Hello, collective wisdom of SS, I have a riddle for you...

How does one format the dialogue for a scene when we're watching a car from the outside but hearing the conversation going on within?

In this scene it's important to see where the car is and where it's going, but also to hear what's being said. Basically, the camera and the mic are in different locations.

At a guess, I'd say it's V.O., but I'm not certain because the characters are physically in the scene hidden from view which usually screams O.S.

Personally, I would use O.S since the characters are in the scene, you just can't see them - I have no reference for this choice, it's just what I would use.

I'd say O.S. too.

I was looking up V.O. and O.S. previous posts in SS Screenwriting Class. It may or may not add another POV.

https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-screenwrite/m-1146405859/s-0/

If I find anymore I'll add but with your scenario I'd say O.S. and would need to be convinced otherwise.

I'll add a couple more links which really just emphasise and back up the fact that it should be O.S.

These are links to V.O. use and how there's a clear distinction with it as opposed to using O.S.

http://www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/Tip260.htm
https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1162344572/

Resurrecting old stuff but it's relevant as these debates and discussions are timeless.

IMHO, I always think like an editor when I encounter a situation like this. Not that I am one, but I have done some in the past.

To me. it's O.S if the dialogue was recorded at the time the video was shot. Even if you can't really see the characters in detail. I think of V.O as dialogue recorded separately and added on later as narration.

EXT: HIGHWAY - DAY

The SUV zips down the road. Speed limit ignored.

             BOB (O.S)
You know how to get there?

             TOM (O.S)
No, but my phone does.

Thanks, everyone.

The audio here would almost certainly be recorded separately (there's no need to sync with the lips, so why complicate the shot), but it is "supposed" to be happening right there in real time.

Quoted from FrankM Thanks, everyone. The audio here would almost certainly be recorded separately (there's no need to sync with the lips, so why complicate the shot), but it is "supposed" to be happening right there in real time.

Yes, O.S. for anything in the same location but not on camera. And yes, anything recorded in the car would be done with ADR.

Widows has a long (continuous) scene with two people talking in a car and we can't see them. We see them enter and exit, but for like five or seven minutes all we see is the windshield reflections as the car drives.

You know what Frank, a quick search shows pages and pages on these boards alone re O.S. and V.O. And outside links within those pages are plentiful too, such as this goodie:

http://screenreads.com/formatting/character_headings/vo_and_os.html

Warren had a question here re O.S. & V.O. not too long ago.
https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1526541720/s-12/highlight-O.S./#num12

I think your example/query is pretty straight forward compared to the debate that can rage on with some other threads.  

Seems a general consensus with O.S.

I meant that it is recorded to be happening at the same time. In other words with car and road noise and such even if recorded adr. . V.O is narration type that is added over the scene. Sorry if I wasn't clear......

Main thing is to write so the reader can easily understand. I doubt there is any reader or director or whatever that don't understand that in my sample, the dialogue is taking place inside the car!  

Quoted from LC You know what Frank, a quick search shows pages and pages on these boards alone re O.S. and V.O. And outside links within those pages are plentiful too, such as this goodie: http://screenreads.com/formatting/character_headings/vo_and_os.html Warren had a question here re O.S. & V.O. not too long ago. https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1526541720/s-12/highlight-O.S./#num12

I did see that thread, but didn't think this question would really add to it. I suppose I could have found a closer match eventually.

Quoted from LC I think your example/query is pretty straight forward compared to the debate that can rage on with some other threads.   Seems a general consensus with O.S.

NARRATOR (V.O.)
And they're in the car, and Bob is all like,
"You know how to get there?" and Tom is
all cool and says, "No, but my phone
does."

Quoted from FrankM Hello, collective wisdom of SS, I have a riddle for you... How does one format the dialogue for a scene when we're watching a car from the outside but hearing the conversation going on within? In this scene it's important to see where the car is and where it's going, but also to hear what's being said. Basically, the camera and the mic are in different locations. At a guess, I'd say it's V.O., but I'm not certain because the characters are physically in the scene hidden from view which usually screams O.S.

It's OS.

Basically, when the audience doesn't see a character in the scene who is speaking the dialogue.

In your example, these are characters talking (as opposed to narration let's say). They are just not seen - like a character in a different room. It's definitely OS

VO is used when the characters are not physically in the scene OR the line is not actually spoken - i.t., it's an inner thought of the character in the scene.  

