I found comparing this script with the final cut interesting, particularly since the writer, Dan Gilroy, was also the director; he maintained creative control of his story. For example, the diner scene with the prostitute is not in the final cut. Why? Well, I guess it was excised to pick up the pace, get to the inciting incident ASAP. Perhaps Gilroy concluded it didn't add need-to-know information that needed to be established for later events and his relationship with Nina. Also missing from the final cut was the diner scene with Lou and Rick on pages 31-32. I presume because it was cut because it interrupts the flow of their frantic and frustrating pursuit of a story to sell. The script ignores, s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-s or just plain violates formatting conventions. A liberty Gilroy could exercise because he's a well-established writer in the business and because he was writing a story for himself to direct. What mattered more than the words on the page was the movie inside his head.

Let's jump to the "formatting conventions" issue right away. Obviously, as you note, Gilroy is an established writer. He is also writer-director on this project. That gives him more latitude in terms of how to approach script style and format. So yes, when you read the script, you see there are considerable differences between what he writes and what we would see in a typical spec script from an aspiring writer or even an established one. And yet the thing is, when you read Nightcrawlers, it's still clear. You see what he's getting at. It's never confusing. It's strong visual writing which evokes images and cleanly takes you through the narrative, scene by scene, shot by shot. So two things. One, screenplay style and format is a fluid, organic thing. It's in a state of evolution and has been since the earliest days back at the turn of the 20th century when scripts were called "continuities". In 10 years time, what may be considered to be 'conventional' may, indeed, look like what Dan Gilroy does in Nightcrawler. Two, while we do have freedom to experiment in the actual stylistic presentation of a screenplay, the bottom line is this: It has to be clear. Doesn't matter how entertaining it is. If you lose the reader due to your format and style choices, that's a net negative. You don't want the reader to be in your story, get confused, then fall out of your story. That said, as long as what you write IS clear, then we, as writers, have the freedom to play around with style and format... but always in service of the story.

I take your point, Scott, and this screenplay was a clean, clear read for me. But then I saw the movie before I read the script so I knew what to expect. As I read, I re-viewed the scenes as shot in the movie in my head. If I had done a cold reading with no visual assist from having seen the movie, would the story have flowed just as easily through my mind? Probably. The question I have is this: if you're a wannabe trying to break in with no prior sales, no credits and no agent -- in others words, a typical reader of your website -- then can you really afford to take the formatting liberties Gilroy took? (Such as BIG TYPE FONT for the words on the billboard on page 1, and for the t-shirt logo on page 7.) Isn't one of the expectations script readers have is that a newbie should be able to demonstrate knowledge and mastery of standard formatting principles? Before you can break the rules with impunity, you gotta show the gatekeepers you've mastered them? Won't failure to do so, even if it doesn't consciously detract from the readability of the script, nonetheless create an unconscious bias in terms of their overall impression of the story? Particularly if they're vacillating between a consider and a reject. (Why give them a reason to tip the scales toward a reject?)

Paul, it's a great question. The path of least resistance re format and style is to play it safe, don't do anything to throw off a script reader or development exec. However... There is this thing known as a 'writer's voice'. You read a Tarantino script? You know it's a Tarantino script. You read a Coen brothers script? You know it's a Coen brothers script. Part of their voice derives from their approach to screenplay style. So I would add this proviso. Yes, you can play it safe re style and format. You can tell a whopping good story which conveys your voice by doing that. But... If the story you see and hear pushes you to stretch the boundaries of style... it becomes an essential part of the fabric and soul of the story... you should feel free to embrace that. An anecdote from my past. Years ago, I met a young screenwriter who was just on the edge of making a mark. His calling card, the spec script which got him representation, was written in the second person. [I used to have the script, but can't find it, so here is an example of second person not reflecting this writer's script in the least.]

You turn your head. There's a MAN standing at the corner. With a gun. You wheel around. "What the fuck," you think...

The entire script in 2nd person. It was that stylistic choice, along with his solid writing and good story, which got him noticed. That writer was Justin Zackham who hit it big with the movie The Bucket List. So... There is nothing wrong with adhering to convention when it comes to screenplay style and format. There is ALSO nothing wrong with a writer stretching the envelope if they feel the need to do so in order to tell the story in the best, most visual and entertaining way possible. Don't do it just to be cute. Do it because the story REQUIRES it.

Thanks, Scott, for your clarification. Your last line is the takeaway.