was in fact Neil… LOL.

    I certainly never mentioned him… I sure as hell never pointed to him or one of his scripts as an example of red flags.

    When you have a VOICE like Shane’s it SHOOTS through even if there might be something worth changing i.e., a red flag or two.

    So I guess I’m missing your point.

    Unk

38. Adam (Taormina) on Friday: 13 February 2009|1934

    Awwwwwww come on, UNKle Format, say it ain’t so….

    The only thing passive about me is my sentences, you know that, lol. Let me have my flaw!

    I’m the one big exception to your rule, amigo. RRB is half cast right now without it ever having gone before an agent.

    If you don’t come to the set for a coupla’ days I’m gonna be upset. Seriously.

    I owe you lunch.

39. Kriz on Friday: 13 February 2009|1941

    What are “secondary headings”?

40. neil brimelow on Friday: 13 February 2009|2008

    I was not referring to Shane Black in a negative light, far from it. I was referring to how novice writers use him as a reason and excuse to break the rules. Shane Blank included some clever winks at the reader in his scripts, but nothing that could not be shot, and he actually has a real style to his writing, and is not trying to EMULATE someone else’s style of writing.

    Example from Lethal Weapon:

    And then, he proceeds to do a peculiar thing:
    He starts to talk to the dog –
    in what seems to be the dog’s own language.
    Very weird, folks…
    He coos, snuffles, barks softly, then withdraws,
    listening, his ear to the dog’s muzzle.
    Riggs nods. Frowns.
    The others look on, puzzled.
    Then Riggs looks at each of the four dock workers.

    and then take this example of a recent screenplay contest winner:

    The Convoy barrels past abandoned buildings. In the middle of the road: a SMALL METALLIC DEVICE is attached to a thick wire. The wire is coiled at the side of a building. Connected to a WHEELED SLED. On the sled is a MASKED SPY IN BLACK.

    The Convoy drives over the Metallic Device. It magnetizes to the Semi’s chassis. The coil of wire unravels. As soon as the entire convoy passes, the wheeled sled goes from Zero to Sixty in 0.498 seconds.

    The main thing to keep in mind for the next few insane moments is that the Masked Spy is deliberate. Mechanical. Calm. A seasoned professional.

    Once again, Shane Black winks at the reader with the line, “Very weird, folks…” But, the screenplay contest winner is attempting to convey knowledge to the reader, that should be shown to the audience.

    Another excerpt from one of the runners up of the same contest:

    “WALTERS
    Didn’t realize you knew about guns?

    JONAS
    I know about that gun. CIA standard
    issue…if of course the CIA issued
    guns.

    Walters makes a mental note: don’t underestimate the kid.”

    That’s great that Walters made a mental note, but how is the director supposed to shoot a mental note?

    A last example is a good one from the much reference “Chinatown.”:

    Mrs. Mulwray nods, almost shyly. Gittes is now casually but carefully checking out the detailing of Mrs. Mulwray’s dress – her handbag, shoes, etc.

    MRS. MULWRAY
    He’s the Chief Engineer.

    DUFFY
    (a little eagerly)
    Chief Engineer?

    Gittes’ glance tells Duffy Gittes wants to do the questioning. Mrs. Mulwray nods.”

    With, “Mrs. Mulwray nods, almost shyly. Gittes is now casually but carefully checking out the detailing of Mrs. Mulwray’s dress – her handbag, shoes, etc,” you can see the shots in your head.

    A lot of scripts I have read recently have been written for the reader, and not the audience.

    A new “golden rule of screenwriting” could be: “If you have to tell, or explain anything to the reader, besides a wink, then you ain’t doing your job; rewrite the scene, or element till it flows or works without breaking the fourth wall to reach out to the reader, because your audience ain’t going to have the same luxury.”

    “Now go out there and break some rules…but don’t break any rules.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se1b3Vh_VhU

41. Ashley Meyers on Friday: 13 February 2009|2301

    I guess my main point was that I typically don’t get hung up on little details – rules, red flags, what ever you want to call them. Even what Neil is talking about above – I don’t think the difference between the Shane Black excerpt and the contest winner one is as simple as Shane Black knows how to wink at the audience better. His writing is just more interesting.

