Screenwriting : Breaking Screenwriting Rules. by Jorge J Prieto

No rules, just tools - and the problem is that many new writers have no idea how to use the tools correctly, and their scripts suck. Learn how to use the tools.

Screenwriters normally love it when you tell them it is okay for them to break the so-called rules for writing a spec screenplays. Since nobody is paying them they can do whatever they want. However when you do break rules you are reducing your chances of being successful. If someone wants to break them they should probably wait until after they have had some success.

Your post was very interesting about Les Cowboys, but I won't make my final comment until I've watched the film. (At this moment don't know if the artistic choices are audience friendly). With regards the non clear ellipses and having to study each frame as you view,this walks a tight thread of, will we really get it? And even if we do get it, have we enjoyed the ride? Don't get me wrong, I love the out of the box layouts of non linear films , but occasionally second guessing becomes a CHORE.. It's also frustrating investing time in a film, enjoying it , then suddenly it goes off on a tangent thats a bitter void to the previous build up. It all depends on the film. Pulp Fictions a great example. I think the early films that stand out as written/laid out different include Sunset Boulevard. The narrator is already dead and tells his story step by step, led up to being shot. Great comment @William No Rules, Just Tools! @Dan I agree, writers need to eat. Happy Friday All.

Well, I break the "rules" with reckless abandon! ....Okay, not recklessly. I'm joking, of course. But personally I don't consider them "rules" in the first place. As William wisely reminds us, these are tools and/or devices at the writer's discretion to use, not hard "rules." And tools certainly work much better when used correctly. So it is wise to fully understand them and be able to utilize them with practiced skill. As far as general screenwriting "rules," I prefer to consider them as well-practiced, well-known "guidelines"—information or passed along knowledge that should be very much considered when writing a script. There are industry expectations—Dan's cautionary warning. ;) But there's certainly no reason to limit yourself. Know these "guidelines," study the craft, learn to use writing tools well, and write the best possible script you can write. :) Have a great weekend everyone! Cheers!

Oh, Jorge, thanks for posting this article. I'm now curious about this film and will check it out. I'm always interested in different storytelling approaches. ;)

Rules? What rules - Screenwriting ain't got no stinkin' rules!

First off Doug, Blazing Saddles and Mel Brooks in his entirety fkin reign supreme. I personally do break the"rules" with quite reckless abandon, that is what the greats do, not that I am one, yet, but I am having a blast doing it, writing my first FL SP and corresponding with great creative's like yourselves. Beth, you denied my initial network request I do believe, I wish you would reconsider, if not then oil well. Jorge, up to a point there are no rules but we have to conform on some level unless your last name is Scorsese or Kubrick.

Thanks BETH. Adam: Of course, absolutely. I personally only break the rules when it comes to the subject matter. Many of my stories are dark, violent, disturbing, but is no secret to most here, that I have overcome some crazy, disturbing shit as a child and as a teenager, adult as well. When I write I don't know how to censor myself and every character is a part of me. Good, evil, child, adult, female, male, rapists, child rapist, all are a part of me, as crazy as it sounds is through emotions that I connect and hope to connect my audience/reader to my stories. NO, my last name doesn't even come close to Scorsese or Kubrick. I gotta say the first one, my favorite filmmaker /storyteller, because that is essentially what Scorsese is.

Scorsese is the absolute legend I will perpetuate that until the end of time, keep going Jorge you just need to work on your formatting, as do I, you are a gifted writer bro.

Nope, Adam, I did not deny your network request—I just checked. So, not sure what happened on your end. Anyhoo, I'll send you a request. How's that? ;)

Thanks Adam. Your words mean alot, buddy, especially since we just met. I'm here for you, brother.

This subject has been debated for decades and nobody really knows what is going to work for anyone. I followed the rules for formatting because I thought doing so would give me my best chance which is why I tell people that are trying to break in to follow the rules. If someone decides to break them once in a while I am sure that isn't going to hurt their chance. If someone breaks them a lot then I feel it could hurt their chances because the person reading their script might think that they don't know the business or how to write for it. Screenwriters have to do what they think will give them their best chance and hope for the best.

Bad comparison. The person in the article is a filmmaker. He writes and directs. He s got $$$$. He has no rules other than paying back his Investors, selling the movie, building his brand. Listen to Mr Martell and DanG. Most Writers on Stage32 dont have Agents or real feature film experience (big egos, politics, big stress). Your audience are Readers, indie Producers, Agents, Contests. Forget about Red Carpet, Actors, directors, exotic locations, etc. That is another script, the rewrite script when $$$$ is exchanged.

