Is this dialogue (O.S.) ?

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Is this dialogue (O.S.) ?

    The scene has Aaron sat sobbing in the driving seat of his car parked in a hospital parking lot. His car stereo is blasting music full volume. It's night, say 2am-ish. We previously glimpsed a genderless hooded figure at a distance and they have since got into Aaron's car behind the driving seat. So, should their dialogue be (O.S.) if we can only see their hand and forearm?

    Here's how it reads ...

    Code:
    INT. AARON'S CAR
    
    From behind Aaron, someone's left hand brings a sinister
    switchblade to his throat. The shock of it halts his crying.
    
                    HOODED FIGURE (O.S.)
            Turn! That! Sh!t! Off!
    As that scene continues, probably mostly focussed on Aaron's face, there could be glimpses of the hooded figure's head. So, if the hooded figure's dialogue does begin as (O.S.), at what point would it stop being (O.S.)? Only when their face is revealed and we can see their lips moving?
    Know this: I'm a lazy amateur, so trust not a word what I write.
    "The ugly can be beautiful. The pretty, never." ~ Oscar Wilde

  • #2
    Re: Is this dialogue (O.S.) ?

    I wouldn't use OS for this. I pretty much only like it for when people are either not in the room or completely invisible/off-screen for whatever reason.

    Just include what you can and can't see of the figure in your action/description lines.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is this dialogue (O.S.) ?

      If you can see any part of the speaker, it is not (O.S.).

      Just something like:
      Code:
      Only the hand and forearm of the Hooded Figure are visible.
      
                              HOODED FIGURE
                 Turn that off!

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

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is this dialogue (O.S.) ?

        Thank you, guys. I agree with not using (O.S.) in this instance.

        However, I'm disinclined to specify all of the Hooded Figure's body parts that are visible at any one moment. Where would that end?

        Generally, as long as it's clear what's happening, I don't like overtly directing shots.

        And let's not get started on the always unnecessary "we see ...".
        Know this: I'm a lazy amateur, so trust not a word what I write.
        "The ugly can be beautiful. The pretty, never." ~ Oscar Wilde

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is this dialogue (O.S.) ?

          However, I'm disinclined to specify all of the Hooded Figure's body parts that are visible at any one moment. Where would that end?... Generally, as long as it's clear what's happening, I don't like overtly directing shots.
          If you want certain kinds of images, like hands and arms being visible but nothing else, or feet moving along a sidewalk, you have to specify those things. It is all right to do so.

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

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is this dialogue (O.S.) ?

            I use OS only when the fact we don't see the character is important.

            Ben unzips his pants and gets down to it, when suddenly, from behind --

            KAREN (O.S.)
            I'm not enough for you?

            He turns with a gasp.

            She's sitting in the dark corner of the room, a smirk on her face.

            <- things like that. So, I wouldn't do that in your case or any case where it's not important that we don't see the person speaking.

            Moreover, in your scene, calling the intruder Hooded Figure when we see only his hand is absurd.

            Moreover, "we see" isn't always unnecessary. Far from it. :-P

            Originally posted by Crayon View Post
            Thank you, guys. I agree with not using (O.S.) in this instance.

            However, I'm disinclined to specify all of the Hooded Figure's body parts that are visible at any one moment. Where would that end?

            Generally, as long as it's clear what's happening, I don't like overtly directing shots.

            And let's not get started on the always unnecessary "we see ...".

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is this dialogue (O.S.) ?

              A quick response ...

              (1) The Hooded Figure has already made an appearance and just has not been further identified at this point. I see no problem with calling him the Hooded Figure if that is the only name that we have for him, whether we see all of him or not.

              (2) Please, guys, let's not turn this perfectly legitimate question about O.S. into a free-for-all about «we see». Some people are going to use it, and others are not. I have observed this battle many times, and it never accomplishes anything.
              Last edited by ComicBent; 04-30-2016, 01:32 PM. Reason: To clarify.

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

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is this dialogue (O.S.) ?

                Yes to all the above. The only thing I would add is a simple guide for knowing when to use 'O.S.' It indicates that the character is physically present in the scene but out of the camera frame, for example in an adjacent room, that's all.
                "Friends make the worst enemies." Frank Underwood

                Comment

                Working...
                X