descriptions

[ajq32]

Ive read that having some pretty detailed descriptions can really help a movie, and in a lot of scripts ive read theres alot of unnecessary description like in tarantinos kill bill he describes an entire collection of civil war plates on a dresser but that scene lasts half a second and you never even see the plates...ive also read and gotten comments on my work that you dont want to be too descriptive and that delving into too much detail of other things can draw attention away from the dialogue and main story idea, so my question is how descriptive is too descriptive? Does it just depend on the story your telling and whos writing it? Does each person vary in this and it works out good for them or is there some sort of guide line? Thanks for any help.
:snoopy:
*eternal sunshine of the spotless mind...good movie eh? ya eh*

[nielsty]

You can't compare your script with Kill Bill - remember that it was sold before the first description was even written! Tarantino can do what he wants because he's only writing for himself to direct and the industry already believes in him.

I don't like when things get too descriptive myself - the descriptions tend to steal pages from my plot so I keep it at a minimum if it's not relevant for the story.

I also think that it was [Redacted--JDM] from Site link removed per request of other site's Webmaster who said that sometimes the people who have to read all the scripts skip the descriptions and only read the dialogue if they are under time pressure.

Just my own opinion - I have been wrong in the past and probably will be again in the future :-}

[squalid]

Sir, it's not called description, it's called Action. In my opinion, a description as short as possibe (a few words) and only to create the atmosphere for the action of the scene.
---------------------------------------
Int. - Cafe - Afternoon - Establishing

Ron slams his fist onto the paper coffee cup and cigarette littered table. A cigarette butt rockets into Jim's face.
--------------------------------------------
To me, at any rate this description gives of the kind of cafe Jim and Ron are in while giving the action of the scene.

Tanantino can do write however he likes because he's established. That doesn't mean he can direct or write.

[razormoney]

Is to be as descriptive as possible in the fewest words as possible. It also helps to be creative. One of the characters in "Courage Under Fire" is described as a "bureaucratic Hitler." This small two-word phrase creates an unmistakable image in a reader's head. Each reader might conjure up a different vision, but the words force an image nonetheless.

I can't remember the script, but I also read another great character description -- "Rock and roll rebel." Again, four words that conjure up an image. The cool thing is it says nothing about height, hair color, or even race. Opens up the potential part to any actor who can pull off the "attitude" of the character.

I've really tried lately to encapsulate my characters with more "big picture" descriptions rather than physical description minutia. However, I do include physical descriptions if they relate to the plot somehow. For instance, a beanpole of a man would not be able to hang one-armed from the edge of a cliff. Might want to allude to the superior physique of your hero before such an event.

One description I use recently, which I thought was witty read like this:

Short, dark and handsome. A Meatloaf -- "cause two out of three ain't bad."

At least I thought it was clever. Although the "Meatloaf" line will never translate to the screen (and some of you younger folk may not even get the reference) it is something that will stick with the reader. Figured it might reinforce whatever picture a might pop in a reader's head. Some will debate that if it can't go on the screen don't write it. Personally, I think a few SMALL "winks" to the reader are OK. Worked well for Shane Black. And while I can only hope to be 1/10th the writer he is, it never hurts to emulate success.

R

[RainbowDragon]

I began writing a lot of description only to receive coverage that my script read too much like a novel. So I changed it to action, which means include details but instead of having a bookshelf with 25 copies of Moby Dick, have the main character run his finger along the shelf over 25 adjacent copies of Moby Dick. But only if the detail says something about the character that's important for the reader (who is your first audience, and maybe your last) to understand, or furthers the story in some way. . .there are people who specialize in set design, makeup, costuming, etc. who will fill in the gaps, so just bring out what is essential and leave the superfluous stuff for the producer to lose sleep over, if your script is one of the lucky ones to be optioned and/or produced.

[mommyjo2]

Use description to set the scene and reveal character. Include minutiae only if it is relevant. Noting that "Anna sips coffee from a red ceramic mug" only matters if the "red ceramic" is an important clue later... it ties her to the missing potter who only used Indian clay; or her dead husband is found in the backyard with a shard of red ceramic embedded in his skull and his wife is missing...
Or, tells something about the character. "She sips coffee delicately from a chipped Blue Willow tea cup"... and she's a pioneer woman, burly arms and a sunburned face, living in a log cabin with 5 men who chop trees for a living- or is a prostitute in Deadwood, or even waiting for her tires to be ready at the Big O and brought her own peice of gentility with her because she thinks styrofoam gives you cancer.

