People talking with headsets

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • People talking with headsets

    Hi everyone,

    For some reasons, the people in my script have to use headset communication very often. So we see only ONE character and hear the other (two) making comments via headset.

    Do I use V.O. like in telephone conversations? And do I have to put every time "into microphone" or "via headset" (what would be quite annoying.... for me and for the reader I guess as well

    Thanks, folks!


  • #2
    Re: People talking with headsets

    Originally posted by VanceVanCleaf View Post
    Hi everyone,

    For some reasons, the people in my script have to use headset communication very often. So we see only ONE character and hear the other (two) making comments via headset.

    Do I use V.O. like in telephone conversations? And do I have to put every time "into microphone" or "via headset" (what would be quite annoying.... for me and for the reader I guess as well

    Thanks, folks!
    V.O. is for anyone speaking who is not in the room/area. On a TV, narrator, on the phone.

    You can INTERCUT if you want to go back and forth from one character to another.

    But IMO, you don't need (into headset) every time once it's established because seriously, who else would he be talking to? That is, it's obvious from context.

    Get the Screenwriter's Bible by Trottier.
    wry

    The rule is the first fifteen pages should enthrall me, but truth is, I'm only giving you about 3-5 pages. ~ Hollywood Script Reader

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: People talking with headsets

      Originally posted by VanceVanCleaf View Post
      Hi everyone,

      For some reasons, the people in my script have to use headset communication very often. So we see only ONE character and hear the other (two) making comments via headset.

      Do I use V.O. like in telephone conversations? And do I have to put every time "into microphone" or "via headset" (what would be quite annoying.... for me and for the reader I guess as well

      Thanks, folks!
      This really depends on whether you want the person on the other end of the headsets to be seen or not, or whether there are certain points during the conversation when it's necessary to stay with one side or other other.

      Generally, if I'm going to cut back and forth between two ends of a conversation (or more). I'll simply establish the various sides of the conversation and then put in the second (or last) slugline: (INTERCUT AS NEEDED)

      Then you don't have to bother worrying about V.O. -- unless, of course, there's some point where you only want to be on one person, and the person on the other end is definitively not supposed to be seen.

      Then, if they've been on screen, potentially, you should put in a specific slug line that brings the scene back to whoever you're sticking with, and on separate line indicate, "STAY ON BOB".

      And then you'd use VO for the other character, just in case they missed that "stay on Bob" line.

      And from my perspective, if someone is always supposed to be in Voice Over, I'll always use voice over -- although I admit, since I'm a hog for saving lines, sometimes if I've got a lot of voice-over lines, I'll write it like this:

      BOB (V.O.)
      Hi, I'm Bob.

      Rather than like this:

      BOB
      (V.O.)
      No, he's not. I'm Bob.

      That may just be me being overly cautious. It's just that I believed once that giving a single instruction at the beginning of a scene and indicating it once in the first line of dialogue would be enough (and it was a really obvious instruction-- that a particular character was supposed to talking in a high-pitched voice, imitating a girl) and that there wasn't any reason to keep writing it in after that first line of dialogue -- and then when the thing was shot, they dutifully followed the instruction in that first line and then ignored it for the rest of the scene -- and the character went back to talking in his normal voice.

      Which didn't make any sense.

      So whenever these technical things come up, I always vote on the side of being as clear in respect to your intentions as you possibly can, because believe me, however clear you are, people who read your script -- and I'm talking people who read scripts for a living -- agents, directors, producers, you name it -- are going to miss things and misinterpret them.

      NMS

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: People talking with headsets

        Thanks!

        Well, I have a conversation between four people, sitting in three different location and talking via headset. As for now, I stay in one area for some time, then I switch, put in a new headline, and have the others in voice over:

        such as:

        INT. / LOCATION ONE

        BOB:
        (into headset)
        I'm ready. Do you read me?

        KARL: (V.O.)
        Loud and clear. Proceed!

        INT. / LOCATION TWO

        GEORGE retrieves his GPS monitor to observe Bob via the
        signal.

        GEORGE:
        What's that idiot doing?

        INT. / LOCATION THREE

        BOB: (V.O.)
        Reached the ventilation grid.

        SARAH:
        (into headset)
        Check it!
        (to Karl)
        This is a waste of time.

        ---

        I put "into headset", as they ALSO talk to the other people in the room.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: People talking with headsets

          Originally posted by VanceVanCleaf View Post
          Thanks!

          Well, I have a conversation between four people, sitting in three different location and talking via headset. As for now, I stay in one area for some time, then I switch, put in a new headline, and have the others in voice over:

          such as:

          INT. / LOCATION ONE

          BOB:
          (into headset)
          I'm ready. Do you read me?

          KARL: (V.O.)
          Loud and clear. Proceed!

          INT. / LOCATION TWO

          GEORGE retrieves his GPS monitor to observe Bob via the
          signal.

          GEORGE:
          What's that idiot doing?

          INT. / LOCATION THREE

          BOB: (V.O.)
          Reached the ventilation grid.

          SARAH:
          (into headset)
          Check it!
          (to Karl)
          This is a waste of time.

          ---

          I put "into headset", as they ALSO talk to the other people in the room.
          Well, the way you've described it above is kind of confusing, but I'm assuming that you've chopped it down for purposes of making an example.

          Obviously, you'd establish who was present at each location -- and also who was wearing headsets and thus, who was going to be involved in this three-way headset conversation.

