question about voice overs???

[kitt]

I read that you should never use voice over. I have a few scenes where I use voice over but the other person can hear them, like mind reading. Is a voice over still the right term? Should I not use this at all and just have them talk. I use this as a tool to show the deep connection between these two characters, and to show that they are not in the real world.

[dpaterso]

If the other person hears their V.O. thoughts, as you describe, and there's other stuff going on between them, that seems like pretty good justification for using V.O. The general advice against V.O. has to do with aspiring writers using this as a lazy method of delivering information to the audience, rather than showing this through visual action and sparkling dialogue. But never is too strong a word. If V.O. fits then by all means use it. But step back first and judge whether it's the best way to go.

Welcome to the forum.

-Derek

[razormoney]

Shawshank Redemption
Memento
Snatch
Glory

and what I consider the best movie ever...

The Usual Suspects

Therefore, it is quite obtuse to say that you should never use voiceover. As Dpat says, use it if it's needed. In the examples above, the VO was required. How else do you get the contents of Col Shaw's letters home to the viewers? You don't want them to have to read them. And Verbal Kint's descriptions of his cohorts are designed to make you believe his story, his "persona" -- a kind of voice over sleight-of-hand. How much better did Red's insights make the story flow in Shawshank? A work of art.

So, VO is a strong tool when used right. Just make sure it is the right place and right time. If there's another way to get the info across to the audience try it. Be creative. But like you said, "never" is a strong word. So don't be afraid of voice overs.

R

[nganok]

...some sort of script note that tells the reader that a certain character can hear the voices.

[Write_At_1st_Light]

Shawshank Redemption
Memento
Snatch
Glory

and what I consider the best movie ever...

The Usual Suspects
Hey Razor -

You forgot a big huge enormous giant one:

Sunset Boulevard

And it's even better, because it is ABOUT screenwriting!!!

EVERYBODY who aspires to write scripts MUST see Sunset Boulevard. No excuses ;-)

"Then I called two yes-men from Metro. To me, they said No."

[Goodwriterguy]

Shawshank Redemption
Memento
Snatch
Glory

and what I consider the best movie ever...

The Usual Suspects
"Apocalypse Now."

There are literally hundreds of examples.

Like anything else (any other device), judicious use is the key.

[Celia Cyanide]

The general advice against V.O. has to do with aspiring writers using this as a lazy method of delivering information to the audience, rather than showing this through visual action and sparkling dialogue. But never is too strong a word.

I agree with this. It does often happen that someone uses voiceover because they're telling and not showing, but that doesn't mean that voiceover doesn't have it's place in certain films. I don't like it when people are against using voiceover just because. I think telepathy is a perfectly legitimate reason to use it. Bu like nganok said, I don't know if you would necessarily call it V.O. in the script. I do think V.O. implies non-diagetic dialog, while telepathy is diagetic.

The only script I can think of where they would use voiceover in such a way would be Memento Mori, but that script was written in Korean. Maybe someone else can suggest a script she could read that would show how this is expressed in a script. I thought of Firestarter, but I don't think they actually used a voiceover to indicate the telepathy.

[Goodwriterguy]

I agree with this. It does often happen that someone uses voiceover because they're telling and not showing, but that doesn't mean that voiceover doesn't have it's place in certain films. I don't like it when people are against using voiceover just because. I think telepathy is a perfectly legitimate reason to use it. Bu like nganok said, I don't know if you would necessarily call it V.O. in the script. I do think V.O. implies non-diagetic dialog, while telepathy is diagetic.

The only script I can think of where they would use voiceover in such a way would be Memento Mori, but that script was written in Korean. Maybe someone else can suggest a script she could read that would show how this is expressed in a script. I thought of Firestarter, but I don't think they actually used a voiceover to indicate the telepathy.
VO indicates that the dialogue to which it is appended is to be heard "over" the scene and may thus be recorded at a time different from when the scene is shot. But I don't think it ascribes any particular character or quality to the dialogue vis-a-vis whether it is telepathic, the character's inner monologue, the voice of a narrator, or whatever. I think a writer has to convey this through other means, including by implication or inference or context if nothing else, if it isn't otherwise patently obvious.

[dpaterso]

(V.O.) works for me, if we're voting, since the actor is unlikely to be a skilled ventriloquist, ergo the lines will have to be recorded and dubbed. I might combine an extension with a parenthetical, e.g.

CHUCK (V.O.)
(to Anne via telepathy)
Watch out, he's waiting for you,
he has a gun!

Ugh. But depending on who the character is thinking "at" some extra clarity might be needed.

-Derek

[English Dave]

Never say never........again.


Is the use of VO effective? If it is then go for it.

But think carefully.

[razormoney]

Hey Razor -

You forgot a big huge enormous giant one:

Sunset Boulevard

And it's even better, because it is ABOUT screenwriting!!!

EVERYBODY who aspires to write scripts MUST see Sunset Boulevard. No excuses ;-)

"Then I called two yes-men from Metro. To me, they said No."

I must admit I have not seen "Sunset." It's going into my Blockbuster queue ASAPly.

R

[English Dave]

I must admit I have not seen "Sunset." It's going into my Blockbuster queue ASAPly.

R

That's a really good idea. Even better, get the script.

[Write_At_1st_Light]

I must admit I have not seen "Sunset." It's going into my Blockbuster queue ASAPly.

R
Very very cool, Raze. I think of ALL the flicks I have seen - this one has the MOST voiceover. And of course performed by William Holden it is spot on.

But this flick is one of that small group of "must see" films that is for everyone. It's just an extra bonus for us that the lead character - William Holden - plays a screenwriter. And we get to see the problems screenwriters faced back when that flick was made. 1950. It was impossible then. It's just even that much more impossible now...

You get sick (if you're the nostalgic type like me) when you see the sequences with Schwab's Pharmacy. Because they tore that down...

JOE
You're Norma Desmond! You used to be in silent pictures - used to be big!

NORMA
I AM big! It's the pictures that got small!

JOE
Go on, tell her Max! Tell her who writes those fan letters! Tell her it's YOU, Max! Tell her there isn't going to be any picture with DeMille!

MAX
Madame was the greatest star of them all.

JOE
Funny how gentle people get with you, once you're dead.

NORMA
You see this is my life. It always will be, there's nothing else. Just us. The cameras, and those wonderful people out there in the dark. All right Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my closeup.

[BottomlessCup]

The prohibition against VO is silly.

Newbie writers tend to write crappy VO, but newbie writers tend to write crappy scripts, period. You learn to write good dialog by writing bad dialog; you learn to write good VO by writing bad VO.

And if you can write good VO, there's no reason not to use it.

The "RULE" is just people parroting a rule they heard other people say. It makes no sense. It's worth noting that, on any list of "great movies", there's a high perccentage of movies which use VO.


As for your format Q, I'd definitely label it as voice over. From a practical standpoint, it'll be recorded and processed the same as VO.

[blackbird]

I think VO works particularly well in films that use some method of storytelling as the framework. Examples (some of the best films I know of that employ VO):

Dances With Wolves (because the MC is reciting events from his journal)
Little Big Man
Interview With the Vampire
Forrest Gump (in all three films, the MC is "telling" his life story to a listener)
The Color Purple (in which MC Celie is "telling" her story via a series of letters to God)
The Joy Luck Club (in which a group of women are each recounting their life stories to the audience)

Also, films that are adaptations of novels written as first-person narratives are especially effective candidates. For example, I think Peter Hedges's What's Eating Gilbert Grape? (adapted from his novel) uses VO quite effectively in the openeing scenes as a means of grounding the viewer in the story. The opening VO segment is taken almost verbatim from the novel, but it is only used briefly, as mentioned, to establish the setting and main characters, so for me it works.

All of the many fine films that have been listed in this thread are proof that VO can be used effectively. I think the problem-as others have pointed out-is that the device can be so easily misused, especially when it becomes a substitute for real action or visuals. As with any writing technique, it requires skill and finesse to do it well.

[Goodwriterguy]

I think VO works particularly well in films that use some method of storytelling as the framework. Examples (some of the best films I know of that employ VO):

Dances With Wolves (because the MC is reciting events from his journal)
Little Big Man
Interview With the Vampire
Forrest Gump (in all three films, the MC is "telling" his life story to a listener)
The Color Purple (in which MC Celie is "telling" her story via a series of letters to God)
The Joy Luck Club (in which a group of women are each recounting their life stories to the audience)

Also, films that are adaptations of novels written as first-person narratives are especially effective candidates. For example, I think Peter Hedges's What's Eating Gilbert Grape? (adapted from his novel) uses VO quite effectively in the openeing scenes as a means of grounding the viewer in the story. The opening VO segment is taken almost verbatim from the novel, but it is only used briefly, as mentioned, to establish the setting and main characters, so for me it works.

All of the many fine films that have been listed in this thread are proof that VO can be used effectively. I think the problem-as others have pointed out-is that the device can be so easily misused, especially when it becomes a substitute for real action or visuals. As with any writing technique, it requires skill and finesse to do it well.
Well said!

Where did the "prohibition" come from?

A little history here -- in 1992 CNN ran a feature piece on screenwriting. Naturally enough, the piece focused on a couple of writers who had allegedly sold work for big dollars and so the theme of the show was "the fastest, biggest money that can be made." Two million people across the land decided to take a crack at it, everyone has a great idea for a movie, right? Everyone and their mother decided they too could write a movie and make a fortune.

