Hi guys! Can I use an apostrophe in a scene heading?
Example:
SPY #2'S
attention is drawn....
Thanks again!!
Example:
SPY #2'S
attention is drawn....
Thanks again!!
secondary headings
- Thread starter avid-dreamer
- Start date
Hmmmm ... I'm gonna be a bit of a purist about that one and say "No." My very firm conviction is that a mini-slug needs to be a concrete noun capable of being filmed. And in this instance the only noun in sight is the word "attention" and so "SPY #2's" is merely a modifier.
So I'd redo it so that "SPY #2" becomes the noun again.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 18,805
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Location
- Caledonia
- Website
- derekpaterson.net
The apostrophe only confuses -- I'd keep this a clean focus shot, e.g.
SPY #2
sees the gun! He dives across the floor, grabs it!
Then again, wasn't the needless use of mini slugs (which you're now calling "secondary headings") already covered in your own DOOR SIGNS and ending a page with scene headings & mini slugs threads?
The above example could as easily be,
Spy #2 sees the gun! He dives across the floor, grabs it!
-Derek
SPY #2
sees the gun! He dives across the floor, grabs it!
Then again, wasn't the needless use of mini slugs (which you're now calling "secondary headings") already covered in your own DOOR SIGNS and ending a page with scene headings & mini slugs threads?
The above example could as easily be,
Spy #2 sees the gun! He dives across the floor, grabs it!
-Derek
I'm going to be even more of a purist -- and I've said this before.
A slug line, of the mini or maxi variety --
is a LOCATION -- not a style, not an accent, not a person, not an adjective, an adverb, a sound.
It's a PLACE.
INT. THE WELL OF SOULS - DAY
EXT. BOBBY'S GAS STATION - NIGHT
THE LIVING ROOM
ON THE PIAZZI
IN THE ZOMBIE PIT
WITH GEORGE AND MARY
THE KITCHEN
Not things like --
RUSHING
EXPLODES
HE JUMPS
SUDDENLY
A HAND!
No, no, no.
None of these things are slug lines. None of them should be used as slug lines.
If you want to emphasize something in the text, there are ways to do it. You can capitalize (not to often), you can use a paragraph break.
But using a slug line simply for emphasis is misusing it.
It's like writing.
INT. BOB'S HEART - NIGHT -- BECAUSE IT'S BREAKING
No. Don't write this. The format has a purpose. Use it for the purpose for which it's intended, not as the raw material for some impressionistic expression.
NMS
I disagree about minis, NMS
I think with a mini you can reduce it to a shot of some kind of a THING --a concrete tangible object capable of being framed in a shot.
As for this no-no laundry list of yours, I agree that most of them are silly,but I will highlight the one mini-slug that I think is acceptable:
I am of the opinion that the hand thing is an acceptable mini-slug. I interpret it as a SHOT.
If you disagree, can you instead explain what a SHOT is? Maybe I should start re-thinking shots.
I think with a mini you can reduce it to a shot of some kind of a THING --a concrete tangible object capable of being framed in a shot.
As for this no-no laundry list of yours, I agree that most of them are silly,but I will highlight the one mini-slug that I think is acceptable:
I am of the opinion that the hand thing is an acceptable mini-slug. I interpret it as a SHOT.
If you disagree, can you instead explain what a SHOT is? Maybe I should start re-thinking shots.
Acceptable, yes, but look how much more effective a screenplay is when the shots are implied. The following is from an article: http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2007/11/write-shots.html
The top line is from Tarantino’s script, where no camera information is given. The parentheticals in the line below are my [Mystery Man's] interpretation of the shot that is implied.
Excerpt from Pulp Fiction
Vincent lifts the needle up above his head in a stabbing motion. He looks down on Mia.
(LOOSE CLOSE-UP VINCENT) (VINCENT POV – MIA)
Mia is fading fast. Soon nothing will help her.
(HOLD ON MIA.)
Vincent’s eyes narrow, ready to do this.
