Quick question about protocol for names

A list of characters gets inserted by the director by the time the screenplay is turned into a shooting script. You want to make it clear it is the same group of heroes you've been following around the entire time, but once that is established, you can refer to them with something short.

Paradis said:

So in a situation where you've got an ensemble of say 4-5 characters that moving as group through various scenes, it always necessary to start each change of scene with listing them?

Like if the action moved away from the group and I came back to them, then i would assume yes, but if i'm following them from locale to locale, I would think i could refer to the group as "They" or some other descriptive word, no?

Click to expand...

You certainly aren't obliged to identify them every time they show up at a new locale. On the other hand, when one is dealing with a team of people moving from place to place, it's relatively easy to let certain members vanish toward the back of the pack and essentially disappear -- so it's important, when creating such a group of characters to remember that "character" is not simply "personality" but rather what someone needs and thus does in a given scene.

So if you track the way, say, the "fellowship" moves through various scenes, you don't have a situation where even the minor characters vanish -- they all have things to say and things to do and things to "play" -- because who they are requires that they do certain things and thus act in certain ways as the action of the story unfolds.

Thus it isn't necessary to say, at the top of every scene change:

Bob, Larry, Timmy, Amy, Shiela, and Mark are still marching down the road.

That's because, in each scene, each of those characters will have things to say and do that continues to identify their unique characteristics, needs, and agendas and to continually remind the reader that they are there.

NMS

Neils post is dead on. And if you think about the Lord of the Rings films - "The Fellowship" is moving through the film. GIMLI is probably the weakest character in the entire film. (Pity, because Rhys-Davies is a fine actor). At any rate, you'll notice that even when the scene is mostly focussed on Aragorn and, say - Legolas - Gimli gets a 'moment' - a reaction, a small comment as an aside - and it always, ALWAYS illustrates something about his character (Hates horses) or his relationships to the OTHER characters, (A glance that indicates he is in love with Galadriel.)

Sure, it is incumbent upon the actors and the directors once on set to perhaps find the perfect shot to illustrate this - but YOU the writer can indicate it with a line or two.

I don't think we made ouselves clear. You don't have to open with all four names. Say your group is a squad of soldiers. IN the last scene, they were walking down the street of a village - business happens, maybe a fire fight. CUT TO later that night, while they are making camp. We already know from earlier scenes that they are named Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sue. SO your night scene could open like this.

EXT: CAMPFIRE - NIGHT

The squad sits quietly around the campfire. Tom is slowly sharpening his knife by the firelight, while Harry digs through his pack looking for food.

HARRY
"Anybody hungry?"




Something like that. You can come up with a convenient name for the group. "The Squad" "The Fellowship" "The Hikers" "The Students" - whatever. Use your creativity. Heck, even 'the group' is okay every now and then. The reader ALREADY knows who 'the group' is. We've met them before. In the example above, I gave Tom a little business that might highlight his sharp, combat skills - always ready, ever vigilante. Maybe Harry is a chow-hound, always looking for something to eat. THe point is, the business reinforces the individual CHARACTER.

EARLIER in the script - you must establish 'the group' - so that you CAN reference it in short hand. In that case the group itself, becomes a 'character'. THE GROUP has a presence, a direction, a motivation, a goal. So really - you open the scene with a reference to the fact that THE GROUP is present in such and such location - that's what we're trying to say.

nmstevens said:

Thus it isn't necessary to say, at the top of every scene change:

Bob, Larry, Timmy, Amy, Shiela, and Mark are still marching down the road.

Click to expand...

I somewhat disagree. That's the kind of thing that causes you continuity problems when the people creating the script breakdown don't realise that Max The Wonder Hamster is supposed to be in that scene even though he doesn't actually say anything... you shoot the scene without him and then you cut it together with the previous scene and the next to discover that he's mysteriously vanished in between.

If you're writing a $200,000,000 Hollywood movie then it doesn't much matter because after sacking the continuity folks they can go back and shoot a cutaway, but if it's a low-budget movie then you'll just have to hope the viewers who notice the problem won't create a web page about it making fun of you.

Obviously there's a limit because you don't want to have to list thirty character names for a five line scene, but I generally feel that the less opportunity your script gives for people to screw up the less likely they are to screw up. I'd agree that establishing 'the squad' as a 'character' in its own right is the best way to do it if you're going to have the same characters together for some time.

movieman said:

I somewhat disagree. That's the kind of thing that causes you continuity problems when the people creating the script breakdown don't realise that Max The Wonder Hamster is supposed to be in that scene even though he doesn't actually say anything... you shoot the scene without him and then you cut it together with the previous scene and the next to discover that he's mysteriously vanished in between.

