Style and flow: spec script vs. shooting script (a question for produced writers)

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Style and flow: spec script vs. shooting script (a question for produced writers)

    In his blog and podcast, John August has spoken a couple of times against (sort of) the use of “CONTINUOUS” in scene headings instead of the time of the day, because it makes things harder once the script goes into production and those scenes need to be scheduled. His reasoning seemed very sensible to me (I probably would write INT. PLACE – DAY (CONTINUOUS) or something along those lines.)

    I can see how the same argument could be made for using scene headings like in this example from the Californication pilot:

    Code:
    He can't find his shoes. Or his pants. And the FOOTSTEPS are 
    getting closer. He shrugs. Starts to go. Returns for a kiss 
    and then tears ass through the sliding glass doors...
    
    OUT ONTO A STRETCH OF MALIBU BEACHFRONT
    
    A postcard-worthy snapshot of SoCal bliss that Hank has 
    neither the time or the luxury to appreciate. He creeps along 
    the side of the house, wincing at ALL THE YELLING coming from 
    inside, finally ending up...
    
    IN THE DRIVEWAY
    
    Where his DIRTY BLACK PORSCHE awaits. He hops in the car...  
    fires it up... Billy Idol's cover of The Doors' "L.A. Woman" 
    playing on the stereo...
    But if I go over those scene headings to make them more production friendly, I find it hurts the read, the sequence loses some of its momentum. I'd assume that the drafts a spec goes through during production already take care of this, that those changes are then made, and that a spec script should focus in the way the reader is going to experience it.

    What are your thoughts on this? Has it ever been a problem using simplified scene headings? I must say I hadn’t given it much thought until John mentioned it (he also pointed out that sometimes if a writer uses “CONTINUOUS” instead of the time of the day, the reader can find himself having to check the previous scene to see whether it’s day or night, which is a fair point.)

  • #2
    Re: Style and flow: spec script vs. shooting script (a question for produced writers)

    Originally posted by Dr. Vergerus View Post
    John August has spoken a couple of times against (sort of) the use of "CONTINUOUS- in scene headings instead of the time of the day, because it makes things harder once the script goes into production and those scenes need to be scheduled.

    I can see how the same argument could be made for using scene headings like in this example from the Californication pilot:

    Code:
    He can't find his shoes. Or his pants. And the FOOTSTEPS are 
    getting closer. He shrugs. Starts to go. Returns for a kiss 
    and then tears ass through the sliding glass doors...
    
    OUT ONTO A STRETCH OF MALIBU BEACHFRONT
    
    A postcard-worthy snapshot of SoCal bliss that Hank has 
    neither the time or the luxury to appreciate. He creeps along 
    the side of the house, wincing at ALL THE YELLING coming from 
    inside, finally ending up...
    
    IN THE DRIVEWAY
    
    Where his DIRTY BLACK PORSCHE awaits. He hops in the car...  
    fires it up... Billy Idol's cover of The Doors' "L.A. Woman" 
    playing on the stereo...
    But if I go over those scene headings to make them more production friendly, I find it hurts the read, the sequence loses some of its momentum.
    A spec script gets a full workover before it becomes a production script and that's where these issues are usually taken care of. It's very rare, but not unknown, for a spec script to be returned for formatting corrections. Production will not be handicapped by how you format the spec, and there's a complete spectrum of opinions as to how closely writers should follow presentation conventions.

    Whether or not regular scene headings make the script easier to read is also a matter of opinion. I have no problem reading a script that uses standard scene headings throughout - it certainly doesn't hurt the read and in fact I find it easier because I know exactly where I am and it doesn't spoil the momentum. Spec scripts are written differently from one writer to the next, varying from all normal scene headings to few normal scene headings and everything in between, but this isn't what determines whether or not a script sells. A script is a written description of a movie (I hate the cliche blueprint) - if you write one that's compelling and makes the reader want to turn pages, presentation idiosyncracies are less likely to be noticed or matter. While John August is technically correct in one sense, in practise all sorts of format varations get read and accepted. Studios are actually looking for a movie, not a script, and if you write an engaging description of that movie the production script will take care of itself when the time comes. Yes, there are people who care about this more than others, and if you want to play it safe there's nothing wrong with adhering more or less to the basics of standard formatting.
    "Friends make the worst enemies." Frank Underwood

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Style and flow: spec script vs. shooting script (a question for produced writers)

      Originally posted by Dr. Vergerus View Post
      In his blog and podcast, John August has spoken a couple of times against (sort of) the use of "CONTINUOUS- in scene headings instead of the time of the day, because it makes things harder once the script goes into production and those scenes need to be scheduled. His reasoning seemed very sensible to me (I probably would write INT. PLACE - DAY (CONTINUOUS) or something along those lines.)

      I can see how the same argument could be made for using scene headings like in this example from the Californication pilot:

      Code:
      He can't find his shoes. Or his pants. And the FOOTSTEPS are 
      getting closer. He shrugs. Starts to go. Returns for a kiss 
      and then tears ass through the sliding glass doors...
      
      OUT ONTO A STRETCH OF MALIBU BEACHFRONT
      
      A postcard-worthy snapshot of SoCal bliss that Hank has 
      neither the time or the luxury to appreciate. He creeps along 
      the side of the house, wincing at ALL THE YELLING coming from 
      inside, finally ending up...
      
