Hey there, I've been dwelling on something I wrote a little while ago that, for reasons I'm not exactly certain of, just doesn't feel/read right to me. Anybody know of a better way of handling this?

Problem: How exactly should I write a bunch of different characters talking simultaneously over one another in a small group?

Example:

the nearby front door is knocked
practically off its hinges by the Hoods, who push their way
in guns drawn. At once they begin shouting to one another:

HOODS
Oh, shit! Look over there--
(then)
That motherfucker!
(then)
We’re too late!
(then)
Where is he?!
(then)
I don’t--
(then)
Where the fuck is he?!

----

I don't know, maybe the way its written is good enough, it just looks... odd. Any help?

Unless what the crowd says is significant, you could just write:

Passengers ad-lib SCREAMING.

or

The children ad-lib GIGGLING


Phil

First of all, is this a comedy you’re writing?  If not (and even if it is), I see no reason why these hoods all have to be talking at the same time.  In a tense thriller, bad guys don’t all start flapping their gums, especially not in unison.  Bad guys are typically stoic and tight-lipped.  It’s not important that they all start shouting at each other, is it?  I'd think what they're saying would be of more importance.  Also, consider giving your bad guys names.  Here’s how you might rewrite your example:

INT. MOTEL ROOM – NIGHT

The front door blows inward, knocked clean off its hinges.  Three hoods – JAKE, GUS, and SNAKE  – surge inside, guns drawn, out for blood.  Problem is, the room is empty.

JAKE Dammit, where’d he go?
GUS: Sh*t!  It’s a setup!  Now what?

Jake stares at the empty room, quietly seething.

GUS: Jake, what’ll we do?  Jake?
JAKE: What’ll we do?  We kill the motherf*cker, that’s what.  
SNAKE: How?  He’s probably miles away by now.  He could be all the way to –
GUN: I said we kill the motherf*cker!  Get your asses in gear.  Move!

As quickly as they arrived, they're gone.

I don't really see why I need to give my "hoods" names and such when they're pretty much just interchangeable extras that are in the story for all of about 5 seconds, but yeah, I guess they don't need to be speaking all at once.

Also, some hoods appear at other various times throughout the script, finding names to give them all seems like a pointless exercise when we at no point need to know who these people are in the least.

I have a question too. I figured I could put it on the same thread since it also involves dialogue.

Okay, so I have a group of six or seven people talking--Do I need to differentiate when they're talking to no one in particular or if they're talking to a specific person in the group without saying their names? I'm not really sure how to do this. I don't think I need to, but it'd be good to know.

--Julio

Quoted from The Working Screenwriter Three hoods – JAKE, GUS, and SNAKE

Think it's important to give names to people, even bit players...Don't like to see Cop #1...Names tell alot...even from this sample, I can tell a bit about the make up of the group...I know they are not mafia and are not nessecarily affilitated with each other...Gus and Snake may not be sluggin JD down at the Rusty...

If there are more hoods used, why not use the same guys? Unless, of course, they are whacked, then get some more people...If they are in your script, they are important.

Quoted from ReaperCreeper Do I need to differentiate when they're talking to no one in particular or if they're talking to a specific person in the group without saying their names?

I'd imagine that Phil's suggestion earlier would apply to this as well..

Party Goers ad lib CHATTER

I've also seen it written in the description:

A happy group of TOWNSPEOPLE approach the stagecoach. They call out to Buck in unison.
Good to see ya, Buck! How was the ride? What's the good word, Buck!

Quoted from ReaperCreeper Okay, so I have a group of six or seven people talking--Do I need to differentiate when they're talking to no one in particular or if they're talking to a specific person in the group without saying their names? I'm not really sure how to do this. I don't think I need to, but it'd be good to know.

If John is talking to Mary, you would write:

        JOHN
   (to Mary)
Blahblahblahblahblah

        MARY
   (to John)
Blahblahblahblah...

but you would write it only the first time.  If he and Mary keep talking to each other, you wouldn't have to continue the parentheticals unless they talk to someone else.


Phil

Quoted from Blakkwolfe Think it's important to give names to people, even bit players...Don't like to see Cop #1...Names tell alot...even from this sample, I can tell a bit about the make up of the group...I know they are not mafia and are not nessecarily affilitated with each other...Gus and Snake may not be sluggin JD down at the Rusty... If there are more hoods used, why not use the same guys? Unless, of course, they are whacked, then get some more people...If they are in your script, they are important.

True, but isn't the golden rule to always try and write just what we, the audience, will see/hear and know from what we gather ourselves? No one viewing the film itself will know or care who these guys are, isn't it superfluous to take the time to differentiate them in the script when, unless you have them say their names or do something equally nonsensical, it's of no importance to your audience?

My suggestion would be to write it like this:

Five HOODS push their way in guns drawn. At once they begin shouting -- THAT MOTHERFUCKER! WE'RE TOO LATE! WHERE IS HE! -- when they realize their target is long gone.

Here is the reasoning.  If the characters are just there to kick in a door and never show up again the scene will be shot without sound.  It's hard to mic this type of scene with everyone talking at once.  No production will take the time to individually mic an extra for a throw-away line that I'm guessing only serves to bridge scenes.  The shouts will be done by the ADR group and then added in post.

With regards to the original post...

I wasn’t really sure how important the hoods were to the storyline, so I gave each of them a name.  But if your hood characters are only in the one scene, I have to ask: WHY?  That’s something I see in so many novice scripts: characters that show up for one brief moment in time and are never seen again.  Do you really need to have other hoods appearing throughout the script?  Can’t you just use the same handful of bad guys and make things easy on yourself (and the producers)?  Think about it.

But if they do appear again in the story, then you might as well give them names.  Almost anything is better than HOOD #1, HOOD #2, HOOD #3.  Ugh.  Also, as our friend “Blakkwolf” pointed out, the name can help paint a picture of who that character is.  I mean, a guy named “Snake” ain’t gonna some college preppie.

The hoods in this particular scene aren't really essential to the plot or big players at all, but I see your point and will give names to "other" hoods that appear earlier in the script, who have a short exchange that is pretty necessary to the scene in context. This scene I guess could be done without the dialog, or at least written the way its described two posts above, so thanks all for the replies.

If these hoods are there for this one moment in the script, naming them isn't necessary.  If they're just part of a background of spectators, you can simply do what I mentioned earlier about ad-libbed dialog.

I wouldn't recommend having five hoods show up for only a few seconds and having each one of them talk.

Odds are it's going to be one of the first things removed when the producer has to decide whether or not he's going to pay one guy a "speaking" rate vs five for just a few seconds time.

Just write:

                         HOODS
               - Oh shit--
               - Where is he?!
               - Where the fuck is he?!

That's what I always do for a montage of voices involving minor characters.   Notice I trimmed things down a bit.  Two or three voices is about the max I'd say for this sort of thing.  It still gets your point across pretty well, I think.