Dan M, the writer/filmmaker still has to please an audience, yes? The audience also has expectations, does it not?—the "rules," per se. Yes, in the Indie world many writers do produce and/or direct as well, but they too face high risk, much difficulty and industry "rules" and critic scrutiny, do they not? And, yes, I couldn't agree more; we are extremely fortunate to have William Martell, Dan Guardino, Regina Lee, Laurie Ashbourne, and many others who are very generous in sharing their professional knowledge and experience with the community—I know I have learned much from each of them! And in defense of those of us who don't have agents or may not have "real feature film experience," that doesn't mean we don't have much to offer. Plus each person can decide for themselves what works best for them. And just to clarify, when I throw out my personal interpretation or point of view about the "rules" or rather the "guidelines," I'm not talking about formatting. Formatting is formatting. Of course one should know it! Practice professionalism. A music composer should know how to use notes, bars, beats, keys, should they not? I'm more concerned about the larger, creative concepts and issues. :)

To answer Jorge's question about what rules I've broken....hmmm.....I don't think I've ever broken a "rule"...or "tool"...or whatever you want to call them. I couldn't imagine writing a script like The Cowboys where the genre kinda shifts, or where the protagonist kinda shifts, as explained in the article. More power to them, though, and I hope The Cowboys does very well.

From what I've learned so far, the most important 'rule' in writing screenplays as opposed to novels, is screenplays are written mostly in the 'active' voice.

Beth switching genres in a script ,changing POVs, TIME SHIFTS, slow developing arcs, 3 hour scripts (150++pages)- all that will turn off your first audience, the Reader. Thomas Bidegain can break rules; he's 3 or 4 movies deep in experience, with an Oscar nominated movie to show People that he knows what he is doing. He can 'experiment.' And he's French :)

Dan M, have you even seen this film or read this particular script? It got some pretty good reviews. And I am well aware of the "risks" taken with this film. I am well aware of reader preferences—they are one of the very reasons we have these "rules." And to be perfectly clear, I'm not talking about nor promoting "reinventing the wheel"—not at all! I only wish to encourage writers to write the best possible script they can write. Others do the same for me. :) Plus judges/readers/execs will tell you that it's often a unique take or original voice that helps a script rise to the top of the pile and draw attention. So it's rather striking that balance, is it not? Perhaps I have a different outlook or philosophy about the craft than you—which is totally cool. Cheers! :)

Al – spot on! As one of those dreaded readers, I can attest to that. It's hard to stay on story when I'm stumbling over passive voice writing, words ending in “ing”, adverbs (find a stronger verb), great blocks of rambling exposition... LEARN TO WRITE TIGHT!

Beth – you're absolutely correct about not reinventing the wheel but I wish you'd stop talking about “rules” 'cause we ain't got no RULES. Screenwriting is historically steeped in long standing custom and tradition that is constantly undergoing gradual evolution. We each develop a unique style that shows thru in our writing (mine is extremely sparse). And it's our unique voice that catches the reader's eye so that s/he is willing to invest the time following along your story path.

(Slaps forehead) You do realize I'm in agreement with you, Doug. And often I find myself in opposition with those who keep perpetuating this notion, LOL! I'm actually against the use of... well, you know the word. Hell, I wish we could strike it from screenwriting vocabulary. Haha! Anyhoo, I'm done. ;)

Formatting rules and styles are two completely different things. Scene Headings, action blocks, ALL CAPPING characters names when they first appear on film, character cues, VO are all formatting rules. To tell new screenwriters there are no rules is BS. If they don't want to follow these kind of rules and just write for readers they should go write novels because nobody is going to hire them to write screenplays Almost every movie that gets made got made because someone hired a screenwriter to write it. If someone wants to try and make a living writing specs and not following any formatting rules they better have a back up plan in place because they are going to need one.