      IN THE DRIVEWAY
      
      Where his DIRTY BLACK PORSCHE awaits. He hops in the car...  
      fires it up... Billy Idol's cover of The Doors' "L.A. Woman" 
      playing on the stereo...
      But if I go over those scene headings to make them more production friendly, I find it hurts the read, the sequence loses some of its momentum. I'd assume that the drafts a spec goes through during production already take care of this, that those changes are then made, and that a spec script should focus in the way the reader is going to experience it.

      What are your thoughts on this? Has it ever been a problem using simplified scene headings? I must say I hadn't given it much thought until John mentioned it (he also pointed out that sometimes if a writer uses "CONTINUOUS- instead of the time of the day, the reader can find himself having to check the previous scene to see whether it's day or night, which is a fair point.)
      It's all good. Do not worry about CONTINUOUS.

      Formatting in Californication is fine.

      Just make sure you are clear and you will be fine.

      Do not give it a second thought. John August isn't writing your scripts, you are.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Style and flow: spec script vs. shooting script (a question for produced writers)

        Thank you, guys. That's more or less what I thought, but after August's comments on the subject I had some doubts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Style and flow: spec script vs. shooting script (a question for produced writers)

          Originally posted by Dr. Vergerus View Post
          In his blog and podcast, John August has spoken a couple of times against (sort of) the use of "CONTINUOUS- in scene headings instead of the time of the day, because it makes things harder once the script goes into production and those scenes need to be scheduled. His reasoning seemed very sensible to me (I probably would write INT. PLACE - DAY (CONTINUOUS) or something along those lines.)

          I can see how the same argument could be made for using scene headings like in this example from the Californication pilot:

          Code:
          He can't find his shoes. Or his pants. And the FOOTSTEPS are 
          getting closer. He shrugs. Starts to go. Returns for a kiss 
          and then tears ass through the sliding glass doors...
          
          OUT ONTO A STRETCH OF MALIBU BEACHFRONT
          
          A postcard-worthy snapshot of SoCal bliss that Hank has 
          neither the time or the luxury to appreciate. He creeps along 
          the side of the house, wincing at ALL THE YELLING coming from 
          inside, finally ending up...
          
          IN THE DRIVEWAY
          
          Where his DIRTY BLACK PORSCHE awaits. He hops in the car...  
          fires it up... Billy Idol's cover of The Doors' "L.A. Woman" 
          playing on the stereo...
          But if I go over those scene headings to make them more production friendly, I find it hurts the read, the sequence loses some of its momentum. I'd assume that the drafts a spec goes through during production already take care of this, that those changes are then made, and that a spec script should focus in the way the reader is going to experience it.

          What are your thoughts on this? Has it ever been a problem using simplified scene headings? I must say I hadn't given it much thought until John mentioned it (he also pointed out that sometimes if a writer uses "CONTINUOUS- instead of the time of the day, the reader can find himself having to check the previous scene to see whether it's day or night, which is a fair point.)

          Writers use terms like these to make it clear to the *reader* that the action of a scene is continuous from one scene to the next.

          The point is, when the time comes to shoot, there's no way for the writer to know how the scene is going to be broken up.

          You may writer "continuous" as a character moves from inside a house out through a door onto a beach behind the property.

          When the time comes to shoot, they may have an actual house on an actual beach and choose to shoot it in one continuous take -- so it really is just one continuous scene, moving from an interior to an exterior.

          Or the Interior might be in a house on one side of town and they might shoot so that they never see out the back door. Or they might put a green screen against the back door.

          Or it might be on a set.

          And the house that the actor comes out of will be shot on some location house on a beach on some other day.

          But you have no way of knowing all of that when you write the scene.

          You can write a scene where someone stands at the gate of a house and talks to someone in a second story window.

          But when the time comes to shoot it, they may not be able to find a house with the right kind of gate -- so they shoot the down angle toward the gate in the front yard of one house on one day, and the angle up toward the person talking at a different house on a different day.

          You wrote one scene taking place at one time in one place, but by the time it got through production, it ended up being two scenes shot on two different days in two different places.

          I worked on a show called Monsters and we had an episode that took place in an apartment, so it had a kitchen and a living room and a bedroom. And the way it was written, it had the kitchen and the living room as a continuous set, with people talking between kitchen and living room, and the bedroom as a separate set.

          But for whatever strange reason, when the time came to build the sets, they built the bedroom and the living room as one set and the kitchen as another set and so I got a call from the Producer saying how the "writer" had gotten it all wrong and they needed to rewrite this and that scene in order to put this or that dialogue that was in the living room into the kitchen -- because the living room wasn't connected to the kitchen.

          To which I replied -- if production is going to change the sets around -- they can take the script and change the dialogue around. Sorry. Not the story department's business.

          So no -- you don't have to worry about. It's a production issue. Production has to worry about it.

          If and when you get to a shooting script, all of those various mini-slug lines and things will have to adjusted to full slug lines and you'll have to go through it and make sure that identical locations are always described in identical ways, but that's a long way off and it's something you certainly don't have to worry about now.

          NMS

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Style and flow: spec script vs. shooting script (a question for produced writers)

            Hi, NMS, and thanks for your thorough reply. My concerns had more to do with how a spec script written in this loose style would be perceived, and I agree that production matters shouldn't worry my at this point (I should be so luck to have such worries...)

            Thanks again.

            Comment

            Working...
            X