Got a read back from a producer (not a big one) Although he passed, he diid take the time to write some constructive criticism. Some solid - some out in left field. There were two things that floored me.

1) I have always learned that V.O. was used when a person wasn't in the scene but was heard (i.e. voice over or phone conversation) O.S. was in the room but not in the camera. (i.e. somebody in the hallway, etc.) The producer told me that using V.O. in phone conversations I rechecked Trottier - he uses V.O. as well as others. Which is right.

2) when using an "INSERT:" (i.e. a photo, etc.) I always learned (again - backed by trottier) that you needed "Back to scene" after the insert. He said it wasn't wrong and took up a lot of room.

What's your thoughts.

Thanks
John
PS If he was buying the script - he'd be right regardless of what anybody thinks. lol

Quoted from JohnI Got a read back from a producer (not a big one) Although he passed, he diid take the time to write some constructive criticism. Some solid - some out in left field. There were two things that floored me. 1) I have always learned that V.O. was used when a person wasn't in the scene but was heard (i.e. voice over or phone conversation) O.S. was in the room but not in the camera. (i.e. somebody in the hallway, etc.) The producer told me that using V.O. in phone conversations I rechecked Trottier - he uses V.O. as well as others. Which is right. 2) when using an "INSERT:" (i.e. a photo, etc.) I always learned (again - backed by trottier) that you needed "Back to scene" after the insert. He said it wasn't wrong and took up a lot of room. What's your thoughts. Thanks John PS If he was buying the script - he'd be right regardless of what anybody thinks. lol

He's wrong

If I'm reading your questions correctly, yes, V.O. would be used for phone conversations, and no, you do not need BACK TO SCENE after an insert as long as the insert is contained to the single paragraph following INSERT: .

Quoted from JohnI Got a read back from a producer (not a big one) Although he passed, he diid take the time to write some constructive criticism. Some solid - some out in left field. There were two things that floored me. 1) I have always learned that V.O. was used when a person wasn't in the scene but was heard (i.e. voice over or phone conversation) O.S. was in the room but not in the camera. (i.e. somebody in the hallway, etc.) The producer told me that using V.O. in phone conversations I rechecked Trottier - he uses V.O. as well as others. Which is right. 2) when using an "INSERT:" (i.e. a photo, etc.) I always learned (again - backed by trottier) that you needed "Back to scene" after the insert. He said it wasn't wrong and took up a lot of room. What's your thoughts. Thanks John PS If he was buying the script - he'd be right regardless of what anybody thinks. lol

Breaking the rules for an easier read is a lot of fun. But it does not please the formatting gurus.

VO would be the accurate thing to use with a voice on the phone. OS is when a character is physically present in the scene, but not on-camera. VO is when the character is neither physically present, nor on-camera. It applies to voices on the phone, over a car radio, over a walkie talkie, etc. It's also used for a narrator's voice, though I'd argue you don't really need VO for a narrator, because the very fact that it's a narrator means the person is neither present nor on-camera. VO would be redundant (IMO, anyway).

As for inserts, as with most camera and/or editing directions, I'm not a fan. There are other ways to lead the reader's eye and/or make them see a specific image that don't involve intrusive directions. To wit;

Bob flips open his wallet.

INSERT - WALLET

We see Bob's driver's license.

BACK TO SCENE

Bob flips the wallet shut.

That's a lot of space and unnecessary direction for something you could more easily write as:

Bob flips his wallet open, checks that his LICENSE is inside, then flips it closed.

When you saw "LICENSE" in caps, did you envision an open wallet with a driver's license photo staring back at you? If so, I just invoked a specific image in your mind's eye without using a single direction.

But then I'm one of those persnickety, "camera directions are never necessary" type writers. My job is to provide the what. I'll let the director worry about the how.