Dan G, just speaking for myself, I was talking in generalizations and not referring to standard formatting practices. No disrespect intended about working in the industry nor about professionalism. :) My issue (as an aspiring screenwriter) is with that word; it's rather damaging, in my humble opinion. Plus these kinds of discussions tend to go around and around in circles because of differences in personal interpretations, word use/meanings, etc. Anyway, I stepped out of this minefield. Lol! And I think I'll refrain from commenting in the future with similar topic posts. Best to you all! I hope everyone is having a wonderful holiday weekend. :)

Here are just five written-in-granite rules of story that any writer should understand. 1. Wooden or on-the-nose dialogue will weaken and probably doom a story, and make a producer say "pass." 2. Predictable action will weaken and probably doom a story, and make a producer say "pass." 3. Implausible story logic will weaken and probably doom a story, and make a producer say "pass." 4. A complication-free plot will weaken and probably doom a story, and make a producer say "pass." 5. Straying too far with super-extended sub-plots from the protagonist's main external goal that is the premise of a story will weaken and probably doom a story, and make a producer say "pass". I know that some people believe there are no rules to drama, but I respectfully disagree. I really won't believe, though, if any of you disagree with any one of these five basic rules of story and try to spin it into a "matter of semantics" or some other method of avoidance or subterfuge. And I say that with no disrespect intended. And this isn't about believing something like "but I must follow Save the Cat to the T or my story will stink!", or "my story doesn't have Truby's opponent/mystery step in Act I - I'm doomed!" This is about knowing the fundamentals of writing drama, and being able to utilize those fundamentals in intelligent, entertaining and evocative ways. Doug - just out of curiosity....what is this "long-standing custom and tradition" that you speak of? Sounds like city-slicker words for...ahem-ahem...rules. (And there's nothing "unique" about an "extremely sparse" style - that's pretty common in professional writing, actually.) And no disrespect intended, Doug....I'm just commenting on the statements and beliefs that you stated.

Dan, I think Beth hit the nail on the head. The new screenwriter is faced with an overwhelming task up front. I'm sure you know the traditional script formatting guidelines, Beth does, I do and so do many others but the new screenwriter does not. That's where the confusion stems from. We talk about structure and format of the script and of the story and we understand – the new screenwriter does not. S/he's instructed to follow the “rules”. There are rules in football, baseball, tennis, driving and all sorts of activities – and they're written somewhere, you can find 'em. But unless you can show me where the book of screenwriting rules can be found; I'm stickin' to my mantra. THERE AIN'T NO SCREENWRITING RULES but there are some long standing customs and traditions and if you wish to be a professional screenwriter – I suggest you go with the flow.

Doug. I think maybe she is right about using the word. I am not sure why you would tell me "if you wish to be a professional screenwriter – I suggest you go with the flow" though.

I think all has been stated in this eclectic thread! No rules per say, (apart from obvious formatting) but as @Bill points out, no matter what is written, it needs to be in a bullshit free zone. Happy Sunday All!

Bill – you've chiseled five story rules in stone, each of which will likely garner a “pass” and there are many more - excessive exposition will get a “pass”. When you speak about the “rules” of drama – my personal take is that drama is nothing more than a story of life with all the dull parts left out. That's not a “rule”; it's my opinion. Unfortunately I've known a few “screenwriters” who have a copy of Blake's beat sheet posted on a wall or use one of those “story development” software programs (Contour comes to mind, among several others) and then wonder why the notes they receive often say that their story is too predictable, dull and populated by card board characters. “How can this be, I followed the rules?” Lets look at one of these long-standing customs and traditions: “Your script must be printed in Courier 12 point type.” Really sort of pointless in today's world – but I suggest if you want your script read that you conform to the custom. I'm not talking about the $$ making deep-in-the-trenches professional screenwriters. I'm talking about the newbie who is flummoxed by terms such as structure, format or arc: they're looking for some simple “rules” and don't know where to buy the Big Book of Rules. They want training wheels, but you got to learn to ride without 'em.

Dan, I'm not talking to you “you”, I'm speaking to a whole tribe of new screenwriters.

Doug: You said, "Drama is nothing more than a story of life with all the dull parts left out." I heard this before, maybe it was said by Peter Russell, can't recall. You are right that is not a rule. Now, when it comes to "Rules" it depends who you listen to. I just finished listening to John Truby where he basically said, and I'm sure you would agree, that the three act structure does not work or even exist. That what you have is a beginning, middle and end. Act breaks are not organic and it all comes from theater, the 3 act fallacy. He went on to say, "the fault is not in your talents, but in the tools you use." Now, whether one agrees with Mr. Truby or not, that's another subject, for he is also pushing or reinforcing his own agenda to promote his very expensive story classes. My point is that new writers can go crazy with rules, the best thing for me is to master the basics, you all know what they are, they have been covered here by Dan G. was most important for me its a story idea and a character to whom I can't connect with, having high stakes for my character scene after scene in order to keep my readers hooked page after page and my audience watching minute by minute. Without these my screenplay is always going to struggle to engage my readers and it will definitely never see an audience in any platform. As it is, we all know the cards are stacked against us to begin with and these are for sure "rules" or numbers that don't lie. So what can we unrepresented screenwriters do to bit the odds? Here's where I agree with John Truby, who really kills my hopes every time listen to him, but he says, "You have to create your own brand, which they can't get anywhere else." Thanks again everyone for another smart, informative, non violent, respectful, well balanced(BETH thank YOU) great debate on the Stage 32 screenwriting lounges.

