Fade In

[vigilante]

Hey gang, I have several fight scenes I'm placing in my script one behind the other at different locations and different characters. What would be the best
way to do this, just fade in and out of each scene. There is no dialog just fight scenes.:confused:

[Knaight]

Don't include editing transitions; they're annoying. Try to smooth out the cuts by having what happens at the end of one scene flow into what happens at the beginning of the next.

For instance:

John takes a swing at Henry -- misses -- and hits the brick wall behind him.

EXT. DARK ALLEY - NIGHT

Ken snaps his hand back in pain. It's bloody, maybe broken.

[Population17]

Hey gang, I have several fight scenes I'm placing in my script one behind the other at different locations and different characters. What would be the best
way to do this, just fade in and out of each scene. There is no dialog just fight scenes.:confused:

If anything, use CUT TO's:

From my understanding, the "trend" in screenwriting now-a-days is to only have FADE IN/FADE OUT at the beginning and end of your script and that's it. The majority of TRANISITIONS aren't really used anymore.

If you script reads right, just using a new slugline will show us that we're in a new location.

Too many CUT TO or FADE IN/OUTs, can look silly and appear like you're trying to "pad" your script to make it longer.

Just stick to going from one slug to the next. You'll be fine.


brad

[vigilante]

Thanks for the input. The effect I'm trying to get if you remember the movie Jeremiah Johnson toward the end he was fighting Indians, one after the other
that what I'm after.

Again thanks so much for the help.;)

[cupertinoCA]

I would read Medieval. The writers did an excellent job with transitioning fight sequences.

[FADE IN]

Hey gang, I have several fight scenes I'm placing in my script one behind the other at different locations and different characters. What would be the best
way to do this, just fade in and out of each scene. There is no dialog just fight scenes.:confused:
Well, fading in and out's certainly not the way to go. That conveys too lanquid a pace.

CUT TO: would be better but not if you're not using declared transitions in other sequence ending cuts, i.e., these would be the only CUT TO:'s in your script.

I see no reason why declaring the new scenes (as you normally would) wouldn't work for you,

EXT AN ALLEY SOMEWHERE IN ECHO PARK - NIGHT

Sam attacks Willy and a wild melee ensues that rages on until Willy finally gets in a real solid left hook that sends Sam to the deck, out cold.

INT JOSE'S CANTINA, DOWNTOWN L.A. - NIGHT

Martha leaps upon Alice and whips up on her like the talented brawler she is, gets her to the floor and sits on her chest and fires away with lefts and rights until Alice's face is so much pulp.

INT BILLY'S GARAGE IN PACOIMA - DAY

Billy's at his workbench fiddling with a carburetor when BIG DUDE charges through the door and whacks him with a baseball bat before he can react.

Billy goes down but rolls and flips himself to his feet, grabs a heavy pipe wrench and flings it at Big Dude, bouncing it neatly off his forehead and sending him moaning to the floor bleeding like a stuck pig.

EXT DODGER STADIUM - DAY

Pete, tickets in hand, escorts Pamela toward the gate when out of the crowd Hank charges him flailing away with both fists and knockls him down.

Pamela screams and runs as Pete rolls and comes up in a crouch, ready to take Hank's next charge. It comes in a flash as Hank rushes him head down like a battering ram, but Pete rolls again and Hanks' head hits an adjacent wall, stunning him and giving Pete a chance to leap on him, get his arm in a hammerlock and yard on it 'till bone breaks and that's all she wrote for Hank.

[end example]

I don't see why this approach wouldn't work. It keeps the pace up.

[prescribe22]

Read scripts similar in genre.

[Ernie Santamaria]

Vig,

Your posted question and its ideal formatting solution is the precise reason that the constructions:

-- MONTAGE

-- SERIES OF SHOTS

were each developed for the writing and filming of movies.

You’ll accelerate your screenwriting skills and professionalize your scripts by understanding those two formatting techniques and the differences between them (as well as countless other time-tested industry conventions that are expected by industry readers).

ASAP order a copy of Dave Trottier’s “Screenwriter’s Bible” which Amazon’s vendors have in abundance as Used for under ten dollars. The editions going back 6 to 10 years are just fine. The info within has changed very little. It’s one of the best resources available to get you on the road to a creative mastery of formatting as well as the business side of screenwriting.

For the present, spend a half-hour googling the two abovementioned formatting conventions and you’ll see they are the economical and correct solution to questions like yours.

