Curious - (V.O.), (O.S.) and (O.C.)

nmstevens · Feb 2, 2009

WriteKnight said:
Despite advances in technology, people still fight hand to hand with a weapon that is fundamentally a sword.

No, I got no problems with that.

There's a reason why the most advanced and skilled commandos in the world still carry a knife.

Guns jam, batteries fail. Despite the most advanced weapons in the world, the target remains EXACTLY the same as it was ten thousand years ago.

The human body.

So, you can stab a guy with a sharp stick, a bone spear, a flint arrow, a bronze blade, a steel sword, or a particle weapon. You. Are. Still. Stabbing. Hand weapons are always a back-up to projectile weapons. Warrior skills 101. Better know and understand them because the other guy does.

The idea is to open a hole in the guy, and let the blood run out.

The notion that far far into the future, there is some sort of 'bushido' code - that considers a specific type of weapon to be more 'honorable' than another - or that some people who do not subscribe to that code might find it silly - Well, that rings true in the future because it's as true today as it was a thousand years ago.

I know people who look at "Citizen Kane" and simply cannot understand WHY it is always on 'the list' of top films of all time. For them, it's a 'dumb' film that simply fails to resonate with them on a personal level. Heck, they love to point out that it was a box-office failure. They don't get all the 'big deal' about the ground-breaking cinematography which seems old-hat nowadays. The whole political statement seems passe. And frankly the main character is an a-hole, why should I care about him? Heck, it starts off with him DEAD, and the whole movie is a damn FLASHBACK - everybody 'knows' that is the worst crutch in storytelling.

Almost as bad as a voiceover.

Star Wars was an interesting film. I loved it when it came out. It holds up as a great template of the hero's journey. It broke new ground in technology. It broke box office records. Along with JAWS it helped to remake the entire approach to film MARKETING and helped usher in the era of SUMMER BLOCKBUSTERS. The dialogue ALWAYS struck me as stilted, but it is what it is. A landmark film

The whole business of fighting with swords in the future -- really the larger trope of "future as past" is something that you see all the time.

If you read Dune, it's one of the classic visions of "future as past" -- and Herbert goes to enormous lengths of justification to create a future without computers, without guns, without nuclear weapons, where people fight with knives, (because you see, they've got these personal shields that ward off fast moving things like bullets, but slow-moving things, like blades, can penetrate them) -- all to create this far distant future that plays almost exactly like an intergalatic world of Venetian city-states.

For drama, you want personal and direct interactions between antagonists and protagonists who are personally vested in one another -- not the science fiction equivalent of long range artillery and saturation bombing.

So one way or another, the science fiction universe that you create is inevitably going to enable those kinds of interactions.

NMS

WriteKnight · Feb 2, 2009

I actually thought of DUNE and the body shield, and the 'slow thrust' required to get through them... a great concept. I wish they'd gone into it more in the trainwreck of a movie.

As long as we're on SciFi - and Voice Overs, lets give a nod to BLADE RUNNER. There are, what - three or four - "Director's Cuts" - some WITH voiceover, some without. Some people HATE it. For my part, I view the entire film as a stylistic nod to both Film Noir and Expressionism. So I think the Voiceover works in it. Though I think Harrison Ford is on record as hating it. Seems like I read that the studios wanted it in, and Ridley Scott wanted it out...???

Somebody refresh me on that one.

platinumscript · Feb 2, 2009

First... a titanic battle of well-armed forces in that turbulent and intellectually stimulating debate on the merits... or lack thereof of Star Wars a a screenwriting masterpiece. Well executed points of views. Well done indeed.

There are so many examples of 'Nobody knows anything' in H-wood. If it works it works. But the ultimate goal is to get in the door. The less use of devices 'shunned' or discriminated against by the readers the better your odds of getting the script passed up the ladder. Because the readers have all read the same 'how-to' books on what is perceived to be as weak techniques, they will be sheep and follow what they have been schooled on and frown upon those techniques.

Whether that shades their overall perception of the script and prejudices their ultimate vote on pass/recommend may well depend on the volume of the offending technique utilized.

