As far as I can surmise, there are roughly four worthy screenwriting applications out there: Sophocles 2007 (which is currently in beta, but works quite well), Final Draft 7, Celtx, and Movie Magic Screenwriter 6 (as yet unreleased).
There are other alternatives whose niche is simply being less fully featured, harder to use, and cheaper. Hollywood Screenwriter comes to mind. Many of those OTHER programs are merely template programs--which means that they are addons to Microsoft Word, adding additional screenwriter-relevant functions. I've tried them, they blow.
If you're looking for the best cheap/free screenwriting application, you can do no better than Celtx. It's not perfect (by any means), but it looks good, and is mostly intuitive to use for writing. It formats things correctly and is a great buy at $0. It's just so hard these days to beat free.
However, Celtx is missing some of the features of pay programs. It doesn't have a page view; For those of you like me who like to see what you're writing as it would look in the context of a page, it's a feature you'd miss. It doesn't have any virtual index card functionality, and it doesn't include any sort of outliner. It's basically just a barebones screenwriting program that formats things correctly, prints, outputs in PDF, and offers an online backup feature. But, like I said, it's hard to beat free, especially when free works so well in this case.
Final Draft has, for many years, been the mack daddy of screenwriting applications. It is, without a doubt, the industry standard. However, its reign may be close to over. When a free application is available that works so well and looks so good (Celtx), and the competing pay applications are upping the ante by offering far better customer service and applications which offer more features in a better looking package, you know Final Draft is in trouble. For years it's proprietary format helped it keep its stranglehold on Hollywood production houses; but then along comes PDF. PDF was a feature that Final Draft couldn't afford to not include. Yet the inclusion of PDF export in Final Draft opened up the way for the industry to standardize on a different format other than FDR. PDF can be opened anywhere, whereas FDR requires Final Draft or, at bare minimum, the Final Draft Viewer application. True, PDF's aren't really editable. But the industry may be finding that it's cheaper and easier to just print out a PDF, make your notes in red on the margins of the script, and messenger it back to the writer (or whomever). Regardless, PDF has weakened the reign of Final Draft and their file format: FDR. Another key weakness of Final Draft is that their PDF file sizes are ridiculously huge. Could this have been an effort on their part to include a high-demand feature, while making it unattractive to use? Perhaps. Maybe I'm being paranoid.
More than anything, what will bring Final Draft down is its growing reputation for horrible customer service; horrible customer service that has the gall to charge for poor service--after users have already paid a hefty chunk of change or a glorified word processor. Final Draft no longer innovates. They're leaving the innovations to other applications like Celtx, Sophocles, and Movie Magic. They still haven't released a version of Final Draft which is fully compatible with Vista. Instead, their solution is to put up a lengthy intimidating page of solutions to common Vista problems. How professional. I hate it when developers are so far behind the times. A major windows release, and months later they still haven't done anything significant about making their application 100% compatible. Final Draft 7 was also notorious for its plethora of bugs and weird behaviors. Visually, it's unremarkable. Its look is simplistic, though that seems to be more than skin deep. The application just doesn't seem like it offers much beyond what Celtx offers--and Celtx is FREE. Yes, I'm not arguing that it doesn't have features beyond what Celtx offers, but I am arguing that the features it does have don't justify how unresponsive the company is to bugs and needed application improvements or the $200+ price difference. Most of the additional features of Final Draft aren't useful enough to be worth paying for. Final Draft's virtual index card feature is merely okay--but not nearly at the level I'd like to see. The closer an application gets to the functionality of a program called Mindola SuperNotecard, the better. In comparison to the SuperNotecard implementation though, Final Draft falls far short.
I keep trying Final Draft, thinking that maybe my memory of it doesn't do it justice, but moments later--after trying it again--I realize that my memory was accurate, and I just don't like the program. Final Draft 6 was good, but Final Draft 7 was too little too late. Final Draft 8 will have to walk on water to keep Final Draft in the game.
SOPHOCLES 2007 is a great complex program. I've been playing with the beta for a while and have been pretty impressed. Writing three shorts in it went well. There were no crashes or other unexpected behaviors. If Sophocles can be criticized for anything it is that it looks very complex. There's TONS of functionality, and it's hard to figure out how to use it all effectively. For instance, just the main screen displays the standard word processing menus (File, Edit, View, Insert...), the standard icon menus representing common commands (new document, open document, save, cut, paste...), and then the screen below that main menu is split. Both sides have tabs. The left side's tabs are scenes, characters, locations, threads, resources. On the right the tabs are: script, step, chrono, schedule, chart, relationships. There's oodles of outlining functionality, even if there isn't really a virtual index card functionality. Each side has another submenu below the tabs.
It can be a little overwhelming when you first look at it. The default view has the script on one side with the scenes/sequences/acts list on the other side. Both sides are resizeable.