This unleashed a torrent of new scripts that hit Hollywood like a tsunami. Registrations at the WGA took off; entries into events like the Nicholl Screenplay contest took off, agencies, studios, and prodcos were swamped with a rising flood of new material.

The Nicholl stats reveal this flood, hardly 500 entries in the late 80's to 2,000 in 1994 to 5,000 in 1999 to 6,000 in 2005 (these numbers aren't exact but they do approximate things).

The rather huge numbers that hit the ill-fated PGL contest and Triggerstreet were vestiges of this phenomenon.

99.8% of the new scripts that hit the industry were terrible, not worth the paper they were printed on or the brads with which they were bound. They had been written by untrained, unlearned, inexperienced wanna be's with little idea of the craft, so nobody was too surprised.

But the industry was hard pressed to cope with the flood. Agencies began closing their doors to submissions from unsold writers; studios and prodcos tightened up submission criteria, and the word spread that spec writers had better not use VO narratives, CUT TO:'s, flashbacks, and a host of other standard and commonly used techniques. This word spread because readers and d-people got sick and tired of seeing these techniques beat to death in the tsunami of lousy scripts with which they had been inundated.

The submission landscape was changed forever.

Until today it's all become so much urban myth, all these "thou shalt nots" we hear so much about. A few that were around way before 1992 do hold today, page count, master scene form, two brads, you know the rest.

Aside from those few, the real "thou shalt not," which applies to us all, is "thou salt not attempt to submit a lousy screenplay" and it is this overriding "thou shalt not" that has real merit.

As you say, "it takes skill and finesse to do it well," and indeed it does.

Cheers!

[Solange Blue]

As with any writing technique, it requires skill and finesse to do it well.


But this is a forum about screenwriting, not finished films.

There are hundreds of examples of great films with voice overs... but very few, if any, that were made from spec scripts. It would be HORRIBLE advice to tell a new writer to go ahead and use voice over -- it's NOT just about writing technique, it's a serious red flag.

At my company, we won't read a script from a new writer with voice overs, PERIOD. We need to see if a writer can write action and dialogue in the context of a well-plotted story. Voice over is a big crutch and the sign of someone who doesn't know the business, or worse, thinks they can adapt their novel.

That being said, experienced (produced) writers can use all the voice over they want. I, personally, prefer it. In the hands of an experienced writer, it's a wonderful technique.

My job is the adaptation of literary properties into screenplays. Of the 28 produced screenplays I adapted, 26 incorporated voice over. A contradiction? No. Adaptations from literary works come with a built-in narrator's voice that lends itself to voice over. And the audience has come to expect this voice and to savor it. It is the reason they read the book, or story; it's one of the reasons they've gone to see the movie.

But my first original spec script had NO voice over. When that sold, I then used voice over in my next original script... because I like it and I use it well.

But new writers use it for all the same wrong reasons: 1) to lay out backstory and/or exposition, 2) to tell how the character(s) are feeling/thinking instead of showing through action and dialogue.

If I had any advice for a new screenwriter writing a spec script it would be:
1) DON'T use voice over
2) DON'T go over 110 pages
3) DON'T have a dialogue scene that goes on for more than 1 1/2 pages without something happening
4) Don't use voice over

[Celia Cyanide]

It would be HORRIBLE advice to tell a new writer to go ahead and use voice over -- it's NOT just about writing technique, it's a serious red flag.

So what should kitt do, then? Other than 'don't use voice overs,' do you have any advice? It's usually easy to work around narration, but how do you convey telepathy without voice over?

[Solange Blue]

So what should kitt do, then? Other than 'don't use voice overs,' do you have any advice? It's usually easy to work around narration, but how do you convey telepathy without voice over?

That's an interesting point and you are right: everything I said failed to address the question by the original poster.

Telepathic communication, "hearing voices", isn't the same as traditional voice overs -- it's an effect, almost a special effect, for a particular type of film, most often horror or supernatural suspense. It wouldn't be expository and it wouldn't be a cheat.

So, if this premise was established in a format and genre that supported it, it could be an inventive and interesting read.

How it would be written would depend on if the speaker was in the scene or not. I might be best if she were to post a couple of pages so that others can suggest the best technique to use.

Thank you CC for pointing that out.

[Goodwriterguy]

That's an interesting point and you are right: everything I said failed to address the question by the original poster.

Telepathic communication, "hearing voices", isn't the same as traditional voice overs -- it's an effect, almost a special effect, for a particular type of film, most often horror or supernatural suspense. It wouldn't be expository and it wouldn't be a cheat.

So, if this premise was established in a format and genre that supported it, it could be an inventive and interesting read.

How it would be written would depend on if the speaker was in the scene or not. I might be best if she were to post a couple of pages so that others can suggest the best technique to use.

Thank you CC for pointing that out.
Well, at least this much was said:


VO indicates that the dialogue to which it is appended is to be heard "over" the scene and may thus be recorded at a time different from when the scene is shot. But I don't think it ascribes any particular character or quality to the dialogue vis-a-vis whether it is telepathic, the character's inner monologue, the voice of a narrator, or whatever. I think a writer has to convey this through other means, including by implication or inference or context if nothing else, if it isn't otherwise patently obvious.

So that's a beginning which might help the original poster get to thinking about what he or she is gonna have to do to convey the idea that the voice we are hearing is telepathic and is being heard inside the mind of one of the (other) characters.

I think the manner in which the hearing character reacts will be the key because it will reveal what's happening. She hears (and we hear) a voice say "X" and she does "Y" and the two are probably gonna be correlated in some manner, thus telling us the voice is telepathic and she heard it in her head.

No doubt there's a lot of variations on the theme that would serve the purpose. Do we see the telepathic speaker? Is there are direct correlation to what's said and what's done, whether immediately or in the course of the scene?

Its been done ten-thousand times, surely the technique(s) is/are present in many screenplays.

[kitt]

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful imput. I am thinking about just removing it for safty's sake. It doesn't really have to be used, they could just as easily speak it. It was just a tool I was going to use to show deep connection, and it would be in what you could call a supernatural world. It wasn't being used for exposition, describing feelings, or any of the other no-no's. Just a tool, but again I think I'd rather be safe then sorry on such a small detail.

[dpaterso]

DEREK (V.O.)
(to kitt via telepathy)
Well okay, your choice. If you
can dump it so easily it can't
have been that vital anyway.
(telepathic chuckle)
I want a peanut.

-Derek

[Goodwriterguy]

DEREK (V.O.)
(to kitt via telepathy)
Well okay, your choice. If you
can dump it so easily it can't
have been that vital anyway.
(telepathic chuckle)
I want a peanut.

-Derek
Well sure, but ... you've just handed the problem off to your director, which may be okay we writers do this all the time. But ... I'd rather not myself. I'd prefer to at least take a stab at describing what happens on the screen to convey the telepathic nature of the dialogue to the audience. What do we hear? What do we see? Does that tell us what we need to know?

Yunno?

[BottomlessCup]

At my company, we won't read a script from a new writer with voice overs, PERIOD.

So, if the first page is spectacular, but has VO, you'll toss it without reading the rest?

That's a pretty stupid policy, isn't it?

[Solange Blue]

So, if the first page is spectacular, but has VO, you'll toss it without reading the rest?

That's a pretty stupid policy, isn't it?

Sigh. This is why pros tend to gravitate away from these boards.

No, it's not stupid: you're snide remark is stupid.

I'm telling you the way it is. There is always the chance that some brilliant work will be lost this way. But there has to be a way to sort through the thousands of unsolicited scripts that come in with the tide.

[BottomlessCup]

I didn't mean to be snide. Stupid was a poor word choice. (Stupid, even.)

It just seems like a waste to use such an arbritrary rule. You can tell in one page whether it's worth reading more. Why not use that as a standard instead of the arbritrary rule?

99.9% of the non-VO-using scripts are going to be awful, too. Why not read the VO-with-promise script?

It's a sincere question.

[dpaterso]

Well sure, but ... you've just handed the problem off to your director, which may be okay we writers do this all the time. But ... I'd rather not myself. I'd prefer to at least take a stab at describing what happens on the screen to convey the telepathic nature of the dialogue to the audience. What do we hear? What do we see? Does that tell us what we need to know?

That kinda goes without saying. Everything depends on the scene setup, are the two characters in the same location, are they communicating covertly while others are present, etc. This would have to be made clear in the script. Not too difficult.

INT. OPERATING THEATER - DAY

A team of masked SURGEONS and NURSES get ready to crack a MALE PATIENT who's hooked up to beeping machines.

SURGEON
Okay folks let's make this a quick
one, I've got an appointment with
a golf tee at three o'clock. Scalpel.

Nurse hands him a scalpel, Surgeon takes the blade to a dotted red line drawn over the patient's throat. Just as he's about to cut--

MAN'S VOICE (V.O.)
Please don't cut me open.

SURGEON
Say what?

Everyone looks at the Surgeon, puzzled. He glares at them, unamused.

SURGEON
Let's save the jokes for the locker
room, okay?

NURSE
I'm not sure what you mean, doctor.