The 'industry' frowns upon flashbacks as well. The Fugitive was very well done etc.-- I believe the saying that 'nobody knows anything' rings true when applied to predicting what movies will be successful and which will fail. Enjoy.

Jeffrey Pace · Jun 10, 2009

Can't imagine 'Memento' without a V.O.

Team 2012 · Jun 10, 2009

OC is archaic.

All the blather we read on the internet discussions about the hazards and horrors of VO are a grotesque exaggeration. In fact, you go see a film, you will very likely see it done.
It's a very common way to do things and is not "lazy" or "dangerous" or anything else.
It's a technique.

The last five films I saw used it, two of them extensively. In two the narrator was dead at the start of the film.

You have to learn to ignore all the wannabes who squeal about the use of VO or flashbacks or adverbs or multiple POV or whatever.

It's a valid, much used, useful element in the vocabulary of film and the better impulse would be to learn about it, not run screaming from it.

nmstevens · Jun 11, 2009

Team 2012 said:
OC is archaic.

All the blather we read on the internet discussions about the hazards and horrors of VO are a grotesque exaggeration. In fact, you go see a film, you will very likely see it done.
It's a very common way to do things and is not "lazy" or "dangerous" or anything else.
It's a technique.

The last five films I saw used it, two of them extensively. In two the narrator was dead at the start of the film.

You have to learn to ignore all the wannabes who squeal about the use of VO or flashbacks or adverbs or multiple POV or whatever.

It's a valid, much used, useful element in the vocabulary of film and the better impulse would be to learn about it, not run screaming from it.

There's a knee-jerk tendency to warn beginners away from things like voice over or flashbacks, not so much because these things can't be done well, but because they are so rarely done well by beginners -- and because they are among the story-telling tools that are so easily misused.

It's advice that falls into the category of "master the basics" before attempting things that are more challenging. Unfortunately, they tend to crystallize into absolutes -- "things that one ought never to do" -- which doesn't make any sense.

NMS

wordmonkey · Jun 11, 2009

Use the tools that best serve your story.

Use every rule as a guideline (beyond the formating ones and the amount of brads - the brad rule is GOLDEN and should never be questioned).

You get the right reader on the right day and every single rule can be broken. You abide by every piece of guidance you were ever given, and the reader has a hang-over after getting kicked outta the house by his wife, and you are in the trash can.

Just write.

iforgot120 · Jun 11, 2009

Arrested Development would be nothing without the VO Narrator.

Simply Dan · Apr 18, 2011

I'm an amateur writer myself and a script that I'm heavily working on at present starts with V.O. However I do like the idea of using the character's voice instead, it does make it a more interesting read. I'm not too worried about my V.O at the start, a lot of the script changes daily with new thoughts about it and such I am like 90% sure if I can replace it with something else to start off the script better then it'll get replaced. However the script is still in its early days so I'm not too worried about it as yet.

Bluegate said:
Just in case anyone else forgot what this thread was about. Wow.

So, I'm thinking about doing a script entirely in V.O, flashback told through dream sequences.

As for this, its a really good idea. I know a few folk that done a short film purely a voice over and some cuts around this mysterious room. The story basically boiled down to a guy speaking aloud the suicide letter he was writing to his love on the day of their wedding. OF course it depends how long you are planning on running the film, the general storyline and such but in the film industry I wouldn't rule anything out as a possibility.

Good luck.

p.s. Hi, I'm new.

talking to myself · Apr 18, 2011

zeprosnepsid said:
Not a problem, since I don't like any of those films. Nor do I like Sunset Blvd. or To Kill A Mockingbird or many big name movies with VO.

But yeah, established writers and directors can do whatever they want obviously and we are obviously not talking about that. It's extremely well known that newbies should not do voice over and anyone who does hasn't done their homework. You could be the most talented basketball player in the world, but if you don't know the rules, you will not be able to play the game professionally. Just follow the rules. My bosses actually told me to through out specs with VO.

And in general, I hate VO anyway. It's lazy. And most of the time it's used by lazy writers adapting books who don't know how to translate the writer's style, mood and tone without that crutch (this is true even of films I like such Fight Club and Wonder Boys). I've never seen a film where I thought the VO made it better.

