OK vs Okay, interrupting dialogue, parentheticals, enters/exits

[scriptwriter91]

I use okay some In my script. One is it not cool to over-use okay? What is over-use of okay to ya'll, by the way? And two should I spell it Okay or OK? Not sure on either of these so I need help. kinda on my rewrite one of ______ fill in a number so I really need answers to these and probably many more questions.


-sw91

[Evan Kuhlman]

In most scripts I've seen it as OK, but no reason it can't be okay. Of course anything overdone can be obnoxious, but if that's how the character speaks that's how the character speaks. Good luck. - Evan

[DeaconBlu]

I don't think anyone can fault you if you can point to the dictionary and say, "It's right there."

So for me, it's "OK" instead of "okay".

[scriptwriter91]

Cool, thanks ya'll. One more question: when a charachter is cut off or abruptly quits speaking should it be -- or ...? (ie: Hey, what are you-- or Hey, what are you...) Kinda get what I'm sayin'

-sw91

[scripter1]

is the dash -


Dialog that is hesitant, or broken for thinking, or changing your mind is elipsis ....

Regarding okay.
What is the context? Is this the way one character talks? A speech pattern?
If yes, then sure it is fine. Just don't totally over do it..... unless another character is going to react to that and suddenly start screaming "if you say ok one more time I will rip your head off and feed it to the canary."

If okay is used in another sense as in perhaps - OKay, now our hero is going to climb this wall here, jump down, grab an AK47 and splatter twenty seven ninjas but one of them will be okay and come back at him but the hero will be okay cuz he's got a special shield. The ninja star bounces off it and hits the sidekick who isn't going to be okay -

THEN it's a big problem.

[DeaconBlu]

Can I add a ?

Is it...

MIKE
How many times have I-

JIM
(Interrupting)
STOP! There's no need.

or

MIKE
How many times have I-

JIM
STOP! There's no need.

?

[dpaterso]

I'd use the latter, without the parenthetical:

MIKE
How many times have I--

JIM
Shut. Up.

As with most things OK is trivial personal preference, I use OK in action and "Okay" in dialogue, but I don't think anyone will ever care.

-Derek

[NikeeGoddess]

MIKE
How many times have I--

JIM
(slapping Mike's face)
Shut. Up.

if you use paranthetical is should be "action" not telling as (interrupting) is.

[scripter1]

all ready indicates the interuption so a paren stating that is redundant.

As Nikee shows a nice action works great.

[scriptwriter91]

Just another question

I kno the -ing rule, but what if it is like this

i will use part of my script as an example:
HOTEL CLERK
(pushes the
register forward
and hands Earl a
pen)
Sign here

should it be that or

HOTEL CLERK
(pushing the
register forward
and handing Earl a
pen)
Sign here

or

The Hotel Clerk pushes the register forward and hands Earl a pen

HOTEL CLERK
Sign here

JUst not sure please help

[BottomlessCup]

I'd use the third one.

It's personal preference; I don't like long parentheticals.

[Joe Calabrese]

I think you mean the third one which I agree.

I like to use verbs that are active Walk versus passive Walking. As someone pointed out in another post. A script happens in real time as it is read and also it eliminates extra characters (He is walking is twice as long as He walks)

I almost never use parens (maybe not never), but I try to limit them to non-action. If it is actionable, then put it in action.

I say Okay, but use whatever just pick one and keep it consistent.

Also, I use --, not - I agree with everyone summation on the rest.

[NikeeGoddess]

probably the best time to use parentheticals is when the character is saying one thing and thinking the other - to show us irony or sarcasm - so the actor know how to say what he's saying.

MIKE
How many times have I--

JIM
(playful)
Shut up.

[Joe270]

I thought the parenthetical action stuff was almost supposed to be fragments. Just a quick shot to fill in needed info as briefly as possible.

HOTEL CLERK
(Providing register and pen)
Sign here

We already know he's providing this to Earl, so names are extoraneous in the parenthetical. I recall reading somewhere to only use these once every few pages because readers tire of them. I dunno for sure, but I read this someplace.

[scriptwriter91]

Thanks Joe, that did the trick, now one more question:

Do you use "walks in/out" or "enters/exits"

[Boo_Radley]

Either is acceptable, but personally I think "walks in/walks out" and "enters/exits" are boring. If action reveals character, it makes the character seem like an automaton (IMO, natch').

Which says more about the character: "Jill enters the room" or "Jill struts into the room"? "Jake exits the room", or "Jake stomps out of the room"? "Bob enters the kitchen", or "Bob plods into the kitchen"?

Etc.

[NikeeGoddess]

if you watch closely... there aren't too many scenes where anybody walks in or out. this is because you should start each scene as far into the scene as possible. this would mean they're already in the room and in the middle of a conversation or whatever is happening.

if someone walks in or out of the room then the act should have some real meaning and purpose... something revealing about the character. otherwise, it's boring.

if Jake is in the room plucking his nosehair in the mirror. Jill should start talking while she's taking a tinkle on the seat. we didn't see her until she started talking b/c we were looking at nosehair. or if Jill does enter the room then she should just appear in the mirror startling Jake.

[Joe270]

It depends. If you can move the character with the entrance, ala Kramer, do so.

If it is just another person joining the scene, I'd go with the 'enter' thing. It's old, tried and true from the old 'enter stage left' play direction. It's probably just as invisible as 'said'.

[dpaterso]

In the Hotel Clerk/register drama, I don't think action is even necessary -- what else would be he asking Earl to sign?

HOTEL CLERK
Sign here.

EARL
Sure is a nice place you got.

...during this, I'm gonna assume the Clerk points to the register and Earl signs it. Trivial action hardly worth detailing.

I regard parentheticals as dialogue or emotion modifiers that help us hear how the character is spitting out the words, or to clarify who the character is speaking to, not somewhere to insert action. (I've seen articles that warn against doing this too often since actors don't like being told how to interpret their role, or somesuch reasoning.) But if action is called for because it happens simultaneously with dialogue, at least make it short, e.g.

FRED
Looks like my idea didn't work!

JIM
(punching him)
Ya think?

I've no problem with "Francis exits" or "Dorothy enters" or whatever -- it's basic people movement, just say it. Modify with action by all means, "Jerry marches out, slams the door." "Sam kicks the door open." etc.

-Derek

[Joe Calabrese]

Enters/exits?

What everyone else says.

[scripter1]

I'm siding with Nikee.
Start a scene late, leave it early.

IF a character needs to enter or exit a scene then make sure that action makes a strong statement.

[Evan Kuhlman]

If a character is interrupted use double dash

HARRY

I always thought that--

MEG

Shut up!

If pausing or trailing off use three dots.

HARRY

I always thought that...

MEG

Wake up!

[Hillgate]

If you can write a whole script without 'wrylies' (parentheticals) then it reads better. Also, some people (ie actors) don't need to be told how they are meant to feel or what they're doing. It should flow from the narrative or their dialogue. It's difficult to get used to, but it looks much cleaner.

[razormoney]

Dpat is right -- the double dash implies an interruption.

I'd like to add that there is nothing wrong with adding a ? after the dashes. Personally, I think it adds clarity. Plus, if Shane Black does it (read "Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang" if you get a chance), it must be OK. Although none of us are him (we wouldn't be on this forum if we were), I submit that it is usually not a bad idea to imitate success.
I'd use the latter, without the parenthetical:

MIKE
How many times have I--

JIM
Shut. Up.

As with most things OK is trivial personal preference, I use OK in action and "Okay" in dialogue, but I don't think anyone will ever care.

-Derek

Razor

[C.bronco]

my college advisor told me it was "okay" and not "OK."

[dpaterso]

Those college advisors are always looking for trouble!

It took me 20 years to force myself to write "OK" without periods. I'm not going to stop now, not for nobody, O.K.?

I think everybody's right. But as always the best advice that solves all these trivial little questions is: read more scripts. See how the pros do it. Then you won't have any trivial little questions (in theory anyway). There's a bunch of screenplay site links in the screenwriting tips (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24087) thread.

-Derek

[icerose]

From every script I've read Action goes in the action slots and only emphasis on how the dialog is spoken goes in the paranthesis.

The only time that varies is when it's in another language, subtitled, or directed to a specific person. Like (to John)

They are called wrylies for a reason because quite often the paranthesis containes (wryly)

As for Okay, I was always taught you wrote it out because OK was the abreviated version, but scripts are their own animal.

[Joe270]

These parentheticals are known as 'short action' parentheticals. They are acceptable, if used sparingly. I use them once every ten pages or so. Fast action sequences might see more. Two or three words are best, anything longer needs an action line.

JOHN
(Raising Binoculars)
I can't see anything moving out there.


JOHN
(Cocks weapon)
I'm gonna blast the bastages.

JOHN
(Exiting)
See ya, suckers.

I have never included a wryly parenthetical in my screenplays. They smack too much of direction for me, and they seem, IMHO, very cliche.

[Joe Calabrese]

Here's where I disagree with ya Joe.

If it is an action, then it should go into action.
In my opinion, (which means very little next to Frank Darabond's, but a lot more next to my hair dresser's) Parens, used very sparingly (I can count on one hand the amount I use in an entire script), should be used to make the dialog below it clearer to the reader.

[scripter1]

disagree with ya Joe, and everyone here knows what my opinion is worth.

A short action that takes place during the dialog can be placed inside a paren. Short, short, short, and during the dialog is the key.

I don't see any reason to chop up the dialog and create extra lines by placing a simple little action like (cocks gun) in an action line.

I'm not saying it's black and white, comes down to style and taste I guess, but to me it just doesn't make sense to do all that spacing and line wasting.

Yeah, just don't overdo it.

You say OK, some say okay, and I say otah.
Or if I'm really feeling stupid then it might be ohbataby!

I used wryly once. Totally obvious, totally on purpose, and totally pointing fun at the use of wryly. Too bad it was in a stage play that only members of my church saw. None of the "actors" got it.

[Joe270]

Here's a link from the Academy of Motion Pictures site. I figure they post valid information. You'll need to scroll down a couple pages to get to the short action parentheticals. This example shows more words within the parentheticals than I recall was allowed, to each their own.

http://www.oscars.org/nicholl/format_a.txt

[Joe Calabrese]

I agree that it is to each his own.

We can spout out rules for this and rules for that, but in the end of the day, all that matters is whether it gets read and ultimately sold. A killer script that gets read will be bought regardless of the rule breakers in them. However, a mediocre or even a good script may become worse by them or if many elements go against the readers expectation of rules then the read may get tainted and a good story may be less loved. In competitions, the rules matter most because the initial readers think they know it all and are dying to toss your script in the trash for any indiscretion.

I do notice a trend in recent years to have less and less transitions, camera directions and yes... parens (wrylies). I am even noticing a tiny emergence of talking to the reader a bit, but it is too early to say whether it will stick.

As for your example from AMPAS. It's almost 10 years old. Hell! You could even write (Continuing) back then.

[Joe270]

Action Parentheticals are only another tool to use, or not. If they fit a writer's style, as they do mine, I think it's good to use them--sparingly. If the action needs more than three words to write, use an action line. Parentheticals that use three lines look odd.

My newest screenplay had several "Montage" shots which drew criticism on AW share your work site. The Montage scenes were sorta boring and drab. So I searched for different ways to write the scenes better. Now I use three different Montage methods to break up the pattern.

I also discovered something called "Series of Shots" which worked much better for two of my montage moments. A pretty neat writer's tool I don't recall seeing before.

Thanks to those AW comments, my screenplay is much better now. Variety and spice of life, the tools we use can freshen up a screenplay.

[McDuff]

OK is an abbreviation of "Oll Korrekt" -- proof if proof were needed that people would deliberately misspell and abbreviate things even without mobile phones :). Okay is, therefore, a phonetic spelling of the "correct" term OK.

Here's a question, since we're on the subject of interruptions and the like. How would one go about having someone talk over someone else, rather than interrupting them? For example, the scene in "School of Rock" where Jack Black and Sarah Silverman both talk at each other simultaneously rather than exchanging dialogue.

I can think of a couple of ways myself, but was wondering what other people thought.

JACK
I was going up the hill-

JILL
We were going up the hill!

JACK
(not stopping, raising his voice)
-because SOMEBODY just had to have a pail of goddamn water.

or

BEN
So that's how I saved your mother's life.

WILL
(looks up from crossword puzzle on "saved," talks over end of Ben's sentence)
What's the capital of Georgia?

BEN
Dude, are you even listening to me?

WILL
(on "are")
Tblisi! ... but wait, what if they meant Georgia the state.

BEN
Dude, this is important!

[xhouseboy]

Here's a question, since we're on the subject of interruptions and the like. How would one go about having someone talk over someone else, rather than interrupting them? For example, the scene in "School of Rock" where Jack Black and Sarah Silverman both talk at each other simultaneously rather than exchanging dialogue.



Split page, simultaneous dialogue.

First line direction clarifying that characters will be talking over each other.

Perhaps a parenthetical on when second character comes in - perhaps not.

That's how I'd do it.

[Joe Calabrese]

Who wants to be the guy who tells Michael Douglas that he not only cuts in on Martin Sheen's dialog, but exactly on which word to do so?


Just write the dialog normally (with -- not - cutting off dialog) and place an description line above the dialog that conveys that they talk over each other and let the actors and director decide how and when.

PS.

Dual dialog is only when they say something both at the same time.

[xhouseboy]

Who wants to be the guy who tells Michael Douglas that he not only cuts in on Martin Sheen's dialog, but exactly on which word to do so?




If it's crucial to the scene, it's the writer's job to do so.

[Joe Calabrese]

You give the role of the writer more credit than he/she deserves (or ever gets).

Overlapping dialog is more than just words on paper. The director needs to block the scene the way he sees it and actors need to find their own rhythm.

[Joe270]

You give the role of the writer more credit than he/she deserves (or ever gets).

Overlapping dialog is more than just words on paper. The director needs to block the scene the way he sees it and actors need to find their own rhythm.

Joe, I don't disagree, but I see a different approach for writers. The scene, and, much more importantly, its mood, is coveyed by the writer. The writer sets the ambiance (SP?) the feel of the scene.

You expect and hope the actors and directors can achieve your vision, sometimes they surpass it and take your story to a level you never envisioned.

You sell it and they take it over, you can't gripe about what they do with your material. But you have to make your intent clear enough that they can run with the concept.

Bottom line, you're right that the writer is not a key element. We're the grunts.

[xhouseboy]

You give the role of the writer more credit than he/she deserves (or ever gets).

Overlapping dialog is more than just words on paper. The director needs to block the scene the way he sees it and actors need to find their own rhythm.

Yep, I agree to a certain extent.

But -- I stick by my original point that if if the writer feels it's crucial to the scene, it should already be down on paper.

The writer will sit down with the director or at the very least receive his notes, and if he has a problem with this, then is the time to thrash it out.

Then comes the read-through, and the actors are in play. If it's survived up until this point and isn't working, or the actors see a way of playing it differently, they'll voice their concerns.

The director/exec producers/writer will again sit down and take these concerns on board. Then it will probably be rewritten for sure.

But if it isn't, and survives until the shooting script, and it's still felt it isn't working when they come to film this scene, it will almost certainly be filmed differently.

[McDuff]

OK, so 'on "sure"' wouldn't cut it in that second example, but it's surely a writer's job to put *some* sense of the rhythm of the dialogue into the scene? If it's a scene in which characters are talking over each other, i.e. because one is ignoring the other, or because it's an argument, you're going to have to do something to get that information across, aren't you?

OK, take this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm7wxaixoN4). It's an argument. OK, it's a bit too messy to really put into a film, but on the other hand it's what real arguments look like -- people are shouting over each other, people start to interrupt and get barrelled aside because the other person will sure as hell finish his point and goddamn I'm not stopping or even taking a breath and we'll see who has the sheer lung capacity to win this fight you fucking*inhale* (dammit, I lose!). It's why I always feel scripted fights between people are so weird because, even if people interrupt, they normally still have this A-B-A-B exchange thing.

Now, OK, a good director would probably rewrite some of the dialogue and overlap some of it and see what works, but it seems like the kind of thing that should be in the script. So how would y'all script the film of O'Reilly-zilla vs. Mothraldo?

(And, sure, if Michael Douglas were cast in a film where he had to have an argument with Martin Sheen and the script/director called for him to interrupt and talk over him, he can either do the job or he's the wrong actor for the film.)

[scripter1]

types of issues, are not set in stone. There is some room for the writer's style. There is some allowance for experiment, or playing with the format.

There are NO solid rules governing them.
I guess it would be so much easier if we could say "You MUST put in an action line saying they speak over each other and IF YOU DON'T the script WILL get tossed."

It doesn't work that way.

So really, what it comes down to is what makes sense to the majority of readers. IS the point coming through regardless of whether the reader approves of the method?

Placing the lines next to each other is acceptable.
So is including an explantion of some kind of what happens.
Also a paren can be used (talks over) or something similar.

As always, the answer to every question is to go read a script.

[small axe]

Wiser and more experienced heads have answered (though wisdom and experience may not always coincide in Hollywood, who dares argue with the Insiders) but ...

Ok, ok,ok, ok ... if Joe Pesci says it a zillion times, who's to say the writer wasn't writing it that way on the page?

If you spell it "okay" then how do you spell "A-OK" ?

And it seems to work (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read it too) to use action wryly like so: if it's an action above the shoulders, it's okay (oh oh, ok, I'm screwed) as a dialogue wryly.

GENERAL CUSTER
When I see Injuns, son ...
(lowers binoculars)
... I'll let you know, ok?

[dpaterso]

<hits the tennis ball back over the net>

I dunno about "above the shoulders" but in that Custer example he's pausing to speak... as indicated by the ellipses... which affects dialogue delivery... so the parenthetical doesn't seem intrusive.

-Derek

[scriptwriter91]

Here's a question that I'm strugglin' with while editing:

I know you don't use -ing, but would you use it in a parenthetical?

IE:

Earl
(pointing at the wagon)
We can use that one

or

Earl
(points at the wagon)
We can use that one

Just wonderin'

PS: I need a couple names for projects I've started. If you wanna help me out on this Private Message me.

sw91 Out Dawgs

[Joe Calabrese]

I'm gonna assume that there is action before that dialog. If so,

They walk around inspecting several wagons. Earl points to one.

EARL
We can use that one.


If there is a dialog exchange then I would do it:


BOB
I don't see any that will last the trip.

EARL
We can use that one.

He points to a wagon that looks in good shape.


or if you are dead set on using a paren, then:

EARL
(points to wagon)
We can use that one.


As many here say, some use parens and other don't, but all will agree that it should be a short action. My take is that if it is an action, it should go in action. My few exceptions are when someone talks to multiple people and we need to know who in particular (to Paul) or when dialog is said in a way that needs a particular direction (in a french accent). But do what you will as it is a matter of style.

Just do not over use it or use it for the wrong reasons.

[scriptwriter91]

ok how about this:

should you use whispers in a paren?

IE:

Earl
(whispers)
We rode our horses and forgot the wagon

Again just another question

PS:In addition to my previous title help needs I also need to know what to do with this script when I finish. My mentor (a junior at my high school), by the way I'm a freshman, anyway he says I should make it into a movie. He has agreed to write a summary of the story for me 'cause I'm not good at that stuff. Anywho how should I go about it? Should I send it to a production company (ie: Paramount). Or I don't know. Help Please!!!!!!

a now confused sw91
Out Dawgs

[scripter1]

the whispers paren can be used IF it needs clarifing.

If you have all ready set up that the scene is very quiet and it is obvious that people would talk very softly you don't really need it.
BUT if the whispers is a shift from the tone of the scene you need it.

I agree with Joe on the action around the wagons. It doesn't need to be a paren.

I usually only use an action paren when it breaks up more then two lines of speech or HAS to be performed during the line where stopping to place it in standard action breaks would muff the flow of the dialog.

[scriptwriter91]

Here's just another question. What if a character is dying (such as in an a western). Do you need speacial parens when they speak?

I'm full of questions, just ain't figured all of 'em out yet
-sw91

[Joe Calabrese]

So you got a guy shot, bleeing to death, probably laying in a pool of his blood and you feel the necessity to tell the reader that the character is dying as he speaks?

Come on...

Bob holds his gut as his innards ooze from between his fingers.

BOB
(in agony)
Holy Shit!

Any paren you can think of is not needed.

[Plot Device]

I was taugh that "okay" is proper written English. But I have recently discovery the brilliant revelation that "ok" is only 2 characters as opposed to 4, so I do "ok" to save space in my scripts.

As for parentheticals, I was told they are always meant as clarifiers:

John and Kathy stand in the open front door. Kathy sighs in impatience as John glares at Lisa who still phone-talks.

JOHN
(to Lisa)
Are you coming yet?

LISA
(to John)
In a minute
(to the phone)
I'd like to make a reservation please.

KATHY
(to Lisa)
I'm hungry! Let's go!
(to John)
How rude!

JOHN
(to the ceiling)
Why me?

[Plot Device]

Here's one of the very first scripts I ever read when I began to study screenwriting. It's M.Night's The Sixth Sense.

http://home.online.no/~bhundlan/scripts/TheSixthSense.htm

This one bit of dialogue made me laugh because of several of the parentheticals.

The scene is the birthday party at the rich lady's house. As background, Cole's mother, Lynn, is NOT a blue-blooded member of the Philadelphia eite who live in the Society Hill neigborhood, so she's a pariah at this party (and the only reason Cole was invited is that Cole goes to the private school where these rich kids all go). So Lynn is in the kitchen talking to the hostess (probably because none of the other mothers will talk to her). And here's how that conversation goes:

INT. KITCHEN - AFTERNOON

Cole sits alone in the corner of the living room. The open
kitchen doorway is next to him. Inside the kitchen are Lynn and DARREN'S MOM speaking. It's clear they're from different worlds. Lynn is wearing tight clothes with hair teased to dramatic heights. Darren's mom is in a designer suit.

LYNN
...He doesn't get invited places.

DARREN'S MOM
It's our pleasure.

LYNN
The last time was a Chuck E. Cheese
party a year ago. He hid in one of
those purple plastic tunnels and
didn't come out.

DARREN'S MOM
Chuck E. who?

LYNN
Cheese. It's a kid's place.

Darren's mom smiles formally and turns to give the catering
people instructions on how to lay out the food on her sterling
silver trays.

LYNN
He's my whole life.

Darren's mom turns back to Lynn, the forced smile on her face.

LYNN
I work at an insurance place and at
Penny's, so Cole can go to that
good school.

DARREN'S MOM
J. C. Jenny's?

Lynn nods "Yes."

DARREN'S MOM
(bullshit)
Good for you.

LYNN
I wish I could be like my momma
though. She always knew what was
wrong. Knew just what to say.

Darren's mom glances at her expensive watch.

LYNN
Cole's going through something bad.
He won't talk to me.
(beat)
I'm his momma.
(emotional)
And I don't know what's wrong and
I don't know what to say.

Lynn drowns in her thoughts. Cole moves away from the kitchen
with sad eyes.

CUT TO:

[scripter1]

about them?

They seem resonable and simple enough to me.

[Plot Device]

about them?

They seem resonable and simple enough to me.

I should probably clarify that just the one made me laugh (bullshit).

The others were enlightening because they were space-savers: (beat) is something I was taught to do as a separate action line. But here it's a parenthetical. You can save three whole hard-returns by doing it as a parenthetical.

And then the last one (emotional) is an acting direction. I'm told never to give acting direction but I have recently taken liberties and begun to do that in some instances.

[jonpiper]

Parantheticals can also be used to indicate the tone or volume of the character's voice while delivering the dialogue.

TOM
(a whisper)
Behind you.

[NikeeGoddess]

plot - the sixth sense is not the best example to follow. and the reason is: the writer and the director are the same. when this is the case the writer can write any style with any detail with any formatting no-no's, etc... (within reason of course) because it does not have to pass through the judgement of the director.

personally, i don't like to use (beat) - i prefer ... as my pause in dialogue
and if it's a long beat then probably there should be some kind of action even if a subtle look or change of emotion.

[scripter1]

do take on a different slant when you consider that the director placed them/created them.

Still, they aren't bad or innapropriate from a screenwriting perspective either.

Even the acting direction isn't too much.
It clarifies the line.