I'm using Final Draft and I've noticed the "(O.S.) and (V.O.)". I'm thinking that it means Off Screen and Voice Over, but I'm not sure. There's also (O.C.), which I suppose is Off Camera. Wouldn't that be the same thing as off screen?
Curious - (V.O.), (O.S.) and (O.C.)
- Thread starter slm22186
- Start date
- Status
I'm an advocate of CHARLIE'S VOICE instead of CHARLIE (V.O.) or (O.S.). To me it seems VO and OS/OC are almost like
camera directions - 'S VOICE is a much more natural read and still gives the reader the idea they're not actually visible.
camera directions - 'S VOICE is a much more natural read and still gives the reader the idea they're not actually visible.
Voice Over indiciates narration, phone, television, radio ect. It's anywhere the voice is recorded rather than present on the set but not seen. OC and OS both indicate the person is on the set and the camera is picking up their voice but they aren't in the picture yet. I try to limit all the above as much as possible.
VO is voice over.
OS is off screen
OC is off camera
I have heard numerous debates over whether OC and OS are utterly identical, or if there is a fine line of difference between them. I now only use OS and never OC.
And I'm sure someone will correct me.
OS is off screen
OC is off camera
I have heard numerous debates over whether OC and OS are utterly identical, or if there is a fine line of difference between them. I now only use OS and never OC.
And I'm sure someone will correct me.
You should use VO as little as possible. As someone else noted, that's traditional voice over, generally with a character talking over the action. When I've worked as a reader I often throw out any script with V.O. on the first page.
But there's nothing wrong with using O.S. (no one uses O.C. that I've seen). Such as:
Jimmy's in his room, laying on his bed with his music playing loud.
JIMMY'S MOM (O.S.)
Turn it down!
JIMMY
No!
Etc... There's a lot of cases why you'd have someone O.S. and I don't think there's any need to limit it. I mean, in this case, it'd be odd (although a stylistic choice) to cut to him Mom in the kitchen "turn it down" then cut to Jimmy in his bedroom "No", then cut to his Mom "I mean it" then cut to Jimmy "Go to hell Mom". It makes more sense to have her O.S.
Also, if you have phone conversations in your screenplay it's often noted that you should remain consistent in how they work. Either you see both people every time there's a phone conversation, or you only see one side of the conversation every time. Either way, O.S. is very common in phone conversations.
Or if you can hear another character through the wall. Or when the Cheshire Cat talks before he appears. Or in a horror movie when the two characters run and hide and go "I think we've lost him" and then he says "Think Again" (O.S.) - you here him before you see him, that kind of thing. There's lots of uses for O.S.
But there's nothing wrong with using O.S. (no one uses O.C. that I've seen). Such as:
Jimmy's in his room, laying on his bed with his music playing loud.
JIMMY'S MOM (O.S.)
Turn it down!
JIMMY
No!
Etc... There's a lot of cases why you'd have someone O.S. and I don't think there's any need to limit it. I mean, in this case, it'd be odd (although a stylistic choice) to cut to him Mom in the kitchen "turn it down" then cut to Jimmy in his bedroom "No", then cut to his Mom "I mean it" then cut to Jimmy "Go to hell Mom". It makes more sense to have her O.S.
Also, if you have phone conversations in your screenplay it's often noted that you should remain consistent in how they work. Either you see both people every time there's a phone conversation, or you only see one side of the conversation every time. Either way, O.S. is very common in phone conversations.
Or if you can hear another character through the wall. Or when the Cheshire Cat talks before he appears. Or in a horror movie when the two characters run and hide and go "I think we've lost him" and then he says "Think Again" (O.S.) - you here him before you see him, that kind of thing. There's lots of uses for O.S.
Last edited:
Hey Zepro, you might have missed a few goodies!
Just as well no-one sent you 'Bad Santa', that the Coens had the clout not to require readers for 'No Country' and that you didn't tussle with Mr Eastwood on more than one of his recent projects. Or the late Frank Capra in his 'Outer Space to Bedford Falls' days... 
Hey, V.O. is all right
V.O. is not inherently bad. It has just become a cliché in the hands of people who use it to tell or advance a story instead of having action and dialogue.
I don't think I would throw out a script just because it has V.O. on the first page. Of course, statistically, you could throw it out and almost certainly not be throwing away anything good.
V.O. is not inherently bad. It has just become a cliché in the hands of people who use it to tell or advance a story instead of having action and dialogue.
I don't think I would throw out a script just because it has V.O. on the first page. Of course, statistically, you could throw it out and almost certainly not be throwing away anything good.
Hey Zepro, you might have missed a few goodies!
Not a problem, since I don't like any of those films. Nor do I like Sunset Blvd. or To Kill A Mockingbird or many big name movies with VO.
But yeah, established writers and directors can do whatever they want obviously and we are obviously not talking about that. It's extremely well known that newbies should not do voice over and anyone who does hasn't done their homework. You could be the most talented basketball player in the world, but if you don't know the rules, you will not be able to play the game professionally. Just follow the rules. My bosses actually told me to through out specs with VO.
