Scene heading - indeterminate time of day

[dchapma123]

How would you handle this?

Most of the script I'm working on takes place underground. There is no exterior light, therefore no way to determine whether it's day or night (or, for that matter, any reason for the gaffer to care). I'm writing for production, so it doesn't really matter, but I'm curious how all of you would write the scene headings?

INT. UNDERGROUND CAVE - ????

[NikeeGoddess]

if it's daytime you write DAY
if it's nitetime you write NIGHT
no need to worry about the production side. get the story right. if your story is good enough to get interest from a producer and go into production then no one will care, even if you leave it blank (which is another option).

write on!

[maestrowork]

It doesn't matter if the scene shows night or day. When does the scene happen? That's all you need to know.

Now, if you have a scene in deep space or somewhere in the galaxy, what do you do? :-)

[dchapma123]

I think maybe I wasn't clear.

No one KNOWS whether it's day or night--not just the person evaluating the light, but the characters as well. There's no way to distinguish between times of day within the story.

Given that, I feel that specifying in the scene heading would be sort of like interfering.

[dpaterso]

My initial instinct is to leave it blank to avoid confusion,

INT. UNDERGROUND CAVE

But having said this... technically speaking, DAY and NIGHT indicate whether or not there's natural light (which is something the lighting crew must know, of course). But it's also an indicator of passing time. If you transition from DAY to NIGHT and back to DAY, etc. then there's payoff in that your characters may be presumed to be more tired, more hungry, more desperate, more "We're never going to get out of here!" (just for example's sake). And, your characters will have wristwatches, won't they? So they're not going to be cut off from DAY and NIGHT sensibilities. They'll become tired and want to sleep and do other things as dictated by their body clocks. They'll maybe talk about what people on the surface are doing, "She'll be asleep by now... dreaming sweet dreams... reaching out to touch my side of the bed... not even knowing I'm trapped in this tomb and I'm going to die soon!" etc. (again just for example's sake). Too many actions and thoughts relate to time of day... which is why I'd include DAY or NIGHT in the slugline. It's not interfering, it's a tool that benefits your story.

Too much analysis. Hope some of it helps in some way.

-Derek
-----------------------http://www.eggplant-productions.com/images/vkbutton.jpg (http://www.fictionwise.com/servlet/mw?t=book&bi=25370&id=25455)

[Hamboogul]

I might do something like this....


INT. UNDERGROUND CAVE - NIGHT

...or could be DAY. We are so far below earth that time doesn't matter.


Or something like that.

[EggMcGuffin]

simple yet great. this is why hamboogul is the expert. :hail

[dchapma123]

Yeah, that's a good idea.

I think in this case, I'm going to just leave it blank unless the action is continuous. It'll end up being a production script, and no one on the crew is going to be confused about it. It was just something I've never faced as a screenwriter before.

[certified instigator]

Begin controversy...

As a reader, I hate the use of "we" in a script. I know most writers love it and many think it's extremely important to the telling of the story - but I always wonder who "we" is. And it pulls me out of the story. Every time I read "we" I stop relating to the characters and the story and become very aware that I am somehow outside of it, looking in.

Back to the original question.

If not knowing weather it's day or night is part of the story I'm all for simply leaving the time of day out.

[A Pathetic Writer]

As a reader, I hate the use of "we" in a script. I know most writers love it and many think it's extremely important to the telling of the story - but I always wonder who "we" is.

Ahem.

WE: Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject.

It seems abundantly clear the "we" in a screenplay is the intended readers and/or viewers of the scene.

To have doubts about the meaning of so simple a word, 2 letters and one syllable at that, makes me question greatly your chances at succeeding in a business where the knowledge and usage of words is vitally important.

[scripter1]

Hey, hey, hey!

Don't start it okay?!!!

Lets stick to the question.
Ham provided a great example of how to solve the problem while adding character to the actual writing.
Dpaterso brings up a good point as well.

There is no cut and dried RIGHT and WRONG here. Some people would write day or night, others would leave them out.

In this case it doesn't really make too much of a difference so create a great story and it's not likely to be a serious issue.

[certified instigator]

It seems abundantly clear the "we" in a screenplay is the intended readers and/or viewers of the scene.
Yet not so clear to me.

Its use pulls me, the reader, out of the story. I feel as if I am being directly addressed by the writer. And it puts a distance between me and the story.
To have doubts about the meaning of so simple a word, 2 letters and one syllable at that, makes me question greatly your chances at succeeding in a business where the knowledge and usage of words is vitally important
I, too, have my doubts. It's a tough business in which to succeed

But not because I don't understand the meaning of that little, 2 letter, one syllable word. In fact, I know the meaning quite well. I just am never quite sure who "we" is in a screenplay, or why it's needed.

When I read, "We see a car pull into the driveway." I wonder why, "A car pulls into the driveway." isn't enough. I'm pretty sure the writer want it seen.
Hey, hey, hey!

Don't start it okay?!!!

Lets stick to the question.
Ham provided a great example of how to solve the problem while adding character to the actual writing.
Fair enough.

But I am curious about this character "we" adds to the writing.

But if you don't want me to talk about it, this will be my last post on this thread about the use of "we".
There is no cut and dried RIGHT and WRONG here. Some people would write day or night, others would leave them out.
Exactly what makes this board so interesting and helpful: the chance to see the points of views from other writers.
================================================== =============================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress. -Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

[dpaterso]

Sometimes, just sometimes, using "we" is the easiest way to write something. Seeking an alternative for the sake of some imaginary purist writing ideal is more trouble than it's worth, a needless solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. And the convoluted result will probably stick out like a sore thumb, too.

Looking at Hamboogul's example, it's an extension of the slugline. If reading the slugline doesn't knock you out of the story then accepting the extra info that follows in the next line shouldn't pose too much of a problem.

Your "We see a car..." example is another argument entirely, that's a writing style blip that can easily be done away with, as you point out. Don't confuse this with the use of "we" to lend clarity to a situation.

-Derek
-----------------------http://www.eggplant-productions.com/images/vkbutton.jpg (http://www.fictionwise.com/servlet/mw?t=book&bi=25370&id=25455)

[Hamboogul]

First, my example, while not best, is good enough.

Second, I've never met anyone in the industry who has ever had an objection to "We."

Third, the whole "we" thing is something that's discussed by fringe writers as a no-no. I've never met a good writer who had issues with this. Conversely, every writer who had issues with this were crummy writers.

Seriously, what is wrong with my solution? It's simple.

[joecalabre]

"We" should never be used. Anything that takes the reader out of the story and reminds him/her that he/she is reading and not experiencing is not a good idea.

As for your time of day. I assume that the characters know that some time has passed, even though they don't know whether it's day or night. Also you want to let the reader know that some or a lot of time has passed from page one to end.

I would use...

- 1 HOUR LATER
- 2 DAYS LATER
etc...

Let us know whether they are trapped for ten minutes or weeks...

[certified instigator]

First, my example, while not best, is good enough.

Second, I've never met anyone in the industry who has ever had an objection to "We."
Hi. Now you have. I'm a story editor (reader) at New Line. Though it's not so much an objection to it's use. I'm more interested in why writers use it.
Third, the whole "we" thing is something that's discussed by fringe writers as a no-no. I've never met a good writer who had issues with this. Conversely, every writer who had issues with this were crummy writers.
While "good" is subjective, now you have "met" a good writer who has issues with it. Again, I'm not objecting to it, or suggesting that writer stop using it.

I'm sorry that without reading a single word of one of my scripts you assume I am a crummy writer because I have issues with the use of "we." I'm just expressing my thoughts and hoping to learn form other writers. I cover 20-30 scripts a week and never get the chance to talk to the writers. This place is where I think I can have an open, informative discussion.
Seriously, what is wrong with my solution? It's simple
Nothing. It's simple and gets the job done. I wanted to express my thoughts on it.

I knew my comments would cause controversy because the use of "we" is something many writers feel is very important. After reading posts here for a while I was unprepared for the veiled personal attacks.

So I apologize for bringing up this subject.

Ham - I meant no offense.

Derek - thanks. I'd love to explore your points a little further, but I think I'll bow out for now.

[scripter1]

In 95 to 97% percent of cases I would agree with you certified. The use of we see or we are, etc is a lazy way of writing the obvious and a simple "The car drives down the road" is the much better option.

However,
Ham and some other writers us we in a way that enhances the script. It adds flavor and character to the actual writing.
It is their style.
They use we in the same way in which Shane Black injected himself into his scripts.
We in this case suggests to the reader a very specific point of view that places us INSIDE the film.

I would advise everyone to go back and read the example again to see what I mean.

I tried to keep the thread on target.
But if you can't beat em, :evil
Certified-
Dude, you saw we and just pounced on that didn't you?!! :teeth :bang
Chill a little.

Actually since you are a reader at a major studio you do have my sympathies and understanding in the matter. You must see the bad form of it so often it makes you do this > :head

[dpaterso]

In 95 to 97% percent of cases I would agree with you certified.

Now you've got me wondering what the lower 94% and the 3% at the top represent. I'm biting my nails here, for God's sake put me out of my misery!

The use of we see or we are, etc is a lazy way of writing the obvious and a simple "The car drives down the road" is the much better option.

Or the beaten old Chevy limps down the road, or the gleaming Beemer roars away, or the Porche fish-tails across the road, hits a trashcan and ploughs across a front lawn before straightening up and zooming off in a screech of burning rubber.

