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.
Cleveland, in your example, using CONTINUOUS is incorrect, as time has elapsed from the first scene to the next one. It's not CONTINUOUS.
I highly doubt my example is anymore incorrect than most people using it in the first place. I said a tracking shot, as if it was integral to the story to follow the actor from inside to outside the house. No time passes. It's continuous.
But, I agree with you on full slugs. I would prefer writers just use them and don't try to get too fancy. It doesn't take up anymore lines in your script.
Dave (60) and incredibly handsome hurls his coffee mug at the screen of his desktop computer.
DAVE Those fucking slugs. I hate them. I will fucking kill all of them.
Dave's wife, LAURA (21) with the face of a beauty queen and the body of a porn star enters the study.
LAURA Who are they?
DAVE They?
LAURA The slugs you're yelling at.
DAVE They're not people. They're scene headings. And I fucking hate them. They are torturing me.
LAURA Come to bed, baby. I'll make you forget about Those slugs.
DAVE I can't. I wouldn't be able to sleep with these slugs on my mind.
Laura gives Dave a nibble on the neck.
LAURA Baby, I wasn't thinking about sleeping.
DAVE No, damn it. Not till I take care of all these God forsaken slugs. I hope they burn in hell!
Laura exits.
INT. DAVE'S BEDROOM - DAY
Laura collapses on the bed, sobbing.
LAURA My husband's lost his mind. I bet it was that bastard Jeff. He's going down.
======================================================== Thanks to you all for chiming in. It is amazing how many different sources view this topic (e.g., from the use of INT/EXT, MINI SLUGS, DESCRIPTION IN SLUGS, etc. Most of what is said on this site makes sense.
Jeff - got your points - thanks - the consistency in the use of the scene headings throughout makes perfect sense. So - and I promise - my last question on this. Is this okay:
INT. EMILY'S CAR - DAY
EMILY STANTON (35), attractive, short blonde hair, sings along with a love song playing on the radio as she drives on a busy street in downtown Los Angeles.
She arrives at a stop light, looks to her right and sees a young woman remove a ring from her finger and angrily throw it at young man.
Emily drives forward. She sings the love song much softer now.
P.S. I am not sold on the non-use of mini slugs (at least as I understand them). To me, this:
INT. - DAVE'S HOUSE - KITCHEN - NIGHT
Dave is at the kitchen table typing on a laptop computer. The doorbell CHIMES. Dave scampers to the
FRONT DOOR
And opens it. His neighbor rushes in.
Flows a lot better than this:
INT. - DAVE'S HOUSE - KITCHEN - NIGHT
Dave is at the kitchen table typing on a laptop computer. The doorbell CHIMES. Dave scampers out
Dave, your example is not correct, IMO, as you have this as an INT scene. Emily "drives forward" is definitely not an INT shot.
If you really want to write this as an INT scene, every time you write something that takes place "outside" that scene, you'll have to label as "outside"...or the like.
For instance, if you have INT CAR, you CAN write, "Emily hits the brakes", or "Emily floors it", because those are definitely actions that Emily is doing inside the car. But, you can't write things like this, "the car slows down and stops", or "the car peels out, speeds away", as these are actions that are not happening inside the car.
Make sense?
Your 2nd example is also incorrect. But wait a sec...in theory, your example is correct, as using Mini Slugs the way you did is correct. But, "FRONT DOOR" is not a proper Slug, and every time I see it, I can't help but laugh. You're never going to have action taking place at the front door, or any door, for that matter. It would be front hall or entryway, or something. I've seen entire scenes play out incorrectly in the FRONT DOOR.
In a way, it's like using EXT CAR, and unless we're got little bugs or miniture peeps on the car, or maybe some hilarious fight sequence in which 2 guys fight on a car and stay on the car the entire fight, EXT CAR just doesn't work as a Slug...just like FRONT DOOR doesn't either.
You can have an INT of the car where we see the car going forwards through the windscreen.
