If something happens over black, such as a knock on a door, should it be followed with O.S.?

Example-

BLACK

A door bell RINGS (O.S.).

FADE IN:

Is that correct?

~Zack~

Personally I think the OS is implied because it's over black, and I would use OVER BLACK...

So my version would be

OVER BLACK

A door bell RINGS.

FADE IN:

But it is just down to preference and making sure the script is clear, and I think yours is.

Thanks for the reply and advice. Are the () needed? I've seen O.S. both with and without them.

~Zack~

Concur

Most screenwriting software defaults to the ( ) so I always use them

Writing on spec, the example in the post is a bit overly complicated. You can just do something like:

"A doorbell rings over blackness."
or
"Over blackness, a doorbell rings."

Or something like that.

I get why these questions pop up, though: people force and pressure budding writers to always begin a screenplay with "FADE IN"

Fact is, though, that simply doesn't apply to every story.

--Julio

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.

O.S. Means off screen for dialogue, however, the character speaking does exist around the camera shot, just hasn't been introduced recently.

V.O. Is basically an omnipotent character watching the same scene as the audience does, yet provides some knowledge or insight. A God voice.

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.

Quoted from Bogey 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.

correct

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.

This make sense?

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.

Quoted from TonyDionisio 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. This make sense?

No. Here is a good explanation from Trottier:

====================================================
QUESTION

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

For what it's worth, the most common way I've seen phone conversations done professionally is:
CHARACTER (V.O.)
(filtered)
Blah, blah, blah.

Quoted from ReaperCreeper For what it's worth, the most common way I've seen phone conversations done professionally is: CHARACTER (V.O.) (filtered) Blah, blah, blah.

yep

Just make sure your scene is clear and the way you use the parenthetical is consistent throughout the writing so as to eliminate confusion.