1)  Do I do O.S, V.O, or nothing for the dialogue of an invisible character?  On the one hand, it'll likely be pre-recorded, which would favor V.O.  On the other hand, the character is at the scene, suggesting one of the other two.  Also, whether he's technically off-camera or not is also beyond me.  Which is best?

2)  Action for invisible characters.  Should I describe it the way the viewer sees it (ie. "The vase floats upward")?  The problem is the reader who must execute it might not understand what the invisible character is actually doing.  Or should I describe what's actually happening ("M.T. picks up the vase"), at the risk of the reader not properly realizing what the audience sees?

You've set yourself a killer of a problem here haven't you!

Here's what I'd do:

If your invisible character is in the scene then use the (V.O.) convention.

If your character is in scene but not in the shot, i.e. Off Sceen then use (O.S.)

This may sound stupid, but even though the audience cannot see your character, because he or she is "invisible", they are refered to in your script by whatever name they are given so you must try and follow script format conventions as close as possible.. After all, you're telling a story and need to mention your invisible character whether the reader can see him or not.

You can of course describe action in your scenes with the character moving items, opening doors, knocking things off tables, switching lights on an off, opening windows and such like - as these all comunicate that the character is either in a room or place or alternatively leaving a room or place..

Another convention is footprints, wet feet with either shoes on or bare feet, in mud, on grass and sand etc.. Even spilt paint, milk or water..

You need to find solutions which communicate to the reader how your character behaves and reacts within scenes because the very descriptions you employ will also be the methods used to film the screenplay if it ever gets to that stage..

Hope the invisible info helped any? I mean it's not invisible, it is in text but you know what I ..........

I'd just use V.O. because if he's invisible, you'd have no clue whether he was in frame or not anyways. I think switching would just get confusing, as it doesn't really matter cuz you can't see where he is anyways. and I'd just describe what he's doing, as long as you make clear that they're invisible at the time, and you might also want to be sure to explain why he does that. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. You might also want to try to find other scripts that dealt with invisible men to see how they handled it, like The Invisible Man, Chronicles of an Invisible Man, or Hollow Man, etc.

Frankly, whether you use V.O. or not is beside the point. The character is technically in the scene so on one hand, his voice is originating from the characters mouth and therefore not a voiceover. On the other hand, the adience cannot see the character so the action taken by the movie making crew would be a voiceover. Using V.O. would make a convenient way to tell the difference between when he is visible and when he isn't.

As for action, I'm subscribe to just tell what happens. Although in the scene, the audience will only see his interaction, not his form. If a door closes, it could be him or it could be the wind. If he lifts a vase, the vase rises from the table and moves across the room. Dialogue would define what is going on further.

Just to be a jerk, I'm going to go against the majority here and advise you to use O.S. for the dialogue lines of your invisible character. If he is in the room, he must sound like he is in the room, regardless if we can see him or not.

Voice Over is generally used for narration or a character's inner monolog. Whenever you hear a V.O., notice that it sounds different than ordinary dialogue; it has some special reverberance.

Off - Screen, means that the character's voice come from somewhere unseen, but the character is present in the scene. Because of that, usually O.S. dialogue sounds more similar to ordinary dialogue than V.O. does.

So, acustically, I would say that O.S. fits better an invisible's character dialogue.

And there's even another option if you want to avoid the use of extensions in the character's lines. Take a look at this scene from 'The Hollow Man' script:

INT. RECOVERY CHAMBER - LATER

Sarah stares at the empty chamber.

               SARAH
          You awake?

               SEBASTIAN'S VOICE
          I am now.

The sheets raise and drape off of him.

               SARAH
          Notice anything unusual last night.

               SEBASTIAN'S VOICE
          No. Why?

               SARAH
          Franklin Three. He's dead.

Sebastian pulls a sheet around him. He moves across the
dimly lit room like a ghost.


And about how to describe this character's actions I would suggest to stick to the general rule: write only what it can be heard or seen. Here's a scene from The Hollow Man in which the invisible guy washes his face. Despite the useless 'we see's, the character's actions are described quite well.


