Is it ok to/normal to put in an establishing shot or is it frowned on/a waste of space/not needed?
For example:

EXT. HOUSE - DAY
It is a glorious day.  Children play and laugh, the mailman delivers post, a dog barks in the distance, happy neighbors mow their lawns.


INT. HOUSE - CONTINUOUS
John hangs from the light fitting by his neck.


The reason I ask is because it is shown in films and in many of the scripts I have read of well known movies (Aliens comes to mind) it seems common but these might be shooting scripts so a little guidance would be nice.

Thank you.

Daz

Absolutely, it's okay to establish shots, but you don't want to do it too often because it slows down your scripts momentum.  So I'd say do it in moderation or if your character motivates it, or it's meaningful to the scene.

Just some examples...  restaurants, hospitals, police station, Burger King, no need to establish stuff like that. JMHO.

Good Luck,

Ghostie

Quoted from darrentomalin Is it ok to/normal to put in an establishing shot or is it frowned on/a waste of space/not needed?

The only thing that is a waste of words is to actually call it out -- explicitly in the script -- as an "ESTABLISHING SHOT".

I hate that.  What you have done is fine -- and it is just a shot, you know?

Quoted from bert The only thing that is a waste of words is to actually call it out -- explicitly in the script -- as an "ESTABLISHING SHOT".

Funny thing you say that, because that is exactly what I love to do. Partly because I've seen it all around, partly because I find it efficient and I do have to admit that partly I do it because it absolutely drives some people off the walls.

I write:

EXT. HOUSE - DAY

Establishing.

And then we move on.

I don't even describe what the shot contains, because I usually write for low budget productions so the shot will contain exactly what they have found and can manage, not what I've spelled out. If there's something important for the plot or the surroundings, then I obviously write a description the first time we see the location. But other than that, it just seem like a waste of effort.

Even when I'm writing without production in mind, I do still do it like that because of the efficiency. An establishing shot is an important tool for pacing and how and when you use it can be vital to the narrative.

Thanks so much for the advice. I like them too in moderation, they are a nice change of pace, especially if you have just had a load of INT. but just wondered whether they are meant to be in spec scripts.

I read somewhere it can be done like this:

EXT. HOUSE - DAY - EST

I don't like the look of that though so won't name them.
I think it's obvious enough with just a slug and a few words.

Quoted from Pii ...I do it because it absolutely drives some people off the walls.

Heh -- well that is as good a reason as any.

And that characteristic will certainly help you to fit (back) in around here....you are not the only one occasionally driven by such motivations.

Oh, one thing about the example in the original post:

Your use of - CONTINUOUS is the slugline is incorrect. That indicates continuous action from one location to another, i.e. someone walking from one room to another or a car driving into a garage. Going from an establishing shot to an interior therefore is not continuous.

I'm going to have to disagree with our reigning Heavyweight OWC Champion, Henrik, on 2 issues here...

First of all using what equates to an establishing shot is not only OK, it's appreciated.  IMO, you want to show where you are.  It's a pet peeve of mine to watch a movie and have it be so frickin' cheap they can't even show an EXT view of wherever we're supposed to be.

But if you literally use the word(s) "ESTABLISHING (SHOT)", you're doing the same thing as using other such "directing techniques", like "PAN", CLOSE UP", etc.  Not necessary or appreciated in a Spec script.

Secondly, using "CONTINUOUS" as shown in the above example is not incorrect.  Showing an EXT view of a structure, then going inside to whatever is taking place, is indeed "CONTINUOUS".  No time has elapsed and nothing has been missed (unless there is something happening in the EXT scene that doesn't transcribe to the action in the INT scene being continuous).

People sometimes do use CONTINUOUS incorrectly when a few seconds have elapsed and a few actions aren't shown, but the intention is still clear, and therefore, IMO, no big deal.

Now, the actual definition of continuous may lead some to think otherwise, but in screenwriting, the intent and understanding, is that the events and actions displayed, happen at the same time, or immediately after, in succession.

Not trying to be difficult or open up an argument.  Just giving my point of view on this.

Fair enough on the CONTINUOUS point. Seems like I was in slight error of my interpretation of the usage. Although since it seems that my way is not in conflict with this, so no harm done.

Quoted from Dreamscale But if you literally use the word(s) "ESTABLISHING (SHOT)", you're doing the same thing as using other such "directing techniques", like "PAN", CLOSE UP", etc.  Not necessary or appreciated in a Spec script.

Really? I've seen it used like I do so profusely in the production scripts I've read that I never would've equated it a directing prompt. It seems kind of silly to have to describe the initial scene over and over again when using the same external establishing shot repeatedly. And since most of my experience is writing teleplays, that's something I have to do routinely.

And by no means am I interpreting your post as trying to be difficult or trying to start an argument. If I'm in error, I'd rather I got corrected. I'd just like some confirmation on this before I erase about 10 years of habit.

My point is that when writing a true Spec script, you want to give all the detail and visuals you can, as you're trying to impress your readers to the point that someone wants to buy/film/produce your script.

I think the term "ESTABLISHING SHOT" is/was heavily used in TV shows, where you have the exact same shot of the house/building/whatever numerous times per half hour episode to "establish" where we are when we go into an INT scene, where the vast majority of the "action" is taking place.

In a Spec Script for a feature film, your establishing shot(s) are not simply stagnant shots shown over and over (although I have seen enough movies where they do attempt to get away with that very unsuccessfully).

Sometimes, EXT shots that you may refer to as establishing shots, actually give vital information, as to the structure itself that may come into play at some point.

I'm just saying, if you have a script centered in an old creepy house, why wouldn't you want to describe it and show it, so your readers can, if nothing else, get a feel for the tone and mood of the setting.  Simply throwing out "ESTABLISHING SHOT" doesn't provide any visual for me, that's for sure.

Ok, so it turns out we're on the same page about this after all. Excellent.

I've never really understood the whole "don't direct shots" thing. I mean what else is a writer doing when he's writing a screenplay?

If you describe the Rocky Mountains in all their glory...you're implicitly saying that you want a wide panoramic shot of the Rockies.

If you say something like "his fingernail is covered in grease"...you're describing an extreme close up....because how else would you see it?

I'm not really arguing any point of view here, and I'm not saying that people should put "CU on greasy finger nail" in their scripts...but really..what's the difference?

Rick, the point, IMO, at least is that it's extremely easy to get carried away with actual direction, compared to basic story/plot telling.

For instance...

Example A)

MARK, 45, carves a beautiful, golden brown turkey.

RACHEL, 7, smiles in anticipation, as he hands her a plate.

Example B)

A sharp knife slices through a beautiful golden brown turkey.

A thick cut of white meat plops onto a plate.

A hand passes the plate to Rachel, 7, who smiles in anticipation.

Example B is obviously heavily directing exactly how the very simple scenario in Example A is played out.

IMO, it is not the Spec writer's job to decide how this scene will be filmed.  There's no reason for it.

In your example, the "direction" is merely implied, as it should be.

People think for some reason that it's cool and hip to write in a way that is heavily directional, but in reality, it's exactly the opposite...it's weak, it's limiting and sometimes very confusing, when there's absolutely no reason for it to be so.  

Thanks very much for the feedback on establishing shots.
I asked a question about directions a month or so back.
If you are like me, you play the movie out in your head as you write/read it including sound effects, pans, zooms, pull backs (kid kicking the back of my seat) etc because these camera movements add so much to mood and narrative when used right.
I am a frustrated director too I suppose.
It is really hard to leave them be but part of the craft is to get those moods across with creative writing. If done right, the director will probably have the same idea for a shot that you had in when writing it.