"Making of..." Review

[jomo]

To start, it's a good script.

Good character's, good story, it's all good. I really liked the realism, realistic irony in alot of the scene's and realistic comedy, definitely.

But when I was reading it, there was something that bugged me. The formatting and writing.

I don't know, maybe it was the way I learned to screenwrite. But there are some things that got in the way of me reading it, and having to correct it myself, in my head. I hope I am saying this as polite as possible, I do.

First, the use of "Cut To:" is not necessary unless there is a fast transition. From what I've seen, not many screenplays have used this, other than the correct circumstance.

Second, some of the scene headings didn't work. You need to establish what time the scene takes place after the scene before it. You did that for some, but others you didn't. The Talking Head's could have had more direct Scene Headings, too.

Third, in the first 1 and 1/2 pages, I was confused whether or not it was still over a blank screen. The use of (O.S.) was random and made it confusing to me.

Fourth, I noticed some spelling and gramatical mistakes, I could not track all of them but I remembered Hair Stylist(s) on page 12 and some missing commas from here to there.

Character descriptions could help you out to establish who they are before establishing them in the story.


When it comes down to it, though, if this was a real film, people would be WATCHING it. I try to focus more of my writing on the story itself, which I thought you did wonderfully.

Keep writing. It is not a problem to have your own format. And proofreading helps, trust me.

[Dale]

i gotta say, i think you're a little hung up on formatting. and most screenplays here have used the "CUT TO:" or just mention "cut to" in action descriptions. remember i'm not writing this as an "actual" script. if i were i wouldn't use all the "cut to"'s etc. but seeing as this isn't just a guide to something that will one day be put on film, i prefer to use them. we don't have the liberty of seeing on camera that a scene ends or changes, so just so the quick readers or whatever know without a doubt that's where it cuts. plus i'm kind of ocd with consistency and i had a few moments like when the camera dies that i use cut to black etc. and they just looked weird to me unless i had been doing the "cut to:"'s all along.

also, the first 1 and a half pages where pretty clear to me. it says "black screen" they talk about a lens cap being off the camera" it says the lens cap is popped off and then there's a fade in a scene heading. I mean you can't get clearer than that in my opinion.

you have a fair point with the (O.S) stuff and that was my biggest concern. but the simple answer is, when (O.S) was after someone's name, their character was supposed to be filming what was going on. ed was the camera guy, simon was the interviewer.

why would i describe a character and their personality in the introduction? i've always hated this about screenwriting. it takes the point of writing away from me? why tell someone who someone else when the story/script whatever is gonna do that for you? i think the earlier scenes with amanda sufficiently show who she is, the opening scene show the type of people jack, simon and ed are.

and i thought it was pretty clear how long scenes took place after the previous one. i mean sometimes it was even mentioned with the "we're on day..." and also after the opening scene you have simon say "after yesterday". it's not a story that moves back and forward through time, that has flashbacks. it's not something you have to think about terribly because it's always going forward. seems like a minor quibble. and i used "later" if it was in the same day "continuous" if it were following on directly from the last scene. again, no idea what else i could have done other than throw a little 24 clock up there like i did with brunch. and the talking head scene headings were taken from the office scripts, and if it's good enough for ricky gervais, it's good enough for me.

i think formatting is such a minor thing here, some people don't even use it, some people have their own intepretation of it. unless the formatting is particularly jarring, like in (and i don't mean to pick on him because i love the movie but --) blacksuit's an amazing spider-man it's something that is rarely commented on.

anyways, thanks for the review, taking the time to read it in the first place and the compliments on the story aspect.

[Natalie]

Personally I really don't think minor spelling and grammar errors are a problem, sometimes I've read where people would accidentally leave a letter out like for instance "lettr" - its not a big deal at all really cause you can still grasp the word and what was intended.
I think picking up on the lack of commas is like grasping for straws really, again, its pretty irrelevant.

I think the "Cut To" makes sense, because you imaging it cutting to another scene etc.

It sounds like this is the first film you've read of daz's because of the "Keep writing" kinda seems patronising, he's a great writer and you should check out his other stuff, haven't actually finished reading this yet, but I think you're being a bit too picky.

[blg]

The only grammar-related niggle I had was when Simon says "for all intensive purposes", which is a pet peeve of mine Other than that, you have to allow some leeway for typos and the like.

