I love his writing too. But on closer look, I wonder what has it got to do with the story? Seems, it is more like lyrically charged context, or something like that. What does this particular ‘mood’ set in the scale of whole story? It feels like a little bit over-described. Still, Shane is in love with her THAT I can tell : ) Is he setting a narrative voice here (along with the genre premise by the end)? Somehow gets friendly with the reader, as if saying, “this guy likes cool girls too, and you just stay with him, he’s gonna tell you the rest”. Damn, now I think he can be setting a narrative voice in this opening scene. “Thank you, Stephen. You’re welcome, Calvin” LOL

All through studies, podcasts, other scripts I've read, I've heard that writing like is, although entertaining, is the path to getting your script deleted because directors want to direct their "vision." The neat trick with this writing is that the descriptions are filmable (I.e., you don't get the stock "pretty but she doesn't know it") and based on action. Maybe more of a historical question, but at what point did this become "acceptable?" And is it still today? Or is it more of a case of "If you can do it well, do it, and if you can't, don't try?"

writerhaha, I feel like I can credibly speak to this issue from both a professional and historic perspective as I was around when Shane Black broke on the scene with Lethal Weapon and especially The Last Boy Scout where he took his style to a whole other level, breaking the 4th wall and 'talking' to the script reader. At the time, some people found it quite entertaining. But then EVERYONE seemingly started imitating Black, then EVERYONE on the reader side of things grew to HATE Shane Black wannabes. So it faded. But the fact is writers have been editorializing in scripts for decades. This issue of so-called 'unfilmmables,' while we do have to be judicious in their use, is actually ridiculous. Just go back and read the 2nd paragraph in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid by William Goldman:

A MAN walking around the corner of a building. He is BUTCH CASSIDY and hard to pin down. Thirty-five and bright, he has brown hair, but most people, if asked to describe, him, would remember him blond. He speaks well and quickly, and has been all his life a leader of men; but if you asked him, he would be damned if he could tell you why.

Over half of that description is 'unfilmmable'. But it's also entertaining. And it does an interesting job introducing the character. More importantly, this is a script that won an Academy Award and was written nearly 50 years ago, by arguably the dean of contemporary American screenwriting. So anyone who says you can ONLY write what an moviegoer can see or an actor can act does not understand professional screenwriting. Again, we have to be judicious, but we CAN editorialize when it's both helpful and entertaining. I would argue you have to ground those decisions in your development of your story's Narrative Voice [Genre + Style = NV], so it is THAT CHARACTER, the invisible one 'telling' the story who would or would not be editorializing. Just read 10 selling scripts written in the last 2 years, you will see this type of thing a lot. But pro writers find a balance and use this technique accordingly.