And in general, I hate VO anyway. It's lazy. And most of the time it's used by lazy writers adapting books who don't know how to translate the writer's style, mood and tone without that crutch (this is true even of films I like such Fight Club and Wonder Boys). I've never seen a film where I thought the VO made it better.
VO should be used to save films that are a mess, such as Apocalypse Now. It's a tool in a director's tool box when everything else goes wrong and by writing it into the script, you take away that tool and hamstring the director. Also, for actors and directors, trying to shoot around VO is extremely creatively limiting. They cannot creative their own beats, their own timing - the editor is forced to edit to the timing and beats of the VO despite the actor's timing on the set. Just trust your actors, I swear, if they are good, they can portray all this stuff for you without the disembodied voice of god.
If I want to have someone read me a novel while I look at pictures, I'll just read a picture book.
Hey Zepro - what films DO you like?
'No VO' is like me saying I won't read any scripts with the word 'f*cking' on the first page. Which is a shame, because then I'd be missing some real crackers. There ARE no rules. Your bosses were trying to save you time by playing the numbers, which means they might have missed out on some goodies, as I say earlier. Were you their only reader? They might not have told another guy to forget VOs...can depend on genre/tone/art-house/genre (again)...VO all the way through a script is plain wrong, as it's not 'show don't tell' I agree, but as the traditional narrator setting things up, I can't think of a better intro than in 'The Big Lebowski' (don't you dare tell me you don't like the Sam Elliott VO at the start!!). Used sparingly, it can work wonders (beginning, for only first half page to one page and maybe a half page at end if necessary - like 'The Big Lebowski') where it can add to the onscreen image rather than duplicate.
A constant VO is annoying, yup. A cleverly-done VO, used as a classic 'narrator' set up (harking back to Greek plays, Shakespeare etc), especially if used appositely with what's going on onscreen and sparingly, is a good tool. A badly-done, lazy VO is just plain bad. I'm with you on that one.
But please - enough of this rule-book stuff! There IS no general rule book that readers or prodcos have other than it's got to be good. Then it's all down to personal taste. IMHO, you can tell if a script sucks within 2-3 pages normally, with or without VO. As most spec scripts will suck, better to weed them out that way than an artificial method that is basically cutting off nose to spite face!!!
I might actually have chucked out a script that said 'through out scripts' instead of 'THROW out scripts'....
Or anyone whose onscreen name begins with a 'Z'...
It's unreasonable, isn't it? Smacks of Fascism, with a capital 'F', doesn't it???
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,746
- Reaction score
- 247
Voice Overs can definitely become a crutch, much like flashbacks, dream sequences, car chases, well... virtually every aspect of filmmaking.
Doesn't mean they don't have their place or use. Stylistically, they are perfectly acceptable in a classic film-noir setting.
As to limiting the actors or editors pace - nonsense. The actors simply play the part any number of ways. The editor has a half a dozen takes, and an infinite number of voice-over deliveries he can edit in numerous ways... slowing it down, speeding it up... putting in an extra pause or taking one out - its not a problem.
Doesn't mean they don't have their place or use. Stylistically, they are perfectly acceptable in a classic film-noir setting.
As to limiting the actors or editors pace - nonsense. The actors simply play the part any number of ways. The editor has a half a dozen takes, and an infinite number of voice-over deliveries he can edit in numerous ways... slowing it down, speeding it up... putting in an extra pause or taking one out - its not a problem.
Guess you didn't like American Beauty or Fight Club, Forest Gump or Taxi Driver.
Just think. According to your bosses rules, you would have throw out American Beauty after opening it to the first page.
O.C. means the character is off camera but still in the scene.
O.S. means the character is off screen, meaning they are in another room or somewhere else and yet they are still a part of the scene.
Just think. According to your bosses rules, you would have throw out American Beauty after opening it to the first page.
O.C. means the character is off camera but still in the scene.
O.S. means the character is off screen, meaning they are in another room or somewhere else and yet they are still a part of the scene.
If only! The world would be a better place without that crap movie. *spoiler* Dead narrators are a particular pet peeve of mine.
But what does the VO add to that movie? Nothing. It'd be fine without it. Most, if not all, movies with VO would be just as good if not better without it.
I don't think you can name a movie that is better for it's VO.
Have you made a movie? Cause that sounds the words of someone who has never directed or edited a film.
Half a dozen takes? What 50+ mil pictures with a 6:1 shooting ratio have you been working on?
*
"Hey Zepro - what films DO you like?"
Lawrence of Arabia, The Philadelphia Story, Casablanca, 2001, Star Wars, Bladerunner (without the voice over =) ) -- y'know, good movies =)
But it's all just an opinion, that's what's so great about everyone having their own preferences and ideas.
Those are all great films!!
You could argue that Obewon/Ben Kenobi's 'use the force, Luke' is one of the best VOs of all time, coming in just as Luke turns off his automatic rocket guidance system in the recesses of the Death Star...now you can't tell me you don't agree that's a good VO? It's definitely not OS...
Last edited:
It's subjective.
But in my opinion there's a sequence within a movie that just couldn't be bettered without the V.O. accompaniment.
Casino - and we're seeing a few scenes of Pesci beginning to make his mark after his arrival in Vegas.
De-Niro and Pesci both give their own take on his progress.
From memory...
Pesci: I had a fool proof scheme, couldn't lose.
De Niro: If he won, he collected. If he lost, he told the bookies to go fuck themselves.
Last edited:
You probably hated it, but I don't think Stranger than Fiction would have been the same movie without the VOs.
Also, I loved the whole thing in Adaptation. about VO and how it's cheap and useless, but he uses it anyway.
Also, I loved the whole thing in Adaptation. about VO and how it's cheap and useless, but he uses it anyway.
The Shawshenk Redemption was an awesome VO movie. As was The Green Mile (both based on Stephen King, btw).
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 458
- Reaction score
- 50
- Location
- Sacramento, CA
- Website
- twosparrows.5gigs.com
I'm not sure that qualifies as a "voice over" in the strictest sense; VO's are usually meant for the audience and aren't heard by the characters. Those are usually heard by at least one of the characters...
OS/OC: Pick one. I can't recall ever seeing them in the same script.
VO's In General: Although I usually fall in the crowd that they don't add anything to the movie, there are some where it works really well. Blade Runner and other noir-type films it works rather well; there's no one else for the MC to discuss things with, and it explains their thought process, which is rather nice. I really hate movies with some intuitive thinking that just feels too coincidental (CSI, anyone?), and it's great to understand the thought process.
However, there are movies where it just comes off as an indulgence (American Beauty is probably the best example).
FR
True. He can hear it, so I guess it doesn't count. But, I still think VO doesn't ruin a movie and can be pretty important to it. That's just my opinion educated solely by watching lots of movies.
Good VO = Tommy Lee Jones in No Country (it told us more than what was going on on screen, and appeared only at the start and finish of the movie, traditional 'narrator' space. Some people may have found it a bit opaque, but...)
Bad VO = Morgan Freeman in The Bucket List (all it did was tell us the story as it unfolded before us and it was constant throughout the movie, or felt like it, therefore invading the characters' space.)
Bad VO = Morgan Freeman in The Bucket List (all it did was tell us the story as it unfolded before us and it was constant throughout the movie, or felt like it, therefore invading the characters' space.)
A Few Good Men-- Santiago reads his letter requesting a transfer off the base. During that voice over we get a glimpse of his mistreatment at Gitmo (no he wasn't a terrorist, just a marine placed under Jack Nicholson’s command)
Let me tell you HOW and WHY I recently chose to go the route of VO for a screenplay. And then let me tell you my own theory as to why I suspect VO was used in Amercian Beauty.
I took one of my screenplays (and originally it had zero VO) and at the suggestion of a fellow writer, I re-tooled the opening to incude one extra scene, a flashback scene. What I accomplished via this one rewrite was:
1) I correctly clarified to the audience that this was a supernatural tale (without that rewrite, it just looked like a family drama, and then only later around Page 50 does a supernatural thing happen, and that's far too late into the story to surprise your audience with the sudden revelation that this is a supernatural story)
2) I introduced my MacGuffin from the get go (prior to the rewrite, the McGuffin is only vaguely mentioned at Page 17, and then by Page 60 it's finally revealed that the MacGuffn is in fact a supernatural relic with actual powers--way too late for that to be revealed)
3) I had something TRULY exciting happen (prior to the rewrite I just had a lot of talking)
This one rewrite rally gave the story major oomph.
But then, I suddenly realized that by tossing in this extra scene at the outset, I was unintentionally making it look like the preacher man was the main protagonist, when in reality it as the consutant who was the main protagonist. So to clarify all of that, I included a VO narrator. Without the VO, you see two stories of two men, and you're really not sure who is the key character.
So I kinda suspect that the naration in AB was there to clarify to the audience who the true main protag was.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,746
- Reaction score
- 247
Zepro -
Yeah, I've made movies. I've written screenplays, I've edited films, I've won awards, and I've been paid for all of it. I've worked on medium budget FILMS and low budget VIDEOS. A half a dozen takes is not a problem. But even if all you've got is ONE take to get the footage, you've got an INFINITE number of takes to get the voiceover done later.
And seriously, it's not a problem to direct a scene that has a voice-over in it. Its not hard or difficult at all. As an editor, you have dozens of versions of the narration on hand, it's not a big deal to cut and paste the voice-over to fit the scene. I know, I've DONE it dozens of times, I cut on an AVID Media Composer - but any NLE can do it.
Yeah, I've made movies. I've written screenplays, I've edited films, I've won awards, and I've been paid for all of it. I've worked on medium budget FILMS and low budget VIDEOS. A half a dozen takes is not a problem. But even if all you've got is ONE take to get the footage, you've got an INFINITE number of takes to get the voiceover done later.
And seriously, it's not a problem to direct a scene that has a voice-over in it. Its not hard or difficult at all. As an editor, you have dozens of versions of the narration on hand, it's not a big deal to cut and paste the voice-over to fit the scene. I know, I've DONE it dozens of times, I cut on an AVID Media Composer - but any NLE can do it.
- Status