Screenwriting : Cut To: by Anthony Lucas

No. "Screenwriter's Bible," Dave Trottier.

Hi, Anthony. In a spec screenplay, typically, "cut to" can be considered extra and unnecessary words on the page (filler) or camera direction. So it is often recommended to be omitted or its use kept to a minimum. Plus in most situations, you don't need it or any transition between scenes. A new scene heading is transition enough. However... you absolutely can use it for, say, comedic or dramatic effect -- wishing to create a deliberate, purposeful, abrupt or quick cut between scenes. But don't go overboard. Use judiciously. ;)

In a spec scripts don't put any direction at all direction is for the shooting script .

You can, but again and generally speaking, use them judiciously and effectively. Overuse is problematic. We have no specific example or creative context here to discuss, but regardless all writing tools and devices are available to you. Learn to utilize them well. ;)

I've wasn't using it at all in my current project but I have some scenes where different things happen from different angles so was going to use CUT TO then the same scene heading and then the incident that's taking place from that angle.

http://www.scriptmag.com/features/screenplay-format-use-camera-direction...

"Cut to" can work for parallel action. But use of secondary headings may be better.

James, thanks for the link. Much appreciated. Very familiar with David Trottier and The Screenwriter's Bible. I keep my copy at my desk. ;) However, we're talking specifically about "cut to." And in that article about camera direction, he also mentions judicious use or in his words and terms: "Use camera directions rarely and only for a dramatic or comedic moment." It does depend on specific context, plus there are always exceptions. Lol!

So it ok to use

INT. LOUNGE - DAY

Blah blah blah

INT. LOUNGE - DAY

Blah blah blah

INT. LOUNGE - DAY

Blah blah blah

Also is it ok to say "we see blah blah through the glass of water on the table" for example. Is the use of we see acceptable?

Sure, use headings. But if continuous action you could utilize a master heading and secondary headings.

INT. LOUNGE - DAY

Blah blah blah

AT THE BAR

Blah blah blah

You're the writer, you're not the director - my advice is a simple don't insert camera direction in your scec script. The same for 'we see, she sees...' - just write visually. There will always be someone who says it's okay - like your script is written in a month that has no "r" in its name during a leap year but I'm tellin you to save yourself a lot of grief an' don't do it. (That is if you want your script read.)

Anthony, I suggest finding an action script and see how something similar to what you are trying to create is handled on the page. See specifically how others crafted it, their approach. It's often best to learn from actual working practice and not just general theory. Lol! ;)

I hear that mate. I have a few and I'm getting conflicting info from them. Some use we see some don't some have cut to some dont. I'm waiting for the screenwriters bible to be delivered bit the more examples I download the more questions I have gosh darn it!!!

You can use "we see." But, again, be judicious. If you can write it clearly and concisely in some other way without "we see," then do. If say, you're dealing with something unusual, like an unseen element as in It Follows then for clarity-sake and simplicity "we see" may work best and be most effective. I suggest you look at that script, a Google search brings it up. "We see" is used to great effect on the first page, I believe? And not overused at all. It's a good example of effective use. ;)

Anthony, some of this boils down to personal taste and writing style. Me, I don't like "we see" but I'll use it in a heartbeat if it's the best choice for whatever effect I'm trying to communicate on the page. ;)

Oh, and check out Scriptnotes -- it's a great podcast with screenwriters John August and Craig Mazin. They offer knowledgeable insights and helpful information. ;) Hope that helps. Best to you!

Many paragraphs = no.

No, it does not. And if referring to my comments above, not what I said. There's more to it than just generalizations and oversimplifications. If often depends. Lots of gray areas between those black and white answers. Again, I hope that helps, Anthony. ;)

I personally don't use CUT TO: if I can because my writing is dense as it is and so page real estate is a premium for me and inserting CUT TO: just wastes that precious space for me at least.

;)

Referencing the source of screenplay formatting information is best. And the answer is still a simple no, as Chad and others have said. Reads of contemporary scripts bear this out. "Get Out" has zero CUT TO: LOL.

Readability is key.

Slug lines can be "heavy" when things jump around a lot. And, CUT TO: indicates is a complete change of location.

Plus, shooting scripts are much different that spec scripts. Example;

MONTAGE:

John looks at a car.

