O.S. or What's better?

Gardenia31 · Mar 15, 2010

What's a better way of writing the following scene:

Sid barges past David, slamming the bathroom door in his wake.

Sid can be heard puking into the toilet bowl.

OR

Sid barges past David, slamming the bathroom behind him.

David stands and sdtares blankly at the floor.

SID (O.S.)
(puking nto the toilet)
UGHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Kosh · Mar 15, 2010

Gardenia31 said:
What's a better way of writing the following scene:

Sid barges past David, slamming the bathroom door in his wake.

Sid can be heard puking into the toilet bowl.

OR

Sid barges past David, slamming the bathroom behind him.

David stands and sdtares blankly at the floor.

SID (O.S.)
(puking nto the toilet)
UGHHHH!!!!!!!!!

In this instance, I'd say the first one, except I'd write "THE SOUNDS OF HIS PUKING escape the door".

The second uses three lines for a single sound.

ricetalks · Mar 15, 2010

First.

jonpiper · Mar 15, 2010

Gardenia31 said:
What's a better way of writing the following scene:

Sid barges past David, slamming the bathroom door in his wake.

Sid can be heard puking into the toilet bowl.

OR

Sid barges past David, slamming the bathroom behind him.

David stands and sdtares blankly at the floor.

SID (O.S.)
(puking nto the toilet)
UGHHHH!!!!!!!!!

I think the the second one would provide a better read, but loose the parenthentical. I assume we would know why Sid barges into the bathroom. Also the parenthetical provides information that isn't shown on screen.

You also "show" rather than tell in 2. Finally rather than staring at a door while Sid pukes, we see David's reaction.

movieman · Mar 15, 2010

jonpiper said:
You also "show" rather than tell in 2. Finally rather than staring at a door while Sid pukes, we see David's reaction.

Agreed: any time you're writing something like 'can be heard' in a script you're just asking to pull the reader's attention out of the story. Not quite as bad as 'cut to 120fps whip pan right with crash zoom to the door as we hear Sid puke into the toilet', but I'd still go for the second approach.

Stijn Hommes · Mar 17, 2010

While you can improve on the first version, I still prefer it over the second one. It uses too many lines, unneccesary parentheses, too many exclaimation marks and a sound that is not quite dialog. Treat it like a sound in a line of action.

Gardenia31 · Mar 17, 2010

movieman said:
Agreed: any time you're writing something like 'can be heard' in a script you're just asking to pull the reader's attention out of the story. Not quite as bad as 'cut to 120fps whip pan right with crash zoom to the door as we hear Sid puke into the toilet', but I'd still go for the second approach.

Thanks, but is it must to add all that technical detail when it is a spec script? ( maybe that's naive of me.)

movieman · Mar 17, 2010

Gardenia31 said:
Thanks, but is it must to add all that technical detail when it is a spec script? ( maybe that's naive of me.)

Actually, I was saying that you shouldn't include technical details like that in a spec script

.

Gardenia31 · Mar 17, 2010

Oh, ok I see what you meant! Sorry!

Gardenia31 · Mar 17, 2010

Oh, ok I see what you mean, sorry!!

ComicBent · Mar 18, 2010

Like this ...

First version, but with some cleanup.

Original:

Sid barges past David, slamming the bathroom door in his wake.

Sid can be heard puking into the toilet bowl.

Better:

Rushing toward the bathroom, Sid barges past David and slams the bathroom door behind him.

Loud sounds of vomiting come from inside.

You really do not even need my rushing toward the bathroom participial phrase, but I added it to illustrate the correct use of a verbal phrase. The action of the verbal needs to be prior to or simultaneous with the main verb of the sentence (barges). Your original slamming the bathroom door is a verbal tacked on at the end in place of a verb. It describes something after the main verb of the sentence. It is not a good usage, though one sees it all the time.

Sid can be heard uses a passive-voice verb. It is grammatically correct, but not nearly as effective as active voice.

movieman · Mar 18, 2010

ComicBent said:
Loud sounds of vomiting come from inside.

That's passive voice too, isn't it?

