Whenever I hear anyone bag voice over, the first thing that pops into my head is the brilliant Goodfellas. That had heaps of voice over and was a great film.

It all comes down to how many V.O's your gonna use. If you use it to much then you may as well turn it into a radio script. Que organ music.

I want to see Adaption.

I would love to read a sript help book by David Koepp, because i saw Zathura and it was actually good. It's amazing how such a bad idea can be so good with a awesome writer.

Though if I remember correctly, Bladerunner wasn't originally written with a voice over, and was subsequently removed in the Directors Cut.

And let's not forget this little gem. Lol

I remember seeing 'Cave Dwellers' on Mystery Science Theater 3000.  It was a sword and sorcery story that began with an extremely long narrative, explaining the story up to the story.  Dozens of names and places and battle and other things were listed.  It went on and on.

Finally, Tom Servo shouted "Tolkein couldn't follow this story!!"


Phil

Quoted from Kevan I have never seen it, and  don't want to....The version which possesses the Voice Over, in my opinion, is the far superior.

Now hold on a minute there, Kev.  You've "never seen it", but dismiss it as an inferior product?  That doesn't sound like you.

Bladerunner is one of my favorite films -- top five for sure -- and I've seen both versions several times.  They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

The "V.O." version has way too much V.O., and treats the viewer as stupid.  On the other hand, the "non-V.O". version can be confusing to a viewer not already familiar with the story.

In keeping with the theme of this thread, there is a middle-ground for V.O., and it can be crossed, as in the theatrical version of Blade Runner.

The Director's cut also has tiny little extra pieces vital to our understanding of this story.  The "unicorn dream sequence" is cheesy and out of place -- but it also changes every single detail about the character of Decker.....

Big Ol' Spoiler:




It confirms that he is, in fact, a replicant himself.

Quoted from Kevan Hey, I also gave away a brand new version of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining because the DVD was mastered in 4:3 Anamorphic ratio. I've got it on V.H.S from a B.B.C. screening a few years ago broadcast in 1:85:1 ratio and prefer it.

Kubrick preferred to do his films in 4:3 ratio as opposed to widescreen. Kind of odd that someone would have done a 1.85:1 version of it. I figure they probably just chopped off the top and bottom of the original.

I brought the directors cut of Bladerunner, and was slightly confused, always assumed the voice over would have made things easier. Generally though I didn't like Bladerunner and  have a strong dislike of Ridely Scott. With the exception of Hannibal and Matchstick Men, I think that his films are big and empty. His budgets are more impressive than the films, same as Peter Jackson, his low budget films were pure trash. Tromaeque trash.

Quoted from Kevan Just my opinion, Bert... My own personal taste, is I like the version with the Voice Over and don't particularly want to view The Director's Cut. I was given the film on DVD as a gift but I give it away to avoid watching it because I didn't want my feelings for the original film to be tainted by "The Director's Cut". Call it avoidance if you like. I've read the book quiet a few times and liked the original. Hey, I also gave away a brand new version of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining because the DVD was mastered in 4:3 Anamorphic ratio. I've got it on V.H.S from a B.B.C. screening a few years ago broadcast in 1:85:1 ratio and prefer it. Its like the way I eat food, I like some stuff but avoid others which I don't like. You could also say my opinion is based on my "taste".. Opinions are like..... Well, you know what I was going to say.... Everybody's got one... Kev

Uhm, but by refusing the watch the director's cut I'd say you lose the privilege to actually form an opinion about it.

You can't have an informed opinion about something you haven't seen, no matter how fervent and convinced your presumptions are.

Fact of the matter is Blade Runner is one of my favorite films of all time, and I'd take the director's cut anyday over the original. The voice-over makes it a cheesy pastiche on crime-noir, enjoyable in the same nostalgic way Slither was a cool allusion to Night of the Comet and 80's Schlock. But as a film in its own right, the Voice-over is a tacky add-on, that even Harrison Ford hated, and tried deliberately to ruin.

That being said, I don't mind voice-overs at all, if they're used correctly. I often employ voice-overs as an expositionary device. I never use VO to explain feelings like "At that moment I felt like my heart was in my throat and I cried because we could never be together..." because that's lazy IMO.

But to use a voice-over to introduce characters, that I'll do. Like from a script I'm working on:

Quoted Text GRETCHEN (V.O.) The big one’s Finch. The older, wiser member of the bunch. Claims he once watched all the episodes of Growing Pains back to back as a wager, and as a result had ‘laugh-track tinnitus’ for a month.

This kind of VO speaks directly to the viewer and is aware of its own construct as a narrator and its audience. It's not a window into the soul of the character, as he or she would never reveal personal things in this mode. I don't find there's anything wrong with this kind of narration, as it's been employed since Shakespeare.

To me, the argument that movies are visual in nature and therefore shouldn't employ voice-over, is a futile point, as the same could be, and probably was argued when talkies first emerged. "Movies are made to be seen, not heard!"

These rules are silly, yo.

Quoted from Kevan Dead Monkey I do have Blade Runner The Director's cut, and I've watched it many times. My argument was I prefer the original. Like in the text you quoted, it's all a matter of taste and opinion. Like in your argument, you've stated a taste and an opinion.. The original argument in this thread was not about Blade Runner it was about whether V.O. narration was applicable in movies. In my opinion it is, it is just another device in which the writer/fimmaker tells a story. Rooted in the 19th Century tradition of the novel. There are many fine examples in movies old and present where the voice over narration is still used. To debate whether it is good of bad is irrelevant because as a device a lot of writers/directors still choose to use it. And therefore there can't be anything wrong with it. Voice Overs are a tried and tested means of telling a story, in part with the pictures.  Despite what anybody says, it's a part of cinema history now whether you argue there is something wrong with them or not. And who are we to say what is right or wrong with voice overs. Who are we to know what works and what does not. Personally, I think writers and directors still use them because they choose to. They make an aesthetic conscious decision. This is called freedom to express in their given artform. And so to answer the question posed in this thread, and hopefully put this thread to bed, there is nothing wrong with voice overs, they are simply another device in telling a story, and if written well can lift a cinematic experience to even greater heights.

Sorry to be to tenacious about this but I'm genuinely confused.

You just wrote a few posts back that:

Quoted Text I have never seen it, and  don't want to. The version which possesses the Voice Over, in my opinion, is the far superior.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Especially when you now claim you've watched it many times?

Heaven knows I agree with you about voice-over in general but I just had an allergic reaction to your post about slamming a film you presumably hadn't seen?

Okay, it seems I was a bit uninitiated on this one.

kaaay. so when your doing a voice over how do you also explain what's happening on screen as well?

Quoted from kev kaaay. so when your doing a voice over how do you also explain what's happening on screen as well?

You'd write the direction as the camera would see it.  Don't depend on the voice over to do this.


Phil

There's also this one site called Simplyscripts that has a few scripts on it too. It's not too hard to find. If you click "home" at the top of the screen, you'll get there. Click on "movie scripts" and you'll find some movie scripts. No need to Google it.

And on voiceovers, just treat voiceovers like the dialogue for the scene. It's written about the same way. You just insert the dialogue right before the action it is supposed to go over.

Fellowship of the Ring is a decent example of this since the whole prologue is voiceover. Granted, it's a shooting script, so you're inundated with shooting directions, but the voiceover principle is the same.

American Beauty is another good example.