...aaaaand, there goes the screenplay, sailing out the window, right into the garbage skip. Quite right, too. :)

-Derek

[Goodwriterguy]

That kinda goes without saying. Everything depends on the scene setup, are the two characters in the same location, are they communicating covertly while others are present, etc. This would have to be made clear in the script. Not too difficult.

INT. OPERATING THEATER - DAY

A team of masked SURGEONS and NURSES get ready to crack a MALE PATIENT who's hooked up to beeping machines.

SURGEON
Okay folks let's make this a quick
one, I've got an appointment with
a golf tee at three o'clock. Scalpel.

Nurse hands him a scalpel, Surgeon takes the blade to a dotted red line drawn over the patient's throat. Just as he's about to cut--

MAN'S VOICE (V.O.)
Please don't cut me open.

SURGEON
Say what?

Everyone looks at the Surgeon, puzzled. He glares at them, unamused.

SURGEON
Let's save the jokes for the locker
room, okay?

NURSE
I'm not sure what you mean, doctor.

...aaaaand, there goes the screenplay, sailing out the window, right into the garbage skip. Quite right, too. :)

-Derek
I'm not sure why you think this would send the script speeding to the reject pile.

Assume the same scene, same setup, the surgeon is about to wield the scalpel and WE hear the voice say the line "Please don't cut me open."

If WE are to know this voice was heard by the surgeon in his own head as telepathic communication from the patient (as opposed to simply being the patient's inner monologue) ... the surgeon is going to have to react to it. He hears it, he's got to react, unless he shrugs it off. But if he does that, then what's the point?

Is it then the manner in which he reacts in your example that you feel is unacceptable or the fact that he reacts at all, or what?

Or, might the idea have been that he should not or does not react and proceeds apace, with perhaps the voice speaking another line or two, and then he brings it up later with a colleague?

"You know, James, I was doing a throat procedure on a fellow this morning and I kept hearing a voice, as though the patient was communicating with me telepathically. Of course I didn't listen to this voice and went right ahead. Now, what do you make of that?"


Seems to me you have to characterize the telepathic nature of the communication in some manner or form or the audience is just going to assume they're hearing the character's inner monologue. The receiving party has to indicate in some fashion that he's hearing the voice in his head, que no?

What am I missing?

[dpaterso]

Hmm, I'm pretty sure the surgeon reacted to hearing what no one else heard, which pulls it away from character inner monologue or narrator.

Mentioning something like this to a colleague could be the kiss of death career-wise, so I just can't see that happening. His therapist, maybe...

Of course the fun is in finding out whether he goes ahead with the procedure.

But if all spec scripts with V.O. get tossed regardless, this could be a redundant conversation!

-Derek

[Celia Cyanide]

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful imput. I am thinking about just removing it for safty's sake. It doesn't really have to be used, they could just as easily speak it. It was just a tool I was going to use to show deep connection, and it would be in what you could call a supernatural world.

In that case, I have an even better suggestion. I mentioned Firestarter. Did you ever see that? The little girl's mom and dad are telepathic. When they meet, he says nothing, he only looks at her. "That was sweet," she says "You said my hair was like spun gold." We know exactly what just happened, but there was no voice over.

I had assumed that the telepathy was a bigger deal that it actually was. But if it's a small thing, you can do it this way.

[Goodwriterguy]

Hmm, I'm pretty sure the surgeon reacted to hearing what no one else heard, which pulls it away from character inner monologue or narrator.
Indeed, but then you said, "There would go the script, right into the trash tip ..."


Mentioning something like this to a colleague could be the kiss of death career-wise, so I just can't see that happening. His therapist, maybe...
In the real world, yes; but in a movie ... anything is possible. ;)


Of course the fun is in finding out whether he goes ahead with the procedure.
Ah yes!


But if all spec scripts with V.O. get tossed regardless, this could be a redundant conversation!
Indeed.

But I don't think they do, assuming high competence and good craftsmanship.

I don't think I've ever used VO other than in some phone-con dialogues.

Shows t' go ya.

Onward!

[English Dave]

There is a lot of garbage spoken about prohibitions on everything from V.O to parantheticals. I read one post here where someone is claiming their company refuses to read scripts from new writers that have VO in them. That's just frickin crazy and IN THE REAL world just about unheard of.
Think about it. Would any half decent company refuse to read what might be a great script simply because it had some VO in it? Just more scaremongering.

There is one very simple rule in screenwriting. DON'T BE BORING.

If you load up a screenplay with innefectual VO or lazy VO to cover for poor structure then that is going to be boring.

[Goodwriterguy]

There is a lot of garbage spoken about prohibitions on everything from V.O to parantheticals. I read one post here where someone is claiming their company refuses to read scripts from new writers that have VO in them. That's just frickin crazy and IN THE REAL world just about unheard of.
Think about it. Would any half decent company refuse to read what might be a great script simply because it had some VO in it? Just more scaremongering.

There is one very simple rule in screenwriting. DON'T BE BORING.

If you load up a screenplay with innefectual VO or lazy VO to cover for poor structure then that is going to be boring.
Well, this is something I can agree with. Don't be boring and adhere as best you can to the industry standard form, and generally keep your genre pieces in good conformance to the relevant conventions.

Develop a unique voice and use it.

Forget about the so-called restrictions and write what you need to write to make things interesting and compelling, give us reasons to turn those pages!

[dpaterso]

It's nice to know that a prodco is accepting spec screenplays from new writers (apparently) -- yet puzzling that the rejection criteria appears so trivial. But without more information it's impossible to judge what goes on behind closed doors, and why.

I've never known any writer who thought their material was boring! Every writer thinks their material is utterly fascinating. That's the value of critique boards! To convince 'em otherwise! :)

-Derek

[icerose]

Derek,

So when you gonna finish that script you posted a snippet of above? An unconscious patient compelling a doctor not to cut him open. I want to see it! What does the doctor do? Is he ousted as crazy? Do they find out?

Come on, you're such a tease.

Back to the OP check out:

X-men (http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/X-Men.html)


XAVIER
Would you like some breakfast?

Logan, who was prepared for anything but this, just
stares.

XAVIER (cont'd)
I'm sorry, allow me to formally
introduce myself -- I am Professor
Charles Xavier. This is my school.

LOGAN
How do you know my name?

Xavier taps the side of his head with his finger.

XAVIER
You're not the only one with gifts.

When he speaks, his lips do not move. We realize Logan
'hears' the voice in his head. In addition, the voice is
accompanied by the FAMILIAR SOUND OF FOOT STEPS
indicating that perhaps Xavier had herded Logan through
the mansion with his mind. He does not like it.


Of course this is the shooting script so take it as you see fit.

[English Dave]

It's nice to know that a prodco is accepting spec screenplays from new writers (apparently) -- yet puzzling that the rejection criteria appears so trivial. But without more information it's impossible to judge what goes on behind closed doors, and why.

I've never known any writer who thought their material was boring! Every writer thinks their material is utterly fascinating. That's the value of critique boards! To convince 'em otherwise! :)

-Derek

There are lots of prodcos accepting screenplays from new writers. After you have hooked them with a great query. And the 'greatest' part of a great query is the log line that demands a read.

Many queries do not have that and never will no matter how much you chip away at it because the idea on which the script is based might well be important to you, but the film industry is Global. Is it a global idea? By which I mean something that resonates emotionally on whatever level with a lot of people.

The film industry is reactive not pro active. No one really knows what is going to work and what isn't. Make contacts, write well and persevere.

[icerose]

The film industry is reactive not pro active. No one really knows what is going to work and what isn't. Make contacts, write well and persevere.

That's with every single aspect of every single entertainment industry. No one knows what works so they make best guesses and hope it sticks.

[Celia Cyanide]

Would any half decent company refuse to read what might be a great script simply because it had some VO in it? Just more scaremongering.

Well, as he explained, they have to decide somehow. VO is, quite often, used to tell instead of show. And that IS boring. I can see why someone who receives 100+ screenplay submissions a day would read "V.O." and instantly think "boring."

[English Dave]

That's with every single aspect of every single entertainment industry. No one knows what works so they make best guesses and hope it sticks.
I woudn't even make guesses. Write what you write. If you are going to make it in this business then what you write has an afffinity to this business.

An affinity to this business depends on your last viewing figures. So .....write what you like. If what you like is the zeitgeist at that time then you've got it made.

[icerose]

Agreed Dave, I was merely springboarding from your other post saying that every field dealing with people's opinions is like that. Literature, movies, art, and so on. I mean look at the splatter paintings selling for millions. :Shrug:

[Write_At_1st_Light]

That's with every single aspect of every single entertainment industry. No one knows what works so they make best guesses and hope it sticks.
Yep. William Goldman mentioned that in his book, Adventures In The Screen Trade. Where he said: NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING.

Other great flicks with VO:

Network
Goodfellas
Casino
Field Of Dreams
To Kill A Mockingbird

[scripter1]

"...aaaaand, there goes the screenplay, sailing out the window, right into the garbage skip. Quite right, too. :)" D.

"-DerekI'm not sure why you think this would send the script speeding to the reject pile." GWG


Aaaaaaand yet again a great peice of humor and sarcasm does a fly by on GoodwriterGuy.

But, I still love ya man.

