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.
And what's with the pointers are tells bullshit? With bold you would need to play a guessing game. Which of the following is more clear?
GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. (whispers) Now, I'm going to kill your daughter.
GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. Now, I'm going to kill your daughter.
The bold could mean anything... the reader is left to ponder the significance. Perhaps an index with all your little codes at the start of your scripts will help.
Uppercase for shouting. Bold for whispering. Italics for sarcasm. Underline for emphasis. A different colour of text for each character, therefore showing which character is being spoken to at any given time rather than having to tell the reader. Double underline for vehemence... etc, etc. Then, once your readers have learned the special code they can settle down to enjoy your script. Great plan.
You made the whole sentence bold, Dustin. I'm not talking about that kinda thing.
This is what I mean: GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. (whisper) Now, I'm going to kill your daughter.
It's THAT word that requires emphasis. Not the entire sentence. If you bold the word "YOUR" then the actor saying the line knows he/she is meant to aim it at the character they're speaking to in the script.
That's what I meant.
You can still use parenthesis to convey the emotion, a beat, the tone of voice and whatnot, but specific words, IE what I mentioned above, can be emphasized if bold is used.
It's better than: GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. (whisper) Now, I'm going to kill (intensely) your daughter.
You made the whole sentence bold, Dustin. I'm not talking about that kinda thing.
This is what I mean: GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. (whisper) Now, I'm going to kill your daughter.
It's THAT word that requires emphasis. Not the entire sentence. If you bold the word "YOUR" then the actor saying the line knows he/she is meant to aim it at the character they're speaking to in the script.
That's what I meant.
You can still use parenthesis to convey the emotion, a beat, the tone of voice and whatnot, but specific words, IE what I mentioned above, can be emphasized if bold is used.
It's better than: GANGSTER I've warned you over and over again. (whisper) Now, I'm going to kill (intensely) your daughter.
That is the best explanation I can give.
You've just used parenthesis in your example. This discussion (between you and I) has been about using alternatives to parentheses. About how you believe parentheses are unnecessary and can be easily replaced with bold, or an underline, or italics... even all of them at once.
As you've just used them to prove your side of the discussion, I don't feel there is anything left to talk about. Cheers.
You've just used parenthesis in your example. This discussion (between you and I) has been about using alternatives to parentheses. About how you believe parentheses are unnecessary and can be easily replaced with bold, or an underline, or italics... even all of them at once.
As you've just used them to prove your side of the discussion, I don't feel there is anything left to talk about. Cheers.
Well, if this is how you're going to respond to someone having a friendly discussion with you, then we're definitely done here.
I'm not out to prove anything, Dustin. Maybe you are, but I never went into this with a "win" in my head. If anything, I was merely suggesting that ONE word in a dialogue block can be emphasized without the need of parenthesis.
Re: Using italics in respect to quoting dialogue within dialogue -- This is what I do. Saves all the pointless (mocking this character) parenthetical space.
For one word emphasis, it often only takes being underlined. What is the difference between underline and bold? Not a lot, aside from bold is not used in screenplays, underlining is. It's like changing the full stop for a bracket... throw the rule book out the window.
And stop crying like a baby, Lee. The fact that we're going back and forth means we're each trying to prove a point. Not to win, but to be the one that's right. My point is that parentheses have their uses.
Yours is that they are unnecessary. From single words to whole mimicked sentences. The narrative should naturally inform the viewer what's going on, so no need for pointers. But bold is OK, because it is pointing out the obvious. Still pointing though... perhaps point needs changing. Because, whether we point out the obvious or the not so obvious, we are still pointing. It contradicts your logic on not needing pointers, yes?
You actually called using parenthesis pointless. A pointless pointer. Unnecessary. Why, one can simply use bold.
You have suggested, in more than one thread at this site, that parentheses are unnecessary because the narrative should naturally inform the reader...
You have also stated that italics can be used instead to replace all tells in parenthesis.
For one word emphasis, it often only takes being underlined. What is the difference between underline and bold? Not a lot, aside from bold is not used in screenplays, underlining is. It's like changing the full stop for a bracket... throw the rule book out the window.
And stop crying like a baby, Lee. The fact that we're going back and forth means we're each trying to prove a point. Not to win, but to be the one that's right. My point is that parentheses have their uses.
Yours is that they are unnecessary. From single words to whole mimicked sentences. The narrative should naturally inform the viewer what's going on, so no need for pointers. But bold is OK, because it is pointing out the obvious. Still pointing though... perhaps point needs changing. Because, whether we point out the obvious or the not so obvious, we are still pointing. It contradicts your logic on not needing pointers, yes?
