All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
You will often see the term “we see” in scripts which are transcribed and listed on the web.
You will sometimes see the term used in a shooting script, particularly if the director or producer wrote the script.
The term is used to imply the “WE” is the cinema audience and the “SEE” is what is happening on the screen.
But in fact it is recognised as lazy writing and should be avoided at all costs by new writers and predominantly in Spec Scripts.
As a professional reader for a studio and employed to write critiques on scripts, if I see “we see” in a screenplay I know that even if I like the story, we will have to engage a better writer to prepare the screenplay for an investor, for actor consideration and project development.
The writer by including “we see” has indicated they are an amateur and with the sort of sums involved in making movies now days, producers cannot afford to risk their reputation on the work of an inexperienced writer.
This is a good post and I understand that as a whole, and in complete generality based upon one's reading a lot of work from banal to brilliant, this is a respectable way to view the use of "We See".
Personally, I would not refrain from doing something "wrong" because people told me "no that's a naughty girl, don't do that now." At the same time, I would not purposely break the rules just to break them. For me, there would need to be a justification in my mind for its worthiness. If there ever could be such a thing. But I have an open mind and believe such justification exists, although not in careless usage.
With regard to rightness and wrongness and proper and improper I have this:
In North America, we give the "thumbs up" sign and it's a good positive signal.
I've learned that if you go to Israel, it's a negative and bad kind of thing. I suppose it's like the "fuck you" signal.
However, now apparently, they have/had started some kind of advertising campaign teaching children to give the "thumbs up" to drivers in vehicles indicating they want to cross the street and then the driver gives it back, and they're good to go, having acknowledged one another.
The point is, how we identify things as right or wrong, is always changing and sometimes, saying something in the most obvious way is better than taking upon ourselves an exorbitance that may not be required in some circumstances.
In short:
One must weigh its use according to their own experience and together with their partners (partners in crime? ) and take it from there. Give each other the "thumbs up" and move on.
I suppose the use of "We" in scripts could change over time, just as CUT TO, FADE IN and CONTINUED have fallen out of the business over time. It is an ever changing world in which live, so I give in and cry. . . .Live and Let Die!!!
Sorry stevie, sometimes I channel Paul McCartney. Can't "Help" it.
But if this ever changin world in which we live in makes you give in and cry...
Sorry, I was just channeling Sandra there for a second.
Seriously, though, IMO, it's much more than just what is acceptable, or industry standard. There is a reason why "we see" and "we hear" shouldn't be used...
It's because they are a complete waste of 6 and 7 spaces, respectively. They do not add anything to the script...NOTHING! That's why they should not be used...EVER!
The great thing about writing screenplays is there are no rules only accepted and not accepted practices.
So it doesn’t matter if you follow the guide lines or not, particularly when you write to please yourself.
The problems only arise when you write hoping to sell your material or have your material used as a sample of your skill set in the hope that it generates a writing commission.
Then little things become significant, almost out of proportion to the realities of the situation.
“We see” is one of those little things and it is nothing in comparison to the bigger issue with most scripts.
In that they are pathetic incomprehensible stories, poorly formatted, incorrectly presented without interestingly drawn characters with convincing arcs and are often full of dialogue that vanishes from the mind the second after you read it.
Discussing the pedantic’s regarding the nuances of screenplay presentations seems academic to the point of ridiculousness, when most want-to-be writers can’t put a sentence together in a clear and precise manner.
The great thing about writing screenplays is there are no rules only accepted and not accepted practices.
So it doesn’t matter if you follow the guide lines or not, particularly when you write to please yourself.
The problems only arise when you write hoping to sell your material or have your material used as a sample of your skill set in the hope that it generates a writing commission.
Then little things become significant, almost out of proportion to the realities of the situation.
“We see” is one of those little things and it is nothing in comparison to the bigger issue with most scripts.
In that they are pathetic incomprehensible stories, poorly formatted, incorrectly presented without interestingly drawn characters with convincing arcs and are often full of dialogue that vanishes from the mind the second after you read it.
Discussing the pedantic’s regarding the nuances of screenplay presentations seems academic to the point of ridiculousness, when most want-to-be writers can’t put a sentence together in a clear and precise manner.
I knew you'd say that. And yes, I understand. As always, when it comes down to money, the whole climate of a situation changes and indeed, those little things demand attention, probably to ridiculous proportions, but someone's gotta care about the lint on the black jacket. Might as well be us.
