WE SEE the car explode

[alexwhitmer]

I read a lot of scripts, both feature and short. A major pet peeve is the use of WE SEE and WE HEAR. Who the hell is WE?



'The car turns the corner on two wheels. We see the driver panic.'


'Mary watches television. We hear a doorbell.' So, we didn't hear the TV?



Is someone looking over my shoulder as I read this script? Seriously, nothing takes me out of a story faster than these confounded WE-isms. Camera direction is bad enough, but this!! Course, then there is the combination ...


'We dolly back as Ming climbs over the fence, where we see the boogy Man lying in wait.'


Imagine Stephen King or Mark Twian doing that. It's really the same effect.


Does it stop there? Nope. Worst case to date: having one of my screenplays sent to an 'Editor' and the clown adds in we see and we hear and we go. Man does he need his ass kicked for that.

a

 

[Andy Jarosz]

It's a legitimate screenwriting technique, the "we" referring to you as an audience. It's not to be used constantly, all the time, but it does have it's uses.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Are you talking about shooting script or writer's script?

When describing things like WE DOLLY BACK, "WE" represents the viewers/filmmakers depending on what context it's being used in. I actually don't mind it at all. However, as you know it's bad practice to have specific camera moves or shooting lingo in a writer's script. Should only be in a shooting/director's script.

Can you give an example of where they replaced your writing? It will be interesting to see which version makes us feel more like we're watching the movie as we read it.

 

[Brad Webb]

It's a legitimate screenwriting technique, the "we" referring to you as an audience. It's not to be used constantly, all the time, but it does have it's uses.

It's a poor screenwriting technique. Yes, there are some times when it is correct to use "We See." However, most of the time the script would be better without it. Instead of writing "We see the car explode". You write "The car EXPLODES." Less words, action verb, and excitement.

 

[Shawn Booth]

Alex - what's up bro? Long time...

Shooting scripts are loaded with camera direction and WE's... It's what happens on every show I've ever been on.

But what's worse than those 2 things is the use of the verb "to be" in scripts. If you can't write a sentence (other than dialogue) without "is" and/or "are", your sentence is weak and needs to be rewritten. Of course, you see it in almost every single script out there...

It's a poor screenwriting technique.

No, it is not. It has its place in the production pipeline. Shooting script.

. Less words, action verb, and excitement.

Yes yes yes yes yes...

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

But what's worse than those 2 things is the use of the verb "to be" in scripts. If you can't write a sentence (other than dialogue) without "is" and/or "are", your sentence is weak and needs to be rewritten. Of course, you see it in almost every single script out there...

It's not worse, "We see" is hokey, lazy and stupid writing, just because it shows up in shooting scripts doesn't make it good writing.
Especially when the writer puts camera moves in the script, unless you are also the director or the director made you put it in there stuff like that should really be left for the shot list.

 

[Shane Betts]

IMHO, it's the writer's job is to convey the camera direction and the cutting without anyone else getting wise to it. So using words like dolly or pan shows a flaw in the writing because you are telling the director "this is what I want you to do" and that's going to be greeted with a black marker pen right off the bat. Worst thing about that is that, you, the writer, are not going to get your vision across. There are technical reasons not to use terms like camera, dolly, we see etc, but the best reason I can think of, as a writer, is that whatever else you've put in that sentence will be ignored.

Same as my other pet peeve; writers who say they don't count pages. They write a three minute scene on one page, or a 30 second scene across three and then bitch because "the director got the pacing wrong". Nobody's fault but the writer.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

As someone who has directed my own stuff and written things for others I am more interested in seeing how a different director will interpret my writing then expecting them to achieve my vision based on what I write.
If I see a writer put camera direction in a script my first thought is "Don't tell me how to shoot this movie" and then I get over myself and delete that part.

 

[alexwhitmer]

Not trying to sound snobbish, but the use of we, ING verbs and To Be is superfluous at best, and screams mediocre writing skills at worst. Not that it cannot happen on occasion in a screenplay. I do it (not the WE part) and I also use POV and CU, but a script rife with such 'techniques' is lazy, and personally, it makes reading ardoous with all the extra words. So much of this is between the actors and the director. It's not really a writer's job to write every footstep, every turn of the head, and so on. 'She heads for the restroom' would, by default, require her to stand. How she stands is interpretive based on the story, and the chemistry that is churning on set. In my opinion, anyways. I'm usually corrected, though.


aw

 

[Elsie N]

... So much of this is between the actors and the director. It's not really a writer's job to write every footstep, every turn of the head, and so on. 'She heads for the restroom' would, by default, require her to stand. How she stands is interpretive based on the story, and the chemistry that is churning on set. In my opinion, anyways. I'm usually corrected, though.


aw

Pretty much agree with this, although I do like to describe the setting in some detail, much like stage direction in a play. While expecting to direct my own material, I like to put something down as I first visualize it. I will probably change it later.

I sometimes add detailed notes to my scenes (Celtx allows for notecards) about how I picture an actor performing the scene and even shot selection. That too is subject to change later.

I realize this is a different situation than the one you are describing, but I'm just offering a defense of a director changing a script to conform to his or her way of working.

 

[Kalani Prince]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Z-3VUE9ec

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

Later, we see Travis' taxi speeding down the rain-slicked
avenue. The action is periodically accompanied by Travis'
narration. He is reading from a haphazard personal diary.