Sophocles is obviously a program designed with modern computers in mind. It looks equally good on my laptop screen as well as my external monitor. The icons are well designed. They're a little on the small side, but that's appealing to me. I like it when my writing program stays out of the way as much as possible. Final Draft's icons are far to big. They take up space that could be better used to display more of the page I'm working on.
All in all, I guess I don't have many complaints about Sophocles 2007. I might suggest paring down the default view--not losing any functionality, but moving it off the main screen so that it's not as intimidating and overwhelming and cluttery. Also, maybe include a tutorial showing how all the additional functionality can make my life as a writer easier. Show me how to effectively use Relations/Charts/Schedule/Threads/etc. Make sure that every feature you put into the program is thoroughly fleshed out and works flawlessly. I'd rather have less features which work perfectly (and are useful) than tons of features which only work okay (and aren't tremendously useful).
I guess Sophocles just takes some time to get use to. It takes a while to figure out what everything does and how to use it effectively. Don't get me wrong; you can simply start writing after you open the application. That part, at least, is very intuitive and obvious. It's just everything else that Sophocles offers that could take a while to learn how to add to your repertoire as a writer. I've enjoyed using Sophocles, and these days find myself debating buying it when it leaves Beta or simply making do with Celtx.
Another application which intrigues me, which I haven't had the opportunity to try is Movie Magic Screenwriter 6. I tried Screenwriter 2000 a long time ago and wasn't impressed, but recent screenshots of this newest version look far more promising. Also, the feature list versus Final Draft is impressive. I hope to try version 6 in the next month or two. If I like it I'll write up a little review of it.
For now, Sophocles 2007 and Celtx are my two favorite screenwriting applications.
Another application which has been useful to me in writing is SuperNotecard (by Mindola software). I'm not affiliated with any of these companies. These are just my insights as a writer. My approach to software as a writer is that it should be so easy to use, and so darn helpful that I don't even realize how powerful it is and how much I'm in love with it until I'm dreaming at night and my wet dreams aren't of women, they're of my software.
IN SHORT...
Final Draft 7: Expensive, simplistic, poor reputation, not innovative, mostly words, some troubling bugs in the past. C- (not a good grade for a program costing $200+)
Sophocles 2007: Expensive, tons of features, solid program, writing is intuitive, innovative, looks good. B- (because it's not completely refined for a $200+ program)
Celtx: Cheap/free, works great for writing (very intuitive)--but otherwise limited feature set, looks good, haven't encountered any problems. B+ (I'd like it to have a few more tools for writers: an outliner, virtual index cards, reports, etc.)
Movie Magic Screenwriter 6: great feature set, hopefully it looks a LOT better than Screenwriter 2000. I'll review it if/when I have the chance.
There are other alternatives whose niche is simply being less fully featured, harder to use, and cheaper. Hollywood Screenwriter comes to mind. Many of those OTHER programs are merely template programs--which means that they are addons to Microsoft Word, adding additional screenwriter-relevant functions. I've tried them, they blow.
If you're looking for the best cheap/free screenwriting application, you can do no better than Celtx. It's not perfect (by any means), but it looks good, and is mostly intuitive to use for writing. It formats things correctly and is a great buy at $0. It's just so hard these days to beat free.
However, Celtx is missing some of the features of pay programs. It doesn't have a page view; For those of you like me who like to see what you're writing as it would look in the context of a page, it's a feature you'd miss. It doesn't have any virtual index card functionality, and it doesn't include any sort of outliner. It's basically just a barebones screenwriting program that formats things correctly, prints, outputs in PDF, and offers an online backup feature. But, like I said, it's hard to beat free, especially when free works so well in this case.
Final Draft has, for many years, been the mack daddy of screenwriting applications. It is, without a doubt, the industry standard. However, its reign may be close to over. When a free application is available that works so well and looks so good (Celtx), and the competing pay applications are upping the ante by offering far better customer service and applications which offer more features in a better looking package, you know Final Draft is in trouble. For years it's proprietary format helped it keep its stranglehold on Hollywood production houses; but then along comes PDF. PDF was a feature that Final Draft couldn't afford to not include. Yet the inclusion of PDF export in Final Draft opened up the way for the industry to standardize on a different format other than FDR. PDF can be opened anywhere, whereas FDR requires Final Draft or, at bare minimum, the Final Draft Viewer application. True, PDF's aren't really editable. But the industry may be finding that it's cheaper and easier to just print out a PDF, make your notes in red on the margins of the script, and messenger it back to the writer (or whomever). Regardless, PDF has weakened the reign of Final Draft and their file format: FDR. Another key weakness of Final Draft is that their PDF file sizes are ridiculously huge. Could this have been an effort on their part to include a high-demand feature, while making it unattractive to use? Perhaps. Maybe I'm being paranoid.
More than anything, what will bring Final Draft down is its growing reputation for horrible customer service; horrible customer service that has the gall to charge for poor service--after users have already paid a hefty chunk of change or a glorified word processor. Final Draft no longer innovates. They're leaving the innovations to other applications like Celtx, Sophocles, and Movie Magic. They still haven't released a version of Final Draft which is fully compatible with Vista. Instead, their solution is to put up a lengthy intimidating page of solutions to common Vista problems. How professional. I hate it when developers are so far behind the times. A major windows release, and months later they still haven't done anything significant about making their application 100% compatible. Final Draft 7 was also notorious for its plethora of bugs and weird behaviors. Visually, it's unremarkable. Its look is simplistic, though that seems to be more than skin deep. The application just doesn't seem like it offers much beyond what Celtx offers--and Celtx is FREE. Yes, I'm not arguing that it doesn't have features beyond what Celtx offers, but I am arguing that the features it does have don't justify how unresponsive the company is to bugs and needed application improvements or the $200+ price difference. Most of the additional features of Final Draft aren't useful enough to be worth paying for. Final Draft's virtual index card feature is merely okay--but not nearly at the level I'd like to see. The closer an application gets to the functionality of a program called Mindola SuperNotecard, the better. In comparison to the SuperNotecard implementation though, Final Draft falls far short.
I keep trying Final Draft, thinking that maybe my memory of it doesn't do it justice, but moments later--after trying it again--I realize that my memory was accurate, and I just don't like the program. Final Draft 6 was good, but Final Draft 7 was too little too late. Final Draft 8 will have to walk on water to keep Final Draft in the game.
SOPHOCLES 2007 is a great complex program. I've been playing with the beta for a while and have been pretty impressed. Writing three shorts in it went well. There were no crashes or other unexpected behaviors. If Sophocles can be criticized for anything it is that it looks very complex. There's TONS of functionality, and it's hard to figure out how to use it all effectively. For instance, just the main screen displays the standard word processing menus (File, Edit, View, Insert...), the standard icon menus representing common commands (new document, open document, save, cut, paste...), and then the screen below that main menu is split. Both sides have tabs. The left side's tabs are scenes, characters, locations, threads, resources. On the right the tabs are: script, step, chrono, schedule, chart, relationships. There's oodles of outlining functionality, even if there isn't really a virtual index card functionality. Each side has another submenu below the tabs.
It can be a little overwhelming when you first look at it. The default view has the script on one side with the scenes/sequences/acts list on the other side. Both sides are resizeable.
Sophocles is obviously a program designed with modern computers in mind. It looks equally good on my laptop screen as well as my external monitor. The icons are well designed. They're a little on the small side, but that's appealing to me. I like it when my writing program stays out of the way as much as possible. Final Draft's icons are far to big. They take up space that could be better used to display more of the page I'm working on.
All in all, I guess I don't have many complaints about Sophocles 2007. I might suggest paring down the default view--not losing any functionality, but moving it off the main screen so that it's not as intimidating and overwhelming and cluttery. Also, maybe include a tutorial showing how all the additional functionality can make my life as a writer easier. Show me how to effectively use Relations/Charts/Schedule/Threads/etc. Make sure that every feature you put into the program is thoroughly fleshed out and works flawlessly. I'd rather have less features which work perfectly (and are useful) than tons of features which only work okay (and aren't tremendously useful).
I guess Sophocles just takes some time to get use to. It takes a while to figure out what everything does and how to use it effectively. Don't get me wrong; you can simply start writing after you open the application. That part, at least, is very intuitive and obvious. It's just everything else that Sophocles offers that could take a while to learn how to add to your repertoire as a writer. I've enjoyed using Sophocles, and these days find myself debating buying it when it leaves Beta or simply making do with Celtx.
Another application which intrigues me, which I haven't had the opportunity to try is Movie Magic Screenwriter 6. I tried Screenwriter 2000 a long time ago and wasn't impressed, but recent screenshots of this newest version look far more promising. Also, the feature list versus Final Draft is impressive. I hope to try version 6 in the next month or two. If I like it I'll write up a little review of it.
For now, Sophocles 2007 and Celtx are my two favorite screenwriting applications.
Another application which has been useful to me in writing is SuperNotecard (by Mindola software). I'm not affiliated with any of these companies. These are just my insights as a writer. My approach to software as a writer is that it should be so easy to use, and so darn helpful that I don't even realize how powerful it is and how much I'm in love with it until I'm dreaming at night and my wet dreams aren't of women, they're of my software.
IN SHORT...
Final Draft 7: Expensive, simplistic, poor reputation, not innovative, mostly words, some troubling bugs in the past. C- (not a good grade for a program costing $200+)
Sophocles 2007: Expensive, tons of features, solid program, writing is intuitive, innovative, looks good. B- (because it's not completely refined for a $200+ program)
Celtx: Cheap/free, works great for writing (very intuitive)--but otherwise limited feature set, looks good, haven't encountered any problems. B+ (I'd like it to have a few more tools for writers: an outliner, virtual index cards, reports, etc.)
Movie Magic Screenwriter 6: great feature set, hopefully it looks a LOT better than Screenwriter 2000. I'll review it if/when I have the chance.
Powered by ScribeFire.