In the above example, it's evident that he wants to stay in the car with the girl...this is to create a sense of POV..ie to attach us to this particular character.
He doesn't want to break that and go outside which would distance us from the character.
Dave, your example is not correct, IMO, as you have this as an INT scene. Emily "drives forward" is definitely not an INT shot.
If you really want to write this as an INT scene, every time you write something that takes place "outside" that scene, you'll have to label as "outside"...or the like.
For instance, if you have INT CAR, you CAN write, "Emily hits the brakes", or "Emily floors it", because those are definitely actions that Emily is doing inside the car. But, you can't write things like this, "the car slows down and stops", or "the car peels out, speeds away", as these are actions that are not happening inside the car.
Make sense?
Your 2nd example is also incorrect. But wait a sec...in theory, your example is correct, as using Mini Slugs the way you did is correct. But, "FRONT DOOR" is not a proper Slug, and every time I see it, I can't help but laugh. You're never going to have action taking place at the front door, or any door, for that matter. It would be front hall or entryway, or something. I've seen entire scenes play out incorrectly in the FRONT DOOR.
In a way, it's like using EXT CAR, and unless we're got little bugs or miniture peeps on the car, or maybe some hilarious fight sequence in which 2 guys fight on a car and stay on the car the entire fight, EXT CAR just doesn't work as a Slug...just like FRONT DOOR doesn't either.
Got the "Door" thing - thanks.
Not sure about the "car" thing. Originally I had handled this is INT/EXT - CAR is in my view that is what is actually happening. There is action happening inside and outside the car. The INT/EXT also allowed me to use mini-slugs for the different POVs (since POV's are apparently frowned on as well). E.g., I had it written as.
INT/EXT. CAR - DAY
Emily drives........looks to her right and sees
BUS STOP BENCH
But in this thread was told mini-slugs were kaput as well. - sigh
If I am understanding you correctly, the only way to write this is:
INT. EMILY'S CAR - DAY
EMILY STANTON (35), attractive, short blonde hair, sings along with a love song playing on the radio as she drives on a busy street in downtown Los Angeles. She arrives at a stop light and looks to her right.
EXT. SIDEWALK - DAY
A young woman remove a ring from her finger and angrily throw it at young man.
INT. EMILY'S CAR - DAY
Emily drives forward. She sings the love song much softer now. She looks to her left.
EXT. BUS STOP BENCH - DAY
A middle aged couple sit on a bus stop bench. They ignore each other as they wait.
INT. EMILY'S CAR - DAY
Emily stops singing and now merely hums the love song. The light changes, Emily drives forward and stops.
EXT. CROSSWALK - DAY
A family walks in front of Emily's car. The husband, several steps ahead of the wife and children turns back and waves angrily at his wife and kids to hurry up.
INT. EMILY'S CAR - DAY
Emily stops humming and turns off the radio and then drives on.
That seems a lot choppier to me - less flow. Couldn't just all be resolved by making the master scene heading INT/EXT - CAR - DAY. ??? i.e., isn't it worth committing the int/ext sin to avoid chopping this up?
You can have an INT of the car where we see the car going forwards through the windscreen.
In the above example, it's evident that he wants to stay in the car with the girl...this is to create a sense of POV..ie to attach us to this particular character.
He doesn't want to break that and go outside which would distance us from the character.
Not really, Rick. Many make this mistake, thinking that INT or EXT means where the camera is...and in a shooting script, this may hold true, but this isn't a shooting script. And, it's not the writer's decision where to set the camera or how to set up and shoot the shot.
A Spec script merely sets each scene and action. How it's filmed is the Director's choice.
This is a mistake so many make and don't understand why it's a mistake.
Using INT/EXT is, in a way, the opposite, as it tells the readers to make up the scene on their own, and thus, the writer's voice is completely lost. IMO, it's lazy writing.
Dave, your last example is to me, is once again an example of over writing and over describing. All those little details aren't necessary.
