You see, we should write a good story first and foremost.

If I was reading YOUR SCRIPT, and judging it in my own mind, I wouldn't give a whoot, if there were a few glitches of whatever kinds. The most important thing to me would be the story itself, it's style, and a whole lot more of things that I could write pages on right now, but in short, I'd be looking to see if I was moved emotionally by what I read.

If I was, I'd write a review based on that. But after this first step, if it's going to someone who is slumped over a chair somewhere, doing his/her necessary job of weeding through a lot of the same lame stuff, over and over and over and over again...

You can be sure, that little things might get on their nerves; so at our stage in the game, don't do anything that's gonna piss anybody off and not only want to throw your script in the slush, but give it a ritualistic burning.  

Sandra

Quoted from George Willson Why say "we fly over the forest and through the castle window..." when that could only potentially land at another "we." The flying and hovering is just telling the reader what's going on just like any other description. My answer is to remove the "we" and start with the verb, like an imperative. Fly over the forest and then through the window of the castle. Princess Whomever brushes her hair.

I personally disagree with this.  True, there are plenty of times where "we" is redundant, like in your former example.  But writing:

"Fly over the forest and then through the window of the castle. Princess Whomever brushes her hair."

...is confusing to me.  Who or what is flying over the forest?  A plane?  A bird?  It lacks clarity, imo.

"We fly over the forest..."  is much more clearer to me because I've seen this visual a thousand times before -- it's familiar -- so I know exactly what I'm supposed to be seeing.

The opening sentence to one of this year's Nicholl winner opens with:

"We fly over the lush farmlands of Zimbabwe - countless fields
of CORN, SUGARCANE and TOBACCO - "The breadbasket of Africa.""

Which to me is crystal clear.  I can really picture what I'm supposed to be seeing.

Over lush forest and rolling meadows - A castle looms in the distance.  Closer and closer the castle's tower window becomes dominate.  

INSIDE

A Princess of uncanny beauty brushes her hair with the aid of an elegant mirror.

That's just one of several ways to word it visually.  Yes, you can use "WE SEE" but I can also go around kickin' mountain lions with my bare feet.   Sometimes you get trouble when you ask for it and sometimes you don't.  That's why I say it's subjective.

Quoted from Baltis. Over lush forest and rolling meadows - A castle looms in the distance.  Closer and closer the castle's tower window becomes dominate.   INSIDE A Princess of uncanny beauty brushes her hair with the aid of an elegant mirror. That's just one of several ways to word it visually.  Yes, you can use "WE SEE" but I can also go around kickin' mountain lions with my bare feet.   Sometimes you get trouble when you ask for it and sometimes you don't.  That's why I say it's subjective.

I don't know.  Personally, I think that reads a little clunky, and again, lacks clarity.  But that's just imo.

I wouldn't equate using "we" in a script to kicking mountain lions.  To suggest so would be to assume that you're putting yourself in harm's way.  I don't believe this to be the case at all.  At least, not from my personal experience.

I've seen it too many times in contest winning scripts and writers that have gained rep, garned meetings, or sold -- to suggest that anybody in the business gives a rat's a$$ about "we" in a script.  Contests and industry peeps have also been pretty receptive with my writing.

But again, this is just my personal experience. Other people's may differ.

It is subjective, like you say.

Bear in mind that I am trying to encourage unwarranted usage of "we" in scripts.  It is a personal preference.

But the OP's original question was whether it is "acceptable" to use it.  From my experience, yes, it is okay -- nobody is going to hang you for it.  But they will hang you for terrible writing.

Should you use it?  My answer would be "no" if you have to ask.

Read a buncha scripts.  See what you like.  Different folks, different strokes.

Quoted from Why One I don't know.  Personally, I think that reads a little clunky, and again, lacks clarity.  But that's just imo. I wouldn't equate using "we" in a script to kicking mountain lions.  To suggest so would be to assume that you're putting yourself in harm's way.  I don't believe this the case at all.  At least, not from my personal experience. I've seen it too many times in contest winning scripts and writers that have gained rep, garned meetings, or sold -- to suggest that anybody in the business gives a rat's a$$ about "we" in a script.  Contests and industry peeps have also been pretty receptive with my writing. But again, this is just my personal experience. Other people's may differ. It is subjective, like you say.

But it doesn't... It tells us 3 important things we need to know... Visually.

