7 Things Movies Need To Stop Doing Right Now

Ever get tired of seeing the same stupid movie moments over and over again? Not the big things, like major plot & character elements, but little clichés which are kinda dumb, and make you roll your eyes because you’ve seen it all before - and typically it wasn’t worth seeing in the first place. Like when two characters uncomfortable about starting a conversation both say “So” in succession -- what thrillingly introspective dialogue! Or even worse, they both start talking at the same time, then stop, then tell each other to go first…both of you, please; shut the fuck up. It’s also annoying when seemingly every movie uses the same familiar library of sound effects for babies crying, girls screaming, groups gasping, anyone farting...but that’s a tangential issue and we won’t get into it here.

This is about those small concepts of filmmaking there’s no reason should still exist, yet they keep happening all too often. I’m sick of them, and listing them here in hopes of inspiring a generation of moviemakers to stop doing them. Because they’re wrong, and cheap, and pathetic, and always will be. So knock it off.

Obscuring Characters Who Are The Focus

Of A Scene

If you’re over the age of ten (which most of you reading this likely are) you’ve seen this countless times, and probably never thought much about it -- but now that I’m pointing it out you’ll see it constantly, and it will surely irritate you as much as it does me (sorry about that): when a scene in a film or tv show is set in a public space, and the cameras are pointed at the actors, you will often see someone (or something) pass through the frame, briefly blocking your view of whatever you’re actually looking at. If you’re not paying much attention or don’t care, then good for you, but when you notice it, it’s incredibly disruptive. This is horrendously common for something so unnecessary and annoying. More so, it’s actually painful to the eye, as the bulk of the frame is temporarily occupied by an object out of focus. Then once that passes, and you readjust to looking at what’s in focus, something else eclipses your view.

I recall a movie in which four main characters were conversing at a table in an outdoor cafe, and the whole scene was shot with a long lens from across the street. So every two seconds, there’s a fucking car passing through the shot! Why are you paying these actors tons of money to be in your movie if you’re going to allow traffic to constantly drive over their pretty faces! Sometimes the vehicles would pass to reveal a different character, as if the movie used the car to mask an edit, and other times it would just be the same shot of the same person. So I guess whatever expression they made during the drive-through wasn’t important, huh? Why would you purposely prevent your audience from seeing an actor's entire performance?

And if it isn’t cars, it’s people. Extras walking through the frame, obstructing the carefully chosen angle of what we’re actually looking it. I just don’t get why this always happens; why it’s allowed to happen. We’re watching the movie or show for the actors & characters we know, not the people paid fifty bucks to walk around and pretend to be doing something all day. They’re called background performers for a reason, you know? They should be in the fucking background, not passing between the main actors and the camera. That’s the foreground. They don’t belong there.

This is mainly the fault of directors, but you know what? Editors, I’m callin’ you out on this too: if you’re cutting a scene with two characters in the middle of a room (often a restaurant) with two over-the-shoulder medium shots, and extras are walking through the line of fire...CUT AROUND THEM. Same deal when one person gets up to leave and crosses between the camera and the other actor. Nothing should be shot like this in the first place, but hey, it isn’t like you aren’t used to saving the picture from incompetent directors, right? So help us out and do away with this shit.

Using 555 Phone Numbers

We all know they’re fake, and we all know you can’t use actual phone numbers for legal reasons, but for fuck’s sake -- make an effort! Use something which doesn’t destroy the illusion of reality. We know we’re watching a movie, but do you have to remind us with this bullshit? Or hey, here’s an idea: DON’T SHOW OR SAY PHONE NUMBERS. Are writers this lazy they can’t figure a way around it? If so, do you have to use something everyone recognizes as made up?

You know what smart filmmakers do? Use an exchange starting with 1. No real phone numbers use this, but at least it seems like an an actual number. They don’t use 0, either; not for the first digit after the area code. That’s another way to avoid the familiar; use a fake area code. Some which aren’t used now may come into use in the future, but those numbers have rules, and there are always ways to choose something which will forever remain inaccessible. The point is, there are less obvious ways to use a fake phone number. Use your brains, people, and come up with one.

Drivers Looking At Passengers

Speaking of lazy writing: this fatuous foible should have been done away with over thirty years ago, when the brilliant and hilarious Strange Brew pointed it out and made it silly to even consider including. But it still happens in nearly every fucking scene in a car or moving vehicle. Seriously -- almost all of them. And I am so often tempted to look at something else and just listen to the dialogue, or skip the scene altogether. It’s absolutely enraging. Anyone in the real world who spends this much time not watching the road is guaranteed to cause or almost cause an accident.

