OK, time for another question, regarding script

[uncle_al]

Yes, format continues to evolve... much like the virus in Crichton's The Andromeda Strain.  If we're lucky -- and that would take a whole lotta luck -- we can get a handle on what works now.

Cheers!

Al B.

[Write Or Wrong]

My understanding is that "we see" and "we hear" have evolved out of current usage, for the reasons Don indicated.  Just as writers used to stick a lot of camera angles and direction instructions into their screenplays, that sort of thing is just passe now.

However, screenplays don't evolve once they've been written and produced, and veteran screenwriters tend to stick to the way they
learned the craft when they were up and coming youngsters.  Which I think is a large part of the reason that new writers tend to be confused by what is the 'correct' way -- and all the other ways that aren't.  What I try to do is find the most recently published resources to tell me the trends in screenplay form.  And I try not to get complacent.  This art of ours is an animal that is always evolving, shifting, morphing.  Run for your lives!   

Mike

[ScriptNurse]

For me, this is more of an issue where the impact from the writing is diluted. It's the equivalent of "John is sitting." It really says nothing, isn't visual and is passive writing ... it's better to say that "John sits, toying with his spoon in his coffee." That tells what "we" see on the screen. "We see" is reserved mostly for the old-guard of writers that studios and producers already know. I prefer trying to provide as much visual information as possible.

[Chuck58]

That's what I've read in the books about screenplay writing. I guess it depends on who you are and your track record as to whether it's acceptable. I'll continue to lean on the side of caution and keep 'we see' out of mine.

[ScriptNurse]

I am not a fan of the "we see" in scripts, mostly because "we" don't see anything. Action description is supposed to describe what is on the movie screen and that doesn't include "we see." It's also weak and passive writing, which should be avoided like the plague.

[Chuck58]

I just finished a couple of hours of reading (action only) portions of a couple of scripts, and skimmed two or three others. Now, I'm puzzled.

I've read in many places that we shouldn't use - well - 'we' in the action. Yet, in every one of the scripts I just read or skimmed, I see stuff like, "If this was thirty years ago, we'd see kids ..., but it isn't. It's now and we see..."

Or, 'We see his blue eyes in the rear view mirror."

I can see a number of places in my current abomination that being able to use We would sure make the writing smoother.