Why does everyone hate voice-over?

[bottomlesscup]

“Never use voice-over.”

It’s one of the big non-rule rules. Sure, everybody says it with a bunch of qualifiers, but everybody says it: the gurus, the readers, and the generous “Script Pages” snipers at DD.

Well, I call bullsh1t.

I started thinking about the issue because I’m writing a script with VO, something I’ve never done before. It doesn’t need VO. I’m not even entirely sure why I used it. The words came easy and felt right.

I put some pages up at DD a while back and while it was generally praised (including the VO), everybody still had to get the anti-VO barbs in. “I hate voice-over, but…” etc.

Consider this: of imdb’s top 250 movies, at least 45 of them use VO. (I haven’t seen all of them and didn’t count incidental VO – like Obi-wan’s “Use the force, Luke.”) Nearly 20% of the greatest films of all time use this technique, yet it’s almost universally reviled.

What’s the deal? Why does everybody hate voice-over so much?

I’m guessing the first answer will be: “Because new writers misuse it so much and write crappy voice-over. “ No doubt about that. But you can say the same about dialogue, action lines, structure, character, and subtext. I don’t see anyone telling nubes not to write dialogue.

If they’re misusing the technique, they should be advised in how to use it properly, not told to abandon it. I reject the notion that VO is a “big kid toy” that new writer’s should keep their hands off. If amateurs seek to become professionals, they should aspire to master all the tools of screenwriting. To my mind, that includes voice-over.

If it just sucks, well, let’s face it: if you can’t write a decent VO, you probably can’t write a decent screenplay. This rule is of no genuine help to a naïve writer.

The second most common justification I see is that only certain, rare movies need voice-over. I agree, in part. Certainly, Die Hard has no use for it. But no one every tries to enumerate what these rare movies might be.

Look at “The Shawshank Redemption.” It’s one of the most beloved films in cinema history and uses a voice-over extensively. Does it need it? No As far as I can remember, the voice-over never directly reveals vital information. The basic storyline could easily be told without the VO. However, the voice-over dramatically improves the quality and tone of the film.

For instance, the Aria sequence is a simple scene fully explained by the music and the visuals. Even without the monologue, it would be a beautiful, cinematic scene. However, Freeman’s voice-over elevates the moment immensely, making it, in my opinion, one of the most moving scenes in one of the finest films ever. Had Darabont followed the rule and removed this “unnecessary” voice-over, the film would have been much worse.

(And don’t tell me, “Yeah, but we’re not Frank Darabont.” That’s a specious argument. Why even try to write if you accept that you’ll never be great?)

In most of those 45 movies, the VO is not strictly necessary. But in all of them, it adds to the quality of film. Not all movies can be improved with a voice-over, but some can. It’s a question of tone and choice.

So, I’m going to come right out and say it: Voice-over is a valuable tool. It can make a good script great. Aspiring writers would do well to master its use.

Debate away.

[kojled]

blc

thing about rules: if you don't like them you are free not to follow them. write in any fashion you want. if you break a bunch of rules you run the risk of never working but...it's a free country, yes? do what you want


zilla

[bottomlesscup]

z-

Agreed. I'm writing my rule-breaking script with total confidence.

My point wasn't to ask permission. I'm wondering why this "rule" is a rule, given the number of great films that break it.

[joecalabre]

Of those 45 great films with voice overs. how many were spec sales from a newcomer? Answer-- none.

10,000 to 15,000 scripts are registered with the WGA each year and less that 450 films make it in a theater.

It's sad but true-- you are in the majority of scripts that will not be made. Partially because of the "holier than thou" attitude that many new writers have.

If Mamet, Goldman or Logan wrote scripts with Voice Overs, Flashbacks, etc, it would be assumed that they knew what they were doing and the reader would read it gladly.

If you or any Joe Shmoe did they same, it is assumed that you doesn't know what your doing and the reader would be so weary about reading the script that it would paint a negative picture on the read, regardless of how good the script is.

