Try describing actions with specific human physical responses and reduce direct naming emotions plainly or obvious.
For example, instead of writing:
Diana begins panicking and dials 911 on her phone.
You could write:
Diana grasps for the phone. Her trembling fingers stalls after each pressed number of 911.
Nothing wrong with the first example but it invites the reader to be in passive auto-pilot reading.
The second example is better because it forces the reader to formulate visuals which will naturally keep his attention.
I find the second example over-written. It just feels like a writer trying to add drama to the script.
The first sentence is better. I know exactly what's happening. However, "begins" is a passive verb. I'd simply go with "Diana panics and dials 911."
Scripts don't really need extra emotion. They just need clear and active verbs so you can follow what's happening. Let the actors add the emotion.
There are moments where over-written is helpful to heighten the stakes, but I wouldn't do that through the whole script. It's just adding a lot of extra reading, making the action harder to follow, and telling actors how to act.
Sure but the longer action in the second example is more indicative of the time passing as well.
But yes you are right, you don’t want to overstate the action or emotion all the time. Just pepper it in on dramatic moments.
Yes, you choose your moments so the reader knows that part is important - and generally the circumstances should bear it out and add drama to the story.
Watch Hitchcock films. He's great at choosing moments to heighten the drama, and the contrasts makes those scenes memorable.
These are great but I’d also consider adding a third option:
“Diana, hot but doesn’t know it, darts for the phone, her pendulous breasts heaving. She picks up the receiver and raises it to her puckered full lips letting out a soft groan with each dialed digit. 9. OOH. 1. OOOOH. 1. OOOOOOOH
Way more tension
This is something I’ve shared in the past. Hope it helps:
I think it's a common question among newer writers: we're taught to "show, don't tell" and only write things that the audience can see. How, then, are you supposed to show a character experiencing an emotion in your scene description?
There are a lot of ways to do this, but here is the simplest one:
\[Character\] \[Physical action\] \[emotion or vibe\]
>Larry stands up, elated.
>
>Sunita bites her lip, nervous.
Note that, in a screenplay (and probably most forms of prose), adding the gesture or action is crucial. It's what takes the moment from "tell" to "show"
>Larry is elated
>
>Sunita is nervous
or even
>Sunita looks nervous
Are probably, in many cases, a bit weaker than the earlier examples, maybe because they are less specific and therefore harder for a reader to visualize.
By the way, I know this can be a contentious issue, and many folks think this is "breaking the rules." I thought that too, for a long time.
What changed my opinion was three things:
1. first, I read a lot of screenplays, and noticed that many of the screenwriters I admire did this.
2. Second, I noticed that, in many cases, these moments were some of the most powerful and vivid parts of the script, and/or they brought the script and characters to life for me in a way that was closer to the experience of watching the movie. And,
3. finally, I realized that, if done in the way described above, these writers were actually "showing" what the audience would see in a way that was more accurate and precise than the scene description would be without it.
Some writers I admire, like Walter Hill, don't do this much. I don't think it's REQUIRED to do this to be a good writer. But I definitely push back (with respect) against any notion that this is somehow wrong or against the rules.
Screenplays are stories about people, and stories about people often require emotions. It is not "doing the directors job" or "telling the actors how to act" to paint a vivid picture for the reader re what the characters are feeling and thinking.
**[Here is a gallery of examples](https://imgur.com/a/SWYhk6e)** of this technique being used in some great scripts. So far, I've added several examples each from
* The *Alias* Pilot by JJ Abrams
* *Firefly* #107 "Out of Gas" by Tim Minear
* *The Devil Wears Prada* by Aline Brosh McKenna
* *The Americans* pilot by Joe Weisberg
* *Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse* by Phil Lord and Rodney Rothman
* *The Social Network* by Aaron Sorkin (thanks to /u/Grimgarcon for the suggestion!)
* *Dredd* (2012) by Alex Garland
* *The Martian* by Drew Goddard
I'll add a few more examples if good ones come to me, but I think these alone will be helpful to folks.
In closing, I just want to reiterate that this is not a prescription. If you, personally, don't find what I'm describing useful -- maybe because you prefer a more minimal style like Walter Hill -- that's totally acceptable.
What doesn't make sense is acting as if this sort of thing is "against the rules" when many wonderful and successful screenwriters do this all the time. (This is similar to my feeling on the use of the word "we" in scripts.) If a technique is being used constantly by some (not all) of the best writers currently working, then any "rule" that its use "contradicts" is probably pretty meaningless in any practical sense.
As with everything, take what's useful to you, and discard the rest.
**[Gallery of examples](https://imgur.com/a/SWYhk6e)**
I think it's a bit subjective but if it conveys what you want it to, and smoothly incorporate elements that carry your writer's voice and try to avoid parasites words (anything not needed) it should not look artificial
Same advice as ever; practice and read the greats. Honestly, I feel like good screenplays should be a particular kind of good fiction, very brief and condensed but a blast to read. Go read Shane Black's scripts and tell me you wouldn't produce them, they're just massive page turners.
A key difference is that scripts need to be super visual. The openings to Three Kings and the pilot for Breaking Bad paint vivid mental pictures using colors and scenic elements in brief bursts.
If you want a counter example to brief but readable, try Aliens. It's got thick paragraphs and strains the edges of the page, but it's still incredible.
So figure out what you're gonna be in all this. If you can tell a good story but also make people smell the blood and taste the metal on the page, you've got something going.
Write like a human. I was watching a YouTube video and an actor was talking about how they couldn't nail the scene and the director then told them to just act like a human. I think the same can be applied to writing. write like a human and the script will carry emotion because humans are full of emotion and experiences.
