Angle On

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #16
    Re: Angle On

    Originally posted by BattleDolphinZero View Post
    (not speaking to you specifically, Grid, but using your post as an example)

    this is a really unhealthy way to think and it's one of the main things the pros try to address on this board.

    CALCULATE LESS

    I agree, BTZ, but I would think there a certain mistakes one can make that scream "Amateur" - ANGLE ON probably not being one of them- but little things like that is what we're trying to avoid. It may be over-thinking, but I say better that than under-thinking. I appreciate your point though. But I'm about to send to a manager and I want to avoid rookie mistakes where possible.
    "I need someone who laughs at all my jokes. You know; honest feedback."
    - C. Montgomery Burns

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Angle On

      Originally posted by Ven View Post
      It's a major no-no.
      No, it's not.

      I've noticed this happening all the time in here. A producer I used to work with had a great phrase to describe this sort of thing.

      "Certainty masquerading as knowledge."

      Lots of professional writers use ANGLE ON: all the time.

      It's perfectly fine.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Angle On

        Originally posted by gridlock'd View Post
        I agree, BTZ, but I would think there a certain mistakes one can make that scream "Amateur" - ANGLE ON probably not being one of them- but little things like that is what we're trying to avoid. It may be over-thinking, but I say better that than under-thinking. I appreciate your point though. But I'm about to send to a manager and I want to avoid rookie mistakes where possible.
        You guys... YOU GUYS.... ARGHHHH!

        Things like "ANGLE ON" and "we see" and all the other idiosyncrasies of screenwriting are NOT what scream "Amateur."

        Crappy-ass writing is what screams "Amateur."

        Period the end for realz.

        I'll just keep saying it until I die.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Angle On

          Originally posted by Craig Mazin View Post
          Lots of professional writers use ANGLE ON: all the time.

          It's perfectly fine.
          Lots of professional writers also "sum up" their characters.

          Not to get into the other post, but what makes one acceptable and the other unacceptable? If professionals use both, and we aspire to be professionals, how do we determine what is right vs. wrong like you are able to do?

          Instinct?

          Or does telling a great story with confidence trump any so-called "rule"?

          Thanks, Craig.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Angle On

            I'm happy to answer that question, but first...

            ...because I'm an optimist....

            ...can you think of one really good reason why these two practices should be considered differently?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Angle On

              Just like with “WE SEE,” “CLOSE UP ON,” “WE PULL BACK TO A WIDE SHOT AND SEE,” etc. “ANGLE ON” is a legitimate tool to use if a writer prefers to do so.

              It’s a matter of personal taste and style. Personally, I don’t use camera directions in my scripts.

              If I want to focus on something specific, or if I move around in a large location and don't want to confuse the reader, I'll use ATB's example.

              When I read scripts, camera directions do annoy me and they do distract me, but I won’t deduct points from a writer’s story because of it. I’ll judge a story like it’s suppose to be judged: on the story’s content alone.

              God help the fool who would toss out something like “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” because of camera directions.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Angle On

                ANGLE ON isn't even a camera direction! It's actually an EDITORIAL direction, which we are constantly making as screenwriters... and in fact *must* make as screenwriters.

                ANGLE ON is no more an encroachment on the director than "EXT."

                When we type ANGLE ON, we're simply saying to the reader "visual continuity has been disrupted... instead of looking at what we were just looking at, we're now looking at...."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Angle On

                  Originally posted by Craig Mazin View Post
                  I'm happy to answer that question, but first...

                  ...because I'm an optimist....

                  ...can you think of one really good reason why these two practices should be considered differently?
                  You can see ANGLE ON: but many times when summing up characters you can't.

                  But it's not even these two practices in general. When we are learning screenwriting, one of the best things we can do is read scripts. If the pro or repped scripts I read all have differing practices, how am I, as an aspiring writer, to determine which ones are right?

                  Thanks again, Craig.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Angle On

                    Craig Mazin says, "ANGLE ON isn't even a camera direction! It's actually an EDITORIAL direction ... we're simply saying to the reader 'visual continuity has been disrupted ... instead of looking at what we were just looking at, we're now looking at...'-

                    -- In my opinion, camera direction and editing direction, or also known as continuity editing, are practically the same thing. Directors follow a conventional pattern of camera placement and editing.

                    Continuity editing is a style of editing that the director uses to make the film authentic as possible for the audience that matches the relationships from shot to shot to maintain a continuous and clear narrative action, so the viewer isn't distracted by awkward jumps between shots, such as: Establishing Shot, Re-establishing Shot, POV Shot, Long Shot, Medium Shot, Two Shot, Reverse Angle Shot, Extreme Close Up Shot, etc.

                    When I see something like...

                    EXT. AFRICA - DAY

                    HIGH ANGLE ON the treetops of a lush green rainforest, beautiful and mysterious and seemingly endless.

