Scrivener as the main screenwriting program

Scrivener
,
1

Hi,

I would like to ask an update about using Scrivener as a screenwriting software. I wonder if the old discussions still apply to the latest version of the software.

The manual itself is quite dismissive, in stating that Scrivener is not a full-fledged screenwriting software.

At the same time, I find that Scrivener, as an ideating, structuring and writing tool, is more advanced than others, and for me it has a more mature user interface. I wonder if the diffidence of some reviewers depends on the fact that Scrivener’s UI is also more crowded, richer and complex than the one of Final Draft of Fade In.

As a long-time user of Scrivener, I’ve obviously no issues with it. I don’t have to learn it from scratch, and have always and immediately loved it.

What is missing are the pre-production features. But I’m not a director, so in any case my goal would end before breaking the script for shooting, finding the props and the locations, rehearsing with the actors.

Can’t Scrivener be all that is needed for this stage of writing?

Paolo

1 Like
2

What an excellent question. I look forward to learning from the discussion.

3

I can tell you the main reason we disclaim about it in the official wording and documentation: it can’t print a “real” script accurately, down to the character, and with all of the features it should (the Mac is a bit more, but it’s still missing all of what is needed).

So long as the program you are using can only output proofing level copies of the script, I wouldn’t myself call it a full-fledged program for making scripts (careful wording). Writing them, sure, but that’s a concept that can be addressed by an entirely different kind of software (or even method, like Fountain, which makes far less of an attempt to be a full-fledged screenwriting system, but a good writing tool).

I don’t have to tell you the rest, about how that’s Scrivener’s M.O. in general, across all writing disciplines, but we’ve found there is a much higher tendency to dismiss a program that isn’t aimed at printing finalised material, as not being worth using at all if it cannot be used for that, than what comes from that segment. So it is safer to say at the top, and with emphasis: this is for drafting your script, you’re going to need other tools to print it. That culls out the many who would become outraged at the end.

I’m sure there are other things as well, like you point out, the production stuff is one, but I’ve even had numerous people tell me how worthless Scrivener is because it can’t number scenes in the editor—so I guess that’s kind of important to some people. :laughing: Overall I just think it’s safest and best to align people’s expectations more precisely to the fact that Scrivener’s screenplay features pretty much start at importing a few file types, having a fancy style-type macro formatting system in the text editor, and ends at exporting a few file types—so you can print them properly and move on beyond drafting. The rest… is just Scrivener, what everyone else uses to organise what they are writing.

4 Likes
4

Thank you Ioa. This makes it very clear that Scrivener is good at writing screenplays as much as it is with writing anything else. Formatting, is something that you have never claimed as the main point of the program.

The screenwriting world is maybe even more adherent than others to a particular program that everybody else uses. Only in technical writing I can see a similar degree of fidelity. I’m even moved when the vintage flavor of Movie Magic Screenwriter enters into the game.

Among the arguments against using Scrivener found in the forums are the following ones:

  • Scrivener can’t numbers scenes (as you report)
  • It can’t be used to enter Action, Dialogue, etc.
  • I have to see a script in page view! Scrivener can’t do that!
  • It uses non-standard fonts
  • It doesn’t make parallel dialogue
  • Final Draft is the industrial standard, stick to it
  • Movie Magic is a better industrial standard, stick to it
  • Fade In is the new (?) industrial standard, stick to it
  • If you are a beginner, you must use Movie Magic, it can do budgeting!
  • Scrivener breaks your script into separated document, it’s a mess
  • You can do the same in the Finder, and open the separate documents with Word
  • I’m a professional screenwriter, and Ive never heart of this Scrivner

But everybody should work with the software letting one feel good with the tools.

As one of my friends once told me: I want to get a Mac, but can it run Word? I need to write!

Paolo

1 Like
5

Hi, professional screenwriter here (USA), and longtime Scrivener user.

The short answer: Scrivener’s organizational tools are so good that I use it AND Final Draft at the same time to develop screenplays. I write pages in Final Draft, then copy them onto the clipboard and use Scrivener’s Paste Text to Screenplay to transfer the pages with formating intact. I do the reverse when I want to do a lot of rewriting. Send it to Final Draft, then put it back into Scrivener. When I finally finish the draft in Scrivener, I export (not compile) an FDX file of the script, and open it in Final Draft to correct formatting and output to PDF.

