Okay, so which one of these should I use?  What george says and what Mr. Z say are pretty simple, but then I was looking at The Burnout, and it has a logline, and R.E. Freaks semi-colon....Which one of these should I use?

It all depends on context. Write out what you have, and we'll see what works best.

If I wanted to do like...a montage of scenes covering a group of people walking across a desert or something, how would I go about doing that?

Like, I'd show the people walking across in one shot, and then the people walking later on that day in another shot, all in one little sequence?

-Chris

You could break up the walking with any dialogue or action?  

Another way is:

EXT.  DESERT - MONTAGE

John leads the group across the desert.

Beth drinks water from a canteen.

Mike looks at his watch.  12:30.

Vultures circle group.

Bob falls face first in the sand.

END MONTAGE.



Phil

I guess my question really was: "How do I go about showing that the location changes in a montage? Like "Lord of the Rings" style montage where we see our heroes running over a grass plain and then cut to them running through a valley and then cut to a wide shot of them running across the horizon...

You could use MATCH CUT:  

That's a cut that almost makes the next shot instantaneous.

For example:

EXT. CITY - DAY

Joe and Jill run through the city at top speed.

                                                                    MATCH CUT TO:

EXT. DIRT ROAD - DAY

Joe an Jill are now running along a dirt road outside of the city

                                                                    MATCH CUT TO:

EXT. MOUTAIN PASS - DAY

Joe and Jill are now climbing up a mountain.  


That's a very bland example but I have seen that a couple of times, especially in Wachowski screenplays and it seems like that's what you are trying to do.  

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. Thanks, Guy.

I'm not sure Guy's example is the correct use of 'match cut'.

I'd use MATCH CUT sparingly in a spec script and I wouldn't use it to show passage of time given its definition.

"Technical term for when a director cuts from one scene to a totally different one, but has objects in the two scenes "matched," so that they occupy the same place in the shot's frame."

For example.

A ferris wheel turns in the sunlight.

                                                               MATCH CUT TO:
A roulette wheel spins.

I'd say Phil's example is the way to go. You don't want to step on the director's toes.

Yeah, or like in FINAL DESTINATION 3 with those two girls who burn to death in sunbeds:

The two sunbeds are burnt to a crisp, flames licking the edges.

                                                                                        MATCH CUT TO:

Two COFFINS -- waiting to go six feet under.

Are you supposed to use them in a spec script though? It's an editing technique, and therefore isn't it up to the director and editor how the cuts from scene to scene are presented?

Don't say MATCH CUT ever. I think it's considered a bit ignorant and a bit arrogant.  Instead, let a match cut be implied by just stating the images one after another.  If it's really a good match cut you'll be able to tell that's the transition intended.

If a write a montage centered only on one person, does it get repetitive writing "he" about fifteen times? Or should I write out his names at random times to keep it interesting?

Write his name.  At least at the beginning of every new shot in the montage.  It will flow much smoother that way.  

I personally find repetitive and tyiring when many lines in a script start with the same name, be it a montage or whatever scene. Like for example:

INT. KITCHEN - DAY

John opens the fridge and looks inside.

John grabs the milk.

John pours the milk into an empty glass.

John drinks the milk.

Looks dumb, doesn't it? The example below flows much better, IMO.

INT. KITCHEN - DAY

John opens the fridge and looks inside.

He grabs the milk.

Pours the milk into an empty glass.

He drinks the milk.

If your montage is about the same character, mention his name only in the first line. After that, it's redundant.

You could also do this:

INT. KITCHEN - DAY

John opens the fridge and looks inside. Grabs the milk. Pours the milk into an empty glass. Drinks the milk.

However, this isn't a montage. For a montage, the same basic idea can be used, but the point is that it has to be clear.

MONTAGE

A) John bungy-jumps off a bridge.

B) He parasails.

C) Writes an endless stream of lines on a form document with a badly formatted script next to him. Anger is etched on his face.

D) Bounces on a trampoline.

E) Vomits into a toilet.

END MONTAGE

Aside from the sentence fragmentation, I agree with George.  But in a montage it makes sense to use his name again each time, as they're seperate scenes.

One scene should be:  Geoge opens the refrigirator and looks inside.  He grabs the milk, and pours it into an empty glass.  He then drinks the milk.

A montage should be:

A)  John bungy-jumps off a cliff.

B)  John parasails

C)  John writes an endless stream of lines on a form document with a badly formatted script next to him. Anger is etched on his face.

etc.