CUT TO:

Jane walks up the car with a fire extinguisher. (A change in location and, possibly, time.)

CUT TO:

A SPRAY of foam puts out the car fire.

[---]

You could use slug lines to show the transition as well. Both are correct. CUT TO's are just easier for me - and yes, they're supposed to be on the right but I never do that... But I haven't had anyone balk at readability.

...As opposed to;

[---]

John looks at a car.Jane walks up the car with a fire extinguisher. A SPRAY of foam puts out the car fire.

I find CUT TO to be a more direct (maybe heavy-handed) way of showing shifts in action, but it depends on your script and how you think action is best presented. Most recommend slug lines.

Usually is the way you lay out your scene descriptions or "Headings" that tells you that your script is transitioning or cutting to from a scene to the next. If the headings are well laid out CUT TO could even be superfluous. As far as cutting many times inside the same scene: 1 IT COULD BE A MONTAGE. 2 IT WOULD BE MORE FOR A WRITER/DIRECTOR TO DECIDE, SINCE ULTIMATELY HE HAS A CLEAR VISION OF WHEN ANS WHERE TO CUT. 3 IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO HAVE THE -CUT TO-, WHEN YOU WANT TO EMPHASYZE A SPECIFIC CUT, WHICH YOU WANT THE PRODUCERS AND EXECUTIVES AND THE PEOPLE YOU ARE PITCHING YOUR SCRIPT, TO PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO.

Kevin Carothers I read for comps and, please take no offense, when a script is full of transitions it bogs down the flow, lessens the readability and generally lowers the overall score.

The bottom line: story is king. Anything that gets in the way is more disruptive than helpful.

Slug Line to Slug Line an implicit cut.

Tony S. None taken.

I've also seen just caps (usually bold). Like re-writing my example;

EXT. DESERT. AFTERNOON:

John looks at a car.

HILLSIDE NEXT TO CAR

Jane walks up the car with a fire extinguisher.

TOP OF HILL

Jill triggers SPRAY of foam puts out the car fire.

But there are so many different ways- I just find an example that seems to work and that I like.

The way I learned it is that direction (Transitions included) should only be used if it helps story flow or gives narration to a movement. I.e. Disolve to a dream wouldn’t be needed but okay to help create a picture. Most directors are gonna shot it as they like anyway. 3 scripts and not one direction in any from me. I agree with trottier that you can get your idea of direction by the way you write your actions. (I.e. John sees - hints at John’s POV)

As usually, less is more. Less is better.

NEVER use CUT TO:... It's superfluous and inherently redundant. When I receive a script with CUT TO's it tells me that the screenwriter is not seasoned. Let the director decide the transitions in the edit bay... Simply execute the most important job. Tell a great story that can easily be translated from your script into a compelling visual narrative.

A new scene heading is a CUT TO so you never need to use CUT TO. If action suddenly changes in the middle of a scene just start a new paragraph.

You only write what appears on film so if something is on film the audience will see or hear it without you telling them so don't say things like "we see" or "we hear." Maybe half the audience went to the bathroom and the won't see or hear anything so maybe you could write, "we see if you didn't go to the bathroom."

David Christopher Loya I was dancing around what you said. Here, some folks take offense when none is intended. And mighty quick, too.

I even no longer use FADE IN: and FADE OUT: Joey Tuccio from Stage32 hosted a webinar about opening pages. Even he said drop the FADE IN:

Kevin Carothers Looks much cleaner.

The OP is probably hiding under a bed.

Fer cripes sake, a whole thread about a topic that is overwhelmingly frowned upon in Specs.

CUT TO:

Revolver at my head, finger on hair trigger.

It's still a choice, regardless. And there is no one, blanket right answer for all uses and for all context. One script, like the fantastic, well-written, Get Out, does not set the standard nor the answer for all. A well-placed "CUT TO" is effective—read any comedy script. Again, overuse of anything is problematic—yes, of course! You don't want to bog down a read—no, of course, you don't. My two cents, it is helpful to discuss effective use too and those rare or different situations, instead of just leaning on the reductive generalized "no" and general common practices or common omissions. Why? Because there are exceptions to everything. A new writer should understand and know how to utilize all options, whether they decide to use them or not, whether they are commonly used or not. The more scripts you read (pro and everything in-between), the more you see those exceptions. This thread's original poster, Anthony, said he's been getting conflicting information, well, that's usually why. Gray areas. That, and writing trends, personal taste, opinions, general practices, etc, etc, etc. ;)

A writer, new or old, should conform to the norms of the period. Just as David Christopher Loya and Dan Guardino and I advised. Should I use CUT TO. No, is the answer. OP's confusion is warranted.