If you're writing a $200,000,000 Hollywood movie then it doesn't much matter because after sacking the continuity folks they can go back and shoot a cutaway, but if it's a low-budget movie then you'll just have to hope the viewers who notice the problem won't create a web page about it making fun of you.

Obviously there's a limit because you don't want to have to list thirty character names for a five line scene, but I generally feel that the less opportunity your script gives for people to screw up the less likely they are to screw up. I'd agree that establishing 'the squad' as a 'character' in its own right is the best way to do it if you're going to have the same characters together for some time.

Click to expand...

This is what I have to say about that.

I know everybody likes to say that screenplays are the "blueprint" for a motion picture.

They're not. They're much more like those really pretty models or drawings that architects prepare in order to try to sell to potential buyers what the finished house or building is going to look like.

And they don't put all of the structural details into those models -- the goal is to create a "sense" of what the finished article will be like.

Obviously, to some degree there's going to be a similarity. The dimensions will be the same. The number of floors and windows, etc. will match -- but you can't take an architect's model to the building site and use it as a guide for building the building.

For that, you simply need much more detailed and highly technical information than you can ever fit into something like an architect's model.

Ditto with a screenplay.

And sure, when you move a screenplay into being a "production draft" there are certain minor changes that you make to facilitate production -- for instance all of those mini-slug lines become full slug lines and if you've referred to the same location in several different ways -- "A LIVING ROOM," "THE LIVING ROOM," "BOB'S LIVING ROOM" -- you've got to go back and call them all the same thing, because otherwise the automatic software will call them different locations.

But in terms of working up the specific cast lists for particular locations -- at some point, one ought to be able to reasonably expect that those who are responsible for working out the scheduling and production side of the movie to actually not only read, but to read and *comprehend* the script.

If the story is about a team of five soldiers out in the desert, I shouldn't have to say at the top of every new scene that, yes, it's still five soldiers out in the desert.

And if I indicate that they're armed with automatic weapons in the first scene, unless I say that somebody loses one -- I shouldn't have to say at the top of each new scene that, yes, they all still have the same weapons.

And if one of the weapons is lost -- then I shouldn't have to keep reminding people at the top of each new scene, Five soldiers, four guns. Or now, Four soldiers, three guns -- or whatever the score is.

Sure, as the action unfolds, the various characters make their presence known -- but there's no particular reason to literally provide a "cast list" at the top of each and every scene change -- and that's true whether there are three people in the cast, five, or eight.

If a scene begins and someone new has arrived, you indicate it. If someone has left, you indicate that. Otherwise, the default position, when you've left a group of people somewhere in a previous scene and come back to them in a new scene is that the same people who were there before are still there.

And that's as true in a low budget movie as a high budget movie.

NMS

nmstevens said:

But in terms of working up the specific cast lists for particular locations -- at some point, one ought to be able to reasonably expect that those who are responsible for working out the scheduling and production side of the movie to actually not only read, but to read and *comprehend* the script.

Click to expand...

Mmm, no.

Trusting people to know what they're doing is where most movie disasters come from. Particularly at the low-budget end of the spectrum, but I've heard of plenty of cock-ups in big-budget movies too.

I learned that on the very first movie I worked on many years ago; the director decided he needed a prop gun for a scene that afternoon, we had no money to buy one, nowhere to rent one, and put together a passable-looking mockup from random junk that would look OK so long as it wasn't a closeup.

Then he said, 'but that wasn't the kind of gun I meant'.

Bit late to tell people what kind of gun you meant when you're going to be shooting in a few minutes.

And if I indicate that they're armed with automatic weapons in the first scene, unless I say that somebody loses one -- I shouldn't have to say at the top of each new scene that, yes, they all still have the same weapons.

Click to expand...

Probably... actors usually remember which prop is theirs. But I have fond memories of a Channel 4 movie I watched a few years ago where one of the actors was carrying an assault rifle, but the type of gun changed from shot to shot in the course of a scene; blatantly obvious to anyone who knew much about guns, perhaps less so to the average viewer.

And that's as true in a low budget movie as a high budget movie.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we have different ideas of what 'low budget' means; maybe if you're talking about a $50,000,000 Hollywood movie there's not much difference between that and a $200,000,000 Hollywood movie, but I'm talking about a budget of five to six figures where continuity is probably dumped on the director's latest girlfriend.

I've had delightful fun fixing up some of those in post... it's amazing what people can miss if you don't make everything perfectly clear, particularly when the director wants a scene rewritten overnight because one of the actors quit, or they can't shoot the scene they planned so they want to shoot a scene that wasn't supposed to be shot for another six days.

movieman said:

Mmm, no.

Trusting people to know what they're doing is where most movie disasters come from. Particularly at the low-budget end of the spectrum, but I've heard of plenty of cock-ups in big-budget movies too.

