Character descriptions in a script

What quick character detail is acceptable in a sitcom script as each successive character is introduced, if any?

I've started to read Perry Nium's recently-posted sitcom and saw this:

CURLY IS PLUMP, IN HIS EARLY FORTIES, AND WEARING A TIGHT WHITE T-SHIRT, TIGHT JEANS WITH A PAINT-SPLATTER EFFECT, AND A VERY, VERY OBVIOUS BLACK TOUPEE.

(Forgive me for quoting your script Perry.) It never really occurred to me to introduce characters into the script in this way. Well, I suppose it did, but I didn't think people did it. Is a brief outline like this the norm?

Surely the more information you give the reader the better. This was one of the big problems with your script James. You knew every character, you could see the action. We as readers saw a brief description then into the action.
If someone wants’ to give a description of what the characters are wearing and so on, that’s fine. IMO.

Personally, use sparingly. The important distinction is that Perry's example is dealing solely with physical attributes.

If the intended description is more to do with character, then the script dialogue and action is still the proper place to do that.

Quote: Ray Dawson @ February 6, 2008, 5:37 PM

Surely the more information you give the reader the better. This was one of the big problems with your script James. You knew every character, you could see the action. We as readers saw a brief description then into the action.
If someone wants’ to give a description of what the characters are wearing and so on, that’s fine. IMO.

View original

Well, I just want to know what is standard practise really.

I think my script could benefit from a brief intro as characters are introduced, which is why I bring it up, but how much info should one include? Obviously I have a vague idea and it should be very brief. What's relevant and enough, I suppose.

I have no idea what's what with this so just wanted to know if a little description like this:

JIM, 35, A THIN, SURLY, SMARTLY DRESSED HACK, IS TALKING TO MATT, 25, AN OVERWEIGHT BEARDED SLOB.

Is ok. I assume it is...? Is any more detail than this necessary...?

Quote: SlagA @ February 6, 2008, 5:45 PM

Personally, use sparingly. The important distinction is that Perry's example is dealing solely with physical attributes.

If the intended description is more to do with character, then the script dialogue and action is still the proper place to do that.

View original

Well, yes, I gathered that people would have different opinions... I am a little puzzled.

For me, James, your example is not too bad. It's bordering on 'tell' and not 'show' but as long as it is this sparse, you shouldn't have a problem. It's over before the reader notices. But I'd be wary about over-extending this beyond your example.

To my mind. If one is lucky enough to get to the production stage with a script. These questions will crop up. So why not include them from the start?

I have in my hands the book of blackadder scripts, in episode one(series one) it says:

'Edmund is the Duke of York's second son, a scoundrel with a stupid haircut.'

Basically I agree with what SlagA is saying.

Quote: jacparov @ February 6, 2008, 6:28 PM

I have in my hands the book of blackadder scripts, in episode one(series one) it says:

'Edmund is the Duke of York's second son, a scoundrel with a stupid haircut.'

Basically I agree with what SlagA is saying.

View original

Yes, I have this script too, but you never know what they add in post-production.

And I was too lazy to dig it out...

Cool, thanks for all the answers.

As little as possible. It just takes up space on the page. That's my opinion anyway. You don't need to describe every little thing about them, not even clothes.

I think there should be a description of your characters, for instance in a sitcom I wrote, it just wouldn't work if the character wasn't a Vanessa Feltz look-a-like. The casting director may cast a thin Twiggy and that totally wouldn't do.

Quote: James Williams @ February 6, 2008, 5:27 PM

What quick character detail is acceptable in a sitcom script as each successive character is introduced, if any?

I've started to read Perry Nium's recently-posted sitcom and saw this:

CURLY IS PLUMP, IN HIS EARLY FORTIES, AND WEARING A TIGHT WHITE T-SHIRT, TIGHT JEANS WITH A PAINT-SPLATTER EFFECT, AND A VERY, VERY OBVIOUS BLACK TOUPEE.

(Forgive me for quoting your script Perry.) It never really occurred to me to introduce characters into the script in this way. Well, I suppose it did, but I didn't think people did it. Is a brief outline like this the norm?

View original

Perry's example is grade A, for me. Just enough - let the dialogue do the rest.

Quote: SlagA @ February 6, 2008, 5:45 PM

Personally, use sparingly. The important distinction is that Perry's example is dealing solely with physical attributes.

If the intended description is more to do with character, then the script dialogue and action is still the proper place to do that.

View original

Yeah, so putting JOHN IS A TALL MAN, WHO VOTES CONSERVATIVE AND REALLY LIKES CHIPS would be a mistake.

Let his actions and lines spell this out (for example his opening line could be "Mmm, chips - I'm going to vote conservative after I've eaten these chips that I love."

Or something.

Quote: James Williams @ February 6, 2008, 5:49 PM

I have no idea what's what with this so just wanted to know if a little description like this:

JIM, 35, A THIN, SURLY, SMARTLY DRESSED HACK, IS TALKING TO MATT, 25, AN OVERWEIGHT BEARDED SLOB.