It tells us  

Where we are

What we're doing

What we're seeing

Clunky?  Sure it could use a rewrite or two... I did that in 2 seconds at 85 words per minute.  What's important is the visualization without the blunt direction.

For instance

Why write it like this --

We see a man.  He lays in the street - He's been shot in the chest.

(BORING)

When we can write it like this --

A bullet wound to the chest.  Like a shook up soda can, a man has been opened up in the streets.  Blood GEYSERS out -  He clings to life.

(EXCITING)


The first line establishes we are looking at a BULLET WOUND to the CHEST.  There is nothing else on screen but that wound right now.

The next 2 parts describe to us "VISUALLY" what has happened and where it happened at.  All without even seeing it happen.

& the last part tells us he's still alive and he's in pain.  


End of story.

Quoted from Baltis. But it doesn't... It tells us 3 important things we need to know... Visually. It tells us   Where we are What we're doing What we're seeing Clunky?  Sure it could use a rewrite or two... I did that in 2 seconds at 85 words per minute.  What's important is the visualization without the blunt direction.

If you're trying to direct the reader where we are, what we're doing, what we're seeing, why not simply include "we"?  It seems a little backwards to me to try to describe a "we" style visual, but deliberatly removing the "we".  It greatly reduces the clarity of what you're trying to communicate, imo.

It's like trying to use a voice over dialogue but deliberately avoiding "V.O.".

Closer and closer the castle's tower window becomes dominate.

What's closer and closer?  If you're trying to tell the reader that "we're flying closer to something" then tell the reader "we're" flying closer to something.

I'd say keep it simple and tell it like it is.

Quoted from Baltis. Why write it like this -- We see a man.  He lays in the street - He's been shot in the chest. (BORING) When we can write it like this -- A bullet wound to the chest.  Like a shook up soda can, a man has been opened up in the streets.  Blood GEYSERS out -  He clings to life. (EXCITING) The first line establishes we are looking at a BULLET WOUND to the CHEST.  There is nothing else on screen but that wound right now. The next 2 parts describe to us "VISUALLY" what has happened and where it happened at.  All without even seeing it happen. & the last part tells us he's still alive and he's in pain.   End of story.

A sound example.  One is certainly better than the other.

But to me, that has little to do with "we" being in the way and more to do with what shots you've chosen to show the reader.

Again, I want to clarify that these are just my personal opnions.

Everyone has their own opinion on what constitutes to better writing.  Which is where these "we see" threads always seem to delve into.

The original poster's question was whether it was "acceptable" to use it.  From my experience, I say it is -- that nobody in the business is going to chastise you for it.

Quoted from CrazyArtist Seriously... what is the definitive word on the use of “we see”?

This has been debated on at least 15 threads around here.

Quoted from Why One Should you use it?  My answer would be "no" if you have to ask.

Best answer I've ever seen.  Nice one.

Quoted from Why One Should you use it?  My answer would be "no" if you have to ask.

I agree with Bert. This is the perfect answer. This debate could probably go on forever as has been demonstrated in the numerous threads that have already been devoted to this subject.

Either way, I certainly don’t see how the charge of “lazy writing” can be justified. Nor has anyone demonstrated how it’s lazy. That’s an unfair criticism as far as I’m concerned.

From my standpoint, there’s no question that professional writers use this technique and get away with it. Clearly it’s a matter of when or how to do it, not whether or not you should at all. It’s not something you would want to use excessively but I don’t see how anyone can argue that there isn’t a time when it’s perfectly fine, given how many successful writers use it to good effect.


Breanne

Generally speaking you can usually remove the we see. The majority of writers use it erroneously and far too often, hence the constant outcry against it.

A good rule of thumb is try and remove it, but if it takes more than 30 seconds to correct the sentence and maintain the mood or sense leave it alone.

Technically:

It seems to me that there is a subtle but significant difference between the effect of we see and it's absence.

A man crosses the street.

We see/watch a man cross the street.


The first example suggests an omnipotent camera or continuity style. Like we are watching events impersonally as they unfold.

The second brings us more into it and makes it subjective. That we are spying on the man. Maybe it suggest we are watching him through a smoky window, in handheld.

This isn't definitive, by any means, but there is definitely a difference in ambience and atmosphere.

Words create images in your head and that is critical in this game as that is the movie that the reader is seeing.

Those subconscious little differences can be important. The style of your writing should reflect the style of the film.


I also completely agree with Why One on the "We fly" thing.