VO should be used to save films that are a mess, such as Apocalypse Now. It's a tool in a director's tool box when everything else goes wrong and by writing it into the script, you take away that tool and hamstring the director. Also, for actors and directors, trying to shoot around VO is extremely creatively limiting. They cannot creative their own beats, their own timing - the editor is forced to edit to the timing and beats of the VO despite the actor's timing on the set. Just trust your actors, I swear, if they are good, they can portray all this stuff for you without the disembodied voice of god.

If I want to have someone read me a novel while I look at pictures, I'll just read a picture book.

Ouch, pez-dispensor-spelled-backwards-incorrectly-or-correct-but-the-British-spelling! Methinks thou dost protest over much.

Treat this forum like un salon bleu - don't get mad - enjoy the fierce discussion. It's invigorating.

(Although, judging by the size of that swimming pool I'll admit Hillgate's advice is something I'd never, ever question... that's assuming each cubic foot or so represents the sale of a screenplay!)

talking to myself · Apr 19, 2011

Plot Device said:
Don't forget to have additional flashbacks WITHIN flashbacks.

Ooh! Ooh! Yeah! Or a DREAM within a DREAM!

You are prescient, PD!

dpaterso · Apr 23, 2011

Nothing wrong with bumping an old thread, but if you're quoting and replying to specific posts, best check the dates first.

-Derek

ricetalks · May 4, 2011

zeprosnepsid said:
Not a problem, since I don't like any of those films. Nor do I like Sunset Blvd. or To Kill A Mockingbird or many big name movies with VO.

But yeah, established writers and directors can do whatever they want obviously and we are obviously not talking about that. It's extremely well known that newbies should not do voice over and anyone who does hasn't done their homework. You could be the most talented basketball player in the world, but if you don't know the rules, you will not be able to play the game professionally. Just follow the rules. My bosses actually told me to through out specs with VO.

.

Huh. It's good thing I didn't know this rule before I sent my script to The Nicholls' competition a few years ago. It might not have finished as a semi-finalist. Oh, well. I know better now.

ricetalks · May 4, 2011

Plot Device said:
Wow. You are so ... wrong.

This film generated a LOT of pre-release buzz within the industry because it was coming from boy genius George Lucas. There were rumors that he was doing something totally new with special effects, so what few industry SFX professionals there were at the time were interested in seeing it on opening weekend. There were rumors he was doing something new with sound, so the whole sound end of the industry was likewise interested in seeing it on opening weekend. As for the general public, the movie quite lovingly harkened back to the old serials of the 1930's and 40's, and so it enjoyed a degree of praise from older people quite uncustomary for sci-fi. And it's original inspiration was a mixture of Lord of the Rings and Dune. It was NOT a silly fantasy for children.

Star Wars was a history-making film. It broke box office records left and right. The lines were wrapped around the block to see it. The critics absolutely loved it. It changed Hollywood instantly --instantly. All of Hollywood was suddenly out to make sci-fi space fanatsy. The 1978 TV series Battlestar Galactica got the green light because of Star Wars. The industry of SFX didn't even truly exist as an official "industry" UNTIL Star Wars gave birth to it. Star Wars was the first movie that was NOT a song and dance musical to get nominated for Best Sound. That movie just kept packing in crowds non stop for so many months on end that it was held-over for an entire year at many movie theatres--a year! It perpetually played in theates for a year! And the lines simply would not stop.

I rarely see anyone come onto these boards who doesn't know what they are talking about, but you just SOOOO totally do not even know what you are talking about.

I guess I'm in good company because William Goldman also didn't think much of it.

clockwork · May 5, 2011

Eh... let's not poke the ghosts of arguments past.

Curious - (V.O.), (O.S.) and (O.C.)

nmstevens

What happened?

WriteKnight

Arranger Of Disorder

platinumscript

Jeffrey Pace

Team 2012

nmstevens

What happened?

wordmonkey

ook

iforgot120

Simply Dan

talking to myself

New Fish; Learning About Thick Skin

talking to myself

New Fish; Learning About Thick Skin

dpaterso

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels

ricetalks

ricetalks

clockwork

In the zone...