Quoted from JamminGirl I'm usually annoyed when I see people complain that things like 'We see' takes them out of the story. Maybe someone should tell them they're not reading a novel, but something that an audience will actually see.

Mainly because it is pointless and a waste of time. You are supposed to just describe the scene, write what is happening. So...

We see Olivia cross the street, she walks to the other side and we watch her disappear into a store.

or

Olivia crosses the street, she walks to the other side and disappears into a store.

There is no need whatsoever to say "we see" it is pointless, it is plainly obvious we will see it because you have written it. Silly, lazy writing, reserved only for geniuses who are making their own movie or for writers who have already landed the job, been paid and don't give a stuff what people think of their lazy writing.

I would put camera angles into this very same segment.

Quoted from dogglebe if they would add to the story are the operative words here.  If you have a scene where a character waits at a bus stop (where nothing significant happens), you shouldn't write that it's a long shot of Bob at a bus stop... or a bird's eye view of Bob standing at a bus stop.  OTOH, describing a bus pass in Bob's hand, from Bob's point of view invites you into Bob's head for a moment.  Of course, there should be a reason why he's looking at it. I disagree with the CLOSE UP on the books.  By describing them as self-help books, you don't need to give the shot.  It's automatically assumed that it will be a CLOSE UP.  Otherwise, how would you show what kind of books they are. Here's another example of a shot that's automatic: FADE IN ON: The North American continent.  The sky is cloud-free and brilliantly clear.  The coastlines are sharp, as if drawn by a very fine pen. From this, it's safe to assume that it's a long shot from space.  There's no reason to mention 'from space we see...' Phil

I don't want to waste too much time on this because it is such a small point.

However:

1. If nothing significant happens at the bus stop, the bus stop should probably be cut from the script.

2. IF the writer is showing us the stop from a bird eye point of view, we know instantly that the shot is not insignificant. It has a far deeper meaning to the writer. It is part of some theme or story he is trying to get across (maybe later in the script/film) we find out that something has been watching the charcaters from above the whole time or he is deliberately trying to signpost to the audience that he wants us to look down on his characters and judge them).

A lot of script writers don't think visually. For me it's a bonus if people are thinking in filmic terms. You don't have to use it as a Director, but at the same time if what they are doing is going to work, you would stick with it.

In the example Lakewood posted, the writer is deliberately using the close up to invite the reader/viewer into the main characters world. To put you in the position of the central character and to encourage you to empathise with him. The repetiton of the Close Up also works as a way of emphasising the repetitiveness of the characters life.

For me, it works, because it makes what he is trying to get across clearer. It shows he's thinking cinemtaically and I understand what he is trying to tell me completely. Although you are right in what you are saying about assumptions of CU on the titles, e CU itself tells us that the writer considers this information critical to the character and the story and it tells us he sees it framed the way he framed the other shots. It's a uniform and regular world we are in.

The fact he's used it three times is the thing. If he only had the one (cu on books) it would be irrelevant, but he's using it as a motif.

I also have to echo George's point that these kind of conversations seem to go on forever and happen frequently when they aren't very important. All that matters is that the script is clear and unambiguous and tells a great story with great characters.

Quoted from JamminGirl Actually, a bunch of INSERTS could be used or the items for closeup could be capitalized. The emphasis remains the same...

I don't think so. Capitalizing the items doesn't get across the visual imagery that he is so keen to project. He's using deliberate visual language to frame the world of his character. Capitalization can only give an emphasis on what the item is, not on it's visual reference.

But anyway, the point remains that it is clear what is happening in the scene and it is clear what the writer wants us to understand from it, so there really is no problem.

Quoted from Murphy Mainly because it is pointless and a waste of time. You are supposed to just describe the scene, write what is happening. So... We see Olivia cross the street, she walks to the other side and we watch her disappear into a store. or Olivia crosses the street, she walks to the other side and disappears into a store. There is no need whatsoever to say "we see" it is pointless, it is plainly obvious we will see it because you have written it. Silly, lazy writing, reserved only for geniuses who are making their own movie or for writers who have already landed the job, been paid and don't give a stuff what people think of their lazy writing. I would put camera angles into this very same segment.