          I would have indicated, as each location was introduced,

          INT. LOCATION TWO (INTERCUT AS NEEDED)

          Same with location three -- and then, while I'd use (on headsets), just to make things clear, I wouldn't bother with (VO).

          Instead, since it's left to the context as to when the putative camera is focused on which person in which location is doing the speaking and which is doing the listening, it ceases to be necessary.

          Thus you'd simply have this exchange:

          BOB (on headsets)
          Reached the ventilation grid.

          SARAH (on headsets)
          Check it!
          (aside, to Karl)
          This is a waste of time.

          Unless there's really some urgent reason "not" to be on Bob during this exchange, I just think it clutters things up to start putting in VO's here and VO's there. It can just get confusing.

          If there's some extended action happening at one place or another, you can bring the reader back to it with a mini-slug.


          IN THE REACTOR CORE

          Bob's crawling over a mass of twisted wreckage.

          BOB (on headsets)
          Reached the ventilation grid.

          IN OPERATIONS

          Sarah fiddles anxiously with the controls, trying to clear the static.

          SARAH (on headsets)
          Check it!
          (aside, to Karl)
          This is a waste of time.

          The guiding principle is always the same -- keep it clear, keep it simple. Unless you have good reason to do it otherwise, the reader should always know where they are, what's happening, and who's doing what.

          NMS

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: People talking with headsets

            Originally posted by nmstevens View Post
            sometimes if I've got a lot of voice-over lines, I'll write it like this:

            BOB (V.O.)
            Hi, I'm Bob.

            Rather than like this:

            BOB
            (V.O.)
            No, he's not. I'm Bob.
            I've never heard of putting the (V.O). or (O.S.) under the name.
            wry

            The rule is the first fifteen pages should enthrall me, but truth is, I'm only giving you about 3-5 pages. ~ Hollywood Script Reader

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: People talking with headsets

              Originally posted by wrytnow View Post
              I've never heard of putting the (V.O). or (O.S.) under the name.
              My mother loved putting V.O. in a glass.

              (Oh, but I don't mean often. Usually it was just Pepsi. And AFAIK, never Dos Equis.)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: People talking with headsets

                Originally posted by wrytnow View Post
                I've never heard of putting the (V.O). or (O.S.) under the name.
                Same thing with (on headsets) or (on phone) or whatever those repetitive descriptives are.

                I think the norm is drifting toward putting them on the character line, but I've seen them as parentheticals.

                NMS

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: People talking with headsets

                  Originally posted by nmstevens View Post
                  Same thing with (on headsets) or (on phone) or whatever those repetitive descriptives are.

                  I think the norm is drifting toward putting them on the character line, but I've seen them as parentheticals.

                  NMS
                  I don't think so. But if you have a link to a script that does either of these things, I'd appreciate it.
                  wry

                  The rule is the first fifteen pages should enthrall me, but truth is, I'm only giving you about 3-5 pages. ~ Hollywood Script Reader

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: People talking with headsets

                    Originally posted by wrytnow View Post
                    I don't think so. But if you have a link to a script that does either of these things, I'd appreciate it.
                    Does it really matter?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: People talking with headsets

                      Originally posted by Richmond Weems View Post
                      Does it really matter?

                      Have you ever given a pass to a script because of formatting "eccentricities"?
                      For example, several scripts I've read lately do not use "INT/EXT", drop "FADE IN/THE END", even minimize "DAY, NIGHT, etc"...in much the same way "WE SEE" and other camera directions have been dropped.
                      If dialogue and action were otherwise 'normal' and engaging, would you keep reading a script with slightly different, purposeful, possibly intelligent alternative formatting?
                      thanks
                      [-]ScriptReaderAMAA[S] 11 points 2 months ago
                      I might give it anything from a pass with reservations to a consider. Truth is, those things can be fixed pretty easily. It certainly wouldn't get a recommend, though. ...
                      (X)
                      wry

                      The rule is the first fifteen pages should enthrall me, but truth is, I'm only giving you about 3-5 pages. ~ Hollywood Script Reader

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: People talking with headsets

                        Wrytnow strikes again LOL. Take the word of an anonymous person on Reddit - one who's already been exposed by the DDP community for perpetuating myth rather than an established pro whose every post shines much needed light of truth and wisdom.

                        Her preference for resisting the pros (and quoting nameless nobodies) is baffling. Remember her insistence that Jeff Lowell is out of touch with the amateur writer? Ignoring everything Jeff said to the contrary? It would've been comical had it not been so misguided.
                        Last edited by SundownInRetreat; 03-16-2014, 10:25 AM.
                        M.A.G.A.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: People talking with headsets

                          I too do not recall ever seeing voice over or off screen floated as a parenthetical.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: People talking with headsets

                            And yet, it clearly can happen. You guys really want to die on this hill?

                            If a parenthetical works for you, use it. If it doesn't don't. NOBODY is going to refuse to recommend your work or throw out your screenplay because you used a parenthetical for voice over. That's absolutely silly.

                            By the same token, Sundown, please refrain from making personal attacks. Thanks.
                            Chicks Who Script podcast

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: People talking with headsets

                              What I said was that I have never seen it used that way.

                              I didn't say you can't do it. Do whatever floats your boat.

                              I do think it's pointless to hang a VO, though. main reason being you eat up a line of space for something that makes more sense to have by the character's name in the first place. but that's just me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X