Regarding Solange Blue's company policy.
I agree with Bottomless, read the first page. Why dump scripts just for VO? I don't mind at all the flag going up, I understand the phobia, but I don't believe that justifies the over reaction.

Kitt,
these kinds of things aren't arbitrary to the script, to the story. There was a reason telepathy was used in Firestarter. It was something that made the two parents unique and thus feared. The changes in them produced a dangerous being. Xavier's powers in X-men brought control and order to the group, counter balanced Magneto's, and ALWAYS freaked out Logan. These ablilties were DIRECTLY related to the story. VITAL. You take them out and you get a different story.

So, while it is fine to play around with these ideas, see if they have any claws, you can't just plug them into any old story.

I liked the Firestarter example, and I'm okay with D's example, but for myself I would be tempted to try a parenthetical. Go for crystal clarity AND tighter writing. Especially if it happens with some frequency.
That way it's less likely to get overlooked in a fast read. The actor at least will ALWAYS catch it.

I've put it out there.
All scripts with parentheticals should begin flying lessons.

[tourdeforce]

V.O. is a creative element the same as dialogue and action, a tool that can be called upon as needed. Execute it well and it can be a work of art. Use it poorly and you compromise your work. Each writer needs to find their own way and what best serves their story.

[clockwork]

Yep. William Goldman mentioned that in his book, Adventures In The Screen Trade. Where he said: NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING.

Other great flicks with VO:

Network
Goodfellas
Casino
Field Of Dreams
To Kill A Mockingbird
I love Network too. But don't forget Adaption! An amazing screenplay that would probably make smoke unfurl from a lesser reader's ears. The scene where Kaufman is attending McKee's lecture and, in voice-over, is telling himself what a failure he is followed seconds later by McKee's rant, "...and God help you if you use voice-over!"

And of course this new one, Stranger Than Fiction. I haven't seen it yet but it seems to make an interesting use of voice-over.

[kitt]

In that case, I have an even better suggestion. I mentioned Firestarter. Did you ever see that? The little girl's mom and dad are telepathic. When they meet, he says nothing, he only looks at her. "That was sweet," she says "You said my hair was like spun gold." We know exactly what just happened, but there was no voice over.

I had assumed that the telepathy was a bigger deal that it actually was. But if it's a small thing, you can do it this way.

Thanks, I'll consider that. The voice over I was going to use was going to take place in a dream, so it's not as if the characters have special powers or anything.

[jonpiper]

Originally Posted by Goodwriterguy
VO indicates that the dialogue to which it is appended is to be heard "over" the scene and may thus be recorded at a time different from when the scene is shot. But I don't think it ascribes any particular character or quality to the dialogue vis-a-vis whether it is telepathic, the character's inner monologue, the voice of a narrator, or whatever. I think a writer has to convey this through other means, including by implication or inference or context if nothing else, if it isn't otherwise patently obvious.


I'm writing my first script. The following segment of the scene reveals Marcus is able to read Lee's mind when Marcus wears the object he has just found. Does V.O. make it work?


The boys mount their bikes and ride side by side.

LEE (V.O.)
Mine . . . too . . . part. Both ours. Valuable. Sell.

MARCUS
Hey, Lee, I don’t want to sell this thing and give you half the money.

LEE
How the hell did you know what I was thinking?

Lee pulls ahead of Marcus and Marcus catches him.

MARCUS
Believe it or not, I heard you. Really. When I concentrated, I could hear you thinking.

LEE
Bullshit. As far as I’m concerned, that thing is all yours. You found it.

[Goodwriterguy]

Originally Posted by Goodwriterguy
VO indicates that the dialogue to which it is appended is to be heard "over" the scene and may thus be recorded at a time different from when the scene is shot. But I don't think it ascribes any particular character or quality to the dialogue vis-a-vis whether it is telepathic, the character's inner monologue, the voice of a narrator, or whatever. I think a writer has to convey this through other means, including by implication or inference or context if nothing else, if it isn't otherwise patently obvious.


I'm writing my first script. The following segment of the scene reveals Marcus is able to read Lee's mind when Marcus wears the object he has just found. Does V.O. make it work?


The boys mount their bikes and ride side by side.

LEE (V.O.)
Mine . . . too . . . part. Both ours. Valuable. Sell.

MARCUS
Hey, Lee, I don’t want to sell this thing and give you half the money.

LEE
How the hell did you know what I was thinking?

Lee pulls ahead of Marcus and Marcus catches him.

MARCUS
Believe it or not, I heard you. Really. When I concentrated, I could hear you thinking.

LEE
Bullshit. As far as I’m concerned, that thing is all yours. You found it.
Works like a charm ... to my eye and ear. :D

[jonpiper]

Thanks. Until I read your post, I couldn't think of a simple way to reveal Marcus's new power.

[Goodwriterguy]

Thanks. Until I read your post, I couldn't think of a simple way to reveal Marcus's new power.
Good! We are sharing the knowledge.

I might tune your dialogue just a little, something like this:

The boys mount their bikes and ride side by side.

LEE (V.O.)
Mine . . . too . . . part. Both ours. Valuable. Sell.

MARCUS
Hey, Lee, I don’t want to sell this thing and give you half the money.

LEE
Funny, I just had that thought --

Lee pulls ahead of Marcus and Marcus catches him.

MARCUS
Yeah, I know. Believe it or not, I heard you. Really. When I concentrated, I could hear you thinking.

LEE
Bullshit. As far as I’m concerned, that thing is all yours. You found it.

But, at the same time, the world won't come to an end if you leave it as you had it.

Write on! :D

[kitt]

What about V.O's used in an introductory sort of way. I wanted to use a V.O in the beginning of my spec to relay an Einstien quote, it sets the mood for the whole story, would it be better if I just had it superimposed on the screen instead of heard as a voice over?

[Goodwriterguy]

What about V.O's used in an introductory sort of way. I wanted to use a V.O in the beginning of my spec to relay an Einstien quote, it sets the mood for the whole story, would it be better if I just had it superimposed on the screen instead of heard as a voice over?
As usual, a somewhat hard call here.

It wouldn't seem appropriate to have a voice come out of nowhere and speak this Einstein quote. Your audience reaction would be, who is this voice? Why do they suddenely pop up here? Is this a character we're going to meet? All of this would detract from the impact of the quote itself.

But simply supering the text on the screen seems ill advised as well.

But it's all context and given the right context, eirher approach might well serve.

I think I'd be into finding another way to get the quote in. For example, in the scene put a poster on the wall, a photo of Einstein, with the text of the quote below it. Then at the appropriate beat, perhaps at the very end, reveal this poster and let your audience read the quote.

SCENE

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Mary Lou and Richard EXIT.

On the wall a poster, a picture of Einstein, and below it "THE TEXT OF YOUR QUOTE."

NEXT SCENE

Upon Mary Lou and Richard's exit, a diredctor would probably pan around to this poster and do a slow push in on it and linger long enough for the audience to read it.

Lots of visual ways to skin this cat. Let your creative juices flow!

and keep writing! :D

[English Dave]

Well, as he explained, they have to decide somehow. VO is, quite often, used to tell instead of show. And that IS boring. I can see why someone who receives 100+ screenplay submissions a day would read "V.O." and instantly think "boring."

To be straight with you, the explanation is bullcrap. In the real world good prodcos wouldn't reject a script out of hand even if your first [to pick an arbritary number] 3 pages were voice over. So long as those 3 pages connected on an emotional level with what was going to be happening on screen.


Yes, new writers tend to misuse it. But does that mean the overall story or script sucks? No it doesnt. So you really shouldn't worry that some company rejects your script just because it has VO. You should worry that your use of VO is appropriate. Because that is what 'they' are worried about.

The real 'they'

[dpaterso]

would it be better if I just had it superimposed on the screen instead of heard as a voice over?
Yeah I'd maybe show it as a caption over black, like the Klingon proverb from Kill Bill:

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Kill-Bill-Volume-1-&-2.html

-Derek

[BottomlessCup]

I can't believe Solange didn't come back. Public and private apologies. Sheesh.

That's the firs person I've ever scared off (as far as I know, anyway.)

[Goldminer]

Personally I find voice overs in a script to be a REAL turn off. They get in the way of the drama.

But.

Find a list of the most loved top fifty movies of all time - count the ones with voice overs. I did this once, and the proportion is astonishingly high. And yes, of course, if you sit and watch these movies, very often you find the voiceover covers lazy writing - or is superfluous, and the movie works just as well or better with the VO stripped out. Yet these are popular movies...

Makes you wonder, don't it?

And, actually, I'm a pro screenwriter, have made all my entire living off it for a good many years now, and I don't find Bottomless Cup's remark to be stupid at all - rather the opposite. I agree there have to be short cuts to sorting, and of course you know how it is in your company Solange, but I've been inside a good many film and TV companies here in the UK over the years, and I've never encountered such a policy actually being implemented. Sure, it's an issue, but the script readers I've known have always been optimistic beings, and want to find a good script (mainly because doing just that is one sure way to get noticed and lifted out of script reading hell) and they would have always given a screenplay more time than that, just in case there was gold there under the murk.

Green ink and right justified? Now that's bannable...

Oh, also, IMO the real reason pro writers tend to stay away from these boards is more to do with that old cliche that amateur writers talk about writing, pro writers talk about fees...

