If you liked this, check out more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. Thanks!

Final Draft has it, Microsoft Word has it. Every single word processor has it.

It’s the “Find/Replace” function.

Okay, perhaps it’s more like a ‘pass’ rather than a ‘draft’. Still, you can have a notably slicker draft in a day.

Another disclaimer: it’s powerful but also slightly dangerous if you’re reckless – or inexperienced.

One keyboard click and your entire screenplay can be changed. So before we start, remember to make backups regularly. I make a copy – with a new file/version name – each time I change anything significant in the script.

To limit the extent of the changes, it is good to make the search case sensitive. So for instance, if you’re looking for text in scene headings, the result should return UPPERCASE text only.

If the Find/Replace operation hasn’t done what you want – or if it has changed MORE than you wanted – in most word processors you can use Ctr-Z/Apple-Z  to undo.

Easy to find – Easy to fix

This feature is equally useful to the novice who is preparing the draft to be read by an editor as it is to the experienced writer going towards Final Draft. Nobody is perfect; everyone overlooks certain issues that may distract from a smooth read.

What follows is a random selection of script issues that can be fixed using this option.  When you look carefully at some of the stylistic weaknesses in your script, you’ll almost certainly find a dozen more examples that apply to your specific screenplay.

If you own a copy of our Screenplay Checklist(*), you will find that some of the issues listed there can be quickly found and fixed using Find/Replace.

For any explanation on WHY to make the recommended changes, please consult the Checklist. This article is not about that.

Scene Headings – Slug Lines

Make sure these are absolutely immaculate.

There is usually only one simple, correct format for each slug. Use it.

– If you have used “INT, MAIL ROOM, DAY” (same for ‘EXT’):

Find: “INT, ”
Replace with: “INT. “

Then:

Find: “, DAY”
Replace with: ” – DAY”

– If you have used DAWN, MORNING, AFTERNOON, DUSK, EVENING etc., you’ll almost certainly need to replace this with DAY or NIGHT only.

Find: “- MORNING”
Replace with: “- DAY”

Etcetera.

The hyphen is included in the search string to avoid changing anything outside the slug lines.

The result: INT. MAIL ROOM – DAY

Here’s an advantage for users of Final Draft: in the ‘More’ options under the Search function, you can specify individual or groups of elements only. In the above example, you will only tick ‘Scene Heading’.

Punctuation

– Remove excessive dots and reduce to triple dots:

Find: “….”
Replace with: “…”

Repeat this action until no more instances are found.

– Excessive white space / too many paragraph marks.

Some screenwriting packages don’t check the amount of line breaks and you may end up with too much white space between scenes or paragraphs. This is easily resolved. The maximum number of line breaks is THREE. So wherever you have four or more, you need to reduce it to three – at the most.

Find: “^p^p^p^p”
Replace with: “^p^p^p”

Repeat this action until no more instances are found.

– Correct use of interruptions and pauses.

Find: “–” (double dash)

Check if each instance is only used for INTERRUPTED sentences that are NOT continued afterwards. Wherever they are continued, you need to use “…”. (Check David Trottier for details)

[adrotate group=”1″ banner=”1″]

– Multiple exclamation marks

Usually there is no reason to differentiate between intensity of shouting.

In a script, loud is loud and too much is messy.

So leave it up to director and cast and for now replace “!!” with “!” until no more instances can be found.

Dialogue

Numbers

You can use the find/replace function to correct numbers in dialogue, where you need to spell them out: “seven hundred and three” in stead of “703”, “twenty to six” in stead of “17.40h” etc.

So wherever you have used numbers in dialogue, replace them with the complete words.

Abbreviations

The same goes for abbreviations: in dialogue, replace “km” with “kilometer” etc.

Repetitions

If you find that a character uses the same lame word(s) or sentence all the time, do a search and fix it.

Style

You can really jazz up your style by removing bland words and replace them with more colourful alternatives.

Be specific:

Find: “goes”, “makes” etc.
Replace with: [more specific verbs]

Next,

Find: “begins to”, “starts to” etc.

Then remove each instance and replace it with the more specific, active verb.

Manipulation of time:

If you’re using words like “slowly”, “cautiously”, “hesitantly” a lot, be aware of the following:

– it may seem as if this movie moves slowly.
– the movie is longer than the page count suggests.

The same goes for: “quickly”.  If you’re using this or similar words often,

– action may seem to move more quickly than it really does.
– the movie may become longer than the page count suggests.

Neither may be a big issue, but it’s good to be aware of it.

Manipulation of feelings:

Quite a lot of beginners’ scripts frequently use phrases such as “he smiles at her”, “she looks away, sad“.

This is easy to diagnose, not so easy to fix.