...I just wrote that to cover up my shame at using "we" in a script just a couple of days ago. I was writing a horror story whereby a "presence" closes in on the characters in the middle of the night. I wanted the camera to DOLLY down the hallway but guess what, I can't use dolly, no camera directions allowed. So I scratched my head and tried to think of the best way to get around this. I mean, how do you describe something you can't see doing something you can't see? This is sad and pathetic, I know, but I have to confess to someone... please don't ridicule me too much... please... but I ended up writing...

INT. HALLWAY OUTSIDE BEDROOM - NIGHT

We slowly move down the hallway, toward the bedroom door.

Oh God, I'm so pathetic! I... used... "we"... <guilty sobbing>

-Derek
-----------------------My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)

[scripter1]

I stink at math so my percentages are probably way off, but this kind of situation usually only occurs once or twice in a script and some few people are better at using it then the vast majority. There are pro scripts who use it as has been pointed out in every we argument I've ever read.

I would say overwhelmingly this is the first problem noticed in a newbie script. It's the first word!!!
And if it's not there it will be somewhere in the second, or third, or fourth paragraph, every time something new shows up or needs to be described.

Glance through the pages at done deal. I guarantee you most of the pages will have the wrong usage of we.

So 94 to 97 percent of writers have used it wrong at some point. I've found quite a few in my earliest drafts before I knew better. A small percentage (the 3) of writers out of the millions use it effectively as a tool.

You have to think about it in order to use it right, as in your case D where using we is a reasonable solution to the problem. The we is much better then the camera direction, indicating POV and immediately creating a visual we can follow.

In my experience I've always seen it used effectively to indicate camera movement or some kind of POV situation, um, like,
We are in the trunk of a car.

This tells me it's dark, cramped, I can feel the tire iron sticking into my back. There is just a little light coming from the key hole.

Instead of using three lines to describe all that only one is used and I've told the director the camera should be INSIDE the trunk without telling him how to film the movie.

Hmm, now I guess the only question would be if you can't tell from inside the trunk whether it is night or day,
How do you write the slugline?
:p

[dpaterso]

Hmm, now I guess the only question would be if you can't tell from inside the trunk whether it is night or day,
How do you write the slugline?
:p

See Ham's example above. Unless you're a script editor at New Line. ;) In which case visit my web page. :lol

-Derek
-----------------------My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)

[lowellgrippo]

A few months ago, this "we" thing had me so alarmed that I went through my script and eliminated the five or so times I actually used it. I had written into the ending a "flying camera shot", but then read where I shouldn't write in camera shots or "we." Remembering the adage, "when in doubt, leave it out", I eventually settled on...

Aerial view flies low over the Dufuskie river passing fishing boats and kids on jet skis...

...but this also seems incorrect as the view itself does not fly, the camera does.

At the end of the filming script of "Titanic" James Cameron wrote:

WE GO INSIDE, and the echoing sound of distant waltz music is heard. The rust fades away from the walls of the dark corridor and it is transformed...

I've considered changing back to "we see", but as an established film maker, Cameron can write whatever he wishes, right or wrong, and his use of it shouldn't necessarily be a green light for an unknown screenwriter to do the same.

After reading this thread, I am now more confused than ever! :huh

[Hamboogul]

As writers, we can use whatever tools we want.

In your example, you could've done it in many ways.

It's not like we have only 12 crayons to use and the professional writers have the whole 64 crayola set.

Use whatever you need to tell the story in the most concise, visual, and clear manner possible.

[joecalabre]

I can't believe this thread has gone on as long as it has.

Don't use "we". ever. period.

I may offend a few, but please take this as a constructive opinion and not an attack.

Cameron can write whatever he wants.
A shooting script has "we" as well as camera and transitional elements because they are greenlighted and used as blueprints for filming.

Don't confuse a shooting script from a spec. Different rules...

As for specs by others who have excessive voice over's, too many flashbacks, colored paper, 30 point font, etc... You are not Goldman or Mamet who could write a 600 page script that's one big voice over on toilet paper and no one would care. In fact, they would think it was genius and I suspect a few months later, the industry would demand that everyone does it that way.

As an unproven writer with no track record, you can write the best damned script in the world but a reader, who just read fifty scripts between his/her last cup of coffee, is looking for any reason (I mean any) to see something that is an indicator or amateur and toss it. They are not getting paid to find the next big hit r Oscar winner. They are getting paid to read as many scripts they can and write a short simple report on those that "fit" into that particular producer/agent/manager's plan.

No offense to anyone, as I am sure many of your are passionate and skilled writers and storytellers, but a spec script is a resume, a business card, the first impression (and sometimes only one) you get with a reader. DON'T GIVE ANY REASON TO MAKE THEM HAVE AN EXCUSE TO TOSS IT.

Sure, think outside the box, but know that it must at least look like it fits inside one.

That's my rant.

