"Do not use voiceover narration" is specially funny because it was one of the rules by the writing guru from 'Adaptation'.

Agree people get hung up on minutiae BUT... IMO there's never, ever a reason to say "we see." If you're describing something in your screenplay, of course we see it. That's a given: A BUS pulls up. We see: A BUS, pulling up. ...What's better?

Sorry, I don't have any rules for you, but I believe in the rules and you have to look at the reason the rule is there. Every one of those rules you mentioned can easily lead to lazy storytelling if heedlessly broken. A writer that avoids "we see" and flashbacks and narration is a writer who is forced to think of storytelling and engaging their reader in a cinematic way, which is a very tough thing to do with just words on paper. It's the poetry of screenwriting. Of course you can break those rules, but you have to understand why you're doing it and how it makes your story better. That's why master filmmakers like Kubrick and Scorsese can have narration and it works - they know why they need to break the rules (generally because their main characters don't see the world the way normal people do).

First rule: Don't take writing advice from a slob living in a basement apartment in Williston, ND. I agree with this rule.

David Trottier's The Screenwriting Bible says "...use camera directions and editing directions sparingly, only when they are needed to clarify the action, move the story forward, or add significantly to the story's impact." It also says about 'we': "Avoid this term, and don't place "We see" in CAPS if you do" (both quotes p180, 5th Edition). I've read quite a few books like this, and rarely do they say absolutely don't do x or y. Most, like Trottier's, acknowledge that these are only guidelines and tips, and that there are times to not follow them. Personally, I think this makes sense - focus on telling an interesting story clearly first.

[…] @Bambookiller @keithcalder @Mr_Dymond @TimNLambert Yes, but they sure are convenient when you’re peddling crap advice …read more […]

The Three Act structure...

McKee shat lots of rules like that and now people are targeting his offspring. The one I hate the most: "don't use montages".

I also use his guidelines. They're comprehensive and they make sense.

Thou must use Courier font. **Unless thou last name is either Cohen or Shyamalan, then thou may use any font thou heart's desire.

I was told hard and fast by a screenwriting teacher, "There is only DAY and NIGHT in a screenplay. None of this DAWN and DUSK bullshit. Production doesn't care." I still follow this rule personally, but have cracked open quite a few sold specs and read, "EXT. MOUNTAINS - MORNING." etc...

Also, I love it when I write an unfilmable and nobody notices. Those are the ones you should use. If they're distracting, or don't add to the story, cut 'em.

I won't even say this is a rule, here's just what I think: * figure out every reason you shouldn't do something. If that's a good enough reason, don't do it. If not, go for it, but... * consider the reasons why people don't like that thing to see how to do it right. All these tools that people make up rules for (the flashbacks, the voiceovers) all have tremendous strengths, they're just used very poorly very often. But like everything in your script, you should audit the reason that it's there to make sure it belongs and that you're using it to its' maximum effectiveness.

this rule bugs the crap out of me. i 'get' it, but if it's supposed to be morning or dusk for lighting or timing, is that something that goes in description? i have an opening that happens in the dark of pre-dawn that goes to dawn then to morning and the lighting/timing matters...

General comment: I already appreciate some of the observations and takes on the subject posted here. As long as we're taking up this entire subject, I want to explore it all including distinctions between 'rule', 'principle,' 'guideline,' 'conventional wisdom,' etc. There is some need for nuance here, the shape and form of screenplays is an organic, ever evolving thing. Much more as we move forward, but please keep citing 'rules' and sources. The main point of this thread is to aggregate as many as possible. Thanks for your help and involvement.

I take this approach to any fictive writing, but especially screenwriting: If it betters the story, do it Other than that, I've got one screenwriting rule: 1) There are no rules. 2) These rules are ironic.

-Don't describe characters' hair color/eye color, as it narrows the pool of actors who could play the role, and it's a weak way to describe a character. -Don't underline dialogue words that should be spoken with emphasis, because if you write better dialogue you won't need to do that. -Don't capitalize sounds, DO capitalize sounds...have heard that one swing both ways. -Three act structure, or more specifically the whole "this has to happen by page x, and there should be this many plot beats in act x, and each plot sequence has x number of scenes, and etc and etc" until all your creativity is being held hostage.

Yes, these sound like the many 'rules' I hear from the writers I deal with here on the blog and through SMC. Keep 'em coming, let's get a big honking list, then we'll do a series going through each one, day by day. I'm reaching out to pro writers, script readers, and industry types to contribute their thoughts.