INT. SEBASTIAN'S APARTMENT - NIGHT

We push over to the bathroom sink. The faucet turns on
and the water starts running.

We see the water cup under the faucet and splash against
Sebastian's face. His face appears briefly in the water.
Then the water slips away.


Hope that helps.

Avoiding the "we see's" of course. That Hollow Man script reads like more of a transcription than an actual screenplay. The main point is to create a difference between visible guy and invisible guy. And even then, it isn't necessary. You can use the character's regular name sans everything after it, if you want to. The action paragraphs will indicate when he is visible and when he isn't. To further this notion, you can also simply indicate the invisibility of the guy at the beginning of each scene to ensure we're aware he's invisible still. It's a judgement call.

I'm pretty sure it's a screenplay, not a transcript, George. It's listed in this site as a 'June 28, 1998 revised draft script in html format', and it does read like a screenplay despite some formating problems.

Here's the whole script: http://www.horrorlair.com/movies/scripts/hollowman.html

About indicating the invisivility of the guy at the beginning of each scene... You can write 'Sebastian is invisible' or 'Sebastian is still invisible' but such lines or description cannot be recorded by the camera until the guy does something. The audience will only notice that an invisible Sebastian is in the scene when he starts moving things around.

So I would directly describe his interaction with the enviroment, because that's when the character will be noticed on screen. That's why I think the technique used in the scenes transcribed from The Hollow Man script, is the most clear and economical one; it spares you from having to make clear if the guy is invisible or not at the beginning of each scene. If things are floating around, we know it's Sebastian.

This is an unusual topic so I guess there is no 'convention' of how to write this kind of scenes, yet I think the technique I pointed to the OP is the best one. Just my opinion.

I think you're making it too difficult on yourself.  Screenplay guidlines, I'm thinking, weren't written with invisible characters in mind.  

Let's say, for instance, your character is laying on a table and becomes invisible, then he gets up and goes across the room and drinks a glass of water.  Seriously, write it just like that!  Realize it's not your job to supply camera directions or other directorial commands; you just tell your story, and the reader of your script will get the idea if you use precise description.

So, using the example above:

BOB convulses and twitches as his body turns invisible layer by layer - first the dermis, then the epidermis, his veins and muscles, until his skeleton itself disappears and all that's left is the imprint of his body on the table.

Bob GRUNTS as he pulls himself up from the table and crosses the room (this is where it's the director and cinematographer's job to decide how best to communicate this -- likely by tracking or panning the camera across the empty set).  Bob picks up a glass of water.

As he drinks, the water visibly flows down his throat before it, too, disappears.

BOB
That hit the spot.

Bob walks out the door (again, this is the director's problem -- and will likely be executed by simply panning/tracking across the room to a door which seemingly opens and closes on its own).

You've just written a scene without so much as a camera direction, parenthetical or dialogue note.  

And use the same technique if Bob gets into a fight.

TOM's cheek sinks in as Bob punches him in the face.  Tom swings back at the open air, unaware of the VASE Bob hoists above his head.  Bob CRASHES the vase down upon Tom's skull.  

Again, you've just described an invisible man in action with just some simple description, with nary a camera direction or actor's cue in sight.  

As for dialogue, considering he's an invisible man you could play this for an effective scare anytime you felt like it by simply not referring to him to begin with.  


EXT - SIDEWALK - DAY

Tom and MARIE stroll along, morose.

MARIE
I'm worried about Bob.

TOM
Worry all you want.  Next time I see him, I'll kill him.

BOB
Next time you see me?

Tom and Marie stop in their tracks.

Again, you've just implied the invisible character has been nearby the entire time, in a simple and effective way, and saved yourself a technical headache.  Give the reader some credit, and allow that they've got an imagination of their own and will likely be more than capable of seeing events unfold in their head.

Of course, someone else may be able to come up with a more technically appropriate method, but I don't see a need for it to be any more complicated than this.

Good luck, and keep writing!

Lon: While I'm sure you decided to contribute to this thread with good intentions, I don't think your advice is technically correct.