You actually called using parenthesis pointless. A pointless pointer. Unnecessary. Why, one can simply use bold.
Let's go about this another way, so I can remember what I said (I forget a lot). I, personally, don't use parenthesis unless it's absolutely necessary.
As examples: GUY Hi (beat) Bye.
Like so. When it comes to emotion, I leave it blank. If I need to say they're whispering, I'll use "NOTE: They whisper", rather than:
GUY (Whispering) Hey.
CHICK (Whispering) Hey.
GUY (Whispering) How you been?
CHICK (Whispering) Fine, you?
See how that could be annoying? Having to tell the reader they're whispering in every single line of dialogue would become infuriating to the reader after a while.
So: NOTE: They whisper
And the proceeding discussion would occur without the use of parenthesis, clearing 4 lines off the page immediately, creating room for action and/or more dialogue on that specific page rather than moving it to the next one.
BOLD WORDS.
This is for words that require the actor/actress to emphasize them, without resorting to the use of parenthesis, therefore saving more page space.
Example (with parenthesis) GUY I swear, I'm going to - (intensely) murder that woman.
Example (without parenthesis) GUY I swear, I'm going to murder that woman.
This allows the actor/reader to interpret that the line is meant to be spoken in a specific way, but if the line is being spoken in a scene with other characters:
GUY (Whispering) I swear, I'm going to murder that woman.
Or if it's in his head, as we all know: GUY (V.O.) (RE: Woman) I swear, I'm going to murder that woman.
--------------------
Parenthesis is useless, sometimes. A pointless pointer if you're pointing out the obvious, but if used correctly, if used in a way that isn't O-T-T, is useful.
--------------------
That's the point I wanted to make originally, but as I can't find the words sometimes, it usually takes a wake up call or two to get my brain functioning past zombie status.
Apologies if I sounded like a child earlier. I hope this clears up the confusion.
Lee, IMO, you're overdoing it if you feel the need to "note" how the character says certain words.
Using a wrylie for "yells" or "whispers" is perfectly acceptable, but you're slipping hairs if you really think you need to emphasize a portion of the dialogue.
No one will understand what your intent is with the bold stuff.
Saving lines is great, but not when you lose clarity, which is what you'll do here.
Lee, IMO, you're overdoing it if you feel the need to "note" how the character says certain words.
Using a wrylie for "yells" or "whispers" is perfectly acceptable, but you're slipping hairs if you really think you need to emphasize a portion of the dialogue.
No one will understand what your intent is with the bold stuff.
Saving lines is great, but not when you lose clarity, which is what you'll do here.
Moot point, man. I'll know what it means, but most people won't.
But I will "note" them if a conversation takes place entirely with whispering, rather than 5-10 (whispering) brackets before each dialogue block.
I mean, if I did a "whispering" thing before only 1 block for each character, then for all everyone knows, the rest of the conversation could be spoken in a louder voice.
As stated by Jeff, Lee... one word emphasis is not handled by parenthesis unless it is an unusual case. Parenthesis has a few different uses. I like to use action in mine.
Bold replaces the underline, not parenthesis. Where you have emboldened, I would underline... in fact, I wouldn't. Mostly, I leave things like that up to the actors, but if your examples were deserving of being emboldened then I would prefer to underline. The reason for that is that it is the correct way to do things. Bold is for titles and other stuff that doesn't really involve the story. Scene headings or camera directions. I don't mind bold with those because they aren't part of the narrative and simply serve to inform in some way.
Bold does work, but so does underline... so why change it?
I mean, if I did a "whispering" thing before only 1 block for each character, then for all everyone knows, the rest of the conversation could be spoken in a louder voice.
I would handle that in the action. If the scene has them whispering throughout dialogue, then rather than use parenthesis or underline, or even bold, I would simply state in the action that the characters are whispering and then write the dialogue normally.
What a thread. Without weighing into right or wrong - My personal preferences:
BOLD
I would never use to add emphasis (I actually would not use the bold anywhere). I underline for emphasis - the genesis seems pretty clear to me - you are underscoring a word. e.g.,
DICK You're wrong.
DAVE I'm wrong?
In terms of the original question of quoting dialogue within dialogue. IMO, the first question to be answered has to be - how pervasive is this going to be in the script? If it is infrequent then simple quotation marks with the occasional explanation would do just fine.
DICK What did he say?
DAVE He said that I - "don't know shit about writing."
Or use a descriptor:
DICK What did say?
DAVE That I ... (making air quotes) Don't know shit about writing.
If the quoting of dialogue is going to be pervasive throughout the script then I think you need some kind of trick to keep it from being monotonous and the exact form of the trick probably doesn't matter as long as it is clear to the reader. e.g.,
DICK What did he say?
