People talking with headsets

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #31
    Re: People talking with headsets

    Just read a ton of scripts. Read scripts that are getting sold, circulated, landing writers work, meetings, reps, winning contests etc.

    Read all of the Black List scripts from the past few years.

    Then you'll notice how they all differ slightly in terms of formatting and narrative choices. Some use "We see", some don't. Some use terms I've never seen before (like Guggenheim's "as we GO TO" instead of "CUT TO").

    But do you know what they all have in common? Clarity. Clarity of the movie we're supposed to be seeing -- which IMO is the only thing you need to concerned about with regards to this formatting hoopla.

    Because every writer has their own formatting preferences -- you will always get different answers on which is the best -- which is the safest.

    IMO, as long you stick with the font, the basic margins and slug layout, and your writing is clear, you're golden.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: People talking with headsets

      You can literally do whatever the fvck you want in a screenplay, as long as the story is solid.

      That's all it's about. The story.

      How you format it means nothing. People are beginning to just toss INT. and EXT., choosing instead to use more of what we know as mini-slugs.

      The Coen Bros. have done it for years, but it's a natural progression/evolution of screenwriting and the screenplay as a document.

      Any reader -- ANY READER -- who chooses to focus on the minutia of formatting over the macro-view of the story itself is not doing their job. Just because a reader, or few readers, make the mistake of judging the physical appearance of a screenplay rather than its potential as a screen-story does not a rule make.

      Your job as a screenwriter is not to "follow the rules" or to make your script pretty. Your job is to tell a great story by any means. We make choices as writers. We serve the story. Not readers. Not reps. Not suits. The story. Whatever you choose to do to make your story as great as it can be, do it. Take chances. Break rules and boundaries. We don't improve by slavishly following guidelines recorded & accumulated by non-writers. We improve and grow through trial and error.

      You cannot achieve something without trying, erring, then trying again.

      So if you feel using (V.O.) as a parenthetical serves to strengthen your story, do it. If that's your style, indicating sh|t in wrylies, power to you.

      I don't do it because I hate wasting white space. Some writers don't give a fvck about that. Good for them.
      Last edited by ATB; 03-16-2014, 09:04 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: People talking with headsets

        Oh well, these threads are certainly always entertaining.

        Through the years we have had ample testimony from working professionals that it is silly to become too obsessed with the idea that a reader will trash a script if the writer commits some formatting error or uses a device like that old bugaboo "we see."

        We should not even have to rehash this subject. But here we are again.

        None of that means that you should not try to use good formatting, good writing, and correct spelling, all in the interest of creating a good story.

        A good story is not dependent on formatting. But good story and good format are not mutually exclusive, either.

        I am still puzzled that I can open script after script (by nonprofessionals, admittedly) and find FADE IN on the first line ... but with no colon after FADE IN. Yes, I know that it does not really matter, but has that writer never noticed all the uses of FADE IN: (with the colon) that most scripts have? Did he/she think that the colon was some kind of idiosyncratic or optional use? Sometimes things are just customary, with no basis in practical need. That is the way it is with the colon in FADE IN: and the with the use of (V.O.) on the same line as the Character Name. It is just a custom, not a prop that supports the world.

        In any case ... listen to what the working pros say on this subject. No point in theorizing when somebody can tell you from real-life experience.

        "The fact that you have seen professionals write poorly is no reason for you to imitate them." - ComicBent.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: People talking with headsets

          I'm a bit of an expert on this subject having written a sci-fi war script with dozens of headsets and V.O.s. I've extensively studied scripts that have it, and I've seen it used every which way --

          From The Empire Strikes Back:

          HAN
          (filtered over Zev's receiver)
          Good morning. Nice of you guys
          to drop by.

          To Aliens:

          HUDSON
          (voice over; filtered)
          Sir, the CPU is on-line.

          To Avatar:

          PILOTS (V.O.)
          Copy, switching missiles.

          As others have said, it's all about clarity. THERE ARE NO RULES. Personally, I like V.O. because it reduces space. Using (into headset) is also something I only do unless it's not clear. To me, it clutters up the page if overdone.
          I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: People talking with headsets

            Originally posted by nmstevens View Post
            Over the course of the last forty years I've read maybe five or six thousand screenplays and I've done my best to forget most of them.
            Quote. Of. The Year.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: People talking with headsets

              Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
              Another person who's never worked telling us "the way things work."
              Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post

              It's like there's a factory churning them out.

              Some day I'm going to find that factory and burn it down.

              Great post. Shame it'll be ignored.