So go ahead and write a 400 page script with voice overs and bound with a spiral bound on flaming red card stock. It may be the next great script, but I doubt it will make it past the trash can.

[joecalabre]

OK. Now that I ranted and got it off my chest, let me tell you the reason why you should be so worried about rules.

Voice overs can be an effective tool but a tricky one to master. Many times they are not needed and are used to flavor the story, but many new writers use them as a cop out for what should be in the story with action or dialog. The same holds true for Flashbacks.

The books should not say "don't," but rather "be careful" to do it for the right reasons.

But be warned. many readers hate reading scripts by newcomers because odds are they will suck. Don't give them a reason to hate your script before they finish it.

When I did coverage, the first thing I did was quickly flip through and see if anything stood out. It's human nature. If I saw a lot of Flashbacks, VO, etc.. I would say to myself "Oh God. Not another one." Sure, there were times I was happily surprised, but many times I wasn't. If they weren't in there-- who knows. I might have given them a consider instead of a pass.

[bottomlesscup]

you are in the majority of scripts that will not be made. Partially because of the "holier than thou" attitude that many new writers have.

Go easy, friend. I'm not trying to sound "holier" than anybody. I'm asking a reasonable question and trying to spark debate about a topic I genuinely want to know people's opinions about. No reason to get nasty.

And yes, statistics strongly suggest it won't sell, but those statistics are just as grim without the VO.

So go ahead and write a 400 page script with voice overs and bound with a spiral bound on flaming red card stock.

I'm not suggesting anybody break all the rules. Page limits exist for a very good reason. Fancy bindings are superfluous and break conventions.

All I'm saying is, I don't think VO should be the kiss of death everyone says it is.

it is assumed that you doesn't know what your doing and the reader would be so weary about reading the script that it would paint a negative picture on the read, regardless of how good the script is.

So a reader would throw out a great script, just because it has voice-over? Does that make any sense? Is it absolutely impossible to sell a spec with VO in it?


EDITED TO ADD: Ack! Your response beat mine. Thanks for the clarification.

[kojled]

blc

the reason vo so objectionable is that it's, typically, a sign that the script is lousy. why is this? don't know. maybe it's because it's a sign the writer is lousy. why is this? don't know

many great films have used vo, yes. if you're writing a script on this level which has vo, fine. bottom line - you may write in any manner you see fit. if you produce a great script which breaks rules, well then, you've scored. if you don't, well then...

very few new writers want to do what has proven to be successful (meaning following the rules of structure). following the rules of good structure is for successful writers, not, so much, for wannabes.

to look at it another way: top writers are very constrained in how they may work. screenwriting is extremely disciplined. wannabes, on the other hand, have the luxury of working in any manner they see fit. the two groups approach their work in very different ways. this separates them. there are other factors which separate the successful pro writers from the rebelious wannabes - money, career, screen credit, (etc)

forge on. perhaps you will become known as the writer whose vo style was so compelling that every new movie utilizes vo. but, perhaps you will become known for nothing


z

[Vigorish9]

it's almost lore, the idea behind the voiceover and who should or shouldn't do it. if you can write, you can write.

bottle can write. his voice over was good, cause it was written well. the reason why so many movies are in voice over is because in the hands of a seasoned writer the voice over can take hold of the audience.

good voice over is like being good looking. you either got it or you don't. in many instances i wash out the voice over and make it into dialogue for the characters.

the voice over debate is hardlined by the people who still thiink jaws had a motive.

vig

[Noah1]

Geez, how many boards are you gonna post this question on? 3 so far, right?

Are you just trying to increase the number of chances that someone will agree with you?

[Vigorish9]

i would think that he's posting it to get everybodies opinion. i'm sure there are plenty of people who don't visit all three boards.

i for one never used to post anywhere else but that yellow board. noah, this is the kind of pestilence that will keep you from becoming a moderator.

v9

[bottomlesscup]

Sheesh, opty. I posted it on two boards. A lot of people who frequent this board don't visit the other one. Chill out, man.

[William Haskins]

i think it's because voice over can sometimes indicate indicate a more narrative (novelesque) approach to a script, and that often times it's taken too far, because it can so easily become a crutch.

i also think because, in many cases, vo is a device thrown in at the last minute on films that have gone off the tracks in editing, a sort of "last ditch" effort to salvage something out of it.

i actually like a good vo every now and then, but i avoid it in my scripts (for now).

but, bottomless, i think you have enough skills and intelligence to use it wisely, so follow your vision and damn the torpedoes.

[Noah1]

Sorry, dude. Got this thread confused with Scripter's.

Anyway, I agree with Big Willy Hask. I enjoy a good V.O. every now and again, but in terms of newbie scripts, VO is irritating because it's nearly never done well.

Reason is because the person, as William said, uses VO as a crutch - a Band-Aid to cover up their lack of good storytelling.

Of course, that's not always the case, but it is in most.

I've even read bad VO in pro scripts (i.e. Slackers). It was unnecessary and poorly done, IMO.

But, it's just another tool in the screenwriter's tool kit. Unfortunately, we have too many aspirant screenwriters who use the wrong tools for the wrong jobs because they don't know how to operate any of them.

[bottomlesscup]

Man, Slackers was a bad, bad movie. I still haven't forgiven Jason Schwartzmen (sp?) for that one.

But it serves as a decent example of what I'm trying to say:

Bottomline, bad voice-over is a symptom of bad writing, not of the inherent evil of voice-over.


WH: Thanks and will do. By the by, your new site is mighty spiffy. Not to side-track my own thread, but how do they hire scriptwriters for games? I assume there's no spec market there. Is it in-house? Do they call agents up?

[Writing Again]

I think the industry's negative reaction to voice over is a direct result of the audience's negative reaction: Most people react poorly to it even when well done.

I think what it does is tend to remind the audience that they are watching a movie -- Jolts them back to reality. The audience does not like it therefore Hollywood likes it even less.

[William Haskins]

bottomlesscup,

thanks for the kind words about the site. until very recently, game writers have almost exclusively been in-house, working on staff at the development studio or publisher. there's a trend towards recruiting name writers through agencies now, but it's a slow convergence. mostly, like hollywood, it's a networking and track-record thing.

best of luck with your script.

-william

[moviemaestro]

Well, bottomless, I for one happen to agree with you all the way.
I would like to add that VO only works if you use it consistently throughout the script. I always find it odd when a movie that we've been watching sans VO suddenly jumps into it, whereas movies like Memento or Shawshank or Adaptation use it right off the bat. Then it "feels", to me at least, like just another natural element to the film, in other words, the opening of the movie is going to set up the film's storytelling style, and VO just happens to be a part of that.

-Movie Maestro

[Stylianou]

i think that V.O can be considered 'Lazy'. i think people want to know whats in the characters head through his/her actions and relationships and not by having a direct and unrealistic link to his/her mind. i say unrealistic beceause who talks to themselves in there heads, like they're telling a story to them selves?

i think the only way a voice over can really work is if the story is told as a story. or as a written memoir or journal of a character. or in American beauty's case, as an enlightend dead person.

the shawshank redemption to me is told as a story by Freeman. its like we've sat down in front of a fire with morgan and he's telling us of his friendship with the protaganist of the film. Also Morgans kick as voice is like ear candy!

so v.o should not be frowned upon unless it is mis used.

[kojled]

stylianou

how wonderfully simplistic. unfortunately, your conclusion could be applied to almost anything. as in: '(fill in the blank)' shouldn't be frowned upon unless it's used improperly

i suppose i agree. lets see - flashbacks, time travel, inserts, transitions, camera directions, dual protagonists, long blocks of dialogue, short blocks of dialogue, characters who 'roll their eyes' when they think something is silly, parentheticals, skimpy action, over described action, portraiture, weak antagonists, comic book drama, sappy endings, open endings, closed endings, cheap jokes, asides, etc should not be frowned upon unless they are used improperly. there. yes. that works.

you've made a believer out of me


zilla

[Stylianou]

patronising, but fair enough.

i would like to thank you all for this discussion people. i went home and realized that touch of voice over was the missing ingredient from my story. it works wonderfully well if i do say so my self, so great, thanks everyone. who needs Robert Makee when i have this place!

