Complicated split-screen shot

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #31
    Re: Complicated split-screen shot

    I'm talking about this, TwoBrad:

    Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
    Do you truly "write the movie you see in your head"?

    I would think the mark of a professional would be the ability to take that flood of images and only write what is necessary to get the appropriate image into the mind of the reader.

    For example:

    She runs through the locker room.
    Now don't be coy, big boy.
    Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Complicated split-screen shot

      Originally posted by sc111 View Post
      I'm talking about this, TwoBrad:



      Now don't be coy, big boy.
      It was a personal question.

      The main point I was trying to make was that nobody writes the movie in their head and it is not the best advice to give a newbie. The writer needs to "pull back" and write tight and lean - that "economy of words" thing that screenwriters do.
      "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
      - Clive Barker, Galilee

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Complicated split-screen shot

        Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
        What a weird coincidence! I wrote a movie that had a woman running through a locker room. I wrote it as a single shot - she runs through and we see other people sticking their heads out as she passes.

        Luckily for me, the director chose to go with my suggestion, and I'm happy with how the scene turned out.

        If you would have done it with four separate shots, and each of those shots had added to the scene, you absolutely should write it that way.



        You can only give people tools. You can't stop them from building mountains of shit with them.

        Hey, isn't that the fire alarm scene?

        Do I win?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Complicated split-screen shot

          Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
          It was a personal question.

          The main point I was trying to make was that nobody writes the movie in their head and it is not the best advice to give a newbie. The writer needs to "pull back" and write tight and lean - that "economy of words" thing that screenwriters do.
          Honestly, I write the movie in my head. I have a big white board that I keep blank and I project the movie onto it and I write down what I see.

          I work at making the description as clear as I can so that it matches what I'm seeing. And I work at making what I'm seeing the most enjoyable it can be.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Complicated split-screen shot

            Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
            Do you truly "write the movie you see in your head"?

            I would think the mark of a professional would be the ability to take that flood of images and only write what is necessary to get the appropriate image into the mind of the reader.

            For example:

            She runs through the locker room.

            In the movie I see in my head I can see that as four different quick shots. But, I certainly wouldn't write it that way.

            BTW, I was suggesting options. Who's to say a writer can't put other "movies" in their head and then write that one?

            BTW#2, are you saying the bit of script in the OP is visually interesting?
            What do you mean by "flood of images"?

            That sounds made up.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Complicated split-screen shot

              I write as if I'm describing to a buddy this really exciting thing that's happening right in front of me.
              Chicks Who Script podcast

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Complicated split-screen shot

                Originally posted by mariot View Post
                What do you mean by "flood of images"?

                That sounds made up.
                It's much like "a picture is worth a thousand words" - only it's a long series of pictures. I'm suggesting that it's unlikely that you can write something as detailed as the image in your head. So where do you stop?
                "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
                - Clive Barker, Galilee

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Complicated split-screen shot

                  Originally posted by emily blake View Post
                  I write as if I'm describing to a buddy this really exciting thing that's happening right in front of me.
                  I like that. Sounds like a story you would tell around the campfire.
                  "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
                  - Clive Barker, Galilee

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Complicated split-screen shot

                    Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                    It's much like "a picture is worth a thousand words" - only it's a long series of pictures. I'm suggesting that it's unlikely that you can write something as detailed as the image in your head. So where do you stop?
                    Things that are insignificant seem to always stay fuzzy so I don't include them.

                    When I think of an actual movie I've seen, I can see the scene. Or, I should say, I can recall what I was paying attention to when I watched it. I naturally paid attention to the details that were significant to me.

                    Writing works the same way.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Complicated split-screen shot

                      Originally posted by mariot View Post
                      Things that are insignificant seem to always stay fuzzy so I don't include them.

                      When I think of an actual movie I've seen, I can see the scene. Or, I should say, I can recall what I was paying attention to when I watched it. I naturally paid attention to the details that were significant to me.

                      Writing works the same way.
                      That's basically what I'm saying.

                      Start with the movie in your head and only keep what is necessary and discard what is not. It takes skill to know the difference.

                      Just because you saw it in your head, or you think it's cool, or it was interesting in a completed movie, it's not enough justification to write it on your pages.
                      "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
                      - Clive Barker, Galilee

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Complicated split-screen shot

                        Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                        That's basically what I'm saying.

                        Start with the movie in your head and only keep what is necessary and discard what is not. It takes skill to know the difference.

                        Just because you saw it in your head, or you think it's cool, or it was interesting in a completed movie, it's not enough justification to write it on your pages.
                        I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

                        Only the writer can decide if something is significant to the story they want to tell. If it's significant to them they should include it.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Complicated split-screen shot

                          Originally posted by KitchonaSteve View Post
                          fanatic_about_film,
                          I think you've taken the advice "don't direct from the page" a bit too far. This advice popped up back in the late 80s or early 90s, around the time that I was a reader. In those days the majority of scripts available to study were shooting scripts, and most shooting scripts include very specific shots because it's the director who is responsible for the shooting script, whether they write it by themselves or with the writer. They put those specific shots in because they want the production team to know what's going on in every scene and they don't want there to be any ambiguity or confusion about sets, wardrobe or equipment.