Forcing the actors into facial expressions is the worst way of conveying emotions.  The emotions need to be felt by the audience, whether or not the actors express them. Emotions are the result of actions that precede a scene or situation. They should not be forced upon an audience/the reader by describing a character’s body language.

Perform a search on these words to see how you’re scoring.

There may be some more work to be done before you send out that script…

Time passing:

You cannot describe the passing of time without giving us specific actions – or a cut/dissolve to the next shot/scene.

– for a while
– he keeps walking back until she finally gives in
– moments pass in silence

All the above suggest that more time passes on the screen than is suggested by the page count in the script.

Keep the 1p./min. rule in mind. More importantly: make sure that what happens on the screen holds our attention.

We see – We hear

Some people don’t mind; others hate it. If you can rephrase without using “we”, do it.

Typos / Grammar / Spelling

There really is no excuse for leaving typos in the script.  Spell checkers are free and they are everywhere.

Here’s the first one to look for:

Find: “its”

Then check for each instance if you don’t mean “it is”. If you do,

Replace with: “it’s”

Next,

Find: “it’s”

Check if you don’t mean the possessive pronoun.  If you do,

Replace with “its”.

Do it all again.

Finally, read the first five pages of your screenplay with the utmost scrutiny and make notes about the nature of each error you find. Then, for each error, use the FIND option to check the rest of your script against the same issue.

You see, there virtually are no limits to the use of this function. If you use it cleverly, it will save you heaps of time.

Set aside half a day or a day to play around with the Find/Replace function. Make backup copies every 5 mins.

I have seen examples where screenplays looked infinitely more professional after little more than a few hours.

Now, go forth and unleash the power of F/R on your script!

(*)If you don’t yet own a copy of the Screenplay Checklist, you can still request the Beta version by emailing us with “ScreenplayChecklist” in the subject.

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

I have installed version 8.0.0.,  the latest available version at the time of writing.

Because I work with clients who use a variety of software, I often find myself converting and exporting between platforms. In this area, FD hasn’t improved much since FD6 (from which I upgraded). That said, a typical screenwriter may not need to convert that often.

PRO:

– The overall feature set has improved.
– The layout is slightly more pleasing to the eye than before.
– Scene Navigator is a cool feature.
– Not too many bugs (See below: Cons).
– The top toolbars can be customised to contain a range of commands.
– The page count manager. (don’t think you’re allowed to use it, though!)
– FD can be active on two computers; installed on as many as you like.
– An ever improving knowledge base on the FD web site.
– Upgrade is only $99.

CON:

– FD8 saves as .fdx by default, even for imported FD7 scripts.
– Copy and paste between documents has resulted in crashing.
– No good solution for tracking changes.
– Cost: $249 (To compare: MS Word is $229).
– The interactive troubleshooter on the web took forever to launch.
– Key Shortcuts: if you select text and change the style, the text is deleted.
– Chat support times: for OZ writers this support closes at morning tea.
– Phone support is free only for 3 months and for 20mins only.
– The format assistant could have been improved.
– Importing from .rtf resulted in blank pages with “(CONT.)” here and there.
– No competitive upgrade offer to be found on the web site.

If you’re earning money writing for the screen, you should have Final Draft. If you’re not, I believe you can find better value alternatives.

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

I don’t usually reprint entire blog posts but I read this entry on Seth Godin’s blog – and sadly it applies perfectly to many aspiring screenwriters.

Godin is the world’s #1 blogger (ok, that’s a personal opinion). So the cat is well and truly out of the bag.

Replace Godin’s  ‘your customers’ with ‘your readers’.  They may include that producer, agent or funding agency you want to send your script to. You surely don’t want to be looking stupid in their eyes.

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

I recently moved to Perth to study directing with the West Australian Screen Academy, which is under the umbrella of West Australian Academy of Performing Arts (WAAPA).  As part of the course, students direct a multi-camera piece, a lifestyle magazine piece (I don’t really know what that is either), a documentary and a short film.  I’ve chosen to focus on directing for this year, but I’m essentially a writer/director, so I want to talk about the process of transferring a piece of writing to the screen.

There is a maxim that goes, “A film gets written three times: first by the writer, second by the director and third by the editor”.   This is, essentially, true, and by no means is it a bad thing – although as a writer it can be difficult to see your vision become something else.

The reality is that each of these rewrites is necessary in order to distill the story in a way that makes it accessible for your audience.  When you are writing, you are drawing on your own experience and your own frames of reference and your own archetypes.   As the medium changes from the ephemeral space of your own mind, so the created film, by necessity, becomes an extended exercise in compromise. It is similar to the transferring of energy from one form to another: some of the energy always ends up getting dispersed in an unintended form, such as heat or light.  Baz Luhrmann says that he gets 60% of what was in his head on film, at best. That’s a pretty good average.