TRAVIS (V.O.)
(monotone)
April 10, 1972. Thank God for the
rain which has helped wash the
garbage and trash off the sidewalks.

6.


TRAVIS' POV of sleazy midtown side street: Bums, hookers,
junkies.

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

Some more awful, awful writing.




THE GODFATHER

While this remains, we hear: "I believe in America."
Suddenly we are watching in CLOSE VIEW, AMERIGO BONASERA, a
man of sixty, dressed in a black suit, on the verge of great
emotion.

BONASERA
America has made my fortune.

As he speaks, THE VIEW imperceptibly begins to loosen.

BONASERA
I raised my daughter in the American
fashion; I gave her freedom, but
taught her never to dishonor her
family. She found a boy friend,
not an Italian. She went to the
movies with him, stayed out late.
Two months ago he took her for a
drive, with another boy friend.
They made her drink whiskey and
then they tried to take advantage
of her. She resisted; she kept her
honor. So they beat her like an
animal. When I went to the hospital
her nose was broken, her jaw was
shattered and held together by
wire, and she could not even weep
because of the pain.

He can barely speak; he is weeping now.

BONASERA
I went to the Police like a good
American. These two boys were
arrested and brought to trial. The
judge sentenced them to three years
in prison, and suspended the
sentence. Suspended sentence!
They went free that very day. I
stood in the courtroom like a fool,
and those bastards, they smiled at
me. Then I said to my wife, for
Justice, we must go to The Godfather.

By now, THE VIEW is full, and we see Don Corleone's office
in his home.

The blinds are closed, and so the room is dark, and with
patterned shadows. We are watching BONASERA over the
shoulder of DON CORLEONE. TOM HAGEN sits near a small
table, examining some paperwork, and SONNY CORLEONE stands
impatiently by the window nearest his father, sipping from a
glass of wine. We can HEAR music, and the laughter and
voices of many people outside.

 

[Yuval Shrem]

Yes, here are a few excerpts. And this is a writer's script, not a shooting script.

Mine ...

EXT: PARK - DAY

Example deleted for copyright reasons.

EXT. STREET - DAY

Example deleted for copyright reasons.


The editor's version ...

EXT: PARK - DAY

Example deleted for copyright reasons.

EXT. STREET - DAY

Example deleted for copyright reasons.


Note the abundance of ING verbs as well.


Mine ...

Example deleted for copyright reasons.

The editor's version ...

Example deleted for copyright reasons.


And here we have the dreadful 'to be' verb ARE and the dreadful adverb abuse. Also, 'Waiter' is the character heading, so putting 'the waiter' is like saying ' the Susan'.


Mine ...

Example deleted for copyright reasons.

Thiers ...

Example deleted for copyright reasons..


11 words hopped up to 34 - that's 3 times the words, with a healthy dump of redundancy.


Not trying to sound snobbish, but the use of we, ING verbs and To Be is superfluous at best, and screams mediocre writing skills at worst. Not that it cannot happen on occasion in a screenplay. I do it (not the WE part) and I also use POV and CU, but a script rife with such 'techniques' is lazy, and personally, it makes reading ardoous with all the extra words. So much of this is between the actors and the director. It's not really a writer's job to write every footstep, every turn of the head, and so on. 'She heads for the restroom' would, by default, require her to stand. How she stands is interpretive based on the story, and the chemistry that is churning on set. In my opinion, anyways. I'm usually corrected, though.


aw

The biggest problem with the editor's version is the redundancy. The use of "We see" or "We hear" in a script makes no sense, becuae a screenplay only includes what we see and what we hear.
However, there is one exception to that rule, and that is when the audience ("we") can see or hear something that the characters cannot see or hear.

While the editor's writing is indeed mediocre, redundant and uses "ing" and "We see" inappropriately, I do see what he was trying to do in some of the cases.
Before you can write: "More leg rubbing, hands caressing.", you have to establish that there was leg rubbing and hand caressing. If you don't do that, it can get confusing (the fact that you say "More") and throw the reader out of the story.

As a screenplay needs to be easy to read and understand, I can also agree with your editor, that writing "The waiter leaves" is easier to understand quickly than "Waiter exits", because it is clearer that it is THE waiter (not another one), and because it is structured as a more normal sentence, rather than an almost cryptic statement (talking from a grammar standpoint).

Personally, I absolutely NEVER use "CU" or any other camera terminology, unless there is no other way to communicate it.
The way you used POV being the exception, as there is no better, or more transparent way to describe it there; but following the concept that a screenplay should describe what we see and hear, when I want the camera to pull back, I start with describing what I want to see in the closeup, and then start describing the surroundings. If there is a major reveal as a result of the camera move, there is almost no way around the royal "We" in the phrase "as we pull back", unless you simply describe the content of the closeup (without writing "CU"), and then writinging something like "for a moment it looks like"... "but in fact"... or "but then WE SEE"...
As I said, very hard to avoid in some cases, but surely should be attempted.

Anyway, I hope this helps...

All the best,

Yuval

 

[Gabe Conroy]

John August's take on it.

 

[Paolo Tinari]

Some more awful, awful writing.

Good point, "we see" is so 70.

 

[Kalani Prince]

"We see dead people"

 

[Andy Jarosz]

Does this mean we should agree that different techniques work for different writers and that we should allow that writer to use any method he deems creatively necessary to convey the message and story?

 

[James T Mather]

"I see fat people"

 

[Elsie N]

"I see fat people"

:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5::emote_head_explode: