Screenwriting : Using (cont’d) in screenplays by Staffan Von Zeipel

I turn off Automatic Character Continueds in Final Draft. It's unnecessary in Specs and adds bloat to the page.

One is correct formatting, including a (cont'd) that can be turned off. There should be a setting in Fade In to toggle it.

Two and three are a bit off. After the Action 'A beat.' the character's name should appear before the dialogue. Or make it a parenthetical (beat).

I prefer using (CONT’D), Staffan Von Zeipel.

Version 3. Early on I was told by a TV MOW writer, everyone knows it's continued, get rid of them. Actually, he used a more colorful directive - one that would make a sailor blush. Still, you need to know what character is speaking, so include the name.

I would still use CONT'D cause it helps the actors. Sometimes actors in plays rehearse and will not know they are still talking because it moved on to the next page. Its kinda a silly thing but it helps. Even with movie actors when they do a read through it helps them understand if they speak again after their initial line. Its a quality of life tool In my opinion.

On

Off

Do keep it. It let's the reader know who's talking. No one at the studio ever had issue with it.

I have had talent ask me if I thought they couldn't read with continueds in the script. Maybe at the point of production, clarify with the director's wishes.

Meanwhile, my rec is to leave them out of the script.

Perhaps re-write the dialogue. Such as :

Mat deliberately turns his hand over revealing his scared thumb.

JESSICA(SMILES)

I remember.

This is just one of many examples. Less is always better and by cutting the dialogue it speeds up the script. Try to get into a scene late as possible and out of it as early as possible. parentheticals should be next to the character's name when you are describing their emotions, etc.

The reader knows who's speaking because their name precedes the dialogue field.

Parentheticals are placed below a character's name.

CHARACTER

(smiles)

I use Final Draft screenwriting program. But many of the other programs have the same format.

Staffan Von Zeipel I don't think this is entirely a formatting question. Basically you want to use (Cont'd) so you know where the scene needs to refocus after your action or during page breaks. (Parenthetical) are really there to imply feeling NOT action. So, ask yourself Why does "Smiles" need to be there? This could seem like you are trying to direct through writing and really seems unneeded. The actor and director can figure it out when it's time to film it. It's the writer's job to convey feeling, mood, and tension through action and dialogue. If you're dialogue is on point, the actor will smile when they say it inherently.

MATS

I still have a scar.

Mats reveals his hand with a pale line etched across the palm.

Jessica gracefully traces it with her fingers.

JESSICA

I remember the sound.

(beat)

Right through.

Her fingers fall off the edge of his palm.

Consider writing it this way. Almost no need for what you currently have.

Happy writing.

Reading down the page, a character speaks, there's an Action then they speak again. Doesn't seem a great deal of refocus is necessary.

CHARACTER

Blah.

They slap their forehead.

CHARACTER

Double blah.

Page-broken Dialogue uses (MORE) at the end of the page then CHARACTER (CONT'D) on the next page to assure continuity.

I would agree though. Many screenwriters overuse Parentheticals. It's an indicator of 'Keyboard Directing."

Keep (cont’d). It's programmed in there for a reason. It doesn't make the page cleaner to remove it. In fact, it probably creates more confusion as visual cues like (cont'd) in a screenplay can serve as useful signals to readers on the flow of the scene.

What Pat said. The (cont’d) adds clarity, so when we read quickly, we don’t think the conversation has passed to the next person.

Plus, that’s the rule. We’ve all learned to write and read like #1.

#3 reads, but can mislead in a conversation where someone speaks twice in a row.

#2 is just wrong. Never put action in the middle of a dialogue block without identifying the speaker again.

Its intent is for production purposes. So, in a shooting script it's helpful. I remove it except for when the same dialogue carries to the next page. Either way, it is a personal preference and no one is going to deny your script whether it is there or not (if they do they shouldn't hold their position).

More egregious is the continuous used in scene headings -- those are very rarely needed and do cause confusion.

Version 1. Def NOT version 2.

Staffan, I wholeheartedly go with #1.

FWIW- trust your actors to know how to take a beat or use punctuation in the dialogue to infer it. If there is a moment where you insist on it and are going to break out of the dialogue, use your writing skill to write a bit of action instead of "beat."