Quoted from Lon Bob GRUNTS as he pulls himself up from the table and crosses the room (this is where it's the director and cinematographer's job to decide how best to communicate this -- likely by tracking or panning the camera across the empty set).

If you want a reader (friend, agent, producer, contest jury, simplyscripter) to picture in his mind an invisible Bob crossing the room, it's your job to make that happen, not the director's.

Don't expect the reader, specially a professional reader, to be forgiving of this flaws: If Bob if invisible, how are we supposed to see him walking around the room? Tracking or panning the camera could do the trick, yeah, but I haven't got a camera right here and I'm not the director. I'm just a wannabe writer and all I have with me is a keyboard, so how can I show this?

Footsteps sound across the room towards the door; it opens.

There. Instead of expecting the director to do your job, and expecting agents and producers to expect the same (very unlikely), you do this on your own and show the guy reading your script that you know what you're doing.

Quoted from Lon EXT - SIDEWALK - DAY Tom and MARIE stroll along, morose. MARIE I'm worried about Bob. TOM Worry all you want.  Next time I see him, I'll kill him. BOB Next time you see me? Tom and Marie stop in their tracks. Again, you've just implied the invisible character has been nearby the entire time, in a simple and effective way, and saved yourself a technical headache.

Using extensions (V.O. / O.S.) is not a technical headache, far from that, they're pretty simple to use. And even if you think they're a headache after learning them, make an effort and use them because they're part of the industry standard format, and professional readers expect you to use it.

In the example above you should use BOB (O.S.) or at least BOB'S VOICE. A regular 'BOB' in the character's name will automatically generate the image of a visible Bob in any professional reader, and you don't want that.

If this is the case then every line of dialogue while the character is invisible will need an (O.S.) after it.  If he's in the scene, and he's talking to a character, (O.S.) would imply he's not even in the room, and I don't think a (V.O.) is all that accurate because it's a narration device, and denotes a voice speaking in a different time and place.

The descriptions I used were based on what I saw in my mind's eye when I thought, "Okay, I'm watching a movie about an invisible man.  What do I see onscreen?"  I used the example I did, because that's what came to my mind.  

I'll disagree (in a friendly manner, no hard feelings here and no sarcasm intended) about it being the writer's job to determine how something is shown.  It's the writer's job to tell his story; it IS the director's/producer's/cinematographer's job to execute it.  I'm reminded of a line from the Scream DVD commentary where Wes Craven mentions how difficult a time they had making it so the killer wouldn't be identifiable onscreen, since writer Kevin Smith's screenplay didn't address hiding a character's skin, shoes, clothing, etc.  Smith replies, "That's your job.  I'm just the writer."  

I don't see that as putting the work on the reader; I see that as trusting in the reader's intelligence and ability to create the image in their own mind.  When you have to start explaining things to the reader as though they were a four year old, then you've insulted their intelligence AND taken the concentration off your story, and put it on the technicality of it.  Just say what the guy's doing.  The prop-master, foley artists and the rest can worry about the execution; that's what they're paid for, and I doubt they'd give anyone a hard time for giving them money to do it lol

Again, just my opinion and I'm not attempting to belittle anyone else's.  Given the fact that this topic doesn't regard your typical screenplay, opinions will vary wildly.  I'm just trying to think of a way to tell the story in a straightforward manner with a minimum of camera directions or FX cues.

Quoted from Lon If he's in the scene, and he's talking to a character, (O.S.) would imply he's not even in the room

No it wouldn't. I'm sorry Lon but you got the meaning of this term wrong, look it up first or this discussion will go forever.

O.S. (off screen), sometimes known as O.C. (off camera), can be perfectly applied to dialogue lines from a character present in the room but not seen in the shot. An Off-Screen voice can be both heard from a character out of the camera range, or from another room altogether.

Quoted from Lon I'll disagree (in a friendly manner, no hard feelings here and no sarcasm intended) about it being the writer's job to determine how something is shown.  It's the writer's job to tell his story; it IS the director's/producer's/cinematographer's job to execute it.  I'm reminded of a line from the Scream DVD commentary where Wes Craven mentions how difficult a time they had making it so the killer wouldn't be identifiable onscreen, since writer Kevin Smith's screenplay didn't address hiding a character's skin, shoes, clothing, etc.  Smith replies, "That's your job.  I'm just the writer."