G

[scripter1]

does this

"Oh, also, IMO the real reason pro writers tend to stay away from these boards is more to do with that old cliche that amateur writers talk about writing, pro writers talk about fees..."

mean that the pro writers who hang out here AREN'T collecting fees


anymore?

:roll:







Well, I thought it was funny.

[scripter1]

one of the instances where VO works the best is when the story is narrated or experienced through another person's eyes.

Someone ELSE is talking about the main character.

The number 1 red flag is when you open up a script and see

DILLON (VO)
I'm Dillon McDermott.
This is my story.


It is IMMEDIATLY better when we read

DILLON'S WORST ENEMY (VO)
There was this nerd once.
I get the credit for his nickname,
Dillbutt. I can still hear the way
he screamed when I shoved
his middle finger in the electric
pencil sharpner.

(sorry for that image, I'm still on codine.)

Not saying that will work in the hands of an unskilled storyteller/writer but it's a step in the right direction.
(And I wouldn't say THAT was skilled. Actually I'm all ready thinking of ways to make it less on the nose, but since it's just a junk example I'm not going to throw lots of time at it.)

Personally I've only used VO when I've needed a character to say some kind of personal knowledge about a situation BUT SHOW something else at the same time. So, you hear one thing and watch another. Doubling up on the info dose.
(the two HAVE to mesh though.)

[Joe Calabrese]

There's a few pro writers that pop in from from time to time and although my name aint Akiva or Shane, I consider myself a pro.

There are a lot of reasons most pro writers won't hang out on boards...

- Same reason Seniors don't sit at the lunch tables with the Freshmen...
- Busy making a living.
- Doesn't want to hear wannabees crying in their soup or arguing of format "rules" (cause format, grammar, spelling, structure, V.O., etc... doesn't really matter when you are playing in the big leagues. I got a whopper of a story to tell you about Jodie Foster's new film. Ask me sometime.)
- Doesn't want newbies asking for leads or "Can your agent read..."

Lots of reasons...

[scripter1]

- Doesn't want newbies asking for leads or "Can your agent read..."



Somebody finally had the guts to say it!



What's up with Jodie's new film?

[Joe Calabrese]

Since you asked...

A friend of mine went on a writers retreat (with a few dozen others) and was asked to read a blind script and critique it in front of the panel. One of the people on the panel was Jodie's producer and she was cringing the whole time as everyone in the critique group bellowed out a negative comment.

He (and I later) read the script and it is reaaallll amatuerish.
Passive verbs, formatting poor, bad grammar, EXPOSTITION everywhere. Wooden, tired onthenose dialog. cliche villain, cliche everything... you name it...

We thought it was a joke.

It isn't.

It was a spec script (by a pro) that Jodie's people fell in love with. Taxi Driver like film that there is oscar buzz already.

And the shooting script is supposed to be pretty much the same.


Just goes to show you that a script can be sold regardles of quality as long as someone, anyone with money falls in love with it.

[BottomlessCup]

But was there VO?

[Joe Calabrese]

Oh yes and in places that it wasn't needed because the action showed it already.

[jonpiper]

FADE IN:

INT. ADDISON HOUSE DEN – NIGHT

Retired businessman, wannabe screenwriter JONPIPER is hunched over his computer keyboard, his eyes locked on the monitor. Soft MUSIC plays.

His wife, MARCELLE, is in another room.

ON THE MONITOR:

“Master scene secondary headings”
is printed in the Google search box.

BACK TO JONPIPER

JONPIPER (V.O.)
Gotta get this f*****
spec script formatting
right.

NARRATOR (V.O.)
For the last two weeks Jonpiper
has been sidetracked from writing
his masterpiece. Every hour of the
day and night he’s been devouring
whatever he can find that will tell
him how to format and write a script
a reader cherish and pass on to the
next level.

MARCELLE (V.O.)
(screaming)
Turn off the radio. When
are ya gonna get out of that
room. . . I can’t sleep.

Jonpiper turns from the monitor and mouths silent words while he vigorously nods his head.

NARRATOR (V.O.)
Jonpiper had better not read
the latest Voice Over thread
postings at Absolute Write.
His efforts are wasted.

[xhouseboy]

Oh, also, IMO the real reason pro writers tend to stay away from these boards is more to do with that old cliche that amateur writers talk about writing, pro writers talk about fees...

G

They hang out from time to time. They simply don't mention what they do. I suppose they consider it irrelevant, especially if they're just here to chill. I know a few. I PM them now and again.

Talking about fees, I clicked on your link. To be honest, it reads like those spam emails one receives. You know the type: 'I made a million, so can you. Learn my secrets.' It looks like you've lifted it straight from one of those emails and replaced the phrase 'become a property millionaire' with 'become a screenwriter'. So when do the fees kick in in this instance?

IMHO, it's tacky in the extreme, and so transparently geared up towards eventually hitting the unsuspecting in the pocket. Last time I read something like that, they were trying to flog a gambling scam.

[scripter1]

let me make sure I am actually understanding this correctly.

A script that is so bad a bunch of amatuers could rip it to shreds has got Oscar buzz?

And correct me if my thinking is wrong but this tells me one of two things:

Either us amatuers REALLY don't know crap and it IS truly all about just finding that ONE person who loves your story

OR

Things are really screwed up on the development side and they will just create a movie because it is someone's pet project.

So, was the story really that good and just the execution of the script was bad? And is this kind of work ....normal for that pro writer?

[scripter1]

acquaintance of several pro writers, and they are not trying to hide the fact that they are pros. BIG time pros.

They post on the boards because they enjoy screenwriting and the forums are a fun place to relax around the job. They get to talk about and do what they love but without any pressure.
Some of them feel like they are giving something back and they like to see other writers grow.
I've noticed that for the most part they are a pretty unselfish bunch.

[Joe Calabrese]

let me make sure I am actually understanding this correctly.

A script that is so bad a bunch of amatuers could rip it to shreds has got Oscar buzz?

And correct me if my thinking is wrong but this tells me one of two things:

Either us amatuers REALLY don't know crap and it IS truly all about just finding that ONE person who loves your story

OR

Things are really screwed up on the development side and they will just create a movie because it is someone's pet project.

So, was the story really that good and just the execution of the script was bad? And is this kind of work ....normal for that pro writer?


It is Taxi Driver but with a female lead (Jodie), except it is very cliche and poorly written. Now maybe they will fix things during the shoot or in post, but my understanding is that Jodie was presented with the script with the idea that it would be an unofficial sequel to the film that made her famous in the first place. The concept is what sold to her-- a concept that I think is cool, but the execution is terrible. But by that point, the concept tainted the quality of the script. It's like when you love something a lot, you tend to over look it's flaws.

My whole point is that there are separate standards of acceptance for amateurs versus pros. If you or I sent a script to a producer's company, the initial reader most likely will pass on any script that was written so badly, regardless of the concept or idea behind the film, because we go through initial readers who are told time and time again that if the writer can't write with the so-called rules, then the story must suck. It is that understanding that distorts people's impression.

So, when you make it and have an agent who can shoot a script to just about anyone in town, you can get away with just about anything if you have a cool concept or pitch.

But for now, as amateurs, make your scripts lean, tight, and always err to the side of caution when deciding to put things that a reader may have objections to. Not because they are right, but because that is the expectations they have.

[dpaterso]

Oh, also, IMO the real reason pro writers tend to stay away from these boards is more to do with that old cliche that amateur writers talk about writing, pro writers talk about fees...
You make this sound disparaging, when it isn't. Pro screenwriters have their own circle of contacts and acquaintances in the business with whom they will mostly interact. I don't imagine the majority of pros have much reason to visit message boards whose members are mostly amateur writers trying to better themselves.

-Derek

[scripter1]

basically what you are saying is that the concept (tent poled off of a known winner) has the appeal and the writer put forth a rough draft that will likely be worked over.
Story/concept was king.

I get that.
I have no problem with that. It's the way things work in Hollywood.
HATE IT, but what'cha gonna do?

The thing that gets us amauters though is this tends to lead to the belief that pro writers CHANGE after they make it pro.
That's one of the big circler discussions on the boards.
"Well, a pro did it this way so it is okay for me."
So, you get even more sloppy scripts.
(guess those kinds aren't going anywhere anyway so maybe who cares?)

Long story short.
It doesn't matter for pros, it DOES matter for us.
Readers assume the novice writer is going to get it wrong so we have to work our tails off to prove them WRONG and not give them any excuses.
We earn our dues.
Then when we've proven ourselves we can relax and just focus on STORY, STORY, STORY.

one more point.
Did any of these novice writers catch or mention the story points that DID make this script marketable? What might have happened if one of them showed STORY sense instead of "message board" knowledge?

Have I got it now?

(sorry. I'm tired. Just cleaned, by hand, a 55 gal fish tank and survived an epic battle with a goldfish named Jaws.)

[Joe Calabrese]

We are getting off topic so I'll keep it short and that will be the end of it-- unless someone wants to start a new thread about how Hollywood scripts may not be as good as we think.

Anyway. The script I read was the final draft, not a rough draft. Maybe there were rewrites during production, but essentially, the script I read is what got greenlit by the studio.