                    ...it sure seems to me to be a camera direction expressing the placement of the camera.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Angle On

                      Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                      Craig Mazin says, "ANGLE ON isn't even a camera direction! It's actually an EDITORIAL direction ... we're simply saying to the reader 'visual continuity has been disrupted ... instead of looking at what we were just looking at, we're now looking at...'-
                      Yeah, and there are different ways of doing it. You could use "we see", or nothing. You say they "are practically the same thing" and you are right that they are almost the same thing, but not quite. That's where the natural writer in you comes into play. Your gift for usage, and knowing how to describe something the right way at the right time to create the right effect is what makes the difference.

                      HIGH ANGLE ON the treetops of a lush green rainforest, beautiful and mysterious and seemingly endless.

                      ...it sure seems to me to be a camera direction expressing the placement of the camera.
                      That's right and there's nothing wrong with that. As with most of these things, it's not about knowing a rule which states whether or not you can or should use it, it's about knowing when it's appropriate and how to use it. These are the sorts of things that separate those who want to write from those who can write and there comes a point at which it's impossible to explain because the difference comes from within the writer and isn't something they're even conscious of, it's just something they know how to do.
                      "Friends make the worst enemies." Frank Underwood

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Angle On

                        I'd put it this way.

                        ANGLE ON doesn't affect the way you tell your story.

                        Summing your characters does.

                        Originally posted by cristopherous View Post
                        You can see ANGLE ON: but many times when summing up characters you can't.

                        But it's not even these two practices in general. When we are learning screenwriting, one of the best things we can do is read scripts. If the pro or repped scripts I read all have differing practices, how am I, as an aspiring writer, to determine which ones are right?

                        Thanks again, Craig.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Angle On

                          If you add HIGH to it, then sure, it's implying camera placement.

                          So does this:

                          Jim flips the the quarter in the air.

                          THE QUARTER - spins slowly

                          JIM - watches....

                          ANN - watches... waiting........

                          If you guys know of a way to write a screenplay without constantly implying camera placement, then good luck with that.

                          It seems like a bizarre goal.

                          I've only been doing it professionally for 16 years, and not one single director, producer or studio executive has said a single thing about it.

                          Not one.

                          In 16 years.

                          Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                          Craig Mazin says, "ANGLE ON isn't even a camera direction! It's actually an EDITORIAL direction ... we're simply saying to the reader 'visual continuity has been disrupted ... instead of looking at what we were just looking at, we're now looking at...'-

                          -- In my opinion, camera direction and editing direction, or also known as continuity editing, are practically the same thing. Directors follow a conventional pattern of camera placement and editing.

                          Continuity editing is a style of editing that the director uses to make the film authentic as possible for the audience that matches the relationships from shot to shot to maintain a continuous and clear narrative action, so the viewer isn't distracted by awkward jumps between shots, such as: Establishing Shot, Re-establishing Shot, POV Shot, Long Shot, Medium Shot, Two Shot, Reverse Angle Shot, Extreme Close Up Shot, etc.

                          When I see something like...

                          EXT. AFRICA - DAY

                          HIGH ANGLE ON the treetops of a lush green rainforest, beautiful and mysterious and seemingly endless.

                          ...it sure seems to me to be a camera direction expressing the placement of the camera.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Angle On

                            Originally posted by tavis sarmento View Post
                            Wondering what people think about using the descriptive element "angle on" in the action text? I've seen a few pro scripts recently that have utilized it sparingly, and I kind of like how it helps breaks up blocks of text and focuses the attention. Mostly I equate it with a close up shot. You?
                            The minor slugline "Angle On" isn't the problem, using it isn't a problem, it's amateurs using it without being conscious, overusing it, and generally using it badly that is the problem.

                            So, when you start reading something by a new writer or an unrepped writer and on page one it's camera directions all over the place, then you do get bogged down a bit.

                            Craig Mazin is going to use it judiciously and with intention which means, I suspect, that he doesn't use it often. Andy Amateur is going to use it in a bad way, and probably often, because Andy Amateur doesn't understand that the story is the most important thing, not creating a document that "looks like" a script.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Angle On

                              What are the merits? I don't know about merits, per se. Only casual utility.

                              JOHN sits at a cafe table, casually moving his iPhone back and forth. Strange, but seemingly innocuous.

                              ANGLE ON: a MIRROR on the cafe wall. It's bouncing reflected light from the iPhone. Quick flashes mixed with long ones.

                              ACROSS THE STREET: David sits on a bus bench, catching the flashes in the mirror through the window. Writes letters down. These aren't random. It's Morse code...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Angle On

                                Originally posted by -XL- View Post
                                Yes there are other ways you can create the same effect. But then, there are a thousand ways to write *any* scene. ANGLE ON is a clear, concise, and effective way to manipulate the reader into seeing what you want them to see -- which, you know, is exactly what you want in your writing.
                                So ANGLE ON is kind of like WE SEE on steroids?

                                (I don't know about others here, but I think I may have actually learned something -- thanks to this thread.)
                                STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X