Scott, Could you point us to any good examples of this "slug-less" style? I find this fascinating and would love to investigate. Thanks for posting this.

Coen brothers scripts often forego slugs.

I agree with everything Scott has to say, with one exception: Unless things have changed substantially without me hearing about it (which is possible; I haven't been actively engaged in this part of the business for a couple of years), the people who generally read your scripts first (the "lowly interns or assistants") are so overwhelmed by the volume of reading they need to do that they are literally looking for excuses to dismiss your script as quickly as possible. Back when reading scripts was part of my day-to-day, my shoulders would literally slump and I would deflate a little any time I saw an improperly formatted script, not because I cared one bit about format in and of itself, but because 999,999 times out of 1,000,000 an improperly formatted script meant I was dealing with an amateur who probably hadn't fully developed his/her story. I realize there's a seeming contradiction in the last paragraph, but it's not merely a contradiction, it's a paradox: As much as I (the reader) am looking for reasons to dismiss scripts quickly, I'm still opening every script hoping it's "the one." I want to be dazzled. I want to feel like I'm holding gold in my (literal or virtual) hands. So when I see something that 99.99999% of the time is a harbinger of a poorly executed and underdeveloped script, I immediately assume I'm going to be wasting my time. We've all heard readers (which I use as a general term to encompass anyone and everyone within the process who reads a script and has a hand in its fate) say that they give a script "10 pages" or "5 pages" or even "1 page." When I see an improperly formatted script, sometimes I give it a single action line before giving up on it. In other words, when you show me something that the vast majority of the time tells me I'm not in "good hands," the amount of time you have to change my mind decreases significantly. Much more importantly, however, I know I'm not alone. So while Scott and Andy are both entirely correct that the most important thing is to draw readers into your story, to take them "through the experience of watching the movie," you want to make sure you're not giving readers ANY excuses to put your script down before you've had the chance to completely draw them in. Also, there's a subtly in something Scott wrote that I think needs to be pointed out. Immediately after the except from Andy's script, he writes, "Nary a PRIMARY slug line / scene heading on this page." (emphasis added) That's true, but it's not the whole story. There are -- count them -- 5 "minor" slug lines in this excerpt. Andy may be moving away from using formally structured slug lines in an effort to "evolve screenplays into a more literary READABLE form," but he is clearly still using a device that fulfills one of the primary functions of formal slug lines (that is, to tell readers where they are, i.e., where the action is taking place). Andy's pages ARE "imminently clear as to their intent," as Scott asserts, but not because he's abandoning slug lines. Rather, I'd argue, it's because he's modifying their presentation to make them a more seamless part of the script page, which, in turn, helps make the script page more "readable."

Thanks for your well-informed comments. I can't remember if I made this point in the OP, but I almost always say something like this when it comes to spec script format and style: The line of least resistance is to be aware of conventions and conform to them, precisely for the reasons you cite, how readers look for anything to ding a script and/or not to give readers the perception of, "Uh-oh, dealing with an amateur here." But the central point still stands: As long as a script is readable and what the writer does format and style-wise SUPPORTS the storytelling, we do have latitude. Screenplays are in a constant state of evolution. Again thanks for your comments!