If you don’t have Final Draft, the completely free and unlimited app WriterSolo works great for this purpose.

The longer answer: I’m really grateful that Keith made an effort to embrace screenwriting features in Scrivener. Unfortunately, he didn’t make the screenwriting features up to the same standards as the rest of the app. I put that down to Keith not wanting to write screenplays, so he’s not eating his own cooking.

From a pro screenwriter point of view, there are two main problems with Scrivener:

(1) it can’t give you an exact preview of your pages, just an approximation. Screenwriters live and die by page breaks. The difference between a two page scene and a two-and-a-quarter page scene can be a big deal. We need to know where we are in the draft.

(2) the word processor doesn’t understand anything about screenplays – it’s built from Apple’s text engine, so it’s like writing in Text Edit with some built-in formatting rulers. For example, Scrivener is the only screenplay app I’m aware of that will paste dialogue into a scene header. (By mistake.) All the others will recognize that the clipboard doesn’t contain scene header information, and will instead insert a blank line, a character name (from source) and paste the dialogue with proper formatting.

Because of this, I only use Scrivener’s word processor for minor changes like fixing typos. If I want to rewrite a scene, I paste it into Final Draft and do the work there.

FWIW, if L&L licensed the script processing code from WriterSolo and made a new app that was Scrivener with a professional screenwriting engine, I’d happily buy a brand new seat. Like I said, the rest of Scrivener is so powerful and helpful, I’m willing to put up with some inconvenience to keep it in my workflow.

Let me know if you have other questions.

5 Likes
6

Just wondering: isn’t, the fact that a screenplay page size is very rigidly defined, making the preview in Scrivener accurate, when using the right font (that I guess it is doing automatically via the embedded Courier Prime)?

Paolo

7

Sort of. Kind of. From the manual:

While the point should remained stressed that Scrivener is not designed at any level to provide a completely accurate pagination solution—with rigid format- ting, such as that used by most scriptwriting formats, and a few optional settings, it is possible to get closer to an accurate page count, when using Page View (sec- tion 16.2) mode.

One of the benefits of pasting pages into Final Draft is that you get correct pagniation. helpful on the scene/sequence level, absolutely essential when you’re looking at the overall length of the draft.

1 Like
8

Would doing just the final draft in Final Draft work, or you would inherit from Scrivener too many faults to be fixed in the latest stage?

This is more or less what I do with narrative and essays: do the work up to the final revision in Scrivener, and then compile an RTF or DOCX document, and print it to do the final reading.

For narrative and essays I would be happy to insert my edits in Scrivener, and then regenerate the output, but maybe for screenwriting I would instead only work, at this point, in Final Draft.

I’m trying to find my workflow because, I have to admit, I don’t like any of the screenwriting programs I tried. When I actively wrote short screenplays I used Celtx, that I’ve always hated. Final Draft has always been alien to me. And Fade In looks now like an outdated piece of casual software.

I know the content is important, so what counts is how well these programs can led to the optimal result. But I’m a paranoid, and like my work environment not to look hostile. I know the official screenwriting programs are letting the strong power control my mind!

(Kidding apart: I toyed around with the iPad apps of Final Draft and Fade In. I don’t find a great care in them. I’m not sure an iPad app can be considered just an afterthought today. I don’t think I’m the only one doing a lot of work on a tablet, far from the crazy crowd. I feel like these programs are coming from another age).

I hope something like (beat) can work as well for the final formatting. It’s the only one, maybe together with Highland, that I find digestible.

Paolo

9

Sure, you could do it that way. There are plenty of people who write screenplays in Scrivener alone. For me, writing in Final Draft is second nature, and I can depend on it to do the job without problems. When I try to work exclusively in Scrivener, I find it a bumpy ride. Your Mileage May Vary.

You should pay attention to your own likes and dislikes. I think the key is to find a workflow with which you can be comfortable. I don’t do much screenwriting on my iPad, but I find Final Draft Mobile to be the best screenwriting experience on that tablet, and I’ve tried them all.

I dislike the Fountain-based apps like (beat) and Highland. Again, it comes down to taste, but I greatly prefer a WYSIWYG screenwriting interface that understands final formatting on the page.

Once again, I’d like to mention that the free and unlimited WriterSolo works fine in this situation as a substitute for Final Draft. IMHO, FD is better at final output to PDF, but WS is good enough.