We must please The Man when we're working for him, at least until we are The Man. On the other side, it might be a woman, in which case The Man takes one look and goes, Whoah man! And in that case, it's a complete and total, "We See".
Thanks again. I'd better go study and leave my beanery for later.
You can use we see in your script. We see has always been used by writers for decades. There is no rule, so relax and just write a good story and use if you read alot of produced scripts the word we see is there.
Sometimes there is no other way to explain an event than we see, because logically speaking that is exactly what is going on in a scene.
Sometimes there is no other way to explain an event than we see, because logically speaking that is exactly what is going on in a scene.
Yes, there is always a way to explain an event that we see...just explain it and leave out "we see". It doesn't add anything to the explanation or the script. It is a complete waste.
Why would/does anyone continue to argue this? I literally don't get it.
Yes, there is always a way to explain an event that we see...just explain it and leave out "we see". It doesn't add anything to the explanation or the script. It is a complete waste.
Why would/does anyone continue to argue this? I literally don't get it.
You and I will continue to argue to infinities that there just "might" be times when it is right and well to do so.
Is it right to stab someone with a knife? Is it wrong to perform surgery?
The first script I ever wrote was loaded with "we see's." Honestly, I thought it was standard for screenwriting at the time. After someone pointed out the error of my ways, I got rid of them and stopped using the phrase completely. Since then, I've written over 25 scripts and have never felt the need to use it again.
Some rules need to be challenged. This isn't one of them. At this point, I'm not even sure what it was ever supposed to do in the first place. Maybe it's "wrong" just cuz someone said it was wrong but useless is still useless.
Okay......seriously. I have enough input. No really -- I'm good. Thank you to every one who's posted. We can officially call my question answered to the best of everyone's ability. Separate and go to your neutral corners!
Okay......seriously. I have enough input. No really -- I'm good. Thank you to every one who's posted. We can officially call my question answered to the best of everyone's ability. Separate and go to your neutral corners!
Not until I give a speech:
We see the world A word - a phrase, We look to share A loving gaze Within the script Veer tight aghast That frightful pair We See At last At last we see With coup d'oeil The light mid shadow Death bells toll
Yes, there is always a way to explain an event that we see...just explain it and leave out "we see". It doesn't add anything to the explanation or the script. It is a complete waste.
Why would/does anyone continue to argue this? I literally don't get it.
Explain a scene panning out from one area of the city all the way to the country side without using the phrase we see. It is either the subtle "we see" or a we zoom, we pan back, or use the clunky techno jargon, Camera pans back to describe such a scene. Sorry Dream sometimes it is just convenient to say we see and saves white space on a page.
I don't get why it is such a big deal to say we see when most professional writers do it in the industry. There is no right or wrong just matter of preference.
For you to see what I can see you have to have my perspective, A perception of a vision that is carved in black and white.
Its not so much about what we see or what is the real objective, But how the text is conceived by the manner in how you write.
To claim to see as others see as part of the great collective, We see can only be seen as an audience on the night.
And as the writer of a piece that’s to portray a cinematic motive Only then can we see that we cannot see what really isn’t right.
Everything in the Master slug line is the writer telling the reader this is what you are going to see in the scene. It isn't a matter of debate but fact.
INT. RED HOUSE - NIGHT
Here the writer is saying you are going to see a red house at night, which is essentially what it means when the writer says we see at verbatim.
Explain a scene panning out from one area of the city all the way to the country side without using the phrase we see. It is either the subtle "we see" or a we zoom, we pan back, or use the clunky techno jargon, Camera pans back to describe such a scene. Sorry Dream sometimes it is just convenient to say we see and saves white space on a page.
I don't get why it is such a big deal to say we see when most professional writers do it in the industry. There is no right or wrong just matter of preference.
Most professional writers “Don’t do it”.
When you see “WE SEE” in a script, it is normally only in scripts that have been transcribed by inexperienced writers, writing the screenplay from watching the movie. It is also sometimes used in a production copy of a shooting script.
If you include camera movements, angels, types of shot and lens choice in your spec script you demonstrate your inability to express yourself my words alone.
Understanding the use of “WE SEE” in a script is an indication of poor writing is a major nuance in becoming a good writer.
Because until the film is made no one can see anything. And the reader is not yet in the audience to be able to see anything.
The big deal is the difference between those who can and those who can’t and the preference of the producers not the writers.
Pages: 
Author
We See...?
) and take it from there. Give each other the "thumbs up" and move on.
Logged
