Hey everyone,

Only just realised I've done this (and I'm a little unsure):

INT. GREENWICH VILLAGE - BEATNIK APARTMENT - DAY. (1962).

I'm sure we can do this? I mean - it's general to specific. It's clear (to me anyways).

I don't want to use a SUPER or put it in my brackets or have an establishing shot in Greenwich Village preceding it.

What do you think?

No, I’d do it like this:

INT. APARTMENT - DAY

blah blah beatnicks etc

SUPER - GREENWICH VILLAGE NEW YORK CITY

SUPER - FEBRUARY 1962

What if I don't want to do super? It's alright to signpost it in the header right?

Nope   If your script is set in a certain location and year you need supers.

Quoted from stevie Nope   If your script is set in a certain location and year you need supers.

You don’t need supers, but you do need to say it in a way that the audience can see/hear it. The characters can drive past the Welcome to Las Vegas sign, the radio can say “the best hits of Philly,” etc. If the date is important, you’ll probably need to show a newspaper or TV news broadcast, a calendar, or something else that hits the audience over the head with the information.

In a sci-fi short, I showed the year by expiration dates on milk or “people born after this year need to show ID” placards. The latter expects the audience to know the US drinking age is 21.

Okay. Thanks guys.

I think I'll go for...

A sparse apartment: bongo drums, bare mattress, trumpet, couch. And outside the window... GREENWICH VILLAGE.

Nice and simple.

Quoted from The Dark Horse Okay. Thanks guys. I think I'll go for... A sparse apartment: bongo drums, bare mattress, trumpet, couch. And outside the window... GREENWICH VILLAGE. Nice and simple.

You'll probably need to be more specific than that. Greenwich Village (neighborhood in New York City) is not the same thing as the Village of Greenwich (in upstate New York) or Greenwich (neighborhood in London).

One thing that distinguishes the Village of Greenwich from the other two is how locals pronounce it. In upstate New York it's Green Witch, while the other two are Grehn Itch. You might be able to use that in an early establishing bit of dialogue, assuming it's not essential to know the precise location at the very beginning.

(I don't know anyone from the Village of Greenwich to know how seriously they take the pronunciation, but I do know that if you pronounce Worchester, Massachusetts as War Chester the locals will have no idea what you're talking about. It's Woostah because New Englanders are allergic to Rs.)

I dunno. It's just one short scene. The film jumps around New York locations a lot and TBH I need to be very careful with page count. Feels a little redundant to add more.

The fact it's a 60s beatnik apartment should communicate that we are in the bohemian part. I dunno. How about if I say...

GREENWICH VILLAGE ("THE VILLAGE")?

Quoted from The Dark Horse I dunno. It's just one short scene. The film jumps around New York locations a lot and TBH I need to be very careful with page count. Feels a little redundant to add more. The fact it's a 60s beatnik apartment should communicate that we are in the bohemian part. I dunno. How about if I say... GREENWICH VILLAGE ("THE VILLAGE")?

If you do mean the neighborhood in NYC, then it can just be

A sparse apartment: bongo drums, bare mattress, trumpet, couch. And outside the window... New York City's GREENWICH VILLAGE.

I only bring this up because it could confuse a reader. A viewer of the eventual film can tell a little village from a city street pretty easily.

Okay.

I'm going with NYC’s GREENWICH VILLAGE or else I'm running out of space ha.

Thank you.

Is the entire film set in 1962?  If so, just say so in the opening narrative.  But if your story transpires over the course of many years, or jumps back and forth in time, including the year in the slug line is perfectly fine.  

Quoted from Lon Is the entire film set in 1962?  If so, just say so in the opening narrative.  But if your story transpires over the course of many years, or jumps back and forth in time, including the year in the slug line is perfectly fine.

No, it's not perfectly fine.  You never want to put years in your Slugs.  They do not transfer to film.  If the year is important, you need a SUPER.

It is indeed fine.   I can't count how many scripts I've seen it in.  As the writer, you need only point out to the reader what the year is, and you can do that simply in a slug.  Let the director, costume designer, set designer, etc. worry about making it LOOK like that year.  If you  need an example of a writer putting years in slugs and not including supers, check out Frank Darabont's script for The Shawshank Redemption.

