Is it just me or is the OTS reverse OTS set up the most overused, abused, and least inspiring set up in all of filmmaking? But filmmakers love it!
I mean, no one ever questions how the OTS reverse OTS serves the story like we do for every other type of shot/set up.
If you want a dolly shot, or a wide shot, or a close up, people will ask why or how it serves the story. But never the OTS reverse OTS.
The OTS reverse OTS set up often times reveals nothing in its framing and composition other than just simply being coverage for the sake of coverage (many times for the dialogue), and as filmmakers, we seem content with that. We don't question it. But I have to ask, how does coverage for the sake of coverage serve the story?
Now there are times when the OTS reverse OTS is necessary to serve the story, but IMO, the OTS reverse OTS set up is often times the lazy director's attempt to create depth in his/her shots.
I mean, no one ever questions how the OTS reverse OTS serves the story like we do for every other type of shot/set up.
If you want a dolly shot, or a wide shot, or a close up, people will ask why or how it serves the story. But never the OTS reverse OTS.
The OTS reverse OTS set up often times reveals nothing in its framing and composition other than just simply being coverage for the sake of coverage (many times for the dialogue), and as filmmakers, we seem content with that. We don't question it. But I have to ask, how does coverage for the sake of coverage serve the story?
Now there are times when the OTS reverse OTS is necessary to serve the story, but IMO, the OTS reverse OTS set up is often times the lazy director's attempt to create depth in his/her shots.
Last edited: