Friday, January 25, 2008

Top Ten Format Mistakes

Hey guys,

I should clarify that this is from one of my recent
TriggerStreet script reviews, and thus, it's the top ten mistakes one specific writer made in his unproduced spec. (And this is not to embarrass him, either. He's a good writer with a promising future.) But my biggest pet peeve in the world is a sloppy spec. For God's sake, a writer should know how to write and a screenplay ought to look like a damn screenplay. You may not have anything good to say in the story, but at least have the decency to make your script look polished.

Anyway, hope you enjoy it.

-MM
(aka - "Format Nazi")

---------------------------------------------------

10) "WE SEE" & "WE HEAR"
This is one of the biggest amateur mistakes anyone can make, that is, to write endlessly in the action lines "we see" or "we hear" or "we look." Obviously, "we see," "we hear," and "we look" - IT'S A MOVIE. You might say, "well, I've seen this done by the pros." That doesn't make it right. That doesn't justify your doing it, and that doesn't mean we can all rationalize a lowering of standards in screenwriting. Even as Mystery Man, I interact heavily with a few pro readers from the U.K. and the U.S., as well as two college professors in screenwriting - DON'T DO THIS. Everyone groans and quietly talks trash about the author when the writing is this sloppy. We have to surpass the pros on every level with our screenplays in order to break in. And that process begins with spotless specs with perfect format & grammar.

9) FADE IN OVER BLACK?
PAGE ONE: How does one "FADE IN:" "OVER BLACK"? When would we know the FADE IN: has occurred if all we're looking at is blackness? You should start with "ON BLACK," then "SUPER:" (not "SUPER IN/OUT:") and after the super'd words, which should be in quotations, then write "FADE IN:" which should be flushed to the left.

8) CONFUSING CHARACTER INTRODUCTIONS
You do realize that when you first introduce a character, the name should be in caps, right? There are a few cases where you didn't do that, like Onesto's Mother or the Man in the White Suit (both on page 17) or the two reporters on page 41 (who they have lines of dialogue). And then there were other cases where you repeatedly put the same character names in caps, like Leland on page 81 and 86 after you've already introduced him on page 3 or Amelia Granger whom you put in caps again on page 30 after you already introduced her on page 14. And then there was the bit with the "Scandinavian Woman" and "Son" that started on the bottom of page 3. I'm still not sure how many characters were in that scene. You have Scandinavian Woman and Son next to a car at the Botanical Gardens with a clamp over the wheel. Okay, fine. The woman addresses an "August" in her dialogue, a bag hits the ground, a "stranger, dressed from head to toe in black, opens the bag and takes out bolt cutters," the mother "nods her approval," and then you introduce MAC MEAD, who picks up the bag and winks at the mother; she smiles back, blushing." I had to read it ten times before I decided that there were only 3 people in this scene, the mother, the son, and Mac, although what Mac was doing and why he did it and how it's essential to the story didn't seem important. But don't write "stranger" before a proper character introduction, because that'll make people think there are more characters in a scene than there really are. Introduce Mac Mead in the "stranger" paragraph.

7) IGOR, IGOR, IGOR
It annoys me when, in the action lines, a character's name begins every single sentence. "Igor does this." "Igor does that." "Igor goes here." It's amateurish writing. It means you don't have enough confidence in the reader to understand that you're still talking about Igor if you just write "he." Believe me, we'll get it. Just say "Igor" once and then write "he" thereafter.

6) SUBTITLES
Briefly, the handling of foreign languages and subtitles was, well, disastrous. I'm not even going to explain the variety of ways you can handle foreign languages in screenplays. Unfortunately, none of those techniques were on display here. I'll suggest this - parentheticals are probably best for this story.

5) CAMERA DIRECTIONS
The following we do not do: "THE FOLLOWING TAKES PLACE IN ONE FLUID, CONTINOUS MOTION -". That, my friend, is called a camera direction, and we don't write them - not in the U.K., not in the U.S., not in Tibet, China, or BFE. Get rid of all your transitions, too. Some transitions are okay if they are truly essential, but I never saw any reason for any of the ones you used. You also had a lot of swooping and flying, such as, "We are skimming the surface of the Tigris River. As we swoop up we fly towards a bridge." Just describe the location and imply camera directions. In other words, describe the river, the bridge, etc, and imply that we're skimming and flying but don't say it. Also, don't mention "pulling back" or "the frame."

4) HEADINGS THAT MAKE YOU CRINGE
Here were a couple of my favorites: "EXT./INT. HIGHWAY/THE VAN/THE TRUCK - DAY" and "INT. EXT. BAGHDAD STREETS/VEHICLES/FACES". Don't do that. Here's another one: "INT/EXT. BUILDING, SECOND FLOOR" How can you have INT./EXT. for a BUILDING? Did you notice that you have "EXT./INT." for the highway, "INT. EXT." for the Baghdad Streets, and "INT/EXT." for the building? Look, "INT./EXT." needs to have two periods and a slash and that kind of heading is usually reserved for automobiles. Headings need to be simple: "INT. LOCATION - DAY". No commas, no slashes, no "faces," just ONE LOCATION. If you're doing a chase sequence, all you need is one heading and a bunch of secondary headings. You might want to look at Mickey Lee's "Operation: Atomic Blitz" as a reference. You also do not write "EARLY MORNING" or "LATE AFTERNOON" in your headings. Scenes are shot for "DAY" or for "NIGHT". Period. Although you can also write "SAME" or "LATER" or "CONTINUOUS" or "FLASHBACK" or some variation. You had many headings without time switches at the end, too. I'd suggest you always have time switches at the end of every heading to avoid any possible confusion. While it was great to see that you knew to use the Secondary Headings, you were inconsistent with them. Make sure you're consistent with when, where, and how you use them.

3) NOT-SO-GREAT EDITING
No one has ever really written about this (and I'm not sure how well I can articulate it), but this script is full of what I'd call "bad editing." It's where a set of scenes feels jarring, confusing, disjointed, and erratic, because there wasn't a lot of care into leading the mind's eye of the readers to ensure that we are all following a specific train of thought in order to reach certain payoffs. I've resisted saying this for years because it sounds so cliched but I believe this to be true - there is a musical quality to screenwriting. You either hear the music or you don't. Because you have to be able to follow along in the story just as you can following along to a tune and there are many forms of music, but you cannot have a bunch of jarring, confusing, disjointed, and erratic chords in your songs. And thus, we have bad editing. At one point, like in one short sequence from page 9-10, we had these quick, jarring cuts that suddenly took us from Paris to some guy standing over an abyss in Alaska and jumping to a sudden cut in New York. Each sequence of events must have a beginning, middle, and end before cutting back to another sequence, UNLESS one sequence directly AFFECTS another sequence. Otherwise, it's too confusing. Robert McKee went so far as to say that each scene must have a beginning, middle, and end. I don't necessarily agree, because scenes can be part of a sequence that has a beginning, middle, and end.

