Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

HOW TO SPEAK SCRIPT - free online eBook

Screenwriting Tip – Character Intros

How much is enough?​

My take on this is that there can be too little, and there can be too much. Finding the right balance for the character in question is important.

Much depends on whether you have a plot-driven story (Titanic), or a character-driven story (As Good As It Gets). Much also depends on the importance of the character. A main character will obviously need more information than say a peripheral Gas Station dude.

There isn’t a right or wrong way. It’s the writer’s choice, but certainly the reading audience needs to be considered – as opposed to the theatre audience who will have all the visual helpers, ie; sloppy dresser, nervous twitch, etc.

In the film “As Good As It gets”, Melvin was introduced with all his faults right up front. The reader is fully informed what kind of character they will be riding along with: ‘a pain in the ass to everyone he meets’. This film follows how he overcomes this ‘flaw’, so we intro the flaw right up front, then go to work on fixing Melvin.

Indian Jones, on the other hand, has a very limited intro, and we, the reading audience, get to ‘discover’ Indy as we read. Nowhere up front are we told he hates snakes. We learn that later – and well after we are certain we have met the toughest man on the planet.

Both intros work brilliantly.

One thing you do NOT want is fluff that makes zero difference to the story. Example …

KATIE, early 30s, feminine with long black hair, a red leather jacket and short skirt, unlocks the door of a florist shop, enters.

How much of that is needed to advance the story, or lay a foundation for the character? Do we give a rat if her hair is long, or the jacket is red? Hard to say. Does her long hair move the story in any way? Upon first intro, it's impossible to say.

KATIE, early 30s, fem, likes leather, unlocks the door of a florist shop, enters.

Is that enough? Again, much depends on whether this is plot-driven or Character-driven, and how much you want the reading audience to know up front, and how much you want them to discover. This needs to be more or less clear in your mind to set up how you go about developing the people an audience will attach to in the eventual film.

Main characters usually have some kind of arc. Not always, but for the most part. How you get the character from point A to point B is the journey. How much the reader knows going into the story will influence their expectations of the journey and its outcome. Fool ‘em!

Katie for example, is in a short skirt and red leather. On screen there will be immediate assumptions as to the kind of girl she is. That’s the kind of thing that happens with relating first impressions in our media-washed brains.

Remember how we met Indy? A mild mannered professor – and a wet dream for one young lady. ‘Course, the film posters pretty much gave away his alter ego – the Clark Kent / Superman dichotomy. Maybe Katie is the same? Looks like maybe she works in a club, or frequents them. So, I sent her into a florist instead. Owner? Maybe. We’ll find out later in the story.

Maybe you want to intro her idiosyncrasies instead of her appearance. Or both?

KATIE, early 30s, a low maintenance blue-jean girl with a gift for gab, unlocks the door of a florist shop, enters.

A whole different girl. No flaw, really, though some might argue a gift for gab counts big time. Let’s give her something up front the reader can chew on.

KATIE, early 30s, a low maintenance blue-jean girl with a gift for gab, avoids eye contact even with family and friends, unlocks the door of a florist shop, enters.

Okay, now we have a ‘let’s fix Katie’ project on our hands!

Each Katie puts something different on the table. Our first Katie could be a simple intro to plot-driven story, in which the end game is always bigger than the characters, and where your characters react to outside forces beyond their control – like a sinking ship, or giant robots. Character-driven pits your character against some more intangible obstacle, like a mental disorder (Awakenings), and emotional battering, a death, etc.

You can pretty much drop Indiana Jones anywhere, and still have his character command the journey (Like Dundee; be it the Australian outback, or New York City, he was still Dundee). Could I move Jack and Rose off the Titanic and still have a film? Maybe. I’ll venture it’s doubtful, though others will surely disagree.

If you write and produce, then you may feel it isn’t necessary to expand on character intros. It’s all in your head, and will come together under your direction. The actors will know the character by the time they finish the script – hopefully – and so you just leave out the details. A lot of great moments in film are made up on set once the synergy gets rolling.

Peripheral characters really don’t need a lot of introduction.

WAITRESS, slim and pretty, pours coffee.