In general, say as much as you can in as few words as you can.

[Goodwriterguy]

Is to be as descriptive as possible in the fewest words as possible. It also helps to be creative. One of the characters in "Courage Under Fire" is described as a "bureaucratic Hitler." This small two-word phrase creates an unmistakable image in a reader's head. Each reader might conjure up a different vision, but the words force an image nonetheless.

I can't remember the script, but I also read another great character description -- "Rock and roll rebel." Again, four words that conjure up an image. The cool thing is it says nothing about height, hair color, or even race. Opens up the potential part to any actor who can pull off the "attitude" of the character.

I've really tried lately to encapsulate my characters with more "big picture" descriptions rather than physical description minutia. However, I do include physical descriptions if they relate to the plot somehow. For instance, a beanpole of a man would not be able to hang one-armed from the edge of a cliff. Might want to allude to the superior physique of your hero before such an event.

One description I use recently, which I thought was witty read like this:

Short, dark and handsome. A Meatloaf -- "cause two out of three ain't bad."

At least I thought it was clever. Although the "Meatloaf" line will never translate to the screen (and some of you younger folk may not even get the reference) it is something that will stick with the reader. Figured it might reinforce whatever picture a might pop in a reader's head. Some will debate that if it can't go on the screen don't write it. Personally, I think a few SMALL "winks" to the reader are OK. Worked well for Shane Black. And while I can only hope to be 1/10th the writer he is, it never hurts to emulate success.

R
Good stuff!

But character intros are asides to your narrative, not part of it per se. As such they do not have to comport with present tense or the "show don't tell" dictums of narrative (or "action" if one prefers).

I always liked this one, "Rock and roll arsonist."

Character descriptions in their introductory paragraphs are best fleshed out when the script is finished, because then you know exactly what salient features of them are important to the story. I usually just throw something in there in a first draft and come back to them when I've got the piece about finished and buff them out, and never include physical errata unless it happens to pertain in some key way to the story, a character has a limp or something, or stutters for example and these attributes have a play. Mainly what we want to do is convey the character's personality traits and attitude or psychological posture.

Narrative ... a different animal, present tense, highly economic, and punchy, filled with energetic verbs and colorful words, and never more than four lines in a paragraph and better of two lines or one.

I always conceive of action paragraphs as describing shots, not always entirely possible but more than one might think at first glance. On average, movies cut every five to eight seconds, just about the time it takes to read a two or three line paragraph. Hence if your action is composed in short, hard hitting paragraphs it begins to read like a movie looks.

It has taken me some years to hone my action writing down, a skill one probably can't acquire overnight. It takes a lot of practice, which means writing three or four or five or six screenplays. Maybe by your sixth it will start to fall into place. I think it is the heart of the art, well, beyond crafting a great story at any rate.

Reading screenplays is probably the best instruction, and emulating the best of them. Word choice and phrasing are crucial.

One mistake I often see involves repetition of things in a scene caption in the first paragraph of narative, for example:

INT JOE'S BAR - NIGHT

Joe's bar is filled with a raucous crowd of ...

Don't make your reader read "Joe's bar" twice in succession. The caption tells us where we are.

One can also conflate detailed descriptions of actions into fewer words that capture the essence of what's going on. Readers can fill in the blanks.

So instead of:

Billy opens the door and gets out of the car.

one can write

Billy gets out of the car.

Does Billy open the door? Of course he does, assuming it's closed in the first place. Do we have to include that step in his action? No.

An action block or paragraph desribes what WE are seeing on the screen in that beat, it changes with our next paragraph and again with the one that follows, and so on.

Enjoy! :)

[clockwork]

Ive read that having some pretty detailed descriptions can really help a movie, and in a lot of scripts ive read theres alot of unnecessary description like in tarantinos kill bill he describes an entire collection of civil war plates on a dresser but that scene lasts half a second and you never even see the plates...ive also read and gotten comments on my work that you dont want to be too descriptive and that delving into too much detail of other things can draw attention away from the dialogue and main story idea, so my question is how descriptive is too descriptive? Does it just depend on the story your telling and whos writing it? Does each person vary in this and it works out good for them or is there some sort of guide line? Thanks for any help.
:snoopy:
*eternal sunshine of the spotless mind...good movie eh? ya eh*

Good stuff mentioned so far. My only advice would be; yes, ensure your descriptions are brief but work hard on making them interesting. It's entirely possible to lose your unique voice if you try too hard to be efficient.