Sounds like it'll be a great series!

Scott, Blacklist has a financial interest my failure, so I guess the passive-aggressive / bias nature of your post makes sense. The tweets you choose as your examples above seem more like an attack on me than an honest attack of the "we see" debate itself. You did not include my first tweet that started off this debate: "Screenwriters should never write "we see." Don't tell us what "we see", simply describe events as they occur and we will visualize them." It was my grave mistake using the word "never" as this is clearly not the case and I corrected myself quickly after sending out this tweet. The only reason I did not delete and re-post was I did not want to hurt the conversation. It is ironic as I advise my readers to avoid the word "never", as "never" is generally not how you actually feel. I've enjoyed the usage of "we see" in many screenplays, quite often. I've also many times experienced the draining cliche of a first time amateur screenwriter loading up 132 pages of "we see" because they think it's required or think they'll never be judged negatively for it. You're also ignoring key follow up points from the people you quoted above, such as when Brian mentioned he has written entire scripts without "we see" or when Emily mentions that she does not use "we see" herself. You also do not mention the countless other other screenwriters who came to my defense, agreeing that "we see" is often excessive. It's a fact that that many professional screenwriters never use "we see", and others only use it a few times per script. Someone whom has never followed me or communicated with me once in my life says to me: @clmazin: No. Ridiculous. Confidence masquerading as knowledge. It's interesting that this is the tweet you choose to broadcast to your blog, Not one @clmazin's others where he explains specifics about why he disagrees. So I respond: "Woah, that's rude @clmazin. Advising writers to avoid "we see" is not ridiculous. "Never" is too strong but "we see" should be minimized." Next thing I know, @clmazin is saying peddling crap advice for $$$. I'm sorry, am I selling advice? I thought I was sending out free tweets based on a decade of successful entertainment industry experience. I'm certainly not peddling crap advice for money. I'm posting widely loved free screenwriting advice on my twitter feed, just like you're doing on your twitter feed. Go ahead, browse through it, you're only going to see positive comments and thanks. Then, next thing I know, @keithcalder, who also knows nothing about me and has never communicated with me before sees his friends @clmazin's tweet and replies with the vague unsubstantiated: "It’s time to put a stop to this charlatan nonsense." Which frankly, is probably what I would say too, if my friend said someone was peddling crap advice for money. You asked for people to give real world examples? Have you ever known a person to read a script and in some form judge it because of excessive "we see"? Because I certainly have. I recall a job I had coordinating readers at Goldcrest Films. Of their 30 readers, there were a small handful who complained about "we see" in their comments. I had to tell them not to lower their scores for this "we see" reason. I would never personally judge a script for using "we see", but others do and readers are constantly looking for a reason to pass. If you have two ways to write a script... one way that no one will ever complain about, or another that readers will sometimes complain about, which should you choose? When I was reading scripts over at Spyglass, I noticed the same issue. There was one reader in particular who refused to read scripts with excessive "we see". We had several to pick from everyday (they reviewed about 20 scripts per day), so it was never an issue... but what if he was forced to read those scripts? Would that slightly effect his ability to judge? Supervising my own readers at my lit management company, I have also seen readers complain about "we see". I will have recent USC and UCLA grads who will flat out give writing ability a lower score because of it, until I teach them otherwise. As a Literary Manager I have optioned 10 projects and secured 2 writing assignments. One of the writing assignments was from the producer of Lovelace who specifically requested writing samples without "we see" and (more obviously) without camera directions. This is why Spec Scout only hires readers with previous industry experience and also requires them to first cover 25 specs that went out wide to producers. They do this before covering their first unrepped writer submission. We want our readers to evaluate scripts based on the merits of pro specs, and not make amateur mistakes like lowering a score because of "we see". Can you also say with certainty that no blacklist reader has judged a script for this reason? If you have a policy in place for it, then I certainly think you can. My take away is that by no means should you remove "we see" from your screenplays but certainly do not think that it's required and/or do not rely on it as a crutch. I can think of several specific examples of when "we see" would be ideal. For example, when you want to draw specific attention to an item or an event, or somehow express what we "the reader" sees that a character misses. Or maybe you want to open your script or close your script with it, to give it a certain vibe and flair. If there's any screenwriting advice I can give, it's read as many screenplays as possible. I know so many successful screenwriters who have read tons of scripts. As someone who has written three scripts myself, I have noticed some of the things I disliked when reading also occurring in scripts I had previously written. Scott, I respect what you do. You provide an awesome benefit. I think it's amazing that you're reaching out to pro writers, script readers, and other industry types to contribute their thoughts on this subject. I hope you can also understand how I find it hurtful when this campaign is centered around a biased "cheapshot" at me. Regards Tim Lambert

Only one main character, only one main arc.