Quoted from Lon VO would be the accurate thing to use with a voice on the phone. OS is when a character is physically present in the scene, but not on-camera. VO is when the character is neither physically present, nor on-camera. It applies to voices on the phone, over a car radio, over a walkie talkie, etc. It's also used for a narrator's voice, though I'd argue you don't really need VO for a narrator, because the very fact that it's a narrator means the person is neither present nor on-camera. VO would be redundant (IMO, anyway). As for inserts, as with most camera and/or editing directions, I'm not a fan. There are other ways to lead the reader's eye and/or make them see a specific image that don't involve intrusive directions. To wit; Bob flips open his wallet. INSERT - WALLET We see Bob's driver's license. BACK TO SCENE Bob flips the wallet shut. That's a lot of space and unnecessary direction for something you could more easily write as: Bob flips his wallet open, checks that his LICENSE is inside, then flips it closed. When you saw "LICENSE" in caps, did you envision an open wallet with a driver's license photo staring back at you? If so, I just invoked a specific image in your mind's eye without using a single direction. But then I'm one of those persnickety, "camera directions are never necessary" type writers. My job is to provide the what. I'll let the director worry about the how.

I like this advice

Quoted from ReneC If I'm reading your questions correctly, yes, V.O. would be used for phone conversations, and no, you do not need BACK TO SCENE after an insert as long as the insert is contained to the single paragraph following INSERT: .

Rene: I like this approach - but can't find a reference on it. Everything I have read says BACK TO SCENE  unless a master scene heading or a secondary headings follows anyway.

Quoted from eldave1 Rene: I like this approach - but can't find a reference on it. Everything I have read says BACK TO SCENE  unless a master scene heading or a secondary headings follows anyway.

I'm with Dave on this one... it'd be nice if this was the rule, but I don't see any evidence that professional readers would be forgiving of it.

FAVOR: or ANGLE ON: or CLOSE ON:, on the other hand, behave precisely this way. The problem is that those can be interpreted as camera directions, and spec writers are usually advised to avoid those.

Quoted from eldave1 Rene: I like this approach - but can't find a reference on it. Everything I have read says BACK TO SCENE  unless a master scene heading or a secondary headings follows anyway.

The way I've seen it is INSERT: A photo of dead mom.

No need for BACK TO SCENE, it's a one-and-done insert.

Or, you can do it like John August suggests: What is an insert?

There again, there is no BACK TO SCENE.

It is amazing the variance in rules. The BACK TO SCENE - I follow because of Trittier and scripts I read. But the VO vs OS - dont know how a producer got that wrong and harped on it.  

As for the BANK TO SCENE - I think it can get confusing if you leave it out, but I think the biggest thing is to be consistent.  

Had an old read A couple of years ago) tell me I should take courses because I didnt know how to format in that I forgot FADE IN and FADE OUT LOL - on a spec.

Just so you know - I had professional coverage on the script twice and both said very well formatted. (Only question was the intro quote on Black screen - looked it up and about twenty different ways listed to do this - again I went with trottier)

My question originally started because we work so hard to be perfect than a producer says we’re wrong when we’re not.  But they have the money - so theyre right.

The golden rule is there are no rules. As long as what you write is clear, you'll be okay.

I've heard of producers getting tripped up on the most ridiculous things. It isn't you. There are a lot of amateur producers out there, and there are a lot of scared ones who feel the need to find something to pick on to show they're contributing something. I've found the ones who focus on the actual producing don't give a crap about how something is specifically formatted as long as they know how to shoot for it.

As always - to me CLARITY is King. Readability is a close second.  Format rules/guidelines, etc should be messed with if the help clarity or readability.

John - what I found so odd about your reader - is that they got it technically wrong. i.e., I would understand if they thought you should have written BACK TO SCENE when you didn't - not the inverse.

Yeah. Same here.

Just to point on V.O in a phone call... It must not be used! I phone call scene is done in one of three ways.
- Intercut phone call: Both conversing characters are brought into/onto the screen as they individually speak - thus, no V.O This is the most popular way to write it.

Intercut phone call between Mike and Mary:

               Mike
     Hi Mary, you well?

               Mary
     Yes, great to hear from you

- Only one character speaking (dialogue) over the phone, the other is not heard - thus no V.O. Here this character when "speaking" will have PAUSE or BREAK inserted.
- Duel/split: One character speaking on the left, the other on the right side of the page... here the Director will decide whether to split-screen film or duel/split it?      