Joe

[ThomasDF]

I was looking around and came on this thread and noticed some very interesting comments. Some folks got a little huffy, but the worst thing a screenwriter can do is take anything personal. Not too long ago I had an actor get all bent out of shape because he didn't like my script. I finally had to step real close to him and with a smile tell him to calm down and give me specifics. He couldn't, so I figured either he was having a bad day, he couldn't express himself or it was a power play or all of them.

When someone says that someone is a crummy writer without offering specifics, it is an impulsive reaction that you just shrug off. The comment by Hamboogul I think is in keeping with his Hobbies that he stated in his member personal information. A failed male escort has a lot of issues, especially when he is a graduate of USC and leaned all the academic garbage of screenwriting. We see he is using his diploma as a coaster, what was that about fringe writers? :kiss

Sorry, I'm ahead of myself. dchapma123's question is a very interesting one. If the entire story takes place without a specific time reference within the cave, that's a very cool and interesting way to go. What you do is simple enough. In my opinion you simply use INT. UNDERGROUND CAVE, which would be your first transition slug. What I would do is clarify in your action line that your characters don't know what time of the day it is. After that, go with joecalabre suggestion in the various forms to maintain scene breaks.

As to using "we see", I'm not at all fond of studio readers and avoid them like the plague, but I do have to defend certified instigator. For some reason writer/directors love to use "we see", but then they can get buy with it. No mater how someone may justify using it, it is a waste of space and writers should never waste any space. Another argument is that it is a repetition that can be very annoying. The fact remains that your description is the visual and you don't need to tell the reader that they are seeing something. So my suggestion is to never use "we see", "we hear" or anything like it. It's as foolish as having a couple being intimate and saying "we are having sex". :rofl

Of course everything is opinion and ultimately the writer has to decide for himself and the only exception is if it's a woman, then it would be for herself, but I have no idea what it would be for an hermaphrodite. Did I just lose my concentration? No wonder I can't get anywhere with the adaptation I'm working on.

Remember the great words of a great singing philosopher, don't worry, be happy. If you take yourself or writing too seriously, all you'll end up doing is to help the pharmaceutical companies get richer by taking Prozac. :jump

Don't you just love these emotion thingies?

Thomas

[ThomasDF]

I was looking around and came on this thread and noticed some very interesting comments. Some folks got a little huffy, but the worst thing a screenwriter can do is take anything personal. Not too long ago I had an actor get all bent out of shape because he didn't like my script. I finally had to step real close to him and with a smile tell him to calm down and give me specifics. He couldn't, so I figured either he was having a bad day, he couldn't express himself or it was a power play or all of them.

When someone says that someone is a crummy writer without offering specifics, it is an impulsive reaction that you just shrug off. The comment by Hamboogul I think is in keeping with his Hobbies that he stated in his member personal information. A failed male escort has a lot of issues, especially when he is a graduate of USC and leaned all the academic garbage of screenwriting. We see he is using his diploma as a coaster, what was that about fringe writers? :kiss

Sorry, I'm ahead of myself. dchapma123's question is a very interesting one. If the entire story takes place without a specific time reference within the cave, that's a very cool and interesting way to go. What you do is simple enough. In my opinion you simply use INT. UNDERGROUND CAVE, which would be your first transition slug. What I would do is clarify in your action line that your characters don't know what time of the day it is. After that, go with joecalabre suggestion in the various forms to maintain scene breaks.

As to using "we see", I'm not at all fond of studio readers and avoid them like the plague, but I do have to defend certified instigator. For some reason writer/directors love to use "we see", but then they can get buy with it. No mater how someone may justify using it, it is a waste of space and writers should never waste any space. Another argument is that it is a repetition that can be very annoying. The fact remains that your description is the visual and you don't need to tell the reader that they are seeing something. So my suggestion is to never use "we see", "we hear" or anything like it. It's as foolish as having a couple being intimate and saying "we are having sex". :rofl

Of course everything is opinion and ultimately the writer has to decide for himself and the only exception is if it's a woman, then it would be for herself, but I have no idea what it would be for an hermaphrodite. Did I just lose my concentration? No wonder I can't get anywhere with the adaptation I'm working on. :head

Remember the great words of a great singing philosopher, don't worry, be happy. If you take yourself or writing too seriously, all you'll end up doing is to help the pharmaceutical companies get richer by taking Prozac.

Don't you just love these emoticons thingies?

Thomas

[ThomasDF]

I posted twice. Fer cryin' out loud! I don't know what the heck I'm doing.

What do you expect from an old guy who once thought a transistor radio was complex technology? I want the fifties back!

Thomas

[Hamboogul]

I GIVE UP!!!!!!

[dpaterso]

Your fifties, or the fifties? ;)

-Derek
-----------------------My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)

[A Pathetic Writer]

So, Joe, you'd prefer


JOECALABRE, a serious dumbass

to

We come up on JOECALABRE, filling his usual role as resident dumbass

?

