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.
"The examples you bring up are so far from unique, yet you act like you're offering up revolutionary ideas."
Of course not. That was the point. It's probably been done many times...those were quick hypotheticals.
What worried me was that the writer wanted to introduce his character this way(in a photo), but changed his mind because he was told it's incorrect for some reason or another. It's not.
I actually have no desire to buck the system. I generally write within. I merely refuse to let the system force me into bad choices.
Look, people are comfortable with having a system. It means once they master it, they don't have to think about that stuff. Which is comfortable.
But as with many things in life, once we get comfortable we stop looking for what's optimal. That's a danger in a field, especially in the sciences, but in anything.
There are times in screenwriting where the system just doesn't work well. So I buck it.
But I think many new writers that come here have a certain terror beat into them that they are going to do something "incorrect". And as a result, sometimes they don't make the best story choice, or the best writing choice.
So if a character is introduced in a photo, do you cap it? Do you then cap it again later. And I'm ok with that. And I think we should keep in mind circumstances vary. For example, we might meet the character in the photo, but then not meet the living version until much later.
I would have no problem with something like this:
EXT. FRANCE - TRENCHES
The SOLDIER, bleeding from a mortal wound, crawls between lifeless comrades.
Lies down and pulls out a photo.
CU ON PHOTO: the soldier with his wife JESSICA, 20, attractive...we'll meet her again soon.
The soldier breathes his last holding the photo to his chest.
Is this the best way? I don't know, there are many ways. Is it clear?
Do I need to say "we'll meet again soon"?
Maybe not...but if this is going to be an important character, the writer might choose to, as it becomes more of an introduction this way.
So let's say in the very next scene we meet the living version of Jessica at home in England...do we cap her intro again? I would not, but I'm certainly not confused or bothered by it if I'm read it.
Also, let's say we don't meet Jessica in the flesh until half a script later. I see no problem with saying:
A beautiful woman rides through the garden under a brilliant sun: Jessica, from the soldier's photo.
Or something like that.
And I'm not saying those are the best ways to handle the situation. But when searching for the best way, I'm not going to be constrained by rigid rules. I'm going to try to figure out what works best for the reader.
Kevin, I agree with what you're saying here in theory and agree that each writer can make his or her choice how to write it.
I don't see any "rules" being broken here in your scenarios and don't see any issues if the writer was a rules stickler, either. An aside here or there, possibly CAPPING an intro for a picture and then again for the actual character intro...who cares...no big deal.
I'll say it again, however, that I do wonder why you feel that certain "rules" will force you into bad choices. I just don't see why you continuously have issues such as these.
Even using such notes as C.U. or the like, to me, is rarely necessary.
For instance, take a picture as an example. If the writer writes that a picture of whatever "is seen" onscreen (now, you know I don't mean that he literally writes that), wouldn't it just be common sense that the view is close enough that whatever details are described can be seen?
Also, if we see a picture in a dying man's hands of a woman and child/ren, again, doesn't it go without saying that this is most likely going to turn out to be his family? Obviously, we wouldn't have a clue what her name is or anything other than what that picture shows, but as things play out, it will be crystal clear who that was and why it's important...at least to me, it is.
Yes, makes sense, and I've actually never used CU. There are different ways to do it, and I always hope to find what is clearest and most efficient.
We would not have a clue about Jessica's name, but we often don't have clue about a character's name...until another character speaks it, usually.
I would be ok with introducing her name here...or waiting. Whatever the writer decides...as long as things are clear to me.
And I don't mind a few extra words placed in order to make sure the reader is clear. For example, if when we meet Jessica it says "the girl from the photo"...or something like that, that might save the reader having to go back and check to make sure.
I was actually just outside doing some watering, having a cocktail and started thinking about something.
I include things in my scripts all the time to help the reader, that some may find "wrong" or "unfair", but like you, I strive for clarity, easy reading, and visual reading.
For instance, when you have a married couple, unless your properly intro tham with first and the same last names, your reader really won't know if they're married or going out, or even brother and sister. But, if you use "her husband" in an action/description line instead of the guy's name, your reader knows. If you use "his girlfriend", then again, it's clear.
Obviously, there are tens of thousands of ways of doing little things that most won't even catch, that will make your read an ease and as visual as possible.
The trick to me, is not to overdo it, not to do really anything that someone may not like to the point of red flags popping up and waving in their face.
You never know, I may throw out a whole new style with this upcoming OWC...
Pages: 
Author
The use of " -- ".
Logged
Locked Board