Indicating (CONT'D) in (V.O.)

[DavidK]

Originally Posted by JeffLowell

In scripted television? What would be the purpose of giving an actor pages with only his lines?

I'm not sure; I've never asked. I've seen it happen on some productions where both sets of pages (complete and actor-only) were handed out and just thought that's how some people did it. But I know someone who routinely does so and I'll ask him why.

[Centos]

Originally Posted by Why One

MAN (V.O.) (CONT'D)

? At least that's how I'd do it. And I think that's how screenwriting software like Final Draft auto-formats it.

But ScriptThing/MMS (for one) has been offering the option to turn CONT'Ds off since at least the mid 90s, when they were still selling a DOS version. Later they put out a "cut-down" product called "Hollywood Screenwriter" that didn't offer this option. I wrote to them and asked them "why not?' -- because I thought (wrongly, obviously) that no one still used CONT'Ds. By that afternoon they were offering a downloadable set of templates to "fix" the issue (give their users a choice). I don't know if anyone still uses Hollywood Screenplay, but you can still download those templates from Write-Bros' site.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Okay ... let me see if I get this.

An actor receives pages with just his dialogue.

Included is:

DAVE (O.S.)
What?

DAVE (CONT'D)
What did you say?

This tells the actor his speech is broken only by action, and he changed from being off to on screen?

[DavidK]

Originally Posted by TwoBrad Bradley

This tells the actor his speech is broken only by action, and he changed from being off to on screen?

Yes, not that you see it very often, and I don't think the purpose is any more than knowing the lines themselves. I found some old pages yesterday from a TV pilot with examples but couldn't see anything explaining the single-actor pages.

[The Road Warrior]

I don't use CONT'D under an O.S. to indicate the continuing use of of O.S.

I've used O.S. in each case, to keep it clear that the character is still offscreen. I don't know if this is 'correct' but it's clear, and if you have a CONT'D after the character name, to me, that feels confusing somehow, and it feels like clutter that's no better than using O.S. which doesn't take up as much room.

Any problems with this use?

Never considered this before, I'm going to look at a few scripts now, to see how it's done anyhow and my formatting book.

[Manchester]

FWIW, while I don' think this one matters either way, here's my approach:

I am not writing my spec for actors; I am writing it for readers. I think readers don't need it. When something's a toss-up, I think the fewer words on the page the better. So, I don't use it.

However, if the character is supposed to be speaking continuously - i.e., as the action takes place, and (for some reason) I need to insert the action on the page in the midst of that continuous dialogue - I either (a) use an action smiley (if it's short), or (b) end the character's first block of dialogue with "..." and (sometimes) start the next block with "...". I think that helps maintain the pace of the scene for the reader.

[Why One]

Originally Posted by Centos

But ScriptThing/MMS (for one) has been offering the option to turn CONT'Ds off since at least the mid 90s, when they were still selling a DOS version. Later they put out a "cut-down" product called "Hollywood Screenwriter" that didn't offer this option. I wrote to them and asked them "why not?' -- because I thought (wrongly, obviously) that no one still used CONT'Ds. By that afternoon they were offering a downloadable set of templates to "fix" the issue (give their users a choice). I don't know if anyone still uses Hollywood Screenplay, but you can still download those templates from Write-Bros' site.

You're right. FD also has the option to turn off automatic character CONT'D. I personally turn it off.

[DavidK]

Originally Posted by Manchester

When something's a toss-up, I think the fewer words on the page the better. So, I don't use it.

Similarly - FWIW - that's the approach I prefer. Leaner/cleaner/clearer suits the purpose of the spec script. It's also good to keep these things in perspective - they don't matter as half much as some people think. That's where I'm a bit of a hypocrit because for some reason I still get irritated when (O.S.) is used incorrectly, but everyone needs something trivial to dislike in a script.

[scripttoolbox]

The only time (CONT'D) is needed in dialogue is when dialogue is broken between pages, and when I say broken, I don't mean, someone speaks, action paragraph, page break, the same person speaks. I mean in the middle of the dialogue block, there is a page break.

As far as continuing speech after action for (V.O.) or (O.S.) dialogue, (CONT'D) isn't necessary. As someone said earlier, Final Draft gives you the option of turning off the (CONT'D) feature, and I always do so myself.

[ATB]

IMHO, it's easier to read a script that uses (CONT'D) when dialogue is split by action than it is to read a script that forgoes that technique.

Not saying one is better than the other, but it's clearer for me when a writer uses (CONT'D).