Are transitions and camera directions needed in a script that you send to a producer or enter into a competition?

No, actually they are frowned upon.

Theyre actually not desired in spec scripts (which you submit to producers and competitions).


Phil

From what I hear that's a big no-no. If you want to know what your script should and shouldn’t include; check out the scripts written by: Bert, George, Kevan or Allan.

Transitions and camera directions remove the reader from the story and remind him/her that they're reading a script. Books don't need these things, so scripts don't either, since you're essentially writing a readable (not shootable) version of the script.

I tried to find this subject on this thread but did not find anything. If there is something, I appologize for starting this thread. I have question if the sort of transition that I am attempting in these two scenes is allowed in screenwriting.  

INT. TAXI CAB

The car doors UNLOCK.

Nelson breaks lip action and sees that the driver seat is empty.

White light shines brightly from behind, blinding everything.

A loud ROAR of a B-747 United engine sounds.  

INT. AIPPORT – ARRIVALS&DEPARTURES AREA - NIGHT

A sign reads “JAROD BAXTER”; it is held by a chauffeur.


Gabe

I believe the big no-no in screenwriting is using big fancy transitions like DISSOLVE TO, CUT TO, TRANSITION TO, etc.  Ya know, all the stuff you put on the right side at the end of a scene of a shooting script and what not.

The way it's written now I believe is fine since you work it into the description.  And it works too.  Nothing horribly complicated.

Thanks Greg. I like to confirm material. The reason I ask is because I repeat this sort of transition several times in the beginning so...Thanks again.

Gabe

Yes, the way you have it written is perfect. I understood that in classic movie style, a sound from the following scene is serving to pave the way between the taxi and the airport. Works just fine.

Thank you George. I've gotten something perfect and I don't have to edit other parts that repeat this sort of style. Hopefully my script ends up reviewed the same way. lol.

Gabe

I have these two scenes that have an essential dissolve between them.  It is the same location a bit later.  Do you think it is ok to use the DISSOLVE TO: transition?

Also I have someone in voice over during the dissolve.  Should I put the voice over at the end of the first scene or at the begining of the next?

end of scene
voice over?
                DISSOLVE TO:
INT. NEXT SCENE

?

I fail to see why Dissolve would be a cruical to use in your screenplay, but I tjink if you really must use it, use it.

If you really need the Dissolve To: then what you have above will suffice or you can try:

action/description
                     DISSOLVE TO:
INT. SCENE HEADING
action/desctrption
          VOICE OVER


Stew

Dissolves are one of those things that are best used very sparingly.  And only if you have a darn good reason for it -- like one image dissolving into another -- and nothing else will do.

You should never "Dissolve" for no reason.  That is a "for sure" rule.

As to your voice over question, all you need is a pair of ellipses.

Like this:

EXT. FAIRGROUNDS - DAY

A large, spinning Ferris wheel.

          GUY (V.O.)
     Now, for some reason...

                                         DISSOLVE TO:

A SLOW ROLLING TRACTOR TIRE

Revolving much like the Ferris wheel.

          GUY (V.O.)
     ...I am going to discuss farming.

Carry on, Bert. You've got until Saturday to write me a mystery about farming. Otherwise I'm just gonna steal The Farm and strip it down to 15 pages.

As for the dissolve, I wouldn't say it always has to be a matching image, it's also used to suggest a passage of time, but the technique is really in the realm of the director. If you just want to show a passage of time at the same location, I'd go for the simple option:

INT. OFFICE - DAY

Martin stares blankly at the blinking cursor on the screen.

INT. OFFICE- LATER

The cursor still blinks, Martin still stares, the page is still blank.

He crushes out his cigarette in the overflowing ashtray and curses under his breath.

As for the voice over, I'd do it pretty much like Bert's example. I noticed in the Lost scripts they use (prelap) after the character's name if they're cutting to a scene where the character is actually talking i.e. not voice over. I haven't seen that used anywhere else though.

The simple option is always the best as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks everyone.

My dissolve is from an empty room to the same room full of people.  In that sense it is a passage of time.  I tried it without the dissolve but it just seems so abrupt with out it.  I will go with bert's example.

Quoted from Martin You've got until Saturday to write me a mystery about farming. Otherwise I'm just gonna steal The Farm and strip it down to 15 pages.

Hell, I think the real mystery is how a hack like you made the PAGE quarterfinals.  Maybe you should write about that.

But I did take note that your topic was farming haha.  How funny.

Quoted from mcornetto My dissolve is from an empty room to the same room full of people.

Glad it was helpful.  If it is a long V.O., maybe consider having the people dissolve in a few at a time -- some in one corner -- then some in another corner -- until the room is full.  

Since a dissolve is essentially an editing technique and can also fall under directing, it tends to be out of place in a spec screenplay. Also, if you have a match cut, a dissolve is often painfully obvious since match cuts are rarely transitioned any other way.

Cuts and dissolves are often used about the same way in almost every instance. Cuts are used when there is little to no passage of time between scenes, and dissolves are used when there is. Therefore, unless you are wanting a dissolve where there normally wouldn't be one, then you should have it in the spec. But if you want a dissolve where a hundred years of movie editing convention places one anyway, then there is no need for it in the spec, since the director and/or editor will put one there anyway.

Direction is ONLY used in a spec script if it is something that MUST be shown a certain way to tell the story and IF a director would most likely NOT direct a scene that particular way. I have a 45 page script intended to be filmed in one shot...it has a few more camera directions than a conventional spec would because it's different.