Which a lot of the time is what actually fucking happens in the fucking show or movie! I cannot possibly proffer the preposterous number of instances in which I’ve seen a plot altered or set in motion due to this very thing. Really, writers and filmmakers? This is all you’ve got? Holy hellfire, halfwits...just don’t bother. You left your fucking imagination in the toilet and flushed without looking. I am distressingly disgruntled with this inanity.

People In A Desperate Hurry To Have Sex 

Aside from how useless sex scenes are in general, this is often nothing but a dumb joke which reveals zilch about the characters -- only more of the actors, literally. This stupidity usually happens in order to show how excited they are about getting together, because action reveals character, right? Yeah, but not when it’s the same moronic thing time after time after time. They like each other, they’re horny, we get it...what about the movie?

Not only does this idiocy not tell us anything about the characters nor move the story along, we’ve seen it eight thousand times before. Unless there’s actually a good reason to hurry, like the Earth’s gonna explode any minute and they really wanna get it on before they die, this is just unfunny and pointless.

Oh, and regarding my initial statement about how useless sex scenes are in general? I could, and possibly will at some point, write an entire essay condemning all their terrible clichés, so we won’t get into it any further here...no pun intended. And, I’m sorry. About the unintended pun. These things happen.

“Joking” On DVD Commentaries

About Viewers Listening To It

Without First Watching The Movie By Itself

Obviously not an issue with the movies themselves, but DVD/Blu-Ray extras are a big deal these days; there’s no point in doing them if you’re gonna do it poorly.

So the problem here is multi-dimensional. They make this dumbass statement as if A: it’s a joke; B: it’s in any way funny; and C: the first time anyone has ever made such a clever fucking observation. Yet I hear it in ALMOST EVERY SINGLE COMMENTARY EVER. Not an exaggeration. I haven’t exactly kept track, but it’s definitely an overwhelming majority.

I could, and probably won’t at some point, write an entire essay condemning all the other stupid things often occurring in commentaries...so I’ll list them real quick:

• saying “I love this” about EVERYTHING
• reading names from the titles/credits aloud and/or applauding/cheering
• having multiple commenters with relatively indistinguishable voices
• having too many people in the room so no one gets a chance to say much
• having too many people talk at once and/or engage in multiple simultaneous conversations, making the whole thing an indecipherable cacophony
• saying something about “that line” of dialogue without recognizing the obvious fact they’re talking over it and we can’t hear whatever line they’re referring to (even with subtitles on this is stupid because “that” line could be any of them)
• talking about something other than what’s happening onscreen and is unrelated to the movie in practically any way
• describing exactly what’s happening onscreen without providing oh, I don’t know, commentary?

In other words: be interesting, not idiotic.

Non-American Actors Doing American Accents In Most Of Their Movies

(Or TV Shows)

What is with the fascination american films have for casting foreign actors to play american characters with american accents? Yes I purposely did not capitalize those words, because this absurd practice takes away the “proper” aspect of america as a proper noun. Why must these films force folks from elsewhere to pretend they’re not? Isn’t this the land to which all but its decimated and disrespected natives have emigrated? What’s wrong with an American Citizen having a foreign accent? And you’ll notice I did capitalize it there, because being a decent member of a decent group who invites any decent human being to join is very proper indeed, and respectable. But to deliberately discourage non-conformity? That’s unconscionable!

Some may think I take this too seriously; it’s a just a character, who cares -- but honestly? It’s symptomatic xenophobia. It’s exclusionary, and it ain’t what this country’s supposed to be about. Yet it’s become so common we hardly think anything of it. A lot of people don’t even know some of their favorite actors are not born americans. Take a look at this list, see if you can pick out who’s from the U.S. and who isn’t:

Christian Bale

Colin Farrell

Eric Bana

Gary Oldman

Hugh Jackman

Hugh Laurie

Idris Elba

Isla Fisher

Kate Beckinsale

Kate Winslet

Naomi Watts

Rebecca Hall

Rose Byrne

Simon Baker

Tom Wilkinson

Toni Collette

How’d you do? If you didn’t already realize, not a single one of these talented thespians originates stateside -- but all of them can, and quite often do, speak with an exemplary american accent. Surely you knew some of them are foreign to the U.S.; maybe you knew it of all of ‘em. Perhaps you’re also aware each of them has done well-known films with their natural accent, but a very large percentage of their widely-distributed performances are of them playing american...and even if you do know where they’re from, a whole lot of other people don’t. Many of these actors only get to do their natural accent once in a great while, when they’re playing a character specifically from the part of the world they themselves are from. They were likely cast in the role for precisely that purpose, and end up making lots of causal viewers think that’s the movie in which they’re putting on a pretend pronunciation!

Now, I’m not saying no actor should be allowed to play a character with a different accent; that’s silly...and there goes half Meryl Streep’s career. What I’m saying is, there’s no reason a performer from elsewhere in the world needs to consistently and repeatedly put on an american accent in an american-made movie. I’ve seen Sarah Snook, an Australian, in two movies; american accent both times. To their credit, both stories had her character growing up in specifically american surroundings, so it wouldn’t make sense to sound Australian, but I expect to see a lot more of her -- because she’s very good -- and I’ll be disappointed if she has to do this every time. Then there’s poor Gary Oldman, who’s done so many accents in so many films he actually LOST his original dialect and had to hire a speech therapist to get it back. That’s his heritage! And it got away from him. It’s sad. It’s wrong.

The thing is, we let some actors get away with never changing their manner of speech; why not others? In the last forty-five years, how many times has Arnold Schwarzenegger had a different accent? None! He either plays himself, Austrian, or Russian or German. Or it isn’t brought up at all. Sometimes they explained his accent by giving his character a backstory similar to his own, but at some point they gave up, because we get it: he’s Ah-nold. We don’t care how he sounds; we’ve even learned to appreciate it. How about Academy Award Winner Sir Anthony Hopkins? He never bothers to take on another dialect, and no one bothers to complain. People either don’t mind, don’t care, or don’t notice. So why don’t we just let people be people, let characters be characters, and forget about certain small details. Because when it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter. So let it not matter.

Lame-Ass Foreshadowing

When there's no immediately recognizable reason...

• someone coughing: will get sick and die.
• a woman throwing up: is pregnant.
• anyone stating a fear or phobia: will end up in a situation forcing them to face or otherwise encounter said fear.
• anyone stating they will absolutely definitely not ever do something: will immediately be shown doing this exact thing after a quick edit.
• someone in a one-shot speaking in a vulnerable or confessional manner: will be revealed as alone and rehearsing some kind of speech.

Maybe, once, a long long time ago, these were clever or effective...not any more. We all know how they work at this point. Retire them, please. Think of something new. Be original. That’s what gets viewers interested.

These seven stupidities are the big issues bugging me lately; got any others? Profess your perpetually pesky peeves in the comments below!

How NOT To Write A Screenplay, Part 2: Style And Substance

In this, the second half of my attempted educational essaying, we go past the basic formatting into the actual writing. If your script were a multi-course meal, we’ve covered which cutlery to use when; now we’ll be discussing what items it’s good and bad to have on your plate. I’m trying to cover things I saw over and over while reading for a contest and in other scripts I’ve read, but not necessarily notions generally argued throughout the industry - such as whether or not it’s okay to use “We see” or “We hear” (it really isn’t).

Generic Names

If you create generic characters who remain so throughout their entire appearance - giving them descriptive names such as MAN #1 or BUSY MOM or OBNOXIOUS FAN - you’re at least somewhat aware of the right way to do things. However, if this entire appearance stretches across more than one scene, or encompasses a moment during which his or her identity is expanded or revealed, then you need to make a change. If the characters are important enough to stick around a while, they deserve a name, even if only on the page.

But that’s fairly minor compared to these other problems, which crop up constantly. If you introduce an apparently generic character, with an appropriately generic name, and then later - within the course of a scene, in such a way it will show up in the film and be part of the story - reveal this person’s name, and then use that name for his action and speeches...why didn’t you provide the name in the first place? It’s rather jarring for a reader to identify a character as MECHANIC for half a page, and then, after he tells another character his name is Bob, to keep in mind that the character now speaking as BOB is the same person previously referred to as MECHANIC. A reader has to imagine all the characters, without the visual benefit of actors portraying them, so it’s best not to confuse us. Also, on the page you’ve got a guy with two names, so it looks like two characters, which would confuse a casting department skimming through the script trying to count roles and their basic types (gender, age, etc.). Just refer to him up front as BOB THE MECHANIC, or even just BOB, and maintain that consistently throughout his appearance(s).