Also for the present, from one of the many online script collections, immediately download a free read of the script to 1989’s “Road House” (which starred Patrick Swayze). Nothing could apply more directly to your question.

There were several MONTAGED multiple fight scenes at various places in the film and that treatment of them applies perfectly to your present script.

PM me if you have any trouble understanding or constructing your MONTAGE of the fights and I’ll be glad help you with it. I can also guide you through the “Hanging indent” paragraphing of your montage elements which are very professional and director-friendly for the reading and visualizing of a screenwriter’s description of multi-sequenced action scenes.

Ernie

[THEUGLYDUCKLING]

eric, please don't call ante, Vig, it's disrespectful to the 10% of people who know enough to know, he ain't vig.

salud

[Ernie Santamaria]

Vig,

Here's a link that will concisely show you the perfect application of MONTAGE to your fight sequencing needs that I mentioned in my previous reply to your question. And it also nicely explains for you the original difference between SERIES OF SHOTS and MONTAGE and when to choose and properly employ each of them:

http://www.trilane.com/ref/scenes/spcl1/spcl1.html

Ernie

[THEUGLYDUCKLING]

i am VIG, he is simply ante.

salud

[THEUGLYDUCKLING]

you keep this up eric, i'll start calling myself eric easterbunnymaria..that will learn ya.

[vigilante]

Thanks gang for all the help, that's why I love DD so much knowledge and talent to be found here.:D

[FADE IN]

Vig,

Here's a link that will concisely show you the perfect application of MONTAGE to your fight sequencing needs that I mentioned in my previous reply to your question. And it also nicely explains for you the original difference between SERIES OF SHOTS and MONTAGE and when to choose and properly employ each of them:

http://www.trilane.com/ref/scenes/spcl1/spcl1.html

Ernie
That's a fairly decent description but it does fail to explain one of the primary differences between MONTAGE and SERIES OF SHOTS, which is that the former is a series of shots that are lap dissolved together whereas the latter is a series of shots that are cut together.

Moreover, dialogue is not usualy acceptable in either a MONTAGE or a SERIES OF SHOTS.

In my exerience, a MONTAGE is written as one paragraph that describes the desired visual imagery that unfolds as the montage progresses and SERIES OF SHOTS is formed as a bulleted list, with each shot on the list described as briefly as possible.

I must say also that in the modern context both of these forms are often said to be verboten. In fact, I submitted a script to the Blue Cat script contest last February that had a couple of SERIES OF SHOTS in it and when I got notes back from the contest reader, they bombed me for using the form and said I should write the scenes out instead. I actually did this in the revision I submitted, even though I think the criticism was ill-founded. The reviewer's note was to the effect of "don't use editing directions," which again I thought was BS.

I've written more than a dozen feature specs and only ever had occasion to use MONTAGE one time; whereas those scripts probably contain one, two, or three SERIES OF SHOTS in each.

The contemporary view most assuredly speaks against using either of these forms in a spec, which I think is hogwash but that is the common perception out there in today's spec world. I rarely encounter situations that call for MONTAGE but I do find that SERIES OF SHOTS has what I believe to be a rightful place in my work.

I suggested writing the fight scenes in a normally progessing series of captioned scenes because, 1) lap dissolving would probably convey too lanquid a pace; generally, the high energy of fight scenes isn't compatible with lap dissolving; and 2) because I think the needed descriptions would exceed the bounds normally applied in a SERIES OF SHOTS. Remember, the heading says "SHOTS" and hence each listed entry should really be just that, one shot, and it's all but impossible to get a fight/brawl on film in one shot and have it look worth a damn. It almost always takes more than one ANGLE to get a fight on film so that it works visually.

Cheers! :)

[Ernie Santamaria]

Quoting FADE IN regarding use of MONTAGE and SERIES OF SHOTS:

“… the former is a series of shots that are lap dissolved together whereas the latter is a series of shots that are cut together.

… dialogue is not usualy acceptable in either a MONTAGE or a SERIES OF SHOTS.

… a MONTAGE is written as one paragraph that describes the desired visual imagery that unfolds as the montage progresses and SERIES OF SHOTS is formed as a bulleted list, with each shot on the list described as briefly as possible.

… in the modern context both of these forms are often said to be verboten.

… I've written more than a dozen feature specs and only ever had occasion to use MONTAGE one time; whereas those scripts probably contain one, two, or three SERIES OF SHOTS in each.