[joecalabre]

Neither one would be correct.
Joecalabre, a serious dumbass, would either enter the scene or if he's already there would be intro'd at the opening action line. Like...

INT. ROOM - DAY

A PATHETIC WRITER, walks in the modestly furnished office and FROWNS to see JOECALABRE, 40, a serious dumbass, signing the checks he got for his last rewrite gig, for teaching his screenwriting workshop and for winning at several competitions.

[A Pathetic Writer]

Ok, so you're for the first one, but I should include the age.

Gotcha.

Thanks.

[ThomasDF]

Hamboogul

Do you actually think you got their attention because you we we we'd all the home? :ha

I think you're giving all those we's way too much credit.

Whatever you use is your choice, but to declare others who have good reasons not to use them as being crummy writers and on the fringe is rather silly and a disservice to your own character. But your recent post about crayons is getting back on track in showing respect to your peers.

I've learned that success can make people very cocky and fortunately I've fell on my face a few times to learn not to be so cocky. Keep in mind that no matter how much of a hot shot you may be, there's always a crummy writer on the fringe that will pass you by at the speed of light. Every one of us began as a crummy writer on the fringe.

Best of luck with your fortune, I hope you keep going.

Thomas

[ThomasDF]

dpaterso

THE fifties! I still have four years to go before I even begin thinking about returning to MY fifties. But why would I ever want to do that when I have a small fortune in social security waiting for me? Just ten more years and I can begin planning to build my summer home in Haiti. :rofl

Thomas

[dchapma123]

Sigh. My poor thread. What's become of you?

Ah, well.

Can I suggest that there is a difference between "we" and "we see"? After all, we see EVERYTHING that's written into the script (except sounds, of course). So it's unnecessary and redundant to write "We see such and such."

I'm not a big fan of "we" in other situations either, but I think it serves a more stylistic purpose ("We fly through the air.") How do the anti-we people feel about something like this:

INT. SKY OVER SAN FRANCISCO - DAY

Flying through the air, past clouds and a few birds.

[scripter1]

Well,

I think the original question has been answered.
If we are to have a full pissing contest about the use of we then lets at least start a new thread and get serious about it.

Oh, by they way.
In one of my scripts I have a kid playing on a slide. He shouts out "Weeeeee!"

Was that wrong?

[EggMcGuffin]

"I think you're giving all those we's way too much credit."

actually, thomas, it's folks like you, certified and joe who give all those we's too much credit by asserting they're examples of bad writing, excuses for readers to throw out a script, etc.. the evidence to support that theory is scant--show us a good script that got rejected because of the we's (even certified cannot--if he threw out a good script because the writer used "we", he'd be fired). otoh, there are many scripts that sold or got developed or produced with we's in them. either they are a problem or they are not. you assert they are, i assert you're wrong.

and all this "it pulls me out of the story" jingoistic horseshit is just lameness picked up from other people and parroted as fact.

INT. GRAND CENTRAL STATION -- DAY

BEGIN MONTAGE

V.O.

O.S.

FADE TO

SUBTITLES

INSERT

all standard and common in screenplays. these don't "pull you out of the story"? here's a thought: why don't we all write 110-page novellas instead, do away with slugs and scene headings and the occasional, evil, deathly CUT TO, so hapless readers can forget they're reading screenplays and just "experience" everything.

:rofl

[EggMcGuffin]

dchap,

to answer your question:

INT. SKY OVER SAN FRANCISCO - DAY

Flying through the air, past clouds and a few birds.

is wrong. "sky over san francisco" is not a scene that takes place in any "int" location.

"flying through the air, past clouds and a few birds."

what exactly is flying through the air? the way it is constructed, it's as if the sky over san francisco is flying through the air.

i suggest, in a situation with minimal changes to your original text:

SKY OVER SAN FRANCISCO -- DAY

We fly through the air, past clouds and a few birds.

as it is, its still vague and hard to tell exactly what you're doing. my guess is that this is not a real scene, you just wanted an idea of how to do a scene like that. usually in such a shot you get a bit more information in there. anyway it's not how i would write it myself, but like i said, without making many changes to your text...

[certified instigator]

I'm not a big fan of "we" in other situations either, but I think it serves a more stylistic purpose ("We fly through the air.&quot;) How do the anti-we people feel about something like this:

INT. SKY OVER SAN FRANCISCO - DAY

Flying through the air, past clouds and a few birds.
It would open up too many questions - as Egg pointed out.

And this still has nothing to do with the story (the writers job) and everything to do with how the scene is shot (the directors job)

Seems to me, (someone who reads 20-30 scripts a week) simply telling the story is better than trying to set up shots.
actually, thomas, it's folks like you, certified and joe who give all those we's too much credit by asserting they're examples of bad writing, excuses for readers to throw out a script, etc.. the evidence to support that theory is scant--show us a good script that got rejected because of the we's (even certified cannot--if he threw out a good script because the writer used "we", he'd be fired)
Yes I would.

