Screenwriting : How important is research? by DavidandMaggie Bean

In general this isn't a screenwriting problem. Many writer spend a lot of time researching. Then the Art director decides that one type of weapon looks better on screen than the more accurate weapon. I doubt very much that the director, art director and armorer on the movie all objected to the writers mention of flails but the producer said; "It's in the script so it goes on screen unchanged."

The writer should do all they can to know everything about the world they're writing about. I once had a screenwriter give me a screenplay to read that had a lot of cars in it, and one glaring error about the way cars interact with cell phones - the sort of thing that every person who ever used a cell phone in a car would spot instantly. When I pointed it out to the writer he said "well, I don't drive" as though this absolved him of the obligation to know what he's writing about. It's six months since I read the script - the first thing I remember about it is that error, because it was so jarring. This is an obvious, blatant example but the point is... You have to be the expert about your script, and know as much as you can about the world you're writing about or uncovering.

I disagree, D. I wholeheartedly agree with Lee. Our first pass at editing the first few pages of a script are free to the directors. When we catch such glaring errors, we're usually hired on the spot. And our first piece of advice is "research the material." ;-) Thanks for your input, both of you.

What a great answer, Jacqueline! ~Maggie

Excellent answer Jacqueline...

So true, if you take yourself and audience seriously, you do your homework to get the facts right. That would be so annoying, sitting watching something that you have to question as you watch.

Generally, if you write from a well-researched basis, you are not just safeguarding yourself against history/ gun/ car nuts who will know exactly what you're doing wrong, you're also able to bring that detail into the world, letting the weaknesses and strengths of the weapon (for example) inform the drama of the scene. Like, if you don't know that black powder generate a debilitating amount of smoke, you lose out on an opportunity to use that as a dramatic element in your scene. Imagine: A row of people all fire at the enemy, rendering their immediate surroundings completely caked in smoke. Did they hit everyone? Did they miss? How many are left? Are they coming closer? Then, suddenly, a survivor of the barrage emerges from the smoke with a pike extended, skewering one of the gunners. That's just one tiny detail, and it suddenly becomes central to a major dramatic point in the scene.

Magnus, your comment brought to mind a scene in "The Man in the Iron Mask" with Leonardo Dicaprio. He emerges, with the Musketeers, from the smoke given off by fired weapons. Good stuff! Thanks for commenting.

"Pathfinder," the movie I used as an example in the beginning of this thread, was historically inaccurate in many ways. Vikings did not wear that kind of armor. Though armor emerged earlier, it was phased out due to the cost until much later. Those who had money, used chainmail; those who did not used leather and canvas with flax sandwiched in between. Vikings didn't fight on horseback, either. They'd use them for long journeys, and demount when the battle started. Also, the horses they carried on their ships were rather small, not the war horses shown in the movie. War horses had not been bred yet. Which leads me to ask: Do you believe writers, directors, and producers get away with such things due to an historically unknowing/uncaring public? Or, are they just thinking "more flare?" Or both?

It depends on how important the weapons are. You should have rudimentary knowledge. Having an AK47 in the first world war would be a mistake. Mistakes you make will turn off a certain percentage of viewers. The more idiotic the mistake, the more viewers you lose. As writers we are meant to know everything... and that is even more important in this current age where information is at our fingertips. Research is extremely important.

Research is fun, Lyse! :-D ~Maggie

It’s great that in your experiences as writers the art department follows your script exactly as you wrote it. That has not been my, personal, experience. But it seems from the responses here you all have had better experiences than I have. I was a writer on a western TV series, I did a lot of research on weapons of the period, clothing of the period, vehicles of the period; when it came to production the production designer chose the props, weapons, clothing and vehicles that looked best and may or may not have been exactly correct for the time period. I did not suggest writers should not research and write accurately - my point was in most cases the errors you see on screen did not come from poorly researched writing but a creative choice made by the art department. Nice that you have more control.

D Marcus, they haven't all been "better experiences." For the most part, though, my husband and I consult on script accuracy and dialogue. And there's very little of that, that we see. I'll agree that with "big budget" films the art department is out for "the most bang for yer buck," but I do not think that that should keep us as screenwriters from doing our research -- from portraying our characters and scenes as best we can...with accuracy. Right? ~Maggie

Great point, D Marcus. Producers and Directors will often have their own ideas on how things should go and will change things on a whim, even on the day of shooting. Most of the time it comes down to cash or just whatever is easier at the time.

Maggie, I'm sorry you took from my posts that I feel writers should not research. Exactly the opposite of my intent. I see I'm not as clear a writer as I would like to be.

I may misunderstand from time to time, D. But, never, ever, would I surmise that you're being unclear. On the contrary, you are very articulate and I've enjoyed your "company" immensely. Forgive me, if you took it otherwise. ~Maggie