Screenwriting : Voice over narration in script by Rick Wheeler

Hi, Rick Wheeler. I'm not sure what you mean by "are voiceover narration at the top of scenes."

where the scene starts with a voice over over the action, being narrated by the characters. does that make sense Maurice Vaughan

nah, they definitely aren't a no-go universally. that being said, you have to be more clever about how you utilize voiceover like this because it got really played out in the 00s. my only advice is that if you're going VO, have a very strong voice for the narrator and get creative with it. perhaps make up your own way of doing VO that is unconventional and at least tries to evolves the tactic (easier said than done, i know).

Oh ok, Rick Wheeler. I see what you mean. I agree with what Pat said. I'd probably use VO narration in a scene to help set up a mystery, mislead the reader, or foreshadow something in the story. Or I'd do something creative with the VO like Pat mentioned.

Voice-overs are a truly unique cinematic Story Element. I would argue they give an authenticity to a Story that cannot be replicated by another Story Element. For instance, if we strip the Voice-Over of Sarah Connor from Terminator 2, that movies loses a lot of its Thematic Power and Resonance with the Audience. Also, can you imagine stripping out the voice-overs from Clueless? There's a beauty and quality in voice-overs that resonate with the Audience that massages the soul like Poetical Potpourri. How about taking the voice-over from The Shawshank Redemption? They are especially powerful when the Protagonist is NOT the Main Character in a story - for example - When we follow Watson who narrates to the audience about the genius of Sherlock Holmes. I would strongly suggest you add the Voice-Overs and see if they remain after subsequent rewrites. The beauty of voice-overs is they are VERY EASY to remove and they don't ESPECIALLY "affect" Structure as much.

The industry loves everything done at an expert level. I have scene a few VO lately. They made me smile as I imagined everyone that said “they’ll get your screenplay thrown across the room” twitching in some form of cognitive overload.

Craig D Griffiths i love visualizing execs throwing scripts across the room and twitching crazily LOL

Dan Guardino i think it really depends on what you're saying in the VO. if you're just like "this happened, then that happened, then this is that and that is the other..." then yeah that's just telling instead of showing. whereas if you add a distinct voice with a unique perspective that spices up the VO and can present the facts in an original way with a clear point view, then that can maybe work

I use V.O. whenever they are called for, especially if the voice not on the screen has something of importance to say.

Thank you all for weighing in. I asked because I had a very distinct voice I wanted to use. with some creativity, I was able to rewrite the scene without the voice over and I think it’s stronger for it. thank you all for your time.

The actor playing Robert McKee offered VO advice in "Adaptation":

"...and God help you if you use voiceover in your work, my friends. God help you. That's flaccid, sloppy writing. Any idiot can write a voiceover narration to explain the thoughts of a character."

Thanks for the definition?

Doesn't anybody watch movies. Especially satires. Odd for a gaggle of screenwriters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQgHNnlmErg

You're welcome, Rick Wheeler.

Read the screenplay for The Godfather and see how Puzo did it.

There’s a difference from V.O. where a character is talking over a scene or montage and V.O. from a narrator. I’m assuming that Rick Wheeler is speaking about narrator voice over like with Shawshank or the X-Files.

Red's narration in "The Shawshank Redemption" is First Person. The differences are First Person versus Third Person Omniscient. The latter observes the story, like Hopkins in "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas."

Narration, v.o. etc. is very easy to do but very difficult to do well. If it is just for exposition it can be seen as lazy, but if it serves a genuine purpose to enhance the narrative it can be a good addition.

E Langley so was the X-Files. Voice over is usually done by one of the characters from the story. Apocalypse Now is another example. Sometime it’s a character that is only shown briefly and then retells an adventure that was told to them..

That's a really good question, Rick Wheeler . I've been struggling with a script for years, trying to avoid using V.O. narration because I'd read that it's overused. But because my story relies on mysticism, fantasy, and historical elements, I finally broke down and tried V.O. narration.

Just got the script back from my editor. She said it was just what the story needed. In this case, the narrator amplifies tone, theme, and offers a little back story. She's a distinctive character who will appear in the story.

I learned a lot from the narrator of The Big Lebowski and del Toro's Pinocchio. That said, I think V.O. doesn't work when it "tells" the story in place of "showing" dramatic scenes.

Christopher, your examples are First Person. See the posted example for Third Person Omniscient. Or, "The Royal Tenenbaums," (Alec Baldwin) "Barry Lyndon," (Michael Hordern) among others. None of these examples have the narrator onscreen. At all.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/point-of-view-first-second-third...

Two examples of third person Narrator: The Lobster (2015)

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

"The English Teacher."

Pan's Labyrinth. Amelie. Magnolia.

Maybe the conclusion is that having a truly third person narrator still works.

1) Absolutely nobody can tell you how the majority of the industry feels about anything, not even those at the top.

2) When advice is presented as a dogmatic rule, it's rarely based in craft.

Do whatever makes you happy. You are the writer.

Well Said CJ Walley Christopher Phillips

Christopher Phillips In all of the above films, it works for me!