Does it matter if she’s slim and pretty? Depends on how her appearance plays off other characters, if at all. Maybe your main character is a guy who appreciates slim and pretty women, and the waitress becomes a distraction during the main scene. A glance her way, for example, might piss off his date. The ‘slim and pretty’ waitress is there to get a reaction from the main players.

You could say she’s slim and unattractive, or heavy with an electric smile. Mousy, dumpy, exotic, seethes sensual, or whatever. So long as it fits the character and the situation they are in - without being off-the-shelf predicable (like the receptionist in “The Island”).

CARL (20s) unkempt and jittery. (I myself don’t use the 20s bit. Big diff between 20 and 29).

BECKY, late 40s, soccer mom, bargain shopper.

LING, early 50s, a one-time Olympic gold medalist still in excellent condition ….

JOHN, 20s, …

MECHANIC, grease monkey extraordinaire … (you don’t always need an age)

WAITRESS, heavy and effervescent …

MARCUS LORENZO, late 40s, a neurotic genius impatient with all mankind, color is of no use to him.

So, much depends on the character’s position in the story, and whether you want the reading audience to know a lot up front, or discover the character as the story unfolds. There really isn’t a wrong way, just make sure it belongs in the story.

Totally up to the writer.


.
 
Screenwriting Tip - Pronoun Confusion

Using He, She, They, It​

Pronoun confusion is something I see A LOT. This happens when a string of HE’s and SHE’s run on and on, without stopping to name names.

Here are some examples …


John hands Patty a wrapped gift.

JOHN
Happy Anniversary.

She opens it.


We’re pretty clear the SHE is Patty. SHE follows a HE dialogue, but our action makes it clear the gift is in Patty’s hand.


But what if …


Patty enters, Johns hands her a gift then she sits.

JOHN
Happy anniversary.

She opens it.


Who sat? Well is says SHE did, but HE and SHE can be easily mixed up. The SHE follows an action by John, which is followed by a THEN, so it’s possible we have a typo here. I would do this …


Patty enters, John hands her a gift. Patty sits. (Patty sat)

Or …

Patty enters, John hands her a gift, then sits. (John sat)


Here it’s clear to me who did the sitting. Hell, one could even do this …


Patty enters, John hands her a gift. They sit. (they both sat)



An easy fix. What about this one …


They sit and lay out the game. He holds up a mug of beer. She hands him a few chips.

JOHN
Ready for defeat?

She smiles, chugs a beer, nods.


We have a THEY action followed by a HE action followed by a SHE action followed by a HE dialogue, then followed by a SHE action. There is no mention that Patty has a beer, so I am not 100 % sure there isn’t a typo in there somewhere. It’s possible, and that will need to be sorted out on set, burning up valuable time.

Your actress will be asking, ‘Um, wait. Who’s chugging? Him or me?

This I see far too often. We can fix this with a bit of info, and by rearranging the action order …


Patty and John each pour a beer. They sit and lay out the game. Patty deals the chips, John holds up a mug of beer.

JOHN
Ready for defeat?

Patty smiles, chugs her beer, nods.


All clear now. Still a few pronouns, but they follow a name/action logically.



Another sample …


They cook dinner.

PATTY
Hand me the pepper, please.

JOHN
One pepper per the ladies request.

She stirs the veggies.


SHE dialogue followed by a HE dialogue followed by a SHE action. When I see a SHE action after a HE dialogue, my first thought is typo!! They are both cooking, so the stirring could be done by either or both. Always be clear.



Here’s another one …


Patty and John watch television. She surfs the channels, settles on one.

JOHN
I hate this show.

She surfs for another channel.

PATTY
More popcorn?

He takes a handful.


I can sort of follow who’s doing what, but why not make it ‘without a doubt’.


Patty and John watch television. Patty surfs the channels, settles on one.

JOHN
I hate this show.

Patty keeps surfing, offers a bowl of popcorn.

PATTY
More popcorn?

John takes a handful.


Trust me, it’s worth it to use a name – even if it seems obvious, or you’re wanting to avoid the redundancy and sounding like a parrot. Also, use a few extra words to clarify action. Clarity and Brevity work hand in hand, but I will always go for clarity first.



Let’s look at this example.


EXT. APARTMENT BUILDING – DAY

Angie and Stella exit, close the door, walk to her Jeep.

INT. JEEP - DAY

Angie climbs in, sets her things.