Quoted from Lon It is indeed fine.   I can't count how many scripts I've seen it in.  As the writer, you need only point out to the reader what the year is, and you can do that simply in a slug.  Let the director, costume designer, set designer, etc. worry about making it LOOK like that year.  If you  need an example of a writer putting years in slugs and not including supers, check out Frank Darabont's script for The Shawshank Redemption.

Alright, I didn't know all of this, but this was my reasoning in putting a date in a slug:

By NOT  entering SUPER on its own line below the slug, I was able to buy an extra line.  :)

Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with indicating the year with a super.  A lot of writers do that, it's just not an absolute must.

Quoted from Lon Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with indicating the year with a super.  A lot of writers do that, it's just not an absolute must.

:)

Quoted from Lon It is indeed fine.   I can't count how many scripts I've seen it in.  As the writer, you need only point out to the reader what the year is, and you can do that simply in a slug.  Let the director, costume designer, set designer, etc. worry about making it LOOK like that year.  If you  need an example of a writer putting years in slugs and not including supers, check out Frank Darabont's script for The Shawshank Redemption.

Alot of writers do alot of things...that much we can agree on.

Sure, we can look back in time at lots of classics and find all sorts of screenwriting "things" that are not done anymore...or just don't really work.

For me, what's important when I "say" something here on SS, is to help those that don't know, and help them not make mistakes that they're unaware of.

When you tell inexperienced writers that it's perfectly fine to use years in Slugs, I don't think they'll ever understand what's not perfectly alright about doing it.  And I think it comes down to why would one want to include a year in a Slug...or why would one want to show a year with a SUPER.

If the year is important, the only way your viewers will know that year, is to use a SUPER....or show the year in some visual early on in the scene.  Period.

Let's also understand that your example of Shawshank and Darabont is really not one to just throw out to brand new writers, because Darabont was already a successful writer and Shawshank came from a a Stehpen King short story.

This is not some new writer, writing his first Spec script.

And, let's also be clear, whenever someone pulls up a script, they have absolutely no idea what that script really is...is it the original Spec?  Is it a shooting script?  Is it the final revision?  Who knows?  Surely, you do not.

Shawshank was just one example.  Surely you've seen it done in other scripts as well.

I tend to agree with you on a lot of your feedback, particularly that it's important to help newbs learn what mistakes to avoid.  I just don't happen to agree with you on this particular point, that's all.

Quoted from Lon Shawshank was just one example.  Surely you've seen it done in other scripts as well. I tend to agree with you on a lot of your feedback, particularly that it's important to help newbs learn what mistakes to avoid.  I just don't happen to agree with you on this particular point, that's all.

Yeah...I've seen it in lots of scripts...mostly new writers who don't have a clue.

I understand your point and we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

For me:

As is the case with all of these "rules" - clarity and tone are the paramount issues and I will break them in a New York minute if needed for clarity or tone.  It is always what makes a better read. That includes asides, umfilmables, wrylies. orphans and every other nit issue you can think of.

In the example presented, you want your reader to be crystal clear on the setting (time and place) and the vibe of that setting. Although the year in the header is certainly clear - the tone is absent. Unlike Frank's suggestion:

Quoted Text A sparse apartment: bongo drums, bare mattress, trumpet, couch. And outside the window... New York City's GREENWICH VILLAGE.

Which did a nice job with tone. If I were writing this I would go with something like that and a SUPER for the time/place.

Now - it looks like the real  issue you have is page constraints. So,  as an example, if you are limited to ten pages and you have written this as crisply as possible but must use the year in the header to achieve that objective - okay dokay.  But keep in mind that it wouldn't be the best way to write it. It would be simply be the best way to write it to keep it to ten pages.

To Jeff's point - when something is presented like this it is hard for peeps to answer. The traditional way to do this is with a SUPER and you should at a minimum be aware of the traditional way.  Doesn't mean you should violate that tradition. But I think it always helps to know what the traditional approach is so that you can weigh the value of going an alternate route.

See, there's no such thing as a 'quick slug question''.
Actually, there's no such thing as a quick slug.
Oxymoron.  

Quoted from LC See, there's no such thing as a 'quick slug question''. Actually, there's no such thing as a quick slug. Oxymoron.

Excellent observation.  Good stuff

;D Amusing myself.
Valentine's Day morning here.

Quoted from LC ;D Amusing myself. Valentine's Day morning here.

:)