We've seen that played out on screens (The Snowman, Superman, Disneys new Christmas Carol). It suggests a beautiful, floaty POV shot of us flying through the air. We're swooping towards the canopy of trees, back up to the clouds etc.

Remove the we and it has a completely different sense in the English Language.

"Fly through the air" is a command telling you to fly. It makes no sense and doesn't establish what is actually happening visually.

The Baltis example is different in meaning to the original as well. It loses the sense of movement and freedom that "flying" suggests, makes it feel more like a long tracking shot that tracks into the window.

The opening line: !Over lush forest and rolling meadows - A castle looms in the distance", Could be a static shot. A wide panorama. Or a crane shot. It's not as clear as the original, nor as evocative.

It's better (IMO) to stick with the image and mood that you are trying to convey, rather than sticking with convention, but you need to develop a sense of language and be aware of what exactly it is you are trying to convey.

Darron Aronofsky's "Below", (an example I've used before on this kind of thread) starts with, (I paraphrase).

"We float beneath the wings of a plane".

There is no more succint way of writing that. It gives scale, composition, mood, establishes the scene and even suggests the type of camera shot.

Personally I think it's perfect.

Have confidence in your own ability to decide what works and what doesn't. When you read a script, how does the language make you feel and what kind of images does it create in your mind? That's the real test, rather than the rules.

Just obvioulsy bear in mind that they are "Rules of thumb" ie general apporoximations. Most of the time it will be better to do without, but there are always going to be exceptions.

Quoted from Why One I personally disagree with this.  True, there are plenty of times where "we" is redundant, like in your former example.  But writing: "Fly over the forest and then through the window of the castle. Princess Whomever brushes her hair." ...is confusing to me.  Who or what is flying over the forest?  A plane?  A bird?  It lacks clarity, imo.

Hm. So nothing lacks clarity but "we" is crystal clear. However, when you see this on screen, what or whom do you see doing the flying? A plane? A bird? usually, it's nothing at all. Therefore, to be absolutely clear about this, it should read this way.

"The camera flies over the forest with no other object providing an ability to fly and then through the window of the castle without undue destruction since clearly nothing was there to begin with. Princess Whomever brushes her hair."

Reads a bit clunky to me. After all "we" aren't actually in the scene, are we? Hence, "we" aren't actually flying either. I could also say:

Flying over the forest, a castle comes into view. Move through the window to find Princess Whomever brushing her hair.

Not sure how that would ruin anything, but anyway...

As Bert pointed out, this has been debated to death, and at some point, I'll end up merging this thread in with the other one(s) or just create (I think) a part 3 to that thread.

If you wish to cite sources where "we" is used and lauded, that's cool. However, stories have been told visually for centuries without ever using it. Check out Shakespeare. Where did he say "we see" when referring to the characters on stage? Check out books and short stories. Any of the greats resort to "we see" when trying to convey the imagery? I've written close to 60 shorts, screenplays, and teleplays. I grew out of it because I recognized that I could tell a better story without it.

Does it matter? No. Your writing is your writing. I actually won't judge you one way or the other, because I did it once too. We all had to start somewhere, but the key to starting is to grow from it and learn a better way. If you work to weed the "we" out of your descriptions, you'll have a cleaner, easier to read script in the end. There's always another way.

Quoted from George Willson Hm. So nothing lacks clarity but "we" is crystal clear. However, when you see this on screen, what or whom do you see doing the flying? A plane? A bird? usually, it's nothing at all. Therefore, to be absolutely clear about this, it should read this way. "The camera flies over the forest with no other object providing an ability to fly and then through the window of the castle without undue destruction since clearly nothing was there to begin with. Princess Whomever brushes her hair." Reads a bit clunky to me. After all "we" aren't actually in the scene, are we? Hence, "we" aren't actually flying either. I could also say: Flying over the forest, a castle comes into view. Move through the window to find Princess Whomever brushing her hair. Not sure how that would ruin anything, but anyway... As Bert pointed out, this has been debated to death, and at some point, I'll end up merging this thread in with the other one(s) or just create (I think) a part 3 to that thread. If you wish to cite sources where "we" is used and lauded, that's cool. However, stories have been told visually for centuries without ever using it. Check out Shakespeare. Where did he say "we see" when referring to the characters on stage? Check out books and short stories. Any of the greats resort to "we see" when trying to convey the imagery? I've written close to 60 shorts, screenplays, and teleplays. I grew out of it because I recognized that I could tell a better story without it. Does it matter? No. Your writing is your writing. I actually won't judge you one way or the other, because I did it once too. We all had to start somewhere, but the key to starting is to grow from it and learn a better way. If you work to weed the "we" out of your descriptions, you'll have a cleaner, easier to read script in the end. There's always another way.