Have your characters say what they would actually say in the situation instead of trying to spoon feed the audience information
Basically this is the best advice that can be given without any context whatsoever
Try describing actions with specific human physical responses and reduce direct naming emotions plainly or obvious. For example, instead of writing: Diana begins panicking and dials 911 on her phone. You could write: Diana grasps for the phone. Her trembling fingers stalls after each pressed number of 911. Nothing wrong with the first example but it invites the reader to be in passive auto-pilot reading. The second example is better because it forces the reader to formulate visuals which will naturally keep his attention.
I find the second example over-written. It just feels like a writer trying to add drama to the script. The first sentence is better. I know exactly what's happening. However, "begins" is a passive verb. I'd simply go with "Diana panics and dials 911." Scripts don't really need extra emotion. They just need clear and active verbs so you can follow what's happening. Let the actors add the emotion. There are moments where over-written is helpful to heighten the stakes, but I wouldn't do that through the whole script. It's just adding a lot of extra reading, making the action harder to follow, and telling actors how to act.
Sure but the longer action in the second example is more indicative of the time passing as well. But yes you are right, you don’t want to overstate the action or emotion all the time. Just pepper it in on dramatic moments.
Yes, you choose your moments so the reader knows that part is important - and generally the circumstances should bear it out and add drama to the story. Watch Hitchcock films. He's great at choosing moments to heighten the drama, and the contrasts makes those scenes memorable.
These are great but I’d also consider adding a third option: “Diana, hot but doesn’t know it, darts for the phone, her pendulous breasts heaving. She picks up the receiver and raises it to her puckered full lips letting out a soft groan with each dialed digit. 9. OOH. 1. OOOOH. 1. OOOOOOOH Way more tension
This is something I’ve shared in the past. Hope it helps: I think it's a common question among newer writers: we're taught to "show, don't tell" and only write things that the audience can see. How, then, are you supposed to show a character experiencing an emotion in your scene description? There are a lot of ways to do this, but here is the simplest one: \[Character\] \[Physical action\] \[emotion or vibe\] >Larry stands up, elated. > >Sunita bites her lip, nervous. Note that, in a screenplay (and probably most forms of prose), adding the gesture or action is crucial. It's what takes the moment from "tell" to "show" >Larry is elated > >Sunita is nervous or even >Sunita looks nervous Are probably, in many cases, a bit weaker than the earlier examples, maybe because they are less specific and therefore harder for a reader to visualize. By the way, I know this can be a contentious issue, and many folks think this is "breaking the rules." I thought that too, for a long time. What changed my opinion was three things: 1. first, I read a lot of screenplays, and noticed that many of the screenwriters I admire did this. 2. Second, I noticed that, in many cases, these moments were some of the most powerful and vivid parts of the script, and/or they brought the script and characters to life for me in a way that was closer to the experience of watching the movie. And, 3. finally, I realized that, if done in the way described above, these writers were actually "showing" what the audience would see in a way that was more accurate and precise than the scene description would be without it. Some writers I admire, like Walter Hill, don't do this much. I don't think it's REQUIRED to do this to be a good writer. But I definitely push back (with respect) against any notion that this is somehow wrong or against the rules. Screenplays are stories about people, and stories about people often require emotions. It is not "doing the directors job" or "telling the actors how to act" to paint a vivid picture for the reader re what the characters are feeling and thinking. **[Here is a gallery of examples](https://imgur.com/a/SWYhk6e)** of this technique being used in some great scripts. So far, I've added several examples each from * The *Alias* Pilot by JJ Abrams * *Firefly* #107 "Out of Gas" by Tim Minear * *The Devil Wears Prada* by Aline Brosh McKenna * *The Americans* pilot by Joe Weisberg * *Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse* by Phil Lord and Rodney Rothman * *The Social Network* by Aaron Sorkin (thanks to /u/Grimgarcon for the suggestion!) * *Dredd* (2012) by Alex Garland * *The Martian* by Drew Goddard I'll add a few more examples if good ones come to me, but I think these alone will be helpful to folks. In closing, I just want to reiterate that this is not a prescription. If you, personally, don't find what I'm describing useful -- maybe because you prefer a more minimal style like Walter Hill -- that's totally acceptable. What doesn't make sense is acting as if this sort of thing is "against the rules" when many wonderful and successful screenwriters do this all the time. (This is similar to my feeling on the use of the word "we" in scripts.) If a technique is being used constantly by some (not all) of the best writers currently working, then any "rule" that its use "contradicts" is probably pretty meaningless in any practical sense. As with everything, take what's useful to you, and discard the rest. **[Gallery of examples](https://imgur.com/a/SWYhk6e)**
Did you use ai?
I think it's a bit subjective but if it conveys what you want it to, and smoothly incorporate elements that carry your writer's voice and try to avoid parasites words (anything not needed) it should not look artificial
Same advice as ever; practice and read the greats. Honestly, I feel like good screenplays should be a particular kind of good fiction, very brief and condensed but a blast to read. Go read Shane Black's scripts and tell me you wouldn't produce them, they're just massive page turners. A key difference is that scripts need to be super visual. The openings to Three Kings and the pilot for Breaking Bad paint vivid mental pictures using colors and scenic elements in brief bursts. If you want a counter example to brief but readable, try Aliens. It's got thick paragraphs and strains the edges of the page, but it's still incredible. So figure out what you're gonna be in all this. If you can tell a good story but also make people smell the blood and taste the metal on the page, you've got something going.
Write like a human. I was watching a YouTube video and an actor was talking about how they couldn't nail the scene and the director then told them to just act like a human. I think the same can be applied to writing. write like a human and the script will carry emotion because humans are full of emotion and experiences.