Re: character introductions -- the novelistic quick in-and-out character description is the ONE major conceit/caveat where you as the writer are not only allowed to write something that can't be necessarily filmed, but YOU ARE EXPECTED to. Screenwriting is all about the economy of words meets painting a mental picture, right?

TO INSTANTLY UNDERSTAND AND MENTALLY VISUALIZE who the character is, not necessarily WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE, which works better?

A COP -- 50's, balding, fat, with clothes too tight.

A COP -- who, in all his years of public service, never met a jelly donut he didn't like.

Both are character descriptions, but one gets to the characters core more succinctly, and yet allows room for the other film departments to make their creative choices. i.e. casting, hair, make-up, and also the actor.

It has been my experience, readers will not trash your script because you wrote a novelistic character description. They will trash your script because you simply failed to tell an engaging story. Yes there are many pet peeves of readers. But, regardless of our peeves... if you manage to tell a solid story yet hit many of the so called "peeves"... the reader WILL STILL CONSIDER YOUR WORK.

Worry more about telling the best story with engaging characters. Not so much what the reader is going to think about your overuse of ellipses... for one example.

I think one of the reasons this sort of description sometimes pisses readers off is because it is wrong.

If you describe a character as "happy-go-lucky" and said character never speaks a single word that isn't intolerably boring, you're character description is a lie. And it is a particularly infuriating lie.

I like this character description from the Bourne Ultimatum.

NOAH VOSEN pacing at the back. Annapolis ring, Class of ‘69. Navy to NRO to Rand to DARPA. Taut and driven, but far more imaginative than he looks. Good leader. Dangerous enemy.

[…] Character Introductions | Go Into The Story […]