I often find, as a writer, that your brain gets snagged on particular images which become vitally important to you. They hold some personal significance to you, and in our own head they are full of subtext.  It can be devastating when they aren’t translated to the completed film, and rants about others not understanding your vision are sure to follow. So, the challenge is to figure out how to ensure which images are truly important to you in your piece and to ensure that they remain in the film.

For example, I recently had a stand up argument with a writer who was upset that, as a director, I wanted to change the colour of a car to fit in more the production design of the film. When I asked him why, he insisted that the car had to be black because it symbolized the Angel of Death. There was no other reference to this concept in the rest of the script, no implicit spirituality, no visual or verbal references to Angels or to the random spectre of death, so the symbolism that was so important to him made no sense to anyone else.

This was a wonderful lesson for me, as both a writer and director, because it served as a reminder about the fact that symbolism is not universal. Even the concept of death, which we may think is a major cultural archetype, will in fact mean something different to different people depending on their experience, background and spiritual persuasion. You can not rely on your own points of reference translating into your film.

Joseph Campbell often talks about the role of persona in Western as opposed to Eastern Philosophy. In Western Philosophy, according to Campbell, a persona is a mask put on by an individual in a specific role; the mask can be replaced or removed altogether, but the individual underneath the mask remains the same. In Eastern Philosophy, the individual is regarded as ephemeral, so the mask of persona is treated as real.

This idea reveals how different cultures have different cinematic gazes and, especially if we are to regard our audience as a truly international one, (which we should be doing. Screen Australia?) it serves as a reminder that we cannot automatically assume that our audience will share a common symbolic language with us.

So, how do you avoid this trap? It is my belief that as soon as you start introducing elements of your own symbolism into your script, it simply won’t translate. Your characters are seeing the narrative through their own eyes and their own framework of symbolism and archetypes, and ideally the audience also experiences the narrative through the eyes of the characters.

Weighting the symbolism so that it exists through the eyes of the character allows it to be integrated as part of the narrative. This means that the narrative can, in return, add additional weight to the symbolic elements and make them an intrinsic part of the completed film.

In summary: The narrative needs to be told through your characters eyes, not yours.

-Ngaire O’Leary

Ngaire O’Leary is a full time student and occasional writer/director.

Cleo Mees

Cleo Mees is a Sydney-based writer, filmmaker and dancer. With a background across several disciplines, her interest is in finding out how these different disciplines can intersect and inform each other.

“an overt focus on structure may be to the detriment of the script overall. He prefers to discuss scripts using more generic terms such as beginning, middle and end. The hero’s journey (a la Campbell and Vogler) should be approached warily.”

Not only does it show a grave lack of understanding of the depth and importance of the Hero’s Journey, it goes directly against most forms of successful storytelling.

I find it a dangerous statement, as aspiring screenwriters may have taken it as sound advice from a working screenwriter. The fact that it hasn’t sparked more controversy in the industry is another symptom of a film industry lacking a genuine storytelling culture.

On the other hand, Karin Altmann’s views on script editing are completely in line with those held by successful professionals around the world.

The following article, containing the quote, was reprinted with the kind permission of ScreenHub.

NSC 2007 – Script Editing
by: Anne Richey
Screen Hub – Monday 22 October, 2007

The first draft’s done. The characters are in place, and the story has been established along with what you would like to say. Except for maybe that character – that scene – the way the story is resolved – Time to call in a script editor.

The next question is who do you choose? With places like the AFC unable to recommend script editors to you, the best way is probably to ask around, and to find a script editor with the style you will best respond to. And their styles do vary.

To illustrate this point, Keith Thompson and Karin Altmann outlined the different methods they use to assist the writer to improve the script.

Keith Thompson, script editor on more than 20 produced feature films and five or six mini series, takes a very fluid approach. He considers his role to be the editor of the writer, not the script. He looks for a way for the writer to find the truth in what they are writing, whether through getting to know the characters better, preventing self-censorship, or any of the variety of other hurdles which the writer must find their way over.

In order to find the truth in the script, the writer must first reach a place where they can recognise what the script is about, and just as importantly, why they should be the one to write the story rather than anyone else, Taking this kind of psychological approach creates a less defensive atmosphere where the writer feels more confident in developing the script further.

Importantly, the script editor should not make suggestions about the script, but rather, encourage the writer on a path to finding the answers for themselves. The aim of the game is to emphasise the good and reduce the bad.

Keith is wary of scripting how-to books, believing that they hold the potential for all movies to end up looking the same. Similarly, an overt focus on structure may be to the detriment of the script overall. He prefers to discuss scripts using more generic terms such as beginning, middle and end. The hero’s journey (a la Campbell and Vogler) should be approached warily.

