• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Is it okay to 'tell' instead of 'show' in this sense?

In my script, a man in a courtroom uses his training to escape custody. He takes the guard's gun, shoots him along with other guards and cops. He takes a hostage and escapes. However, when he gets to the outside of the courthouse, he will logically then either have to take a car, escape on foot for some time being.

The cops would be called, and since a courthouse is likely in the middle of downtown, in a large city setting, the cops would block off all the roads around, and he would have to evade a lot of cop cars coming for him, if he expects to escape, which the script needs him to, in order to continue.

However, I do not have the budget to show what happens, once he gets outside the courthouse. I was thinking, instead of showing it, I could just tell it, through a police radio scanner, which is being listened to, by other characters who are playing a part in the whole thing.

Will this be okay with audiences, or will they think it's too cheap, or that they are being cheated, or will it feel downright off, that none of the remaining escape is shown, and it's being told? What if I just tried to write the radio chatter as really suspenseful, or will that not work, cause the more suspenseful something is, the more they will want to see it?
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. Well a couple of readers said that even though they don't see it and it still make sense intectually, they don't FEEL the escape, since it suddenly cuts away, and the feel is more important they say. So perhaps I will rethink it.
 
Back
Top