The other problem, and the one which causes the most confusion because it makes the least sense to do, is when the character being introduced - whether for the first time in the script or perhaps just in this particular moment - is not immediately known to the reader or recognized by an audience. Often this happens when someone speaks off screen, and the character who is on screen turns around to see who it is. For example, the speaker is identified as MALE VOICE (O.S.) until the owner of that voice is shown or otherwise revealed, and then becomes BOB WALKER (I like the name Bob when we’re not really talking about anybody, so what.) But if you, the writer, know it’s Bob Walker who enters the scene, why don’t you identify him? Because the character he’s speaking to doesn’t know it’s him until he’s revealed? Unnecessary. Because you want to create or retain some sense of mystery about who this character is until you reveal him? Pointless. Again, these are words on a page. I have to imagine what you tell me is occurring. If you tell me there’s a voice, I don’t imagine a flesh and blood person in the scene, I imagine a voice - just a voice, which could be a recording, or a ghost, or who knows what else. Then you tell me it is a person, in fact it’s Bob Walker - wasn’t it him to begin with? Another instance of using two names for one character, and confusing a reader regarding what’s actually happening in the story.

I realize some people say, well, if we don’t know who he is yet, we shouldn’t identify him...that’s a weak argument. First of all, the script is meant to convey the story as clearly and simply as possible, and confusing a reader regarding who a character is or how many are actually in the scene does not constitute clarity or simplicity. And there’s always the distinct possibility that once this is filmed and edited, identifying the character will be as easy as recognizing the actor’s voice. If Tom Hanks is cast as Bob Walker, and the first scene he’s in doesn’t show his face right away, most people would still know it’s him as soon as a single word were out of his mouth. Even without a big name actor playing the character, the guy is who he is. He’s not a voice, or a figure, or a shape, or a shadow - he’s Bob Walker. Unless the story itself requires his identity be kept secret - if it’s a mystery or a spy movie or something like that - don’t try to be cute about it. Name your character, and tell your story.

Starts/Begins To & Suddenly

These are easy to do without realizing it, and you may only notice if you’re looking for it, or happen to read it hundreds of times. In a screenplay, anytime anybody does anything, they start doing it - because if they don’t start, they’re not doing it. So you don’t need to say “Bob starts to pick up the bowling ball” unless you’re also going to specify that he doesn’t actually pick it up - he only began the action. Even this isn’t a good use of action verbs; you’d be better off saying he reaches for it, but stops. Don’t define the intention, what would be; define what is. And the fewer words you can use to say the same thing and make it clear, the better.

Same deal with “suddenly.” Everything happens suddenly, because first it isn’t happening, then it is. If it weren’t sudden it would be gradual, right? So everything not described as happening suddenly I should picture in slow motion? No. These two things are obvious when you think about them; consider which of the two reads better: “Jenny suddenly slaps the cigarette out of Bob’s hand” or “Jenny slaps the cigarette from Bob’s hand.” Shorter, quicker, cleaner, is always better. But don’t worry about writing these things in early drafts; we all do them - but before you submit the script to anyone professionally, give it a pass just to find these little dragons and slay them.

Repeated Dialogue & “What?”

Most of the time, dialogue should be simpler, smarter, more direct, and more interesting than actual speech and conversation. If the point is for the characters to sound like uneducated buffoons who can’t put a sentence together, that’s fine, go for it, but in general, it’s best to make the dialogue catchy and concise. This means no character should be repeating what somebody else just said, as if we the readers didn’t just read it, as if the audience wouldn’t have heard it two seconds earlier. It’s boring.

Here’s an actual example: “I’m going to a concert tonight.” “You’re going to a concert?” “Yeah.” “Who’s playing?” “The Poster Children.” “The Poster Children?” “Mm-hmm.” “Never heard of ‘em.” Reading that, or listening to it, is like wading through cake batter. Too many words for the information presented, too slow and drawn out. Clip it, and let the actors set the pacing: “I’m going to a concert tonight.” “Who’s playing?” “The Poster Children.” “Never heard of ‘em.”

