Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

    Here's the scenario: EXT. shot of a car (not a convertible) in traffic. We (yes, that WE, the audience) can hear two characters inside the car talking. (No, I'm not planning to use a WE HEAR in my script. Don't worry, Vig!)

    Question: Are the characters speaking O.S. or V.O.?

    1) Technically, the characters are at the location; we just can't see them. So this would seem to make the characters Off Screen, ergo there should be an (O.S.) tag after the character captions.

    2) But wait, not so fast! The dialogue that we (that audience WE again!) are hearing could not possibly be heard by us if we were actually there at the scene standing next to the car. (Assume that the car windows are up.) We hear what we shouldn't be able to hear, almost like we are listening in on a character's thought bubbles. (I am, of course, taking advantage of the fact that the medium of cinema allows us to violate all sorts of physical laws of time and space.) Therefore, would the correct - or at least, more appropriate - usage after the character captions be (V.O.)? I'm not sure which way to go on this one.

    Undoubtedly, someone can cite an example from a produced script that will settle things definitively.




    #####

  • #2
    Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

    Even if we can't see the characters, if they are supposedly delivering the lines in the car to each other then it would be O.S. V.O. isn't on screen or off screen.

    Originally posted by agitprop
    Here's the scenario: EXT. shot of a car (not a convertible) in traffic. We (yes, that WE, the audience) can hear two characters inside the car talking. (No, I'm not planning to use a WE HEAR in my script. Don't worry, Vig!)

    Question: Are the characters speaking O.S. or V.O.?

    1) Technically, the characters are at the location; we just can't see them. So this would seem to make the characters Off Screen, ergo there should be an (O.S.) tag after the character captions.

    2) But wait, not so fast! The dialogue that we (that audience WE again!) are hearing could not possibly be heard by us if we were actually there at the scene standing next to the car. (Assume that the car windows are up.) We hear what we shouldn't be able to hear, almost like we are listening in on a character's thought bubbles. (I am, of course, taking advantage of the fact that the medium of cinema allows us to violate all sorts of physical laws of time and space.) Therefore, would the correct - or at least, more appropriate - usage after the character captions be (V.O.)? I'm not sure which way to go on this one.

    Undoubtedly, someone can cite an example from a produced script that will settle things definitively.




    #####

    Last night in San Pedro

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

      Originally posted by thatcomedian
      Even if we can't see the characters, if they are supposedly delivering the lines in the car to each other then it would be O.S. V.O. isn't on screen or off screen.

      The point is, we the audience are hearing dialogue that we shouldn't be able to hear. In this sense, the dialogue violates all known laws of physics governing sound. (Cinema with its ability to manipulate sight and sound through editing, violates the laws of nature with impunity.) Since the dialogue is "unnatural" in this sense, does it become the equivalent of hearing a character's thoughts (i.e., Voice Over)?

      The EXT. scene of the car would be filmed then the actor's voices would be added over that scene later, in the editing room. The actors themselves need not be physically present when that scene is filmed even though the characters they are playing are, hypothetically speaking, in the car.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

        Originally posted by agitprop
        Since the dialogue is "unnatural" in this sense, does it become the equivalent of hearing a character's thoughts (i.e., Voice Over)?
        But we're not hearing their thoughts. We are hearing a conversation -- yes one that logically we shouldn't be able to hear, but never the less, due to the wonders of film making we can and are hearing.

        The EXT. scene of the car would be filmed then the actor's voices would be added over that scene later, in the editing room. The actors themselves need not be physically present when that scene is filmed even though the characters they are playing are, hypothetically speaking, in the car
        The characters are present. My understanding of V.O. is that it's used when the character is not present.
        It's kind of fun to do the impossible - Walt Disney

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

          here is a monkey wrench for you agit. i'd advocate expressing that you can hear the conversation in the car. i don't admonish the use of we anything. you can write the scene so that the narrative flows into the explanation that you can hear the people in the car.

          voice over is narrative and done over the scene and would not be used for your explanation.

          however you can do a number of different things that have nothing to do with the way you asked the question.

          you can do a panoramic of the car and we understand that the voices are coming from the car. or use OVER. or trail another car that parks right next to the car your talking about and hold the camera on that shot. obviously you don't include the camera directions you just use your pov to locate the car within the scene and then stay on the car.

          or show that the car windows are fogging up. but it's not V.O.

          there is a dozen different variations and throughout a script i might have this exact situation three or four times and might use different choices for each scene.

          vig

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

            Voices that are organically heard in a scene, with a source that is unseen, are (O.S.).