[NikeeGoddess]

great voice-over:

Morgan Freeman in Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby - they were pretty much that same character

Bobby DeNiro as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver

Jack Nicholson as Schmidt in About Schmidt

study these characters. notice how they're lonely people with no one to honestly talk to about their feelings. they have no window character to bounce back on their conversation. they speak to us to reveal what's going on in their head. if you use voice over, your character must be a lonely individual like them. or maybe he can just be a neurotic character that talks outloud to himself.

write on!

[Noah1]

if you use voice over, your character must be a lonely individual like them. or maybe he can just be a neurotic character that talks outloud to himself.
*sigh*

:rolleyes

[desmas]

You practicly answered your own question. Which is yes VO's are frowned upon for good reason but a skilled writer can use them any way and still produce a hit.

You should see Adaptation. Funny movie!

Anyways remember there are no rules or regulation in Screenwriting. Screenwriting is an art and there are really no rules in art.

VO are discouraged for good reason. Many writers missuse the technique.

So what about ShawShank VO galour and a tremendous hit?

Turn off the volume when you watch the movie and tell me if it makes sense. If it does than the movie never needed a VO at all and the writer added it for decoration.

A proper VO never substitutes for the visual story. One should only use a VO when he/she wants to add color to the movie.

But to the unskilled writer a VO is a cop out in easy fix.

It is much much harder to write a story without it. ANd I stress that everyone learns to write a solid story without VO before they start incorporating it into their arsenal of skills.

Any how do what you want it's your screenplay.

[madaboutrabbits]

In reply to kojled (guest)

The end sentence is a paradox. You cannot be known for nothing - because then you are known for 'something'. Sorry to nit-pick but i love paradox.

Also if 20% of the biggest films use the technique then surely that disproves the point about top writers being 'constrained'. They aren't constrained because they do indeed use VO

[kojled]

mar

you have a sharp sharp mind


z

[Alphabeter]

For me, a VO works when the story is understandable without it.

The VO should be a seasoning, not a main ingredient.

[Anatole Ghio]

I think this topic is a fascinating one, since it's the one area where some of the techniques of fiction writing merge with cinema.

The original question, "never use voice over" is, I believe, something of a straw man... I don't think anyone will question that voice over has been used effectively many times before. However, if the question is "how can I use voice over" then I think it's a much more fruitful area for discussion.

In narrative fiction, voice over is in essence first person narrative. For the printed word, it requires very little suspension of disbelief and is a technique used to increase reader association into the story. When reading a novel written in first person, one can easily assume one of two things: 1) we are directly in the mind of the narrator, or 2) the narrator is somehow addressing us, the reader. In either case, the reader makes the leap of disbelief by filling in the blanks of how we are either in the mind of the narrator, or how we are being addressed by the narrator. This is a little like riding a bicycle, once we have made the first cognitive leap into how this technique could work for us, we always use this explanation subconsciously each time we again read a first person narrative, and we are not drawn out of the work by trying to figure out how to make this narrative leap.

For cinema, voice over is a distancing technique and takes the viewer out of the world on the screen. As soon as we hear voice over, we are pulled out of the screen image essentially because the camera eye does not match the voice over eye. How many films can you name where the voice over eye and the camera eye were the same? I can name one of the top of my head, and that's it. This mismatch causes the viewer to pull back from the film and think about where the voice over is coming from, if not from the images on the screen. Oh yeah, it's an actor reading lines in some studio into a microphone.

