Anyone out there in screenwriterland... do you ever write out a complete shooting script and then rewrite it downward to a spec script? I'm finding that if I add every camera direction and detailed description and all possible nuances, I can then revise down to a bare bones spec script with more and better control, and gain a better over-all idea of the physical and emotional boundaries and limitations of a visual medium. I feel it lets me see my work as a director might see it (then better allow him/her to see it), without imposing directorial directions. And, I have a shooting script under my belt. It is a bit more work, but I feel I am placing myself closer into the action (and spirit) of my original ideas, which are mostly lit-fiction short stories and noverls.
Screenwriting : Method to this madness -- by Max Boyce
Other topics in Screenwriting:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
Whatever works, right?
Hi Max, I see what you mean, and agree. But I don't write a shooting script but visualize it through a director's eye (as best I can). Therefore, yes, I minimize action lines, get rid of prose, 'see' yet still 'feel' the story's emotion. As a spec, we know, the read is your first and maybe only shot at grabbing their attention. One other thought, if sold a script, it goes into development, everything changes anyway. For me, I think the hook and the high concept is what they really want to buy as long as the spec is professionally written. Any thoughts on that?.
1 person likes this
Your method makes a lot of sense, to me, Max. Last Christmas, I met a guy with many optioned scripts and he submits them like you first describe - all the bells and whistles.
But maybe you could save the number of re-writes? In his book Writing for Emotional Impact, Karl Iglesias gives a fine explanation for "getting past the gatekeepers."
He suggests (in as many words) substituting camera directions: ANGLE ON: CLOSE: WIDER: for example, with just a coupla words can explain what you mean and NOT have the gatekeeper say:
"Amateur! You don't tell the director his job!"
I think this conversation should expand the following - as many of us would benefit:
Why is it that writers who paint word pictures for a living and write for something to be SEEN on a screen are expected NOT to SHOW how they VISUALIZE a particular SHOT,SCENE, whatever?
A crazy notion, I thought. I think Mr Iglesias is saying: Do it, but do it surreptitiously, so nobody's offended
But why should they feel offended? Why is it NOT my job to write how I SEE this image I'm writing about?
I guess the BIG BOYS take no notice - SPEEL OUT WHAT THEY WANT AUDIENCES TO SEE - and the camera follows. How would we know? Almost ALL the scripts we have access to are SHOOTING SCRIPTS. Anybody?
1 person likes this
I've been told quite firmly more than once that is the directors job to do the camera placement etc my job to set out the story so frankly the only reverse engineering I do is write the script then work backward to write the outline.. I do have a general outline in my head when I write but unless I'm adapting one of my books I never get around to writing it down and it almost always changes anyway.
1 person likes this
But Tabitha, say, for example, you NEED to SHOW what is happening up someone's nose? I mean it. This is a problem that can be resolved by a coupla words suggesting that's where the camera should be, but just not saying ANGLE ON NOSE.
Movie "PERFUME" brilliant for that nose job.
Your point on OUTLINING - and then saying the story almost always changes - is interesting. I recommend the opposite, personally. Always Outline, expand into a treatment then write FADE IN: - to avoid getting lost.
Tony Gilroy and his brother [Bourne Series] said it took four months to write their last oultine - and that's the toughtest stage, he said. Then they started writing/polish for just 2 more months - easy, cos they knew where they were going. Just join the dots. Makes sense, huh?
Without an outline one always risks getting lost in Act 2 don't they? I actually start at the END and work the outline backwards, So, you MUST end up at the end. The end itself can often change, I agree. The developing story reveals some better angles/twists/turns perhaps. What different methods do you experts out there use, I wonder?
I dont prefer to write camera angels. At certain points when it is utmost necessary to underline some story element or emotion only and only then i mention camera movement. Otherwise I feel it is Director's territory.
Jacquie - I admire your courage. But my feelings are: the WRITER should be in control of his characters - not vice versa. I am God - The characters say what I intend them to say - to suit the 41 finite twists and turns and reversals PLANNED in the outline. Good luck with your characters and wherever they take. And before they take you too far - tell me where I can find that super pink eye shadow! Love that! Peace!