Format Question - Long Period in Single Location

Personally, I'd use full slug lines. So:

EXT. FRONT YARD - DAY (YEARS LATER)

mad_hatter said:

Personally, I'd use full slug lines. So:

EXT. FRONT YARD - DAY (YEARS LATER)

Click to expand...

Thanks. I tend to prefer full slugs to mini-slugs, so I get where you are coming from.

What about the case where you don't necessarily want the hard break of a new scene... for example, you are looking at a doorjamb with a pen mark for how tall a child is, and then you fade the shot to the same doorjamb years later with more marks on it to denote the time passed.

In that case, the time passed is apparent by the dates next to the marks (or just the number and distance between marks), and you don't really want to break the shot for a scene break. You could still do it as you said above, but it would be harder to read the intent of the writer to keep it as a continuous "flow" of time.

Just kicking ideas around, loving the conversation here!

FlyingMonkey said:

...then you fade the shot to the same doorjamb years later...

Click to expand...

Well, to my mind, that depends on what you are writing and why you are writing it. In most cases, the writer should avoid trying to direct from within the screenplay. That fade would be the decision of the director, so as a writer, you shouldn't even mention it. You ought to try and convey the sense of passing time (which a fade does so well!) without resorting to describing the fade within the script.

mad_hatter said:

Well, to my mind, that depends on what you are writing and why you are writing it. In most cases, the writer should avoid trying to direct from within the screenplay. That fade would be the decision of the director, so as a writer, you shouldn't even mention it. You ought to try and convey the sense of passing time (which a fade does so well!) without resorting to describing the fade within the script.

Click to expand...

I agree, that's one of the reasons I originally asked the question. I don't want to get in the habit of directing the movie through the script, I know that's a bad idea.

I guess the safe way is as you mentioned, using full slug lines.

FlyingMonkey said:

What about the case where you don't necessarily want the hard break of a new scene... for example, you are looking at a doorjamb with a pen mark for how tall a child is, and then you fade the shot to the same doorjamb years later with more marks on it to denote the time passed.

In that case, the time passed is apparent by the dates next to the marks (or just the number and distance between marks), and you don't really want to break the shot for a scene break. You could still do it as you said above, but it would be harder to read the intent of the writer to keep it as a continuous "flow" of time.

Just kicking ideas around, loving the conversation here!

Click to expand...

I would probably still do a full slug line. My last line of description before the slug line would be about the mark on the wall and the first line after the slug line would be about the new mark. I think the reader would get the idea and not be too pulled out of it. I would think you want a clear stop in this instance. It's not like five minutes or even five hours later.

I'm following the advice posted here...full slugs it is!

Thanks for talking me through it!

You can just use sluglines. This is actually a situation where I might use a series of shots. A series of shots follows a related theme across time or space. Yes, you can also use separate sluglines. I also show another approach.
You can learn more about montage and series of shots at http://www.trilane.com/ref/scenes/spcl1/spcl1.html. You could also use pseudo sluglines.
The purpose is to make spec scripts easy to read. How does a viewer know it's 2012? They don't. As pseudo sluglines they are production markers. The audience gets a sense of continuity of his aging from the scene descriptions. I realize this was just an example but there are a couple other points I thought I'd mention.

1. Onomatopoeic sounds and guttural cries often don't require their own dialogue unless followed by actual words. So they can often be safely contained in the action line.

2. Be careful with open-ended adverbs. What does "sullenly" mean in the context of Bob? It is good practice to describe it. "Angrily" can range any where from a tiff to a full-out brawl. "Sullen" can range from "feeling blue" to "despondent" or "quietly angry". Be aware these are short scenes. Be sure to convey what you want the actor to represent and the viewer to see.

3. Also, it helps to give a suggestion of age. "Teen" could mean 11-14 (middle school) or 15-18 (high school).

4. When moving a person through time, create an anchor for your audience so they know that this is the same person, not different families in the house. Notice I tied these together using the 'tire swing'. When you flip through time, be sure the audience has some clue. I understand that you wanted the porch to serve that function but good breadcrumbs are often things people interact with. My problem with the last scene is it wasn't clear to me why he was smoking. How do you convey the concept 'he's quietly reflecting what went wrong'? He could just be tired. Or helping out an elderly parent. Something needs to trigger him to be introspective. And it should be something that the audience is also attuned to. For teen Bob, there was no connection to the porch as he raked the leaves. Just something to keep in mind.

Thanks FantasySciFi. Please be aware I literally came up with all the above in about five minutes, it's not really representative of how I write. Your specific points:

1) I don't write in guttural typically. I just threw it in there so there would be some dialog in it.

2) I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Brevity being the soul of wit and all, I would think conveying a general tone like "sullenly" would be better than tons of detail such as "thinking about the girlfriend that just dumped him, the pile of homework waiting for him, and how he really doesn't want to be raking the damn leaves."

3) Point taken. Again, this is a five minute bit of text.

4) Agreed, there is little to show the viewer in this example these people are the same.

But wait...you ding me for "sullenly" as not specific, but when I say "quietly reflecting on what went wrong" which is very specific, you don't like that either...

I understand that the emotion conveyed would have to be reinforced in dialog and/or action. But until that part occurs in the script, doesn't directing and acting help get us to that point, guided by what's in the script?

With clear visual continuity going on, I probably would use the DISSOLVE TO alternative.

