Steve (coopbazinga) has kindly read Pagan and pointed out, quite rightly, that i use LATER as a mini slug a lot, something i hadn't thought of. So i thought i better check i am doing this right. As a mini slug it does take up space.

To me, until corrected, i use this when the same scene - i.e. characters and location - remain the same but we have a time break.

Eg Gus walks to the bar.

LATER

Gus sits at the bar, empty glasses in front of him etc

IE we know that time has elapsed. In another I use this when Gus gets up in the morning then

LATER

He walks out of the shower washed (not with knife after brutal murder   )

Steve is right i use this a lot, but that may be that i just break up more scenes than most scripts. I assume this is the best way to show a time lapse. Best to check.

Thoughts?

Yes, it's correct and works exactly as you have it here.

If you're using it alot, it means you have few settings, most likely and you're continually in the same "scene". This can be a problem in terms of viewing a filmed version, but in terms of writing the script, you are correct.

BUT, keep in mind that if the actual time of day has changed from DAY to NIGHT or whatever, LATER or the like will not be correct.  LATER or MOMENTS LATER refers to remaining in the same time element as you were just in.

I MAY (can't remember) have mentioned this to you in the last OWC, but in either case...

The problem with using later so much is because it's already an awkward transition in movies. It brings attention to the editing and if you know film editing, you know that it should be transparent, like a referee is a sporting event. It should facilitate the story rather than bring attention to itself.

If every few scenes has a time lapse like this, the audience is going to start to notice. Is there a way that scenes can be rearranged to break things up? If not, then you may be stuck with it, but I recommend finding creative ways to make that transition in the story.

Yeah - I'd agree with the overuse, here.

If, for example, you are showing Gus getting up - do you need to show him having a shower - and if you are showing him having a shower - do you need to show him getting up?

In Vanilla Skies - they showed this for a specific reason, and did something with that set of scenes that mattered to the story.

Unless both of these scenes really matter - can you not just get rid of one of them:

Gus at the bar, bunch of empty glasses, really says all you need to know?

Guy walks into a bar.

INT. BAR

Guy empties a glasses...

I think INT. BAR is sufficient to break and show time lapse in this case.
The other case seems right.

I wouldn't object to heavy usage if the usage makes sense for me.

The way they work best is when you're using them for a reason.

For instance...

INT - LIVING ROOM - NIGHT

Felipe sits in his LazzeeBoy recliner.  Three hot young babes in various shades of undress drift around him.

Felipe's eyes never wander from Little House on the Prairie, playing on his 18" TV.

LATER

Felipe sits in his LazzeeBoy recliner.  The three hot babes sit together, sewing and crocheting.

Felipe's eyes remain glued on his TV, now playing Good Times.

Quoted from Dreamscale Felipe's eyes never wander from Little House on the Prairie, playing on his 18"  Good Times.

Good times indeed.

Seems like you're trying to write a montage or a series of shots.

It is a good question though. I just finished polishing my script and had that same situation.

The opening scene in a church-

Things are going on in the front, back, pews, pulpit...

everywhere-

I decided to add mini-slugs (not later) but-

PEW - CONTINUOUS


PULPIT - CONTINUOUS

To show differient (mini-scenes) within the big scene.

Don't know if it's completly right or not but thats how I decided to approach it.

Shawn.....><

Thanks folks.

I am going through the draft now and will double check whether I over use.

Shaun mentions continuous. I have to say I am confused by this one as many seem to use it front of an ordinary scenes nd I can't see the need.

I'll read up on that one as well as I have tried to avoid it.

I use it when I have a large area (like a church) with several locations of action happening in it.

Like this-

BACK OF THE CHURCH - CONTINUOUS

The door swings open. Ernest walks in. The door slam loudly
behind him. The congregation turns around, looks back at
him, then turns back toward the front again.
Ernest takes a seat in the last row, grabs a Bible from the
pew. He flips through it, stops on a page, runs his finger
through a passage, slams the bible shut.

ERNEST
Okay.

He rises up, brushes himself off, walks up to the pulpit.

CHURCH PEWS - CONTINUOUS

TRISH
Is it a he or she?

KATHY
Shhhh.

PULPIT - CONTINUOUS

Ernest takes a moment, rights himself, then throws his hands
up in the air.

ERNEST
Let's pray.


That way, you are showing scenes within the scene if that makes any sense.

Shawn.....><

Shawn, in your example, a Mini is all you need, meaning, you don't need the time element.

But is it breaking any standards by using it? The "CONTINUOUS" that is?

Shawn.....><

Quoted from Ledbetter But is it breaking any standards by using it? The "CONTINUOUS" that is?Shawn.....><

Well, then, you're using a hybrid Slug - a combo of a Full and Mini.  I don't know why you'd want to do it that way...as in why not either go all out and use Full Slugs, or why not just use Mini's?

Let's be clear on the difference between Full and Mini Slugs.

A Full Slug has either INT or EXT, a location, and a time element.

A Mini Slug only has a location, and the assumption is that the location is a smaller part of a larger part (a room in a structure, for instance).  To me (as I continually say), the lack of a time element infers that it's a "CONTINUOUS " shot, as in a tracking shot where the camera literally follows a character into a new room.  Or, in your example, within a very large area, to action taking place in a "certain" area within that larger area.  Again, it's assumed that all the various action is taking place at the same time.

Hmm.  I have a scenario regarding LATERS and I'm just not sure how comfortable it looks on paper.

A girl is on camera being interviewed.  It's a little back in the day, so she's being recorded on an old video camera, so it's 8mm.  Here's my slug:

INT. PSYCHOLOGIST'S OFFICE - DAY - 8mm

Then, for the interview, I only have her answer the questions.  The questions are never heard.  The girl just answers the questions, then it cuts to her next answer.  Then, it cuts to her next answer, then her next answer.

At first, I put CUT flush to the right between every answer.  Not totally liking the way that looked in the script, I put LATER flush left between every answer in the revision I have now.

I'm still not sure if I like how it reads, though.  Yes, it adds a lot of white and reads very quickly, but I'm wondering if there's a better way to go around it, since I haven't thought of a way I like yet.