(TIGHT CLOSE-UP – VINCENT)
VINCENT
Count to three.
Count to three.
Lance on his knees right beside Vincent, does not know what to expect.
(WIDE SHOT – LANCE AND VINCENT)
LANCE
One.
One.
RED DOT on Mia’s body.
(CLOSE ON RED DOT )
Needle poised ready to strike.
(CLOSE ON NEEDLE)
LANCE
Two.
Two.
Jody’s face is alive in anticipation.
(CLOSE-UP JODY)
NEEDLE in the air, poised like a rattler ready to strike.
(CLOSE ON NEEDLE)
LANCE (OS)
Three!
Three!
The needle leaves the frame, THRUSTING down hard.
(CLOSE ON NEEDLE)
Vincent brings the needle down hard, STABBING Mia in the chest.
(MEDIUM SHOT)
Mia’s head is JOLTED from the impact.
(CLOSE ON MIA’S HEAD)
The syringe plunger is pushed down, PUMPING the adrenalin out through the needle.
(CLOSE ON SYRINGE PUMPER)
Mia’s eyes POP WIDE OPEN and lets out a HELLISH cry of the banshee.
(CLOSE-UP ON MIA’S EYES)
She BOLTS UP in a sitting position, needle stuck in her chest---SCREAMING
(WIDE SHOT - MIA)
Summary
In this brief page, Tarantino has implied 15 camera angles. Despite his use of camera, the reader isn’t taken out of the read because the script never calls out specific camera positions or angles.
although i don't disagree* with you, jp - i must say, this is a poor example to use. why? because whenever the screenwriter is also the director then he can write his scripts for himself and the guidelines for spec screenplay format is somewhat disregarded. however, he still uses proper format b/c the talent and crew must know what's going on and must be able to identify all the cues.
i suggest you find another example.
*traditionally nms is correct about it should only be a location but, i believe the guidelines can be altered for "action" scenes IF a specific POV in a particular shot is necessary. it's our way of giving camera directions without giving camera directions.
i suggest you find another example.
*traditionally nms is correct about it should only be a location but, i believe the guidelines can be altered for "action" scenes IF a specific POV in a particular shot is necessary. it's our way of giving camera directions without giving camera directions.
Last edited:
I'm not NMS, but I'll try, if that's ok.
Well sure, you can indicate a shot, but why would a shot need its own slugline?
Sluglines are used for scenes - one location, continuous time. As soon as the location changes, or there's a time lapse, it's a new scene, and hence a new slugline.
If within one location and time a few different things are going on, mini-slugs can be very useful.
OVER THERE
something happens
ON THE OTHER SIDE
something else happens.
You're kinda splitting it up into different locations within one location.
You could put a new full slugline, but time remains continuous, and the general location remains the same, so you can use a mini-slug to make it a smoother read.
But if you're just indicating a shot, then there's no change in time nor location, so there's no need for a new slugline, not even a mini.
I guess a good rule of thumb could be that you need to be able to change the mini-slug into a full slugline. If not, then you don't need a mini-slug there.
I'm pretty sure you understand all this, though. I think you're just calling something a mini-slug which really isn't one.
So I guess you could debate whether, if you want to specifically indicate A SHOT, does that need to be in caps AND on a line of its own?
I don't think it does. One or the other should make it clear enough.
Indiana slowly backs away from the snake.
A HAND
grabs him by the shoulder.
Perhaps not the best example involving the hand, but you get the idea. "A HAND" doesn't need to be on a line of its own. Just starting a new paragraph is enough.
And even starting a new paragraph isn't strictly necessary. Just by using the words "a hand," it's pretty clear what the screenwriter has in mind. Otherwise he could say "Marion grabs him by the shoulder."
-Johan
A "Shot" is an extremely old-fashioned form that I used to see a million years ago that once-upon-a-time, in its old skin used to show up like this:
ANGLE ON - Bobby sitting at the table.
ANOTHER ANGLE -- Bobby gets up from the table.