Definitely not version 2.

There's also adding a line return between lines of dialogue to indicate a beat instead of using a parenthetical to note the pause.

I'm for leaving out the beats. One seams the best example, with the beat out.

In Final Draft I've disabled the Mores and Continueds function, having read numerous times they're unnecessary and distracting. In reader reviews I've never been dinged for not having them.

We're in agreement, Caliann Lum, though a muckety-muck here censored a response calling it nonsense that not using (CONT'D) creates confusion and using it improves flow. LOL

I just spent 6 hours rewriting/cleaning up two 2-page pitches (of mine!) that weren't that bad, so I'm all for streamlining and making a read easier. But the more pro-scripts I read, the more I've seen all the rules broken at one time or another. The main thing I've noticed is (most) pro-scripts read clean - I'm just reading, I'm not thinking about style or asides or weird things going on in the document. I'm able to just take in what's going on in the "movie" in my head. So when I read my own scripts, I throw out as much sh__ as I'm able to recognize, like it's someone else's script! That's the best I can do.

Thanks a lot everyone — really appreciate all the perspectives!

It’s actually kind of reassuring to see there’s no “one right way,” just different habits depending on whether you’re writing specs, shooting scripts, or thinking of the actors.

I guess the main takeaway for me is to keep the pages clean and make sure the reader never has to stop and wonder who’s speaking. That part makes total sense.

So thanks again for all the insights — feels like I’ve just learned more about (CONT’D) than I ever thought I would! :-)

2 is a definite no. Regardless of what you do with the mores and continueds, consider putting that "a beat" in parentheses (beat), centered in Jessica's second comment. Avoids reader eyeballs rolling left and right, and avoids a second "cont'd." Not sure where I entered the conversation but missed the 1, 2, 3 thing. Sorry. ;-). Good luck!

Instead of have A beat on the left margin, make it a parenthetical. Character speaks, and underneath that use (a beat) and then under that continue the dialogue. The way you're using "a beat" is character direction.

Try to be a bit more creative. In lieu of (beat), try (thinks), etc.

Or add a return between lines of dialogue to indicate a pause.

Keep the formatting for cont'd, but insert (a beat) as parenthetical instead of action, then you will have less repetition concerning "cont'd".

LOL

I stopped using (cont'd) when i was using it for page breaks which kept changing. I try, as I said in a previous post, to keep directions and descriptions to a minimum. Ironic since I open the series, the pilot episode, with what some have said could be a dangerously too long description of the house that becomes the setting for the action. I could consider streaming it down. But generally I expect readers to know who's talking and what they're saying by simply having their name and the lines. I trust my staff and I also respect their need for less clutter.

Don't follow Sherry's advice - it's everything you should never do.

The amount of bad advice around here sometimes overwhelms.

Thanks everyone! Opinions differ, but this helped. I know which direction to take now. Much appreciated.

The reason it's truly necessary to include CONT'D next to the character name when the same character continues speaking after an action line, is that readers-- especially professional script readers, who read quickly-- pick up on the back-and-forth rhythm of a script's dialogue between two characters, and if you don't indicate that the same one is still speaking, it is very easy to misread this and assume the other character is responding to the previous comment. Without CONT'D, this disrupts the reading experience and causes brief confusion, and the reader, who has been cruising along, has to back up a line and read it again.

It is not automatically obvious which character is speaking without that, because that requires some guesswork-- and the less guesswork a reader has to do when reading a script, the better. Even when it is obvious who was speaking after the reader backs up a line and figures it out, that instant of confusion is something to be avoided. Leaving out CONT'D is not standard. Also it is mandatory to retype the character's name for all dialogue, whether in this situation, or any other. Using screenwriting software such as Final Draft makes this easy to do. For the example above, I'd also suggest removing all the "wrylies" and "a beat". Let the actors decide how to read their lines-- and if a pause is truly mandatory, then use ellipses-- or action-- instead.