For example - the voice on the other end of a phone call would be VO. A reporter's voice from the radio would be VO, etc. since they are not physically in the scene.

Narration is always VO (think Gump or ShawShank)

Inner thoughts are always V.O. - i.e., a character's inner-monologue.

Quoted from eldave1 For example - the voice on the other end of a phone call would be VO. A reporter's voice from the radio would be VO, etc. since they are not physically in the scene.

Like I said, main thing is to make it easy for a reader or director to understand what the writer means. In your example here, I write --

        TOM
You haven't left yet?

        BOB
   (on phone)
I'm taking a dump, okay.

-- and --


        REPORTER
        (on radio)
The water treatment plant in
Jonesville is reporting a massive
blockage in one of their main
sewage lines.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Like I said, main thing is to make it easy for a reader or director to understand what the writer means. In your example here, I write --         TOM You haven't left yet?         BOB    (on phone) I'm taking a dump, okay. -- and --         REPORTER         (on radio) The water treatment plant in Jonesville is reporting a massive blockage in one of their main sewage lines.

Like it

OS = Off-Screen.  The character is a participant in the scene, and is physically present, but is not visible.  They're on the other side of the door, or under the floorboards, or standing off to the side just out of view of the camera, etc.

When we hear the character's voice but the character him/herself is in another physical location, that's when you get into the things Angry Bear pointed out -- stuff like (on the phone) or  (over the speaker) or (on the radio).

VO = Voice Over.  This is basically narration, usually the main character's voice, and is typically used to relay information or subtext not otherwise delivered in the scene itself.  Think Travis Bickel's VOs in Taxi Driver, or Lester Burnham's in American Beauty.  Be smart with VO; don't just use it for the character to describe what's happening in the scene.  That would be redundant.

As I stated, it's usually the main character's voice, but not always.  For instance, Samuel L. Jackson's VO in Inglourious Basterds.  SLJ only chimes in once during the entire film, tp deliver important regarding the flammability of a particular film stock at a vital moment in the story.  He has no character in the film, he's just an ambiguous, omnipresent narrator who speaks that one time and is never heard from again.

Incidentally, you don't really need to include (VO) beside NARRATOR, as VO is a given when using a Narrator.  But it's not a rule or anything, just a matter of preference.

Quoted from Lon OS = Off-Screen.  The character is a participant in the scene, and is physically present, but is not visible.  They're on the other side of the door, or under the floorboards, or standing off to the side just out of view of the camera, etc.

Yes, exactly...BUT...

Lately, I've seen some SS writers use OS when a character is right there in the scene, but he is trying to direct the shot and have the camera on someone or something else, which is a big mistake, IMO.  It just leads to confusion.

I agree.  But then I'm not a big fan of the writer trying to direct the camera in the first place.  But that's a whole other discussion.

Quoted from Lon I agree.  But then I'm not a big fan of the writer trying to direct the camera in the first place.  But that's a whole other discussion.

It's our story to tell so we can direct the camera however we want. Every block of action we write we‘re directing the camera. We are telling the filmmaker what is on screen. Same with V.O. and O.S., if I want the camera pointing somewhere and someone is speaking off screen and that’s how I imagine my movie looking that’s how I’m going to write it.

It's your story to tell in any way you see fit until someone buys it off you, then they can do whatever they want.

What I personally don’t like seeing is actual camera directions (close up, medium shot etc.) in a script, I think there’s always a better way to write it to achieve the same thing. But if a writer feels like that’s the best way to achieve what they want then go ahead.

There's a difference between describing an action scene and directing it.  But again, a whole other discussion.

Quoted from Lon I agree.  But then I'm not a big fan of the writer trying to direct the camera in the first place.  But that's a whole other discussion.

Would be a great thread topic.

Quoted from Dreamscale   Ha...typical Warren here.  And yes, I was referring to some of his recent scripts where he used OS for not reason, making for a very confusing read. In most movies, we have scenes of peeps talking and most of the time, the person speaking will be shown, but other times, the person listening will be shown while the other person speaks. BUT, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to try and write your Spec script that way. Just a very poor idea.

I'm pretty sure that's not what he was advocating. I think what he was saying that on those rare occasions where you think the scene is more impactful if one character is not seen while speaking, go for it. He was not saying that every time you write dialogue indicate whether a character is listening or talking. That being said, your point on being clear is a good one and you never want to confuse a reader on whether or not the character is in the scene. But that's different from what Warren was saying.