Is ok. I assume it is...? Is any more detail than this necessary...?

View original

Saying 'hack' and 'slob' might just about be okay.

My rule is if you can see it, it goes in. I guess 'hack' could make the character slimy or greasy, whereas slob makes a character a bit 'grubby' - so they are slightly descriptive.

Quote: Ray Dawson @ February 6, 2008, 5:52 PM

To my mind. If one is lucky enough to get to the production stage with a script. These questions will crop up. So why not include them from the start?

View original

They should be included but not spelt out literally.

Slag A's phrase 'show not tell' sums it up nicely.

@ Chimes: Blimey, let it rest. This is something different.

I was also thinking more from the perspective of a producer reading a script for the first time and how much character exposition is required than actors/directors possibly misreading a line. But I suppose some of it amounts to the same thing.

I know you shouldn't overdirect or put camera angles into the script or anything like that - it's not the writer's job (usually).

I think on reflection with the characters just a couple of words seems enough to describe them. "36, overweight and bearded" for instance. It seems enough to give a little mental image without being too long, boring, or trying to do a job the dialogue should be doing.

Quote: hotzappa11 @ February 6, 2008, 8:12 PM

As little as possible. It just takes up space on the page. That's my opinion anyway. You don't need to describe every little thing about them, not even clothes.

View original

Only if it's relevant.

'Smart' or 'scruffy' for example if it sums up their character. But no, putting MARK IS WEARING TROUSERS is far, far too much.

Quote: James Williams @ February 6, 2008, 11:10 PM

Blimey, let it rest. This is something different.

I was also thinking more from the perspective of a producer reading a script for the first time and how much character exposition is required than actors/directors possibly misreading a line. But I suppose some of it amounts to the same thing.

I know you shouldn't overdirect or put camera angles into the script or anything like that - it's not the writer's job (usually).

I think on reflection with the characters just a couple of words seems enough to describe them. "36, overweight and bearded" for instance. It seems enough to give a little mental image without being too long, boring, or trying to do a job the dialogue should be doing.

View original

'Let it rest'?! - you asked a question, I've given my answer. I thought that's how forums worked?

I won't bother next time.

EDIT: Not talking to me, sorry sir.

Your "36, bearded . . ." bit is fine - it's that simple.

Quote: Seefacts @ February 6, 2008, 11:10 PM

Saying 'hack' and 'slob' might just about be okay.

My rule is if you can see it, it goes in. I guess 'hack' could make the character slimy or greasy, whereas slob makes a character a bit 'grubby' - so they are slightly descriptive.

They should be included but not spelt out literally.

Slag A's phrase 'show not tell' sums it up nicely.

View original

Yeah, 'show not tell' is a great term, it needs to be used like a mantra I think. I keep forgetting it and looking over a script sometimes I find it amazing what I've "told" not "shown".

Do you really think "hack" and "slob" are ok?
On reflection I thought they were a bit much.

Quote: Griff @ February 6, 2008, 10:03 PM

Bushbaby has hit the nail on the head. You need to provide enough information so that the performers can't possibly "get it wrong" once you hand over the script. Because in nearly all situations, unless you are also a director or performer, nobody ever consults the writer once rehearsals are under way. If it ain't on the page, then it ain't gonna be on the stage.

It's probably not important to point out that your MC is wearing blue socks. But if he's a middle-aged, podgy, balding tweedy alcoholic with sideburns and bad breath, then make sure you say so. Because believe me, it's too late once the director has cast someone young and beautiful with great hair.

Also don't be afraid to use delivery description where you need to. Nothing worse than writing a sarcastic line, and the actors thinking your character is being serious and adjusting all their intonations accordingly (and wrecking your joke). Or writing what you believe is a high-energy comedic rant, only to have it performed in a series of choking, heartfelt sobs. If it's possible for someone to misconstrue the text, then either change your words, or provide some guidance.

It ain't the actors fault, by the way. They're trying their best to take your stinking piece of crap and make something funny out of it. If they get the wrong end of the stick because I left out something important that I thought was "obvious", it's my problem, not theirs.

View original

A writer would be present at film/rehearsals so that's not strictly true.

And if a handsome actor gets cast for fat old man role you really should be looking at how he's coming across in terms of dialogue and actions.

And NEVER I repeat NEVER give line readings. Occasional italics perhaps but don't patronise actors in scripts.

Quote: James Williams @ February 6, 2008, 11:15 PM

Yeah, 'show not tell' is a great term, it needs to be used like a mantra I think. I keep forgetting it and looking over a script sometimes I find it amazing what I've "told" not "shown".

Do you really think "hack" and "slob" are ok?
On reflection I thought they were a bit much.

View original

Well, slob is descriptive so that's okay.

When I hear 'hack' I think greasy, sweaty, smarmy - so for me, I'd use that phrase happily. But nothing more.