Reading that hoary old chestnut, I'm just trying to imagine 'The Shawshank Redemption' without the multitude of wonderful voiceovers courtesy of Morgan Freeman as Red. Clearly Frank Darabont didn't give a rat's ass what the writing guru from 'Adaptation thought about voiceovers, and it's just as well he didn't or cinema would be the poorer for it.

Common sense says you're right but sparing use if brevity demands. What if the audience is supposed to see something that the characters don't, or vice versa (i.e. we don't see)? An arm raised, something in the hand but we don't yet see what... The hand comes down hard, etc. It could hold a rock to hammer in a tent peg or to cave someone's skull in, but the writer wants to keep us in suspense a while longer. It just doesn't seem like a capital punishment offense.

Tim, in all honesty, I had no idea of the source of this particular Twitter conversation's beginning, just picked it up where I did, which I guess is somewhere in the middle. Having seen these type of things multiple times, I figured I didn't need to go back to the source, and frankly I didn't have time, which means I didn't track it to the end either. So please understand, there was no intended swipe at you because I didn't know this Twitter thread had anything to do with you. Therefore thank you for contextualizing that particular conversation yesterday and your additional comments. And again, nothing intentional in your direction at all, rather extrapolating from the thread and going at the generic argument: Do not use "we see." As I've expressed in the OP and this thread, I'm hopeful members of the online screenwriting community can engage in a frank, thorough conversation about each of these 'rules.' While personally I don't believe there are any screenwriting rules, I do think it's important for aspiring writers to understand what conventional wisdom and general expectations a script reader may bring to their coverage. It also creates an opportunity to hammer on this point yet again: Read scripts. The more actual movie scripts by actual professional screenwriters writers read and analyze, the more they will grasp the subtleties of writing on all of these fronts. As this particular series unfolds, Tim, I hope you will participate in the conversation. I'm reaching out to pro writers, script readers and others to weigh in, so would welcome your input.

Thanks Scott, I sincerely appreciate your reply.

Michael Hauge's book 'Writing screenplays that sell', (my copy's paperback, HarperPerennial 1991) gives a bunch of do's and don't's re formatting on p. 117, most of which are industry standards still, but largely obsolete since some bright spark came up with the PDF. Here goes... White paper, 8 1/2" x 11", 3-hole. Obviously most people don't physically print 'cos we appreciate trees a bit more now and portable computers (laptops, iPads, Kindles, etc) have all been invented since 1991. Ditto for screenplay covers - white or color card stock, no polka-dots, designs, illustrations, not even a title, etc. Ditto, too, for fasteners - brads, Chicago screws, etc - now mostly obsolete. The next, however, is TIMELESS! First page = title page. The next page = first page of the script. He says, "Omit from the screenplay any cast of characters, casting suggestions, table of contents, sales pitches, autobiographies, or illustrations." His next basic format rule is "The feature film screenplay should be no more than 129 pages long", on the basis that's a 2+ hour screenplay if 1 page = 1 minute of screen time, give or take. Some notable exceptions: 'The Wolf of Wall Street" = 180 minutes. 'Titanic' = 195 minutes. 'LOTR: The Return of the King' = 201 minutes. 'Avatar' & 'The English Patient" = 162 minutes. 'The Shawshank Redemption' = 142 minutes. 'Lawrence of Arabia' = 216 minutes. Guess it depends on what kind of movie it is and who's writing it. If the story captivates them, an audience'll be glued to their seats for however long it takes. On p. 118, Hauge says "Omit parenthetical directions to the actors" mostly because let the actors act. He says any more than six of 'em, and "you've got too many". On p. 119, "Omit camera directions" mostly because let the director direct and the cinematographer work the rest out.

It was Utah independent filmmaker Richard Dutcher that told me the day and night rule. It was in a class of his. I don't think it's sourced online. He writes great screenplays. He also directs. In order to keep his scripts focused on story, he only allows himself six camera directions per screenplay. That's his own personal rule.