Quoted from eldave1 I'm pretty sure that's not what he was advocating. I think what he was saying that on those rare occasions where you think the scene is more impactful if one character is not seen while speaking, go for it. He was not saying that every time you write dialogue indicate whether a character is listening or talking. That being said, your point on being clear is a good one and you never want to confuse a reader on whether or not the character is in the scene. But that's different from what Warren was saying.

Not really.  The script(s) I am referring to had the characters in the scene, but he didn't want their faces shown as they were speaking (at times).

Ah... V.O./O.S.'s power to repel consensus overpowers a question with an obvious, agreed-upon answer. Impressive.

Quoted from Dreamscale Not really.  The script(s) I am referring to had the characters in the scene, but he didn't want their faces shown as they were speaking (at times).

And???

Quoted from eldave1 And???

And that makes it a very confusing read.

But, that's great to do it that way, I guess.  Makes perfect sense and is something all amateur writers should emulate.

Quoted from Dreamscale And that makes it a very confusing read. But, that's great to do it that way, I guess.  Makes perfect sense and is something all amateur writers should emulate.

That of course wasn't my point.

We agree that to use it all the time would be confusing. Warren doesn't do that.

No one does that.  

The real question is using it in rare situations is inherently bad.  In my opinion if it enhances the read, okay. If it merely creates confusion,  not okay.

Dunkirk

Quoted Text SOLDIER (O.S.) You men, leave off. You'll capsize the boat- it's gone over twice on the way out here... Tommy looks at the Soldier.

Green Book

Quoted Text Magnificent. Lip enters, moves down the aisle. He takes in the spectacle. WOMAN’S VOICE (O.S.) Excuse me. We’re not open right now... Lip turns to face the BOX OFFICE MANAGER across the room.

One script I love and 1 award winning script.

It’s your script, write it the way you want it to be seen in the reader's mind’s eye. If the filmmaker wants to change it that’s up to them.

I wasn’t confused at all reading these 2 scripts. This is the way I have used (O.S.) in the past many times.

I'll also add that the idiotic argument of "they’re pros they can do what they want" doesn’t work here. Just because they’re pros why would it be any less confusing? It's the exact same thing.

I've said it before, but it’s always good to look at the credentials of the person dishing out the advice.

And again...

BlacKkKlansman

Quoted Text WHEATON (O.S.) Hey! Anybody in there? Looking for a Toad here. Ron walks to the Counter to see The White and sleep-deprived Cop impatiently leaning on his elbows.

Quoted from eldave1 That of course wasn't my point. We agree that to use it all the time would be confusing. Warren doesn't do that. No one does that.   The real question is using it in rare situations is inherently bad.  In my opinion if it enhances the read, okay. If it merely creates confusion,  not okay.

I never once said anyone did this all the time.

I said, when you see this on the page, it is/can be confusing.  Period.

In reality, it's the same thing as actually writing the camera shot - CU on Kitten's face, and the having some other character speak.

Dumb...just dumb.

BTW, what happened to Warren's post of the standings?  Class Act, Bro...Class fucking Act.

Quoted from Dreamscale I never once said anyone did this all the time. I said, when you see this on the page, it is/can be confusing.  Period. In reality, it's the same thing as actually writing the camera shot - CU on Kitten's face, and the having some other character speak. Dumb...just dumb. BTW, what happened to Warren's post of the standings?  Class Act, Bro...Class fucking Act.

So you object to someone ever doing it?

Quoted from eldave1 So you object to someone ever doing it?

Hell Yes!

Quoted from Dreamscale So that means everything he does is perfect and everything I say is wrong?

I'm not sure I'd say that everything he does is perfect - even within context. He just does things his way and that is best for him. You can not say he is wrong - especially as he is doing better than you. If you write so well and Warren doesn't, yet he does better than you... then something isn't adding up right somewhere.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I'm not sure I'd say that everything he does is perfect - even within context. He just does things his way and that is best for him. You can not say he is wrong - especially as he is doing better than you. If you write so well and Warren doesn't, yet he does better than you... then something isn't adding up right somewhere.

It's definitely not adding up.  That is for sure.

Last weekend, my girlfriend, Teri, and I had 5 grand kids over.  They love "her" Mac and Cheese, which is actually just Kraft in a box with the addition of a little Velveeta.  It's not good by any means, and she knows it.

