E-SCRIPTS: Escripts- Do you HAVE to have them?

[RuthNY]

The comment below got me to thinking. I love an editable script as much as anyone. My book stays cleaner if there are changes to the script,  I can hand out clean script pages to cast and staff, and come Tech. time I can format it anyway I want, to accommodate the cues. OK, that's all great. But, I worked for years without this capability, prior to computers. The only way to have a sort of editable script was to type new pages or sections, yes on a typewriter, if we HAD to. And very few expected that of an SM, as it was so cumbersome, but if you had to get it typed, there were typing services for hire.

So, an editable script is nice, but why do you HAVE to have one, if one is not available somewhere?

Why is the SM below planning on typing out his whole script if he can't get an already existing copy? (Nothing personal, TommyBoy249er.) What is so NECESSARY in an editable script, that an SM would take the time to type an entire script? Is it necessary to do the job?

Would you, and why?

If anybody actually has a .doc version of "The Woman in Black" that would be perfection.  Samuel French hates stage managers and I'll probably be typing up this script myself. 

Edited to add topic tag- Maribeth

[SMrose]

I remember that time, RuthNY, before e-scripts.  If I wanted to accommodate cues, I did  "cut and paste" --which back then was: copy the page, cut it up as needed and re-copy with the space needed for cue sequences.

[Catastrophyc]

I don't believe it's necessary, but it definitely makes it easier for me. I prefer to always have a digital copy in case of emergencies. I also like taking the time to know the script very well, which is expedited by typing it. It may also just be because I have been conditioned; at my college, it was required of stage managers to type the script for any mainstage production.

[dallas10086]

I'll admit it: there have been a couple of times when I typed up the script. Usually because the copy handed to me was a triple copied mess with someone else's notes all over them and wonky margins. There's no working around that kind of mess by cutting and readjusting. Like Catastrophyc, I find that I get a grasp of the material in less time when I type it out. But I don't make it a habit.

[RuthNY]

I still do cut and paste manually, if there's no editable script. And I don't find it inconvenient or frustrating. that's just what need to be done.

But, I can't conceive of typing up a full script--talk about frustration!!! It would be completed, around, say, closing night....maybe...

And, why does the emergency copy of the script need to be digital? Just keep a Master Script, updated at all times, with no other writing in it, and photocopy in an emergency.

As for becoming more familiar with the script, reading it serves the same purpose as typing it, no? I actually find that talking through the show--story, sequence, sets, etc. with my team, is my best tool for becoming familiar with the material.

I remember that time, RuthNY, before e-scripts.  If I wanted to accommodate cues, I did  "cut and paste" --which back then was: copy the page, cut it up as needed and re-copy with the space needed for cue sequences.

[MatthewShiner]

Most of the time, the scripts I work with come digital.

In the cases I am working with a Sam French, or non-digital script, I either scan and use OCR or type it.  (It really doesn't take as long as you might think.)

And then, I really know the text . . .

[On_Headset]

By the way, an important tip: unless you're working with a real dinosaur, your company's photocopier can almost certainly scan a document for you. The newest ones can also run OCR, but that's not too much of a chore to do yourself.

The problem I have with this approach is that I really really want it in a Word document so I can mess around with margins, and most scanners prefer to churn out PDFs.

[loebtmc]

e-scripts are great for originals, but for published scripts, I still prefer hard copy. I make two, one for rehearsals, one a clean version that becomes the final prompt script for calling the show. I would rather have hard copy.

[Sarah.E]

In my program, the 'culture' seems to be that one always uses a print script for rehearsal, but may use an Escript to format cues, but not call from (the document gets printed). If there is a PA assigned to a show, it is one of their duties. Most SM students here seem to have a  retyped, clean copy of the script before tech, both to work from and distribute to the designers for cue placement.

[MatthewShiner]

I agree that most you the e-copy of the script to format the text for a hard copy to use in rehearsal and tech, and print out a hard copy to call from, although more and more people are calling from an electronic screen - but I still think the norm is a hard copy of the script in front of you at all times.

[dallas10086]

When you type 60wpm it doesn't take long to type a script - and I tend to skip unnecessary stage directions. Not a great option though if you hunt and peck.

And it's strictly for adjusting margins for cues or electronically adding cues, which is rare for me. I can't ever see myself calling a show electronically. Again, paper doesn't crash or require a battery.

