-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
Have a problem with using V.O.
- Thread starter Kebab
- Start date
Voice-Over or Off-Screen.
It's a screenplay formatting issue. Unfortunately I don't know the answer, but someone will.
Use O.S.
V.O. is generally a narration, but you might also find it used now and then with mechanically reproduced voices, like an answering machine.
-Thanks-
V.O. is generally a narration, but you might also find it used now and then with mechanically reproduced voices, like an answering machine.
-Thanks-
David Trottier in"The Screenwriter's Bible" says the "preferred" method is the INTERCUT.
Example:
INT. SUZANNE'S KITCHEN - NIGHT
Suzanne paces nervously, then punches numbers on her phone.
INT. DARIN'S CAR - SAME
Darin drives through the rain, looking depressed. His cell phone rings.
INTERCUT - TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
SUZANNE
Come back.
DARIN
What? Now?
SUZANNE
Yes. Please.
DARIN
Give me one good reason.
SUZANNE
You forgot your casserole bowl.
DARIN
I'll be right there.
FADE OUT.
That gives the director complete freedom as to when to intercut between speakers, or whether to only show one of the speakers and use an OS for the other. (Not that they don't have complete freedom to mess with our masterpieces once they're on the fucking set anyways. Heh)
Example:
INT. SUZANNE'S KITCHEN - NIGHT
Suzanne paces nervously, then punches numbers on her phone.
INT. DARIN'S CAR - SAME
Darin drives through the rain, looking depressed. His cell phone rings.
INTERCUT - TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
SUZANNE
Come back.
DARIN
What? Now?
SUZANNE
Yes. Please.
DARIN
Give me one good reason.
SUZANNE
You forgot your casserole bowl.
DARIN
I'll be right there.
FADE OUT.
That gives the director complete freedom as to when to intercut between speakers, or whether to only show one of the speakers and use an OS for the other. (Not that they don't have complete freedom to mess with our masterpieces once they're on the fucking set anyways. Heh)
Depending on the length and depth of the call and O.S. character actions or reactions, that seems it could be both practical and impractical. If you can get away with the O.S. and the story still works, why add another location and shoot to the production cost?
-Thanks-
-Thanks-
Buddy,
Point. But it's up to the producer and/or director to make that decision, not the writer (insofar as he/she is a writer and nothing but a writer), in my opinion. Hence the option for those involved in production to do as they wish with it. A screenplay is only a blueprint, after all.
In any case, that's Trottier's take on it. There is no single "right" way. I have no doubt there's plenty of "wrong" ways, though.
-C
Point. But it's up to the producer and/or director to make that decision, not the writer (insofar as he/she is a writer and nothing but a writer), in my opinion. Hence the option for those involved in production to do as they wish with it. A screenplay is only a blueprint, after all.
In any case, that's Trottier's take on it. There is no single "right" way. I have no doubt there's plenty of "wrong" ways, though.
-C
I’ve always though that O.S. meant Off Screen. For a telephone
conversation isn’t the other person usually in a different
location, not just off screen?
Using “INTERCUT” is what one of the gurus of screenwriting says is
preferred. I think even that is unnecessary. As a reader I know
that the other person isn’t in the room (thus O.S.) so I don’t
really need to see that written down. If fact, when I read OS I
make the assumption that the other person is just off screen, not
in a different location.
If you are writing to shoot yourself, you can consider locations
and cost (you kind of have to) but if you are writing for a sale
I’m not sure that considering the cost of another location should
come into the writing of your story. After all, if there are
already scenes in Character 2’s house, then that set will be
needed anyway.
I would use the simplest method - similar to what Trotter says but
without writing INTERCUT. If it’s essential to the story to show
the other person on the other phone I would write the first half
of the conversation at the first location and then write a new
slugline for the second location when something important happens
there. Let the director and editor decide how to shoot and edit
the scene.
conversation isn’t the other person usually in a different
location, not just off screen?
Using “INTERCUT” is what one of the gurus of screenwriting says is
preferred. I think even that is unnecessary. As a reader I know
that the other person isn’t in the room (thus O.S.) so I don’t
really need to see that written down. If fact, when I read OS I
make the assumption that the other person is just off screen, not
in a different location.
If you are writing to shoot yourself, you can consider locations
and cost (you kind of have to) but if you are writing for a sale
I’m not sure that considering the cost of another location should
come into the writing of your story. After all, if there are
already scenes in Character 2’s house, then that set will be
needed anyway.