George the problem you have is that in your determination to get rid of the "we" in this instance is that you are materially changing the sense of the line. In your latest interpretation, you actually have the castle flying now.

Also there is no point in discussing ancient literature, screenwriting is a completely different craft. Angles, camera position etc are all part of the story in a way that doesn't exist on the stage.

"We" suggests a POV shot. It's what the camera and hence the audience see. It says exactly what you have written sarcastically in response in just a single word.

There is no way of getting the same sense across when you remove it. "We fly" is telling us that we are on a roller coaster ride, flying through the air. It's supposed to give us, the audience, the feeling of being in flight.

It's just two words and sums it up absolutely perfectly and in absolute clarity. Attempting to change it is pointless, you'll only make things unclear and waste more words doing it.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films George the problem you have is that in your determination to get rid of the "we" in this instance is that you are materially changing the sense of the line. In your latest interpretation, you actually have the castle flying now.

Heh. Really?

I regret the minimal example as it does simply remove the "we" without any kind of elaboration. It paints no picture of what the audience actually sees.

Honestly removing screenwriting from its dramatic roots is a big reason so many movies suck these days. You get caught up in the camera angles and effects and forget the story and drama that should be inherent.

Frankly, the English language is versatile enough to be able to paint a vivid picture of this scene without the use of "we," if you want to take the time to do so. Ah, but there's the difficulty and where I went wrong earlier. I took no time with my simple example and so got pounced upon. If I sat back and pondered a better way, I could come up with one. You might say, "but why take the time when there's an easier way?"

Why take the time? Why take the time to perfect your craft and ponder each and every word so that it is perfect? Why not take the easy way out and just move on? You say there is no better way to write it without destroying the feeling of the scene. I agree that you have the best way to write something in less than a minute. It conveys what you want it to convey perfectly. It's not well written, nor does it give us a real idea of the scene beyond what I had earlier when I dropped the "we." They both contain a nondescript forest with a castle beyond. It was bland and doesn't tell us anything about the landscape around this castle, nor paint any kind of picture for the reader.

Ah, but you say, we're just the screenwriter. It's not our job to... To do what? To tell a complete story? You don't want to create an entire world? You'd rather "we see" your way through it so that you can allow someone else to fill in the blanks for you. Here come the detractors: oh, but we don't step of the toes of the ______ dept. What dept? It's a screenplay that you haven't sold! Are you worried that you'll step on the toes of the fantasy studio that's "producing your script" next week? Get real!

Let's clarify where we are right now. This is a board where people post screenplays that are unproduced and even unsigned. You need someone to take notice of you in order to produce your epic, and abysmally incomplete masterpiece. What do they see when they read about your forest and castle. They have no idea where this is or that it's any different from any other forest and castle.

Oh, but I haven't reached your plot yet. She's a hot princess that... Really? You wrote your first ten pages without any idea of a premise because you thought it was cool. You didn't take the time to write anything other than "we see" because you don't know the first thing about the world you created. IF someone even opened this piece of crap because you crafted a semi-clever premise, they're probably praying that it delivers. "We fly over a forest" and we still don't know where the hell we are.

I've been on this board for five years, and I've written a lot. I've been produced a couple of times by some independents, but not for anything I've posted here. You know why people approached me? Go ahead. Guess.

Because of how I write. They recognized that I have the ability to create a story with decent characters and do it in a fashion that they can work with. I haven't hit the big time. I haven't been approached by anyone with a wad of cash, but apparently, I have a clue or something. At some point, I decided that I needed to become the best writer I could be in order to get anywhere, and after a few years, some people started telling me I was pretty good.

"We see" was the first to go along with camera directions. It forced me to find a better way. Passive sentences went next. Had to find a better way. Progressive verbs had to go, though they went hand in hand with passive sentences. Get rid of split infinitive and hanging prepositions and we're still going for a better way to write it. Can we get rid of contractions in the action paragraphs? Probably if we work at it.

If I lost you at infinitive and preposition, I'd be happy to explain if you want to take the time. If you want the quick and easy way, I plan on hanging out here even if I do make it, so you can hit me up in five years or so when you're still not produced and can't figure out why.

Oh dear.

I'll leave it at that.