Jorge – I heard that from Hitch back in the 70's, Tom Sawyer (author/show runner of Murder She Wrote) repeats it often - it's been around for awhile. Even Syd Field has softened on his three-act-paradigm and I remember having a conversation with Blake over wine & cheese several years back over his beat sheet concept. So yes, screenwriting is evolving. In the “new age indie film world” story tends to flow along a BMOC pattern with with non-distinct organic act breaks here and there as needed. It's difficult right now as the old timer screenwriters hang on to what they know and are comfortable with while the new screenwriters are confused by all the cross talk. The evolving film making industry will eventually settle, so just go with the flow and don't get hung up on “rules”.

Doug. You keep confusing structure, style and now beat sheets with formatting. Those things have nothing to do with formatting. The original poster is talking about rules of formatting and you're talking about structure. If we talk about the same subject maybe we might actually agree with each other.

Dan – I'm not confused but I am pointing out that a lot of new filmmakers/writers are. We ought be careful in our use of language. As an example, I hate concept of “rules” applied to formatting or story structure – it sounds so righ-brained-absolute whereas filmmaking/writing are more left-brain activities.

By way, everyone here, have any of you read the content shared by RB in his Fridays weekly updates posting. There's an article that talks briefly of what we been debating or discussing here. Call serendipity or causality. But here's a link. It's a short read and it includes a video. It' analyzes the script, Gone Girl. http://gointothestory.blcklst.com/2016/06/video-3-screenwriting-tips-fro...

Just trying to create a balance here folks. I'm not taking sides. I do adhere to advice that makes sense to me and work for me as an untrained screenwriter who has read alot of material on screenwriting, read and continue to read multiple screenplays, including some from fellow screenwriters here and continue to learn more from many of you through discussions like this one and learn more of my voice/style as I continue writing and exploring different stories. Thank you all.

Doug. We are discussing oranges and apples here so I am not going to waste any more of my time on this and it really doesn't even apply to me anymore.

Great comments. :) I agree, the word “rules” is too absolute in meaning/tone, especially with something so infused with subjectivity as screenwriting. Okay, to add (sorry, LOL!) if I may… Here's why the word "rules" is damaging, or rather an unfortunate label—my two cents. And I’m going to borrow and/or paraphrase from Scriptnotes to better explain, so please bear with me. …I know, I know, semantics are soooooo annoying. But in this case I do think it matters. The word "rule" implies regulation, restriction, limits. And the world of rules is a world of following, not a world of discovery. Screenwriting "rules” create and imply standards so that screenwriters don’t keep making the “same old mistakes,” right? Which seems very logical given that readers read thousands of screenplays and continually see certain things that bother them or are associated with bad screenplays. So it's easy to just extrapolate and say, "don't do this, do this" and call it a "rule."  Here's the problem. There’s something called the triangular non-relationship in logic where something is correlated with something else but one is not causing the other, they are both caused by the same thing.  In this case, a bad screenplay correlating with "rule-breaking" doesn’t mean "rule-breaking" causes bad screenplay writing. It just means that oftentimes, people who are bad writers will also tend to do these things. And this correlation doesn’t quite work in the other direction. It doesn’t necessarily mean that people who write good screenplays don’t “break the rules.” A lot of good and/or professional writers often do. So “rule-breaking” does not necessarily equate to a bad screenplay. There’s a kind of pattern-matching that’s happening here. People are reading bad screenplays and they are recognizing the “rules being broken” and therefore they’re assuming that it’s because these rules are broken that the screenplay is bad. When in fact, it is a badly written screenplay and the cause is a person who is a bad writer—a bad writer who isn’t using tools correctly and is making poor choices, which results in a terrible piece of work.  Consider Bill's five "written-in-granite rules”; all are solid good ideas, knowledgable suggestions one should very much consider when writing a screenplay. But again here's the problem, you can tick all five numbered boxes, follow Bill's five "rules" and still end up with a bad screenplay. And this is why the label “rules” is damaging—it is too reductive. It sets up a false notion that screenwriting is some iron-clad, official, fixed list of do’s and don’ts. In truth, all these knowledgable, screenwriting good ideas and tools are far more complex and take much time and practice to fully understand, learn and utilize well for your own writing purposes. Plus they may not even apply or be an issue for a specific project or for someone's specific creative intent. This makes screenwriting seem like some algorithm—a handy-dandy system. Just follow these "rules" and you will write a good screenplay. This gives the sense that one should follow instead of learn to write well. Which is rather silly, because that’s just how some writing happens. That’s not necessarily how good writing happens. We all know it takes much much more; it takes a helluva lot of work, discovery, practiced skill, knowledge, talent and inspiration. Good writing has soul.    For a new writer trying to wrap her/his mind around all this overwhelming stuff, it’s very easy to latch onto “rules.” Rule-giving and rule-following is very enticing. It helps make quick sense of everything. But they also imply that there is nothing “mystical" or unique to writing, which is rather ironic because it is the intangible that people truly respond to, not orthodoxy. The intangible is what creates good writing—your unique voice, your ability, your craft. Now please understand I am NOT putting down, nor “condemning,” nor suggesting writers ignore screenwriting well-known practices, standard formatting, tools, tips, reader preferences, elements/theories of story, knowledgable suggestions, good ideas, professionalism, etc. Absolutely not! I’m only voicing concern and my personal annoyance about how all these great things are often labeled and framed. I do think semantics, in this case, matter. Anyhoo, if you would like to read the transcript from the Scriptnotes episode from which I borrowed to make the above points you can see it here: http://johnaugust.com/2015/scriptnotes-ep-186-the-rules-or-the-paradox-o.... :)