ANGIE
Ready?

STELLA
Are we there yet?!

She starts the jeep, turns on the GPS, drives away.


Okay, so who’s driving? A few pronouns sent this astray. First, unless we already know this is Angie or Stella’s jeep, we would say ‘a Jeep’ until that is established. There are two females, so which HER owns the Jeep?

Next one: ‘she starts the Jeep’ follows Stella’s dialogue, which leads me to believe it is Stella who is driving. Missing information, like who gets in which side, makes this a head-scratcher.

An easy fix …


EXT. APARTMENT BUILDING – DAY

Angie and Stella exit, closes the door, walk to a Jeep.

INT. JEEP - DAY

Angie climbs in the driver’s, sets her things.

ANGIE
Ready?

STELLA
Are we there yet?!

Angie starts the jeep, turns on the GPS, drives away.


We are very clear who is doing what.



More on HE-HE or SHE-SHE or HIM-HIM or HER-HER


Jack and Marty prepare to leave. He gives him the card. He puts it in his pocket, hands him a card. He motions to his desk.


What?

Um, yes, I do see this quite often. The writer is ‘watching’ this in their head while writing, so it seems quite clear to them. But once on paper, it’s nothing but mud for the reader.

Always, always be clear who is doing what. A string of He and She and They and It just doesn’t cut it.


.
 
Screenwriting Tip – Using the LY words

A Case for Adverb Abuse​

LY words are those pesky adverbs used to modify your verbs, such a quickly or carefully.

He opens the door carefully.

These are to be used with restraint. By the time the Director and Actors finish reading the script, they should have a pretty solid grasp on the character and how they might interpret the movements. I like to use the LY words only to emphasize when something is out of character.

If you have carefree character suddenly in a tight spot, I’d say She or He opened the door slowly.


Example of abuse.

I found all of these and more in the first ten pages of a recent reading …


Ted strides jauntily

She gazes at him adoringly

He nuzzles her playfully

Mary puts her perfectly manicured hand in his, stares lovingly into his eyes.

She giggles coyly

He shakes his shirt angrily, almost tearing it.

The man backs out of the room hurriedly.

… reveals part of a beautifully rendered drawing

The guard blocks the door menacingly.

Ted shakes the bars furiously.

He gestures drunkenly with the bottle

His last words echo loudly in Ted's ears.

Ted stares wistfully after her.


Not to sound like an English snob, but a reliance on adverbs is just poor writing skills.


Lets see if we can exorcise some of these LY words …


His last words echo loudly in Ted's ears.

Can be changed to ...

His last words pound in Ted’s ears.


Ted shakes the bars furiously.

Can be changed to ...

Ted shakes the bars in a fit of rage.


The man backs out of the room hurriedly.

Can be changed to ...

The man quickly backs out of the room (trade for a simpler adverb)


Many of those adverbs used above are just redundant anyways. A manicured hand is by default beautiful – at least the way I understand the word. 'Manicured gardens' would assume a lot of care is put into it.

To nuzzle is already affectionate and playful, so I’d leave it at ‘He nuzzles her’.


I see this one a lot …

He beats the man angrily.


I’m of the opinion that if someone is getting their ass kicked, one or both parties is angry about something anyways, and the set up would cover that.

Maybe try ‘He beats the man to a pulp’. (to a pulp is an adverbial phrase in place of the LY word)

See? You can add more feeling and depth if you toss the adverbs. If you want to take it up another notch, try ...

He beats the man to a bloody pulp


Not all adverbs end in LY, just the most nauseating ones. Either way, use with caution. A few adverbs okay, but if you need all your fingers and toes to count them in a feature script, it’s gone adverbialy awry.


No, adverbialy is not a word! Don’t use that one!



.
 
They do have a nice, melodic ring to them, but ...

'The road to hell is paved with adverbs' - Steven King


Back in November I had a short script filmed in Red - my first. Haven't seen it yet, but really looking forward to it. Let's see what all the fuss is about!

a
 
Screenwriter musings for 2010

Roughly 30,000 years ago, some jerk blew pigment into some Neanderthal chick's face hoping to impress her, and the film industry was born.

cave-art.jpg



Why do we make films? Is it to entertain? To impart some message? To educate? To get all artsy? To piss somebody off?​

Without the credentials to really comment on the human psyche, I’ll risk that people have some innate drive to tell stories, for any and all of the reasons above – and more. Where and how and why it all started is up for grabs.