2) UNFILMMABLES
My notes below are filled with complaints about unfilmmables, which were EVERYWHERE. Here are some favorites: "Where the Buddha, which was taller than the Statue of Liberty, had once stood, there is now only a blasted heap of stone." How is that filmmable? You have to write in the action lines ONLY what we see on the screen. "He didn't back down in Afghanistan and he's sure not gonna back down now." "Double sixes were the only way Mac could win." You cannot write explanations like these in the action lines. These things should be obvious to the story, and if it wouldn't be obvious to the reader, it's not going to be obvious to the audience, and you'll have to re-work this scene so you wouldn't HAVE to write an explanation in the action lines. Here's another one, page 53: if we're just looking at missiles, how are we supposed to know that it has an "internal gyroroscope-based guidance systems?" Let me say again - You have to write in the action lines ONLY what we see on the screen. Also avoid incidental actions, author's intrusions, and questions to the reader.

1) SO FUNNY, I HAVE TO SHARE IT
This comes to us from page 27:


Leland spins around and sorts through mail on the counter. He picks up a postcard.

POSTCARD
Get the whiskey ready. Bad smelling
offer too tempting to pass up came
my way. Use some floss if you don’t
hear from me in two weeks.

Leland turns over the postcard...

Ladies and Gentlemen, it's the world's first TALKING POSTCARD! YEAH, BABY! Let's give it up for our friend who wrote a character line and dialogue to create the talking postcard.

Hehehe...

That's called an INSERT.

Dude, if I was in a professional reading position, I would've put the script down on page 27. You're not impressing anyone with your lack of knowledge about the craft. I'd suggest you buy Dave Trottier's
Screenwriter's Bible and study it as if your life depended on it. This book represents industry standards. Everyone in the biz follows it, and it's recommended by the WGA. They may not be able to handle contract negotiations very well, but they recommend good books.

67 comments:

Carlo Conda said...

"Get the whiskey ready. Bad smelling
offer too tempting to pass up came
my way. Use some floss if you don’t
hear from me in two weeks."
Not only is the talking postcard hillarious on it's own, but it seems as if English is it's second language. Gotta give the writer some points for artfully exposing that. Haha.
I want to see more of this immigrant postcard character - he seems interesting.

ps. What's up with the whole 'floss' thing?

Mystery Man said...

He's a good, promising writer and the dialogue was, in fact, really entertaining and the action scenes were actually quite exciting. I don't want this post to turn into a bash-the-writer kind of thing. I just wanted to make points about format.

It's a learning thing.

I had gotten a lot of "thank you" e-mails for this review and just thought bloggers might enjoy it, too.

-MM

Elver said...

//Also, don't mention "pulling back" or "the frame."//

I have a bit in my screenplay where I explicitly set up a split-screen telephone conversation. And I can't think of any way of doing it without using the term "frame".

As the conversation progresses I call for one side of the frame to expand while the other contracts to make the point that the person on the contracting side is saying things that will get him into trouble. His influence is diminishing.

I swear, this is the only explicit camera/editing direction in the entire script. Would it be frowned upon?

Joshua said...

"This is one of the biggest amateur mistakes anyone can make, that is, to write endlessly in the action lines "we see" or "we hear" or "we look." Obviously, "we see," "we hear," and "we look" - IT'S A MOVIE. You might say, "well, I've seen this done by the pros." That doesn't make it right. That doesn't justify your doing it, and that doesn't mean we can all rationalize a lowering of standards in screenwriting."

Man, i love ya, you know that, right?

Okay. Here's the thing. I DON'T DO that, above, I don't.

However, your statement that it is amateurish is logically incorrect, for the simple reason that many pros do it, not just one or two, but many.

And I'd also note it's very common in television writing among the pros.

Therefore, you can call it lazy (and I may disagree) and say you don't care for it (there I may) but it's simply not true that it's amateurish. Not when so many paid for writing use it.

John August just used it for a sample of his own on his site.

I get why some people are upset with it, I understand why you don't like it - however I've read too many of my favorite scripts that use it, and I've been told, explicitly, by the director / producer (and WGA member) on my last pro gig TO PUT IT IN, hired to write something, told by the guys hiring me to put WE SEE in.

I protested and was promptly reminded that I was hired to write what they want.

They preferred it because it was simply and easy to read, for them.

So I get that it's something some folks do not care for (and I'd note, there are more than a few readers who think the same of writing the shots, which we both believe in doing) I get that . . . but calling it amateurish is simply not correct.

It's too much a staple with too many pros.

And it pains me, because I have a script out there that I'm very proud of, that I was hired for, making the rounds and people like it, but it's got that one WE SEE in there and when people read it they may remember this column and cluck and go "amateur" and I'm not, I'm really not.

No flaming, nothing, I just wanted to point out that I understand you might call it a format mistake, I disagree but that's cool - I understand you think it lowers screenwriting bar and again I'd disagree and point to some great scripts with it in there, but that's cool. We can have differences in that way.

However, I think it's a mistake to call it amateurish, logically that doesn't hold up.

Joshua said...

I would add that I loved your other nine examples, especially the un-filmables.

Mystery Man said...

Josh - Thanks, man. Great comments. Ya know, maybe it would've been better if I said I felt it was "weak" screenwriting. I'm not so sure that it's accurate to say that a lot pros do it, as I've always thought that writer/directors are most guilty of writing "we see" and "we hear" and I don't really put them in the same category as pro screenwriters. I could be wrong, though. That might require a study. Even when pros do it, it's still (to my mind) amateurish writing, and they should know better. If you're going to be a pro, then write like a pro. And in any pro script review I do on the blog, you better believe I'll take them to task for sloppy writing just as much as I would an unproduced writer on TS. "We see" is a big peeve of mine. It's always avoidable, and annoying as hell when you read it over and over and over and over...

The bigger point here, though, is that too many people do it, and it's frowned upon. By not doing it, I know you impress people more, which is important in a competitive environment. You never ever give anyone an easy reason to reject you or your script.

By the way, I love you, too, man.

-MM

Joshua said...

I'm told it's a fairly common staple in TV writing, useful shorthand, which, let's face it, is in all scripts, since screenplays and teleplays are half technical documents and half creative . . .

But believe me, if you bring up a lot of good Oscar-winning scripts, we see pops up more than you'd guess.

First page of AMERICAN BEAUTY.