I wanted to do a little test, so she and I made a gourmet Mac and Cheese, she made her usual and we served each kid a little of each to see what they had to say.

All 5 kids hated mine, and loved hers.  They all ate hers and Teri and I ate mine.

As I've been saying lately, I'm playing in the wrong sandbox here at SS, it appears.

Are you calling all of us here at SS and the people that option and buy our scripts Kraft Macaroni and cheese in the box people and you're the Gourmet restaurant quality mac and cheese????  

C'mon Jeff.

Plenty of people here have had successes. In fact, just today, I got a message from a writer who's not an active member anymore, but has sold two features from here. Both films are muslim positive films and have been shot in Dubai. He made a lot of money from both sales. Or are big studios all that counts?

Quoted from Grandma Bear Are you calling all of us here at SS and the people that option and buy our scripts Kraft Macaroni and cheese in the box people and you're the Gourmet restaurant quality mac and cheese????   C'mon Jeff. Plenty of people here have had successes. In fact, just today, I got a message from a writer who's not an active member anymore, but has sold two features from here. Both films are muslim positive films and have been shot in Dubai. He made a lot of money from both sales. Or are big studios all that counts?

You can take my comments anyway you choose to,

Big studios are definitely not all that count.  Any success is "success".

Kraft Mac and Cheese is the most popular and most successful Mac and Cheese in the world, I would imagine.  It's not remotely good Mac and Cheese, though.

Quoted from Dreamscale Hell Yes!

Okay - at least that clarifies where we disagree. I'm okay with it,

Quoted from Dreamscale So that means everything he does is perfect and everything I say is wrong? God, I sure hope not...

1) Everything Warren does is not perfect. A lot of what Warren does is top notch.

2) Many of the things you say are right. Many are wrong.

You seem to be stuck in a screenwriting 101 class. Look, if I have a technical question - i.e., how does the book say I should do something format wise, etc - you're my go to guy. I think you know the stuff backwards and forward.

What you don't know, or can't seem to grasp, is that they are merely guidelines and the violation of them is not inherently a bad thing and it can in fact enhance the story/script. As an example, I use to not to  use asides until I started seeing them in scripts that I loved. Same with unfilmables, etc. I am grateful that I read enough scripts that I got to the point where I use them and I am comfortable breaking the rules where it can enhance my story and the read. Those same violations seem to cause you great angst.

What continues to befuddle me is why you haven't reached that point yourself when there is clear evidence in successful pro scripts and in challenges like our OWCs that the so called rules are far less important than clarity, story, entertainment, tone, pace, etc. The so called rules are the least important aspect of script writing and if they are violated to make a better read - all the better. Long winded way of saying the script writing world has changed. Fighting that change is non-productive.

Quoted from eldave1 1) Everything Warren does is not perfect. A lot of what Warren does is top notch. 2) Many of the things you say are right. Many are wrong. You seem to be stuck in a screenwriting 101 class. Look, if I have a technical question - i.e., how does the book say I should do something format wise, etc - you're my go to guy. I think you know the stuff backwards and forward. What you don't know, or can't seem to grasp, is that they are merely guidelines and the violation of them is not inherently a bad thing and it can in fact enhance the story/script. As an example, I use to not to  use asides until I started seeing them in scripts that I loved. Same with unfilmables, etc. I am grateful that I read enough scripts that I got to the point where I use them and I am comfortable breaking the rules where it can enhance my story and the read. Those same violations seem to cause you great angst. What continues to befuddle me is why you haven't reached that point yourself when there is clear evidence in successful pro scripts and in challenges like our OWCs that the so called rules are far less important than clarity, story, entertainment, tone, pace, etc. The so called rules are the least important aspect of script writing and if they are violated to make a better read - all the better. Long winded way of saying the script writing world has changed. Fighting that change is non-productive.

Well, it's Friday and I guess it's not to early for me to start drinking, as I feel like I really need a few drinks right now after reading the last few posts here.

Dave, if you read back, you will see that I simply responded to the thread topic, and expanded on something someone else said.  I did not mention any names in particular, and I clarified exactly why I said what I said.

This has nothing to with Warren or anyone else, really.  But, others, including Warren decided to take it there, and then put me down as a writer, and lift Warren up to the stratosphere.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with rules.  I've never read any screenwriting rule books, nor do I have any interest or intention to do so.  I am one of the very few who do not care about rules.  I care about what makes sense, what makes the most sense, what looks the best, and what makes for the easiest read.