Once this happens, the viewer is less emotional about the images on the screen. Now for some films where the subject is going to be somewhat disturbing, pulling the viewer back is a GOOD thing. I challenge anyone to say the voice over in Badlands doesn't add to the movie. In the film, we are presented with a serial killer and the world that Malick presents is one of casual violence. By putting us into the head of a young girl, we are given the chance to view this violence from the eyes of a more innocent character. This fits with the world view of most people i.e. they are innocent to the world of senseless cruelty, so it makes it easier for the director to proceed in showing us that world.

Voice over is also effective in presenting a moral viewpoint. We learn at the start of Sunset Blvd. that the main character is already dead. What we don't know is why he is dead. So by giving us the framework of the character telling us the events leading up to his death, we are given the idea that the reason he is telling us is to show us why this happened. To instruct us.

This idea that voice over is most effective when the world being presented is so chaotic that the viewer will be already distant and needs a guide in order to comprehend the events on the screen is one of the most common uses of voice over. Stand by Me, Thin Red Line... most of the films by Wong Kar Wai, all bring the viewer into a place where the world is different enough to be confusing, and the voice over becomes the way of ordering this confusing world.

Without this confusion, voice over would only detract from the movie on the screen. With this confusion, voice over becomes the way for the viewer to be "seduced" by something they normally wouldn't understand.

- Anatole

[IWrite]

I don't think that there is a bias against using voice overs in Hollywood - they are quite effective when done right and are not uncommon. But as pointed out, more often than not – voice overs are not done well and moreso with inexperienced writers. They are often used as a crutch for writers who cannot find a way to dramatize things through action. They are often used to get out exposition rather than to get out the exposition through the conflict within the story. They are often used to express thoughts and feelings.

The thing that you need to keep in mind when you are writing a spec (and I'm speaking as a Development Director, not a writer) is that when I read a script submitted by an agent or manager - I already have a presumption that if the writer has representation (and/or a credit) that he or she knows how to write a screenplay. However when I read a script from someone who is unrepped and has no credits – this is not the case. First and foremost I am reading to see if the writer can write or not and I can make that determination very quickly. Things like the use of voice overs are red flags for me. It’s a negative – and the writing has to be very, very strong to change that perception. My perception has rarely been changed – the voice over is almost always completely unnecessary – adding nothing to the story or storytelling – or it is a way of cheating to get information out.

A screenplay needs to work on the page as a good read as well as be able to translate to the screen. For a new writer it has the added burden of serving as an audition – showing that you know how to write a screenplay. I have nothing against voice overs – I’ve used them myself. But I would caution against using specs with voice overs to break into the business – save them for when you already have representation. Show that you can tell a story within the rules – because more often than not – it does not appear that you are breaking the rules – it just appears that you don’t have the ability to tell a story through action and dialogue.

[terryewalker]

I can't see why? because if you read The Definitive guide to SCREENWRITING by Syd Field Then that's your question or not your question. It get's confusing ?don't you'se this and don't you'se that. I don't see a problem with V.O. If people hate it so much then WHY teach it.????

[Joe Calabrese]

I have nothing against V.O.'s.

I think they are a great tool, but like any other tool there is a good time and a bad time to use them, based somewhat on experience.

I wouldn't let a child use a power saw and I wouldn't use one to trim my toenails, but back to VO's, I know so many writers who use them to make their character sound cool or to give back story, or to make boring action more interesting.

Mostly though it ends up looking bad because the only good reason to use a VO is when you have no other choice or you have made it an intergral part of the look, feel or structure of your story.

So use it if you can make it good and appropiate for your story.

[vig]

... but the people who decide your fate know what they know, and for them and us we must embrace the truth about what they want or don't want.

the only thing i'm convinced of is that each person is a separate and inclusive representation of themselves and the chance of you drawing a person who has no bias towards vo is it's own possibilty.

in another stand alone statement i would say that most if not all execs and peope with greenlight powers know that besides the screenwriter, and possible some beatnics that a well down voice over does not take the movie watcher out of the film, because the average movie goer, the people who do not go to a movie and break it's beats down are always striving for the story to be told by voicover because that is what they identify with... it is how we communicate, we talk to one another... voice over gives the AVERAGE MOVIE goer a chance to be part of the movie, it feels like they are including you in on the conversation... check out the top 100 movies of all time in gross, i think 30 of them are voice over... that may not be right, but it's close enough to draw conclusions...

