I don't know if this has already been asked, but I'm working on a script that contains a good deal of voice over narration. The character's sole purpose is the narrator and he never appears in flesh. My question is that is it necessary to include (V.O.) after NARRATOR every time I start a new narration? It just looks awkward seeing it over and over and over again. Since the character is addressed as NARRATOR, do you think I could mention it once and let it be hoping readers get that the Narrator speaks only in voice over?

Yeah, if it's a V.O., you do need to designate it as such.

In fact, it will be MORE confusing if you were to suddenly stop using it -- we might think this guy is now on-screen for some reason.

Quoted from Jdawg2006 It just looks awkward seeing it over and over and over again.

Without having seen the script, this is a clue to me that you are using way too much V.O. to tell your story.

If you find yourself relying on V.O. to move the story forward, you need to rethink your methods of telling this story.

(V.O.) is also needed to point out that the Narrator isn't talking off screen (O.S.).


Phil

I would give the man a name, lets say Frank, then I would say FRANK'S VOICE, rather than FRANK (V.O.).

This also depends on who is this narrator, is he part of the story? Is he going over events he was part of, or witnessed when he was young?

I used the voice-over technique heavily in my story * Sweet Little Dream * and I like it because it gives insight to the character. But many people don't like this style, they think the writer is too lazy to create certain events and uses V.O instead. So you need to be careful when you tell the story.

Voice-Over has been used in alot of successful movies. Sunset Blvd, Forest Gump...etc...

I get what you're saying. The Narrator is actually a character in the film who we see constantly, but I refer to him as Narrator because as we learn throughout the film, though they are the same person, they are not the same character. Understand?

The premise of the story is this film is really a young writer's memior, so the narration is sort of like the character reading his one words while the action occurs. It's sort of a film within a novel premise.

Thanks for the help. I've decided to add the (V.O.) because it's not hard to type at all.

Another good movie that used a lot of voiceover is Amelie. It's a French film from 2000 or so and the first 20 minutes are nearly 100% voiceover. I was worried, but then it enabled the story to move like it could never have otherwise. We got introduced to a myriad of characters, their backgrounds, their likes and dislikes, and it would have been near impossible to get that amount of info without the voiceover. It was effective there.

Most of Stanley Kubrick's films have voiceover as well. It was a trademark of his. A Clockwork Orange was almost nothing but V.O. The argument continues...

So I read here a while ago and in several script writing books to avoid voiceovers in scripts and I just don't understand why.
Some of my favorite movies such as American Beauty, Fight Club, Goodfella's and Fear and loathing in Las Vegas all have voice overs. In fact in my opinion voice overs always enhance the movie rather than take away from it. Maybe I have just missed the movies and scripts that have given voice overs a bad name.

Anyway, for my next script it needs a narrator. Without it I just can't write it. Everything needs to be told from the main characters point of view and his feelings on past events need to be included. It's absolutely essential to portray the story and the message that I want to get across. Does this mean my story is already flawed? If not  what should I avoid doing without taking out the narration? I know you are supposed to show rather than tell but I really don't understand why most screenwriting books stress to avoid using voice overs. So far I don't think I'm telling things that can be seen but like I said, the books I have tend to state to stay away from narration at all costs.

Any examples of scripts that overuse it, or things to avoid doing would be greatly appreciated as I want to make this script as solid and can be and I think that doing wrong things with the voice over could be a big turn off right from the start.

Listen. Take those screenwriting books with a grain of salt. You want a Voice over. You put it in there. The guys that write those books are mostly people who like to stick to "rules" when writing scripts. Which is why they end up writing books on how to write scripts rather than writing scripts themselves. Ever seen a book writen by a great screenwriter? David Koepp? True, you need to be careful when using voice overs, but it's not like you get only one shot, that's the beauty of computers. Unless you're using a typewriter, then that could be a pain in the ass.

I have a few books by "filmmakers" but I've always wanted to ask them: "If you've got all the d*mn answers, why aren't you putting them to use?" One book was written by a guy who had made two independant movies, and was flauting that around like he was a god, telling the reader that they should "never do it this way" and "always do this because I say so and I have made two movies that barely made enough to cover their budgets and wasn't critically awarded by anyone. In fact, only 9,000 people know they exist, but you should listen to me because I know everything about movies."

I don't know either. I love movies with voice overs and love using voice overs. The Shawshank Redemption is another great movie with voice over.I think people are just too picky about the wrong things some times.

I think most of the problem with voice over is that sometimes people use them to cover plot holes, or just tack on a quick explanation for something they didn't show or forgot. But I don't think it's all that big a deal. Some other squabble with v.o. is that it just tends to get tedious when reading sometimes. In a movie, it's just there, so you accept it, but when reading I don't think people like it too much. I also don't think that people envision the movie with the voice over all that well. Sure it may be a pain sometimes to read and takes up space, but if it were in the movie, it wouldn't be that big a deal.

So, I say just go with your voice over. Don't let anybody tell you you can't do something. Instead of books, I've just read other screenplays and comments, which are a lot more useful. Then you could just pick and choose what you like and don't like and stick with what you think would work well for what you want.

I'm also in the "nothing wrong" crowd. Anything you use should be done in a way that can't be done any other way. Voiceovers are another device that films use to convey a story. If you can't convey certain things any other way, then use it. No one will give you grief over it unless they're in the "hate" camp. The same thing has been said of flashbacks.

It's your story. Write it however you want to write it. As long as a story is told, you did your job.

Voice Overs have a bad reputation, and rightly so. Telling a story with images is essential to the craft of screenwriting and since this is something quite difficult to achieve, this is where many amateurs fail. Voice Overs happen to be the perfect tool to feed information to the audience when the author doesn’t know how to externalize his character’s feelings or find the right visuals for his plot points. And since it’s an easy tool to “solve” a difficult problem, it’s very used by amateurs.

If you want to truly understand the statement written above, forget American Beauty or Fight Club (which I also enjoyed). Just go to triggerstreet, zoetrope, look for some unproduced crap, and you’ll see it for yourself.

Opinions from those who write screenwriting books but not successful scripts should be taken with a grain of salt, but it’s always better to take their advice than the advice from those who didn’t write none of them.

Voice Overs are difficult to use correctly and easy to use incorrectly. I woudn't advice to avoid them, but make sure that your craft is advanced enough to handle them. Here are some pointers: http://www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/Tip260.htm

Great article, Mr. Z. There's a lot of good suggestions regarding the voiceover in there.

Very good article Mr. Z. Following those check points it gives me a good understanding of where I could possibly go wrong and it also reassures me that the voice over in my story is okay. It's mainly just funny comments adding over flashbacks as my main protagonist tells the story of his life. I shall look over that check list as I go along and won't violate any of it's suggestions. Thanks for that. And everyone else that responded thanks too.

On a related topic would anyone mind reading the first page 5 pages of my script to make sure that my narration is okay? How I have it set up the beginning is how it basically will go throughout so if I'm making mistakes now they will probably continue.

The reason why voice overs are shunned is because most people use them incorrectly.  They use them as an easy way to tell the story or explain things.


Phil

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.

I had a question about using both narration and images in the opening of a script.  For example, while the narration is going on how do I incorporate the scenes that's being described?  Do I do a line of narration and then do the INT/EXT?

I'm clueless  

Write what you want as you would any other scene, but the person talking would have a VO tag next to their name to identify that they're not actually in the scene.

cool, thanks for the help!  

The scene is this:

EXT   PAWN SHOP - DAY

I have character 'A' waiting outside on the sidewalk.  His friend, character 'B', is inside bartering with the owner over a guitar she's trying to pawn.   She is visible to us (remember - this is all taking place from character 'A's perspective) and we are able to hear her speaking.  Her back is to us though so we can't actually see her lips moving.

My question is this, since it's obviously her that's speaking, do I need to use a V.O for her lines of dialogue?  It's a quick scene but it's important that I maintain perspective outside the shop.

If she's in the 'picture' then the V.O. is not needed.  If the focus, visually, is on character A and B is still talking, then it is V.O.


Phil

Thanks Phil.  The focus is on A, though I guess technically they'd both be in picture. It seems to feel right having the V.O.  so I'll go with it.  

The scene is intended to establish character A's reaction to watching his friend pawn off her most treasured earthly pocession for a few measly bucks.  That's why I want to keep it outside of the shop and not be in there with her.

You could try something like:


As B watches from outside, A is barely audible through the window.

               A
          (muffled)
     But his daddy was a Gibson!
     His mama was a Fender!