    I’m not good with grammar and I’m an even worse speller so I’m not a stickler on those things. But when those things make the script hard to read and when the script is boring I think that’s when I (and most other people) start to notice them.

    Anyway, it’s my first time reading this blog and I have to say it’s very active and you guys really go into some details on the mechanics of writing. Well done and interesting conversation.

42. Susan P. on Friday: 13 February 2009|2351

    Purple prose? New one on me.

    A few weeks ago I received some sound advice re passive verbs. Those sage words with accompanying examples led me to locate a more welcome space – avoiding directing-on-page yet showing greater clarity of intent as well as voice. I felt able to gain a solid literary style throughout the script and not just in aspects. I think that’s what finding one’s voice ultimately offers – a consistent appearance from FADE IN to…

    I’ve not been able to read all comments from Unk’s readers but I did catch the one on certain writer’s tending to cite more idiosyncratic (and successful) works. Highly problematic but the same can be said for following formula so rigidly that individuality in both writer and storyline is subsumed and enslavement overtakes.

43. Unk on Saturday: 14 February 2009|0151

    Adam,

    I was pretty sure you’d think I was talking about you… LOL.

    Nope.

    As you pointed out, you didn’t write a spec to be sent all over town.

    But what if RRB was a spec? You tell me how it would fare.

    The proof’s always in the PUDDING and NOT the fact that it was produced but I don’t want to have that discussion here — besides we already had it… LOL. And I still think I’m right. LOL.

    Sure, I’ll come to the set.

    Kriz,

    Secondary headings place emphasis on either locations within the master scene location or anything else you want to place emphasis on within that scene.

    They’re especially useful when you have a master scene heading like INT. HOUSE and then proceed to move to other locations within the HOUSE like:

    KITCHEN

    BEDROOM

    They’re also useful when you want to place emphasis on a prop or something a character is doing. I like using them as a substitute for camera angles. They accomplish giving the reader the visual you want them to have without actually LOOKING like you’re trying to direct.

    Neil,

    Agreed. Again. LOL.

    Ashley,

    As I stated… Not everyone wants to bother with the red flags. No harm no foul.

    Susan,

    Ain’t nothin’ but a thing…

    But to reiterate to anyone who cares…

    If your talent exceeds your craftsmanship, you MIGHT have nothing to worry about.

    I prefer not to leave that up to chance and besides… All that shit pisses me off so I make sure they don’t exist in my material and that simple technique has served me well.

    Unk

44. Adam (Taormina) on Saturday: 14 February 2009|0813

    I’m just giving you a hard time bro. We’ll continue the discussion on set then, and start a new one – cafe racers vs cruisers, LOL!

    BTW I think your talent DOES exceed your craftsmanship and you STILL don’t use red flags. This is why you’re one of the few fit to host a screenwriting site.

45. Susan P. on Saturday: 14 February 2009|1903

    Btw..

    “Let’s polish our horns, mosey on down, and give them gals a little bovine action.”

    ?? LOL

    Adam..your bike reference reminded me of being in a pub years ago with a group of local bikers and this guy wandered in who had just arrived on a 2 stroke Italian bike (this was years ago). One of the bikers rolled his eyes lazily in the guys direction, pointed out the door and said, “What the hell are you doing on a kids ‘ning ning’ bike?”

    The newcomer made just the right Italiano based hand gesture and replied in accent..”Mate..it’s Italian..it goes ‘aninga aninga”.

    There was a split second silence and everyone began to laugh.

    Class is a great quality. :)

46. kriz on Sunday: 15 February 2009|2243

    Thanks Unk, I didn’t know anything about second headings should make my writing easier.

47. Filmmaking Stuff on Monday: 16 February 2009|0825

    When I started out, I read scripts and wrote coverage. And I can tell you from experience that there is nothing more rewarding than reading a great script!!!

    And at the risk of sounding too producer-ish, if the script is remotely good, but not 100% – This simply means we can hire a re-writer!