it is so much more complicated than the first impression, and you can deduct many, many different conclusions on the verying degrees of data... so, on my closing statement....

if you are a newbie and you are writing voice over the odds of you creating, evoking the pathos needed to properly move the powers to be, to greenlight your script, are the lowest percentages in the industry, i would say, for spec scripts purchased in the last five years... however, the good voiceovers may, if they get by the screening, might have a better chance to be produced.

i have yet told a story in voice over that i haven't stripped out of the script, and for that matter, up unil last year, i hadn't started a story without it....

so, i hope you can take away from what i am saying is that nobody knows anything, but they know what they know on their own iintensive case study of themselves.

good luck, may the voice over be with you

vig

[Anatole Ghio]

in another stand alone statement i would say that a well down voice over does not take the movie watcher out of the film, because the average movie goer, the people who do not go to a movie and break it's beats down are always striving for the story to be told by voicover because that is what they identify with... it is how we communicate, we talk to one another... voice over gives the AVERAGE MOVIE goer a chance to be part of the movie, it feels like they are including you in on the conversation...

vig

Yes, we all naturally identify with voice over because all of us think!

However, none of us view life through crane shots, dissolves, jump cuts, with appropiate back ground music etc.

That's why it brings you out of the movie, becuase the visual information never matches the aural information.

- Anatole

[vig]

that's your opinion, it brings you out of the movie. but me, and millions of others who can handle looking at something and hearing something and assimilating it is not difficult.

this is subjective to you, but in reality, the voice over has proven to be a valubable tool, and it is used in at last 2-10 movies produced today

vig

[NGANO]

I don't know if I agree with this, A Million Dollar baby had great VOs and they drove the story forward in a very natural fashion. I've seen many audiences react positively toward this technique. Or maybe it's just Morgan Freeman can make the phone book sound like a good story. - your take

[Anatole Ghio]

I don't know if I agree with this, A Million Dollar baby had great VOs and they drove the story forward in a very natural fashion. I've seen many audiences react positively toward this technique. Or maybe it's just Morgan Freeman can make the phone book sound like a good story. - your take

Haven't seen the film, but to use another Morgan Freeman example... The Shawshank Redemption.

My original point was VO is most effective is presenting a world different from the one the viewer inhabits. It can bring the viewer closer to a subject they might normally feel distant from. In the film, we are presented the world of the prison, a place a good number of viewers have never been to and hope to never go to. By giving one of the felons the role of being the eyes of the audience, we tend to feel more sympathy for that character, and it makes it easier for the audience to go into that world. So even though Morgan's character has done something wrong in the past, we naturally sympathize with him, since he is our eyes and ears into this world.

Again, VO brings the viewer out when presented into a situation that is already familiar to the viewer, but helps to bring the viewer closer to a subject they might normally feel distant from.

[madaboutrabbits]

Someone said earlier "i think that V.O can be considered 'Lazy'. i think people want to know whats in the characters head through his/her actions and relationships"

To me, Voice-over is a easy way to quickly establish character at the beginning of a film. So in one way it is lazy, but if you want to cut quickly to the meat of the story - instead of building beatifully-crafted dialogue that builds character skillfully over 20 minutes and bores the pants off a Bond / Robocop / Stallone audience - then it's a technique or tool that can 'shortcut' a slow passage. It is also a tool for bridging scenes, and explaining passage of time, etc.

Someone also says "i say unrealistic beceause who talks to themselves in there heads, like they're telling a story to them selves?"