First or second page of BIG FISH (August uses it, as I mentioned)

BLOOD SIMPLE

I mean, if you look at some great writers we admire, writers working today, and look at their work, we'd see who uses it and who does it. (Kaufmann? I think so).

And at the end of the day, if they're working at a high level (and the Cohen Brother's are, whatever quibble one may have with their latest artistic choices) and consistently getting acclaim, it's not really fair to call what they do weak, in my opinion, no more or less . . .

That's me. But remember, there are those vehemently against writing shots, and we both love that.

Elver said...

I think the difference here is that you gotta write better than the pros to break in.

"We see" and "we hear" is okay when you're basically writing for a high-level studio executive or the director himself. They understand it. You're not breaking the 4th wall when you use it.

However I'd wager that most people reading this blog have yet to break in and their number one priority is to get the reader interested. To hook whoever is reading the script. More often than not, the reader is not an experienced filmmaker. If you use "we see" and "we hear", it's sort of like breaking the 4th wall. You'll disrupt the flow of the story by talking directly to the reader.

And in that sense, yes, it's amateurish.

Emily Blake said...

You mention character introductions, but there's something I've never been clear on. What about introducing characters who have no lines?

I'm working on a zombie script. Since the zombies have no lines I've introduced them without using all caps. Should I be using all caps? If it's an important zombie, one we'll be following, I'll use all caps even though he has no lines. But ANOTHER ZOMBIE, THIRD ZOMBIE, UGLY ZOMBIE? Do those need to be capped even though I only mention them once?

Carlo Conda said...

He meant that's it's amateurish for the budding screenwriter. When nobody knows who you are and someone reads your script, skeptical that you're one of the 99% amateurish screenwriters, ommitting things like 'we see' is needed to show them that you're above the majority.
Of course, after you've made a name for yourself, you can do whatever the heck you want. That's a given. You no longer have to prove you're not an amateur once you're a pro.

Unk said...

I needed a good laugh today...

And here we go on the WE thing. I think you're right -- it CAN be weak if used improperly.

I do however think it's a little over the top to tell someone NEVER to use it.

Having said that however, notice in amateur scripts, you read "we see" or "we hear" all through the script instead of maybe ONE to no more than SEVERAL isolated places.

In other words, "we see" or "we hear" should be finessed into their usage -- not simply thrown in because it's easy.

I personally use it when I want heavy emphasis on that particular thing in that particular scene. Heavier emphasis than any other sight or sound in the script and here and how, is where "we see" or "we hear" is misused so often.

That may be just ONCE in the script... NEVER... Or 3 or 4 times. Probably never more however.

Just my 2 cents...

emily,

If those zombies are characters that reappear -- in other words, actual characters in your script, by all means, CAP their names when you intro them.

Back to work. Thanks for the break!

Unk

Mystery Man said...

Josh - Please-please - you, of all people, are NOT rationalizing the use of "we see" in a spec, are you? I don't care if it's in the greatest scripts ever written. It's weak. In fact, I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that this is probably the most common format pet peeve within the industry. So how can it help you to write that? I'm sure you know that most of the kids reading this blog are not established like John August or other guys who have won Oscars. For those guys, their scripts will be happily accepted and read and purchased despite its occassional writing missteps like "we see" BECAUSE they have an established track record. There is not one single justifiable use of "we see" in a screenplay. I defy anyone to give me an example where one MUST to write "we see" because there's no other possible way to write it. In every single case, you can cut "we see" from the sentence and the same narrative point can be made. And as a bonus, readers won't get annoyed.

Elver - Thanks, man.

Emily - You're writing a zombie script? I love it! In your example, I would put them in caps. Crowds of people, and extremely minor supporting parts that are mentioned in passing, like someone getting out of a taxi, paying the driver, and running to some location. Driver wouldn't need to be in caps. Do you see what I mean?

Carlo - Thanks for that. Admittedly, I agree with Josh. I could've written that better.

Unk - Thanks for that. People won't complain if they read one "we see" but even still, "we see" doesn't need to be in a spec even once. As I told Josh, "There is not one single justifiable use of 'we see' in a screenplay." I don't think it's over the top at all to tell newbies to completely avoid it.

But then again, I love a good debate.

-MM

bob said...

As someone who constantly struggles with the "igor, igor, igor" (#7 for those of you with programs) and constantly pushes the envelope of unfilmables, I can totally empathise with this fellow and MMs review. We're all works in progress and we can't ever think we have it nailed, cuz that's when our collective you-know-whats will get nailed to a wall.

Joshua said...

I think Unk just justified it -

Personally I don't use it just to avoid the ruckus, unless I'm told to put it in. But I certainly vehemently disagree that my one and only script that does have it, ONCE, in one place, is weak in any way because of that.

I agree with what Unk wrote, and I maintain that it's not weak or lazy if used correctly.

It's not only from my opinion, but from those I know, including many who work in the industry in other capacities.

I just recently read a short script from a friend in LA who's a pro, who's written for film and television and also used to be a professional reader before becoming a pro writer.

Definite uses of WE SEE within. And while he's a pro, he's not at August's level (at least not yet) and there are others.

So I'd argue that the view that WE SEE is weak is not necessarily industry standard, at least among all writers.

When I told the director / producer on the last thing what I've heard from readers, etc, on the subject of WE SEE, he laughed and said "those guys don't finance or make movies, don't listen to them!"

That's what he said, for what it's worth. He's kinda a blunt guy in a fun way.

Now as for me, dude . . . I listen to you, I do. You know that. I hear what you're saying.

But I also listen to Unk, I also listen to August, I also listen to my manager and friends, and I add that to my own hard experiences and then I make up my mind based on all of the above.

So yeah, you convinced me that putting it in my specs is not worth the trouble, sure.

But I'm not convinced that using it judiciously is weak writing.

Nor am I convinced that those who are established only do it because they are established . . . if I recall correctly, it's in August's GO as well, written before he became so.

But listen, it is fun to debate this stuff, I gotta say.

Unk said...

No debate from me...

I do think you're right to tell NEWBIES to stay away from it.

Michael Mann uses it enough for everyone anyway... LOL.

Unk

Elver said...

There's a saying that if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

And WE SEE / WE HEAR is certainly a blunt instrument. Doesn't mean it's bad. Just that it's the kind of instrument that novices can easily use too much and in places where it doesn't work. So it's better to steer clear entirely, especially since there isn't anything in a script that cannot be written without the use of this little hammer.

Joshua said...

By the way, I just want to remind ya I'm saying it all I've said with LOVE, remember?

I mainly only argue with those I love about writing stuff, heh-heh.

I ain't claiming to be Obi-Wan, tho'.

Unk said...

Geez... I'm not gonna get shit done today.

I do think MM is correct when a newbie uses it throughout a screenplay instead of figuring out a way to conjure up up that same visual in a creative way.

