Breaking the rules: omitting slug lines

[Jijenji]

I would appreciate feedback on this idea for my current script:

The Climax of the film is a long scene, maybe 5-10 pages.
It starts in a building, then moves out into the streets.
At that point, it splits into two different scenes.
I'm going to use an intercut here.

Both "scenes" flow through the streets of a city,
but then one moves into a building, and the main action of the other
moves into a building as well.

Since it's the climax of the film and very fast paced,
I think it would be wise to omit those two INT. slug lines.
Keep the pace flowing, not slow the read down.

What do you guys think?

 

[2001 Productions]

I’m saying that very often after a producer/exec has read the coverage they will skim over much of the action and read the dialogue.

Part of the reason for this, I'd be willing to bet, is the exec is thinking about which star might work in the role and is the star going to demand more lines.

(Tongue planted in cheek, but only slightly. )

 

[VPTurner]

For me it depends who is your audience on the script. With all the cut INT. part you are doing the editing before the story really flows. You might realize that after filming the cuts can go in different places to make the film flow.

From the directors view it might be easier to have the 2 parallel scenes described separately to be planned properly.
To describe the story you can break the rule, but if you do lots of cuts it will be really hard to understand and visualise it from the words anyway.

There's a common thread in everything I've read and heard over the years. The spec writer is not the editor nor the director. A spec writer's audience is always the reader. Always. Because even directors and editors "read". The job of the writer in the spec stage is to tell the story, not dictate how it should be shot or edited or acted. All that comes after the sale. A spec script is not a shooting script unless it's the director who's writing it. But even then the director would be more apt to focus on story from what I've seen. I have a First Draft of Spielberg's Poltergeist and a shooting script of Spielberg's Close Encounters. Both are very different in their approach even though it's the same writer, just different stages of the screenplays.

The sluglines are already a quick shorthand to tell you when and where the action is taking place. But I like the technique of the shortened sluglines because it really picks up the pace of the read and allows focus on the important elements. It gives the impression of parallel action if you're flipping among locations within a location as if you had said, "Meanwhile, IN THE COURTHOUSE", "Meanwhile, IN THE STAIRWELL". It works well with a foot chase sequence that can take you quickly from one space to another, and you're flipping between pursuer and pursued where the persued is a step or two ahead. I established the "master" headings first, and then cut them back and forth ala Syd Field method.

But if this is something I need to unlearn or modify in my way of thinking, directorik, as I said, I am all ears.

And I did study Syd Field a long time ago, and still look at his updated teachings occasionally. So that could explain why I locked onto the slugline shorthand as illustrated above. But for the most part lately I've been focusing on the teachings of Karl Iglesias and John Truby. And I enjoy reading Blake Snyder's books. He just published another one.

So much to learn, so little time and so much competition.