Wow, this looks pretty intense! Thanks for the link!

Awesome! Never thought of it that way. Thanks Unk!

Yeah ... definitely experiencing this one lately. :o

This is a warning sign I personally struggle with all the time.

This one's tricky because it feels like you're being productive and working toward your ultimate goal to finish your screenplay or novel ... it might very well be productive when staying focused, but I personally find it way to easy to become distracted for too long, which means I'm not writing when I should be.

Thanks for reading, James

Thanks for reading, Phoenix!

Hey William, the idea behind this post is about creating a more realistic character ... er, adding a different layer of detail in order to create a different type of character. Unlce Rico is definitely a character that strikes our fancy for very specific reasons ... one of which being that he's a fish outta' water ... someone trying to relive his past.

I don't think it's about allowing yourself to get stuck in an era - it's about reaching a high point in your life ... a point in which you really enjoyed everything about the era.

For some characters, that high point is high school; for others, it's the 60s; and yet for others, its the 80s; so on and so on.

Anyone out there seen someone who's completely stuck living in the past -- as in their music, hair style, clothing, etc?

Awesome idea! Thanks for reading the blog.

The screenwriter's job is to tell the story for the page -- that means they're the first directory ... they get to call the "shots" for the page, meaning they get to present what the reader experiences, sees, or feels at any given point.

This might require another post on the matter, but the best way to describe it is this: If a director directs using camera angles to frame the story for the screen, then the screenwriter uses setting and action to frame the story for the page ... savvy?

A screenwriter should avoid throwing down camera angles -- it's distracting. Instead, the screenwriter should call for a close up by writing a line of description that implies intimacy, immediacy, and connection ... in other words, the screenwriter should write something that implies we're in close up. To do this with out defaulting to "we see in close up," the writer needs to find a way to frame the action using the setting, which is easy to do in the slugline, description (gotta be some visuals ... what are we seeing?), and action -- what are we seeing.

On top of that, there are certain things that the reader might naturally imagine when reading for the first time. A cliche but basic example might be this:

"The beads of sweat hung on Jimbo's face until one, two, then three drops quickly snowballed their way down his brow and into his eyes."

Chances are, you just pictured that piece of action in extreme close up ... but why?

Because you wouldn't be able to pick up that kind of detail from a long, two, or even medium shot. I guess what it might all come down to for the writer is implying the shots. What's everyone else think?

Thanks Andy!

Anyone else out there writing a period script? If so, what are some of the challenges you've run into?

Nice post Jared! Let's try to see how many screenwriters out there have stepped into this pitfall of screenwriting:

http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2000262/