And while specs are certainly written to be read, that inherently is a problem with a lot of well written specs.

I'm converting a spec over to a shooting script and while I'm not using WE SEE throughout the script, I have used it in a couple of places because I know the director is going to collaborate with his DP on every shot and angle.

When we "suggest" a certain camera angle, movement, or shot with prose, I submit that it can get LOST in the translation.

Now if you just want to sell a spec and move on -- COOL.

However, I still consider the story to be my baby and when I really want there to be absolutely NO CONFUSION as to an angle, shot, or movement, I'll toss in the proverbial "we see" when I absolutely feel that THAT PARTICULAR shot, angle, or movement is CRUCIAL to that scene.

It's just my own little way of saying, "Go ahead and do what you wanna do with everything else in the script but THIS particular angle, shot, or movement is crucial to this part of the story. Don't fuck with it."

Will it get fucked with?

Maybe.

Probably.

But it's better than slapping a yellow post it there and at least my conscious is clear. I tried to save my baby.

Unk

Mystery Man said...

Hey, I'm not done! If you think Unk justified it, let's talk about it:

"I personally use it when I want heavy emphasis on that particular thing in that particular scene. Heavier emphasis than any other sight or sound in the script and here and how, is where 'we see' or 'we hear' is misused so often."

Correct me if I'm wrong. The point of an action line is to emphasize the sounds and the visuals. The mere fact that you've write a visual or a sound in an action line, in and of itself, emphasizes that visual or sound. The fact that you have an action means that that visual is crucial. That's why it's been written. Writing "we see" anywhere is a wholly self-defeating purpose. I still defy anyone to give me one single example where "we see" was crucial and it could not be written any other way.

Let me ask you another question, Josh. I think it's SO great that you have a relationship with this writer / producer. If he's okay with it, then certainly no worries. But do you think that all prod co's work the same? Have you ever had a script go through a major studio system where there are maybe a dozen pro readers, who are a studio's first line of defense and who read hundreds of scripts every month, read your work? Have you ever set down with a pro reader and had to defend your script scene-by-scene and sometimes line-by-line?

It never hurts you to write a spec as great as you can write it and avoiding all the little missteps that so many others make. It will never hurt you to avoid "we see," and it can only help you to do better than the pros. I can't be anymore clear than this without revealing who I am, the people I know, and talking about my own personal experiences. I would never ever steer you wrong.

-MM

Joshua said...

It's tough to get into bona-fides, isn't it?

It's not that I don't respect your views, I do. I just think there are some things, when it comes to writing, that are not concrete.

"Let me ask you another question, Josh. I think it's SO great that you have a relationship with this writer / producer. If he's okay with it, then certainly no worries. But do you think that all prod co's work the same?"

I didn't say they did, tho I would say some may be more efficient than others.

"Have you ever had a script go through a major studio system where there are maybe a dozen pro readers, who are a studio's first line of defense and who read hundreds of scripts every month, read your work? "

Yes.

"Have you ever set down with a pro reader and had to defend your script scene-by-scene and sometimes line-by-line?"

Yes.

Let's not get too much into specifics, shall we? LOL!

Dude, I'm not saying I didn't listen to you, I surely do.

I just don't agree that August does it because it's weak.

I think there's a disconnect somewhere . . . perhaps something similar to the anti-voice-over thing years ago.

Mystery Man said...

Oops, Unk and I must've posted at the same time. It is especially true in shooting scripts to avoid "we see" because you've got the added advantage of actually writing the camera angles to emphasize specific visuals.

But let me say this - if you've got a relationship with people in a Prod Co, with producers, directors, or executives, and they love your work and they'll accept anything you send them - GREAT! You don't have to worry so much about little mistakes, although I would always be careful to make sure you don't send in work that's so sloppy it'll lower their confidence in you.

But if you're a newbie trying to get sales and sending your specs out to people who don't know you, take heed my words and suffer through the details.

-MM

Joshua said...

I heed, I heed!

I tap out!

LOL!

Unk said...

"The point of an action line is to emphasize the sounds and the visuals. The mere fact that you've write a visual or a sound in an action line, in and of itself, emphasizes that visual or sound. The fact that you have an action means that that visual is crucial. That's why it's been written."

You are exactly correct.

Ideally speaking (my own perspective).

And, if nobody was going to ever change a word of your script, we would of course, realize that ideal.

While the use of "we see" certainly doesn't insure that a shot, angle, or camera movement stays in the script, I've found strictly from my own experience that EXTREMELY judicial use of "we see" seems to trigger the "leave it alone" gene in a lot of producers and directors.

I can only assume that's because more and more pros DO use "we see" albeit judiciously.

But I could be wrong.

In fact, from my own experience less and less attention seems to get paid to capped props and sounds these days. Here we've actually emphasized those particular visuals and sounds, yet they almost seem to be a nuisance for certain readers -- yet I still do it and probably always will.

Non-judicial use of "we see" would certainly be a mistake and again, I agree that newbies should generally stay away from using it that way.

And now, as I type this, I can see that the title of your post is "Top Ten Format Mistakes" -- based on the topic, I would have to agree.

I'm done. My horse is dead. LOL.

Unk

Mystery Man said...

Josh - McKee coudln't have been more wrong about voice overs! Hehehe... I'm very flexible about voice overs, but I'll go down swinging when it comes to format. I am SO fed up with sloppy specs, especially from the pros. Screenwriters don't get respect as real writers because the scripts look like shit. It drives me crazy when pros write slop and get paid six figures for it. I will not give newbies one inch of leeway with format. As far as I'm concerned, the next generation has to actually write like professionals.

With respect to "I just think there are some things, when it comes to writing, that are not concrete." I agree, but I suspect you lean more towad the idea that nothing's concrete. I say that the only thing that's truly black & white is format and grammar.

-MM

Mystery Man said...

Unk - my horse is dead, too. I really appreciate your time and thoughts, I really do.

And you too, Josh. I really mean that. It was a good debate.

-MM

Christian M. Howell said...

Damn day job. I missed a real "barn-burner."

We see now that we see is already what we see so you don't need to tell us we see.

I admit I used it once in a script.

James Patrick Joyce said...

Mystery Man

I defy anyone to give me an example where one MUST to write "we see" because there's no other possible way to write it.


But there's not a single line of description in anything, save poetry, that couldn't be written differently.

I defy anyone to give one example that couldn't have been written differently, by the same author.

Mothra said...

Thank you for making soda shoot from my nostrils onto my laptop on this very cold and very boring Friday night.

Mim said...

I love you, MM. I can't stand We See and We Hear.