[PSMKay]

Things I would theoretically consider before typing a paper script (or printing an e-script!)...

- How talky is the play?
- Cost per use. Yes, I like my margins a certain way and I like to add space, and I like line numbers for being on book. Is that enough to make it worth the (probably unpaid) time I will spend typing?
- RE: doing it to "learn the script." I will hear the script a billion times and learn it along with the actors. I will be sick to death of it by closing. There will be oodles of table time when I will be gently escorted through textual analysis. Could I better spend the time learning authorial context, historical research, listening to the proper dialects, doing a real knockout Cue Fu*, or looking into shows that my design team & company have recently done? After all, these the things that will be important to MY job through the process. Knowing the script before rehearsal starts? That's the director's job. The actor's job. The dramaturg's job.
- How "locked" is the text?
- How will my escript look in my portfolio vs a paper script? Will it look like I'm diligent and dedicated? Or that I'm willing to do a lot of extra work for free? Or worse, that I'm high maintenance and will waste company money on fiddly things?
- Chances of a remount? And when? 10 years ago we were saving digital stuff on CDs and ZIP drives. 20 years ago it was floppy disks and tape drives. Remounting a show using your digitized script next year is one thing, but could you even access an archived e-script from 2003 using today's tech without scrounging high and low for rare peripherals?
- Is this a case of "make ALL the paperwork" cleverly disguised as dramaturgy?
- How active is rehearsal going to be? If I'm going to be running all over the hall, will it be easier to carry paper or my tech gear?
- How reliable is the power at the theatre? How about the weather? How's security in the hall? What's my photocopy budget for this show?
- How old is my laptop's battery?
- How pictorial is my blocking shorthand? It's easier and faster to draw diagrams on paper. It's easier to type text abbreviations.
- How tech-savvy is my crew? If I get HBAB** can my assistant/the PM/the director's brother/whoever they get to cover for me figure out my escript?
- Am I setting a precedent that I will be retyping every script for this company going forward?

* Cue Fu - line by line analysis of the show for potential tech issues, using a big honking grid. Kind of like a WWW. Kind of not.
** HBAB - hit by a bus

[lsears]

Do I have to have an editable copy?  No.

Does it make it easier sometimes? Yes.

I'll probably type one play a year.  It doesn't take long.  I was in prep week during the last major hurricane so we couldn't go into the office but my three PAs split the script into sections and got it all done in a weekend.  That was the script I called from, with no stage directions, it was immeasurably easier for me than the published version.  But more often I use a paper cutter and a template on a copier. 

It also depends on the theater and the amount of time the script is going to be important to me.  Some processes are so short it isn't worth it and taking the time to type it may jeopardize other work that needs to be done.  As for the comments about learning the script as you type versus talking it over with your team and designer, I think that comes down to personal learning style and how you absorb information, if you're a visual, audio or kinesthetic learner.

[kiwitechgirl]

For me it always depended (I've now moved from stage management to orchestral management) on the show.  If it wasn't complex and the hard copy was reasonably clean, then I didn't worry about an e-script.  New plays, always an e-script because that's how it tended to come from the playwright anyway - and it was much easier to make changes for a final calling script.  I did find it slightly tricky to manage in rehearsals, because I'd print new pages out (I can't cope with taking blocking notes electronically) and the page breaks didn't always line up, but I just used to black out the doubled-up stuff.  Always would print a clean copy for a calling script.  Musicals, I used to call from a combination of script and score - and an electronic copy was the best way of making that work - I used to scan the music and insert it as pictures.  Fairly early on I persuaded the theatre to buy OCR software, which expedited the process a lot, but before that I think there were two scripts which I typed - one was The Country Wife, which I only typed because the director had made huge cuts and I can't deal with a messy calling script, and one was The Producers so I could insert the music.  I did come across one script, Anything Goes, which I had to type because the original was so messy (copy of a copy of a copy, I think) that the OCR software freaked out and couldn't cope with it.

[RuthNY]

FYI, I never intended this to be a thread devoted to the discussion of paper vs electronic device scripts. Escripts to me are editable scripts, and I was simply inquiring if people felt they HAD to have them for every show, regardless of how they ultimately utilize them.

I agree with a previous poster. I like an editable script, but, except for a new work, I don't NEED an editable script, and I personally don't spend hours typing one, if one is not available.