The great thing about writing spec screenplays is you can do whatever you want since nobody is paying you to write them.

Dan, perhaps actually read the transcript or listen to the podcast, if you have time. It's very insightful and fun. It's done by two working screenwriters who are paid for their work. Between them they have 4 decades of professional experience. Best to you! :)

Beth. I don't have time to read it. I was just making suggestions based on my own personal experience. Like I said people writing specs can do whatever their hearts desire and if they make money great and if not that is fine too.

Sure, Dan, of course. Very true. From different experiences comes different perspectives—thanks for sharing yours! Although, if you ever change your mind I think you'd probably enjoy the podcast. Their bit about self-titled, so-called "gurus" cracks me up—"Stranger danger! Just run away!" For those of us aspiring writers, John August and Scriptnotes is rather a beacon of reason, a great resource. Anyway, thanks again for all your contributions. Very much appreciated! Have a wonderful 4th of July! :)

Beth – I hope the various readers of this thread glean some incite into the complex screenwriting process and how it relates to both the creative & industrial side of the art/craft. You, Dan and I each have our own perspective based on where we are along the screenwriting arc – you're aspiring, Dan is still slogging in the trenches and I'm retired (been there, done that). It's only natural that we each have a unique POV. Enjoy the 4th.

Beth. Again I don't have time to read the entire transcript but I did skim the question and answers regarding the rules part. I have four project in various stages of production and have to write a treatment for one of them today if I want to get funded. Anyway the problem here has been interpretation. I was taught there are "formatting rules" which included the basics things you see in almost every screenplay like slug lines, character cues, shots, transitions, voice over, and how you use or don't use them in spec screenplays. When I started out I only read that section of the "how to book" I purchased and skipped the rest because I felt it was just a bunch of rambling BS which it probably was. As a result I never even heard about the "three act structure" until after I sold a couple of screenplays, got a WGA Agent and landed a job as Staff Writer. I never even heard of a beat sheet until a couple of years ago when a producer hired me to write a screenplay and said he wanted it structured like a studio type project because it was going to be a studio project so I decided to purchase the Save the Cat book and software program. I do agree with the what John said except I don't believe camera directions should go in a spec screenplay. Most of the other Q and A answers were addressing the things that gurus stick in their books and calling them rules which they aren't. Personally I never read how to books or even read articles about screenwriting because I don't want to what other people do because I like to write and do my own thing. The only rules I follow are the basic ones like scene heads etc., that you will see in every screenplay.

Great points, Dan and Doug! I couldn't agree more! Thank you again for sharing those different perspectives. This is why I love Stage 32! Best to you both!