… The contemporary view [in the poster’s own experiences] most assuredly speaks against using either of these forms in a spec

… I rarely encounter situations that call for MONTAGE”
---------------------------------------------------------

These well intended absolutes and generalizations are regrettably and naively based on your particular judgments and decisions when writing your scripts, your feedback from contest readers (of all dubious sources), clearly an underexposure to quantities of produced professional screenplays, and probably also based on feedback on numerous rejected scripts.

I think it’s important that newer writers who might be influenced by your confident assertions about:

-- dialogue is not acceptable in MONTAGE

-- MONTAGE is written as one paragraph

-- what the putative “modern context” forbids

-- the rarity of *your* use of MONTAGE

-- what the “contemporary view most *assuredly* speaks against”

should know that wider real world experience and sufficient exposure to professional screenplays, educational materials and professionally guided seminars, and exposure to working screenwriters will demonstrate the inapplicability of *any* of these assertions to their own screenwriting.

Regarding the poster’s erroneous opinions (in my opinion :)) about MONTAGE and SOS, it’s not at all being either unduly dismissive or disrespectful when reading any dubiously informed post to be guided by this reply that Hubert Humphrey once gave to a persistent heckler in the crowd:

“The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.”

Ernie

[FADE IN]

Regarding the poster’s erroneous opinions (in my opinion :)) about MONTAGE and SOS, it’s not at all being either unduly dismissive or disrespectful when reading any dubiously informed post to be guided by this reply that Hubert Humphrey once gave to a persistent heckler in the crowd:

“The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.”
And just where did I say or imply or infer that any opinion or view that I may express in these pages is to be taken seriously?

Jesus, man, relax!

And it was that, my opinions and my views, which reflect a great number of years in this business and many, many completed screenplays. IOW, I wasn't born yesterday.

We can certainly get by without innuendo about "rejected scripts."

I cited the note I got from Blue Cat to illustrate the all too common perception that's out there about using the subject forms, that's all. The degree to which it's reputable or credible isn't the point, the point was it happened; the point is that the idea that the subject forms are verboten in specs these days is a reality out there. It isn't anything I care for or even respect, but I do recognize its reality.

I dunno, I reckon I've read more than a thousand produced screenplays and I'll tell ya what, I've never seen dialogue in a MONTAGE or a SERIES OF SHOTS in a one of them. Your mileage may vary but that is my experience.

David Trottier writes (on page 118 of his "SCREENWRITER'S BIBLE") that "It's okay to include dialogue in a MONTAGE sequence but generally the focus is on beats of action ..."

He goes on to write, "In a short MONTAGE you can simply write the MONTAGE in paragraph form beginning with the word MONTAGE followed by a colon and the narrative description."

Mr. Trottier also indicates (at page 105) that the proper domain of terms such as MONTAGE, FLASHBACK, INSERT, and INTERCUT is the shooting script, and while he states that these terms are occasionally used in specs, it seems plain that he's cautioning against their use by spec writers ... in his usual perispcacious manner.

If one chooses to include dialogue in a MONTAGE they've sort of defeated the purpose, which is, as Mr. Trottier notes, a "focus on beats of action." Narrated dialogue would work but characters speaking would be problematic ... in my opinion.

And in terms of a SERIES OF SHOTS, spoken dialogue would also be problematic because it again defeats the purpose; and the form doesn't lend itself to the use of spoken dialogue ... in my opinion.

Members can take the opinions and views I express here in any way they choose, it doesn't matter to me. But they are thoroughly informed opinions and views, that I guarantee you.

Enjoy your day. :)

[Carlton Redford]

Quoting Fade In:

"And just where did I say or imply or infer that any opinion or view that I may express in these pages is to be taken seriously?"
---------------------------------
Man you are either dense, over-hyped, or truly unaware of what you're writing!

You make the above statement then go on for paragraphs that basically imply exactly why your opinions should be taken more seriously than Ernie's.

What could the above quote (or the existence of any of your posts) mean other than you want to be taken seriously? And why else would you post anything?

The dozen-plus scripts you've cited at least twice now, actually mean zilch as a means of demonstrating either your screenwriting savvy or your years in the business. Any assembly of non-pro screenwriters (like the great LA annual Expo) will guarantee you at least 100 attendees with 25 or 30 scripts they'll happily describe to anyone who'll listen. And they're back every year.