I understand you see it this way, and maybe it's the way it would actually be shot, but in a Spec script, it's just not not necessary. It's also overcomplicated with so much going on at the same time. It's so many different shots, with so little overall effect.
Finally, to me, it's so cliche. Assuming this is the very beginning of your script, it's like hitting your readers over the head with a hammer of what's to follow. I mean, seriously, after reading this opening, I already knnow EXACTLY what's to follow.
As written, yes, it's much too choppy this way.
Does that make sense? I don't know, man. I'm trying...
Dave, your last example is to me, is once again an example of over writing and over describing. All those little details aren't necessary.
I understand you see it this way, and maybe it's the way it would actually be shot, but in a Spec script, it's just not not necessary. It's also overcomplicated with so much going on at the same time. It's so many different shots, with so little overall effect.
Finally, to me, it's so cliche. Assuming this is the very beginning of your script, it's like hitting your readers over the head with a hammer of what's to follow. I mean, seriously, after reading this opening, I already knnow EXACTLY what's to follow.
As written, yes, it's much too choppy this way.
Does that make sense? I don't know, man. I'm trying...
Again, sincere thanks for the continued input, Jeff. But, no this one doesn't make sense.
The question is how to use slugs for this particular set of activities in a scene involving a car traveling down a road with the driver noticing things that are happening outside. The recommendation to delete the specific activities because you find them unnecessary or cliched doesn't relate to the core question. Yes, I suppose one could write:
INT. CAR - DAY
Emily drives down a L.A. street
NEXT SCENE
Of course at this time, Emily driving down a street is now kind of irrelevant, so I could just delete it entirely. My problem is that I would be no closer to understanding how to format a scene of this nature - my original quest. So here is my favor request:
Just for shits and giggles, assume that every action sequence (e.g., Emily driving, the young couple, the bus stop bench, etc) are absolutely critical for the story. How would you specifically write it? i.e., what are the slugs for this sequence.
EMILY STANTON (35), attractive, short blonde hair, sings along with a love song playing on the radio as she drives on a busy street in downtown Los Angeles.
Emily arrives at a stop light, looks to her right and sees a young woman remove a ring from her finger and angrily throw it at young man.
Emily sings the love song much softer now.
Emily looks to her left and sees a middle aged couple sitting on a bus stop bench. They ignore each other as they wait.
Emily stops singing and now merely hums the love song.
The light changes, Emily drives forward and stops at a crosswalk.
A family walks in front of Emily's car. The husband, several steps ahead of the wife and children turns back and waves angrily at his wife and kids to hurry up.
Emily stops humming and turns off the radio and then drives on.
I know it may be a bit of an ass-ache, put if you could show me the slugs for this particular sequence, that would go along ways towards helping me learn this art/science. Apparently I am just not getting it. Thanks in advance.
Not really, Rick. Many make this mistake, thinking that INT or EXT means where the camera is...and in a shooting script, this may hold true, but this isn't a shooting script. And, it's not the writer's decision where to set the camera or how to set up and shoot the shot.
A Spec script merely sets each scene and action. How it's filmed is the Director's choice.
This is a mistake so many make and don't understand why it's a mistake.
Using INT/EXT is, in a way, the opposite, as it tells the readers to make up the scene on their own, and thus, the writer's voice is completely lost. IMO, it's lazy writing.
Dave, your last example is to me, is once again an example of over writing and over describing. All those little details aren't necessary.
I understand you see it this way, and maybe it's the way it would actually be shot, but in a Spec script, it's just not not necessary. It's also overcomplicated with so much going on at the same time. It's so many different shots, with so little overall effect.
Finally, to me, it's so cliche. Assuming this is the very beginning of your script, it's like hitting your readers over the head with a hammer of what's to follow. I mean, seriously, after reading this opening, I already knnow EXACTLY what's to follow.
As written, yes, it's much too choppy this way.
Does that make sense? I don't know, man. I'm trying...
I don't understand this fascination with worrying about "directing the shots". It's unavoidable.
