I'm working on a short(ish) script in which the protagonist's thought processes are a key element of the story. I've written around 20 pages so far and 90% of the dialogue is voice over. Now, I was always taught that voice overs should be avoided since they are often used as an easy way out. However, I can't see any way to fully convey my protagonist's character without these internal monologues. I usually write visually and so far the script is very visual, but the story is driven by the character's internal voice.

Many, many films, particularly those adapted from novels make extensive use of voice over but I'm concerned that this might turn people off my script. I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this.

I don´t think that a 90% V.O. script is a bad thing, as long as V.O. is being used correctly.

Check this out: http://www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/Tip260.htm

Thanks Mr. Z. Good article

If there is no OTHER way to tell the story visually, then voice overs are fine. There's no crime against using them. It boils down to a cardinal rule of writing where showing a character being shot is far better than having him show up with a bullet wound and say "I've been shot." If a voiceover is the best way to convey the message you are putting through, the voiceover is the way to go. If you're sacrificing showing for telling, thn it's worth rethinking.

To quote adaptation:  "It's sloppy writing.  Any idiot can use voice-overs to show thoughts."*

*  Probably not a perfect quote.

Adaptation is rich with VO and the VO enhances the movie, in direct contrast to that so-called rule (the movie has a lot to do with screenwriting steriotypes and their breaking).  IMO, the general idea is that it's stupid if you just show it to say "I was angry", cheapening the emotion and taking any sophistication out of it.  It's good when used as:

1)  Narration.  Although I think too many movies are narrated like this, sometimes good narration aids the story (Examples:  Adaptation, The man who wasn't there).

2)  Commentary on flashbacks.  This is shown very clearly in Hero, and I'm not sure but may appear in The Usual Suspect (though there the movie is usually cut back to the characters experiencing the flashback).

3)  Intros.  This is actually a sub-category of number 1, but is in its own category.  A lot of movies use a VO intro to set-up the film.  Best example:  Aladdin, although sometimes it's actually one of the characters doing it.

This list is not exclusive.  Use your imagination.


I saw a minute of a Spanish Soap Opera at one point that had a character asked her boyfriend/husband/whatever what he'd been doing that day, then immediately VO something along the lines of:  "I want to know what you were doing with Mrs. Whatever".  This is the cheapest form of screenwriting, which threw away emotion, script and the audience needing to think in order to follow - in order to clarify their plot.  That is what you should NOT do.


Although IMO neither Adaptation nor The Man who Wasn't There were good movies, they are both good movies to watch if you want an idea of a movie with huge amounts of VO.

I really don't understand the stigma against V.O.s... they've been used in so many movies and have, for the most part... in my opinion at least... been very well executed. Sure, if it's used as a crutch to tell the story it can get annoying, and if every other line in the movie is a voice over, then yeah, they can be pretty awful.

I just think it's a weird thing to pick on. Why not something more substancial, like poor character development and lame dialogue?

V.O. is only good when it's done in GoodFellas/Fight Club style which gives insight to the events taking place on screen. Otherwise I'd say it's a cop out and downright cheesy and should not be used under 99% of given circumstances.

Thanks for the replies fellas. I'm confident that V.O. is necessary for the script I'm working on because it gives insight into the thought process of my protagonist. Without this insight his actions become unbelievable. The way things are going, the first 20 pages have a lot of voice over because the protagonits doesn't really interact well with other characters (think Taxi Driver). Once the story is in motion there is more interaction and therefore less voice over.

The voice overs done in Apocalypse Now are very good. You should check it out if you haven't seen it.

Easy way out for what? Dialouge is dialouge no matter how you cut it... Who said that it was an easy way out? Explain why it's an easy way out, actually. Because you don't see someone talking? I don't get it.

I don't use V.O. too much in any of my scripts but when I do I don't ever think it's because I'm taking an easy way out of anything... I take it as "This is what I feel is needed for the scene" "This is/will be a more cinematic shot this way"

So easy way out just kinda pissed all over my leg today... Sorry if it sounds like I'm agitated, I'm really not... Honest... No really... please come back...

LOL

When I took a screenwriting class a few years back we were asked to adapt several short stories into screenplays. The 'easy way out' when adapting from a novel or story is to use a voice over for the internal monologues so often seen in novels. We were told to avoid it if possible and rightly so. I think some screenwriting teachers take the idea too far though. Most films that are adapted from novels use voiceover to some extent. It all depends on how you use it and whether you rely on it too much.

If done right, voice-overs are freakin' awesome. Just look at Sin City or Big Fish or Forrest Gump or whatever.

To be honest I thought the VO in Sin City was fairly lame. The dialogue was lifted from the comic book and didn't transfer well to screen. Artistically, it's a great movie though. I'd say Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, and Fight Club are all great examples.

How do you do VO over a Montague sequence.  The first few pages of my script shows this guy through his childhood, like through a super 8 camera, like home movies.  Do you do the VO first or do you write the montague sequences first.  I'm a bit unsure.

It depends, but the best way is probably to split your voiceover up over the images.


                          

In my opinion, to have a voice over over a montage is not exactly a true montage.

This is not intended to be a plug, but the first part of The Fempiror Chronicles contains two extensive voice over flashbacks that essentially montages of images. This is not a read request, but just to look at the format. I have yet to be called on the way I formatted these pages from anyone who has read it, so I can assume they're good. Click Here for the script and check pages 36-38 and 42-44. The montage sequences are basically written as normal scenes but have voice overs.

You could also look The Fellowship of the Ring. It uses more of a shooting format that can be adapted to spec pretty easily (the IMAGE term is not used a lot, but allowed in spec writing).

Quoted from The boy who could fly How do you do VO over a Montague sequence.  The first few pages of my script shows this guy through his childhood, like through a super 8 camera, like home movies.  Do you do the VO first or do you write the montague sequences first.  I'm a bit unsure.

You write them as you see them in your head and as you would see them on the screen.

I've written two shorts, done in complete voice over, Price Check on Film Noir and The Repairman Cometh.  They were no different than writing any other scripts.


Phil

awesome  thanks you guys.  Also, should I describe in the script that this is seen through home movies or not?

Yes.  You can simply write:  

FADE IN ON:

Grainy, faded footage of a home movie.  JOHN (12) throws a football in a park.

                 JOHN (V.O.)
     Ever since I was a kid....


Phil

thank you