Using OS for a character who has already been intro'd, and is obviously in the scene, is both confusing and completely unnecessary in a Spec script.

Let me repeat that...

Using OS for a character who has already been intro'd, and is obviously in the scene, is both confusing and completely unnecessary in a Spec script.

If you really disagree with this, I guess it's either another long discussion back and forth, or we simply agree to disagree.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I've never heard of Michael Bay .

He's the guy who took a much loved franchise (transformers) and turned them into a series of seriously shitty movies.

He also stole 3 hours of my life when I watched pearl harbour

Quoted from Matthew Taylor He's the guy who took a much loved franchise (transformers) and turned them into a series of seriously shitty movies. He also stole 3 hours of my life when I watched pearl harbour

And he's responsible for many billions of dollars coming into the movie franchise and also responsible for making stars of many people.

Just to be clear, I've never said listen to everything I say because I'm amazing and always right. I gave a few examples from pro scripts and said that I would chose to emulate them over a writer that has not been successful and who's work I don't enjoy.

I also haven't had any real world success, but people seem to like some of the scripts I write. A lot of the things I do in my scripts I've seen in pro scripts and I'm comfortable using them, so when one or two writers call me out on it that's not an issue. Sure if everyone believes the same thing is a problem I'll go back and reassess. The same thing can be said if something is questioned by a writer I respect and admire, I'll look at the issue again.

So I'm not saying listen to me, I'm saying listen to the pros (I'm not talking about gurus who talk crap, I'm talking about scripts you love and that have found success), I just happen to do and talk about the things I've seen in their work.

Quoted from Dreamscale Dave, if you read back, you will see that I simply responded to the thread topic, and expanded on something someone else said.  I did not mention any names in particular, and I clarified exactly why I said what I said. This has nothing to with Warren or anyone else, really.  But, others, including Warren decided to take it there, and then put me down as a writer, and lift Warren up to the stratosphere.

Did you read the same thread I did, mate?

Lon said this:

Quoted Text I agree.  But then I'm not a big fan of the writer trying to direct the camera in the first place.  But that's a whole other discussion.

Warren quoted Lon and responded with this:

Quoted Text It's our story to tell so we can direct the camera however we want. Every block of action we write we‘re directing the camera. We are telling the filmmaker what is on screen. Same with V.O. and O.S., if I want the camera pointing somewhere and someone is speaking off screen and that’s how I imagine my movie looking that’s how I’m going to write it....

You can see that you were not mentioned. Nor was Warren digging at you or elevating himself.

Then you quoted Warren's comment and responded with this:

Quoted Text Ha...typical Warren here.  And yes, I was referring to some of his recent scripts where he used OS for not reason, making for a very confusing read. In most movies, we have scenes of peeps talking and most of the time, the person speaking will be shown, but other times, the person listening will be shown while the other person speaks. BUT, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to try and write your Spec script that way. Just a very poor idea.

So:

- Warren never mentioned you or responded to your post in any manner or put you down as a writer.

- However - You brought Warren up as well as his scripts - out of the friggin blue.

Help me out friend, what post am I missing??????

Quoted Text This also has absolutely nothing to do with rules.  I've never read any screenwriting rule books, nor do I have any interest or intention to do so.  I am one of the very few who do not care about rules.  I care about what makes sense, what makes the most sense, what looks the best, and what makes for the easiest read.

Okay.

Quoted Text Using OS for a character who has already been intro'd, and is obviously in the scene, is both confusing and completely unnecessary in a Spec script. Let me repeat that... Using OS for a character who has already been intro'd, and is obviously in the scene, is both confusing and completely unnecessary in a Spec script. If you really disagree with this, I guess it's either another long discussion back and forth, or we simply agree to disagree.

Yes, I disagree with you, Jeff. Mostly because I have read scripts where an OS was used for a character who has already been intro'd, and is in the scene - where I WAS NOT confused. Nor did I find it unnecessary.  i.e., I have empirical evidence that it does not inherently cause confusion - cause I read it and was not confused.  

Could it? - Sure, if not handled clearly. Does it inherently - nope.

So, looks like we will agree to disagree, mate.

Dave, maybe you missed a post from Warren, directed at me, which he or someone else quickly pulled down.