ANGLE ON -- Susy, sitting across from Bobby at the same table.
I never knew why writers who used it why back then used all those "angles" -- or even used them once in a while, and I don't know what the purpose of writing it this way:
BOBBY
sits at a table. Then, after awhile
BOBBY
gets up from the table.
SUSIE
is sitting at the same table.
I mean, if you write in the text:
"Bobby is sitting at table. Susie is sitting across from him. Bobby gets up from the table."
-- it's a pretty good bet that the director isn't going to be aiming the camera out the window. However he shoots it, it's pretty likely that Bobby, Susie, and the table will be in there somewhere.
What more do you need? Why are you specifying shots?
These aren't inserts. They aren't specific details that you, as a writer need to call particular attention to.
Sometimes, I suppose, you have to -- and then you have that form -- the Insert, which is a SHOT -- to do that.
But most of the time, you can call specific attention to specific details, even to the level of detail that specifies how something needs to be seen on screen, without having to specify shots per se.
It's a very old-fashioned, and very awkward format -- not to mention the fact that it really has no relationship to what it pretends to be.
Slug-lines refer to locations. That's because they are locations. When the script is broken down, what the script refers to, by slug-lines as locations are, for the most part, going to end up as actual locations in the finished breakdown.
But the "shots" specified in a script aren't going to correlate to anything. The Director will storyboard the script or work up his shotlists -- and that's what he's going to shoot.
Literal shots, as distinct from locations, don't derive from the script. So I think it's kind of silly to put them in.
If your goal is to imply, by the way you describe a scene, how it should be shot, then you can certainly do that. But that's really about as far as it makes sense for any screenwriter to go.
NMS
To me, there is a very organic and natural-feeling rhythm to the JUDICIOUS usage of shots (but shots packaged as neo-mini-slugs). Shots unclutter a cluttery paragraph by breaking that paragraph up into three or four small chunks that can be digested in an orderly fashion. It also enhances the intended tone of a scene.
I do not see them as clumsy, I see them as clarifying. Their only drawback is they suck up page-length.
Hi Johan
I don't know if I've ever done "A HAND" (although I might have) but I would only do so in this manner like you've done (in this neo-mini-slug thing we're all debating) if I specifically wanted the camera to SUDDENLY and AT THAT MOMENT IN THE SCRIPT focus exclusively on that hand in ITS VERY OWN and NEW AT THAT MOMENT shot. (Thus I'm admittedly cross-crossing my concept of the "mini-slug" with my ideas about a "shot".)
In your scenario, I am imagining that Indy's face (and even the snake in the foreground) never leaves the frame, and that this "HAND" merely enters the already-existing frame, instead of the "HAND" getting it's own brand new frame.
Now I now you said:
and I must agree because I see zero reason to give the "HAND" its own exclusive moment on the screen separate from Indy.
But there are definitely OTHER very legitimate situations where I would indeed deem it perhaps very very critical for a "HAND" to have its own exclusive moment on the screen.
Like maybe the giant "HAND" of King Kong reaching down to grab Anne.
Yeah, poor-ish example. But basically, I can't really think of an example - HAND or anything else - where a specific shot is so important that it needs its own pseudo-slugline-type-ish thingamajig.
A new paragraph, sure. I do that all the time. But that, combined with the words you use - "King Kong's hand grabs" brings up a different visual than "King Kong reaches down and grabs" - seems more than enough.
Breaking it up into
KING KONG's HAND
grabs Anne.
seems a bit excessive to me. And yeah, page count goes up pretty fast that way.
On the other... erm, hand, I suppose in this specific case, Kong's hand, being a huge prop in the old version and a green screen set-up in the newer version, could be considered a "location", warranting its own slugline.
-Johan
although i don't disagree* with you, jp - i must say, this is a poor example to use. why? because whenever the screenwriter is also the director then he can write his scripts for himself and the guidelines for spec screenplay format is somewhat disregarded. however, he still uses proper format b/c the talent and crew must know what's going on and must be able to identify all the cues.
i suggest you find another example.