            Voices that are not organically heard in a scene, the source may or may not be seen, are (V.O.)


            The situation, we are hearing dialogue of two people that is not organic to the scene (there is no natural way to hear what they are saying).

            That situation is using (V.O.) dialogue.
            Fortune favors the bold - Virgil

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

              (v.o.)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

                Really good question.

                It is definitely a voice-over situation. I had to stop and think about it for a while, which I did BEFORE looking at anyone's responses.

                Deus nailed the logic of the situation. I will give him an assist on this, though, and clarify one point. The word 'organically' has to be understood to mean that one is hearing this in 'normal human fashion with the ear, unassisted by some device such as the telephone or an electronic bugging device.'

                Remember that conversations heard over telephones and other electronic transmitting devices are voice-overs.

                And, please, don't anyone ask what you would do if the person hearing the conversation has a Triple-X-strength hearing aid!

                Seriously, the key is that a normal human ear would be able to hear the conversation. This is 'organic' hearing.

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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

                  VO

                  I know this from reading hundreds of scripts, and it pops up in a few of them.

                  - Bill
                  Free Script Tips:
                  http://www.scriptsecrets.net

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

                    Originally posted by Deus Ex Machine
                    Voices that are organically heard in a scene, with a source that is unseen, are (O.S.).

                    Voices that are not organically heard in a scene, the source may or may not be seen, are (V.O.)

                    The situation, we are hearing dialogue of two people that is not organic to the scene (there is no natural way to hear what they are saying).

                    That situation is using (V.O.) dialogue.

                    Organic, I like that term. It really helps me make a simple, clear-cut determination on which way to go (V.O. or O.S.) in a lot of situations that might not seem so clear-cut. It's a heck of a lot more clear than the definitions given in those screenwriting books in which I have invested so much money.

                    Thanks very much.


                    #####

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

                      Format is actually very simple. Some people over think it and place too much emphasis on it.



                      And if you can decide if you should use (O.S.) or (V.O.) then don't use either.



                      DEUS'S VOICE

                      DEUS (ON PHONE)

                      DEUS (ON PA)

                      DEUS (ON TV)

                      DEUS (NARRATION)

                      DEUS (THINKS)

                      etc...


                      Whatever you use, use what clearly communicates what is happeing in the film and use it consistently.



                      Fortune favors the bold - Virgil

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

                        Wow, I disagree with both Deus AND Martell. That NEVER happens.

                        My opinion, I don't think the test should be whether or not the audience can hear it, but whether or not the characters can. From a reader's perspective, if I see V.O. I immediately think narrator. I've read hundreds of scripts, too, and I see it split around 50/50 (maybe a little more V.O.). So I don't think either way is wrong. But I like V.O. reserved for narration.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

                          In the golden age, (O.S.) was used to indicate dialogue that would be captured "live" on the set during the filming of a scene. (V.O.) was used to indicate dialogue that was to be captured in a recording studio and added as an additional track in the mixing process.
                          Fortune favors the bold - Virgil

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

                            I did some looking up on this, because I really wasn't sure myself. Good question. Here's what I found.

                            From the "Element of Screenwriting" by Irwin Blacker.

                            John (vo) means that John is narrating voice-over and is not on the screen. He may be telling what he is thinking or something about his childhood with an appropriate visual on screen.

                            However when John is IN the scene, but he is not in the shot, then use John (os), and the reader, the editor, and the director know that John is present but off screen.


                            From the "Complete Book of Scriptwriting" by J. Micheal Straczynski

                            The designation (vo) means voice-over, meaning that we hear the character talking over an established shot, say a hotel or resteraunt or an office building, then cut inside to find the actor in action. The voice-over thus functions partly as a transitional device to smooth over a change in location.

                            A similar direction is (os), which stands for off screen, which means the person doing the speaking is inside the same location but momentarily out of sight of the camera or other characters in the room.


                            Hope it helps.

                            Steph
                            "Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." --T.S. Eliot

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Finer points of V.O. vs. O.S.

                              you only need to look at my answer and stick to doing that for infinity and you'll be fine. bill and dues are okay, but when you want the real answer, minus the aristotle mumbo jumbo by dues and the I'M A PRO thing by martell, you'll see the light.

                              bah-humbug

                              vig

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X