                          After studying shooting scripts, many novice writers started getting shot specific in their scripts. They started using terms like DOLLY IN, CRANE UP, CLOSE ON, PULL BACK TO REVEAL, etc. This was also symptomatic of recent film school grads who really wanted to direct but were trying to break in with screenplays. Those specific camera techniques did torque off a few directors and producers, and were not standard in spec scripts. So the advice was given not to use that directing terminology in your spec script, but to find creative ways to indicate the cool shots you see in the movie you want to write. No one with any sense gave the advice not to create cool visuals in your spec script.

                          Writers create shots and edits all the time. Comedy and horror rely on edits for laughs and shocks, and we write them into the script. If you imagine a specific scene or sequence with a specific look, or shot in particular way, there's nothing wrong with writing it the way you see it so long as you don't get all directorish about it. For instance, which of the following two passages is more engaging?
                          Code:
                          [SIZE=2]EXT.  CITY STREET - DAY[/SIZE]
                          [SIZE=2]Pedestrians walk along the side walk.  A MAN and a WOMAN walk together[/SIZE]
                          [SIZE=2]wearing trench coats.  The man wears cowboy boots and the woman wears [/SIZE]
                          [SIZE=2]ballerina slippers.  They stop in front of the bank, pull ski masks over their [/SIZE]
                          [SIZE=2]heads, and shed their trench coats revealing the man in a cowboy outfit and[/SIZE]
                          [SIZE=2]the woman in a tutu.  Both carry shotguns.[/SIZE]
                           
                          [SIZE=2]-or-[/SIZE]
                           
                          [SIZE=2]EXT.  CITY STREET - DAY[/SIZE]
                          [SIZE=2]A confusion of shoes, mostly loafers and sensible business pumps walk down[/SIZE]
                          [SIZE=2]a busy sidewalk.  A pair of ballet slippers and a pair of cowboy boots walk [/SIZE]
                          [SIZE=2]side-by-side moving through the flowing crowd.  Trench coats hide any [/SIZE]
                          [SIZE=2]further hints of costume.  The MAN and WOMAN stop in front of the bank.  [/SIZE]
                          [SIZE=2]They pull ski masks over their heads, and shed their trench coats revealing [/SIZE]
                          [SIZE=2]the man in a cowboy outfit and the woman in a tutu.  Both carry shotguns.[/SIZE]
                          Personally, I prefer the second one. It feels more like a movie where the first example is more narrative. Most people probably saw a tracking shot in their mind as they read the second passage, but it could easily have been done with cuts. The first passage reads like a wide master shot, and there's no surprise and the reveal isn't as strong in my opinion. The second example suggests shots, but there are a number of ways a director can realize this scene. They can PAN UP, CUT TO, TILT UP, or PULL BACK for the reveal. I'm sure that 6 different directors would shoot it 6 different ways, and that none of them would get pissy while reading it. And if they had a better way to handle the scene, then good on them.

                          Producers, Execs, agents and managers are all looking for writers with vision, style and a unique voice. The writer's job is to set down in script form the information that should be seen and heard that best tells their story. If a split screen is the best choice to communicate that story, then do it. My advice stands: write with vision, style, and your unique voice.
                          I prefer the first one.

                          They look like normal people, like they'd mix in with the crowd. Then we see their shoes and know something is off.

                          I think that's more interesting than starting with the shoes.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Complicated split-screen shot

                            Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                            That's basically what I'm saying.

                            Start with the movie in your head and only keep what is necessary and discard what is not. It takes skill to know the difference.

                            Just because you saw it in your head, or you think it's cool, or it was interesting in a completed movie, it's not enough justification to write it on your pages.
                            So -- you read the OP's split screen character intros, and you decided that it wasn't necessary? How can you know this for fact if you haven't read the entire script? Or, are you talking about someone else's script?

                            Better yet -- don't tell us, show us. Show us the "only what's necessary" style you speak of, preferably via a sample from your own pages.
                            Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Complicated split-screen shot

                              Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                              So -- you read the OP's split screen character intros, and you decided that it wasn't necessary? How can you know this for fact if you haven't read the entire script? Or, are you talking about someone else's script?

                              Better yet -- don't tell us, show us. Show us the "only what's necessary" style you speak of, preferably via a sample from your own pages.
                              I never said "it wasn't necessary". I'm more curious about the possible circumstances it would be necessary - TO THE STORY.
                              "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
                              - Clive Barker, Galilee

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Complicated split-screen shot

                                Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                                I never said "it wasn't necessary". I'm more curious about the possible circumstances it would be necessary - TO THE STORY.
                                Contrasting the lead characters. Side by side. It's a technique this particular writer wants to use. I think this was clear immediately.

                                You seem to have a "no-frills ever" approach to screenwriting. I'm curious to see them in action. That's why I was hoping to see some of your pages. That's all.
                                Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X