The other thing is when one character says something, then has to repeat it after someone else just says “What?” Or if they’re not repeating it, they’re elaborating, but either way, the other person just saying “What” is the blankest of terms, the least revealing thing they could possibly say. Give us a phrase that shows their character, expresses their emotions...or even better, have them react visually without saying anything. I realize there are some situations in which people may not be able to think of anything else to say, but along with what I mentioned earlier, fiction should be more interesting than reality. It should feel real, but more compelling. People just saying “What” is never compelling.

Parentheticals: Reprise

I come back to this because its misuse is so pervasive, its abuse such a mistake, it must be reiterated. DO NOT: put action or direction in parentheses between a speaker’s name and his or her dialogue. Action always belongs in action, and telling an actor how to act will be ignored. That’s how these are most often used in terms of style and substance: attempting to micromanage the performance with adverbs and descriptors. It’s not only annoying to read, but actors hate it, and rightly so. Parentheticals are only to be used for clarity when absolutely necessary, and such moments are rare. If you want to use it once or twice in an entire script to specify a beat between lines, when you feel this timing imperative to the delivery, go ahead. It’ll probably be changed anyway, but if it means that much to you, specify it - as long as it’s rarely done, it’s acceptable.

Yells, Screams, & More

What is unacceptable, and utterly pointless, is doing something like adding (yells) before dialogue such as “Timmy!! Dinnertime!!” This is an actual example. And while its pointlessness seems obvious when I state it, the obviousness is already there, in the exclamation points. I could go so far as to say more than one exclamation point per sentence is superfluous, even frowned upon professionally, but there’s no need to get into such details here...although it IS clearly unnecessary, and thus shouldn’t be done, but it’s so minor that hardly anyone would notice anyway.

Back to the point: if you feel you have to specify that your character yells or screams their dialogue, then your context is not clear enough. If you preface “NOOO!!!!” with (screams) then you give the impression you’re not paying attention to your writing. First of all, you shouldn’t have your characters screaming “NOOO!!!!” because come on, but second, if you’re not sure readers will understand that line is meant to be screamed...either you think your readers are stupid or you’re just not revising your script closely enough to remove excess.

It doesn’t belong in action, either. A script isn’t a novel. You don’t have to, and absolutely shouldn’t, get cute and tell us “Jimmy screams with all his might as if his soul is breaking” then present Jimmy’s one word of dialogue in all caps followed by several exclamation points. Because none of that really means anything. Not in a screenplay. Keep it simple, just tell the story. And let the actor act. Good actors will take your words and give them an emotional reality more vibrant and stunning than you could even picture while writing it. So let ‘em do their thing.

Phonetic Accents/Dialects

There are a lot of things to remember when writing a screenplay - keep it visual, show don’t tell, character motivation, conflict, structure - but the most important thing to keep in mind is that what you’re writing has to be read. People must understand every word of your script through the action of reading it. So if you’d like to convey how particular characters should sound, and choose to do so by changing the spelling of words throughout their dialogue, take care how far you alter the language to create your intended impression. Because if you make up too many words, or mix up the spelling too far, nobody will know what your characters are saying. And that’s bad.

Don’t get me wrong: if you have a talent for phonetic spelling which simply and clearly indicates a particular speech pattern, and makes for an easy and entertaining read, by all means, go for it. Most people do not have this talent. Even professional writers with years of experience rarely develop such a skill. The majority of the time, it just doesn’t work. This is where it’s good to have friends -  fellow filmmakers or non-professionals - give your script a read. You know what you’re saying, but if others can’t comprehend your characters, you need to make a change and get rid of these alternate spellings. Even in little ways, that nobody would have trouble understanding, it can be quite annoying. If a character says “Fer sure,” we all know what that means. We can hear the inflection, we comprehend the character. But ‘fer’ isn’t a word, isn’t even a recognized non-word. You accomplish the same thing, in a more professional manner, by introducing the character as speaking with a drawl and writing the line “For sure.” 

Truly, this is the best option: to specify any particular manners of speech in character introductions, and try to give them words and phrases to exemplify this. It’s the difference between saying “I don’t know” and “I ain’t for sure.” Speaking of the recognized non-word ‘ain’t’, sometimes you can get away with things that are technically wrong but already rather familiar, such as “I dunno” or other non-words like ‘gotta’, ‘oughtta’, ‘wanna’...it’s kinda cheap, and best avoided, but if you want your character to sound like that you can get away with it, as long you’re consistent.