Quoted from BarryJohn Just to point on V.O in a phone call... It must not be used! I phone call scene is done in one of three ways. - Intercut phone call: Both conversing characters are brought into/onto the screen as they individually speak - thus, no V.O This is the most popular way to write it. Intercut phone call between Mike and Mary:                Mike      Hi Mary, you well?                Mary      Yes, great to hear from you - Only one character speaking (dialogue) over the phone, the other is not heard - thus no V.O. Here this character when "speaking" will have PAUSE or BREAK inserted. - Duel/split: One character speaking on the left, the other on the right side of the page... here the Director will decide whether to split-screen film or duel/split it?

Must you give out incorrect advice? It's perfectly fine to use V.O for someone on the other end of the phone (Read any book ever written on screenplay format)

You may prefer the other methods listed, and offering them as alternatives is fine. But to say that V.O "Must not be used" is just bad (and incorrect) advice.

No Matthew... I'm correct in what I said.

Quoted from BarryJohn No Matthew... I'm correct in what I said.

No, you are not. Seriously, stop making up your own "rules" and pretending they are industry standard

https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/how-to-write-a-telephone-call-in-a-screenplay/#:~:text=over%20(

https://www.scriptreaderpro.com/write-phone-conversation-screenplay/

https://www.storysense.com/format/telephone.htm

https://screencraft.org/2018/02/07/screenwriting-basics-how-to-write-cinematic-phone-conversations/

https://www.keepwriting.com/tsc/offscreenandvoiceover.htm

There are plenty more so I will stop there. I tried finding a source to back up what you are saying and I couldn't find any. I would be interested to see if you can find one.

I'll conclude with let's agree to disagree.

Intercut is used only when both locations are being filmed, and in that case, you are correct that V.O. would not be used. But it's a different format. You introduce one setting, then you introduce the other side of the conversation's setting, and then intercut.

"nobody knows anything".

The method Barry describes is how telephone conversations used to be done in films, the method Matthew cited seems more popular today (the remote party V.O. in an "over-the-phone" voice).

The current thing that screenwriters are trying to feel out is how to convey texting on-screen. The earliest example I know was Jumping Jack Flash, where it was either read out loud by the recipient or (after the parties spoke with one another) in V.O. with the sender's voice.

But how should it be shown to an audience? We haven't quite figured that out yet.

Back to the topic at hand, we now have a few arrows in our quiver for phone conversations, and opinions can differ on the best method. But any of them will be recognized by the director, then the director's going to go with the method they think works better for the story.

For the record, I wasn't knocking the other methods, all of them are fine to use. I was just challenging the advice that V.O "must never be used" for any newbies who happen upon this thread.

Let me reiterate... if you chose to write a telephone conversation by means of intercutting between the 2 characters that are both on-screen, speaking... then neither are (V.O)! If you chose the same format where only one character is on screen speaking, then the other will be (O.S). Whilst it is not necessary to mention this character as (O.S), we will certainly not mention him/her as (V.O)  

If you have only one character speaking over the phone... whereby we not writing (hearing) dialogue from the other character. Well, then nothing applies to the aforementioned.

If one character is in the scene on the phone talking... and the other character is heard (written) speaking back and not seen, that character is (O.S) and not (V.O) Again, whilst it is not necessary to mention this character as (O.S), we will certainly not mention him/her as (V.O)  

Cause, a well-written script will not require all this "hustle" as an equally professional reader/producers will get it.  

* (V.O) Is a character's thought and or speaking to themself in their mind. Also, used as a narrative. And in some instances used as opposed to a parenthetical.

You can't have (V.O) in a telephone conversation!

Quoted from BarryJohn If one character is in the scene on the phone talking... and the other character is heard (written) speaking back and not seen, that character is (O.S) and not (V.O) Again, whilst it is not necessary to mention this character as (O.S), we will certainly not mention him/her as (V.O)   Cause, a well-written script will not require all this "hustle" as an equally professional reader/producers will get it.   * (V.O) Is a character's thought and or speaking to themself in their mind. Also, used as a narrative. And in some instances used as opposed to a parenthetical. You can't have (V.O) in a telephone conversation!

You can format however you like, Barry.

Sure if you use O.S then the reader will probably understand what you mean.

But why are you advising people to not use what is considered industry standard? V.O is for a character not currently in the scene (other end of a phone) and O.S is for a character in a scene but not currently seen. (It makes a difference when it comes to production/sound, there is a distinction for a reason)

All of the links I gave you, as well as the texts on screenplay format (including Trottier's Screenwriters Bible) suggest using V.O. for this purpose? telling people they can't use it is just shoddy advice.