It was the cause of basically all this.

Quoted from Dreamscale Dave, maybe you missed a post from Warren, directed at me, which he or someone else quickly pulled down. It was the cause of basically all this.

There was a post that consisted of nothing but a link, but it was gone when I came back.

Quoted from FrankM There was a post that consisted of nothing but a link, but it was gone when I came back.

It was a link to the standings, it was an attempt to make people question where they are getting their advise. I took it down and replaced it with my post about people questioning the credentials of who's advice they are taking. So the exact same thing, but with words.

The examples I gave here are from pro scripts not mine. I'm not saying listen to me over Jeff, I'm saying listen to the pros over Jeff. I just happen to do some things I've seen in their scripts.

If Jeff feels bad about his placing in the standings that's on him.

Quoted from Warren It was a link to the standings, it was an attempt to make people question where they are getting their advise. I took it down and replaced it with my post about people questioning the credentials of who's advice they are taking. So the exact same thing, but with words. The examples I gave here are from pro scripts not mine. I'm not saying listen to me over Jeff, I'm saying listen to the pros over Jeff. I just happen to do some things I've seen in their scripts.

Yeah.  Your post of the link was to show where you stood, as in basically saying the same thing Dustbag keeps chirping in with, about what a great writer you are and what a terrible writer I am.

Quoted from Warren If Jeff feels bad about his placing in the standings that's on him.

That's another story completely, my friend.  Let's not go there again now, OK?

I hope the sequel to A Quiet Place is more John Krasinski and less Michael Bay (the latter is producing). Too much flash would kill it.

Quoted from LC I hope the sequel to A Quiet Place is more John Krasinski and less Michael Bay (the latter is producing). Too much flash would kill it.

I hope they don't make the sequel

Quoted from eldave1 I hope they don't make the sequel

I second this, I can only see them stuffing it up no matter what they do.

Quoted from LC I hope the sequel to A Quiet Place is more John Krasinski and less Michael Bay (the latter is producing). Too much flash would kill it.

Bay also produced the original.

I'm not gonna defend all of his work(Transformers franchise is awful), but am I really alone in saying he's not all bad? I enjoyed Pain and Gain, The Island, and even Armageddon.  

Quoted from Zack Bay also produced the original. I'm not gonna defend all of his work(Transformers franchise is awful), but am I really alone in saying he's not all bad? I enjoyed Pain and Gain, The Island, and even Armageddon.

I hated The Island, but Bay is a fucking force and to knock what he's done and what he's going to continue to do, is just dumb.

And... ...as Dustbin said, who is John Sayles?  Ha!!  Fucking idiot!  Know the peeps, whether you appreciate their work or not.  Classic idiot Dusty...

Quoted from Zack Bay also produced the original...

Thanks Zack, I did not know that. I'd watch a sequel to this. Saw the original at the cinema and thoroughly enjoyed it. There's such a lack of good and varied movies around at the moment imho - unless you're a Superhero fan or fan of horror-gore.

Take a breather

Quoted from LC There's such a lack of good and varied movies around at the moment imho - unless you're a Superhero fan or fan of horror-gore.

Are you looking forward to Alex Aja's Crawl, Libby?  It's getting some pretty good early buzz.

Personally, I'm slobbering all over myself for a good creature feature.

Quoted from Zack Are you looking forward to Alex Aja's Crawl, Libby?  It's getting some pretty good early buzz.  Personally, I'm slobbering all over myself for a good creature feature.

Well, I watched this Aussie classic and enjoyed it:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816436/

So yep, Looks like Crawl has lots of suspense which I love the most, so thanks for the hot tip, Zack.

Quoted from Zack Bay also produced the original. I'm not gonna defend all of his work(Transformers franchise is awful), but am I really alone in saying he's not all bad? I enjoyed Pain and Gain, The Island, and even Armageddon.

No of course not, I was only messing lol he's obviously a film making big shot. He ruined a childhood favourite franchise and I like to hold a grudge lol

Quoted from Matthew Taylor No of course not, I was only messing lol he's obviously a film making big shot. He ruined a childhood favourite franchise and I like to hold a grudge lol

He is the man who ruined both Transformers and TMNT, which he produced. But besides those, I enjoy his brain-dead action flicks.

I grudgingly enjoyed Bad Boys and Pain and Gain, but in those cases it was because of the performances., not the story.  Everything else of his that I've seen, bleh.