Scripts AND Camera Angles

I think this might seem a stupid question but I have just go to ask it anyway...does it make sense to plan your shots to script and if yes...I mean something like turning the script into an AV at least before storyboarding or animatics..and if yes how?

I'd like a suitation where I can just start 'sketching' out my type of shots/camera angles before the storyboards starts then to the animatics.

'fight scenes', 'chase scenes' e.t.c is another topic I'd really like to going into but I'll rather save that for later... Embarassed

Many people eschew the inclusion of camera direction into scripts. Ostesibly because the script is expected to be shot by persons other than the author. Since I shoot all of my own scripts, the inclusion of CLOSE ON, ANGLE ON, MCU etc in my scripts would be perfectly acceptable. However, I tend not to do this and just describe the scene fairly generically. Once I am ready to start doing shot breakdowns, I use a sketchbook to make several orthographic views of a set - Many times I do this after I know the location, but not always.

Once I have that completed I am ready to storyboard the scene. I do this in a 3D application. I build the virtual set and place the talent in the set. I then start to play with the lighting and once I have a reasonable starting point, I start to examine camera angles. I try the angles that are obvious to me that I think will best tell the story in an exciting and engaging fashion. Then I start to try non-obvious angles / movements.

Once I am satisfied with my result I can create an animatic that shows how the scene will be shot and lit. Once on the set, I may discover new things and throw away the animatic.

Anyway, that is my process.

_________________
Pontificatious Ramblings

I agree with shaughan. I've always found it beneficial to have the script focus only on the story, and not the technical aspects of production. Once the script is locked, the director should go through and do a break-down for shots and other things. If you're both writing and directing, then I suggest you follow this process as well.

As a writer, if you write a scene clearly and descriptively enough, then you'll start to find that certain camera angles will naturally reveal themselves.

J

_________________
www.JasonDenzel.com
www.Argonaut-Ent.com

Also in the event that you ever write a script you want to *gasp* try to sell... they generally don't want to see any kind of direction (camera or otherwise) included.

U guyz are getting it all wrong. If will be impossible for me to sketch camera angles on a script which I am trying to pitch. This is totally wrong when it comes to scriptwriting...

What I am trying to say is if I was the one directing. I appreciate your replies guyz...thank you so much.

If I may ask shaughan, what animatic software do you use... Cool

I think you should keep them separate. Even if you are both writing and directing, write your script "properly" which is without the direction and camera movement. Then you can take that script and do anything you want with it. Add in notes, camera angles, and whatever else to YOUR OWN copy, then no one else has to see them, and then get confused when they expect it to be the way they saw in the script and now you are doing something different.

There is no "right way" or "wrong way". But the IS the "way it is done". And there is a reason for that. It works. Again, this gets back to "knowing the rules so you can break them". You are just starting off by breaking the "rules". There are a hundred different reasons to do it the way it is usually done. There is only one reason to do it your way - because you are writing/directing.

That said, of course you can do it any way you want, and nobody here with try to stop you or think any less of you. (If you tried to sell or even just write a script for someone else that has these directions, the script would either not sell or you would be thought less of.

Last edited by Gage on Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

What I have done in the past is put my copy of the script into a 3-ring binder, and then drawn a rough sketch of the scene on the backside of the opposing page... so on the back of page 1, I'd have a sketch for what's on page 2.

That keeps the script and storyboard/sketch/camera plan/etc in one place.. I think perhaps we're misunderstanding what exactly you're driving at here.

Lightwave

_________________
Pontificatious Ramblings

GageFX wrote:

I think you should keep them separate. Even if you are both writing and directing, write your script "properly" which is without the direction and camera movement. Then you can take that script and do anything you want with it. Add in notes, camera angles, and whatever else to YOUR OWN copy, then no one else has to see them, and then get confused when they expect it to be the way they saw in the script and now you are doing something different.

There is no "right way" or "wrong way". But the IS the "way it is done". And there is a reason for that. It works. Again, this gets back to "knowing the rules so you can break them". You are just starting off by breaking the "rules". There are a hundred different reasons to do it the way it is usually done. There is only one reason to do it your way - because you are writing/directing.

That said, of course you can do it any way you want, and nobody here with try to stop you or think any less of you. (If you tried to sell or even just write a script for someone else that has these directions, the script would either not sell or you would be thought less of.

-GageFX

What is seldom taken into account in discussing film industry standard practices is how many of them are really the result of historical accident. After the fact it's simply assumed that they are used becase they are the most practicable, fittest way of doing things, & arguments for their inevitability are trotted out. 24 fps, for example. Script stylistics for another. (Of course a great deal of pains are expended in the movie industry degrading the role of the writer as *auteur* of a film, wrongheadedly in my opinion; & no wonder scripts are such bastardised little pieces of literature even compared to their theatrical cousins.)