And it was as bad. Although the kernel of concept is good, the script itself has so many bad points to it, I would call it a low grade B film for late night TNT.

i wish I had this as a pdf and not on paper. Maybe I'll type a few things out later for you guys.

[English Dave]

You make this sound disparaging, when it isn't. Pro screenwriters have their own circle of contacts and acquaintances in the business with whom they will mostly interact. I don't imagine the majority of pros have much reason to visit message boards whose members are mostly amateur writers trying to better themselves.

-Derek

For the craik?

I'd imagine some jaded pro writers get a kick out of the enthusiasm and buzz that these kind of message boards generate in them.

Do John August, Craig Mazin, Josh Friedman, Kevin Smith [Redacted--JDM] and a host of others really need to bother with blogs, web sites and message boards?

Nah. They don't. But they do. For many of the reasons Clockwork, Scripter and Joe mentioned.

[scripter1]

post on message boards?

Where and under what names?

[English Dave]

post on message boards?

Where and under what names?

Well okay, maybe not here and if they did I wouldn't betray their confidence. :D But they do at least post great solid info and advice on their own blogs/websites, which they don't need to.

It's a brotherhood. Just don't ask them to recommend you to their agents.

[dclary]

My only rule is that you should never not do what you should never do.

[tourdeforce]

My only rule is that you should never not do what you should never do.


You dropped 'never piss into the wind'?

[dpaterso]

This thread reminds me of one of those moments when you're enjoying a film but absolutely have to get up and go to the toilet, and when you come back you don't understand what the heck's going on.

-Derek

[tourdeforce]

Excellent example of a voice over that might be heard over a scene of Derek reading this thread!

[dpaterso]

Oh, the bittersweet irony! Everyone take note of my hitherto unsung genius.

-Derek

[scripter1]

it took a major left turn with the goldfish tank and then just started wandering from there.




Or was that another thread?
I don't know.
I'm lost too.

[English Dave]

Excellent example of a voice over that might be heard over a scene of Derek reading this thread!

Would it were 'Sunset Boulevard' and he was face down in a swimming pool. We can but dream

[Celia Cyanide]

Since you asked...

A friend of mine went on a writers retreat (with a few dozen others) and was asked to read a blind script and critique it in front of the panel. One of the people on the panel was Jodie's producer and she was cringing the whole time as everyone in the critique group bellowed out a negative comment.

He (and I later) read the script and it is reaaallll amatuerish.
Passive verbs, formatting poor, bad grammar, EXPOSTITION everywhere. Wooden, tired onthenose dialog. cliche villain, cliche everything... you name it...

We thought it was a joke.

It isn't.

It was a spec script (by a pro) that Jodie's people fell in love with. Taxi Driver like film that there is oscar buzz already.

And the shooting script is supposed to be pretty much the same.


Just goes to show you that a script can be sold regardles of quality as long as someone, anyone with money falls in love with it.

Okay, I have to ask...is this The Brave One? I am dying of curiosity.

[zeprosnepsid]

It sounds like the Brave One.

Anyway, I read this whole thread so now you'll have to sit through all my responses. (or skip my post, whatever)



I hate Voice Over. I don't think a great film has ever been made with Voice Over. Honestly. I really dislike it.

Having said that, I think we all seem to define Voice Over a little differently. When people say 'don't use Voice Over' they don't mean don't ever use a (V.O.) tag. I think the OP's situation is a fine use of VO. Similarly...


Little Big Man
Interview With the Vampire
Forrest Gump (in all three films, the MC is "telling" his life story to a listener)



and what I consider the best movie ever...
The Usual Suspects


In the Usual Suspects and other movies where it's actually part of a conversation, that you actually see onscreen, you don't know that the director didn't actually shoot the whole scene and then decide to overlap the dialogue.

I can't think of a better term right now but 'overlapping dialogue' -- by which I mean dialogue over visuals that are not the people in the scene who are talking, but it is dialogue from a scene that exists in the movie. I think that is fine.

How many lines does Verbal Kint actually speak in overlapping? Not that many really. Most of the time you actually see him talking in the office. It's not what people mean when they talk about not using Voice Over. American Beauty is what people mean when they talk about not using Voice Over. The kind of Voice Over that is simply wrong is the kind that does not exist in a scene in the movie. That's what people mean.

"Apocalypse Now."


Apocalypse Now is the exact reason why you shouldn't use voice over. There was no VO in the original script. But the filming was such a disaster that they wrote the VO later to hold the film together. If you tie a director to VO then they lose a tool that could help them save the film if it's a mess.

So, if the first page is spectacular, but has VO, you'll toss it without reading the rest?

There is a lot of garbage spoken about prohibitions on everything from V.O to parantheticals. I read one post here where someone is claiming their company refuses to read scripts from new writers that have VO in them. That's just frickin crazy and IN THE REAL world just about unheard of.
Think about it. Would any half decent company refuse to read what might be a great script simply because it had some VO in it? Just more scaremongering.


Solange and I have both worked at prod cos where we throw out VO scripts. Have any of you worked at prod cos where they don't throw them out? If not then get over it. You may think it's 'stupid' but heck, I think scripts with VO are stupid.

And Dave, It can't be a great script if it has VO in it =)


What about V.O's used in an introductory sort of way. I wanted to use a V.O in the beginning of my spec to relay an Einstien quote, it sets the mood for the whole story, would it be better if I just had it superimposed on the screen instead of heard as a voice over?

VO on page 1 is the worst possible time to use VO. That's what gets you thrown out.

Can you just have a character speak it (even if they're reading it off a page or writing it in a journal or something?)? That gives the director the option to have them speak it on camera or to overlap it over visuals.

Otherwise VO hamstrings the director (and the editor). Things have to happen at a pace dictated by the VO, since the visuals have to match in some way. You can't shorten a shot or lengthen it if it's going to be incongruous with when the VO starts or ends. Why would any director want to work on a project where they can't dictate pace?

A script that is so bad a bunch of amatuers could rip it to shreds has got Oscar buzz?


Crash?

[NikeeGoddess]

VO will always work if you've got morgan freeman on board. hollyweird loves his voice. and i remember him from the electric company in my younger days ;)

It sounds like the Brave One. nope - that's charles bronson in those death wish flicks.

It is Taxi Driver but with a female lead (Jodie), except it is very cliche and poorly written. Now maybe they will fix things during the shoot or in post, but my understanding is that Jodie was presented with the script with the idea that it would be an unofficial sequel to the film that made her famous in the first place. The concept is what sold to her-- a concept that I think is cool, but the execution is terrible. But by that point, the concept tainted the quality of the script. It's like when you love something a lot, you tend to over look it's flaws.
the idea of doing a taxi driver sequel has been a buzz for quite some time... with the 3 heavies still living and working: (deniro, foster, and shepherd) however, JF does not do sequels (ie - silence of the lambs). so if the script is crappy then she will not put her name to it. she has scrupples.

[nmstevens]

It sounds like the Brave One.

Anyway, I read this whole thread so now you'll have to sit through all my responses. (or skip my post, whatever)



I hate Voice Over. I don't think a great film has ever been made with Voice Over. Honestly. I really dislike it.

Having said that, I think we all seem to define Voice Over a little differently. When people say 'don't use Voice Over' they don't mean don't ever use a (V.O.) tag. I think the OP's situation is a fine use of VO. Similarly...





In the Usual Suspects and other movies where it's actually part of a conversation, that you actually see onscreen, you don't know that the director didn't actually shoot the whole scene and then decide to overlap the dialogue.

I can't think of a better term right now but 'overlapping dialogue' -- by which I mean dialogue over visuals that are not the people in the scene who are talking, but it is dialogue from a scene that exists in the movie. I think that is fine.

How many lines does Verbal Kint actually speak in overlapping? Not that many really. Most of the time you actually see him talking in the office. It's not what people mean when they talk about not using Voice Over. American Beauty is what people mean when they talk about not using Voice Over. The kind of Voice Over that is simply wrong is the kind that does not exist in a scene in the movie. That's what people mean.



Apocalypse Now is the exact reason why you shouldn't use voice over. There was no VO in the original script. But the filming was such a disaster that they wrote the VO later to hold the film together. If you tie a director to VO then they lose a tool that could help them save the film if it's a mess.





Solange and I have both worked at prod cos where we throw out VO scripts. Have any of you worked at prod cos where they don't throw them out? If not then get over it. You may think it's 'stupid' but heck, I think scripts with VO are stupid.

And Dave, It can't be a great script if it has VO in it =)




VO on page 1 is the worst possible time to use VO. That's what gets you thrown out.

Can you just have a character speak it (even if they're reading it off a page or writing it in a journal or something?)? That gives the director the option to have them speak it on camera or to overlap it over visuals.

Otherwise VO hamstrings the director (and the editor). Things have to happen at a pace dictated by the VO, since the visuals have to match in some way. You can't shorten a shot or lengthen it if it's going to be incongruous with when the VO starts or ends. Why would any director want to work on a project where they can't dictate pace?



Crash?


"To Kill A Mockingbird" uses voiceover, and in fact uses it at the very beginning. It is primarily a framing device, as the voice is that of Scout, the young girl in the movie, speaking as an adult woman.

I can't think of a single reason in the world what the purpose would have been to have introduced her as an on-screen character, I think that the voice-over works perfectly well where and when it is used, that the movie is definitely better with it than it would have been without it -- and I think that "To Kill A Mockingbird" was a great movie and also a great screenplay adaptation by Horton Foote.

And just for the record -- no director ever feels hamstrung by anything the writer does, especially not by something like voice over, because that, of all things, is completely flexible right up until the the final moment when the tracks are locked. You could leave it in, take it out, move it around, have someone else re-record it, change it in any way you want, right up until the final moment.


As to the rather different question of why spec scripts with VO are rejected out of hand -- and I know that there are companies that do this sort of thing --

-- well, it's the same reason that insurance companies charge higher rates for car insurance everyone below a certain age. Is it true that every single eighteen-year-old driver is a risk who warrants the higher rates? No. So why shouldn't the insurance companies, instead of simply charging everybody charge only the actually risky drivers instead of punishing the good young drivers along with the bad ones?

Because they're not in business to be fair. They're in business to make money, and it would be prohibitively expensive for them to conduct driver competence tests on every single driver to figure out who the competent young drivers are, as opposed to simply looking at the statistics and saying -- since most drivers under "age X" tend to be bad, we're going to charge all of you the higher rate -- too bad, see you later.

Same deal. The use of VO in non-pro scripts is like a litmus test -- it pretty much always means "lousy script ahead" -- and it simply isn't worth reading through thousands of lousy scripts on the off chance that maybe once in blue moon somebody who uses it might actually write a non-lousy script.

Same thing with scripts with ten mis-spellings on the first page, or with egregious formatting errors.

As soon as you see that stuff, it's pretty much an automatic pass.

NMS

[Celia Cyanide]

the idea of doing a taxi driver sequel has been a buzz for quite some time... with the 3 heavies still living and working: (deniro, foster, and shepherd) however, JF does not do sequels (ie - silence of the lambs). so if the script is crappy then she will not put her name to it. she has scrupples.

According to what Joe said, this film is happening, it's just a matter of which one it is. I don't know if it is The Brave One, but it sounds like it could be.

And whether Jodie Foster will put her name on a crappy script has nothing to do with scruples. It's got more to do with her making so much per picture that she doesn't have to.

[javili]

hAnd whether Jodie Foster will put her name on a crappy script has nothing to do with scruples. It's got more to do with her making so much per picture that she doesn't have to.

Ah, you know her pesonally? That must be fascinating.

[NikeeGoddess]

cc - the brave one has been done and is out in the theaters. it's a remake, not a sequel.
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77743

and you're wrong - jf does have scrupples. and she doesn't make movies just to make money. she's an actor's actor and a craftsman.

[Celia Cyanide]

cc - the brave one has been done and is out in the theaters. it's a remake, not a sequel.
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77743


I know The Brave One has been done...this post was from a long time ago. I'm asking which movie Joe's post was in reference to.

and you're wrong - jf does have scrupples. and she doesn't make movies just to make money. she's an actor's actor and a craftsman.

No, I'm not wrong. I don't doubt that Jodie Foster has scruples, but an actor's decision to act in a movie with a bad script does not reflect his/her scruples at all. An actor's job is to give the best performance s/he can, regardless of the quality of the script. It's the writer's job to write a good script. We do our best, and hope to get something we're really passionate about. But if we ONLY did scripts we loved, we'd never get to work. It doesn't mean we don't have scruples. Jodie Foster certainly did her share of crappy movies before she hit it big. Now, she has enough money and work that if she gets offered a script she doesn't like, she doesn't have to do it.

[Celia Cyanide]

Ah, you know her pesonally? That must be fascinating.

How did I claim to know her personally? Because I said that an actors' scruples are not reflected by what films they will or will not do? It is not unethical to act in a bad movie.

[NikeeGoddess]

cc - i never met a jf hater before. you are truely a first.
<<<the NikeeGoddess just shakes her head>>>

It is not unethical to act in a bad movie.
this is not a black and white issue. in many cases it is. many actors agree to act in a crappy movie because they need to pay the bills or their judgement is impaired or their under the disallusionment that this flick may be "the one!". and many can't tell a mediocre script from a good one. the best actors (and i'm not talking celebrities) know the diff bet a good script and a great script.

the other case is when actors agree to do a crappy movie because they signed a contract with a studio to do so many tentpole flicks in exchange for the more "personal" choices the actor wants them to do.

No, I'm not wrong. I don't doubt that Jodie Foster has scruples, but an actor's decision to act in a movie with a bad script does not reflect his/her scruples at all. An actor's job is to give the best performance s/he can, regardless of the quality of the script. It's the writer's job to write a good script. We do our best, and hope to get something we're really passionate about. But if we ONLY did scripts we loved, we'd never get to work. It doesn't mean we don't have scruples. Jodie Foster certainly did her share of crappy movies before she hit it big. Now, she has enough money and work that if she gets offered a script she doesn't like, she doesn't have to do it.
well, i say you are wrong. first you say JF doesn't have scrupples and now you say you don't doubt it - huh?!
ok - so you say "we ONLY" making me assume you're an actor. well, if you were as good as JF then you could pick and choose and ONLY do the scripts that you love.
also - JF has never "hit it big" - she's been acting for over 40 years... now working the slow and steady, "i'll work when i want to" pace as oppose to the, "i'll get as much done while i'm young and hot, before my looks fade" pace. JF is about quality, not quantity.

ok - i'm done ranting -

as you were

[Celia Cyanide]

cc - i never met a jf hater before. you are truely a first.
<<<the NikeeGoddess just shakes her head>>>

I'm not a Jodie Foster hater. I'm actually a pretty big fan of Jodie Foster. Please don't put words in my mouth.

this is not a black and white issue. in many cases it is. many actors agree to act in a crappy movie because they need to pay the bills or their judgement is impaired or their under the disallusionment that this flick may be "the one!". and many can't tell a mediocre script from a good one. the best actors (and i'm not talking celebrities) know the diff bet a good script and a great script.

Some actors might act in movies they think probably won't be very good because they like acting.

well, i say you are wrong. first you say JF doesn't have scrupples and now you say you don't doubt it - huh?!

Actually, what I said was, "And whether Jodie Foster will put her name on a crappy script has nothing to do with scruples." I did NOT say she did not have any scruples. I was simply taking issue with your statement that Jodie Foster refuses to act in scripts she doesn't like BECAUSE she has scruples. There are plenty of actors who act in movies, even though they don't like the scripts, who have scruples.

well, if you were as good as JF then you could pick and choose and ONLY do the scripts that you love.

If I were as famous and highly paid as she is, I could. Most actors are not.

also - JF has never "hit it big" - she's been acting for over 40 years... now working the slow and steady, "i'll work when i want to" pace as oppose to the, "i'll get as much done while i'm young and hot, before my looks fade" pace. JF is about quality, not quantity.

Most actors, and most people in general, would consider Jodie Foster to be an actor who has hit it big. Actors who have been nominated for, and won, academy awards, are generally considered famous and successful. Jodie Foster did plenty of crappy movies back in the day. Are we to assume she had no scruples back then? I wouldn't. I would assume she hadn't yet reached the point in her career at which she could afford to be that choosy about what she will do.

[nmstevens]

let me make sure I am actually understanding this correctly.

A script that is so bad a bunch of amatuers could rip it to shreds has got Oscar buzz?

And correct me if my thinking is wrong but this tells me one of two things:

Either us amatuers REALLY don't know crap and it IS truly all about just finding that ONE person who loves your story

OR

Things are really screwed up on the development side and they will just create a movie because it is someone's pet project.

So, was the story really that good and just the execution of the script was bad? And is this kind of work ....normal for that pro writer?


OR -- there's a third alternative.

And that is that the standards that a studio execs and those that give a green light are applying to a script have very little to do with the standards that you are applying in terms of evaluating whether a script is good or bad in "aesthetic" terms.

That is, studios are absolutely looking for good scripts, but what they mean by good and what you may mean by good are two completely different things.

When you talk about good -- it's a good script, it's a good movie, you're speaking in an aesthetic sense -- the way a critic says that, "this is a good movie."

That kind of "good" is completely tangential to what a studio is talking about and looking for when they are looking for a "good" script or a good project or set out to make a "good" movie. It's not that they are opposed to it being good in this sense. It's just that it has no real significance. That kind of "good" is really irrelevant for the majority of movies that are made in Hollywood.

No. What they mean by "good" when they talk about a "good" script is --

1) strong, easily understood concept.

2) capable of attracting a star that can get a greenlight

3) if made, will make a lot of money

That's it. Nothing about powerful themes, witty dialogue, moving story -- if it has those things great. If not, also great -- so long as it has those three things.

When they say "great" script, just substitute "will make a huge amount of money" for "a lot of money."

All of the things that everyone might have critiqued about the script in question might have been perfectly true, and at the same time, perfectly irrelevant.

The writer of that screenplay wasn't writing to please the people in that room. He was writing to please his audience -- and that audience consists of that very small group of people who are capable of buying a screenplay.

In order to be a professional screenwriter, you have to find a way to give them what they want. No rule says you can't also write a script that is also excellent in other ways. It's not as if they are opposed to that, particularly. Just so long as they get what they want.

Or, it can be utter crap -- and so long as you give them what they want, they're just as happy.

And you shouldn't think that that's easy. If it was, everybody would be doing it.