The scene you described matches convention for the use of the dissolve, therefore, there is no need for it in the spec.

For the voiceover bit, place it AFTER the scene description it would be over. It is perfectly fine to break up a voiceover with scene descriptions. Check out the "Fellowship of the Ring" prologue. It's got a lot of camera directions (Thanks, PJ), but the use of the voiceover in relation to the directions is spot on.

Hi everybody, first time poster though have been reading the scripts here for ages.
I have just started up and have lots of ideas to put down but one of the things that confuses me is when the camera directions are frowned upon when the transition is being used as part of your story telling.

Am I wrong when I "play the movie" in my head and put it on the page if it is being used as a narrative tool?

For example, I have opened a script with a TIGHT ON one of the characters' closed eyes that then opens. The Camera PULLS BACK until the whole of the character comes INTO VIEW as an AERIAL SHOT. At the end of the script the movement is reversed so an AERIAL SHOT PUSHES IN until we are TIGHT ON the characters eye which then snaps shut with a SMASH CUT to BLACK. FADE OUT.
The reason for this is because the script has many claustrophobic themes throughout and the two shots are my book ends.

Sorry if my amateurnessness stinks a bit, but any advice is very welcome.

Darren, here's the deal...

For the most part, what we're all talking about here, are Spec Scripts.  Spec scripts should get your story across through action and dialogue, and provide enough visual description so that we can "see it in our heads", but you have to understand 2 very important things.

1)  You are the writer, not the director.  It is not your job to direct how the shots will be 'shot".  It's also irritating to constantly read camera angles, transitions, etc, as it takes the reader completely out of the read.

2)  The level of detail you provide, in terms of description of anything and everything, is a very fine line.  When describing characters, you definitely want your readers to have some physical view of them, but that rarely should include clothing worn or the like, unless it comes into play in the story in some way.  Same deal with describing sets, action, and everything else.  You want us to be able to envision your settings, but you can't play set director.

So, my point with #2 is this - If you can't/shouldn't describe in detail important things (that are definitely seen in a filmed version), why wold you waste space with camera angles and useless transitions?

A script needs to be written so that, in average, 1 page equals 1 minute of film.  Many factors influence and "change" that up, over a few pages, but overall, you have to keep this in mind.  Describing exact shots, like in your example, are a waste, highly frowned upon, and a good way to get readers to immediately stop reading.

Now, anything in very small doses is acceptable, but I sure wouldn't want to start off that way.

Hope this makes sense and helps.  

Darren,

I'm pretty sure every screenwriter knows exactly how every scene of a script should be filmed; tight, wide, in slo-mo or whatever, but what it really all boils down to is that it's your job - as the writer - to tell a story and that's it. If you start putting in technical terms (or the dreaded "WE") there's a very good chance that you're gonna pull the reader out of the story, and instead of reading a story they'll be reading a technical blueprint.

Also, does it really matter how the particular scene is shot for the story to work? I personally don't think so. However, if you really must use a specific shot then there are different ways of writing it without using a camera direction. Just show us what's on the screen. I could easily give you an example of a scene that starts out TIGHT and ends up WIDE but I want you to do your own thinking. What do we see? That's the key.

Quoted from sniper ...there are different ways of writing it without using a camera direction.

Exactly.  What you do, Darren, is "suggest" the shots without being so bossy, with TIGHT ON and all that.  One (of many) options:

----------------------------------------

CLOSED EYES

Snap open.

These eyes belong to a beautiful face.  VERONICA.

Veronica is dressed in the clothes of a schoolgirl, and she rests on her back in an endless field of grass beneath an equally endless autumn sky.

------------------------------------------

Your TIGHT ON and PULL BACK and AERIAL are all implied here.  The director can do what he wants with it, but he is "seeing" your vision.

Maybe not the best example, but hopefully you get the idea.

Awesome advice, thank you kindly.
I knew it looked too much but I couldn't help but think it was needed to go with the claustrophobic themes of the story.
But what you are saying is that it is the Director's job to illustrate these themes and not mine?
Suggesting camera movements or specific shots in writing would require a more wordy paragraph and I thought we should avoid these.
Thanks again.

Try not to suggest camera movements unless they are necessary to the telling of the story and situation at hand.  They usually aren't, and you'll rarely if ever get dinged on not doing such things.

If you're experienced or talented enough to get away with it, that's another story, but I sure wouldn't recommend it.

Quoted from darrentomalin Hi everybody, first time poster though have been reading the scripts here for ages. ...Sorry if my amateurnessness stinks a bit, but any advice is very welcome.

I like your name, and not just the first  ;D

No, there's nothing amatuer about asking those kinds of questions or asking for advice. Better to deal with it now then later when you write out 120 pgs of something or other and learn the hard way (like some of us have)

Well met Darren James Seeley. Creepier: James is actually my middle name too, my last name is Tomalin.
Anyway, thanks again everybody especially as I just realised the last post before me was 2007! Just call me resurrection man.
I look forward to being a regular here even though I am in the UK and the formatting here is less strict for movies and more strict for TV.

Quoted from Dreamscale Try not to suggest camera movements unless they are necessary to the telling of the story and situation at hand.

I agree with Dreamscale.  I wouldn't say no no.  It's just time.  We have changed, and so as the way of writing.  If you go buy a dictionary today, it will have a word "Google".
I'm just saying it's all about evolution, but the taste of using camera transitons and directions is still fun for some screenwriters if you know how to handle it well.  All the scripts you read today will have slight dosage of direction or transition at one point.  That's when the writer feelt it was really necessary to do it.