48. Scott on Monday: 16 February 2009|1112

    Unk & All,

    This is always an interesting subject, and I find it kind of funny how some people argue the point that you don’t need to follow these rules, all of the “rules” in fact, as per formatting and structure, and still expect to have a script rise to the top.

    Especially unknown, unsold, unproduced and even un-contest-winning writers… there may be a reason for this if they argue these simple rules.

    Simple rules — Find a kick-ass concept. Have true characters that fit within that concept grow into real, interesting and deeply thought out characters. Create a solid story for them to live and thrive in and be constantly challenged. And write it better than anything you have ever tried to write. And make sure you follow the formatting, structure and industry rules – set aside specifically for the newbie. Oh and rewrite and rewrite and rewrite and rewrite…

    Because really, with all of the shitty scripts floating around town, thousands of them (written by people who disregard many of the rules), why make it any harder for yourself by trying to color your script up just for the fact that it worked for Black, Tarantino and some others, or you need to have an original voice.

    Want an original voice? Make it shine through in your STORY and DIALOGUE and CHARACTERS, not in the way you type it out.

    Most writers who sell their first scripts do so because the story is great, the characters are great, the dialogue is OUTSTANDING, and there are no RED FLAGS in those scripts causing ANY readers to toss them aside. Pretty much all of them are just damn well written great, not colorful and quirky, just great! Thy leave a definite impression with the reader and keep rising to the top.

    Find the Black List, find the scriptson it, read them and you will see excactly what I mean.

49. Susan P. on Monday: 16 February 2009|1438

    Scott, I observed a discussion re the Black List elsewhere and read excerpts of relevant scripts. Given those excerpts were presented accurately, some of them mirror the same problematic of Tarantino et al. I’ve seen rigorous critical commentary about Juno also. Writers resistant to changing or evolving will always tend to grab hold of the idiosyncratic success story and I have seen so many argue:

    a) I haven’t a clue about grammar and spelling but story is more important

    b) The fact so many scripts ARE re-written (ref. Filmmaking Stuff) means one should focus on story only and technicals be damned.

    Obviously the problem with the latter point is that the script just gets sent through to the keeper rather than considered for a professional re-write.

    I feel for people who haven’t learned appropriate writing skills BUT have no sympathy when they simply shrug the issue off OR have a friend or pal whose own skill level is not that high act as editor. It CAN come down to $ though and the individual’s ability to fund professional help BUT my frustration is seeing individuals paying for so-so editing and never actually LEARNING so as to prevent the issues arising in their future work.

50. Filmmaking Stuff on Monday: 16 February 2009|1530

    In my last response, I may have given the impression that format and typos don’t matter. They really do. I was just trying to emphasize the story aspect… A good story can help a reader overlook typos.

51. Susan P. on Monday: 16 February 2009|1552

    The trouble with that view imo Filmmaking Stuff is the presumption that in a highly competitive market that good story/typo scripts WILL be read. I suspect that rarely happens.

    First impressions count. If my script crosses a table of Miz or Mister Selector and then flick through and see formatting problems, typos, grammar errors, chunks of black text – will they get to actually read my story??? In my view – NO.

    But forgetting saleability for a moment – I consider it important for a writer to make a reading as smooth and pleasurable for a reader as possible. Basic errors throw someone out of an experience. I want to ensure my reader remains engrossed. Ok, so, we are human and one error might slip through – but it better be after many error free pages and when I have persuaded my reader to forgive me.

52. Susan P. on Monday: 16 February 2009|1624

    Of course, ironic I offered a typo in my last post. *grin*

53. Unk on Monday: 16 February 2009|1738

    Filmmaking Stuff pointed something very important out…

    And at the risk of sounding too producer-ish, if the script is remotely good, but not 100% – This simply means we can hire a re-writer!

    That’s exactly what happens when the story is really good but the rest of the script sucks including all the red flags.

    I don’t know about anyone else but I’d like the opportunity to rewrite my own stuff over someone else. That’s why you want your RESUME to shine. It gives the interested parties more confidence that you know what you’re doing.

    And do we want to be one-hit wonders or do we want a long and varied career?

    Hollywood is LITTERED with one hit wonders…

    Unk

54. Susan P. on Monday: 16 February 2009|1831

    Unk..so, you would disagree with my contention that a poorly presented script is unlikely to be read. I guess some loglines and synopsis expressions must be super hot to move a reader past the errors BUT, I would find it unusual that a synopsis would be well written and error free and the accompanying script problematic. I can only assume a topic comes up that some ‘one’ has really hankered for because most of the awful synopses I read are a flag that the script will be no better.

55. Unk on Monday: 16 February 2009|1853

    Susan,

    I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion… What I mean is this… There are times when even a poorly presented script is going to get read. Somebody knows somebody… Somebody’s doing somebody a favor. Somebody sees something the writer’s written before and wants to read more… Whatever the reason IS, this is a reason that the poorly presented script is going to get read.

    It happens.

    However… When it happens and producers like the story within the material but not ALL the material, then they usually opt for someone to rewrite and NOT the writer who wrote the material.

    Why?

    Because all they’re seeing is STORY and not someone who could PROBABLY perform a favorable rewrite.

    Unk

56. Susan P. on Monday: 16 February 2009|1938

    Unk.. I came to the conclusion via this quote and following comment:

    And at the risk of sounding too producer-ish, if the script is remotely good, but not 100% – This simply means we can hire a re-writer!

    That’s exactly what happens when the story is really good but the rest of the script sucks including all the red flags.
    —

    However, you have explained how ‘it’ happens e.g. a favor etc.

    I did understand your point about WHO does the re-writing.

57. Benny on Monday: 23 February 2009|1320

    ONT dialogues – acceptable if
    you know how to do it!

    The New Generation want and expect this.

    They want “cool” attitude driven memorable ONT dialouges.

58. dave on Wednesday: 25 February 2009|2159

    ahh…that’s the great thing about you, Unk. I can always count on you to cover everything :) It keeps my blog so uncluttered when I don’t have to cover 95% of screenwriting (because you do). Great entry. Too much has been made of guys like Tarantino and Black – like these guys who bend or break the rules are making it all the time.

    I love how when you try and tell somebody how to succeed or make their writing better (because you’ve studied it for 20 years) they come back with how theirs is special or different.

59. Phil Rockwell on Tuesday: 10 March 2009|1423

    Here is what I pass out to new members of my writing group.

    Avoid Weak, Progressive verbs in Action lines (is verbing):
    Is walking, is sitting, is talking
    to be (am, is, are, was, were, be, been)
    T0 have (have, has, had)
    there is – are – was – were
    -ing words ending in -ing
    Remove the verb “to be” (and all its parts) and use an active verb. Make “Two MEN are outside” into “Two MEN stand outside.” With the progressive verb form, turn “He is dialing the phone” into “He dials the phone.” Overuse of the verb “to be” is a pet peeve of many, many Hollywood readers.

    Avoid generalities:
    it , very, nearly, almost, really, seem, appear, felt, feel, quite, few, thing, stuff, about, several, some, very
    “it” and “there” where they are used impersonally or without meaning. Keep them only when “it” is used as a real live pronoun or “there” as an indication of direction or place. “It is raining” becomes “Rain falls” or more simply “Rain.” “It’s your turn!” becomes “Your turn!” “There are bottles everywhere” becomes “Bottles litter the room.”

    Avoid noise words:
    that- (Usually not necessary in most sentences)
    just, begin, begins, beginning, began, suddenly, would, should, could, rather, got, get, anyway, because, “ly” adverbs, so, then, even, only, about ,
    start, started, starts, starting

    As, Then:
    This happens as that happens. This happens then that happens.
    Replace as and then with a period. Make sure that you have two complete sentences.