We also now no longer know _who_ is vomiting inside the bathroom; Sid could be rushing in there to help another character who's sick.

jonpiper · Mar 18, 2010

Gardenia31 said:
What's a better way of writing the following scene:

Sid barges past David, slamming the bathroom door in his wake.

Sid can be heard puking into the toilet bowl.

OR

Sid barges past David, slamming the bathroom behind him.

David stands and sdtares blankly at the floor.

SID (O.S.)
(puking nto the toilet)
UGHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Make sure you convey your setting and sequence of actions clearly. The first one doesn't even show that David stands up and is in a dazed state.

I'd still go with 2, with some modifications.

David is on his knees.

Barging past David, Sid rushes into the bathroom, slams
the door.

David stands and stares blankly at the floor.

SID (O.S.)
Oh God. UGHHHH.
UGHHH.

Opty · Mar 19, 2010

movieman said:
That's passive voice too, isn't it?

No.

Opty · Mar 19, 2010

Why can't you just say something like:

Rushing toward the bathroom, Sid barges past David and slams the bathroom door behind him.

David stares blankly at the door as Sid violently retches on the other side.

In this isolated example, I don't really think that establishing whether or "we see" him puking or "we hear" him puking matters much.

jonpiper · Mar 19, 2010

Opty said:
Why can't you just say something like:

Rushing toward the bathroom, Sid barges past David and slams the bathroom door behind him.

[he rushes toward the bathroom, past David. Does he enter the bathroom or just slam the door. Does he slam the door behind himself or behind David? We don't know until we read the next line, which implies Sid is in the bathroom, retching.]

David stares blankly at the door as Sid violently retches on the other side.

In this isolated example, I don't really think that establishing whether or "we see" him puking or "we hear" him puking matters much.

It works. But which is the best way to go. What best keeps the reader in the story. True this is an isolated example and we don't have a feel for the pacing, etc.

Opty, here's a variation of yours that require only one more line.

Sid barges past David into the bathroom, slams the door.

David stares blankly at the door.

SID (O.S.)
UGHHHH...UGHHH.

Opty · Mar 19, 2010

I guess the "best" way to go is up to the writer. But, I think in some of what you say above that you're neglecting the scene's context. I think it's safe to assume that the context of the scene would've already been set up in a way which would build up to the puking. I doubt seriously something like this would just pop up out of nowhere. Therefore, when Sid runs toward the bathroom and slams the door, we can safely assume he actually goes into it.

Without context, your example (as written with "UGHH..." as dialogue) could seem as though he's rushing into the bathroom and masturbating.

Personally, I find writing the puking as dialogue is both cheesy and a waste of space. I've read several scripts with puking in them and I've never seen it written as dialogue. I wouldn't write it that way, either. Just my opinion, though. However, it's a stylistic choice that the writer must make.

jonpiper · Mar 19, 2010

Opty said:
Without context, your example (as written with "UGHH..." as dialogue) could seem as though he's rushing into the bathroom and masturbating.

Personally, I find writing the puking as dialogue is both cheesy and a waste of space. I've read several scripts with puking in them and I've never seen it written as dialogue. I wouldn't write it that way, either. Just my opinion, though. However, it's a stylistic choice that the writer must make.

Sid would most certainly NOT utter UGHH when masturbating. Sid utters pleasurable sounds. (wink wink)

Seriously, I agree with you. It is a stylistic choice. In my opinion it depends upon what works best in a given scene. UGHH could be cheesy, but it could be dramatic, depends upon the setup.

But you bring up a good point. Should dialogue ever contain sounds that are not words?

Opty · Mar 19, 2010

Could it? Yes.

Should it? I don't think anyone can decide that definitively.

My stylistic preference for my own writing is "no."

padnar · Mar 21, 2010

I have read scripts using sounds like grrr---in some sold scripts and wondered about it.
padma

O.S. or What's better?

Gardenia31

Kosh

Will Write for Food

ricetalks

jonpiper

movieman

Stijn Hommes

Know what you write...

Gardenia31

movieman

Gardenia31

Gardenia31

ComicBent

movieman

jonpiper

Opty

Opty

jonpiper

Opty

jonpiper

Opty

padnar