Unlike Karin Altmann’s approach, he also prefers to avoid the use of cards to work out the structure of a script. He prefers overall to avoid theory and stick to encouraging the writer and developing the script. Karin takes a structuralist approach in a similar way to Robert McKee, starting with the logline, premise, one pager, treatment and then on to developing the script. While Keith agreed that this does work in some cases, he certainly doesn’t believe that it works in all. His theory is that sometimes people need to work out the script while writing it, particularly the first draft.

Engaging in weekly meetings with the writers he’s working with, his role is more that of an encouraging spectator, facilitating ways for the writer to achieve the right outcome. As people only get one chance to read a script for the first time, Keith uses a colour code method for the first draft read-though notes, with a different colour once he knows what the story is about and how it ends. He finds it to be a helpful way of differentiating what should be worked on, depending on the perspective taken,

Karin Altmann’s approach is far more analytical and mechanical. She believes that a script editor shouldn’t get involved with the first draft, and that the script editor’s purpose in the ensuing drafts is to assist the writer’s internal judge. To her, the script editor’s role is to identify not solve problems, and it is not their place to provide scenes, lines or dialogue. They should always remember that they are the script editor, not the collaborator.

Script editors really take the role that producers and directors should be taking if they were better trained at the role, as they have an ongoing investment in making the project as viable as possible. She believes that as time goes on, and more training is developed in the industry, script editor role will gradually disappear, replaced by others with a vested interest in the film.

When editing, she tends to focus on the story more than the writer. She wants to know not only what the story is about, and why the writer is doing it, she also wants to know what the story is really about and why the writer is really doing it. When reading a script for the first time, she likes to imagine it as though watching a movie. On the second read, she uses the one-line scene breakdown method. She finds this to be the best way to determine the strengths of the emotional logic, rhythm and narrative logic. It help in identifying the gaps between the intention and the result, and provides a strategy for moving forward.

Ultimately, the script editor is the servant of the story, not the writer or the producer. They identify the places where the script is in need of resolution, and provide the writer with the pathways to achieving a better script, rather than rewriting it on their behalf. Stop banging your head against the keyboard when trying to move forward with your next draft. A good script editor is all you need.

Anne Richey
Anne Richey is a writer with an engaging demeanor, a systematic approach to organisation, and a criminal mind.

(Reprinted with kind permission of ScreenHub)

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

I have just returned from SPAAmart, Australia’s film financing market, where Wojciech and I pitched THE MORTAL COIL to twenty-four industry executives from Australia and overseas. It was only the second time ever I applied for this competitive market. One hundred percent hit rate. Luck? Possibly. But my recent string of successes cannot be ignored as an unusually high hit rate. An AFC project manager with impressive film credits recently told an audience how his applications used to be rejected at a rate of 8/1. No future for me as an AFC project manager, I guess…

If luck is one factor, what other factors are there? The talent of the writer, first and foremost. I have the honour and the pleasure of working with brilliant people. Without an interesting concept you can edit until the cows come home. THE MORTAL COIL has the support of Richard Taylor at the famous Weta Workshop in Wellington. Given the amazing track record of that effects house, their attachment is a major bonus and it helps convincing decision makers that this project will fly.

STORY VS. SCRIPT EDITING

There is no doubt in my mind that the story development approach is another crucial factor in those recent funding successes. I used to get sucked into reading, analysing and assessing screenplays. Most scripts have enough weaknesses on the scene level for a script editor to provide his money’s worth in surface level feedback. The writer takes on board all the comments and does a – often completely useless – rewrite. My rejection rate used to be higher than average until I changed my development strategy. By focusing on the story, the writer doesn’t touch the screenwriting software until the structure works. This sounds like a longer process, but the reality is just the opposite.

If there is an easier way, why do we keep getting caught in this trap? Why do we all give feedback based on the script? I believe that we are scared to tell you – the writer – to fundamentally review the story. What if you walked away to find yourself another editor? It would mean the potential loss of some hard-earned business. Will those essential story changes guarantee a movie that works? Of course not. The most quoted line in the movie industry is William Goldman’s “Nobody knows anything.” But a well-structured story will increase the chances that better people read your script and give you better feedback so you get a step closer to funding.

Once you have successfully applied the principles of story structure and you’ve made it past the Ordeal of story and script development, remember Vogler and don’t confuse the Sword with the Elixir. I, too, am fully aware that the Final Confrontation is yet to come.

SHORT FILMS AND THE PRINCIPLES OF STORY STRUCTURE

The Australian Film Commission is paying $60,000 towards the production of ACID SUN, the first project I took on as a producer after becoming a father late 2004. Parental responsibility had brought with it a greater focus and a more radical selection of projects and short films just didn’t seem to cut it any longer. “Short films no longer work as a calling card.”

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!