PAN... CLOSE UP.... PUSH IN... ANGEL ON...

Not ony are they not necessary, the writer should never include
cameras direction in a script. The way the script is shot is the
job of the director and crew.

Not ony are they not necessary, the writer should never include
cameras direction in a script. The way the script is shot is the
job of the director and crew.
If a director is writing a screenplay that he intends to film himself. Is it still a thing you shouldn't do?
I've just written a screenplay and I have included a few camera directions, because quite frankly they're vital to the story. eg. say someone was hanging upside down and you wanted them to be filmed so they appear to be the right way up. If you didn't include a shot direction there surely it wouldn't get done to the full effect.

Camera directions are not vital to the story. If someone was hanging
upside down and you wanted them to be filmed so they appear to be
the right way up, that is a choice to be made by the director. If a
director chose to shoot it in a different way, the STORY does not change.
The SHOT changes and the writer may not like the choice, but the
STORY does not change. As you say, the writer "wanted them
to be filmed so they appear to be the right way up." The "full effect"
is not something vital to the story but something the writer wants to
see in the final movie.

It's vital for new writers to learn to separate what they WANT to see
when the movie is shown to an audience and what is vital to their story.

But you asked about a director is writing a screenplay that he intends
to film himself. Assuming that this director will also be putting up all the
money and never have to show the script to a producer, prodCo or
executive, then this director can write the script in any way the like.
There are no standards when it comes to making your own movies.

A writer who is writing a script he plans to direct and is hoping to convince
a producer to come on board and find financing and actors and crew needs
to write the script in the standard format.

Thanks. I was aware that you don't usually include shot directions. I'd just heard there were certain circumstances that it was ok.
I see what you're saying. Even though it's a screenplay I'm intending film, I'll take out the shot directions.

I'd just heard there were certain circumstances that it was ok.

I've heard that, too. I have just never seen an example where
camera directions in a script was necessary to the story.

But it's "okay". If you cannot get your STORY across to the
reader without using camera direction then it's vital. Just be
very careful and understand the difference between what
you (the writer) want to see on film and what is vital to the
story.

To use your example: if the reader of the script will not
understand the STORY if the shot in the final movie isn't the
way you discribe it then you must use that camera trick in
the screenplay. It might be a cool shot - is it vital to the story?

I've heard that, too. I have just never seen an example where
camera directions in a script was necessary to the story.

But it's "okay". If you cannot get your STORY across to the
reader without using camera direction then it's vital. Just be
very careful and understand the difference between what
you (the writer) want to see on film and what is vital to the
story.

To use your example: if the reader of the script will not
understand the STORY if the shot in the final movie isn't the
way you discribe it then you must use that camera trick in
the screenplay. It might be a cool shot - is it vital to the story?
I see what you're saying. No I supose it's not vital to the story. The scene is just not as interesting without it. But It's not important. Thanks for your advice I think I can work things out.
Sorry for hijacking this thread.

POV is a camera direction, and can be used when a character's point of view is different than the rest of the scene and is integral to the plot.

Sorry for hijacking this thread.
Don’t worry about it. gto asks questions and then never responds.
And it's not really a hijack - we're staying on topic.

The scene is just not as interesting without it.

Are you sure your story isn’t as interesting without the camera
trick you want to write into the script? If you're right and that
camera trick makes the story more interesting you should think
about leaving it in. Will the reader of the script (not the viewer
of the finished movie) get a better understanding the story if
you use that camera trick?

POV is a camera direction, and can be used when a character's point of view is different than the rest of the scene and is integral to the plot.
I've never read the use of POV in a script that couldn't be better
written without it. Using "POV" isn't necessary to any plot or
story I've ever read.

I bet any good writer can get the exact same plot across
to the reader without using "POV".

In general, you should never put camera direction in your spec scripts unless you know you are going to direct it yourself. Directors don't like to be told how to direct. This said you can write in ways that suggest angles without saying it. "We look down as Bill crumples to the ground." This does not say High Angle looking down at Bill, but implies it. For POV, you can write "Somebody is watching Jenny and follows her through the park." Again, you suggest POV without saying it.

Actors don't like line readings like say it like this, so don't tell the director how to direct.

Scott

In general, you should never put camera direction in your spec scripts unless you know you are going to direct it yourself.
You don't direct a spec script yourself, a spec script is a "speculation" script. Sorry to nit pick ;)

"We look down as Bill crumples to the ground."

Speaking of things to avoid, you should avoid the "we" actions... "we see", "we hear". These are some of the biggest pitfalls of the newbie writer.