    Avoid redundancy again:
    down – up (as in sit down, stand up – is redundant)

    Basic rules applying to script dialogue.
    1. Spell out all one and two digit numbers. Three or more digits are written numerically.
    2. Spell out indications of time. E.g., do not write 2:15, write two-fifteen.
    3. Spell out all personal titles except Mr., Mrs., and Ms.
    4. Never hyphenate a word from one line to the next unless the word is normally hyphenated anyway. An example of this would be something like son-in-law.
    5. Do not start a line of dialogue with Yes, No, Okay, Of course, Thank you, Hello, Well, Hey, I mean, Yeah. This may seem clumsy at first, but it will grow on you, sometimes leading to the elision of entire first sentences. “hello”, “goodbye”, “please”, “thank you”, and “you’re welcome” unless used for irony, character, or emphasis for some reason. We all know their use is demanded by generally-accepted standards of courtesy, but courtesy is just not very cinematic.
    6. NEVER have a One Word dialogue line. A character MUST have more to say than Yes.

    Character Introductions:
    Each significant character must be introduced with an action scene that defines to the audience the character’s ‘current’ nature. Begin with a bang and explain it later. The audience wants someone to love and someone to hate. You have to make that happen.

    IMMEDIACY
    In film, things don’t “begin to”, “start to”, “continue to”, “suddenly” happen, they just HAPPEN. NOT- It begins to rain. BUT- Rain turns the dust to mud.
    Nor does something happen “then” something else happens. Things just HAPPEN, in the present tense, without an intermediary “then”.

    Advice from a friend:
    Avoid energy-less words like “sits,” walks,” “stands,” and others like
    them. Use your thesaurus and find more energetic or interesting words.
    There are 200 words that can be used in place of “walk,” for example,
    stride, amble, move, shuffle, strut, saunter, stroll, and so on.
    I have a rule for my own writing, which is — no script should ever contain
    the word sit, walk, stand, or very.

    Combine adjectives, nouns, and adverbs into very well-crafted verbs, even if you have to make them up (see verbs below).

    Make every word count, make it life or death, push it past the edge, make it a surprise to you yourself, dare to achieve greatness with each well-selected word, because that’s what writing well is all about.

    Create:
    Utilize the richness of the English language to create powerfully descriptive verbs and greatly enhance writing efficiency. Nouns, sounds, attitudes, etc. can all be combined into one verb–thereby enlivening and economizing your writing. “The BOY galumphs to the shed.” With no descriptors on the boy or the building, we see the mud, his footwear, his way of moving, his attitude in doing it. Get all these things into the verb.

    Pick out-of-the-ordinary verbs wherever possible. Especially the most overused screenplay verb “to look”. Consider using:

    SYNONYMS FOR “TO LOOK”
    Eye, glance, glimpse, peep, sight, leer, ogle, glare, peer, pry, stare, gaze, survey, scan, inspect, reconnoiter, behold, discern, perceive, descry, make out, discover, distinguish, recognize, spy, espy, ken, command a view of, witness, contemplate, speculate, view, observe, watch, pore over, goggle, squint, gloat, etc. The same goes for “to go”, and “to say”. Find a colorful, not-so-common, more descriptive alternative, perhaps starting with an online search through dictionary.com’s thesaurus or http://www.atomica.com
    There are MORE than 200 words you can (and should) use instead of **walk**.

    Punctuation
    Brush up on your punctuation. No Commas after and. EX: He went to the house and, opened the door.

60. Olaf on Friday: 27 March 2009|2057

    I’m a first time reader. This is really helpful. Thanks.

61. Susan P. on Sunday: 5 April 2009|0630

    Phil, I found your list interesting and agree with the majority of it. This said, I can’t entirely agree with an unequivocal NO for all single line dialogue. An intense interrogation scene could demand that. A domestic violence scene could. A rape scene where a hand is around a neck might warrant it. Parts of a court scene.

    One of my pet hates is “like a” e.g. “He strides over the lawn like a military commander”. I wince when I see this in both prose or screenplays. Only on rare occasions do I believe that usage sits well.

    Your ‘noise’ words I don’t actually understand as a category. I think of noise words as acceptable onomatopoeia.

62. S.D. Eric on Friday: 1 May 2009|1754

    Thanks again for the post.

    And thanks to Phil – those are good tips. Especially like #5. We make talk like that in real life, but in your script, don’t have your characters always say, “Um, well…”

Leave a Reply