DAVE You don't know shit about writing.
NOTE: throughout the script Dave will be directly quoting xxxxxx. This will be indicated by italics. - Or you could use brackets or italics and quotes - whatever floats your boat. It just needs to be clear.
Let's also keep in mind, that in dialogue, pretty much anything goes.
What I mean by that is that if someone is quoting someone and he comes right out and makes it clear that he's quoting someone, does anything at all need to change about that quoted dialogue?
Quotes would be the "correct" way of doing it in terms of literary writing, but again, this ain't literary writing...no one will see the dialogue (other than script readers)...they'll just here the guy talking, and in reality, you could very easily get away without doing a single thing about it being quoted.
I think I actually had some peeps quoting others in an old script - "Screwed", and I highly doubt I did anything to make it look different.
Let's also keep in mind, that in dialogue, pretty much anything goes.
What I mean by that is that if someone is quoting someone and he comes right out and makes it clear that he's quoting someone, does anything at all need to change about that quoted dialogue?
Correct - if he makes it clear that he's quoting someone then there is no issue and this entire thread is moot. However, I believe that the gist of his question was - how do I make it clear that I am quoting someone?
Quoted Text
Quotes would be the "correct" way of doing it in terms of literary writing, but again, this ain't literary writing...no one will see the dialogue (other than script readers)...they'll just here the guy talking, and in reality, you could very easily get away without doing a single thing about it being quoted.
Yes, in literary writing you would use quotes. In script writing you do not since the format has implied quotes. e.g.,
DAVE The format has implied quotes.
In literary writing = Dave said,"the format has implied quotes."
Are poster would face the same challenge in literary writing. i.e., how do I show that what someone is saying is a direct quote from something someone else said in this story?
To beat the horse completely to death - the poster is not asking about how to use quotes or italics or bold or anything else. I assume he knows. He is asking how to I make it clear throughout this script that my character is quoting the dialogue from someone else in the script.
My point is that you really don't need to use quotation marks, underlines, bolds, italics, or anything.
And let's go 1 step further...
Usually, when "quoting" dialogue, the person doesn't literally quote someone else, they paraphrase.
JEFF So, I'm standing there in the pool, and this beautiful blonde babe walks in, and asks if I'm horny.
DAVE She literally asked you if you were horny?
JEFF Yeah, then, she says that she's got a scratch she can't quite itch, and walks into the women's restroom, and gives me the eye to follow her ass in.
DAVE And?
JEFF I popped wood before I even got out of the pool and scratched that itch for her like she ain't never been scratched before.
My point is that you really don't need to use quotation marks, underlines, bolds, italics, or anything.
And let's go 1 step further...
Usually, when "quoting" dialogue, the person doesn't literally quote someone else, they paraphrase.
JEFF So, I'm standing there in the pool, and this beautiful blonde babe walks in, and asks if I'm horny.
DAVE She literally asked you if you were horny?
JEFF Yeah, then, she says that she's got a scratch she can't quite itch, and walks into the women's restroom, and gives me the eye to follow her ass in.
DAVE And?
JEFF I popped wood before I even got out of the pool and scratched that itch for her like she ain't never been scratched before.
DAVE What she'd say?
JEFF She said, Thanks, let's do it again.
DAVE BS...
Sorry for the confusion Jeff- but I modified my comment to be more specific.
Again - I feel that you are changing the framework here. Yes - they normally paraphrase. But again - that is not what the original poster is asking. In other words - to his question of how to you quote dialogue within dialogue you are saying the answer is don't do it. Okay - fair enough - but it really doesn't answer his question. IMO anyway
Sorry for the confusion Jeff- but I modified my comment to be more specific.
Again - I feel that you are changing the framework here. Yes - they normally paraphrase. But again - that is not what the original poster is asking. In other words - to his question of how to you quote dialogue within dialogue you are saying the answer is don't do it. Okay - fair enough - but it really doesn't answer his question. IMO anyway
Fair enough as well, Dave.
Maybe, what I'm saying without actually saying it, is that continually "quoting" dialogue within another character's dialogue is a mistake in itself....because, unless you're going to go for a FLASHBACK and V.O., it just isn't going to work over and over again...because peeps just don't talk like that, or if they're going to, you should jump into a FLASHBACK with V.O. to make it more visually interesting.
I don't mean to be argumentative or anything of the sort here. I just don't see how or why anyone would seriously want to set their script up like this, as it's not going to work,,,IMO, of course.
Pages: 
Author
Quoting dialogue within dialogue
Logged
Locked Board