'cut to' is accepted.

There's a couple of basics (like "cut to"), but you definitely shouldn't try to have the whole thing mapped out in your spec script. I've been told it's just burdensome for anyone trying to read your script, especially if you don't know what you're doing or think you do.

“cut to” has gone out of favor for spec scripts, too. Many
leftovers from “shooting” scripts found their way into the spec
scripts. Over the last 8 to 10 years these things have been
(fortunately) dropping off. It makes a script much easier to
read. And it makes those who continue to use them appear much
more amateur.

There is no reason to use “cut to” - that’s what a new slugline
does. There isn’t a reader working in the business who doesn’t
understand that when the writer writes EXT. DESERT - DAY there
isn’t a cut from the Church interior of the previous scene.

I am in no way suggestion any of these things; “we see”, “we
hear”, “cut to”. camera angles, is going to hurt your chances of
selling a script. I’m saying that the current standard for spec
script has changed and keeping up with the changes show that you
(the writer) are keeping up.

Also, as barnaclelapse mentioned, dropping all the “shooting
script” notations makes the reading much more enjoyable. And
keeping the reader interested and focused on the story is
something all writers should strive for.

“cut to” has gone out of favor for spec scripts, too. Many
leftovers from “shooting” scripts found their way into the spec
scripts. Over the last 8 to 10 years these things have been
(fortunately) dropping off. It makes a script much easier to
read. And it makes those who continue to use them appear much
more amateur.

There is no reason to use “cut to” - that’s what a new slugline
does. There isn’t a reader working in the business who doesn’t
understand that when the writer writes EXT. DESERT - DAY there
isn’t a cut from the Church interior of the previous scene.

I am in no way suggestion any of these things; “we see”, “we
hear”, “cut to”. camera angles, is going to hurt your chances of
selling a script. I’m saying that the current standard for spec
script has changed and keeping up with the changes show that you
(the writer) are keeping up.

Also, as barnaclelapse mentioned, dropping all the “shooting
script” notations makes the reading much more enjoyable. And
keeping the reader interested and focused on the story is
something all writers should strive for.
Just like there is no reason for CUT TO because the Master slug is what you see next, there is no reason for... -- which I see two hundred times.

MIKE
-- Like I was saying .

Besides interruption, you should be able to tell by the line you're reading.
Its also used for a sound or a event. But the dialog continues without a
decription of the sound or event, so whats the point of using it.
Unless its used for something else that I don't know about.

Interesting. I can't recall ever seeing that in a script.

I've seen the two dashes to indicate a break in the
action line -- I do it all the time -- and every so often I've
seen it in dialogue to indicate a pause.

I suppose the way you've written it in this example
would indicate a pause before the actor speaks. But
I've never seen it.

As someone who works with an LA lit manager I concur with Rik, et al 100%. Use of camera angles in a spec script screams AMATEUR.

Having said that, I must sheepishly confess to using the transition SMASH CUT TO: in one of my recent specs. It's totally meaningless - what the hell is a "smash cut" anyway? - but it worked in the context of that particular sequence to create a feeling of intensity. It was meant for the reader, not the director/editor.

Yep, I've used "SMASH CUT" before. But I wouldn't use it today. I picked up on it from reading horror scripts. It's used to indicate a shock, something too many horrors or thrillers rely on these days.

It's like slowly stretching a rubber band (building tension) with the narrative, and then "SMASH CUT" to snap it in your audience's face.

I use elipses to indicate broken dialogue, (beat) for pregnant pauses, and two dashes (--) to break up lines of action that move from one "angle" to another without actually writing camera angles. It also picks up the pace in the narrative very effectively.

I'll even use a character name by itself as a slugline to orient the reader on that character. It has the same affect as "ANGLE ON" without actually saying it.

... and -- in dialogue.

... is used when dialogue trails off.

MARK
But then, she just took the gun and...

Mark looks down at the dead puppy.

***

-- is used when dialogue is interruped.

MARK
You need to move --

JOHN
Don't tell me what to do!

MARK
-- out of the street, a truck is comiing!

***

- Bill

... and -- in dialogue.

... is used when dialogue trails off.

MARK
But then, she just took the gun and...

Mark looks down at the dead puppy.

***

-- is used when dialogue is interruped.

MARK
You need to move --

JOHN
Don't tell me what to do!

MARK
-- out of the street, a truck is comiing!

***

- Bill

Nice example. Thanks

The writer should direct the audience's eyes, not the camera's lens.

Smith