Hey guys, i have some questions here i really wanna make.

The first: The word "we" when we describe something, can be used? Because i have been said that is not a good thing to use it. But most of the scripts use it in describing things, i'm talking for a guy like Andrew Kevin Walker, who i'm reading recently.

Second: Some of these writers, write the Scene heading in bold, i used to do it before, but i have been said not to. If you check some scripts out there, they have it.

Now, i know these question might sound stupid, but i'd like a fair answer.

Cheers

If you are going to be shooting the film Nik you can pretty much do anything you want.  However, if you are going to be submitting scripts for feedback or entering them into contests then there are a few guidelines to follow.  Unfortunately the current guideline fashions do not allow for the use of we - but you could probably get away with  bold slug lines.

Well, it just seems common to me, when some writers use the word we so often in describing the scenes, that was my point. As for the bold, i think it just makes it more distinguishable when a scene starts.

I think 'WE SEE' and 'WE HEAR' are the big no-nos. WE MOVE, or WE FOLLOW are more common but if possible it's best not to use them.

The bold sluglines I think would just be personal taste. If your sending them to comps though it's probably best not to. Simply because a judge might personally not like them.

Quoted from stebrown I think 'WE SEE' and 'WE HEAR' are the big no-nos. WE MOVE, or WE FOLLOW are more common but if possible it's best not to use them.

Make note of the distinction Steve is making here, Nik.  It is an important one.

Virtually every time you read "We see" or "We hear", it is wasted words -- wasted space -- and that is why it is frowned upon.

"We see an alarm clock sitting on the counter" should be "An alarm clock sits on the counter"

"We hear an alarm clock buzzing" should be "An alarm clock buzzes".

But sometimes -- in very rare instances -- in my humble opinion -- anything other than "we" will weaken the sentence or description or effect.

To grab one of Steve's examples:  "We move through the keyhole into the room" can probably be written in many different ways, but this is probably the most concise way to express that transition.

It is an ongoing debate, and plenty of people will tell you never to use the dreaded "we" under any circumstances.  It depends upon who you ask.

Very, very sparing use of "we" -- in an appropriate context where anything else would be bulkier and less clear -- is probably alright.

As to the second question, to my knowledge, there is never a reason why anything in a script should appear in bold font.

Bert's advice is very sound.

I think the reason it became such a no-no was that some writers would start almost every line with a We see or a We hear and it can become annoying to some people quite quickly.

However as Bert says, it's whatever that works best in a particular moment that's important. Removing most We sees from a script will usually tighten it up considerably, the same with removing most ..Ings.

The thing is that in certain situations, you may spend about half an hour trying to find ways to word it without the WE and if that's the case, forget about it.

One of my favourite starts to a script was Darren Aronofskys (sp) Below. " We float beneath the wings of  a [type of plane].

From my own point of view, I couldn't care less about We sees, but I tend to read scripts differently to most people. My only concern is whether the script will work well as a film, so the writing style and a prevalence of We sees doesn't bother me as they won't make it into the final film.

As far as using bold goes, I don't think it is necessary. Might be useful if you are bolding out props though so you don't miss anything...

Hey guys, whoa thanks for all the responses. Appreciate them, the reason why i made this topic is because i'm reading Andrew Kevin Walker's script Psycho Killer, and he use the word "we" alot, and the bold font.

I used to write with "we" most of my first scripts, but now i don't use them anymore.

Anyhow here a description from the named script:

“’We’ will mostly be shot from behind, or from the neck down, because our FACE WILL NEVER BE FULLY REVEALED. ‘We’ are PSYCHO KILLER.”

This is just a little considered of how often he uses the word.

As i said thanks for making things clear to me.

Cheers
Nik

I'm not endorsing the use of we, but just a point to note is that you can win contests with wes littered in your script.  Yes you can. You can even win one with ALL of the shooting directions in it(CUT TO:'S, DISSOLVES, we see, we do this, dolly that, high angle this, etc.).  I've seen it many times.  However, not all contests will give you the benefit of the doubt, so echoing everyone here, it's probably best to sway from the use of we.  Make your sentences as simple as possible.  

"Bob walks to the store" instead of "we see Bob walking to the store."  

Some people get more butthurt over the use of we than others.  To keep everything simple, I'd just leave the we alone.  Play a Wii instead.

Hey guys. Sorry to bring up a dead thread but this looked like a good spot to ask a question.

What is your guys' take on tracking shots in spec scripts?

It's kind of important because overall, I don't really care for them too much but this opening scene I wrote kind of requires it.

You're probably going to get answers from both sides on this one, so I'm going to answer your question with a question.

Why is it required?

Well, it's not required but it's how I picture it. Following 8 people through an entire movie theater.

It starts with one character then leaves them but the final shot is of that character too, so it's almost necessary, or at the bare minimum, the simplest way to do it.

Just write how you "see" the shot, there's really no need to call it a tracking shot. If written well enough, then the reader will see it as a tracking shot as well.

Long tracking shots are almost stylistic trademarks and while you can write to hoping for that tracking shot, there's never a guarantee, even if you write LONG TRACKING SHOT on the page. I'm of the "write what you see" persuasion and if you've constructed the scene so that it works in one long shot, then the right director will shoot it that way, if possible. If it is picked up by a smaller independent company who can't get actors with a longer than two line memory or a director who can't conduct a rehearsal to save his life, it'll be broke up no matter what you do so that multiple takes can be stitched together. Also keep in mind that from a budgetary perspective, long shots can be cost-prohibitive depending on how much ground they cover. A production will have to light every element and make sure that sound is covered everywhere the camera goes. It's a very difficult shot for a movie because of how much is behind the camera and with a long tracking shot, there is no behind the camera.

I'm with George on this one.

A long tracking shot is basically for a Director to show the world that he's billy big bollocks. I think writing it as a tracking shot won't help much to get it into the film.

Ithink your best chance is not to worry so much about HOW you write it, but to concentrate on the thematics of the opening. What is there that needs, or would be better told in a single shot?

I think it needs to be something stronger than it just being the way you see it because even if the Director manages to do it, it will just look like he's trying to be Scorcese if there's not a meaning behind it.

Here's some of the best of them.

Touch of Evil is still the best for me, because it was one of the few that actually uses it to tell the story, but in terms of sheer technical wizardy, I really don;t know how they managed to shoot th opening shot of Boogie Nights like that.

Quoted from decadence I really don;t know how they managed to shoot th opening shot of Boogie Nights like that.

Not sure either, but I do know that PTA is immensely talented, and 'There Will Be Blood' is one of the rare moments when the product eclipses the rave reviews, IMO. Random, but felt like chucking that in there!

As an aside - although more pertinent   - this was a really interesting thread to read.

Andrew