I would use the simplest method - similar to what Trotter says but
without writing INTERCUT. If it’s essential to the story to show
the other person on the other phone I would write the first half
of the conversation at the first location and then write a new
slugline for the second location when something important happens
there. Let the director and editor decide how to shoot and edit
the scene.
I think directorik has it just right.
Remember, there's two different animals here: a spec script, which is meant to be sold, and a production script, which is meant to be shot from.
If it's clear to the reader so that the story gets through with the minimum of distraction, unambiguously and without confusion, that's all that's needed for a spec script.
Remember, there's two different animals here: a spec script, which is meant to be sold, and a production script, which is meant to be shot from.
If it's clear to the reader so that the story gets through with the minimum of distraction, unambiguously and without confusion, that's all that's needed for a spec script.
Ya, like Rik said.
It's not OS...that would be weird. It's closer to VO. You want to record each individual with separate audio in different locations (if they are both filmed and both use video, even more perfect). If you only shoot one person, you'll get ADR on the 'other end' voice. And when you use someone's voice as a VO for the 'other end', you can slightly manipulate that audio separately because it's on another track--you will use the real takes and just the audio for the 'other end'.
It's not OS...that would be weird. It's closer to VO. You want to record each individual with separate audio in different locations (if they are both filmed and both use video, even more perfect). If you only shoot one person, you'll get ADR on the 'other end' voice. And when you use someone's voice as a VO for the 'other end', you can slightly manipulate that audio separately because it's on another track--you will use the real takes and just the audio for the 'other end'.
Last edited:
If they are off screen (different location or not) they are O.S. (O.C. for television I believe.)
They are in the scene (ADR or not) and it’s not mechanically reproduced or a narration, so it’s not V.O.
If it doesn’t visually jump to another location it’s not INTERCUT.
If it was straight back and forth INTERCUT, the element of O.S. wouldn’t come into play.
If you listed it as INTERCUT because it is between the two visual locations and we HEAR Character B while we SEE Character A do something that advances the story (that you as the writer are writing, not the Director, not the Editor) then Character B is O.S.
Like wise, if we see Character A do something and (we need for the story) to only hear Character B say something or hear something happening to them, then Character B is O.S.
-Thanks-
They are in the scene (ADR or not) and it’s not mechanically reproduced or a narration, so it’s not V.O.
If it doesn’t visually jump to another location it’s not INTERCUT.
If it was straight back and forth INTERCUT, the element of O.S. wouldn’t come into play.
If you listed it as INTERCUT because it is between the two visual locations and we HEAR Character B while we SEE Character A do something that advances the story (that you as the writer are writing, not the Director, not the Editor) then Character B is O.S.
Like wise, if we see Character A do something and (we need for the story) to only hear Character B say something or hear something happening to them, then Character B is O.S.
-Thanks-
I use V.O. because the character is not, off screen, they are in a different location. I'm not too crazy with the "INTERCUT - TELEPHONE CONVERSATION". The reason I find this weak is because everything happening on screen SHOULD BE important to the story. Dialogue is important but the character's actions are telling me what truly is going on. If nothing is happening then I guess the scene is not needed.
I will usually cut from one location to another (showing the action) if the phone conversation is longer then 4 lines of dialogue.
Technically you could call it a V.O. if/when you reproduce or record their voice in post, but usually one wouldn’t write anything about that process in a script except maybe (filtered) (through phone) or a capped manufactured sound if one wanted to (Or cap a sound that is itself O.S.), so to me… (and I agree to disagree or see it another way, and respect all considerations of other ways and uses no problem) …on the page of script they are under the same slug, exchanging dialogue in the same written scene, so if we are not changing locations visually (INTERCUT) and they are not a narration (because it’s a phone convo), and we don’t see them, but we do hear them, then what is left? O.S.
I like the practicality of the INTERCUT use Charles posted if seeing some of both advances the story.
-Thanks-
I like the practicality of the INTERCUT use Charles posted if seeing some of both advances the story.
-Thanks-
Yes, however...
All V.O.'s are O.S.
BUT
not all O.S. are V.O.'s.
Which makes V.O. a subset of O.S.
O.S. is more generic and therefore less descriptive.
If you can't see the person speaking on the line, yes, they are O.S., but how often in production are they live and being recorded? I doubt it happens very much. The O.S. bit of dialogue is a V.O.
I would go with the more specific, and therefore more concise: V.O.
V.O. is generally used, as far I've seen in studio scripts, for the narrator, as in describing an event or reading something from the book.
O.S., on the other hand, is used for conversation between two characters; it doesn't matter if they are in the same room or are talking on the phone.
O.S., on the other hand, is used for conversation between two characters; it doesn't matter if they are in the same room or are talking on the phone.