Clarity is your number one mission in writing any script, and it's important to know how quickly pro readers read. CONT'D is actually a very important notation that makes the jobs of the industry folks reading your script a lot easier, and speeds up-- rather than slows down-- the reading experience. It's not an example of something that should be cut to make a script shorter or more efficient. There are many other things I see in scripts that should be cut, as I've noted, but CONT'D is not one of them. The audience for your script is professional script readers (and the producers or reps they work for), so it's important to know what their expectations are in terms of formatting, and what makes the reading experience most efficient for them.

Staton Rabin this is incorrect, I have been a professional reader for 15 years.

Oh, my. Well ...

In spec screenwriting, every choice on the page is a signal to the reader: I understand the craft, I respect your time, and I know how the industry expects material to look. The use of “(CONT'D)” in dialogue headers has become a small but telling deviation from modern spec formatting norms. While it once served a useful function to clarify a character’s line continues after action interruption, its presence today tends to hurt more than help.

Professional readers treat dialogue continuity as implicit. If a character speaks, then action intervenes, then the character speaks again, readers understand it’s a continuation of the thought. The function of “(CONT'D)” has been absorbed by visual rhythm and common sense.

Too, there’s a philosophical shift under the trend of contemporary screenwriting leans toward invisible technique. Great specs feel like movies in the mind. “(CONT'D)” is a relic of typewriter-era logistics, where page breaks and manual formatting justified explicit markers. In a digital age, it's unneeded. When competing against writers who treat white space with reverence, unnecessary notation looks amateurish and anxious as if the writer fears being misunderstood. Too, it denies that screenwriting is organic. (CONT'D) is the screenwriting equivalent of high button shoes and buggy whips.

Industry pros notice these signals. Assistants, managers, story analysts are conditioned to spot the difference between a clean, confident script and one weighed down by legacy artifacts. While no script is rejected solely for using or not using “(CONT'D),” it's seldom a neutral choice. In the silent math of reader psychology, it subtly erodes trust. The collective message is: the writer who uses (CONT'D) studied template more than taste.

Ultimately, omitting “(CONT'D)” aligns with the principle that form should disappear. Let the words and scenes move. Let the characters speak without a bloated escort. A modern spec respects the reader’s fluency and prioritizes pace, confidence, and clarity over clerical thoroughness. If the writing is strong, the continuity will take care of itself.

Staton Rabin https://www.stage32.com/profile/718635/about Your comments make me reconsider use of (CONT'D), particularly for page breaks that occur after a period. Thanks.

Is there an official publication that has current rules on formatting?

You're not going to miss anything important if you use Final Draft or other reliable screenwriting software.

I use what the industry dictates (#1), but #3 looks okay to my eyes. #2, definitely not.

This has been a fascinating thread. I have to admit that this was something I never actually noticed, (or has come up with the people I've collaborated with) and now I can't unsee it. There's no denying that a page can look a lot cleaner without it, and the purpose of them, especially in a spec, is hard to argue.

Laurie summed it up a month ago though. Nothing like this should make a difference to a pro reader, and if it does, they really shouldn't be reading at that level. A competition reader in the first round of a mostly unknown comp? I can totally see them jumping to conclusions over superficialities. But then, I can see one going the other way too and blowing a blood vessel because someone dared to question anything Final Draft does by default.

The whole white-space thing is getting too obsessive for me. There's people on Reddit pretty much resorting to prose that reads like bad haiku because they believe less is always more.

This thread makes me want to take them out, but Sod's/Murphey's Law dictates that, if I do, I'm going to forget to reenable them in a production draft and a producer IS going to suddenly reveal they treasure them dearly.

Robert Sacchi, there's no official standard. That's half the problem. The Internet is a hyperbolic paranoia machine. Comments can make something trivial sound like the difference between life and death. In all the years I've seen debating superficial stuff like this, I've never had a producer/director/actor comment on anything other than how I'd formatted a montage, and that was simply to make sure the scheduling software picked up all the slug lines.

Thank you C.J. Walley. I appreciate your answer.

....

cuts across his thumb.

JESSICA

(smiles)

I remember the sound.

(A BEAT)

Thank. Right through.

https://youtu.be/P8TbgOwJ6hU?si=ZgOKmF72vmaSe4Uz

I think beat should be in parenthetical. Then, you don't have to put cont'd. You go on with the line.