I need some help, I want to use cut to using the same setting in the next scene, is that a typo in screenwriting standards?

It is more accepted to use LATER as a secondary heading.

Hence:

INT. LIVING ROOM - DAY

Joey leaps up and does a handstans. He holds that position. Everyone watches.

LATER

Joey maintains his handstand. Everyone else has moved around. No one is watching Joey anymore.

LATER

Joey's face is red. Everyone is asleep. Joey collapses.

First thing to consider: If you plan to produce and direct your script, you can use as many cut to's as you want, and in the way you want them, as long as they make sense to you.

But if you're writing on spec and plan to submit your script to agents, producers, contests, etc, do know that including these transitions are considered a red flag by professional readers, for many reasons.

They are redundant, since each scene heading implies automatically a new scene. The Cut to's fill white space without adding anything that the reader couldn't easily figure out by himself.

It's up to the director to decide which transitions to choose when shooting the script (cuts, dissolves, wipes, etc). And he will do it without paying attention to what the writer tells him in the script. It's his job. And it's very likely he will do it better. So by including these transitions, you're stepping into his territory.

Anyways, to answer your question. By "using the same setting in the next scene" you mean: two scenes, same location, different time frame. Is that right? The transition I usually see for time passing are dissolves, not cuts.

Bottom line: if you're going to direct and produce your script, there's no need to worry about formating standards too much. If you're writing on spec, stay away from transitions; they're very frowned upon. Write the scene like George did in his example; it looks clear, to the point, and according to industry standards.

Hope that helps.

Mr. z and Mr. Willson, thank you for the intel. This is what I'm implying...

A scene is occuring where two characters are fishing. They both throw their lines into the lake. At that moment I want to fast forward to where they are sitting down on a bench watching their fishing poles closely while talking to each other. I'm so tempted to use cut because if I were to write from where they prop up their poles and walk over to the bench, I just lost unnecessary pages=time in my spec script.

I'd agree with George here. Go ahead and use a secondary heading, but try to stay away from CUT TO:

Infact, don't use CUT TO: at all anymore as the feeling is that it's redundant as we know we have to cut to a seperate scene regardless.

I'll go ahead and remove cut to from my script. A montage will be the same as cut to in this situation?

Yup. You can use a couple of variances for montage. You can use it in the heading a couple of different ways:

MONTAGE - Fat Tony and Slim Jim Fight

-- At the beach - they fight in the water.

-- At the hotel room - they fight in the rooms.

-- At the restaurant - they fight at the tables.

OR

MONTAGE - Fat Tony and Slim Jim Fight.

-- EXT. BEACH - DAY - They fight in the water.

-- INT. HOTEL ROOM - EVENING - They fight in the room.

-- INT. RESTAURANT - NIGHT - They fight at the tables.

OR

(I've also read you can do the following)

START MONTAGE

Blah, blah, blah, Fat Tony.

END MONTAGE

I'll need to double-check that one.

Macduff is right.  Using a montage is an easy and effective way of showing several things at once without taking up a lot of extra pages.

I usually do mine like this, which is like Macduff's.

MONTAGE

--Bill and Hairy cast their fishes lines in to the water.

--Bill helps Hairy hold his rod steady as he reels in a large fish

--Hairy feeds wood on the fire as Bill guts the fish, preparing it to be cooked.

I think anyway, as long as its not confusing, is acceptable when writing a montage.  Just be sure to make it apparent what you are trying to accomplish.

Hope this helps,
Jonathan