*traditionally nms is correct about it should only be a location but, i believe the guidelines can be altered for "action" scenes IF a specific POV in a particular shot is necessary. it's our way of giving camera directions without giving camera directions.
Nikee, I hope you don't think those camera angles in parenthesis were in the script. Although Tarentino usually breaks many rules as director/writer, I thought this excerpt was a good example of well paced action with implied shots.
Pseudo-slugline-type-ish thingamajigs [good name for them Flu] that Plot favors would in my opinion not only take up page space, they would upset the pace in this instance.
On the other hand, I think those thingamajigs can in some situations control the pace of the action.
Apart from any other formatting objection, and another reason why I dislike them, as a style, is because they are, to my at least, the equivalent of "!!!!!!!"
You're capitalizing something, putting it on it's on line, putting a space above it and a space below it.
One could hardly give something more emphasis in the structural context of the written word.
If the only reason you're doing it is to breath some air into your text -- to make it more "readable" -- then I think you need to realize that there is a downside to doing that.
That's because there is a law of diminishing returns at work here.
Take the above text. I could have written like this:
Apart from any other formatting objection, and another reason why I dislike them, as a style, is because they are, to my at least, the equivalent of "!!!!!!!" You're capitalizing something, putting it on it's on line, putting a space above it and a space below it. One could hardly give something more emphasis in the structural context of the written word. If the only reason you're doing it is to breath some air into your text -- to make it more "readable" -- then I think you need to realize that there is a downside to doing that. That's because there is a law of diminishing returns at work here.
Now, jammed together as it is above, it's obviously much harder to read.
On the other hand, I could also have written it like this:
Apart from any other
FORMATTING OBJECTION
and another reason why I dislike them --
AS A STYLE
is because they are, to my at least, the equivalent of --
"!!!!!!!"
YOU'RE CAPITALIZING
something, putting it on it's on line, putting a space above it and a space below it.
One could hardly give something
MORE EMPHASIS
in the structural context of the written word. If the only reason you're doing it is to
BREATH SOME AIR
into your text -- to make it more --
"READABLE"
then I think you need to realize that there is a
DOWNSIDE
to doing that. That's because there is a law of
DIMINISHING RETURNS
at work here.
(And of course I understand that I have overdone the above for emphasis).
The point is, you shouldn't presume that that breaking up of the text -- and especially the odd-ball style of breaking a sentence up in this way, and we've all seen it --
He's walking down the corridor, opens the door and suddenly a
GREAT BIG POLAR BEAR
jumps out and starts licking his face.
Don't for a minute think that this is smoother on the eye or more readable than just writing the words all in a row, because as somebody who has had to read scripts for a living, believe me, it is not.
Have I ever done it? Yes, exactly once. And I did it for the reason that most people do it when most professionals resort to this style. I was in desperate need of pumping air into a short script.
But that really isn't a great reason to use this or any other stylistic device.
NMS
Last edited:
Please go back to my post and notice my usage of the word JUDICIOUS in caps.
Well .... I kinda like it.
And again ... used JUDICIOUSLY it can, I think, be helpful. But when you get carried away, yeah it can look silly and over-used (as can any formatting thing).
In my current screenplay, I use one of those psuedo-slugline-things to show that a medallion is unknowingly left behind during the action. I want this to register with the reader, because the medallion becomes important later in the story.
A true mini-slug a couple of lines later brings the action from a path to a clearing.
Is this acceptable?
As Short turns to flee, a low hanging branch snags Short's necklace.
Short struggles, breaks free.
A gleaming circular
MEDALLION
falls to the ground.
Short dashes into the
CLEARING
A true mini-slug a couple of lines later brings the action from a path to a clearing.
Is this acceptable?
As Short turns to flee, a low hanging branch snags Short's necklace.
Short struggles, breaks free.
A gleaming circular
MEDALLION
falls to the ground.
Short dashes into the
CLEARING