Sorry, Unk. Sorry, Josh. The first time I saw it in a professional script (many years ago when I was still wet behind the ears), I knew I could never be a screenwriter if this was how they used language.

When I downloaded a copy of Adaptation and eagerly opened the file, what did I see on the first page? "We see..." Not even Charlie Kaufman's Oscar can convince me this affectation is anything but bad writing. I am not so starry-eyed.

I would rather get fired than ever use "We see" in a script.

There. I said it.

Elver said...

Mothra: "Thank you for making soda shoot from my nostrils onto my laptop on this very cold and very boring Friday night."

Is that a rare event or could we employ you as a soda pop machine? You know, like put a mug under your nose, tell a joke, receive free soda :P

James said...

I'm glad "We See" is your 10. I can let it slide.

Most scripts (that are good) that use We See tend to have action lines that read as if some friendly old-timer is telling us a story.

To me "We See" feels more in touch with the tradition of oral storytelling -- which it is my personal belief films are closest to.

The problem is not maintaining this feel throughout the entire script. It's not the "We See" that is amateurish, just how it is used.

As for #7 ... How do I put this delicately... The overwhelming majority of people who are the first to read your script are between the ages of 18 and 25. Some may be aspiring screenwriters, some may just have a job, some may have never read before.

There are a lot of variables when it comes to "The Reader." Sometimes things need to be spelled out.

I admit lazy writing isn't the way to go... but given a choice between keeping the pages turning and taking a chance with something a little more poetic, I, personally, err on the side of ease of the read.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Hi, Mystery Man:

All your points are excellent, and I'm going to link to this article from The House Next Door. Anyone who writes or reads scripts should read and heed it.

However -- I can't resist pointing out that quite a few screenplays written by some of the more original and influential screenwriters of the past two decades have flagrantly disregarded many if not most of your instructions. Quentin Tarantino's scripts, whether written for himself or somebody else to direct, tend to be format train wrecks, doing everything we're told one is not supposed to do (starting with specific camera directions and monologues that last two pages -- and ending with the apparent absence of a spell check program). Charlie Kaufman -- well, don't get me started; the guy's a mad genius, the Pynchon of commercial narrative cinema. William Goldman, the dean of commercial screenwriters, dispenses good advice but heeds almost none of it; his scripts tend to read like his novels, but with funkier line breaks. And one of the greatest, most absorbing original scripts I've ever read is David Webb Peoples' script for "Unforgiven," which reads like a purplish dime novel written in about 1902, chock full of unfilmable notions and literary description, all of which is written in the same non-industry-standard psuedo-cowboy lingo as Cormac McCarthy's prizewinning novels.

My point -- and incredibly, I do have one -- is this: I wonder, reading some of the scripts by the people acknowledged (for better or worse) as originals and trendsetters, whether slavish adherence to the rules is part of the reason that so many American movies are more alike than different.

I ask that not to be needlessly provocative, but because you clearly know a great deal more about this area of filmmaking than I do, and I am curious to hear your thoughts.

Mystery Man said...

You’re very kind, Matt. Thanks so much.

Yeah, let’s jump into it. Let me break it down into three areas:

1 – The vast majority of my readers represent the next generation of screenwriters, and I want them to know format backwards and forwards so that they don’t even have to think about it when they sit down to write a script. As it is, sloppy specs do not get read. Newbies have to not only construct a great story but they have to show a clear understanding how a screenplay functions. They have to understand things like the art of visual storytelling and writing the shots. Plus, you never ever give anyone an easy reason to complain about your script or you as a writer. If you’re a nobody and some pro reader, who reads hundreds of scripts every month for a studio or a prod co, is reading your work, a spotless spec will build confidence in you and that’s invaluable.

2 – The pros should do it, too. It’s a different world now than, say, 5 or 10 years ago. If you wrote a script for a film that’s getting a wide release, odds are it’ll wind up on the ‘net and people the world over will be looking at your work and making judgments about you as a writer. You better make damn sure you're not getting sloppy because even the greatest screenwriters can plummet into obscurity if they're clearly getting sloppy. Even if the story’s flawed and the film bombs, the fact that you still showed expert craftsmanship in the script will help sustain confidence in you and get you more work. (You know, a writer is only as good as his last script.) To your question about films being the same, let me say that there are rules about storytelling that should be broken with reckless abandon and there are rules about format that should be followed with a jihadist zeal. Writers sometimes make decisions that compromise story because they're ignorant about format it. A writer who’s an expert in format and uses all of the tools of the trade to show, not tell – montages, series of shots, secondary headings, etc, will give you a better film. As far as I’m concerned, what the pros do today (in terms of how they format) and what they did 5-50 years ago is almost irrelevant to the next generation who will be facing a bar that’ll be raised higher than it’s ever been.

3 – “We see” will piss me off ‘til the day I die.

Hope that helps. So great to hear from you.

-MM

James said...

"Even if the story’s flawed and the film bombs, the fact that you still showed expert craftsmanship in the script will help sustain confidence in you and get you more work" -MM

A film that bombs because it is flawed is not my definition of "expert craftsmanship."

Mystery Man said...

Ya know, James, between those two comments you've left, I get the impression you're trying to pick a fight with me, too. All right, man, let's go:

"A film that bombs because it is flawed is not my definition of 'expert craftsmanship.'"

Ya know, a master can still write a script full of expert craftsmanship and skill with a story that's flawed and does not do well at the B.O. You can have a story full of expert parts but a whole that leaves you uncertain and an audience that's cold to the whole endeavor. It happens. And of course, a lot of films fail for reasons other than the writing.

"To me 'We See' feels more in touch with the tradition of oral storytelling -- which it is my personal belief films are closest to."

No they aren't. Film's are a visual means of storytelling. Books on tape - now THAT is closer to oral storytelling. And I say write "we see" as much as you like for a book on tape.

"It's not the 'We See' that is amateurish, just how it is used."

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CORRECT USAGE OF "WE SEE."

And by your own admission, it's "lazy writing." How can you rationalize weak, lazy writing? What kind of a writer are you?

-MM

Carlo Conda said...

"
"To me 'We See' feels more in touch with the tradition of oral storytelling -- which it is my personal belief films are closest to."

No they aren't. Film's are a visual means of storytelling. Books on tape - now THAT is closer to oral storytelling. And I say write "we see" as much as you like for a book on tape.
"

Sure, but what is the difference between someone reading a book to you on tape and someone who is reading your script? Both require the story to be told to induce visuals.

"We see the gun poking up under the carpet, but Jack doesn't know it's there"
versus
"The gun is poking out of the carpet, but Jack doesn't see it"

The first example infers a focused camera shot to the gun, whilst the second infers that the gun only be in frame, as if it's just something else that's happening onscreen.
Of course, you could word it differently to further emphasize the gun in order to increase the opacity it has in the scene, but that can sometimes be too wordy and unneeded when 'we see' is a shorter and sweeter way to do so.

screenvvriter said...

elver said something further up about explicitly setting up a split screen.

