Screenwriting : Dead giveaways by Steve Mallinson

Bad writing. Period. Misuse and/or overuse of everything in screenwriting. Overwriting. Poor execution. A concept or story that lacks substance. Nothing resonates. Nothing incites intrigue. It is not any one writing tool that makes something “amateur”—do not misplace blame or make false equivalencies—but rather HOW poorly those tools are used that is truly telling. People can discern if they are in good hands or poor hands by the very first page, certainly by the very first line. Sorry, but it’s true. This isn’t easy. This field is also highly subjective.

Overwriting.

Exposition dumps. Scenes without clear conflict.

There are a lot of elements to dramatic writing (he said as the Stage32 Understatement of the Week). Advanced writers are obviously more skilled and experienced at integrating those elements into their works.

My first couple scripts received 30%-40% grades from my script consultants. The plots/rising action were good, but everything else was weak. A lot of my dialogues were not really important and on the nose. My tone was uneven. My pacing could have been better in some scenes. Subtext was lacking. Character development was lacking. Internal conflict could have been dramatized more. The characters' unique points of view could have been better revealed. The main characters could have grown more in certain ways. The supporting characters could have had more at risk. Some of the characters could have had better unique voices. Some of the dialogues were too revealing at times. Some of the scenes were too long and prevented the stories from moving more. I could have used better verbs. Some of the scenes weren't really essential to the conclusion. The audience engagement was lacking. Sometimes I told too much, and didn't "show" enough, which would have made the audiences think more and wonder/question more, and would have made them become more engaged. The B stories could have been explored more deeply, and the unity of action could have been better if I had accomplished that. And I could have been better at visual description at times.

But everything else was good! Heh-heh.

I've read quite a few scripts from novice writers over the years, and they seem to share some of those issues, too. Becoming aware of the elements of drama/screenwriting is an important first step to writing screenplays. Utilizing them effectively, and then mastering them, takes time and usually doesn't happen on a first or second script. It's all part of the evolution of a writer.

Best fortunes in your creative endeavors, Steve!

Title page with an AOL email address :)

As Stephen said, the exposition dumps. While there are a bunch of other things, I say this mainly because I see myself in it. My scripts were filled with it, and I cringe seeing how my writing started off. I can see anyone picking up a script like that, doing the same and tossing it aside.

When the writer cannot execute a scene.

When a writer has strange dialogue that is too long and not needed.

When a writer makes the same point over and over.

When the writer describes things that are self evident.

When the writer can’t write economically.

When the writer is just bad at writing, regardless the format.

When the story doesn’t need to be told, experience would have stopped them much earlier.

EASY TO READ; I think no one has mentioned that. When reading some scripts ( even some shooting scripts), the vocabularies used, sometimes demand a dictionary which distract you from going into the story to feel intrigued. I think this kind of stuff also sounds amateur.

When I read the first ten and nothing seems to grab me. It has no voice, no pace and no drama - sometimes it’s just pure exposition and slow scenes. This is for good writers that happen to be in an amateur level - which was your question. Amateur doesn’t mean necessarily bad, just inexperienced. Bad writers can be spotted on page one. Sometimes on the title page, lol. And they’re identified because their writing is either bad, boring, or both. And it has nothing to do with formula or format.

Overwriting

I can't stand profanity in drama or writing in general. Cursing doesn't communicate interesting anything and it often sends a clear message that you are trying to overcompensate for something by using cheap pyrotechnics.

B.V Jottsonne i think every word in English has a use. Imagine a murderous biker saying “oh dam”. I think it wouldn’t ring true.

All dialogue, no action. Boring stories with nothing at stake. Characters that all sound the same. Poor spelling. Formatting errors. There’s a lot more but I just went for the ones I see constantly.

If I get sent a script without a title page I refuse to read it.

Boredom, or at least lack of interest, by the end of page one. With a pro script there's almost always something on that first page (and the rest) to make me turn the page: a dramatic question, a fascinating setting, a character with an interesting voice, etc.

Bad grammar, misspellings, or wrong use of words by those claiming to be serious writers, including regular posters on various S32 threads.

Erik I could be one of the bad posters here.

I post from a phone, sometimes without my glasses (that’s a recipe for disaster). Plus I am dyslexic and could not really read or write much when I left school, due to a brain injury. I don’t hide any of those facts. It is actually mentioned in my IMDB profile.