I generally agree with what you say about we see. It's rarely needed. It doesn't bother me though. The two lines above read pretty much the same, it's an identical story, so it's irrelevant. The script doesn't make it to the screen. All that matters is whether it would work as a piece of cinema.

Sometimes WE is the easiest and fastest way to get across what you want and in that instance you should use it.

Let's say you're writing a horror. Let's say we are in a hotel corridor, the corridor turns at the end and hideous sounds can be heard from round that corner.

A simple: "We move down the corridor" could be very effective and it is difficult to think of something as immediate that works as well.

"We float beneath the wings of a plane", another one that is harder to convey without the We.

As regards camera angles, I don't agree. You're writing films, why wouldn't you be able to dip in and use camera angles where and when you wanted? I'd personally much rather that a writer was thinking cinematically than filling the script with literary devices, something that I see an awful lot.

Screenwriting is an audio/visual medium, not a literary one. Words are only used to convey abstract ideas as images and sounds. You can use camera angles like novelists can use literary devices like repetition and alliteration.

The only thing is to use them to add to the story.

Look at Hitchcocks the Birds. It opens with A birds eye view. It's genius. It takes a classic well known shot and turns it on it's head by making it into an actual bird's eye view.

In Psycho there is a famous sequence where the main character looks up towards the house. We then see her from a high angle point of view shot so that it looks as though the house itself is looking at her. This was written in the script. Just two shots.

It reads quite dryly, but it's one of the all time classic shots and has been copied in pretty much every major horror/thriller ever since.

You have that ability as screewnriters to be able to use camera angles in that way.

Decadence, Why One, great posts (welcome Why One).

I used to follow the “rules.” Like so many others, I didn’t understand the techniques or how to properly use them. I knew pros used them but I bought into that old canard that pros can break the rules because they’re pros and amateurs can’t because they’re amateurs. But I wanted to write like a pro.

Eventually I realized that following the “rules” gets you nowhere. Whoever it is that’s supposed to punish you for not following them won’t help you even if you do follow them.

So I reevaluated my position. I read pro scripts trying to get a deeper understanding of how and why these techniques are used. Once I began to understand them, I never looked back. No one will hold it against you for using them in a way that works. But that’s how it is with any technique.

Looking back, I’m embarrassed by my adherence to the “rules.” I think I showed a basic lack of understanding of what screenplays even are. It was a humbling experience for me. But perhaps it’s a lesson that simply must be learned the hard way. If you want to be a pro, you’ve got to write like one. If you don’t like the way pros write, you owe it to yourself to look at the possibility that you are the one who’s wrong.


Breanne

Quoted from Murphy Mainly because it is pointless and a waste of time. You are supposed to just describe the scene, write what is happening. So... We see Olivia cross the street, she walks to the other side and we watch her disappear into a store. or Olivia crosses the street, she walks to the other side and disappears into a store. There is no need whatsoever to say "we see" it is pointless, it is plainly obvious we will see it because you have written it. Silly, lazy writing, reserved only for geniuses who are making their own movie or for writers who have already landed the job, been paid and don't give a stuff what people think of their lazy writing. I would put camera angles into this very same segment.

I don't know who deleted my previous response to you but I'll repeat.

That's not true. There are times in a script when "we" serves a necessary function.

Quoted Text Screenwriting is an audio/visual medium, not a literary one. Words are only used to convey abstract ideas as images and sounds.

This bears repeating

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I don't think so. Capitalizing the items doesn't get across the visual imagery that he is so keen to project. He's using deliberate visual language to frame the world of his character. Capitalization can only give an emphasis on what the item is, not on it's visual reference. But anyway, the point remains that it is clear what is happening in the scene and it is clear what the writer wants us to understand from it, so there really is no problem.

When you capitalize you let the director know that this is important and worthy of a closeup.

I gotta say that I really get a kick out of some of these posts, and the back and forth.  It’s pretty funny, to say the least.

But. one thing it does show is that there are a bunch of writers in here that are passionate about their writing, and what they believe.  That’s always a good thing.  These are opinions (for the most part), and opinions are not incorrect.  Poor writing, incorrect formatting, bad grammar and punctuation are not opinions…they are what they are.

One thing I find so amusing, is how several people in here have this belief that an “understood good writer”, or professional writer can do no wrong.  Or that everything these individuals do has some deeper meaning, and because of that, not only is it OK, but it’s actually strong writing, just because they are who they are, or the script is supposedly a great script, etc.  I just don’t get it.

For instance, “the writer is deliberately using the close up to invite the reader/viewer into the main characters world. To put you in the position of the central character and to encourage you to empathize with him. The repetition of the Close Up also works as a way of emphasizing the repetitiveness of the characters life.”

I find this to be laughable.  An example of reading way too much into a couple of lines that aren’t even saying or doing much of anything.  No one would feel any different if it was written differently, without CU’s.

Also, “The fact he's used it three times is the thing. If he only had the one (cu on books) it would be irrelevant, but he's using it as a motif.”

So, all of a sudden, 3 times is the magic number?  What if it was used twice? Four times?  C’mon…rubbish…complete rubbish.

I don’t think it’s an issue of a writer writing cinematically or visually…or even thinking in these terms.  All screenwriters should think and write in a cinematic and visual way.  If a writer can’t see the scene in his head, he shouldn’t be writing it until he has the details and the like figured out.  There is no reason to use camera directions and we see and we hear.  As Mr. Giles correctly stated, it’s pointless, silly, and lazy writing.

Everyone can write however they want to.  Pro writers can literally write however they want to, because the readers and decision makers they’re dealing with aren’t the same ones us lowlifes have to try and get by.

I’m not talking about “rules” here either.  I’m talking about writing as solidly as possible, as clearly as possible, and as visual as possible.  I’m talking about what makes sense and what doesn’t, and why.

OK, let the frenzy begin…

Personally, I think it's down to personal style.  As long as the writer is communicating in a vivid and visual way, it doesn't matter if he or she chooses to use camera angles or not.

I don't consider it to be lazy writing.  Besides, who has the authority to say it is?

There are a number of Oscar and WGA Award winning and nominated screenplays of great movies that have camera angles and other "we" derivatives written in them.  They are solid screenplays written by solid writers that know their craft.  Does the fact they use camera angles when they could've avoided them mean they are lazy writers?  Does it mean that their critically acclaimed screenplays are weak and that the writer could take a leaf from our books about what constitutes to good screenwriting?

No.  Because, in my opinion, the use of camera angles and "we" derivatives does not constitute to the quality of a screenplay.  The pro writers know that.  That's why they don't fret over it.  The way I see it, if avoiding camera angles constitutes to good writing then you can be damned sure that the pro screenwriters that care about their craft will avoid it.  The reality is that it's a non-issue.  It's not seeing the forest because you are too busy focussing on the tree.

That's my opinion anyway.

Frankly it's all opinions. Dreamscale chooses salty adjectives like "lazy" to emphasise his opinion. But calling an opinion fact doesn't make it so.

I'll not eliminate "we" from my scripts and will continue using them long into the future.

'nuff said.

Some forests offer a wonderful, meandering path, meaning an enjoyable walk.  But other forests are too thick with trees, making for a difficult and unpleasant walk.  Cut down a few trees in that overpopulated forest, and you've got exactly the same, enjoyable walk.

Easy is better.   Less is more.

Jammin', I stated exactly that same thing.  These are all opinions.  Opinions are not incorrect, by definition alone.

But, as a few of us have pointed out, omitting camera directions and we see, we hear, etc, merely "cleans up" the read.  It takes out unneccessary words, saves space and read time.

The "salty" adjective "lazy" is an opinion that Mr. Giles threw out, and I merely seconded that opinion.

Sometimes that tree is fine where it is.  In fact, it may add to the forest's aethetics.

And a few others point out that writing longer prose to do what "we" or the very rare camera angle could doesn't equal a "clean read".

I'm not one for camera directions per say because there are other less "prosey" techniques that can be used like INSERT. Unfortunately alot of newbies aren't sufficiently aware of these(which are like programming syntax). But at other times, when the writer knows what she's doing, camera instructions are strong as in cloroxmartini's example some pages ago.

Point is "clean read" is also an opinion. Write an engaging story and you are golden.

True...it could be a beautiful, big, old Sequoia, and I'm not for cuting those beauties down.  But if the forest is already properly "forested", no reason to keep planting thousands of trees.