I don't know his context, but in general, isn't that something one better leaves to the director? Unless the plot requires it. I probably wouldn't interpret it as meaning one loosing influence, but rather wonder wtf is happening to my screen?

Same with SLOW MOTION / FAST MOTION. I recently read a script where the writer used these to create some kind of impact. I suggested to him that he better create that impact in the action lines.

Another script I'm reading now requires slow motion as part of the plot. Reality slows while a character is doing something. But her the writer doesn't even use SLOW MOTION but puts it into the action lines.

Mystery Man said...

Carlo - I was making joke. You would never say "we see" in traditional oral storytelling anymore than you'd write "we see" in a novel, play, or anything form of writing. You induce visuals by writing visuals not by saying "we see." With respect to, "Of course, you could word it differently to further emphasize the gun in order to increase the opacity it has in the scene, but that can sometimes be too wordy and unneeded when 'we see' is a shorter and sweeter way to do so," that's completely wrong. Look, if you want a close-up use a Secondary Heading. Or just write two different short sentences to imply two different shots.

1)

THE GUN

pokes out of the carpet. Jack walks by without seeing it.

Or 2)

The gun pokes out of the carpet. Jack walks by and almost steps on it.

Or something. You do not ever need to write "we see" ever under any circumstance, and this strong need to write "we see" means that you haven't developed the skill yet to write the shots, and you just need to practice that. As it is, you're relying on a weak crutch, and your writing won't stand above the competition if you continue to do that.

screenvvriter - I wouldn't write a split screen. That's directing the director. Also, most special effects like slow motion is described in simple terms in the action lines. You're only writing a spec, not a shooting script. You can, however, on rare occasions and if it's truly essential to the story use TIME LAPSE, which is similar to a MONTAGE and described in detail in Trottier's Screenwriter's Bible. Hope that helps.

-MM

Elver said...

Duh, why didn't you mention secondary headings in the context of "we see" earlier? It makes a lot more sense now and is, indeed, a superior alternative to "we see".

Dave Hunter said...

I can think of one instance when "we see" can be useful: when things are visually revealed in the middle of a scene. Say you've got a professor giving a lecture, and in the middle of his presentation it's revealed that he isn't wearing any pants. Ideally, you'd want to describe it as all action. I.e. "He steps out from behind the podium. He isn't wearing any pants."

But, maybe, you don't want him to step out from behind the podium, because you don't want his audience to know what's going on. You just want to switch to an angle that reveals pantslessness to your audience. How would you do this without using "we see"?

Mystery Man said...

No problem, Dave.

You describe the shots in your action lines. Perhaps you'd talk about the enraptured audience, the protag standing behind a podium on a stage giving his speech, which would imply a shot from behind or within the speaker's audience, and then use a Secondary Heading:

BEHIND THE PODIUM

Jack isn't wearing pants.

Just think it would have to be filmed in order to convey those ideas. You'd start with one angle to give one impression and then you cut to a different location to reveal a truth. It requires Secondary Headings to do that.

Secondary Headings give you the freedom to do whatever you need to do, and you look damned professional using them. Let me get on my Secondary Headings soapbox - few people know this trick and this is what literally gives you the freedom to go anywhere and do whatever you want to do in a script. And I think, too, Secondary Slugs are crucial to having effective action sequences. Mickey Lee had a Raiders of the Lost Ark kind of truck sequence and how else are you going to quickly and seamlessly cut from inside the back of the truck, inside front, top outside of the truck, side of the truck, front hood, etc? It'd be maddening if you did it using Master Scene Headings! And this is what I mean by writers compromising story because they don't know how to format it. Some writers will water down that action truck sequence just because they don't want to tons of Master Scene Headings and they don't know about Secondary Headings.

Okay, stepping off my soapbox now.

-MM

Anonymous said...

What about my favorite pet peeve?

"THE END"

Yeah, we know it's the end because there are no more pages in the script.

James said...

MM - Love your blog. Love your insight. I wasn't picking a fight. Simply stating a difference of opinion.

"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CORRECT USAGE OF "WE SEE."" - MM

I disagree.

And there are many, many, many examples from professional writers that are examples to the contrary.

Taking a step into the directing realm for a corollary example:

John Ford hated moving the camera. The overwhelming majority of his shots are on sticks, letting the actors do their thing in front of the camera.

He has four Oscars ... I think it is safe to say the guy knew what he was doing.

Should there be some arbitrary rule that says camera movement is strictly forbidden because John Ford hated it?

Just because Michael Bay sucks at moving the camera, doesn't mean it's not a good tool to be used. In fact, Michael Bay's "style" even has its own place. As bad of a feature director that I think he is, he is an incredible advertisment/commercial director. The Aaron Burr milk ad is amazing.

No one argues questions Spielberg when he wants to PUSH IN. That's because he knows how to use it.

The PUSH IN is a tool in the director's arsenal. It came be used for good or for extreme evil.

"We See" is a tool in the screenwriter's arsenal. And can be used in triumph or in demise.

The point is... it is not "We See" that is the problem, rather the usage, as was my point above.

James said...

"No they aren't. Film's are a visual means of storytelling. Books on tape - now THAT is closer to oral storytelling. And I say write "we see" as much as you like for a book on tape." -- MM

Wow. I really think you ought to rethink this one.

Books on tape are simply reading the text of a novel and putting it onto tape.

That isn't oral storytelling. That's a novel -- read out loud.

Oral storytelling is what happened before television. And was pretty much replaced by television.

You know, when men would gather around a camp fire, and some guy would capture their imaginations for 5 minutes, an hour, days with a story about knights, or demons, or whatever came to fancy.

There weren't rules, other than, if you couldn't keep people interested... well, you weren't much of a storyteller.

You could toss booze into the fire to make a huge explosion, maybe emphasizing the dragon's breath - or draw away from the fire into the darkness of the night to add terror to your delivery.

It was as much about showmanship of the orator as it was about the story.

The real difference of screenplays is that there are actually two audiences you have to consider: The reader. And the viewer.

Mystery Man said...

Anon - THANK YOU. That's a HUGE peeve of mine! My favorite element in a screenplay is "FADE IN:" which should be at the top flushed to the left. Thus, you have to bookend your screenplay with "FADE OUT." which should be flushed to the right. THAT is a screenplay, thank you very much! Don't get me started, but thanks for pointing this out.