Frank Capra has a famous quote: There are no rules in filmmaking, only sins, and the Cardinal sin is dullness. Substitute "screenwriting" for "filmmaking" and we have it.

Never/sometimes/always use 'we see' in your scene descriptions except on Fridays, if it's raining outside or if you're wearing a blue shirt.

"DO NOT use a different (non-Courier) font on the cover page." Apparently, nobody will read your script if you use Arial...

Love this! I have burdened with screenwriting rules all my screenwriting life and just freeing myself... these from my screenwriting teacher in film school: -Don't write how a characters feel - aka.their feelings/emotions(it's unfilmable and directors don't like it, screenplays are not novels) -Don't capitalize anything in description or dialogue except when you introduce character's names. -Only underline if you want to emphasize dialogue - this from Dave Trottier. -don't use 'suddenly' too often. - AVOID dreams and flashbacks. - be consistent with which one you use frequently '....', or '--'. Use only one. My favourite: Avoid emotion. I almost quit writing years ago because of this one being an emotional basket case and all:)

-Don't indicate music or music specifics at that. even when it's a musical or it's important as that's not a writer's call.

Just saw 'Philomena' tonight - packed medium-sized theatre in a cineplex (200 people maybe - only 3 empty seats anyway), and it was full of mostly over-30s, some of whom had brought older family members. Grandmas and Grandpas (who, by the way, always have money in their pockets regardless of economic crunches because of Social Security!!! Are you listening, Hollywood?) Lots of laughter, including at the 2 F-bombs and Judi Dench's mention of the word 'clitoris' - yes, your grandparents generally do know what one is or at least how much fun it can be - a few sad moments, anger in places at the Irish Catholic church's stubbornness and inability to change and readiness to judge harshly. We were there to feel emotion!

- show don't tell - kill your darlings - don't use adjectives

I think my first experience with my agent may be useful to people since it involved breaking a standard 'rule' of screenwriting. The script that got his attention was a thriller that takes place in the art world. The story involves a certain amount of technical description of the art restoration process, information which later becomes crucial to the story. My agent found some of the technical detail difficult to follow, not because it was badly written (he said) but because the volume of reading he does forces him to skim description to get the gist of it. He suggested, therefore, the judicious use of CAPS and underlining to highlight the crucial sentence fragments. I was anxious because the 'rules' around the use of caps seem so clear (Shane Black notwithstanding). But I went ahead, because, you know, refusing to do what your agent tells you a few weeks after signing -- well, there's a rule about that. You'd have to read the before and after to see the effect, but essentially it allowed the reader to skim the page and see the bullet points, and it was neither so frequent to be distracting, nor so infrequent as to seem like a mistake. The script was well received, got me a ton of meetings and was eventually optioned. I think that in the first few pages of your script you are 'teaching' the reader how to read your script. You're setting tone and genre. But you're also saying 'here are the rules I'm going to follow', govern yourself accordingly. But a strong warning: if you're going to do something outside of the general norm you'd better have a good reason, and that reason better be clear to the reader. I believe that what readers want above all is to feel they are in the hands of a confident and skilled storyteller. I am DEFINITELY NOT suggesting that writers suddenly start using caps and underline all over the place because some guy on the internet claims his agent told him to do that on that one script which hasn't been produced (yet). I am saying that you shouldn't take tools out of your toolkit just because someone said you should 'never' do that - and I did read Tim Lambert's thoughtful reply above, I'm not attacking him here. As to WE SEE - well, it works when it works, and it doesn't when it doesn't. When asked to arrive at a clearer definition of obscenity, judge Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court famously demurred by saying 'I know it when I see it'. Good writing is like that too: hard to define, but boy do you know it when you see it. Finally, George Orwell put it far better than I ever could in his essay on writing: 'Politics and the English Language' when he said 'Break any of these rules rather than say anything barbarous'. You've never read 'Politics and the English Language'? What the hell are you doing wasting your time reading my drivel? Go. Read it. I hope this narrow example is useful - it leads directly to my only hard and fast rule: make it clear, engaging and compelling. Full stop.