I encourage anyone and everyone to pull me up on bad writing. I sometimes do not take the care I should, sacrificing accuracy for speed.

Erik. The question was when reading a screenplay not when reading a poster's post. One would have nothing to do with the other.

Most of the scripts that I've read for some studios and a few Agents scream 'amature' from yje get-go but so what? Everybody starts someplace and I've read a couple of damn good 'amature' scripts. So really, what's your point?

Without doubt, it's a failure to show deliberate control of the audience's emotions. That's our job.

exposition

When the writer has no clue about the subject matter, and let me explain what I mean:

A couple months ago, I looked up the first draft for 2010's "Clash of the Titans". I loved the film, saw the original, and am even a fan of Greek mythology. So I figured it would be a good way of advancing my knowledge of screenwriting.

I couldn't read past page 10 just because of how jacked up the story was. The writers barely touched on the real story, the descriptions were a little out there, and they got none of the names of the Greek Gods correct (they used Roman, Norse, and Egyptian Gods' names instead. Don't ask me why).

I do my very best to get through a script or book, even the ones that hurt a little to read. But when it actually hurts for me to continue reading, that's when I know it's amateur night for the screenplay. Thankfully, I've only come across 2 screenplays and one book that was like that.

Poor grammar.

The first sign of an amateur is poor spelling and grammar. Some people argue that the idea and story are more important and you can let such mistakes go. I'm not one of them. If you can't take the time to spellcheck your work or have someone read over it before presenting it to the world, why should I take the time to read it? You're disrespecting me and my time.

Julin; exposition - not enough or to much? Whitney, yeah script formatting is very big;. I and every other reader I know first just fan through a script; if the formatting is wacko - we don't even read the script. A lot of writers say 'but it's the story that counts' and there is truth to that but weird formatting throws the reader off the storyline. Elrod, 'poor grammar' where? In your action/general writing or in dialog? Dialog grammer is a character facit - just keep it constant. Yeah Robert, spelling is often an issue because it slows the reading process, but the occasional typo is not a big deal.

FORMATTING! If the script is poorly formatted a reader won't make it past Page 2. Then once formatting happens, I find that giveaways for me are "on-the-nose" dialogue, too much scene description, and redundancies in plot.

I think I can tell when someone can write. You get the feeling you are in good hands. When I don’t get that feeling I know the person doesn’t know how to write.

When you are reading a well written scene, you can see what is happening. You know why you are there, even if you don’t know how the scene will end. Good scripts make you ask “what will happen next” not, “what the hell is happening” or, “will anything ever happen”.

I would also say that if someone is tied to rules, despite the negative impact on their story. You can see them working extra hard to get the story out while sticking so hard to some arbitrary rule.

Whitney - - - the thing I’ve found is that spelling errors sort of depend on where the script is along in development and who is sending it. I started out reading scripts and doing reports for a distribution company. They would send me stuff from festivals. Some of those scripts had typos here and there but they were already bought by production companies so you knew at some point they were going to be made, and a majority of them were written by professionals. I’ve also read and spent time helping unknown writers. That’s where getting everything right is important, and spelling and grammar are two key things. An unknown writer is looking to get their foot in the door, whilst someone who’s already in the industry has a bit more leeway. They’re already proven, so spelling and grammar aren’t going to be a major concern for a reader who may have read their work before. (It’ll likely go to a script editor anyway).

WOW - thank you everyone so much for taking the time and trouble to make this such an insightful thread. At least, that's how it seems to me, the amateur who asked the question in the first place.

Here's what has struck me so far:

1) There's a category of flaws that ought to be easily corrected - spelling, formatting, etc. It's just good manners to get this stuff right; but no-one is perfect, so if a couple slip through, it's not the end of wold.

2) Then there's the stuff associated with the story and its execution itself - is it even worth spending time watching? A dull story or one where the writer's grasp of the content is lacking.

3) More challenging - there are the less tangible, more subjective aspects, over which the amateur should demonstrate mastery: exposition replacing action for example, pace and subtext...

4) A couple of people commented to the effect that they can tell when they are in safe hands. Presumably amateurs need to get this right by practice, taking feedback and improving.

Great stuff - thanks again!