As for the 'CUT TO:' note after every scene, I can see both sides. On the one hand, most screenplays don't include transitions unless they're used for a special effect (eg. a fade to show time passing, or a smash cut). You know it's a new scene when the heading changes anyway, so it can be redundant. However, as Daz said, this isn't something that is intended to be used as an actual script. On this site, we don't have the benefit of visuals telling the story, so we have to write our scripts in a slightly different way than normal, as it's the only way readers will experience the story. Really, it's up to the writer's digression, and while I can see why you might have found it annoying, I don't think it took away from the script.

[BlackSuit]

blacksuit's an amazing spider-man it's something that is rarely commented on.

Seriously, he's right. Spider-man was a formatting disaster, but thats what I get for copy/pasting instead of getting a pdf.

Anyway, as far as CUT TO/BACK TO is concernerd, get used to the idea because you're going to be seeing a lot of it. My next film has a lot of it.

But, as said before, formatting isn't really criticised here.

[jomo]

Aug 5, 2009 10:04:07 GMT -5 Dale said:

i gotta say, i think you're a little hung up on formatting. and most screenplays here have used the "CUT TO:" or just mention "cut to" in action descriptions. remember i'm not writing this as an "actual" script. if i were i wouldn't use all the "cut to"'s etc. but seeing as this isn't just a guide to something that will one day be put on film, i prefer to use them. we don't have the liberty of seeing on camera that a scene ends or changes, so just so the quick readers or whatever know without a doubt that's where it cuts. plus i'm kind of ocd with consistency and i had a few moments like when the camera dies that i use cut to black etc. and they just looked weird to me unless i had been doing the "cut to:"'s all along.

also, the first 1 and a half pages where pretty clear to me. it says "black screen" they talk about a lens cap being off the camera" it says the lens cap is popped off and then there's a fade in a scene heading. I mean you can't get clearer than that in my opinion.

you have a fair point with the (O.S) stuff and that was my biggest concern. but the simple answer is, when (O.S) was after someone's name, their character was supposed to be filming what was going on. ed was the camera guy, simon was the interviewer.

why would i describe a character and their personality in the introduction? i've always hated this about screenwriting. it takes the point of writing away from me? why tell someone who someone else when the story/script whatever is gonna do that for you? i think the earlier scenes with amanda sufficiently show who she is, the opening scene show the type of people jack, simon and ed are.

and i thought it was pretty clear how long scenes took place after the previous one. i mean sometimes it was even mentioned with the "we're on day..." and also after the opening scene you have simon say "after yesterday". it's not a story that moves back and forward through time, that has flashbacks. it's not something you have to think about terribly because it's always going forward. seems like a minor quibble. and i used "later" if it was in the same day "continuous" if it were following on directly from the last scene. again, no idea what else i could have done other than throw a little 24 clock up there like i did with brunch. and the talking head scene headings were taken from the office scripts, and if it's good enough for ricky gervais, it's good enough for me.

i think formatting is such a minor thing here, some people don't even use it, some people have their own intepretation of it. unless the formatting is particularly jarring, like in (and i don't mean to pick on him because i love the movie but --) blacksuit's an amazing spider-man it's something that is rarely commented on.

anyways, thanks for the review, taking the time to read it in the first place and the compliments on the story aspect.

The reason people use it in action scripts is to show a fast transition, like I said before. But this is not an action script. Normally, a descriptive Scene Heading will suffice.

I understood the lens caps being on and the screen being black, my issue was the inconsistent use of (O.S.). I don't know, but I did have problems reading it because when you didn't use (O.S.) I had to go back and read to see if I had missed something about if a character was onscreen and only one character was offscreen, not two. You used (O.S.) fine after that, I definitely understood who was onscreen and who was off.

Character descriptions, normally it's the character name, followed by parenthesis with age, then brief description of physicality. It helps create an image for the reader, but it's primary use is for the studio to be aware what actor/actress to pick for the role. Just a suggestion. But you said you had no intent to sell this as a real script, which I was not aware of.

Like I said before, some of the Scene Headings did not inform the reader enough. For example, at the end of page 9, there is no reference to how long the scene takes place after the scene before that. Not in the Scene Heading or dialogue.

I think you did a good job formatting your script, you followed your own basic criteria. I will never criticize anybody for that, because everybody has their own style. I just found some holes that caught me off guard.

Aug 5, 2009 10:11:25 GMT -5 Natalie said:

Personally I really don't think minor spelling and grammar errors are a problem, sometimes I've read where people would accidentally leave a letter out like for instance "lettr" - its not a big deal at all really cause you can still grasp the word and what was intended.

But, stuff like that would/did bother me. If I ever saw anything like that it would just prove to me that the writer did not go over his script well enough. Daz did good, for the most part.



Sorry to criticise formatting, everybody. I really didn't know that it was as big of an issue here. But as I said before, the story was good. Quite good.

