We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #16
    Re: We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

    I wasn't arguing - I was helping someone who is now contradicting what they said.
    Sorry I wasted my time on you. Won't happen again.
    M.A.G.A.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

      Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
      It's about how you approach writing and ensure you don't over-complicate matters.

      And there is no correct way for any of it. It's all about making it simple and clear and very much indeed going with your gut rather than imaginary markers for an imaginary set of rules.

      ...it's all down to personal choice. Hence calculate less.
      Sure, it's fine to say calculate less. Don't overthink. Go with your gut.

      But as we know, the creative process involves making choices. Sometimes you have to choose between two or three good alternative ways of writing an action, reveal, flashback, scene, etc. Sure there are no rules. But how do you choose between different worthy alternatives that don't follow rules?

      That's what editing and revising are all about. On first draft you consider your options, then go with what your gut tells you.

      But damn it. On rereading the draft or receiving notes you think about your original choice. You consider other options. You can't help calculating, thinking.

      PS we think, therefore we are. Added for emotion.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

        Just hand the pages to a avid reader and see if they can visualize your scene

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

          Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
          Sure, it's fine to say calculate less. Don't overthink. Go with your gut.

          But as we know, the creative process involves making choices. Sometimes you have to choose between two or three good alternative ways of writing an action, reveal, flashback, scene, etc. Sure there are no rules. But how do you choose between different worthy alternatives that don't follow rules?

          That's what editing and revising are all about. On first draft you consider your options, then go with what your gut tells you.

          But damn it. On rereading the draft or receiving notes you think about your original choice. You consider other options. You can't help calculating, thinking.

          PS we think, therefore we are. Added for emotion.
          There's a big fucking difference between calculating less and not thinking at all.
          M.A.G.A.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

            Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
            Just as long as it's clear. I seem to recall some guy saying "calculate less".
            Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
            Sure, it's fine to say calculate less. Don't overthink. Go with your gut.

            But damn it. On rereading the draft or receiving notes you think about your original choice. You consider other options. You can't help calculating, thinking.
            Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
            There's a big fucking difference between calculating less and not thinking at all.
            I think you missed my point. I think "calculate less" means not overthinking rules. There are no rules.

            I think Goldmund was talking about struggling with alternate approaches. She/he isn't worried about the ****ing "rules."

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

              Originally posted by goldmund View Post
              Thank you! That was really helpful.

              It's not a REVEAL per se, rather: the first scene is a bit mysterious and the voice is out of place, and putting a regular name there somehow takes away from the atmosphere. I think I will leave MALE VOICE there, and in the second scene put MARK (O.S.) just before we see him.

              The rule about not doing proper names before someone introduces a character is, of course, idiotic. I know that. :-)
              Good! What you decided to do is not based on some idiotic, though non-existent, rule.

              But consider this: To avoid confusion "MALE VOICE" MUST be either (V.O.) or (O.S.). (Is that a rule?) Unless you tell me where the voice is coming from, it may cause a hiccup in my read. But if you're ok with that you can do whatever you want.
              "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
              - Clive Barker, Galilee

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

                Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                But consider this: To avoid confusion "MALE VOICE" MUST be either (V.O.) or (O.S.).
                OTOH, one could observe that that's an odd thing to say because, unless the male character is invisible, how can a "MALE VOICE" be ON SCREEN?

                Yes, I assume a reader will get it, either way. But "MALE VOICE (V.O)" seems absurd. And "MALE VOICE (O.S.)" seems like it would qualify for some subcategory of redundancy.

                TBB, I'm not saying your statement is wrong; just, it doesn't work for my writing. FWIW.

                Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                Unless you tell me where the voice is coming from, it may cause a hiccup in my read.
                I agree. And, taking a sidetrack here... That's why I like John August's approach to "(V.O.)" - which is to forget the rule (that there are only 2 choices - V.O. and O.S.) and, for V.O., and when it helps with clarity to do so, simply say where the voice is coming from. "JOE (ON THE PHONE)"; "JOE (ON THE RADIO)", etc.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

                  Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                  I think you missed my point. I think "calculate less" means not overthinking rules. There are no rules.
                  Jesus....

                  I can't even begin to cope with your latest bizarre post. So just forget it.
                  M.A.G.A.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

                    I think we can all back off a bit here.

                    Thanks.
                    Nic
                    sigpic

                    Website
                    Tweets
                    Book

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

                      As to the original question -- if the other characters on screen can hear him, I'd use MARK (O.S.). If the characters on screen cannot hear him, I'd use MARK (V.O.).

                      No one who regularly reads scripts will question why you didn't introduce him. It sounds to me like you're sending this out to reps, soon. Reps will know. If you're sending it to someone who's never read a script -- yeah, they might be confused, but industry people will not.

                      The only exception is if you want to hide his identity. But I can't see that's your intention since you say you intro him by the third scene.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

                        Thank you!

                        Yes, I think I'd just settle for MARK without introducing him. Maybe clarity is more important than showing off your prose muscles.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: We Don't See Who Talks, and Then: It Was Him!

                          Originally posted by goldmund View Post
                          Maybe clarity is more important than showing off your prose muscles.
                          This this this. I have written this sentiment over and over when giving notes. Your first job is to tell the story in a comprehensive way. Don't sacrifice clarity for fancy words.
                          Chicks Who Script podcast

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X