Hello,

Okay, this may be a little silly, but the last scene in this short I am working on is rather long.
Here is the problem, the whole scene takes place in the woods, but there are a number of section
that could be broken down into scenes, there is the Parking Lot, The Walk, The Tent,The Hide, The Killer,The Get Away. all of these elements take place in one scene, but I want to be sure I have it organized well enough to execute with out much trouble, but also I don't want to over do it and turn it into a train wreck. This will be the climax of the film and the whole thing takes place rather quickly. The whole script is 25 pages and this scene uses 6 pages, however most of the 6 pages are description rather then dialogue. What suggestion do you have for handling this scene. I'd be interested in what you would have to say.

Thank You
John

If "we" are in a parking lot, and then in a tent, those are two different scenes.

Here is the problem, the whole scene takes place in the woods, but there are a number of section that could be broken down into scenes, there is the Parking Lot, The Walk, The Tent,The Hide, The Killer,The Get Away. all of these elements take place in one scene...A scene is any part of the story that is shot in one location, in continuous time. Every time there is a change in location (even if it's just from one room to another) or a break in time, that is a new scene.

To take it a tad further, then a shot is an angle on the scene, and a take is a version of the shot.

Ok. I'm a bit confused here. Bear with me because I'm still trying to learn.

I'm currently reading Robert McKee's "Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting" and he defines a scene in a way that is completely independent of location, despite the fact that many scenes often happen in one place.

He claims that a scene technically begins when some value is established and ends when that value has changed. So, for example, a scene begins when the good guy starts chasing the bad guy (or vice versa), and ends when the bad guy is either caught or gets away. If the bad guy is caught, the value that changes is the bad guy's freedom. If he gets away, the value that changes is the good guy's ability to do his job.

This makes sense to me, because I've seen hundreds of "chase scenes" in action movies where you only get 3 seconds of an actor jumping off of a fire escape, then 2 seconds running down the alley, followed by 4 seconds running across the street, then another 3 or 4 seconds running through a restaurant, another few seconds through the kitchen, then out through the back door and into another alley and so on.

Are all of these 3 or 4 second shots considered scenes because the location has changed? Or do screenwriters and filmmakers have different definitions for the same words? Can anyone clarify this for me?

Ok. I'm a bit confused here. Bear with me because I'm still trying to learn.

I'm currently reading Robert McKee's "Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting" and he defines a scene in a way that is completely independent of location, despite the fact that many scenes often happen in one place.

He claims that a scene technically begins when some value is established and ends when that value has changed. So, for example, a scene begins when the good guy starts chasing the bad guy (or vice versa), and ends when the bad guy is either caught or gets away. If the bad guy is caught, the value that changes is the bad guy's freedom. If he gets away, the value that changes is the good guy's ability to do his job.

This makes sense to me, because I've seen hundreds of "chase scenes" in action movies where you only get 3 seconds of an actor jumping off of a fire escape, then 2 seconds running down the alley, followed by 4 seconds running across the street, then another 3 or 4 seconds running through a restaurant, another few seconds through the kitchen, then out through the back door and into another alley and so on.

Are all of these 3 or 4 second shots considered scenes because the location has changed? Or do screenwriters and filmmakers have different definitions for the same words? Can anyone clarify this for me?

Yes there are different discriptions about scenes etc. Importent is only that they are clearly identified as what they are, inside a production. I personally use the same terms as Citychick. Your 3 to 4 scenes I would call a sequence.

So:
A film constist of sequences.
Sequences constist of scenes
and scenes constist of shots. (Single RECORDED shots are takes.)

What you descirbed regarding the chase isn´t wrong. Scenes are stories themself. As film got more and more complex today is a need for something more than just shots, scenes and film. As their isn´t any scale between shots and scenes that I know of I adopted the sequence. You also can work with the classic terms but they were established as scenes were more or less dialogues at one location (also see the theater). By using the sequence as container of the substory, production gets more easy. You just have a better oversight of who has to be where and do what at wich time by giving the locations and times a name. This is specially true as today with digital equipment you can easyly take some shots instead of one and afterwords have more possibilities in the editingroom. Sometimes you even need lots of shots as today it isn´t entertaining enough to have two people talking in just two shots. Also a psychological pro is that with the sequence you get something done. It´s just depressing to work thrue 100 shots instead of 15 scenes.