I learned that on the very first movie I worked on many years ago; the director decided he needed a prop gun for a scene that afternoon, we had no money to buy one, nowhere to rent one, and put together a passable-looking mockup from random junk that would look OK so long as it wasn't a closeup.

Then he said, 'but that wasn't the kind of gun I meant'.

Bit late to tell people what kind of gun you meant when you're going to be shooting in a few minutes.



Probably... actors usually remember which prop is theirs. But I have fond memories of a Channel 4 movie I watched a few years ago where one of the actors was carrying an assault rifle, but the type of gun changed from shot to shot in the course of a scene; blatantly obvious to anyone who knew much about guns, perhaps less so to the average viewer.



Perhaps we have different ideas of what 'low budget' means; maybe if you're talking about a $50,000,000 Hollywood movie there's not much difference between that and a $200,000,000 Hollywood movie, but I'm talking about a budget of five to six figures where continuity is probably dumped on the director's latest girlfriend.

I've had delightful fun fixing up some of those in post... it's amazing what people can miss if you don't make everything perfectly clear, particularly when the director wants a scene rewritten overnight because one of the actors quit, or they can't shoot the scene they planned so they want to shoot a scene that wasn't supposed to be shot for another six days.

Click to expand...

I have to tell you, I worked in the low budget world -- both low budget television -- (a show called Monsters -- every episode shot, as I recall, on a maximum of two sets and on a three day schedule) and on low budget features -- I directed a feature that cost fifty grand in eleven days. I directed a feature that cost three grand in three days.

So I fully understand all of the exigencies that surround low budget shooting and I also know what problems deserve to be laid at the feet of writers and which deserve to be laid at the feet of production.

Not knowing which actors or what props are supposed to be in which scenes -- that's production's fault.

As far as not knowing what's going on in the director's mind -- whoever is in charge of production design (if there is such a person) or props (if there is such a person) is responsible for going through the script and working up a preliminary prop list -- not only what's described in the script but sitting down with the director and working out in detail what's reasonably going to be needed, what can be afforded and what, specifically the director *wants* -- and if they don't do that -- that's also not the writer's fault.

In the same token, it's sure not the actor's job to remember what kind of weapon they're carrying from one scene or shot to another. That's, first of all, the job of whoever is keeping track of continuity, and also the job of whoever is keeping track of props.

And even if you've got the lowest of low budget productions (and I've worked on those) -- when you're dealing with weapons, it sure as hell ought to be somebody's job to keep track of them and know where they are and who's supposed to get what weapon.

The fact that nobody was keeping track of that isn't the difference between high budget and low budget - that's the difference between a professional production and amateur land.

So while, on one level, I agree that one should generally underestimate the attentiveness and powers of comprehension of the people who are reading your script and always work to make things as clear as possible, the ultimate goal is to write something that is readable and not overburdened with technical stuff that's aimed solely toward production-related issues.

I've read thousands of scripts over the course of my professional life and I've never read a script that bothered, when they had a team or a group of people moving from place to place, where they'd continually indicate that the same people were there, and still there and still there every time they went away and came back to them.

It's one thing if time has passed and it's not a cohesive group -- so maybe different people might come and go (say it's cops in a squad room).

But if it's a group of guys lost in a desert and since the last time we were with them nobody was swallowed up in a sandstorm and nobody came riding out of the desert to join them on a camel -- there's no reason to note that the same people are there at the top of Scene 22 when we rejoin them who were there at the bottom of scene 19 when last we left them.

That is -- unless somebody who was there is gone, or somebody has, in fact, joined them.

If you simply say, "The Squadron is still camped out at the Oasis." -- everyone -- presumably including Production -- unless everyone involved in the making of the movie is freaking retarded -- is going to conclude that the squadron in Sc. 22 consists of the same people identified as being in the squadron in Sc. 19.

NMS

I've read thousands of scripts over the course of my professional life and I've never read a script that bothered, when they had a team or a group of people moving from place to place, where they'd continually indicate that the same people were there, and still there and still there every time they went away and came back to them.

Click to expand...

Some Aussie TV scripts have a list of who present at the start of each scene.

If you have Final Draft - see the sample script format for 'McLeod's Daughters'. I confirmed with some of the regular writers for the series and - yep - they did actually have to list it out like that at the start of each scene.

It's not particularly widespread as far as I know ... but at least somewhere in the world it was being done !

Mac
(PS: The idea that it is up to the actors to remember which prop is theirs is bizarre - even on a no budget project there should still be an art department ... even if they aren't being paid. )

Production scripts, 'Shooting Scripts' are not the same as spec scripts. I've worked in television and film for more than twenty years.

I don't know about Australian production script standards, but I'll just echo what Neal said about both low and high budget productions.