[Dale]

Aug 5, 2009 15:20:55 GMT -5 @jomo said:

Aug 5, 2009 10:04:07 GMT -5 Dale said:

i gotta say, i think you're a little hung up on formatting. and most screenplays here have used the "CUT TO:" or just mention "cut to" in action descriptions. remember i'm not writing this as an "actual" script. if i were i wouldn't use all the "cut to"'s etc. but seeing as this isn't just a guide to something that will one day be put on film, i prefer to use them. we don't have the liberty of seeing on camera that a scene ends or changes, so just so the quick readers or whatever know without a doubt that's where it cuts. plus i'm kind of ocd with consistency and i had a few moments like when the camera dies that i use cut to black etc. and they just looked weird to me unless i had been doing the "cut to:"'s all along.

also, the first 1 and a half pages where pretty clear to me. it says "black screen" they talk about a lens cap being off the camera" it says the lens cap is popped off and then there's a fade in a scene heading. I mean you can't get clearer than that in my opinion.

you have a fair point with the (O.S) stuff and that was my biggest concern. but the simple answer is, when (O.S) was after someone's name, their character was supposed to be filming what was going on. ed was the camera guy, simon was the interviewer.

why would i describe a character and their personality in the introduction? i've always hated this about screenwriting. it takes the point of writing away from me? why tell someone who someone else when the story/script whatever is gonna do that for you? i think the earlier scenes with amanda sufficiently show who she is, the opening scene show the type of people jack, simon and ed are.

and i thought it was pretty clear how long scenes took place after the previous one. i mean sometimes it was even mentioned with the "we're on day..." and also after the opening scene you have simon say "after yesterday". it's not a story that moves back and forward through time, that has flashbacks. it's not something you have to think about terribly because it's always going forward. seems like a minor quibble. and i used "later" if it was in the same day "continuous" if it were following on directly from the last scene. again, no idea what else i could have done other than throw a little 24 clock up there like i did with brunch. and the talking head scene headings were taken from the office scripts, and if it's good enough for ricky gervais, it's good enough for me.

i think formatting is such a minor thing here, some people don't even use it, some people have their own intepretation of it. unless the formatting is particularly jarring, like in (and i don't mean to pick on him because i love the movie but --) blacksuit's an amazing spider-man it's something that is rarely commented on.

anyways, thanks for the review, taking the time to read it in the first place and the compliments on the story aspect.

The reason people use it in action scripts is to show a fast transition, like I said before. But this is not an action script. Normally, a descriptive Scene Heading will suffice.

I understood the lens caps being on and the screen being black, my issue was the inconsistent use of (O.S.). I don't know, but I did have problems reading it because when you didn't use (O.S.) I had to go back and read to see if I had missed something about if a character was onscreen and only one character was offscreen, not two. You used (O.S.) fine after that, I definitely understood who was onscreen and who was off.

Character descriptions, normally it's the character name, followed by parenthesis with age, then brief description of physicality. It helps create an image for the reader, but it's primary use is for the studio to be aware what actor/actress to pick for the role. Just a suggestion. But you said you had no intent to sell this as a real script, which I was not aware of.

Like I said before, some of the Scene Headings did not inform the reader enough. For example, at the end of page 9, there is no reference to how long the scene takes place after the scene before that. Not in the Scene Heading or dialogue.

I think you did a good job formatting your script, you followed your own basic criteria. I will never criticize anybody for that, because everybody has their own style. I just found some holes that caught me off guard.

Aug 5, 2009 10:11:25 GMT -5 Natalie said:

Personally I really don't think minor spelling and grammar errors are a problem, sometimes I've read where people would accidentally leave a letter out like for instance "lettr" - its not a big deal at all really cause you can still grasp the word and what was intended.

But, stuff like that would/did bother me. If I ever saw anything like that it would just prove to me that the writer did not go over his script well enough. Daz did good, for the most part.



Sorry to criticise formatting, everybody. I really didn't know that it was as big of an issue here. But as I said before, the story was good. Quite good.