You've read a thousand pro screenplays? Great. I was a studio reader for 6 years and I've read at least 5 times that number, pro and newbie alike and Ernie is dead right in what he says about the use of montaged scenes as well as series of shots.

Your snide little smiley-accompanied "Cheers" and "Enjoy your day" closings say a lot about your attitude towards other posters and about your limitations.

Keep cranking those specs out waiting for some contest reader's validation and writing advice.

And while I've never met Ernie I can easily distinguish between someone who's deep into the "gotcha" game as you usually seem to be, compared to a pretty smart guy who generally knows exactly what he's talking about.

-- Carlton

[FADE IN]

(snippage)
And while I've never met Ernie I can easily distinguish between someone who's deep into the "gotcha" game as you usually seem to be, compared to a pretty smart guy who generally knows exactly what he's talking about.
Whoa!

I'd much prefer a rational discussion of the points raised than to engage in the sort of personal ad hominem that you appear to enjoy. If you have something to say about those points, well, then, have at it; otherwise, I think we can do without the napalm.

And you too enjoy your day. :)

(I sure's hell am) :D

[DavidK]

...one of the primary differences between MONTAGE and SERIES OF SHOTS, which is that the former is a series of shots that are lap dissolved together whereas the latter is a series of shots that are cut together.

Again I find myself having to disagree strongly with this interpretation. The terms MONTAGE and SERIES OF SHOTS have never, ever, in the history of the film industry, implied the nature of the transition that separates the shots that occur in the sequence.
Moreover, dialogue is not usualy acceptable in either a MONTAGE or a SERIES OF SHOTS.

Dialogue is not common in such sequences, but completely acceptable when appropriate.

In my exerience, a MONTAGE is written as one paragraph that describes the desired visual imagery that unfolds as the montage progresses and SERIES OF SHOTS is formed as a bulleted list, with each shot on the list described as briefly as possible.

I would dispute this too. Both MONTAGE and SERIES OF SHOTS can be presented in various formats: a paragraph, series of sentences/shot descriptions, enumerated shots, and so on.

I must say also that in the modern context both of these forms are often said to be verboten.

This is unreliable advice. Throughout the industry it remains perfectly acceptable to use a MONTAGE or SERIES OF SHOTS, irrespective of what one of your contest readers may have stated.

I rarely encounter situations that call for MONTAGE but I do find that SERIES OF SHOTS has what I believe to be a rightful place in my work.

For heaven's sake, they are synonymous - 'montage' means a series of shots. And as for the "rightful place in my work" baloney, spare us. Nothing in a screenplay has more or less a rightful place except to the extent it describes what's happening in the movie-to-be.

I suggested writing the fight scenes in a normally progessing series of captioned scenes because, 1) lap dissolving would probably convey too lanquid a pace; generally, the high energy of fight scenes isn't compatible with lap dissolving; and 2) because I think the needed descriptions would exceed the bounds normally applied in a SERIES OF SHOTS.

The first point seems absurd - a fight occurs (almost without exception) in one, single scene. Therefore, contrary to what you suggest it makes sense to describe a series of shots or sequence of activity without ascribing each to a 'captioned scene'. It's very hard to imagine any writer suggesting a lap dissolve between shots in a fight scene, let alone the fact that "lap dissolve" is an old term seldom used these days. The contemporary jargon is "cross dissolve" or simply "dissolve".

Secondly, it's hard to imagine a writer of even the most modest competence suggesting a "lap dissolve" in a fight sequence.

Thirdly, in the context of most movie fights, the required descriptions often work very effectively as a SERIES OF SHOTS.

And contrary to your assertion, it's reasonable to assume you expect your views to be taken seriously. Regrettably, in this instance, those views seem unconnected with current industry practice.

I hope I've been rational; no ad hominen attack intended, I assure you.

[FADE IN]

Again I find myself having to disagree strongly with this interpretation. The terms MONTAGE and SERIES OF SHOTS have never, ever, in the history of the film industry, implied the nature of the transition that separates the shots that occur in the sequence.
Yet, I can't think of a montage I've seen in a feature that wasn't a series of shots dissolved together.

And the question arises, just what is the difference between MONTAGE and SERIES OF SHOTS? Do these terms mean the same thing? Help me out here, if the difference isn't that a montage is dissolved and a series of shots is cut, then what is the difference and why are there two terms? Under what circumstances should a writer use one form and not the other, or does it matter?