If you go EXT to show the car driving forwards, you are directing the shot just the same as if you stay in the INT of the car...the writer HAS to put the camera somewhere...or there would be no slugs at all.
It's impossible to write a script and not direct the shots.
If you describe a field of soldiers...it's a wide shot.
If you describe someone's eye...it's an Extreme Close up.
Whatever you describe has an equivalent shot size.
I’ve tried to stay out of this til now cause I imagine my opinion’s in the minority. There’s a lot of good points, particularly about trying to make the rest of production’s life easier, but a couple things of my own…
Quoted from Dreamscale
you CAN write, "Emily hits the brakes", or "Emily floors it", because those are definitely actions that Emily is doing inside the car.
My problem with this solution is it infers a shot of Emily’s foot. But this is the opening to a romantic comedy, not Fast and Furious, why would you want a shot of what her foot is doing? Looking at Emily from the waist up, it’s pretty clear that the only thing that will happen in the image to infer her driving is that the world outside of her car will start sliding past the window. But once again, why would you write, “The world slides past her window.” This isn’t Inception and that sounds weird. We could clarify with, “The world slides past her window as the car drives on.” Then we can eliminate unnecessary and obvious detail by shortening it to, “The car drives on.”
I don’t understand why it’s improper to trust the reader to draw what would have to be obvious conclusions for anyone who’s ever been in a car. If it’s not actually confusing and you can see exactly what the shot would look like in your head, why belabor it further. Anything you do will just make it messier and less clear.
I actually use INT/EXT when there’s a lot of intercutting between them. You think this is hard? Write a car chase where one of the occupants is giving CPR in the backseat. I think of it as more efficient than lazy. If over-directing on the page is a concern, then I would think INT/EXT would be preferable to constant intercutting. Wouldn’t the director want you to just write the scene and plan it how he envisions it rather than have you constantly pushing his vision inside and outside of the car?
This is one of those cases where (for me) what’s easiest to write is also what’s easiest to read. That last example Dave wrote… I don’t want to read it that way any more than he wants to write it that way. Assuming all those elements are needed, it’s the epitome of over-directing and unnecessary information. To me, the core of the scene is contained between those slugs and the headings are just repetitive nonsense that’s breaking it up.
Now formatting for production is the one part of this that gives me pause. But in this case the entire scene would be contained on a single page. Would it really be that hard to break up?
And finally a link, because who doesn't like links?
I’ve tried to stay out of this til now cause I imagine my opinion’s in the minority. There’s a lot of good points, particularly about trying to make the rest of production’s life easier, but a couple things of my own…
My problem with this solution is it infers a shot of Emily’s foot. But this is the opening to a romantic comedy, not Fast and Furious, why would you want a shot of what her foot is doing? Looking at Emily from the waist up, it’s pretty clear that the only thing that will happen in the image to infer her driving is that the world outside of her car will start sliding past the window. But once again, why would you write, “The world slides past her window.” This isn’t Inception and that sounds weird. We could clarify with, “The world slides past her window as the car drives on.” Then we can eliminate unnecessary and obvious detail by shortening it to, “The car drives on.”
I don’t understand why it’s improper to trust the reader to draw what would have to be obvious conclusions for anyone who’s ever been in a car. If it’s not actually confusing and you can see exactly what the shot would look like in your head, why belabor it further. Anything you do will just make it messier and less clear.
I actually use INT/EXT when there’s a lot of intercutting between them. You think this is hard? Write a car chase where one of the occupants is giving CPR in the backseat. I think of it as more efficient than lazy. If over-directing on the page is a concern, then I would think INT/EXT would be preferable to constant intercutting. Wouldn’t the director want you to just write the scene and plan it how he envisions it rather than have you constantly pushing his vision inside and outside of the car?
This is one of those cases where (for me) what’s easiest to write is also what’s easiest to read. That last example Dave wrote… I don’t want to read it that way any more than he wants to write it that way. Assuming all those elements are needed, it’s the epitome of over-directing and unnecessary information. To me, the core of the scene is contained between those slugs and the headings are just repetitive nonsense that’s breaking it up.