James - I must apologize for my harsh response. I'm very sorry. I think I was just feeling a bit bruised by this ridiculous argument. But I strongly disagree with you with almost every point you made except for the fact that John Ford won 4 Oscars. (I love that guy. I watched "The Searchers" again not long ago. Love that film.) Actually, I loved that last line you wrote about considering the reader and the viewer. That's a great line. Thanks for that. But, James, hear my words and hear them well - there is NO such thing as a correct usage EVER of "we see." There never was, there never will be. You cannot give me one single example where "we see" is essentail because there's no other way of writing it. Follow my thinking - a "pro" writer gets hired to write a spec. He turns it in. That spec is full of "we see." It's not like the studio is going to grade his spec and give it back to him. They're going to focus on story. Yet, everyone in the studio talks trash about what a ridiculous hack this "pro" writer is because the spec is piss-poor sloppy. Then his spec hits the web, everyone reads it, and newbies assume it's okay to write just as sloppy as this "pro" writer when it was NEVER okay to write "we see" in the first place. But the "pro" writer never hears the kind of talk that goes on behind his/her back and gets into bad habits in his/her writing and tells newbies at expos to screw format. I don't want that happening to you. It is weak, sloppy, and utterly pointless to write "we see" in an action line. Forever and ever - amen.

It also hurts the read of the script. When you get into a story and your mind's eye is in the zone of that world mistakes like sloppy grammar and format and mistakes like "we see" take you OUT of the read and remind you that you're only reading a script from some newbie. You never ever give anyone an easy reason to complain about your script or you as a writer. You always, always turn in spotless specs.

I can't be anymore clear than that.

-MM

screenwriter said...

By now it is crystal clear that enough readers get terminal hiccups (terminal for the script) when they read "we see". For me, that alone is reason to avoid it like the plague. However, the same would apply if for some reason mentioning a "dark haired woman eating scrambled eggs at a blue table" would trigger that reaction.

So before I show my script to anyone I now do a text search for "we see" and if I find one then it has to go. But not too far below the surface there still is this question lingering: 'What the heck, actually?'

But something else, similar actually: If I want to approach a location by moving across mountains and then closing in on a spot on the ground. (No planes involved.) How would I write that? "We fly" is probable not the preferred solution. (An argument could be made that I shouldn't write that.)

Elver said...

Another thing I haven't figured out in this syntax is tracking/steadicam shots. "We follow" would suck, too.

Luckily I haven't needed them yet.

Mystery Man said...

Screenwriter - I wrote that once in a script, actually. Maybe this'll inspire you.

"A black bird soars over the crest of a mountain and dives down the other side into a shadowed crevasse while skirting the tops of trees.

"Nearby, tearing through the darkness on a road that snakes along the side of a mountain, are the lonely headlights of a speeding Jeep."

You don't need a bird to guide the audience, although some directors might ask for a visual guide like that. But you can also just describe the mountains, and how, over the peaks of X mountains and down the crevasse into the valley of this particular region of the world is a small town. Or something. That would imply flight without saying "we fly." Just describe the mountains, describe the things we're seeing down the side of the mountain, and just allow the descriptions to lead the mind's eye to the end.

Do you see what I mean?

Elver - I love LONG tracking shots! Secondary Headings, baby!

-MM

Laura Deerfield said...

Exactly - don't say "we see" or "we follow"... just describe what would be on the screen. Just like you don't need to say "I think" or "I feel" before expressing your opinion: that part is understood.

screenwriter said...

MM, I see what you mean. I think. And the bird inspires me. Thanks.

The flying is just a way how I envision the scene, but if it does not contribute to the story then it doesn't really belong there. The story only needs the mountains and whatever is on the ground.

Laura, if I say 'flying' we actually would see it on the screen. But why would I say it? If I transport parachuters to a drop zone then it's important. If all I need is a location in the mountains, flying is not important.

Mystery Man said...

Screenwriter - I would try to be consistent about it. And by that, I mean it would have to be in the spec througout or at least twice or more so that it feels like it's naturally part of the story. If you have one flying sequence, it'll stick out like a sore them, and you'll think a writer is just trying to be fancy with a technique that doesn't really fit into the story. I'm a big believer in that kind of thinking. Having a consistency of techniques throughout your script.

-MM

Mystery Man said...

A good examples of this would be the long tracking shot in "Atonement." Stuck out like a sore thumb, if you ask me. It took me out of the story. I thought, "Oh, this must be the place where we'll see the long tracking shot." And instead of being in the story, I thought, "Wow, that's an amazing tracking shot. How did they get those horses to do that?" If there was a consistency of tracking shots throughout the film, as I'm accustomed in a Kubrick film, I probably wouldn't have noticed or thought twice about it. Also, to have this long tracking shot felt like a big payoff that hadn't been properly set up. If we had a film that was ALL about their journey to the beach and after all kinds of stuff they go through, they finally make it to the beach and then you'd have a long tracking shot, it probably wouldn't have stuck out so much as it did in this film BECAUSE it was a big payoff we had been waiting for for two plus hours. Do you see what I mean?

-MM

James said...

"You cannot give me one single example where "we see" is essentail because there's no other way of writing it." -- MM

There is always another way to write an action line regardless if "We See" is in it or not.

I can give you a long, long list of "We See"s that help to maintain tone in as minimal words as possible, keeping the read a breeze, allowing for the story to come to the surface, rather than needless detail.

Overly flowery detail of unimportant details can knock a reader out of the script as easily as "We See."

Yet, in amateur (and some pro) scripts, overly flowery detail of unimportant information occurs much more often than "We See."

Why isn't there a huge outcry from screenwriting blogs and "rules" against that...?

My opinion is: Because it isn't as obvious.

"Follow my thinking - a "pro" writer gets hired to write a spec" --MM

Pros aren't "hired" to write a SPEC. They are hired to write.

A spec is a script done on speculation. Meaning, no money upfront. The writer simply writes it hoping they can sell it. Being hired typically means there is money being paid upfront for the writer's services.

"It's not like the studio is going to grade his spec and give it back to him. They're going to focus on story." --MM

Exactly.

The studios that buy your script don't care about formatting. Their focus is on story.

I think the main problem is that you are equating format with quality.

Kat Candler said...

Having just started a new semester of classes at the Austin School of Film and reading three classes worth of first time scripts, I LOVED reading your post. I was just giggling through the whole thing, nodding in agreement.

Kevin said...

Great stuff. I want to d/load it all and file it safely away.

In a post over his way Unk talked about how for him s/writing was about hearing the music, carrying the sense of rhythm the story elicits in the writer to the page. That was spot on for me, because I always approach the form of the s/play as peculiar form of poetry. The spare arrangement of words on the page almost haiku-like. It helps how I hear, see and construct.