Regards

I'm currently reading Robert McKee's "Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting" and he defines a scene in a way that is completely independent of location, despite the fact that many scenes often happen in one place.

He claims that a scene technically begins when some value is established and ends when that value has changed. ... [snip]

I've seen hundreds of "chase scenes" in action movies where you only get 3 seconds of an actor jumping off of a fire escape, then 2 seconds running down the alley, followed by 4 seconds running across the street, then another 3 or 4 seconds running through a restaurant, another few seconds through the kitchen, then out through the back door and into another alley and so on.

Are all of these 3 or 4 second shots considered scenes because the location has changed? Or do screenwriters and filmmakers have different definitions for the same words? Can anyone clarify this for me?Well, adding to what I wrote previously, and to what Xylofonic wrote, think about what the director and crew would have to do to shoot the sequence you described, which shows continuous action in discontinuous locations: fire escape, alley, street, restaurant, and so on. Each of those is gonna require a whole new set-up of lights, cameras, equipment, crew, actors, craft services. It may need 30 takes to get the guy jumping off the fire escape just right, and that could last all day or even two days (depending on what kind of production, ie. budget). Okay, so let's say everyone has spent two days shooting the action on the fire escape. The director and script super have numbered the scenes, and this one is Scene 1. They've blocked the set, taken pictures, done a ton of prep work before even shooting, and the script super has kept a log of notes on every take for the director and editor.

After those two days, they're in a different location to shoot the actor running down an alley. This might not even be anywhere near the fire escape, but they found an alley that looks just right. Again they have to set up lights, cameras, equipment, crew, actors, craft services, and do all the prep work for this location. And then they shoot it - should the script super refer to all the work on this day as still Scene 1 in the shot log? Or would'nt it be more logical (and make everyone's lives easier) to call these Scene 2? Then a week later they shoot the guy running through the restaurant. All new set-up and prep work. Maybe a day and a half of shooting. Still Scene 1? Although, yes, a good editor makes it all seem like it is one smooth continuous flow of action, and your mind believes that the guy really jumped off the fire escape, and ran down the alley and through the restaurant -- bing, bang, boom, one right after another -- it never happens that way during a production. What you perceive as one long scene is a sequence of scenes.

Now, for you as a screenwriter, you're not numbering the scenes, but you are adding the appropriate scene headings, such as EXT. CITY STREET - DAY, EXT. RESTAURANT - DAY, which accomplishes the same thing. Each time a character moves from one location (ie. walks from one room to another) or in time (ie., in the present having a conversation, then flashes back to a memory), you insert a new scene heading. And why do we call them scene headings? Because they delineate where a new scene starts! The point is that the screenplay not only tells a story but is a blueprint for what you will see on the screen. You have to spell it out, scene to scene.

Start to really watch a movie or television show just to identify where scenes begin and end. A sequence like what you described is a series of scenes knitted together, and what you the viewer REALLY sees starts with (for example): the man on the fire escape looking up from the ground, a view down the alley as a man runs past, a crowded restaurant as a man runs through -- it's not JUST a scene of a man running away from someone, but our brains put it all together and perceive it that way.

Make sense?
:)

Xylofonic and Citychick, thanks for taking the time to clear it up for me. Very helpful responses.

Citychick, my ability to both write and look at a screenplay objectively and practically has been brought to a whole new level based on some of the points you've made here. Invaluable.

Xylofonic and Citychick, thanks for taking the time to clear it up for me. Very helpful responses.

Citychick, my ability to both write and look at a screenplay objectively and practically has been brought to a whole new level based on some of the points you've made here. Invaluable.You're welcome! Glad to be of help.