For clarity: I never suggested using "we" is bad writing, nor did I suggest that as a paid reader I would toss a script that used it.

Its use pulls me out of the story.
Its use is a thinly disguised means to direct the camera and doesn't help in telling the story.
I was curious as to why some writers are so passionate about its use that they resort to name calling when asked about it.

Next:

Should we discuss capitalizing facial expressions (FROWNS)?
================================================== ============================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress. -Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

[ThomasDF]

EggMcGuffin

Me thinks your eggs are a bit scrambled here. I never said they were examples of bad writing and I would never even remotely say a script should thrown out. However, I did say that writers should decide for themselves. I gave specific reasons why not to use them. It doesn't matter how many scripts with them have been successful because there are so many factors that cause success, including a bit of luck.

I don't believe that a script is rejected simply for using them, but no script got sold because the writer used them either. You seem to imply that using them is a factor in selling a script and that's just nonsense. And comparing "we" to all those slugs you mentioned is equally nonsense because using "we" is not a standard, it's a preference. You could no more show that a script was rejected for not using them any more than someone could show a rejection for using them.

As to CUT TO: I not only think it's a waste of space, it's also direction and we're not suppose to write direction. SUBTITLES shouldn't be in a spec script either. It may be in a production script, but that is decided by the director. Some screenwriters also put INSERT CREDITS or something equally offensive to the director.

But guess what, all this is really academic because if a script has a hell of story with great characters no one is going to give a damn even if there are a lot of mistakes. I don't ponder much on any of this crap (except on message boards) because I'm way too busy building my story and characters and that's where the real focus should be.

Thomas

[maestrowork]

"We" is okay if you use sparingly and also appropriately. The "we" is the audience surrogate -- it tells us what the audience should see. Sometimes it's very specific (as in a camera move -- "we move slowly down the hall") it's the camera POV but that's what we see as the audience.

But if you have a lot of "we see" or "we hear" -- cut them out. Describe directly what we "see" or "hear" as in:

We see a giant crane swivelling toward the building...
vs.
A giant crane swivels toward the building...

[ThomasDF]

dchapma123 and EggMcGuffin:

Your discussion about flying through the air over San Francisco is missed something. Wording doesn't matter. The scene shouldn't be written at all. It's direction and no such scene would in any way contribute to the story or characters. All you're doing is telling the director how to film.

When will people ever learn, we write stories not films.

Thomas

[maestrowork]

When will people ever learn, we write stories not films.

I cannot agree with it. I'm sorry. As a screenwriter you're writing a story FOR the film (or TV) medium. You ARE writing a film -- a script is the blue print of how the film will be filmed. Even though you shouldn't tell the director how to frame the shots and what lens to use, etc., if there's something SPECIFIC about a scene (say, it's a fly-over shot of a city -- as in the end of "American Beauty") you should write it that way. It is part of the visual storytelling -- a storyboard. Now HOW the director frame the shot or fly over the city (bridges? buildings? river?) is up to him. But he needs to know it's a "fly over city" scene.

[dchapma123]

"When will people ever learn, we write stories not films"

That's like saying to a guy that writes manuals for Sony, "We write steroes, not instructions."

You cannot cede every decision about how the story makes it to the screen to the director. If you did, the script would be nothing but dialogue. It is your responsibility as a writer to tell the story in an active and visual way. If that includes a scene in the sky over San Francisco, so be it. The director will decide how high and where to put the camera, how fast it moves, etc. Or he might decide to cut the scene entirely. But until that point, if I'm the writer and I think that scene is important to the telling of my story, it's going in the script.

I will admit, however, I'm not sure how "flying through the sky" could be accomplished indoors. Unless it was a really big building.

[joecalabre]

I too never said anything about it being bad writing.

What I meant is that there are rules for formatting and usage that most of the industry believes in.

Just as you would not sign a business letter in red ink or put your hobbies at the top of a resume, there are things that the industry expects to see in a spec script, especialy by an unestablished writer.
They have read countless number of bad scripts and believe they can spot one just by how many brads are holding one together.

Would you have a twenty page scene with no white space? Sluglines right justified? Bound you script with a spiral binding? Of course not.

Using "we" has nothing to do with story, plot or characters, it's presentation at that point.

As for good scripts which got passed for stupid things, look at American Beauty. it was passed by most agencies and studios for over two years because it opened with a V.O. The show, E.R. was passed as a film and a tv series for ten years because of it's technical jargon and too many characters.

Sure, even with those examples, there was someone who eventualy read them and saw the genius behind them. But are you willing to take the risk that 20 will pass for stupid reasons before 1 will see it for what it truly is?