Are you kidding with the scene heading stuff? seriously man? on page nine, in a line of dialouge, a few lines down from the fucking scene heading it says

"after yesterday"

why the fuck would i put it in the scene heading, when it's in the scene itself? it's information from the sake of information. it happens in the daytime, that's all you need to know at that point in time. because two lines later, and you'll know it's a day later. again, i have never seen a script that goes to such great lengths to tell you exactly how long a scene takes place after the previous one. i mean next time, now i know i must put exactly how much time has passed, to the hour, minute, second, millisecond in the scene heading. seriously, this is one of the most retarded pieces of criticisms i have ever heard.

the others, bar the commas i could deal with. and definitely see where you're coming from. i know cut to isn't generally used in real films, and i know what you're getting at with the o.s thing - it's because i changed the character name at the last minute and the o.s thing got wiped out. it's corrected in the last thing i wrote, but clearly i uploaded the pdf of the time before that but the scene headings are fucking fine.

and i'm sorry, if i read this through so many fucking times i missed the odd spelling mistake or missed an o in too. but when you feeling apathetic towards something, it's hard to trawl through it over and over and over. and besides, i'm not trying to sell it (if i were, i'd get ten people to check it over and find things i missed and i sure as hell wouldn't post it on the internet) so it seems like an irrelevant issue to me.

[Dale]

just want to say, sorry to get so angry over this. but the criticism seems to nit picky i'm just sitting here thinking - just fucking comment on the damn story instead of getting all technical with the way it's formatted.

[jomo]

Aug 5, 2009 15:56:52 GMT -5 Dale said:

Aug 5, 2009 15:20:55 GMT -5 @jomo said:

The reason people use it in action scripts is to show a fast transition, like I said before. But this is not an action script. Normally, a descriptive Scene Heading will suffice.

I understood the lens caps being on and the screen being black, my issue was the inconsistent use of (O.S.). I don't know, but I did have problems reading it because when you didn't use (O.S.) I had to go back and read to see if I had missed something about if a character was onscreen and only one character was offscreen, not two. You used (O.S.) fine after that, I definitely understood who was onscreen and who was off.

Character descriptions, normally it's the character name, followed by parenthesis with age, then brief description of physicality. It helps create an image for the reader, but it's primary use is for the studio to be aware what actor/actress to pick for the role. Just a suggestion. But you said you had no intent to sell this as a real script, which I was not aware of.

Like I said before, some of the Scene Headings did not inform the reader enough. For example, at the end of page 9, there is no reference to how long the scene takes place after the scene before that. Not in the Scene Heading or dialogue.

I think you did a good job formatting your script, you followed your own basic criteria. I will never criticize anybody for that, because everybody has their own style. I just found some holes that caught me off guard.



But, stuff like that would/did bother me. If I ever saw anything like that it would just prove to me that the writer did not go over his script well enough. Daz did good, for the most part.



Sorry to criticise formatting, everybody. I really didn't know that it was as big of an issue here. But as I said before, the story was good. Quite good.

Are you kidding with the scene heading stuff? seriously man? on page nine, in a line of dialouge, a few lines down from the fucking scene heading it says

"after yesterday"

why the fuck would i put it in the scene heading, when it's in the scene itself? it's information from the sake of information. it happens in the daytime, that's all you need to know at that point in time. because two lines later, and you'll know it's a day later. again, i have never seen a script that goes to such great lengths to tell you exactly how long a scene takes place after the previous one. i mean next time, now i know i must put exactly how much time has passed, to the hour, minute, second, millisecond in the scene heading. seriously, this is one of the most retarded pieces of criticisms i have ever heard.

It is how things work. It is impossible for you to think that in a screenplay something like that would be acceptable. That's what Scene Headings are for, to establish the scene. If they weren't there to establish the scene, they would not exist. It just does not work in dialogue. That 'After Yesterday' was not the Scene Heading I was talking about, I was talking about the new scene at the end of page nine that ends on page eleven.

I did comment on the story, I liked it. But what was outstanding to me was the formatting mistakes.

I tried to give you constructive criticism, sorry if you took it the wrong way...

[Natalie]

I can't be arsed quoting and replying to all that, but Jomo, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt because you're relatively new, but thats not how things work around here, hell I'd hate to see your review if you read one of Xplays scripts, he's terrible with spelling, but we don't critisise (much) just comment on the friggin film, not the petty little mistakes.

It's not Hollywood, stop taking it so seriously.

Also Daz never sleeps he writes at like 3am, he's bound to be fucking tired and make a mistake or two, but it generally doesn't bother anyone because its completely irrelevant.

[Natalie]

Aug 5, 2009 16:26:01 GMT -5 @jomo said:

It is how things work. It is impossible for you to think that in a screenplay something like that would be acceptable. That's what Scene Headings are for, to establish the scene. If they weren't there to establish the scene, they would not exist. It just does not work in dialogue. That 'After Yesterday' was not the Scene Heading I was talking about, I was talking about the new scene at the end of page nine that ends on page eleven.

I did comment on the story, I liked it. But what was outstanding to me was the formatting mistakes.

I tried to give you constructive criticism, sorry if you took it the wrong way...