Dialogue is not common in such sequences, but completely acceptable when appropriate.

My comment was "Moreover, dialogue is not usualy acceptable in either a MONTAGE or a SERIES OF SHOTS" and I fail to see any real difference between this and your comment, with "not usually" equating to "not common."


I would dispute this too. Both MONTAGE and SERIES OF SHOTS can be presented in various formats: a paragraph, series of sentences/shot descriptions, enumerated shots, and so on.

My comment was "In my experience, a MONTAGE is written as one paragraph that describes the desired visual imagery that unfolds as the montage progresses and SERIES OF SHOTS is formed as a bulleted list, with each shot on the list described as briefly as possible."

So you wish to dispute my experience? :eek:

I don't know that I'd disagree with your ideation but I think I would suggest that a writer be consistent within the confines of one work and employ the same form for each heading, IOW if they choose to present their montages as a list of shots do it that way every time or if they choose to write them as a paragraph, do that every time ... within a given script. That's just consistency, which avoids questions as to why one would be presented one way and another in another way.

As for a SERIES OF SHOTS, I think most would agree that suggests a list. A writer may choose otherwise obviously, but it seems that is the common percepetion, and David Trottier insists that it is.


This is unreliable advice. Throughout the industry it remains perfectly acceptable to use a MONTAGE or SERIES OF SHOTS, irrespective of what one of your contest readers may have stated.

My comment was "I must say also that in the modern context both of these forms are often said to be verboten," which does not constitute "advice" but rather, and merely, reports on my view of what's often promoted out there by those who are addressing newcomers to the craft. I later said I had "no respect for" such commentaries.

My reference to a note I got on this from a contest reader was cited merely to corroborate the idea that I said was the case out there, that these two forms are "often said to be verboten."


For heaven's sake, they are synonymous - 'montage' means a series of shots. And as for the "rightful place in my work" baloney, spare us. Nothing in a screenplay has more or less a rightful place except to the extent it describes what's happening in the movie-to-be.
Synonymous? So a writer can use either in any given situation? Just flip a coin and use the one that comes up heads?

I don't think they are synonymous myself and I base that on the mere existence of the two different terms which, by rights, probably do have different meanings, why else two different terms?

As for having a "rightful place in my work" this merely reflects the fact that in my perception there is a difference between a MONTAGE and a SERIES OF SHOTS, that being the former is dissolved and the latter is cut, and I have not encountered situations in my work where the former would reflect that which I wish to be seen on the screen but I do encounter situations where the latter does reflect what I wish to be seen.


The first point seems absurd - a fight occurs (almost without exception) in one, single scene.
True. And scenes are not usually or commonly just one shot, they are more often comprised of different ANGLES that've been cut together to form the scene.


Therefore, contrary to what you suggest it makes sense to describe a series of shots or sequence of activity without ascribing each to a 'captioned scene'.
Keep in mind that the OP cited a situation in which the member was dealing with FOUR different fights occuring in FOUR different locations.

Could that be handled in a SERIES OF SHOTS? Well, yes, but it can be difficult to establish four different locations in a series whilst at the same time providing something more than "they fight" in the narrative descriptions of each fight.

This obviously involves a writer's choice of which approach serves his or her needs best. It occurred to me that four separate captioned scenes represented one workable approach. I even wrote out an example of what this would look like on the page. It certainly represented the way I would choose to do it but I didn't press the issue and insist that the writer do it that way and no other way. It took the form of a suggestion, with the writer obviously left to choose what he decided best suited his needs.


It's very hard to imagine any writer suggesting a lap dissolve between shots in a fight scene, let alone the fact that "lap dissolve" is an old term seldom used these days. The contemporary jargon is "cross dissolve" or simply "dissolve".
But you knew what I meant, right?


Secondly, it's hard to imagine a writer of even the most modest competence suggesting a "lap dissolve" in a fight sequence.
Exactly!


Thirdly, in the context of most movie fights, the required descriptions often work very effectively as a SERIES OF SHOTS.
One fight I might agree, but this gentleman was dealing with FOUR fights.


And contrary to your assertion, it's reasonable to assume you expect your views to be taken seriously. Regrettably, in this instance, those views seem unconnected with current industry practice.