What we forget is that a movie is a story in pictures. Would you throw a novel down because it has a narrator's voice? Would you say an author that uses a narrator is Lazy? Staunch Anti-VO critics would have to start throwing away most of their favourite books. Voice-over is analogous with the narrator in written word. It is a sneak-preview, a vehicle to deposit the hook to draw the audience in (for example the hook in American Beauty - where Spacey's character tells you he's dead, right at the start. You want to know why, and that drags you into the film. Try delivering that same hook in the same length of time as his voice-over, giving the same insight into his character. And you're going to find it hard. How can your dead character show us through his deeds and relationships that he's dead. He's dead, there are no deeds and relationships to demonstrate. You can have a funeral, but it doesn't have the same impact as Spacey's voice from the after-life.)

Another point is that VO establishes an intimacy with the aufience. Watching someone do something is a passive one-way experience, you are a voyeur only seeing the portions of a life that the writer / director decide to show. VO makes you feel part of it, it breaks the barrier of the screen. It includes you. VO continues the great round the fire story-telling traditions. It's an illusion of intimacy.

True, all film is illusion - but some means of creating illusion works better than others. i have a feeling that - like Point-of-View swaps in novels - it is the 'trendy' thing to look down upon. A kind of 'we don't use that, only amateurs use that, because they don't know any better' In ten years time, some of you critics will hail VO as indispensable. Unfortunately, fashion and art do go hand in hand where it counts (the producer's office).

I think we all agree that the problem comes when VO is used badly, BUT you've all seen crap dialogue, plot, flashbacks, and scene transitions (like those terrible arty 60's style scene wipes in Starship Troopers) but i don't hear anyone wanting to abolish those movie tools because someone misused them.

VO is just another tool not a means of determining whether one piece of writing is better than another. That is simply disguised elitism - a form of intellectual snobbery.

[Joe Calabrese]

I think we all agree that the problem comes when VO is used badly, BUT you've all seen crap dialogue, plot, flashbacks, and scene transitions (like those terrible arty 60's style scene wipes in Starship Troopers) but i don't hear anyone wanting to abolish those movie tools because someone misused them.


But if your script has bad dialog, flashbacks, etc... then it won't get considered, just as bad VO's will damage an otherwise good script.

I don't say not to use VO. Use them for the right reasons and make it stand above the crap that is out there.

The biggest reason people and books and so called experts say not to is because more often than not they are done badly by novices.

Even some great films with VO in it didn't start that way. In Sideways, the letter VO at the end was not in the original script (draft) it was added much later to fix a hole created by some edits.

[Lady Brick]

It seems that a number of examples of good VO are in film adaptations of novels that try to preserve the original flavor of the novel in film form. Other than that and establishing a difference in time between the telling and the events of the story, I can't think of a time I would personally use VO. Never have, but I wouldn't swear off it either.

[Joe Calabrese]

Letters tend to lend themselves nicely to VO's. That's the only time I have done it.

[maestrowork]

It really depends on the film: the theme, subject matter, mood, structure, etc. I wouldn't use VO for "Aliens vs. Predators." But the VO in Joy Club Club, for example, is pretty well done, IMO.


But yes, if I could get away from using VO, I would. I think it does take you away from the story -- a sort of "omniscient storyteller" moment... it works best if you do have an narrator like that (e.g. Joy Luck Club, Stand By Me or Sunset Blvd) Otherwise, use sparingly or not at all.

[NGANO]

But if your script has bad dialog, flashbacks, etc... then it won't get considered, just as bad VO's will damage an otherwise good script.

I don't say not to use VO. Use them for the right reasons and make it stand above the crap that is out there.

The biggest reason people and books and so called experts say not to is because more often than not they are done badly by novices.

Even some great films with VO in it didn't start that way. In Sideways, the letter VO at the end was not in the original script (draft) it was added much later to fix a hole created by some edits.

I considered this subject last night as I was working on my current spec and it hit me. You guys are right. My VOs were totally unnecessary and I could easily relay to the reader(audience) the emotions and other intangibles that the VOs were trying to fill in. I could use other character dialoge, action, etc and it actually helped to move the story along smoother. I think a sreenwriter should always read their VO scipt in the first act and see if they are trully neccesary. Good thing I only got 30 pages into the script. Thanx