Don’t, however, write things that are wrong in written form because your character doesn’t know better; you have to know better. If they speak incorrectly and say things like “funner” instead of “more fun,” that’s okay, but if you write “should of” instead of “should’ve,” slap yourself in the head. I don’t care if your character doesn’t know the difference: they’re only speaking it; you are writing it. You have to write what they mean when they say it, not how they would write it. 

Back to accents and dialects: if one or more characters speak pretty much the same way as everybody else but have a particular twist to their speech, just mention it at their introduction and hope folks reading the script remember to hear it that way in our heads. Will we? Probably not. But it doesn’t really matter, because the end goal is production, and actors will always make an effort to stay true to the background of a character. That background may change, or be developed further, but as the writer, you get to put your two cents in on the page, at the beginning of everything, where everyone can see it. So just make sure you’ve stated it clearly, and hope for the best.

Opening Routine

Please, please, please, please, please: never start your script with the main character going through his or her morning rituals and preparations. I don’t care if you really want to create a title sequence, which so many movies don’t even have anymore anyway; find something better for your character to do then get up and shower and eat breakfast because NO ONE CARES and it’s TERRIBLY BORING.

The only possible exception - and you’d better make it good if you dare attempt it - is if these scenes actually define and establish your character in a clear and entertaining manner. This is rare, partly because we’ve seen it all before, and partly because you might have to go way over the top to make anything stand out as defining. But really, why would you even want to do this? Because if you’d like anyone who doesn’t have to to read past page one, you want to make that first page interesting, dynamic, compelling...some shlub choosing a cereal ain’t none of those things.

Also, on a barely-related side note: don’t open the script with a flashback. If it’s the first scene, it can’t be a flashback, because where are you going back to, or from? There is no past, because you haven’t established a present. I just read a script which began with the words “FOUR WEEKS EARLIER” - earlier than what? Nothing’s happened yet. This makes no sense. What does make sense is to put “FOUR WEEKS LATER” at the start of the next sequence. So no flashbacks at the opening. It’s just ridiculous.

Proper Rating For Story & Genre: Swearing, Nudity, Violence, etc.

This one always confuses me, because I feel like it’s the kind of thing that should find a natural balance on its own, without much thought or attention to detail required on behalf of the writer - but maybe I’m wrong, or maybe that’s just me. The incongruity here is when a writer creates a relatively tame story but includes speeches with foul language, describes particular nudity, or presents moments of detailed, bloody violence. There’s nothing wrong with having any of these things in your script, but if the story is about (and aimed at) ten year-old skateboarders, there shouldn’t be occasional, multiple scenes of R-rated material. Yes that is an actual example.

It all goes back to knowing your audience, and making the story feel like a uniform piece. I read a script about a teenage babysitter that was PG all the way, aside from the one scene when a couple she was working for came home drunk and had sex on the couch downstairs while the girl was still in the house. If this were filmed exactly as written, it would be pornographic. So first off, why is that scene in this otherwise kid-friendly movie, and second, why would anyone write a scene so descriptively? Remember, screenwriting is only what is seen and heard - so if you describe it, you expect a reader to picture it, and an audience to see it in the finished film.

This is where being vague pays off. Describe a basic action, and allow the filmmakers to determine the tone. If you merely say a character steps out of the shower, you leave the visual detail open to interpretation while making the action itself perfectly clear. If you say a character walks naked down the hallway, dripping-wet body parts bouncing and jiggling with each step...well, you’re not leaving much to the imagination. You’re taking away a reader’s choices, and locking the entire script into a rating it might otherwise not require.

The trick here is really quite simple: just match the tone of the story. If it’s a murder mystery with blood-and-guts killings, you know it’ll have to be R, so go ahead and swear and describe nudity, if you want. You don’t have to, but it matches the tone, so it fits into the story. If it doesn’t necessarily have to be that bloody, don’t make it bloody. There’s a clear distinction in detail between describing a guy getting shot and a guy getting shot in the head so his brains paint the wall behind him. If the characters don’t need to swear then don’t have them swear. And don’t describe anything in detail you wouldn’t want or expect to be shown in precisely that detail.

So: that seems to about cover all the big problems I can think of. I’m sure there are other pet peeves and rejected notions swirling around a little deeper inside my head, but not seeing these particular issues anymore would be a big improvement.

Questions? Disagreements? Things I missed, or failed to clarify? Let me know in the comments, and feel free to add to the ideas presented here!

Next time: I settle once and for all a new debate on a classic film.