[Goodwriterguy]

Good stuff mentioned so far. My only advice would be; yes, ensure your descriptions are brief but work hard on making them interesting. It's entirely possible to lose your unique voice if you try too hard to be efficient.
Absolutely! :)

[clockwork]

Absolutely! :)

I know this because it happened to me. My agent said I'm one the most deadly efficient writers he's met. He said screenwriting is completely intuitive to me.

I was like, "OK, great. That's awesome."

He goes, "Uh... not so much. You're losing your voice."

Eek! Fortunately I'm in the processing of correcting this. Man, it's been hard trying to bend some of these rules I used to so adamant about.

[Write_At_1st_Light]

Ive read that having some pretty detailed descriptions can really help a movie, and in a lot of scripts ive read theres alot of unnecessary description like in tarantinos kill bill he describes an entire collection of civil war plates on a dresser but that scene lasts half a second and you never even see the plates...ive also read and gotten comments on my work that you dont want to be too descriptive and that delving into too much detail of other things can draw attention away from the dialogue and main story idea, so my question is how descriptive is too descriptive? Does it just depend on the story your telling and whos writing it? Does each person vary in this and it works out good for them or is there some sort of guide line? Thanks for any help.
:snoopy:
*eternal sunshine of the spotless mind...good movie eh? ya eh*
Hi AJQ -

I don't think there really are hard and fast rules - I think your story and characters will just naturally drive your description, your way of laying out action. Within the same script, it will fluctuate between scenes. Take de Palma's Dressed To Kill, for example. There is - if you can believe it - a 20-minute segment in that flick with NO dialogue. That's the museum scene, and on through the murder. So you know that was just page after page of nothing but description / action.

This is kind of like all the emphasis on the 3 acts that you are supposed to conform to. Can get some writers spooked before they even start. Forget about the 3 acts initially. If you have a good story and are skilled at laying it out - the 3 acts will simply appear. You can adjust them later in rewrite - but they'll be there all by themselves. If your story is good drama and you've told it effectively.

Polishing and rewrite is where you can pare down or ratchet up the action where needed. If you need to be overly descriptive when laying out that first draft? Go for it.

[Mike The Mover]

I've heard that you should try and use action as much as dialog. This is because movies are a visual medium, and characters doing nothing but talking do not make use of the visual aspect of film.

I have read a lot of screenplays where the writer adds information that never appeared in the movie. Stuff like what kind of books are on the shelf. I think this should be avoided.

[razormoney]

Good stuff!

But character intros are asides to your narrative, not part of it per se. As such they do not have to comport with present tense or the "show don't tell" dictums of narrative (or "action" if one prefers).

I always liked this one, "Rock and roll arsonist."



GWG, that's the description I was getting at! Don't know how I got "rebel" confused with "arsonist." Wasn't that from "Body Heat?"

R

[dpaterso]

I confess I never got "rock'n roll arsonist" -- he sets fire to rock and roll? Yeah yeah, he's a professional arsonist... and he likes rock'n'roll... but they don't really seem to go together, do they?

INT. TEDDY LAURSEN'S WORKSHOP - NIGHT

TEDDY LAURSEN, rock'n roll arsonist, is keeping the beat
and mouthing the words along with the Bruce Springsteen
tape on his workbench. Teddy is in his mid-twenties,
dressed in a black T-shirt and jeans. His arson workshop
is located in the basement of an old building. All around
him are the tools and supplies of his trade: wire, rope,
cans, vises, alarm clocks, chemical containers, and a
huge assortment of mechanical implements. He keeps all
his small accessories in dozens of cigar boxes, unlabeled.

From Lawrence Kasdan's Body Heat (http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Body-Heat.html)

-Derek
My Web Page - sci-fi, fantasy, horror, cyborgs, AIs, dragons, vampyres. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)
I once fought two days with an arrow through my testicle.

[icerose]

I write enough description to give a feel for the location and the mood, and that's it. I try to keep it sparing, leaving a quick pacing for reading.

[ajq32]

thank you guys for all the help, i appreciate it, i love this board you guys always have such good advice! thanks again