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.
I've only ever seen the (O.S.) in dialogue. I think it's better to maneuver the action lines around though I can't remember a scene where a noise was made O.S. in the action lines themselves. The way Anthony wrote it looks good I think.
I treat (V.O.) as a dialogue voice that's simply not in the exact location as the scene. For example, Joe is engaged in a telephone conversation with Jane. If we're watching Joe in the scene, but hearing Jane's voice, Jane's dialogue would be depicted as (V.O.).
Same example, Joe and Jane talk via phone, and unbeknownst to Joe, Jane is close by, and by the end of the conversation she stands in an open doorway to the same room he's sitting in. She says, "Turn around". I treat that as a (O.S.) because she's in Joe's scene location, but we haven't seen her yet.
I treat (V.O.) as a dialogue voice that's simply not in the exact location as the scene. For example, Joe is engaged in a telephone conversation with Jane. If we're watching Joe in the scene, but hearing Jane's voice, Jane's dialogue would be depicted as (V.O.).
Same example, Joe and Jane talk via phone, and unbeknownst to Joe, Jane is close by, and by the end of the conversation she stands in an open doorway to the same room he's sitting in. She says, "Turn around". I treat that as a (O.S.) because she's in Joe's scene location, but we haven't seen her yet.
I disagree. A telephone call is O.S. It occurs off of the screen. The crowd assumes that the unseen voice is originating at the same time as the on screen caller. They are just not being shown in the same scene location.
A V.O. is being artificially added over the present scene. It usually has knowledge that the people currently on the screen may not have and it can even be the voice of the person currently on the screen as well. If it doesn't add some dimensional layer to what we see on the screen, then what good is it? I'm sure there can be exceptions like most anything.
Say 1 guy is calling down a deep, dark well to another guy somewhere at the bottom, who has fallen in and needs help. We can't see the other bottom guy, but can hear his voice from the well, so he is O.S. The guy at the top is seen, so he is not O.S. Now add in that the guy not seen also comments directly to the audience, something like this:
Guy at bottom (?.?.) Look at this shit I got myself in. Guy at the top ain't doing shit to help me out.
So the above would be V.O. I.M.O., while the calls for help from the same bottom guy, in real time, would be O.S.
I'm with Tony on this. The main difference between O.S. and V.O. is reaction or lack thereof. Phone calls would be O.S. because despite the other character technically being off screen, they're still eliciting a reaction or impacting the scene in some aspect. Voice overs are basically there for the audience or monologues of a particular characters. In both scenarios, the scene is unaffected. You could take out the voice over and the scene itself will remain unchanged though I'm sure there are rare, special cases in which they do.
That's my take on it. I've only used voice overs with narrators or inner thoughts of characters. Every other time it's been off screen where appropriate.
I disagree. A telephone call is O.S. It occurs off of the screen. The crowd assumes that the unseen voice is originating at the same time as the on screen caller. They are just not being shown in the same scene location.
A V.O. is being artificially added over the present scene. It usually has knowledge that the people currently on the screen may not have and it can even be the voice of the person currently on the screen as well. If it doesn't add some dimensional layer to what we see on the screen, then what good is it? I'm sure there can be exceptions like most anything.
Say 1 guy is calling down a deep, dark well to another guy somewhere at the bottom, who has fallen in and needs help. We can't see the other bottom guy, but can hear his voice from the well, so he is O.S. The guy at the top is seen, so he is not O.S. Now add in that the guy not seen also comments directly to the audience, something like this:
Guy at bottom (?.?.) Look at this shit I got myself in. Guy at the top ain't doing shit to help me out.
So the above would be V.O. I.M.O., while the calls for help from the same bottom guy, in real time, would be O.S.
I was once told that the use of (O.S.) for a character on the phone is incorrect when writing a spec script. I was told to use this instead:
MITCH (on phone) What are you doing?
JANICE (O.S., ON PHONE) Oh...just painting my toe nails.
ANSWER
You’ve been misinformed. The use of (O.S.) is incorrect because (O.S.) stands for OFF SCREEN, meaning that the character is in the scene (at the scene location), but cannot be seen on the silver screen. When a character is not at the scene location, then use (V.O.) for VOICE OVER, and that's the case for a voice coming through a phone.
In the case of your example, I assume that we can see Mitch, but that Janice is at some other location and that we hear her voice but don't see her. In that case, this would be correct:
Mitch holds the phone with one hand while the other hand clips his toenails.
MITCH What are you doing?
JANICE (V.O.) Oh...just painting my toe nails ======================================================
The phone call is not at the location so they cannot be off screen at that location - hence - VO.
All that being said, there is no difference really in O.S versus O.C. One of them should go and be replaced with something like O.L (other location). That would they allow V.O to solely be used in the manner recommended by Tony. e.g., phone calls and such would be O.L