Yeah, I like it Bert.  Probably a little more clear-cut than how I currently have it.

This is what I have BTW:

A waits out front.  He peers inside , sees B barter with the owner over her guitar.

            B (V.O.)
  Here it is.  Ain't she
  something?

I guess you could use a O.S. for these scenes.

Good point Tweak.  I suppose this is one of those things where it would depend on how the director decided to compose the shot.  In my mind anyway, I envision seeing both characters on screen.  

The muffled idea kind of leaves this open to interpretation so it might work best.  I'll go write it in now.

I think the easiest to understand on the page would be a mixture of yours and Bert's idea.

A waits outside the window.  He presses his face up to the glass and watches as B barters with the OWNER over her guitar.
               B
          (muffled)
Here it is.  Ain't she something.

Quoted from bert                A           (muffled)      But his daddy was a Gibson!      His mama was a Fender!

I thought Daddy was a rodeo.


Phil

Another idea is that this can be done in adr.

Quoted from tweak Another idea is that this can be done in adr.

I'm not familiar with adr.  Is that an abreviation?

Quoted from mgj I'm not familiar with adr.  Is that an abreviation?

adr is just dubbing.  A lot of programs use dubbing when their location impacts performances.  The actors go into a studio and say their lines.  These are then sync'd with the video, so write for what you are going for in the script, and let the directors figure out how to do it.  They might just change it anyway and do something you didn't think about.

tweak

ADR stands for additional dialogue recording and it's not really something that screenwriters need to be concerned with. There are several ways to do a voiceover, and it's more for us to write the story in the clearest way possible.

The "muffled" rendition is probably the best option since it's viewed from outside but we still hear what's going on inside. V.O. isn't right since that's used when the speaking character is either in the shot, but thinking, or not in the scene at all. O.S. stands for off-stage or off-screen, and is used when the character is in the scene, but not on camera (i.e. you're wanting to focus on something else). You have a character that is on camera, in the scene, and vocally speaking, which means you shouldn't use either one, hence, the wryly being the best choice.

You are going to need a poll thing pretty soon.

I think it's a voice over because your character inside the store is not on a microphone.  Your scene is outside the store and what you're going to hear live is street noise, the guy pacing, etc..  Any dialogue from the character inside is going to be added after the fact.

It's tricky and a little arty and you just have to script it so it's easy to follow.  You also have to keep focus on the character outside.  Everything you describe including the gal's lines have to come from his POV.

EXT. PAWNSHOP - DAY

On the sidewalk outside a pawnshop, X watches Y though the barred window glass present her guitar case to a guy behind the store counter.  X loses sight of Y's face as she turns her back on him but when she begins to gesture with her hands he knows the negotiation has begun.  

Y (V.O.)
Dialogue

You could look at Martin's "Anniversary" for a general idea as well.

Thanks everyone.  This is all good to know.  I should mention that this is an animation script so I guess the street noise, location of mic, etc. wouldn't be an issue here for the director but it's still good to know for future reference.

To be honest I think I can get away with V.O.   As I read it, it seems pretty clear to me what I'm trying to get across, however the muffled option does seem more technically accurate.  It's a toss-up at the moment.

I checked out 'Anniversary'.  The V.O. optioned worked well for this particular story since it was a true narration, however mine's not.

Hello, if anyone is about I could do with some help on this please.

The script I am working on at the moment is narrated by the central character of the script (in fact the only speaking character of the script). For the purposes of this question I will call him 'Jon'. Jon's first piece of narration is before I introduce him as a character, his first narration is over a scene of his workplace but he does not appear in it. At the moment I have.. (example, not the real script.)

Quoted Text EXT. OUTSKIRTS OF TOWN - NIGHT The factory stands on a hill overlooking the town.                Mans voice (V.O.)     It was one of those days in the factory. INT. FACTORY JON (40's) is standing in the corner reading a magazine.                 JON (V.O.)      I was working the night shift......

Instead of Mans voice (V.O.) can just write JON (V.O.) ?

Or is there anything else i should do?

Cheers

Just use Jon (V.O.).

Think of it from a production standpoint.  It just adds an unnecessary level of difficulty for the people shooting the script if they have to go in and write JON in ink off to the side so they can keep track of who is speaking.

Thanks Tierney_cat, much appreciated.

Cheers