I hope I've been rational; no ad hominen attack intended, I assure you.
Thank you for that! :)

But again, I have no control over how others take my commentaries here, they may take them seriously or they may laugh them off, whichever; they may feel they've gained something from them or they may feel they've not, and either way it simply cannot matter to me. I would of course hope that others would feel they've gained something, but if that's not the case I can't be sweating it. It's their choice, not mine.

I read the comments of others posted here in the same way, some I take, some I leave. And I appreciate the one's I take and don't complain about the one's I leave.

This entire discussion boils down to two different notions, one being your idea that MONTAGE and SERIES OF SHOTS are synonymous and that neither infers the nature of the transition from shot-to-shot and the second being my view in which the term MONTAGE means a series of shots that are dissolved together to form a sequence and SERIES OF SHOTS means a series of shots that are cut together to form a sequence.

That's the difference here in a nutshell, seems to me.

I can't say that I've read anything in the exchanges that makes me question my view but I certainly remain open to further evidence.

Onward! :D

[Johnnycomelately]

Wow. I'm learning a ton just reading the debate between Fade In and DavidK.

Thanks to both of you for being so committed to getting things right and so literate in discussing your viewpoints.

I'm the real winner in this debate :)

Thank you, Gentlemen, for your wonderful and continuing contributions to the discussions on this board.

[Ernie Santamaria]

Quoting FADE IN:

“ … just what is the difference between MONTAGE and SERIES OF SHOTS? Do these terms mean the same thing? Help me out here, if the difference isn't that a montage is dissolved and a series of shots is cut, then what is the difference and why are there two terms? Under what circumstances should a writer use one form and not the other, or does it matter?”
--------------------------------------------------
Reading comprehension?

The answer to all 3 of your above questions were clearly contained in the concise webpage overview, the link to which was posted (and a page that you read then criticized for its shortcomings, rather than taking the time to absorb its well-exampled meaning and its on-target advice). It correctly states therein (amongst other things):

-- A Montage is a sequence of brief shots that express the same or a similar idea.

-- Series of Shots can be used to bundle a few shots with more diverse pieces of action that have a less obvious underlying theme.

And the differences are readily apparent in the excellent examples in the link I provided to Vigilante, the original poster. Here was my helpfully-intended post which contained the link, and which upon your re-reading will give you some of the help you requested in your 3 above-quoted questions:
------------------------------------------------------------

“Here's a link that will concisely show you the perfect application of MONTAGE to your fight sequencing needs that I mentioned in my previous reply to your question. And it also nicely explains for you the original difference between SERIES OF SHOTS and MONTAGE and when to choose and properly employ each of them:

http://www.trilane.com/ref/scenes/spcl1/spcl1.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

Hope this helps. I recommend to anyone further research and reading of readily available materials on these two beautiful and highly cinematic screenwriter storytelling tools that are necessarily only briefly touched upon in this thread.

Btw, these techniques are sadly only fuzzily understood or not understood at all by many industry readers regrettably in positions to mislead newer writers and to affect their career progress. Our forums could help them were they to visit.

Ernie

[FADE IN]

Wow. I'm learning a ton just reading the debate between Fade In and DavidK.

Thanks to both of you for being so committed to getting things right and so literate in discussing your viewpoints.

I'm the real winner in this debate :)

Thank you, Gentlemen, for your wonderful and continuing contributions to the discussions on this board.
Thank you, Johnnycomelately, it's good to hear you are learning from this because that, when all's said and done, is the idea, methinks, along with having a good time of course!

Cheers! :D

[DavidK]

Wow. I'm learning a ton just reading the debate between Fade In and DavidK.

Thanks to both of you for being so committed to getting things right and so literate in discussing your viewpoints.

I'm the real winner in this debate :)

Thank you, Gentlemen, for your wonderful and continuing contributions to the discussions on this board.

Even if you're being sarcastic, it's always refreshing to learn that a debate has been stimulating and/or informative.

If I had to summarize my view, it would be that for practical purposes there is no difference between the terms MONTAGE and SERIES OF SHOTS. Either of these terms can be followed by a series of descriptions of the shots you want to see. It's more likely the director will decide whether cuts or dissolves are the appropriate transition. But so long as the shots you describe are engaging and work for the story there should be no issue.

[Johnnycomelately]

Even if you're being sarcastic, it's always refreshing to learn that a debate has been stimulating and/or informative.

I'm absolutely sincere. In fact, I just used "SERIES OF SHOTS" in my script and I'm happy with the way it turned out.

Thank you both, and Ernie, too, who provided that great link.