creatures and battle scenes??

avid-dreamer said:

Hi everyone. I have a questions: Now, imagine writing a battle scene with creatures. Example zombies. Is it necessary to label these zombies if they're not going to speak?

Example:

ZOMBIE #1

attacks Jake and bites him on the leg. Meanwhile,

ANDREA

fights off Zombie #2. A few feet away

PAUL

is being eaten by Zombie #3.


OR

A ZOMBIE

attacks Jake and bites him on the leg. Meanwhile,

ANDREA

fights off another undead. A few feet away

PAUL

is being eaten by a zombie.

NOTE: I KNOW THIS STINKS, BUT IT'S AN EXAMPLE.

Thanks for the help!!

Click to expand...

If nothing at all distinguishes them -- that is, one undead person from another, then there isn't much difference one way or the other.

If they are characters -- if they are going to figure on some ongoing basis, then you want to identify them as specific characters, presuming that you will be returning to them over the course of a scene or a sequence.

For instance, if a particular zombie -- ZOMBIE 1, ends up chasing somebody for some length of time, while other things may be happening with other zombies, then yes - you want to give that particular zombie a particular "name" which would be capitalized as would any other character's name.

But in a larger sense you are missing the point, which is that the problem you are having is that, whether you say Zombie 1, 2, and 3, or just say, this zombie, that zombie, and some other zombie -- you aren't really distinguishing between them in any substantive way that an audience or a reader is going to be able to latch onto.

How, exactly, when a reader *imagines* Zombie 1, is he supposes visualize him differently from the way him visualizes Zombie 2 or Zombie 3 - or for that matter, "another undead" or "yet another zombie."

If you make the decision to describe your "monsters" generically or not at all, presuming that the reader will fill in the details by making one zombie look one way, another a different way, a third yet a different way in their heads -- you are making a lethal error.

It would be enormously better (and since you use the example of zombies, I will do the same) to find a way, in very concise terms, to specify these creatures, so that the reader will have some sense, as they go along, which creature is which, and also so that they can more fully visualize what is happening on screen -- not generically, but specifically.

This doesn't take much -- a matter of saying -- A ONE-ARMED ZOMBIE, or a LITTLE BOY ZOMBIE, or JAWLESS GIRL ZOMBIE -- or whatever your imagination can come up with.

But let your imagination come up with something, not nothing. Because if you can't come up with something, what with it being your job, don't presume that the reader will do it for you.

NMS

Hey, avid, regarding what NMS said about "one-armed zombie," I get very impressed when I read the ending credits of certain movies and realize that those characetrs who had no names are still somehow identifiable to me via the credits.

The recent George Romero film Land of the Dead is a great example.

There were three zombies in it who (of course!) had no names. But the ending credits told us their names:

Big Daddy
Number 9
Butcher

The character named Big Daddy wore a gas station mechanics uniform with the name "Big daddy" on the oval name patch.

The character named Number 9 was a teenaged girl who wore a lacrosse uniform with the number "9" on her uniform.

The character named "Butcher" wore a white food service apron.





Here's a movie still with Big Daddy in the middle and Number 9 on the right. (I do not know who the guy on the left is, but I notice he's carrying a huge monkey wrench!)






And here are the action figures with Big Daddy in the middle and Butcher on the right.






Here's another movie still. Fom left to right the first three characters are:

Number 9, and then the Butcher, and then Big Daddy (I do not know the others to the right of Big Daddy). You can clearly see Number 9's uniform.









Not one of those characters was ever called BY NAME in the film. But we knew them all on sight for the movie's duration simply becasue of their clothes. And then when the credits rolled at the end, we knew who they each were.

Now I have no idea if Romero wrote the script in this manner. But if he did, that was quite brilliant of him.

I urge you to read the full cast list of this film and get some ideas from there.

One of my own pet priorities when assigning names to these minor side characters is to try and help out a lesser known actor by giving him SOMETHING to stick in his resume. "Zombie #7" doesn't seem to cut it as far as helping the audience to read the ending credits. Nor does it help a casting director. Nor does it help an actor who is sitting in a pre-audition interview, and that actor has to explain "I was Zombie #7. So I wasn't the zombie with the worms in his brain, that was Zombie #14. I was the zombie who came out of the freezer with the meat hook through his skull." But it's far more helpful to the audience and to casting directors and to actors on interviews if I write into the script (and subsequently stick in the ending credits): "Meat Hook Zombie" and then "Worm Brain Zombie."

thing is these zombies in your example obviously play a real or at least recurring bit, not just meat bags you'll not see again. so, clearly, there's a need to attach a name to them. the point is 'zombie #7' isn't a minour side character, he's just background or a target. 'big daddy' probably had a bit more direction than the rest who got in a group and learned how to lope like a zombie.

is that an action figure of tom sevini (sp)?