As I said earlier... YES. think outside the box and be creative and have your own voice, but know to atleast make it look like it would fit in that box.

Know that a reader, who is so used to a certain way of reading a script, sees something that he assumes to be amatuer becuase he has seen it so many times before. You are handicapping yourself needlessly...

That's all I'll say on this subject.

I'm sorry if some of you think I'm being critical, pandering to the system or "a serous dumbass." I have learned from my mistakes over the past twenty years (and I'm still learning) and I only wish to give you a heads up things I learned the hard way.

Joe:hug

[dchapma123]

"Sure, even with those examples, there was someone who eventualy read them and saw the genius behind them. But are you willing to take the risk that 20 will pass for stupid reasons before 1 will see it for what it truly is?"

Yes. Aren't you?

[joecalabre]

So you're willing to risk your career over one word?

What's the difference between...

"We see a helicopter swoop over the building."
and
"A helicopter swoops over the building."

No difference, except you are stating something that is obvious. "We see or we hear is redundant. We can assume that we are experiencing it, so why point it out? It will always be considered by many to be the mark of an amatuer, who doesnt know how to craft the sentences and work it to perfection.

But your comment brings to mind a new thread I will post next...

[ThomasDF]

maestrowork and dchapma123

You missed my point. You are writing FOR a film and not A film. One of the biggest mistakes I see screenwriters make is writing a bunch of fancy visuals that do not contribute to the story or characters. Sure, excessive visuals can be justified, but even a mass murderer can do that.

maestrowork: "if there's something SPECIFIC about a scene (say, it's a fly-over shot of a city -- as in the end of "American Beauty") you should write it that way. It is part of the visual storytelling -- a storyboard."

What part of the story would that be? And a storyboard is a big white thingy with drawings and is a director's tool.

maestrowork: "But he needs to know it's a "fly over city" scene."

Why does he need to know that? In what way does it contribute to the story and characters?

dchapma123: "That's like saying to a guy that writes manuals for Sony, "We write steroes, not instructions.""

You have that backwards. If you write a film, you are writing a stereo. If you write a story, you are writing the instructions.

dchapma123: "You cannot cede every decision about how the story makes it to the screen to the director."

The director would disagree and very strongly. You have no say whatsoever in how the story makes it to the screen unless you have a director who will confide in you and that is extremely rare.

dchapma123: "If you did, the script would be nothing but dialogue."

An imperative part of the story and character development is movement, locations, props and all the suff that goes in the action lines. If a visual does not directly contribute to the story and characters, you are telling the director what and how to film. I'm telling you, they don't like that.

dchapma123: "But until that point, if I'm the writer and I think that scene is important to the telling of my story, it's going in the script."

That's your call. You can write the script any way you want. Flying around may not even matter if you have a great story and characters. But if you fly around too much it could cause your script to end up in the recycle bin. Too any writers think it's cool to write fancy scenes that may look good, but don't directly contribute to the story and characters and they get nothing but rejections for all their trouble.

dchapma123: "I will admit, however, I'm not sure how "flying through the sky" could be accomplished indoors. Unless it was a really big building."

Everyone makes silly mistakes like that, but making the mistake of seeing flying around as being important is a fatal mistake. If you don't want to concede decisions to the director, it's not only the scene that's flying too high. :snoopy

Thomas

[dchapma123]

Well, I'm not using "we" in my scripts. So it doesn't matter.

But I take issue with sentiments like, "Your script may be a work of genius, but if you [insert supposedly incorrect thing here], it'll never make it past the script reader and you'll die poor and alone."

If the script is really that good, the use of "we" or any other pet peeve isn't going to stop it forever. And if I wrote "American Beauty", I'd be a very happy, successful man right now, regardless of how long it took me to sell the script.

[dchapma123]

Thomas, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[ThomasDF]

dchapma123

At least we agree on "we" thingy.

It's a good discussion regardless of disagreement.

Thomas

[Hamboogul]

This is my last word on this matter because I'm having an aneurysm.

The "we see" examples that you guys are citing are really great examples of awful writing.

To say "We see a car in the driveway" is worse than "A car is in the driveway." BUT...

To say "We see the feet of a man walking with purpose before we see the rest of him... It's a woman!" (Okay, I just made this up so it's not necessarily the best example but) gives us a sense of the storytelling and visual direction of a screenplay. Anyone who says that a writer shouldn't direct on a screenplay has no respect for the writer's work in the process.

A writer should, by all means, use any way to tell the most visual and compelling story possible. Perhaps the director will come up with his own take and an actor will ignore the parentheticals but that doesn't mean that a writer cannot put his own stamp on the script.

The whole notion that we cannot do something is ridiculous. And to go the point addressed earlier. I didn't get all the interest I did because of my fancy use of "we". The point is that I didn't limit myself to B.S. myth on the messageboards that you cannot use "We."

