Screenwriting : What is a good screenplay? by Victor Titimas

Good: One that captures your attention and won't let it go. It doesn't have to follow "the rules" because half of those screenwriting books contradict the other half. Formatting is important but after that, all bets are off.

Bad: One that makes you cringe page after page with spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, horrible dialogue, unfilmable descriptions, incoherent storyline and/or characters that you have no emotional connection to.

Here are some of the Main Rules of Screenwriting:

1. Your story must be evocative.

2. Your characters must be evocative.

3. Your dialogue must be evocative.

4. Your story must be interesting enough for a producer to want to make it, and for an audience to want to see it.

5. Your main characters must be interesting enough - even "unforgettable" - for a producer to want to make it, and for an audience to want to see it.

If you don't follow those rules, and worship them at your Writing Altar....man oh man oh man. You failed. Hit the road, pal. We know who you are, and we know where you worship. Don't come around here any more.

The central elements of a story - any story - are theme, character and plot. There are dozens of structural elements that allow theme, character and plot to flourish. How you choose to pull that off - with or without Aristotle, Save the Cat, Truby, Hague, Vogler, Field, McKee, Phillips & Huntley, etc.etc.etc - is certainly up to you, but you really better understand those central elements, and the structural elements of drama, to become a brilliant writer.

Good luck and Happy Writing, Victor

When I look for script I am less interested in the "rules" than I am in a great story with characters that will interest great actors. Format is important - it's how writers communicate - but the "rules" are not on top of most lists. Producers know many changes will be made from the time they first pick up a script until first day of production.

Hi Victor, I support every recommendation above; it's all true. At the risk of sounding like a crass businessman, I have to add that if your goal is to be a professional writer, the definition of "good" includes "commercial viability". It took me years to understand & accept it, but this is the reality everywhere, at all levels.

Here is a simple formula that execs live by: Projected earnings must be high enough to justify the production cost. It's not rocket science, but rockets are kinda similar: your concept is the fuel, and it has to lift that rocket into space. The bigger & heavier the rocket, the stronger the fuel needs to be.

Write because you love writing, always; if you want to sell your writing, I hope what you love is commercially viable.

It just has to do everything right. If it is sad it has to make you feel sad. There are no rules, no measures, it is about your ability to move the reader in a way you desire. Everyone hopes and prays that there is some secret formula, a list of things to tick off. But there isn't, this is art not science. That's why they are in different faculties at university. Now some story are destined to be great. Some genres are easier to find human emotion in. My personal measure is if I am reading a script and I feel upset that it is ending because I am enjoying it. Success.

Craig, you've nailed a crucial point. Why do people go to movies? To feel authentic emotions. No amount of empty spectacle will substitute for that.

I'm no screenplay expert but I am a movie junkie and, for me, one sign of a bad script or movie is when the writer doesn't take advantage of what they have. Like when a really talented athlete doesn't work hard and just ends up being an average player. Big potential and then average or cliched writing makes the movie a snore. I think the movie Sweet Home Alabama is a great example. It had a good story idea, talented cast and the potential to be a really good but cheesy rom-com. But then it was just so so so so blandly written and lacked punch.

Oh, Dan, Destroyer of Illusions... I should thank you, but I'm too heartbroken.

How's this for destroying illusions? Often, if not most of the time, the script that was written bears little or no resemblance to the actual produced film.

Unless you're a writer/director/producer like Tarantino, there can be as many as a dozen different people who can make changes to (i.e. f*** up) your script. Producers almost always have their own ideas about how to "make it better". Then the director comes in with his own writer to "punch it up". Then each A-list star comes with his/her own writer to make that star look better.

Not one of these people give flying rip about the original writer or his/her story. Then, after test audience give negative responses, whole sections of the completed film can be rewritten and re-shot.

In the end, if the film wins an Oscar, the writer MIGHT get some credit. But if it tanks, guess who gets the blame.

A good screenplay is entertaining, it tells a good story and you enjoyed the process, it flows smoothly and there aren't elements that pull you out of the story. Screenwriting book formulas have nothing to do with a good screenplay, they merely contain suggestions to help you write.

I think too many people try to be critics these days and because of that, these so-called "rules" as to what a good screenplay or movie should be have complicated things. It's very simple - a good screenplay should have little to no grammatical errors or spelling mistakes in order to reflect professionalism. Other than that, it should have a good story that keeps you engaged. Dialogue, visualization, identifying with the characters, all that will come automatically if it's got a good story. If it can keep your riveted and wanting to know what happens at the end, then it's a good screenplay. That's really all it needs. It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that.

The two Dan's hit the nail on the head. Also mass worldwide appeal which is why so much $$$ is spend on Dc Comic and Marvel films, they don't care about story only $$$ returns. It's the nature of the beast and I can blame them, but I only hope that some day this trend will shift back and real human stories will start to dominate the box office. (Fingers cross)Thank God for Indie filmmakers, these are the real superheroes of the industry, without them we would have nothing. So, happy to see that, "Moonlight" won best picture so at least now more people will get to see this powerful "human" story.

A page turner -- a rib-breaker with funnies every 7 seconds if it's a comedy that makes the reader laugh-out-loud, or a gut-wrenching "Oh, shit" if it's a drama or horror; "didn't expect that" if it's a mystery, and so on. Yet, in the end and after the artful craft, it's as Wayne and Dan say: It has to be both engaging and commercially viable -- box office receipts bigger than production costs. Time for a writer to think of budget and put on the producer hat -- ie. cut down on CGI, delete those animals, more locations-less set builds, make more lean those - NIGHT scenes, etc. These days its wise to feature big-personality characters we can invest in and root for... the usual obstacles, stakes, resolve, twists, surprises and shockers, the protagonist we love, that villain we hate; basically, scenes that elicit a visceral response in the reader and carries them on an emotional rollercoaster over peaks and valleys, high suspense and low rest periods. Structure can actually be broken down and made visual. Here is a chart I sometimes do to see what kind of ride my reader or audience might take. Simply turn your Beats sideways, plot Points 1-10 based on the "visceral response" you project you will be eliciting in the reader or audience, and then connect the dots. You can see where you may need a rest period after holding a reader in suspense for long periods, and how you can begin building them back up again. The solitary peaks are surprises or twists, and so on...

Now there's a question that can be easily answered in ten words or less - not!.