Now formatting for production is the one part of this that gives me pause. But in this case the entire scene would be contained on a single page. Would it really be that hard to break up?
And finally a link, because who doesn't like links?
Thanks for the link. I think I am going back to the future. Originally I had this:
INT/EXT. EMILY'S CAR - DAY (DRIVING)
EMILY STANTON (35), attractive, short blonde hair, sings along with a love song playing on the radio as she drives on a busy street in downtown Los Angeles.
She arrives at a stop light, looks to her right and sees a young woman remove a ring from her finger and angrily throw it at young man. Emily sings the love song much softer now.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH
Then was told that INT/EXT is a no-no. Also - told no action should be in the slug (e.g., driving or traveling) Think I'm just going to disagree (besides, my brain has become mush over this) - I think INT/EXT perfectly describes what is going on and the slug should have the action (driving) since that really describes the setting.
Again, sincere thanks for the continued input, Jeff. But, no this one doesn't make sense.
The question is how to use slugs for this particular set of activities in a scene involving a car traveling down a road with the driver noticing things that are happening outside. The recommendation to delete the specific activities because you find them unnecessary or cliched doesn't relate to the core question.
I'll try and hit these responses 1 at a time, as I think it will be clearer.
Dave, I apologize, as I tend to sometimes say things that i assume will be understood a certain way, while writing something that may seem like I'm saying something else.
My intent was not to tell that you should delete "all" these various actions taking place on the street. My point was that showing all these actions was overkill, IMO, as well as cliche and heavy handed.
I also didn't mean to veer off the core discussion.
My point was merely that the way you "want" this to play out, adds to the confusion and grey matter, in formatting.
I will look at exactly what you want to write and I will offer my recommendation...after I address the other posts first.
If you go EXT to show the car driving forwards, you are directing the shot just the same as if you stay in the INT of the car...the writer HAS to put the camera somewhere...or there would be no slugs at all.
To show what the car looks like, what kind of car it is, etc, you need an EXT shot of it.
To show who's in the car, or what they're doing, how they're configured, you need an INT shot.
Once this is established, you can return to either shot at any time, and your readers and viewers will be onboard. This is screenwriting 101.
It's impossible to write a script and not direct the shots.
And when you do this properly, it's proper screenwriting. But, when you attempt to show something from a different angle, or a different view, you are directing the shot and it's unecessary, often incorrectly written, and very often confusing.
Sure, Directors often decide to use complex shots to film something that could be filmed very simply, but as Spec writers, that is not our job, and it only muddies the water.
If you describe a field of soldiers...it's a wide shot.
If you describe someone's eye...it's an Extreme Close up.
Whatever you describe has an equivalent shot size.
Agreed, assuming we're looking at this at its most simplistic.
That's not to say that the battlefield won't be filmed from above, from a bird's eye view, aka Oliver Stone's Alexander. And, is there really any reason to actually have the bird there? How about Ridley Scott's Exodus: Gods and Kings, where we have beautiful sweeping ariel shots of the city?
Each scene, if written on spec, would be very simple, and should not include how the scene will be filmed.
EWall, my examples you quoted were not meant to be used in Dave's script. They were merely trying to show the very logical difference in an INT and an EXT scene, and what would make sense within each.
I mean, seriously...your post discusses readers making obvious assumptions, and I agree with that point, but when you read a line like,
"The car speeds away.", the obvious assumption is that we're watching the car speed away, which is an EXT shot...correct?
If you read a line like, "John hits the brakes.", you're not visualling an EXT shot of the car coming to a stop - you're picturing an INT shot of John hitting the brake(s), whether or not you literally see a CU of his foot on the actual brake pedal. You may visualize his upper half and how it reacts as he applies the brakes...correct?
Pages: 
Author
Slugs
Logged
Locked Board