2 Likes
10

Thank you for the hint. Shame they no longer make a desktop app. But I guess for the final phase of formatting working online could be acceptable.

Paolo

11
  • Open WriterSolo.com
  • Click on the Account button in the lower left corner of the screen
  • Click the Download App from the menu
  • Select your platform from the dialogue box
2 Likes
12

Screenwriting programs don’t like me. Apparently, I’m logged in, but no app is coming down for me :frowning:

EDIT: Not working in Safari, but working in Chrome.

Paolo

13

I noticed that this happens a lot. Especially Google services like the search results of their AI thing. The results are fine, but the paperclip link won’t open. YouTube won’t allow me to edit my YouTube profiles; and on ocassion, a non-Googley site refuses to play well with Safari. I have to resort to Vivaldi (a Chrome-clone.)

14

I like Brave on the Mac, also a Chrome-like browser with more privacy.

15

A perspective workflow for me, at this point, may be this one:

  • Scribble your notes everywhere. An app on the iPhone or the iPad that can sync to the Mac is the ideal. It may be Apple Notes, or a notorious writing app I use often.
  • Brainstorm on Scapple. Move the Scapple notes to Scrivener.
  • Write the subject in Scrivener, and share it either as is, or more formally after paginating it with your preferred wordprocessor.
  • Write the treatment in Scrivener. Mix narrative and screenplay sections. Share as you like, collect documents from your collaborators in any file format.
  • Write the script in Scrivener. Be sure Courier Prime is used both in the Editor (it should, by default), both in Compile.
  • If your collaborators send in their contribution as an .fdx file, import it into Scrivener. Use Import and split to preserve its structure.
  • When the pre-final draft is ready, export from Scrivener as an .fdx file, and open it with WriterSolo for formatting.
  • You can still collaborate, at this point, by switching to WriterDuet. If the free version is enough, fine; otherwise, just get one of the cheap monthly subscriptions while the project goes. Or force everyone to buy Fade In.

Why not (beat), that I praised before? Because it can’t export to .fdx. All considered, WriterSolo or WriterDuet may be easier for writers that go less easy than me with writing as coding.

Paolo

17

I would also buy this in an instant — even if it was priced at Final Draft levels. The Scriv paradigm strikes me as even more suitable to screenwriting than it is for books.

2 Likes
18

I would not phrase it way, nor would I say a number of the things in that original list (I wasn’t sure if it was entirely serious or not, as it also stated things like being unable to use standard fonts (why not?) or that it is unable to set elements like action and dialogue).

But specifically to this one, there are two reasons for why the statement isn’t accurate, at least as generally put as it is:

  1. Scrivener can number “scenes”, or whatever you want to call the chunks of outline that are listed in the sidebar. It’s been able to do that for a very long time.

    However, as you will note in that thread, there is a very strong opinion being expressed, and not uniquely to this individual, that providing scene numbers for your own editorial process is only ever validly done if it perfectly mimics the standard formatting for a printed screenplay. That is what we can’t do, as noted in that thread, and all I meant to refer to in my original comment in this thread.

  2. More recently on the Mac, it is able to number scenes in its PDF output (and toggle the metadata for doing so in FDX):

    Scene numbering in Scrivener...

    25242707-Scriv-scene_numbering-and_final_draft_cf

    (Right-click and load image in a tab if it’s too small here.) Of note:

    1. Scenes are numbered in the outliner with the View â–¸ Outliner Options â–¸ Title â–¸ With Numbers setting (there is a similar setting for corkboard).
    2. The two pages below that show PDF output from Scrivener (left) and PDF output from Final Draft (right).
    3. The third is a composite of the two pages overlapping, with the transparency dropped so that the text layout differences can be examined. Scrivener is off by one line on the very first page, so none of this contradicts what I’ve already said about it being unable to produce an industry standard page count.
2 Likes
19

I appreciate your thoughts. I should have followed the discussion more carefully. Thanks for keeping us on track.

20

Oh I was referring more to the original statement than what you had put—which is a good point, there may be tools that can augment Scrivener and probably in ways that work even better than its automatic numbering (particularly if one isn’t inclined to strictly break each scene out into its own binder item). I just don’t think it’s fair to say Scrivener cannot number scenes; given the above, such a statement needs qualifiers.

2 Likes
21

Makes sense.

Truthfully, I didn’t know whether or not Scrivener could number scenes. I’m glad to have learned something here.

1 Like