Where is it that you've been told to not use V.O. for a telephone conversation? any sources or is this just your opinion?

Guys didnt mean to start a fight - article was basically about the producer.

I give up - I'm outta here!

Sorry for hogging your post, John.

Hi Mathhew.

With all respect... your script, dialled-up. Is what I was referring to.

Quoted from BarryJohn Hi Mathhew. With all respect... your script, dialled-up. Is what I was referring to.

I don't understand what you mean

Quoted from Robert Timsah "nobody knows anything".

I dunno about that.

Quoted from FrankM The current thing that screenwriters are trying to feel out is how to convey texting on-screen. The earliest example I know was Jumping Jack Flash, where it was either read out loud by the recipient or (after the parties spoke with one another) in V.O. with the sender's voice. But how should it be shown to an audience? We haven't quite figured that out yet.

I'm not a big fan of texting in movies. IMO, it's pretty much exactly the opposite of showing instead of telling. But one method I found clever was having the person receiving the text looking at their mobile, and having the message appear as floating text on the screen. I'm not sure how the writer wrote that but I'd imagine something along the lines of "the following text appears on-screen as the character reads," or words to that effect.

On the very rare occasion that I have characters texting, I just write it out as clearly as I can. To wit:

Bob's mobile DINGS. He checks to see a TEXT from Mary: "M R Ducks."

Bob texts back: "M R Not"

Mary: "O S M R. C M Wings?"

Bob: "L I B. M R Ducks!"

This topic has stirred in me an urge to spiel, so bear with me here, and forgive me any pretentiousness I may display:

One of my favorite anecdotes (and I've probably shared this here on SS before) involves Scream screenwriter Kevin Williamson. Williamson's script described the killer wearing a mask, but that was it. Director Wes Craven asked him how he was supposed to deal with the fact that even with a mask, the killer could still be recognized by his clothes. Williamson's response was (paraphrasing), "Not my problem. I'm just the writer."

The point being that while I'm sure there are more technical ways of writing a text, or phone conversation, or what have you, those technicalities aren't your problem. That's on the director and editor. Just imagine how much stress and time you'd save yourself if you simply focused on telling us what happens instead of fussing over how to write an INSERT or an INTERCUT or what-not.

If you look up any number of my posts here on SS, you'll see that's something I repeat over and over again -- "tell us what happens, not how it happens." It's great advice. I didn't create it, it was given to me years ago, and my writing improved dramatically because of it. And not just my writing, but also how much I actually looked forward to writing.

For the first several years, I would get so hung up on nit-picky stuff I picked up from all the books -- Trottier, Field, Keane, etc. -- that it was almost paralyzing. It was a chore trying to tell a story while adhering to all those technicalities they say you're supposed to follow. So when it was explained to me (by some writer on some site years ago whose name I don't remember or what site it was on, at that) that I was sweating over shit I had no actual control over, it was quite liberating.

(SIDE NOTE: That writer whose name I don't remember also gave me some great advice about plotting: in horror and sci-fi lots of new writers feel the need to explain everything about the monster, the situation, etc. But what explanation would possibly suffice to explain a monster or futuristic situation? Let the scenario be the scenario, then drop your characters into it and see how they react.)

Screenwriting books can be helpful, but they can be impeditive as well. We get so tripped up in how all the "experts" say we're supposed to write that we forget the entire reason we're writing in the first place -- because we have a story we want to tell. So tell it, as clearly and concisely as you're able, and forget all that other shit.

Yes, there are some general formatting guidelines you need to follow, such as how to write scene headings, capping character intros, where to place dialogue, making sure you keep your action/narratives to less than five lines and keeping your descriptions lean and precise -- but even those guidelines can be bent (to an extent). Anything else is incidental, and anything incidental is unimportant.

Brass tacks: when you don't know how to write something, remember the KISS rule:

Keep
It
Simple,
Stupid!

To be clear, I'm not trying to present myself as an expert on all things screenwriting, but good advice is good advice. And what I wrote above is the best advice I was ever given, so I feel it only right to share it with other screenwriters who find themselves facing the same frustrations as I used to.