Why does everyone hate voice-over?

Status
Not open for further replies.

bottomlesscup

“Never use voice-over.”

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

Well, I call bullsh1t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate away.
 

kojled

blc

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


zilla
 

bottomlesscup

z-

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

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

joecalabre

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

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

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

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

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

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

joecalabre

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

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

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

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

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

bottomlesscup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

kojled

blc

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

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

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

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

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


z
 

Vigorish9

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

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

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

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

vig
 

Noah1

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

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

Vigorish9

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

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

v9
 

bottomlesscup

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

William Haskins

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

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

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

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

Noah1

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

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

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

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

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

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

bottomlesscup

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

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

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


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

Writing Again

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

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

William Haskins

bottomlesscup,

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

best of luck with your script.

-william
 

moviemaestro

Voice overing

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

-Movie Maestro
 

Stylianou

Re: Voice overing

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

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

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

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

kojled

Re: Voice overing

stylianou

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

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

you've made a believer out of me


zilla
 

Stylianou

Re: Voice overing

patronising, but fair enough.

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

NikeeGoddess

Re: Voice overing

great voice-over:

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

Bobby DeNiro as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver

Jack Nicholson as Schmidt in About Schmidt

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

write on!
 

Noah1

Re: Voice overing

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

:rolleyes
 

desmas

To VO are not ro VO that is the question!

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

You should see Adaptation. Funny movie!

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

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

So what about ShawShank VO galour and a tremendous hit?

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

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

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

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

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

madaboutrabbits

In reply to kojled (guest)

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

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