That being said, even if industry-standard scripting practices work optimally for the industrial mode of production, they may be highly unsuitable for another mode of production--for instance, the highly individual sort of filmmaking many independent filmmakers pursue. I refer to independent filmmaking conceived not as studio filmmaking sans money, but as a different animal altogether.

I personally find it most liberating to reject as much of the jargon, theory, traditions, & assumptions of Hollywood as I can.

'kk01': We use a sort of A/V script. I recall Peter Greenaway somewhere having described his scripts as being filled with all sorts of tangential information: smells, neurological undercurrents.

_________________
http://www.rubyquincunx.org

	Ruby Quincunx wrote:
	I personally find it most liberating to reject as much of the jargon, theory, traditions, & assumptions of Hollywood as I can.

Liberating though it may be, it would be detrimental to developing ones skills should their ultimate goal be to one day become a part of the "Hollywood machine" Wink

	Quote:
	I refer to independent filmmaking conceived not as studio filmmaking sans money, but as a different animal altogether. I personally find it most liberating to reject as much of the jargon, theory, traditions, & assumptions of Hollywood as I can.

hear hear, buy that man a drink, I like his spirit

	Quote:
	I personally find it most liberating to reject as much of the jargon, theory, traditions, & assumptions of Hollywood as I can.

You certainly struck a nerve with that. I really STRIVE for this in everything I do. My next two projects are a complete afront to the standard Hollywood way of working. It will either be the next revolution, or completely ignored. Go big or go home.

Last edited by Gage on Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

Film is a language made up of conventions, which have evolved over time.

So, for instance, if you watch Fritz Lang's "M," you'll see he choses to have actors act directly to camera... which to modern viewers looks "wrong." Simply because we've grown used to the convention of the actor not looking to camera (except in certain cirmcumstance).

In terms of film scripts, there is absolutely no reason what so ever, why you can't write whichever way works best for you... providing you have no intention of trying to sell the script on, or unless the way you are approaching the script makes your film less than it could be.

One of the things that I think does have an adverse effect on a film's quality, is rejecting all filmic language and conventions, for the sake of doing something different.

The implication is that merely be rejecting the old, we automatically will create something original. I'm not convinced this is true.

So, some of the conventions of Hollywood script development are: have a high concept idea, structure it to three acts, build your drama through conflict and have your protagonist develop in some way during his journey through the story.

An out of hand rejection of those conventions would be: to have a complex, rambling plot that can't be explained simply; don't have a story arc at all; to avoid conflict; and to leave your protagonist the same at the end as you did at the beginning.

The question is, will that give you a better, more entertaining film? Probably not.

The great thing about being an indie is we can afford to decide which conventions work and which don't. Whereas a lot of the Hollywood machine is tied to a particular approach, which tends to be wary of experimentation.

Personally, I think this is an exciting time to be a film maker. I applaud anyone who uses the advantages of the digital revolution to experiment, to undertake projects that Hollywood can't or won't make.

At the same time, I firmly believe that a great many of the exisitng film conventions actually work. Pretty much all of the films that inspired me to become a film maker were spawned within the very Hollywood system, so many of us seem eager to topple.

From a purely business POV, it's also worth considering, distributors tend to look for products they can easily sell. Just like the studios, they know that products than conform to the conventions of Hollywood do good business... those that don't, generally don't.

The same is true of the viewing public, who seem to like the formula Hollywood applies.

Where Stu nailed it in his book, is when he differentiated between well written action movies of the 70's and 80's and the fairly rancid fair of the last two decades. In a very real sense, Hollywood has started to reject the conventions that made them great and replaced them with formula, effects heavy pap.

For the indies this leaves an incredible gap in the market, which we can fill by going back to story telling rules of an older, more innovative Hollywood, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

But that's just my take... and I'd love to be proved wrong, by seeing an incredible new film that breaks all the rules, but still manages to be entertaining.

	Quote:
	But that's just my take... and I'd love to be proved wrong, by seeing an incredible new film that breaks all the rules, but still manages to be entertaining.

And that's the thing. There are 20 million wannabe filmmakers out there that are just fine with following the formula just to fit and be in the system. Then there are the 10 million that want to be the next Quentin, so they imitate Quentin. Then there are those of use that want to be the next Quentin by innovating and doing something completely different.

You dont make the next Pulp Fiction by making another Pulp Fiction knockoff. You make it by making something completely different.

Sure, the odds of success are slim, but just as slim with the larger pack of wannabes. I dont settle for mediocrity.

Last edited by Gage on Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

...i think making a movie that does not look like what another movie director did is the best way to go...there are loads of ideas out there only if one can think....just pick a genere your 'heart' feels for or desire to most... Embarassed