[…] So it occurred to me, why not just deal with it once and for all! Get every single …read more […]

You've *outlined* this thing pretty well. lol Can't wait.

What I've seen often with these "Don't do" rules is that a reader gets so hung up on them that their comments center on what you did "wrong" and they don't look at the story your telling. It's way too much focus on context (formatting) and ignore the content (story), when all that truly matters is the content. It's like, "You used CUT TO: a few times," "Yes, fine, but what about the characterizations?" "Oh, yeah, I guess it's okay." (Taken from an actual (overheard) conversation between two writers trading notes.)

Adam, again I figured as long as we're going to go through all this stuff, let's frame it with some historical perspective. Screenplays do not exist in a vacuum. There are REASONS why they are the way they are in terms of format, style, and presentation. Moreover there is no reason why we, as screenwriters, can't evolve the narrative form through our own creative instincts. We'll get into the guts of the discussion soon enough. But at least we'll have some perspective on the context.

This is one of the issues: the decline of professional script readers, replaced oftentimes by interns who have little to no formal training as readers. Therefore their understanding of 'story' is limited to whatever background they've had as moviegoers, writers, college classes, reflection, study, etc. If that background is minimal, they can tend to frame their coverage on these surface level issues because those are easy to identify whereas dynamics like subtext, themes, and narrative flow may not be. Practically speaking, this is why a writer outside the system needs to focus on outfits with established script readers like the Black List, the Nicholl, Austin Film Festival. Beyond that, get your material to as MANY readers as you can because some of them are quite savvy. If you write a great story while going against some of the conventions per script format, those readers will 'get' it, even if other less qualified readers will not.

I agree, Scott. My script reviews from the Black List are so focused on the story that it makes the rewriting that much easier to delve into. One script I've gotten feedback for (from numerous sources) has a few designed formatting quirks that are meant to enhance the read. Sure, you're going to notice them, but based upon the notes/comments I've gotten, it seems no one's really cared much about it to mention it. Except one reader; I got a big "This is how to format a screenplay (based upon the latest screenwriting book I read)" spiel from them. Maybe two notes about the story and a page and half about what I formatted "wrong."

As someone who's read dozens and perhaps hundreds of TV scripts since the early 2000s, I noticed this trend has been evolving in TV specs too. It also seems to me (though this is purely anecdotal) that most people respond better to the literary-style scripts than the formal-style scripts.

I think there is a happy medium. Rules shouldn't be followed for the sake of being followed, I think most people would agree on that, but for a beginning writer it's good to work within them so long as that focus doesn't harm the story. They say you need to understand the rules, formatting and all, in order to break them and I agree with that. I think following formal screenwriting formats as layed out in those books for beginners can also help an amateur writer to A.) focus on their story and not worry about how the narrative looks on the page and B.) get read by not pissing off readers that may judge them on format. A good writer will be able to tell a good story within set boundaries. Maybe this is the Government contractor in me, but I think standardization can be a useful tool.