NMS

[soulforce]

I read that you should never use voice over. I have a few scenes where I use voice over but the other person can hear them, like mind reading. Is a voice over still the right term? Should I not use this at all and just have them talk. I use this as a tool to show the deep connection between these two characters, and to show that they are not in the real world. Like my title describes VO work pending on the contextual usage. For example, if a VO describes what we the audience can already see, then it is redundant, but if it adds an extra deminsion to the story then it sets a mood. Mckee was the one who started the over used remark, "only lazy writers used VO." Which of course he later explained, that VO should never be used in place of visual telling, accept if it adds layers.

[soulforce]

cc - i never met a jf hater before. you are truely a first.
<<<the NikeeGoddess just shakes her head>>>


this is not a black and white issue. in many cases it is. many actors agree to act in a crappy movie because they need to pay the bills or their judgement is impaired or their under the disallusionment that this flick may be "the one!". and many can't tell a mediocre script from a good one. the best actors (and i'm not talking celebrities) know the diff bet a good script and a great script.

the other case is when actors agree to do a crappy movie because they signed a contract with a studio to do so many tentpole flicks in exchange for the more "personal" choices the actor wants them to do.


well, i say you are wrong. first you say JF doesn't have scrupples and now you say you don't doubt it - huh?!
ok - so you say "we ONLY" making me assume you're an actor. well, if you were as good as JF then you could pick and choose and ONLY do the scripts that you love.
also - JF has never "hit it big" - she's been acting for over 40 years... now working the slow and steady, "i'll work when i want to" pace as oppose to the, "i'll get as much done while i'm young and hot, before my looks fade" pace. JF is about quality, not quantity.

ok - i'm done ranting -

as you were Jodie Foster for the most part chooses her films based on the strength of her character and the reputation of the director. She herself said, she rarely thinks about the ultimate success of the movie. For her it is about the exploration, not about dollars and coins. Jodie Foster has hit it big, infact bigger then most A list actors in the past 30 years. She has won two academy awards, been involved in numerious acclaimed films, and continues to work past the age of 40, which for a woman in Hollywood is almost unheard of.

[javili]

Ah, you know her pesonally? That must be fascinating.



How did I claim to know her personally? Because I said that an actors' scruples are not reflected by what films they will or will not do? It is not unethical to act in a bad movie.

Ah. Well I assumed that since you know what her motivations are in choosing roles and about her scruples and such you must know her.


by the way, I admire Ms. Foster's work. But I look at the post above and ask myself, "Have you ever, in your life, heard an actress say "I don't care about all the artsy trappings of this business, I'm in in because I can make a lot of money and I want the roles with the big paydays."?

Actors (and many artists play what Tom Wolfe called "The Boho Dance": it's all about art, not money. And the more successful they become, the more they talk that way.

What I'm really waiting for, though, is to hear some starlet say, "Well, I don't know how much acting or talent is really involved in this. I'm cute and have really nice tits, so I got the part...which consists of being cute and showing my tits."

[soulforce]

Ah. Well I assumed that since you know what her motivations are in choosing roles and about her scruples and such you must know her.


by the way, I admire Ms. Foster's work. But I look at the post above and ask myself, "Have you ever, in your life, heard an actress say "I don't care about all the artsy trappings of this business, I'm in in because I can make a lot of money and I want the roles with the big paydays."?

Actors (and many artists play what Tom Wolfe called "The Boho Dance": it's all about art, not money. And the more successful they become, the more they talk that way.

What I'm really waiting for, though, is to hear some starlet say, "Well, I don't know how much acting or talent is really involved in this. I'm cute and have really nice tits, so I got the part...which consists of being cute and showing my tits." If your not taken seriously as an actor, you won't be offered parts no matter how big your tits are. Every A list actor knows that acting in too many bad movies will eventually mean death to their careers. So in the end the pay day is more of a trade off. If an actor is in it for the money, their careers will be sweet and short. If they are in it because they are artist. They will win recognition and enjoy longer careers.

[Celia Cyanide]

Ah. Well I assumed that since you know what her motivations are in choosing roles and about her scruples and such you must know her.

I never claimed this at all. I never made any statements about Jodie Foster's scruples, nor did I claim to know what her motivations are when she chooses roles.

I do know that Jodie Foster is an A-list actor, and could make just about any film successful by being in it. MOST actors are not like this, and must consider other factors besides just thinking the script is great.

[Celia Cyanide]

If your not taken seriously as an actor, you won't be offered parts no matter how big your tits are. Every A list actor knows that acting in too many bad movies will eventually mean death to their careers. So in the end the pay day is more of a trade off. If an actor is in it for the money, their careers will be sweet and short. If they are in it because they are artist. They will win recognition and enjoy longer careers.

It IS a trade off. George Clooney says the reason why he did the Batman movie was because they paid him enough that now he can do any movie he wants. Some filmmakers might have great scripts, but can't afford to pay actors very much. Acting IS a job, which means that actors have to create a balance between business and art.

[soulforce]

It IS a trade off. George Clooney says the reason why he did the Batman movie was because they paid him enough that now he can do any movie he wants. Some filmmakers might have great scripts, but can't afford to pay actors very much. Acting IS a job, which means that actors have to create a balance between business and art. There is a buisness side to acting. The balance isn't so integral as you might think. In the beginning actors will generally do scripts that they think will bolster their careers. Most of the time it's not for money. Thus I am not sure what George Clonney was getting at? It is usually the other way around. Actors will do indie films until they have enough recognition to hold a Studio picture. Some actors will do indie films to win academy awards. The balance isn't to act in bad movies for money, it is to act in good movies for money. Actors who sell out to bad movies are usually on their way down.

[Celia Cyanide]

There is a buisness side to acting. The balance isn't so integral as you might think. In the beginning actors will generally do scripts that they think will bolster their careers. Most of the time it's not for money.

But it's not always for love, either. A role that will bolster your career is not necessarily one that you will like. And unless you have another job, you usually have to do some acting you're not passionate about when you start out. Like commercial and industrial work, extra and stand in work.

The balance isn't to act in bad movies for money, it is to act in good movies for money.

That is the ideal, but most actors do not get to the point at which they always get to act in good movies for lots of money.

Actors who sell out to bad movies are usually on their way down.

There are plenty of bad movies that are very successful. Actors in successful movies, no matter how bad, are not usually on their way down.

[javili]

whether Jodie Foster will put her name on a crappy script has nothing to do with scruples. It's got more to do with her making so much per picture that she doesn't have to.



I never claimed this at all. I never made any statements about Jodie Foster's scruples, nor did I claim to know what her motivations are when she chooses roles.



.................................................. .................................................. ............

[javili]

Every A list actor knows that acting in too many bad movies will eventually mean death to their careers.

Gee, who would have thought?

[soulforce]

Gee, who would have thought? Not you obviously.

[soulforce]

But it's not always for love, either. A role that will bolster your career is not necessarily one that you will like. And unless you have another job, you usually have to do some acting you're not passionate about when you start out. Like commercial and industrial work, extra and stand in work. When you is broad generalization to make a point, you lose me, I need more. BTW let's leave commercials and extra work aside, for now. We are talking about movies not the media. That is the ideal, but most actors do not get to the point at which they always get to act in good movies for lots of money. Okay, IMO the ony actors who act in bad movies for money are celebrities and B list actors. If you have talent as an actor, you will be offered good scripts, but if you don't have talent, you should not be in the industry to begin with. I frankly can't understand why any one would willing make a bad movie for money. 9 times out of ten they will never recover. Now they are the exceptions, like Tom Cruise to name one, but it is rare a thing. If you want to have a long career in the industry then you got to be smart. Sacrifice coin for quan. The film industry is not checkers, it's chess. And it is a known fact that the smartest people in Hollywood tend to be A list actors, followed by screenwriters. There are plenty of bad movies that are very successful. Actors in successful movies, no matter how bad, are not usually on their way down. They are the exceptions, but I think most successful movies are good.

[NikeeGoddess]

This thread reminds me of one of those moments when you're enjoying a film but absolutely have to get up and go to the toilet, and when you come back you don't understand what the heck's going on.

LOL! this statement is in so need of repeating. ;) ;)

but i'm going to jump in again just because i can and i'm here and sometimes i enjoy a hair-pulling catfight --

Originally Posted by soulforce
BTW let's leave commercials and extra work aside, for now. We are talking about movies not the media.


We're talking about actors. Commercials, voice over work, extra work, and stand-in work is all work that actors do to earn money and make connections. It's usually work they aren't doing because they love it, just like doing bad movies. However, most actors that I know would rather act in a bad movie than do a commercial.

i agree with soul - this is a screenwriter's spot - most of us are writing movies not commericials or that other media stuff. and sorry CC but we're also not writing for you D and (unless you're on par with that silly redhead) E list actors. there is no need to argue incessantly over this crap.

now back on topic:
JF's character in the brave one did some voice over and it worked. so i want to amend my earlier statement suggesting that only morgan freeman should do voice over ;)

voice over should be slated for characters with no window character to bounce off from. they are lonely people (check all the flicks that use it successfully) with no real friends or enemies to vent their frustrations and therefore feel compelled to talk to themselves -- and voice over is the only way the audience knows what's going through their conflicted head.