Never use “we see” Avoid “continues,” ‘begins,” “tries,” “starts,” and “suddenly” Avoid present progressive verb construction… i.e. “is dancing” becomes “dances” Sound effects should/should not be capitalized Visual effects should/should not be capitalized Never use non-visual descriptions Never include a character’s thoughts/emotions Conversational dialogue should not exceed four lines Action paragraphs should not exceed three lines Use parentheticals sparingly – dialogue should speak for itself “…” is used when a character’s dialogue trails off, to show the character is lost in thought or doesn't know how to finish the sentence “--“ is used when a character is interrupted by another character or action Do no use “CUT TO:” Avoid adjectives Source – MFA instructors

NEVER wear pants. That's a rule I think Craig Mazin could get behind.

Thanks for sharing this, Markham. Yet another reason to promote the idea: READ MOVIE SCRIPTS! You will see some that use underlining and CAPS, others that don't. Some that have short, terse paragraphs, others than don't. For every single supposed 'rule,' you will find examples of scripts - written by professionals and turned into movies - that 'break' those rules. Your point about readability is a key one and speaks to the difference between a selling script and a shooting script. With the former, our most fundamental goal is to tell the story in the most entertaining fashion possible, but not at the expense of clarity and readability. We benefit the writing when we keep both sides of the 'equation' in mind. We will be talking much more about this type of thing over the next few weeks as this series unfolds. Stories like yours - and hopefully others who choose to share - demonstrate the fact that screenplay style is an amorphous, organic thing, not something etched in stone tablets from On High. Congrats on your success!

Nicole, this is a good list, reflects much of what I see and hear. We'll take all of these up during this series. So many of these are about style CHOICES and should be related to creative instincts, story genre, Narrative Voice, rather than some sort of restrictive, narrow interpretation of a 'rule'. Much more to come!

NEVER wear pants... except when pitching!

Unless... You're pitching a biopic about Porky Pig. Blacklist, keep an eye out for my Porky Pig biopic.

I wish to thank all of you for your comments, suggestions, and anecdotes. I have a feeling this is a series of posts that will go on for two, perhaps even more weeks. I will post something, probably tomorrow (WED), in which I aggregate all of the 'rules' that have been put on the table by you and others. I think we will start the series of daily posts next Monday. I can see the value in this process already. What starts off as a rather negative discussion about restrictive 'rules' can, I hope, become a more POSITIVE one about creative choices and possibilities. Here is my touchstone about all of this stuff: Tools, not rules. We should be looking for a variety of techniques and approaches that enhance our creative expression (i.e., Tools), not feeling restricted and restrained (i.e., 'Rules'), the latter which do NOT exist in any codified sense of the word. We will temper this freedom to do what we want with the pragmatic reality of conventions most readers in Hwood bring to a script as well as the absolute necessity to learn as much about the craft as possible, primarily by reading movie scripts. The latter will expose you to a multitude of writers' styles which can in turn inform you as you develop your own voice. And THAT is what is behind the critique of 'rules' by most professional screenwriters: Focus on creativity, voice, style, ideas, and storytelling. That is what will get you noticed in Hwood, not the concise observance of supposed 'rules'. Much more to come! And again thanks to all for participating. My gut tells me this is going to be an excellent learning experience for everyone involved.

Constraint breeds creativity. I like how the "rules" force me to work harder in telling a story. I don't think McKee and others are saying don't EVER use v/o, montages, "we see," etc. I think they understand that these devices can become crutches. I've read other writers' script where I could clearly see that they tossed in voiceover narration in lieu of having to show us what's going on -- it just gets explained by a disembodied voice. Same thing with "we see." Instead of using that, I like to suggest with description what the camera will focus on -- what the "we" will focus on -- rather than just saying, "And if you look over there..." Anyway, that's how I've always interpreted it. The teachers and gurus scare you off from that stuff so you don't rely on it or become heavy handed with it. I'll put a montage or voiceover in a script, but only as a last resort. Anyway, if your script is the next golden egg then I can't see someone tossing it in the garbage because of "we see."

I have found it helpful to consider the benefit of breaking the so-called rules such as "Never use 'We see'," or "Keep blocks of texts to a max of three lines." I remember a blog post by Terry Rossio (probably on Wordplayer) discussing a page in the Zorro script which described an elaborate action sequence. He felt that most execs would probably skim the page since it was so action heavy (i.e. "blocky"). To address this concern, he made sure to break out one line/include a line of dialogue that captured something kinda like "Our hero escapes," for the execs to get the gist of the page quickly. Ultimately, it seems to be the awareness of why the rule is often cited that enables an effective 'breaking' of the rule. Rossio and his partner believed that the long blocks of action would be glazed over by execs and made sure to accommodate for that type of potential reading with the call-out line while leaving enough detail in for the director and others. Knowing this-- larger blocks of text could potentially be of use to bury/hide small details that annoy executives and are ultimately trivial to but yet are important to you. Or in other creative ways.

Thanks Scott. I've been reading and admiring your blog for ages. One of my New Years resolutions is to be less of a lurker and engage now and then. Hope I can enrich the discussion.

In your example, no, "we see" would be silly. But "we see" used to distinguish that we as the audience see something that the character does not is perfectly acceptable.

I don't know if it would be considered a rule by some people, but the one page = one minute seems to be generally accepted. Even when I've read a couple of screenplays that turn one simple line of description into a couple of minutes of screen time (the classic example being "The indians attack") and on the other side of the spectrum I was surprised to see that Monsters University is over 150 pages long.

There's a wonderful book I read "Me and You and Memento and Fargo: How Independent Screenplays Work" by J.J. Murphy. It analyzes how some acclaimed independent movies have broken some rules. I'll just copy the index so you can get an overall idea. If anyone wants more info about a particular subject I can share my notes. Part One: Problematic Protagonists -The Ambivalent Protagonist in "Stranger than Paradise" -The Passive Protagonist in "Safe" -Shifting Protagonists in "Fargo" Part Two: Multiple-Plot Films -"Multiple Plots and Subplots in "Trust" -Shifting Goals and Plotlines in "Gas Food Lodging" -The Ensemble Structure of "Me and You and Everyone We Know" Part Three: Temporal Structures -The Flashback Structure of "Reservoir Dogs" -The Temporal Complexity of "Elephant" -"Memento" as a Puzzle Film Part Four: Noncausal Structures -Dream Logic and "Mulholland Dr." -Free Association and "Gummo" -The Character-Based Structure of "Slacker"

Of course, the rules being broken would be -A protagonist can't be ambivalent or passive. -You can't shift protagonists (Psycho did it first) -You can't have multiple competing plots and subplots. -You can't shift goals (at least not as radically as "Gas Food Lodging" -Ensemble films... not much experience in that area. Are they criticized because of the lack of a single protagonist? Just wondering.

Rules are for the ignorant who need guidance but principles are for people who like to understand how something works. I would say that these "rules" are there because of bad habit, inferior technique and so on. Doesn't mean the writer can't write a good story but just hasn't learnt the pitfalls of using things like "we see". If we talked about the principles of screenwriting I don't think we'd find ourselves in such a "rule" laden landscape.

- "Character Arc - The finest writing not only reveals true character, but arcs or changes that inner nature, for better or worse, over the course of the telling." Robert McKee, Story - "The Plot, then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of a tragedy: Character holds the second place." - Aristotle, Poetics - You need to know your ending before you start writing. - Don't overuse names in dialogues

I think you mean adverbs. Otherwise you've got nothing to use to describe the nouns. Say for instance, a wet floor is important for the story; without the adjective (wet) you've just got a floor -- and there's nothing really important there.

I've seen people get up in arms with this one: You MUST begin a screenplay with FADE IN because, apparently, the reader will not know that the script has begun.

Since "..." and "--" mean different things, I hope you (and other) have been sure to ignore that crap advice. And don't write how characters feel? Unless you're working with terrible actors, "Chuck is happy" should be a breeze for one to perform.

Agree. Because really, when it comes down to it, if someone is focusing on what's capped or underlined or if "we see" is being used there seems to be only two ways to interpret that: 1) The reader is looking for any reason to not like the script, or (and I think this is more likely -- at least I hope it is) 2) The writer has failed at the most fundamental rule of writing, which is to entertain the reader and keep them interested in the story.

[…] weeks ago, I posted this about an occurrence that happens with irritating regularity in the online screenwriting universe: […]

Flashbacks! I am a fan of using visual flashback memories to define a character, each little flashback giving more and more detail leading to a revelation. Examples are Catch 22 and Twelve Monkeys. However, I have been hounded by a writing group for doing this, and am a little shocked the group instead stresses dialogue. My training and belief is that if you can Show instead Tell in a film at any time, you do it, otherwise we are writing Stage Plays. Thoughts?

Perfect timing as I'm going to dig into flashbacks next week in the series. Be sure to check out that post.