I recognize this is just a writing example and not a reflection of your writing. That's why I addressed ways of presenting your scene. A lot of new writers look at what is posted to learn writing techniques. I mentioned some writing points that can benefit others. In my note, I didn't specifically address them to you but as points to be considered. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

FlyingMonkey said:

Thanks FantasySciFi. Please be aware I literally came up with all the above in about five minutes, it's not really representative of how I write. Your specific points:

1) I don't write in guttural typically. I just threw it in there so there would be some dialog in it.

I'm sure you don't do that. However, it's a common issue for other writers and I wanted to point out this is not normally treated as dialogue.

2) I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Brevity being the soul of wit and all, I would think conveying a general tone like "sullenly" would be better than tons of detail such as "thinking about the girlfriend that just dumped him, the pile of homework waiting for him, and how he really doesn't want to be raking the damn leaves."

Most writing instructors will tell you to avoid adverbs altogether. I think that's a bit extreme. Are you directing this? If not, the actor needs to know how to interpret "sullenly" or "angrily". What's the context? Sullen about what? Angry about what? How has his life gone bad? Bear in mind that film is a primarily visual medium. It's often a frustration for new writers who are used to writing for print. You can't simply state what is going on inside the character's head. It needs to be visually described. Yes, you want to be brief, but it's important.

I used your example to make a couple of points. While a writer may know in his/her mind what is meant, that needs to translate visually. Your example as you wrote it is: A boy jumps off a porch carrying an airplane, a sad teenager rakes leaves, and a tired, older guy sits down on a porch in the winter and smokes a cigarette. Without additional context, the viewer has no grounding about what is going on inside their heads or why. Or even that they are related.

3) Point taken. Again, this is a five minute bit of text.

I understand. Even in short bits it's good to practice good technique. Especially since this is an isolated sequence. If young Bob and teen Bob had appeared earlier in the script and were re-appearing in this flashback sequence, it wouldn't have been an issue. How you presented it suggests this is their first introduction (names in all caps).

4) Agreed, there is little to show the viewer in this example these people are the same.

But wait...you ding me for "sullenly" as not specific, but when I say "quietly reflecting on what went wrong" which is very specific, you don't like that either...

It's wrong because it reflects an internal state. What went wrong? It sounds specific but what does it really mean? Did he lose a court case? A patient? World War 3 break out? It's basically a tired guy sitting on a porch which doesn't visually convey what's going on inside his head. How does the audience know he's beaten down? What can you do visually to get them to realize that's what he's thinking/feeling? If this were a short story or novel, that's not an issue since the reader is following along in the text. It is a different issue in a screenplay, especially if it's one you're trying to sell. Writer/directors can use shorthand because they know what they want when they working with the actor. If you're just a writer, you need to translate internal feelings to external visualizations by descriptions and actions.

Again, I get this was a quick example. In your actual script, you'd take time to fully develop these ideas. Maybe throw in a sequence showing him being kicked to the side. Don't take it personally. I know it was just a quickly thrown together example. It was meant as a teaching point for others.


I understand that the emotion conveyed would have to be reinforced in dialog and/or action. But until that part occurs in the script, doesn't directing and acting help get us to that point, guided by what's in the script?

Normally, yes it would. Again, I'm only addressing your quick example. Doing a time lapse is often the first introduction to content. The scenes need to fully encapsulate that development since nothing has occurred prior. If I see a kid playing how does that apply to the depressed teenager raking leaves? Is it his older brother? Is the teen depressed because his younger brother died? Now we see an older guy smoking and looking kind of sad? Was it because his son died? Is this the older brother grown up? Maybe it's the deadbeat dad or mom's boyfriend. What visual and active clues are there to help the viewer/me make sense of the sequence of scenes? Someone seeing your example may think nothing more needs to be done.

My point is that as a writing example, these are issues that I would tell new writers they need to address if this were an actual script. As a reader, my responsibility is to mentally strip away the stuff to what the viewer sees. The challenge is that the viewer doesn't have access to the words in the script. They pick up context by the actions and visual scenery as well as sounds. How would the audience make sense of those scenes? If these were flashbacks, it might make sense. As an example of events occurring over a period of years compacted together, it's important to establish context within.

Click to expand...

Thanks FSF, I really do appreciate all the constructive feedback. Hopefully I didn't come across as defensive, I'm really just trying to flesh out what you're saying to understand it. I definitely need all the help I can get. I've been writing for a long time, but have not done scripts in a very long time. It's a such a different medium requiring different technique that it's eye opening.

No adverbs, really? Hmm...I get the "show, don't tell" concept, but it seems somebody doing a quick reading of a scene might benefit from the adverbs to get the characters' tone.

Let me say that I agree that sometimes adverbs are useful. However, often they are more of a crutch for lazy writers. Often a different word is more evocative. But as an example, here are some articles that give rationales for avoiding adverbs. These generally reflect advice given by other produced screenwriters to newcomers.

http://www.doctormyscript.com/2010/10/screenwriting-mistake-11-adverbs.html
http://scriptwrecked.com/2009/10/26/avoid-adverbs/
http://www.scriptgodsmustdie.com/2012/04/the-adverbadjective-hater/
http://www.moviebytes.com/survival.cfm?ColumnID=4201

As for generally useful advice about screenwriting, here are a couple links that I sometimes refer others to:
https://litreactor.com/columns/how-the-rules-of-screenwriting-can-improve-your-prose-fiction
http://johnaugust.com/qanda/words-on-the-page

FSF...I read through a large part of my script, and was surprised to find only one adverb, which I realized was unnecessary and deleted it.

I've come around to your way of thinking. Given the emphasis on showing and not describing motivations, adverbs do indeed seem largely unnecessary. Thanks for the insight!