Editing Cues

[Jijenji]

I know that it is usually a bad idea to put in editing cues in a spec.
However, suppose the following two cases:

1. There is a jump ahead in time, or a dramatic change in tension at the beginning or end of a sequence and you want to fade the picture to black for a split second before the next scene starts. Would this be acceptable to write in? And what cue would you use?

2. You want two scenes briefly superimposed on each other. One scene is ending, the other starting. Is this acceptable to write in? And what cue would you use?

Thanks in advance.

 

[directorik]

I know that it is usually a bad idea to put in editing cues in a spec.
However, suppose the following two cases:

1. There is a jump ahead in time, or a dramatic change in tension at the beginning or end of a sequence and you want to fade the picture to black for a split second before the next scene starts. Would this be acceptable to write in? And what cue would you use?

This is a visual cue you would like to see in the final film. If
the director chose not to fade to black for a split second before
the next scene starts would your story change? If the story
itself would suffer without that fade to black then you must
put it in the script. If it's only a visual you think would look
good, leave it out.

2. You want two scenes briefly superimposed on each other. One scene is ending, the other starting. Is this acceptable to write in? And what cue would you use?

Called a "dissolve" my previous question applies here, too. If
there isn't a dissolve will it change your story?

Believe me, I know how difficult it is to separate your visual
ideas from your story. It's a screenplay not a novel. If your
script is excellent with a great story and compelling characters
a few editing cues won't sink it. If you can write the story
without them, it's better. But it's not a deal breaker. Try the
scene without them. If you feel your story suffers, but them
back.

 

[Jijenji]

Thanks Rik for the help.

The dissolve (ex. #2) is essential and comes very late in the script.
I am comfortable with it because, one, it is essential,
and two, at that point the reader will either like the story or not.

The first cue does come on page 4 though.
I would like to leave it in because there is a long gap in time
between the opening and the next sequence, some twenty years.
A dramatic difference in tension.
And the main character goes from 10 years old to 29.

There are no other editing cues in the script besides those two.

If you were reading the script, as a professional, would it bother you to see the first cue?
Or would the way I described it make it seem resonable?
Or do you recommend just moving on to the next slug line like normal?

 

[caseyhein]

It would make more sense to me to see the next slug line include 20 years later, instead of a simple fade out fade in. I assume the next slugline addresses the time change anyway. You could super impose 20 years later, which would get the point across with no chance of misunderstanding.

 

[directorik]

I’d bet it’s not as essential as you think it is.

Think how your story will change - not the shot, the story - if a
director choses not to use a dissolve, but choses a different
method. If you are right and dissolve is the ONLY way to tell your
story, then it’s essential.

When I read a script, especially when I was getting paid to cover
scripts, it bothers me.

When I read a script as a director, it bothers me. My recommendation
is to just go to the next slug line. I assume your writing and your
story is good enough without using editing terms in the script.

 

[2001 Productions]

Plus, using a dissolve is not the only way to suggest the passing of time. It's the traditional one, certainly; but, as a director, I would likely make a point of NOT using a dissolve for that very reason, whether it's in the script or not.

 

[Jijenji]

It would make more sense to me to see the next slug line include 20 years later, instead of a simple fade out fade in. I assume the next slugline addresses the time change anyway. You could super impose 20 years later, which would get the point across with no chance of misunderstanding.

I'm not a fan of sups on screen unless there is no other way.
IMO I see a lot of lazy use of these.

Yes, I have added in the years in the slug lines.
Not every one, but when there is a change, I note it.
I've seen some people say never do this, and then I've read pro scripts where it is done.
So I don't think there is a standard answer for that, as far as I've seen.

I think it's just easier to add the years when there is a time change.
When you are watching a film and part of it takes place in a different era than another part,
you can just visually see the difference. Rather than type an entire paragraph
to describe things that are irrelevant to the story,
I think it makes more sense to just say:

EXT. LOCATION - DAY (1983)

Rather than add in a bunch of description of why the scene looks like its in the 80's.

Can you show that on the screen (without sups)?
I'd argue yes, you can shoot it differently than the present.
The clothes the people are wearing are different, the buildings, the hairstyles, etc.
But typing that? If it's not part of the story, it's just easier to say the year IMO.

But what does everyone else think?

Add: Just want to add that when it is part of the story, of course it is written in.

 

[Jijenji]

I’d bet it’s not as essential as you think it is.

Think how your story will change - not the shot, the story - if a
director choses not to use a dissolve, but choses a different
method. If you are right and dissolve is the ONLY way to tell your
story, then it’s essential.

In this case, I do think that the dissolve near the end of the film is essential.

When I read a script, especially when I was getting paid to cover
scripts, it bothers me.

When I read a script as a director, it bothers me. My recommendation
is to just go to the next slug line. I assume your writing and your
story is good enough without using editing terms in the script.

Thanks Rik, I appreciate your perspective.
I think I am leaning toward dropping the first cue.

Plus, using a dissolve is not the only way to suggest the passing of time. It's the traditional one, certainly; but, as a director, I would likely make a point of NOT using a dissolve for that very reason, whether it's in the script or not.

The dissolve that I have late in the story, yes it does involve a time change.
But that is secondary. There is a unity of two stories and two characters that comes together
at exactly those two moments.