In a piece from long ago, Diane Johnson spoke about working with Kubrick on "The Shining" and about her own restive attitude towards s/writing, and the bedevilment of its peculiar form. Why not exploit the formal aspects of its peculiar template and see what developes. I found this comletely thrilling, and a challenge.

"Writing for the Movies Is Harder Than it Looks": http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/04/16/specials/johnson.html

Again, thanks for the thread. Much to think about.

Kevin said...

"A good examples of this would be the long tracking shot in "Atonement." Stuck out like a sore thumb, if you ask me. It took me out of the story. I thought, "Oh, this must be the place where we'll see the long tracking shot." And instead of being in the story, I thought, "Wow, that's an amazing tracking shot. How did they get those horses to do that?"

I'm curious, MM, if you felt the same way about the much-talked about scene in "Children of Men" where a car is ambushed by a gang of motocycling asassins? Or, for that matter, the other celebrated scene where Clive Owens'character runs through the war zone, which recalled both "Full Metal Jacket" and "Saving Private Ryan".

Mystery Man said...

James - "I can give you a long, long list of 'We See's' that help to maintain tone in as minimal words as possible, keeping the read a breeze, allowing for the story to come to the surface, rather than needless detail."

"I can give you a long, long list of 'we see's' that help..." You keep saying that, but no, you can't. There's no such thing as a helpful "we see." Ever.

"...in as minimal words as possible..." You wanna help keep your words and details at a minimum? Cut WE SEE.

"...help to maintain tone" - Yes, that tone would be called "the sloppy screenwriting of an amateur."

"...keeping the read a breeze" - You don't need "we see" in order to keep the read a breeze. What kind of thinking is that? You make the read a breeze by keeping the details in the action lines down to a minimum, not by adding "we see." You can actually make the read EVEN BREEZIER by CUTTING "we see."

"...allowing for the story to come to the surface..." You actually take people OUT of your story by constantly reading "we see."

Now tell me - are you really going to use this absurd "anything can be rewritten" thought to rationalize "we see" in action lines? Are you kidding me? All you're doing is rationalizing a lowering of standards. That's all you're doing. You're justifying your own weak writing so you don't have to do the hard work of THINKING about how to WRITE THE SHOTS without falling back on the most absurd two words in screenwriting - "we see."

I don't know what else to tell, man. We seem to be going in circles because you're not listening to me. "We see" has never once in the history of films been a tool for screenwriters - EVER. You wouldn't write "we see" in a novel or a play anymore than you would a screenplay. There is NO POINT WHATSOEVER to writing those words. In every single action line in which you write "we see," you can cut those two little words and the visual emphasis would still be the same. You are completely off-the-charts out-of-your-mind wrong about "we see." It's lazy, weak, sloppy screenwriting, and you're less of a writer if you use them.

Kat - THANK YOU! Can you believe this discussion I've been having?

Kevin - Great comments, man. Thanks for that. I actually thought the long takes were really effective in "Children of Men." I wasn't crazy about the film as a whole, but the long takes were used consistently throughout so they didn't feel out of place or take you out of the film. And for me, it made me really hold my breath during the violence and, I thought, added a whole new level of intensity to those sequences. I didn't realize until I saw that film how much I relied on cuts as a moviegoer because in my mind, I always knew when I saw a cut that the actor had a chance to get up, take a break, and sit back down for another take.

-MM

Anonymous said...

Mystery Man, you must pull you're hair out reading a Paul Thomas Anderson script.

Mystery Man said...

I loved the "There Will Be Blood" script. I really loved it and was quite fascinated by it. In fact, I wrote a Script-to-Screen study and I have another one I've been planning to post. But yes, the writing was very sloppy at times, which made me cringe.

I don't hold writer/directors in the same category as professional screenwriters. Writer/directors are usually directors first and writers second and they're just trying to get their vision onto the page. How articulate they are about it... well, it's usually varying degrees of NOT GOOD. But at the same time it's fascinating to me observing how they're thinking visually. A pro screenwriter, on the other hand, better @#$%ing know how to write a damn screenplay really well.

-MM

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the reply, MM. I totally get your point. Pretty please, with a cherry on top (!), post your Script-to-Screen study of There Will Be Blood.

Mystery Man said...

Well, here's the first Script to Screen article. Side note - I went to see the film and was mortified to discover that this scene about which I put so much time and thought, was cut. Hehehe... But it was a good study.

I've got a lot of great articles coming that I'm still researching.

-MM

sohbet odaları said...

Sohbete inananların bulustugu yere gitmek için burayıSohbet odalarıTurkiyede Chat'in gercek adresine gitmek için burayıChatistanbullularla sohbet etmek için ise burayıistanbul sohbetEger aşkla ilgili bişilere bakacaksanız burayı tıklamanız yeterli olacaktır.Mynet Sohbet thanks you very much.

Yazıyok Blog said...

@Carlo Conda Nice...

istanbuldaki oteller said...

Thank you very much...

Türkiye turizmi site rehberi turkey hotel list
oteller tatil
İstanbul turizmi otelleri konaklama yerleri ve tatil
istanbuldaki oteller, taksimdeki oteller
Antalya kemer alanya plajları tatil yerleri ve konaklama
antalyadaki oteller
Apart Hotels Turkey
apart otel, oteller
Alanya tatil gezi alanyadaki plajlar oteller rehberi
alanyadaki oteller
turkey hotel antalya
istanbulda oteller
Ankara gezi seyahat ankaradaki oteller ankara konaklama yerleri
ankara otel

sohbet odaları said...

Sohbet Siteleri | Chat Siteleri | Sohbet | Mynet Sohbet | Sohbet Odaları | iStanbul Sohbet | iStanbul Chat | Chat | Mynet Sohbet | Sohbet Odaları | Mynet Sohbet

Enes said...

anal seks
porno izle
porno izle
porno izle
porno izle
porno izle

bilgi said...

Ücretsiz ilan verebilir ve ilanlarınıza alıcı bulabilirsiniz.
Televizyon'da kaçırdığınız diziler için üzülmeyin, Hemen buradan dizi izle
TC Kimlik, Vergi veya SSK sorgulamak için nosorgulama.com'u kullanabilirsiniz.
Yanlızmısınız. Binlerce arkadaş burada, hemen arkadaş ara.
ünlü müjde ar hakkında resim, video, film ve biyografisini öğrenebilirsiniz.
Alemin babası müslüm gürses hakkında herşey.
Meşur şarkıcı azer bülbül resimleri ve videoları burada.
Üç yüz üzeri parçasıyla gönüllere taht kuran ferdi tayfur müziklerini ve şarkı sözlerini burada bulabilirsiniz.
Yeni parçalarla ferhat göçer karşınızda. Resimleri, videoları, müzikleri ve dahası.
-