For the sake of convenience we can start with cave paintings. I’ll assume there were some oral ‘traditions’ in place before some mega ancestor put up the first images. I will also assume the technology for making pigments was around as well, and then by some happenstance or immediate need, a visual story ‘set in stone’ emerged. What fascinates me most about this, is the fact that the storyteller ‘signed’ his or her work with a hand print – a closing credit if you will. It is here we see this need to be recognized for intellectual property make its entrance onto the stage of human endeavours. ‘I did that’.

Things have changed since then, to say the least. Or have they? Certainly the technologies afforded us to tell our stories have changed – from clay tablets to stele, hieroglyphics and stained glass, manuscripts, books, film, and on into the future with holography, virtual realities and beyond. I would argue, however, this innate need to tell stories remains as basic as the need for companionship, shelter, fire and movement – one notch down from the survival requirements of air, water and food. Storytelling is a ‘quality of life’ requirement that makes hunting and gathering palatable.

So where am I going with all this?

All film begins with story. Whether one adapts a three-act structure or a non-linear structure – or no structure at all - to tell this story, it is still the absolute foundation on which all the other film disciplines are built. No, I don’t think this makes writers into Gods – saints maybe, but not Gods (though many a writer thinks you should kiss their feet). A foundation without a house is about as useless as a house without a foundation. What sets film apart from cave paintings is the collaborative necessity to get things done. I don’t know if our cave painter mixed his or her own pigments, but once they had their needed supplies and accoutrements, they were on their own – or so the anthropologists believe. With rare exception, this is near impossible in film.

When writing for film, this collaborative inclusion needs to be considered. Not only must a screenplay have story, it also needs to instil the poetry of its movements and emotions into the minds of all participants, where they can then be interpreted and converted into moving images. In truth I liken screenwriting more to oral traditions than cave painting - masterful storytelling that turns a listener’s brain into a theatre screen. They can ‘see’ every word.

I suppose before fire, the listener had to sit in the dark and hang on every one of those words. With the advent of fire, the storyteller’s face was illuminated, and facial expressions were added to the mix. How important is that in film? Indispensable, and the art of performance was born. Here I would argue fire became a serendipitous crew member responsible for lighting. Where the storyteller sat in relation to his or her audience was the precursor to cinematography, and the use of cave walls to echo and enhance their voice were the first stabs at sound engineering. Toss in a drum roll, a fluff of the hair and some costumes, and you have a 3D film – and we are right back where we started, only now with the ability to plop this 3D story into megaplex caves around the world.

Now if we could just get rid of interference and censorship to all this storytelling, the world would be a happier place. Do your films really need to mean anything, or have any redeeming qualities? Of course not. If nothing else, make them memorable. After all, entertainment is, in it's purist form, a diversion. If it's critical acclaim you seek, then make films accordingly.

.
 
Screenwriting Tip - Rhythm
​


Cadence - that poetic rhythm in words/sentences/punctuation - can do enormous justice to a screenplay. How? By matching your writing to what is happening in any given scene/act/script.

If, for example, you have a high-octane chase scene, you don't want to do this ...

The cars screech around a corner. Jack tries to pass. Naomi blocks him. She runs through a red light. Jack is right behind.

It’s all chopped up and reads like our drivers are sightseeing. If the action is fast-paced, then write it as such ...

The cars peals around the corner, grinding bumpers and blowing tire smoke. They rip through one, two, three red lights.

Five periods down to two. Add a few commas to keep the cadence clipping along with the cars.

Likewise, if you have a slow and sensuous love scene, don’t write it like the characters are tearing each others clothes off, nor write a steamy love scene as if they are counting each others buttons as they disrobe.

Make the momentum of your writing match that on the screen in your theatre head – and write it as such that it will light up in the theatre heads of any reader.

Whether you are a screenwriter hoping to hook a reader/producer, or a filmmaker with a cast and crew to set in motion, remember that your script should engage everyone who reads it, and set in their minds the rhythm of the story – be it action, comedy, suspense and so on. Done well, it becomes a director's best friend.

Next up: the rhythm (cadence) of your character’s dialogue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top