              Originally posted by ATB View Post
              You can literally do whatever the fvck you want in a screenplay, as long as the story is solid.
              Originally posted by ATB View Post

              That's all it's about. The story.

              How you format it means nothing. People are beginning to just toss INT. and EXT., choosing instead to use more of what we know as mini-slugs.

              The Coen Bros. have done it for years, but it's a natural progression/evolution of screenwriting and the screenplay as a document.

              Any reader -- ANY READER -- who chooses to focus on the minutia of formatting over the macro-view of the story itself is not doing their job. Just because a reader, or few readers, make the mistake of judging the physical appearance of a screenplay rather than its potential as a screen-story does not a rule make.

              Your job as a screenwriter is not to "follow the rules" or to make your script pretty. Your job is to tell a great story by any means. We make choices as writers. We serve the story. Not readers. Not reps. Not suits. The story. Whatever you choose to do to make your story as great as it can be, do it. Take chances. Break rules and boundaries. We don't improve by slavishly following guidelines recorded & accumulated by non-writers. We improve and grow through trial and error.

              You cannot achieve something without trying, erring, then trying again.

              So if you feel using (V.O.) as a parenthetical serves to strengthen your story, do it. If that's your style, indicating sh|t in wrylies, power to you.

              Great post. Shame it'll be ignored.

              But you hit a key point - things change. Just like language.We've seen the rise of the mini slug and also the omission of INT/EXT on mainslugs. We've also seen the appearance of underlined, bolded and even numberedslugs. We've even see character actions placed in parentheses as well. No onewould argue against them now as they are common place yet at one point theyweren't and some amateur would be lamenting the downfall of civilisation ifthey were used by - shock, horror - other amateurs.

              M.A.G.A.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: People talking with headsets

                Originally posted by nmstevens View Post
                Okay, here's something that I can also tell you -- I can tell you about six years working as a story editor/development exec where I worked on the front lines reading and evaluating script submissions at a company that accepted unsolicited submissions (one of the few) from writers just like you.

                We read scripts from pros and scripts from amateurs.

                And during that time I read plenty of scripts from people who knew format but didn't know anything else and also, every so often, a script from somebody who obviously knew how to write, but clearly didn't know script format.

                And for me, at least, it was the former much more than the latter, that mattered.

                Look, down through the years, I've argued on both sides of this issue, on the whole "we see" thing and most other niggling points in the same category so I know perfectly well how the arguments track.

                For a long time I argued on the "con" side and that argument goes like this:

                Every script, especially a script from an unsold newbie, comes in on the very razor edge of rejection, and any little thing might just push your script over that thin balance edge. Misspellings on the first page, using "we see," using "cut to," writing a script that runs a little long -- all of those things that people warn you against. Because who knows, unjust as it may be, you might just run into a reader who's got a hard on against one of those little things and if you prejudice yourself against that particular reader, you blow your chances and you're going to get rejected.

                So why risk doing it for the risk of these dispensable and otherwise minor issues?

                But more recently, I've find myself arguing on the pro side, which goes like this:

                Most of these things that are argued against, like "we see" etc, often have a legitimate place and a legitimate use -- they simply have either become unfashionable are, in the case of beginners, are just over-used or misused. In either case the remedy is proper use.

                Obviously, some things, like mis-spelling, have no proper use. But even things like untraditional formatting, if it works in the context of the story you're telling, won't generally bother a reader.

                If the script is sold and gets to production, you may end up having to put it into traditional formatting, but that should be your worst problem.

                In the end, what's going to tip the reader off of that "razor's edge" is the story, starting with the first paragraph on page one.

                If you do that, then those other niggling issues won't weigh on the scale.

                That's not simply the opinion I have come to as a writer of screenplays, but also as someone who spent years evaluating the scripts of others.

                And believe me, just because you've sold a screenplay or two or five or ten, doesn't mean that you're in a different world. Every professional screenwriter has to continually "break in" to this business with every new script he writes.

                NMS
                I know you feel passionate about this wrytnow, but re-read NMS's post.

                It says it all.

                Have you read Nightcrawler by Tony Gilroy? If his name was kept anonymous, do you really think any reader would reject it because it ignores 'traditional' screenwriting structure?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: People talking with headsets

                  this is a readers' round table I listened to awhile back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsz9IZewJ84

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: People talking with headsets

                    Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                    Another person who's never worked telling us "the way things work."

                    It's like there's a factory churning them out.

                    Some day I'm going to find that factory and burn it down.
                    Please don't. If the screenwriting thing doesn't work out, I'm gonna try to get a job there.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X