Doug. I was thinking the same thing. Happy and a safe 4th of July to everyone here that is celebrating the 4th of July.

Just to share another perspective, perhaps it could be helpful to new and/or aspiring screenwriters... Out of curiosity, I talked to a pro (a producer/exec who often works with Happy Writers) and asked this person to share with me some quick thoughts regarding Bill's 5 "written-in-granite rules." Not to pick on Bill—not at all!!! LOL! Just to use his list as an example, as it relates and was listed within this thread discussion. While Bill's list can certainly be considered in general terms, the following also helps (just as an example) to show that "rules" may or may not be an issue for a specific story/media/genre and/or specific creative intent. That these "good suggestions" or "guidelines" really should be considered more specifically for each project and/or for one's specific creative intent. :) Anyway, this person gave me the "okay" to share, please see the response below: RULE 1: Wooden or on-the-nose dialogue will weaken and probably doom a story, and make a producer say "pass." "Depends – what if your movie is set in a mental hospital or all the characters are autistic? Or if all the characters are ESL and don’t have a lot of English vocab? If it’s the script’s INTENT, and not bad writing, it can be fine (but probably not commercial.)" RULE 2: Predictable action will weaken and probably doom a story, and make a producer say "pass." "Predictable to some extent is good, because it allows the audience to “play along.” In kids’ TV, for example, you want a pretty predictable plot. However, kids' TV, not my area of expertise." RULE 3: Implausible story logic will weaken and probably doom a story, and make a producer say "pass." "Personally, totally agree. However, FANTASIA, as I recall really defies story logic, and people love it. I don’t." RULE 4: A complication-free plot will weaken and probably doom a story, and make a producer say "pass." "Personally, totally agree. However, experimental film can be conflict free. You could have a person reading the phone book in an experimental film." RULE 5: Straying too far with super-extended sub-plots from the protagonist's main external goal that is the premise of a story will weaken and probably doom a story, and make a producer say "pass". "I really think this is false for TV series in which subplots don’t have to involve the protag. In movies, agree. However, #5 is really the one that can harm an aspiring TV writer." Again, I hope that helps, especially for those learning how to decipher and utilize screenwriting practices! Cheers everyone! :)

I bet he works in television.

Haha! Actually, does both. :)

He did agree on two of them. Beth, meet me and Dan at Mt. Rushmore tomorrow at noon. You bring the climbing rope, and I'll bring the carving chisels. Dan will hold the ropes, you'll chisel, and I'll look for seasonal berries. You'll have those two rules for the writing world to embrace under George Washington's bust by five p.m. Imagine the hits that will get on your Instagram account. You'll be a star after you get out of jail in five to seven years! And what happened to Doug's reply? He has "left the building" more times than a process server at the Ashley Madison headquarters. If he thinks this is a lawless society without rules, we're gonna have to get his mind right and pull a Planet of the Apes on him: cage him and use him for scientific experiments. Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!

Haha, Bill! Well, I didn't post it as an "agree" or "disagree" thing/debate about your list, per se. More like here's a perspective on those, an example/point about also considering project specificity and creative intent when considering "guidelines." ;)

Screw the list! ha ha- just kidding!

Can't hear you Beth....bison stampeding by.....at the park making camp...Washington's lapel looks like it can fit all five rules.....plus a couple more by John August....he's got some good ones, too.....see you at noon.....bring some Bison Be Gone.....economy size pump spray bottle....and some hazelnut creamer....I forgot the creamer.....dang.....there's a bear scratching its back against the hazelnut tree down the hill.....it's gonna be a long night.....

Bill, you crack me up! I guess the larger point is that it’s pretty impossible to find ANY universal “rule” written in stone or in granite or whatever. There's ALWAYS exceptions. It ALWAYS "depends." So perhaps a change in how these things are discussed/labeled would help to broaden the conversation and understanding about knowledgeable screenwriting practices and suggestions. ;) Best to you!

You said it, Beth. There are always exceptions, and it always depends. Good luck to all writers!

I love this topic because it never ends. Then years from now people will be debating this subject. However in the end it doesn't matter what any screenwriter thinks because they aren't the ones buying their own screenplays. It is what the other person reading it thinks that counts.

Dan G. You hit the nail on the head, I think that's what you say? Anyway, Yes, "it is what the other person reading it thinks that counts." We as writers can only hope that the changes are minimal, but once the baby is out of our heads,and we collect $$, that is it. Thanks again everyone. You rock!