Concealing the identity of a killer isn't a hard trick tu pull, you can make him wear a mask or make him atack only in dark places or whatever. Describing the actions of an invisible character can sometimes be easy, sometimes difficult, and sometimes even impossible:

If we want a naked invisible Bob to make his abdominal workouts just by himself without any workout device, that would be something impossible to shoot.

If he is invisible, how can you see this particular action? Maybe the director could add some heavy breathing, but still, the audience wouldn't know if Bob is working out or just jerking off.

I would advice any writer to think before hand which actions of an invisible character can be shown and then prove it by showing how. If you fill a script with actions which are impossible to show on screen, the script goes directly to the trash and there won't be a dvd with a commentary track in which you could possible blame the director for not doing your job.

This is great -- I am agreeing with Lon -- then with Z -- and back and forth -- each of them convincing me of the absolute correctness of their position with each new post --

-- until one of them posts a contradictory rebuttal.  And I switch sides yet again.

But then we get this:

Quoted from Mr.Z If he is invisible, how can you see this particular action? Maybe the director could add some heavy breathing, but still, the audience wouldn't know if Bob is working out or just jerking off.

A true "coffee-out-the-nostrils" post, and inarguable in every respect.

Game, set, and match go to Z!

Quoted from Mr.Z If he is invisible, how can you see this particular action? Maybe the director could add some heavy breathing, but still, the audience wouldn't know if Bob is working out or just jerking off.

Damn, man...I was taking a drag off a cigarette when I read that and damn near choked on it!  

All I can say to that is let's hope the writer doesn't have his invisible man doing sit-ups, OR jerking off.  Especially the latter...imagine the FX shot when he finishes!

All good points, but I'm not sure if you're getting my point about what I think the writer's job is.  It's not the writer's job to do the bare minimum, that's not what I'm saying at all.  It's the writer's job to tell his story in a clear manner, and I think there's an easier way to do it which wouldn't force a reader to have to glom over multiple cues, FX inserts and camera directions.  It's a common thing, especially here on this board, for a reader to check out a script and then comment they stopped reading when they lost the focus of a story due to those exact things.  

And in a way it's a Catch-22 -- for the most part everyone here writes spec scripts, in which it's a big no-no to cite camera directions, FX cues, etc.  And every book or manual written on spec-script writing, from Chris McKeane to David Trottier and all the ones in between, tells you if you send out a spec script loaded up with those things that your script will quickly find its way to the discard stack.  That being the case -- and where the majority of my argument is coming from -- then it's almost imperative that the writer be creative with his description, and trusting in the intelligence of the reader.

On the other hand, if he were writing a shooting script, this whole topic would be null and void and he could add in every camera direction, FX cue, parenthetical, script-note or kitchen sink he wants.

Haha, it seems that we won't agree on this Lon, but at least Bert, you and me could have a laugh out of this.

Going back on topic would require to repeat some of my previous arguments, so I won't. But I will just add one last clarification, since you mentioned many times that:

Quoted from Lon I think there's an easier way to do it which wouldn't force a reader to have to glom over multiple cues, FX inserts and camera directions.

O.S. or other extensions are not FX inserts or camera directions and are oftenly used in spec script standards.

The same thing can be said about describing things moved around by an insivible character, or describing the sounds he makes. A camera direction would be something along the lines of:

CLOSE UP: on a cup of coffee.

PULL BACK to reveal nobody is holding it; it floats suspended in the air.

I' not suggesting camera directions, they don't belong to spec scripts; I agree with you on this.

Go back to my original post and read it with this in mind, and you'll see I'm suggesting something really simple. If you still don't agree, well, then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

The way this usually works is during Post Production the effects guys will be asked to add this character in as a slightly Transparent human figure,,,,

You can see through him, but the idea is he is not there. So you could just use the normal CHARACTER dialouge for him, without the use of V.O. or O.S.

As long as your direction depicts him in the given scenes you write him into.