A few people on here make spelling errors, have different ways of writing, if he wants to do it that way, then it shouldn't bother you.
It's not constructive critisism if you're just nit picking at all whats wrong with it.

You're talking to him like he's 15 and he's never wrote before, just give up, nobody else cares about that stuff.

[jomo]

Aug 5, 2009 16:27:17 GMT -5 Natalie said:

It's not Hollywood, stop taking it so seriously.

Also Daz never sleeps he writes at like 3am, he's bound to be fucking tired and make a mistake or two, but it generally doesn't bother anyone because its completely irrelevant.

I'm trying not to, really.

I'm involved with alot of other sites that criticize scripts to the core, but for the good of the person. I did not mean to offend anybody here and all I mean was to help Daz become a better writer, he is not a bad writer, EVERYBODY could be better at anything they do.

Aug 5, 2009 16:30:23 GMT -5 Natalie said:

Aug 5, 2009 16:26:01 GMT -5 @jomo said:

It is how things work. It is impossible for you to think that in a screenplay something like that would be acceptable. That's what Scene Headings are for, to establish the scene. If they weren't there to establish the scene, they would not exist. It just does not work in dialogue. That 'After Yesterday' was not the Scene Heading I was talking about, I was talking about the new scene at the end of page nine that ends on page eleven.

I did comment on the story, I liked it. But what was outstanding to me was the formatting mistakes.

I tried to give you constructive criticism, sorry if you took it the wrong way...

It's not constructive critisism if you're just nit picking at all whats wrong with it.

Yes, it is constructive criticism. I gave him examples on how he could work on improving. That is exactly what constructive criticism is.

[Dale]

Aug 5, 2009 16:26:01 GMT -5 @jomo said:

Aug 5, 2009 15:56:52 GMT -5 Dale said:

Are you kidding with the scene heading stuff? seriously man? on page nine, in a line of dialouge, a few lines down from the fucking scene heading it says

"after yesterday"

why the fuck would i put it in the scene heading, when it's in the scene itself? it's information from the sake of information. it happens in the daytime, that's all you need to know at that point in time. because two lines later, and you'll know it's a day later. again, i have never seen a script that goes to such great lengths to tell you exactly how long a scene takes place after the previous one. i mean next time, now i know i must put exactly how much time has passed, to the hour, minute, second, millisecond in the scene heading. seriously, this is one of the most retarded pieces of criticisms i have ever heard.

It is how things work. It is impossible for you to think that in a screenplay something like that would be acceptable. That's what Scene Headings are for, to establish the scene. If they weren't there to establish the scene, they would not exist. It just does not work in dialogue. That 'After Yesterday' was not the Scene Heading I was talking about, I was talking about the new scene at the end of page nine that ends on page eleven.

I did comment on the story, I liked it. But what was outstanding to me was the formatting mistakes.

I tried to give you constructive criticism, sorry if you took it the wrong way...

my scene headings are by the book man. they give all the information you need. i know what they are for, because i'm not a fucking idiot. the fact you actually felt the need to describe it to me makes you seem like a condescending prick.

"INT. JACK’S APARTMENT SET - DAY"

sets the scene fine in my book. It's irrelevant, exactly how long exactly it is after the previous scene. It's not related to the previous scene, it doesn't directly follow on, or i would have used "continuous" and if it was relevant to the events of the previous scene i would have used "later" it doesn't so i didn't. in no screenplay ... unless the time difference was relevant to the plot would they say "1 day later"

the criticism is far from constructive. it's literally listing things that are wrong to the point where they seem nit picky. and then off hand saying "oh, and the story was good". well how about you tell me what was good apart the script, what worked, what didn't. instead of just listing a bunch of technical flaws that imo, are either irrelevant or not entirely flaws to begin with.

[jomo]

Okay, I'm done arguing. This is going nowhere.

If you really want to continue this, please PM me.

Not everybody is going to like everybody's scripts. I know that's how things around here work, but I thought there was nothing wrong with what I said. I tried to be informative and straight forward without getting out of line or offending Daz.

I didn't think I was too out of line to point out faults, and I know if somebody didn't like my work, I wouldn't whine or curse.

[Dale]

i'm sorry, i'm just absolutely not seeing what you expect out of a scene heading. i know people aren't going to like everything. but at least most people will make their mind up based on the actual content not the way it's laid out.

the typos, sure i can deal with. i know i'm making them, i am aware of this and quite frankly i was apathetic to making of and couldn't be fucked to read it through that one last time.

i know what the o.s thing at the start was about. again, fine with that.

but the scene heading thing is just baffling to me.