[ThomasDF]

Hamboogul

It all depends on what you mean by directing. They are called action lines for a reason and if you are referring to action, then I agree. But if you mean writing scenes like flying over a city without a character doing the flying, I have to disagree.

I think too many screenwriters try to do too many fancy things and neglect to use that precious space to develop the story and characters.

I think it should go without saying that each writer can write any way they want.

As to BS myth on message boards, I figure the more things discussed and the more perspectives the better. I don't care how successful a person is, there are always different ways of doing things. A person may use your identical methods with the same talent and get nowhere.

I really don't understand why people get upset just because there is disagreement. Absolutely nothing can be accomplish by that and the good old tummy sure doesn't care for it.

Thomas

[MrJayVee]

Arrgh! I can't believe some of you are still agonizing over this whole "we see" thing. Look, if you absolutely must use it once in your script, do it. The point is...don't do it on every page. Don't even do it on every other page. But once is fine. It's the story and clarity of the writing that counts. Repeat after me: STORY and CLARITY. Try not to dwell on the little stuff that agents and producers don't really care too much about.

[maestrowork]

maestrowork: "But he needs to know it's a "fly over city" scene."

Why does he need to know that? In what way does it contribute to the story and characters?

How do you know it doesn't?

The reason why the Director needs to know it is that he can see what the writer(s) sees. If he agrees he would have to film it (a script is kind of like instructions) or if he doesn't agree he could do something else (subject to contractual terms, of course... :b ) but unless he knows how the writers want it, he can't make that decision.

The flying-over-town scene at the end of American Beauty with V.O. is a perfect example. It's fitting for the scene, the story, and the character (who just died). It's symbolic and themetic. If Alan Ball visualized it and didn't write it into the script, I'd think something's wrong with him.

[EggMcGuffin]

"I don't believe that a script is rejected simply for using them, but no script got sold because the writer used them either. You seem to imply that using them is a factor in selling a script and that's just nonsense."

now THAT'S just nonsense because that wasn't my implication at all. if you think so, your eggs are scrambled, not mine.

my assertion is that they have never been a factor in a script getting passed on. but joe seems to think those two words can put one's career at risk (his own words).

"When will people ever learn, we write stories not films."

we ARE writing films.

"But guess what, all this is really academic because if a script has a hell of story with great characters no one is going to give a damn even if there are a lot of mistakes."

that's my point exactly to anyone who belongs to the "never do this" camp. and i'm not even talking about mistakes, per se. i'm talking about completely legit, oft-used screenwriting styles that some people, for whatever reason, seem to think cannot or should not be used. "it offends the reader". "it offends the director". bull. if the director likes the script and doesn't want to shoot a scene the way it was written, he'll shoot it some other way.

joe,

who the hell said alan ball's script got passed on for 2 years because of a voiceover? that's what they said, "we're going to pass because it opens with a voiceover?" so you're saying after 2 years, someone decided the voiceover wasn't a problem? and what would you have told alan ball to do? cut out the voiceover? is that your suggestion on how one could have made the american beauty screenplay better and more commercially appealing? lmao

[Manilow in Blue]

DO WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO TO WRITE THE BEST SCREENPLAY YOU ARE CAPABLE OF. NO MORE AND NO LESS.

Seriously.

If using "we see" and flashbacks and snide parentheticals makes your script better, DO IT.

If leaving those out makes your script better, LEAVE THEM OUT.

If writing three words on a cocktail napkin and using the napkin to replace page 56 tells the story you want to tell, WRITE ON THE DAMN NAPKIN!

People who are trained only to see the mistakes in a script will reject it every time because they will never see the originality and creative genius of your script. They are fearful wannabe's that will never take a step outside their preset boundaries.

Write what you think is best for the script you are writing. If the only "mistakes" the script has are a few "we see's", no one with a brain is going to reject it.

[ThomasDF]

maestrowork

"How do you know it doesn't?"

How did you manage to change a question into a statement? I have no idea what you are asking.

"but unless he knows how the writers want it, he can't make that decision."

Do you actually think the director cares how the writer wants it?

As to the American Beauty script, I'm not familiar with it or what was in the first draft. But having a V.O. tells me that it has a lot to do with the character and I did mention that. This discussion was about a fly over the city without any reference to a character.

Thomas

[A Pathetic Writer]

Well.. I finished the first page of my new script.

There's no "we sees" on it, but there are three flashbacks.

Better?

[Staberinde]

The use of 'we' is, in essence, a mediocre way to explain camera directions.

The words you use to describe the situation should draw a mental picture of

things like, 'We go inside the house'. Instead, use a simple, 'Inside

the house, there is...'


Back to the thread topic, how would one go about setting a ToD for a scene in space? There is definitely a lot of ambient light. So would it be day?

Also inside a spaceship, there is no sun to differentiate night from day. All the light is synthetic. What do?