Another "we see" question - seriously

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

    We don't see the bomb under the table.
    You just broke screenwriting.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

      This argument goes all the way back to the early days of radio plays.

      ORSON WELLES
      Of course "'we hear" it. IT'S
      RADIO!!.
      "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
      - Clive Barker, Galilee

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

        Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
        You just broke screenwriting.
        I did it with the

        knife, salad fork, salad fork, salad fork
        knife, knife, knife
        knife, knife
        knife, salad fork, salad fork, salad fork.

        Surprise!!
        "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
        - Clive Barker, Galilee

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

          Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
          You just broke screenwriting.
          Spike!
          12 Angry Men is proof that all you need is a bunch of good actors, good characters, clear motivations and a table. -- Ben Odgren; Go into the Story

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

            Originally posted by dangerouscreenwriter View Post
            Spike!
            The logic to include or avoid "we don't see" is the same as the logic to include or avoid "we see".

            Besides, would anyone care?
            "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
            - Clive Barker, Galilee

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

              No, it's great. I think I'm going to use it to list everything that isn't on camera in a scene.

              "Dale walks into the room. We don't see that he's got twenty three dollars in his pocket. We don't see his heart beating. We don't see that he wants to move to California someday. We don't see that he's got a gun, even though we will see it forty pages from now."

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

                My stuff tends to run very long (1,000+ pages) because in every scene, I mention what we don't see and also what doesn't happen.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

                  Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                  No, it's great. I think I'm going to use it to list everything that isn't on camera in a scene.

                  "Dale walks into the room. We don't see that he's got twenty three dollars in his pocket. We don't see his heart beating. We don't see that he wants to move to California someday. We don't see that he's got a gun, even though we will see it forty pages from now."
                  Are you suggesting there's a better way to write that scene?

                  I don't care if somebody else uses "we see" or not.

                  Here's my point:

                  To suggest that it's okay to use "we see" because pros do it, nobody cares, without over-thinking is dangerous advice.

                  People will do that without considering the most important reason: because it's the best and clearest way to communicate what the screenwriter has to say. And you can't do that without taking the time and energy to consider the alternatives.

                  Show us alternatives and explain why one is better than the others. Then we can learn.
                  "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
                  - Clive Barker, Galilee

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

                    IMO, the only important thing is clarity. The reader gets what's happening in the scene. The writing is clear, understandable, and plays like a movie -- with or without "we see".

                    The only real problem with "we see" is people making it a problem.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

                      Originally posted by Why One View Post
                      IMO, the only important thing is clarity. The reader gets what's happening in the scene. The writing is clear, understandable, and plays like a movie -- with or without "we see".

                      The only real problem with "we see" is people making it a problem.
                      Dolly hits Soupy in the face with a cream pie.
                      We see Dolly hit Soupy in the face with a cream pie.

                      Both are clear, understandable, and play like a movie.

                      Are you suggesting that one may be better than the other shouldn't matter to the screenwriter?
                      "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
                      - Clive Barker, Galilee

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

                        Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                        Dolly hits Soupy in the face with a cream pie.
                        We see Dolly hit Soupy in the face with a cream pie.

                        Both are clear, understandable, and play like a movie.

                        Are you suggesting that one may be better than the other shouldn't matter to the screenwriter?
                        I love the way you took Why One's very solid, non-controversial advice, and managed to create some kind of controversy over it.

                        Do you get paid for doing this kind of sh!t, TwoBrad? Is it per word, or just per argument?

                        HH

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

                          Originally posted by haroldhecuba View Post
                          I love the way you took Why One's very solid, non-controversial advice, and managed to create some kind of controversy over it.

                          Do you get paid for doing this kind of sh!t, TwoBrad? Is it per word, or just per argument?

                          HH
                          You're right. I shouldn't have asked a question that I know no one will answer.

                          (It's by the post. But my agent gets 40% so don't go thinking I'm rolling in the dough.)
                          "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
                          - Clive Barker, Galilee

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

                            Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                            You're right. I shouldn't have asked a question that I know no one will answer.

                            (It's by the post. But my agent gets 40% so don't go thinking I'm rolling in the dough.)
                            I've got nothing better to do...

                            No one will answer your question 'cause it's a stupid question. No one on here said you can be clear, but be a bad writer.

                            HH

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

                              Originally posted by haroldhecuba View Post
                              I've got nothing better to do...

                              No one will answer your question 'cause it's a stupid question. No one on here said you can be clear, but be a bad writer.

                              HH
                              I never saw it as being the difference between a good writer and a bad writer.

                              It's more of the difference between a competent writer and a better writer.
                              "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
                              - Clive Barker, Galilee

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Another "we see" question - seriously

                                Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                                I never saw it as being the difference between a good writer and a bad writer.

                                It's more of the difference between a competent writer and a better writer.
                                And that still had nothing to do with Why One's statement.

                                HH

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X