The opposite of reductive is enlarging. ;)

Oh, and I don't use FADE IN either. Never have. Lol! However, I do see it used often. ;)

LOL

Okay. Here's straightforward, then: It's good writing versus bad writing. Don't place blame on any tool or device. Rather it's learning and knowing how to use them effectively -- that's key. LOL! ;)

LOL ;)

Please guys, as a favour, you should really drop the LOL. I mean, this is a professional filmmaking platform, this ain't Youtube!

Most cuts/edits are meant to be invisible, so as above, I just use sluglines.

However, I find that CUT TO can still be useful. I like to use it when I want to call specific attention to the cut, as in, the cut is meant to be noticed, or it's part of the joke.

As a rough example:

SUSAN

(hungover)

I'm never going to drink again.

CUT TO:

Susan GULPS down a glass of wine.

Anytime a cut features a juxtaposition instead of a transition, I like to use CUT TO.

Kody Chamberlain

That's a cool example! BUT... How about something like this?

SUSAN

(hungover)

I'm never going to drink again.

SHE GRABS GLASS OF WINE ON TABLE

Susan GULPS down the glass.

[---]

...Basically because the consensus seems to be to limit transitions in a spec script.

Beth Fox Heisinger I use FADE IN: when I am beginning the script with either text, audio pre-laps, etc. prior to a visual action. (like over black, etc.) but other than that, I usually don't use it. Precious page real estate for my over bloviating writing.

Anthony, I hope this discussion is helpful to you! I remember being confronted by all this conflicting stuff in the very beginning and feeling a bit overwhelmed and confused too -- the draconian-sounding "don't do this, don't do that." You just gotta take it all in. Most are good ideas, good things to know, to consider. Most are coming from practical knowledge and working experience. But once you've absorbed the information, the know-how, and all the different opinions, theories, approaches, etc, you gotta form your own. Find what resonates and works best for you. Dive in. Keep an open mind. Roll up your sleeves, get to work, and take the time to hone your craft. For me, once I got past thinking in terms of right or wrong and switched to considering everything in terms of effective or not effective, then it all clicked for me. ;) Anyway, again, best to you!

Anthony Lucas Clear now? Good luck.

Chad Stroman, yeah, sure. ;) Me, I prefer to keep things to a minimum, as simple as possible. Streamline.

No sense in bloviating. ;)

Kody Chamberlain Juxtaposition! Yes! That's the situational context in most effective uses of CUT TO that I have seen, usually in comedies. ;) CUT TO can sometimes be more succinct, quicker, and keep things more simple. Fewer words on the page.

I don't imagine there's much of a consensus anywhere outside of this Stage32 thread, but on a whim I checked some of the scripts I have in my 2017/2018 folder.

Mudbound, Big Sick, Logan, Shape of Water all use CUT TO, and in various ways. Some might say these scripts are “norms of the period.” Different writers use it in different ways, and that’s cool, but there's no reason to take it out of the tool box completely if it serves a purpose. And it does.

By calling attention to a cut, it gives that cut a certain weight, more weight than a cut would otherwise have. More importantly, in my example, it implies the two shots might be composed and framed in a similar way to enhance the gag. A particular transition meant to be jarring or abrupt could benefit from a well placed CUT TO.

Like all tools, it's just a tool. You can use the very same hammer to build a house, or destroy one.

If the tool works well for the job, use it.

Note, I'm NOT saying you should use CUT TO when a simple slugline would do. Different strokes for different folks.

It's a helpful tool, and there's no reason to toss it out for any other reason beyond personal preference.

The scripts mentioned are not Specs. They're by established talents. Check out the "Nightcrawler" script which uses pictograms instead of words primarily because Dan Gilroy was attached to direct. If I recall, it was forty pages long. And, as he was established, the powers-that-be swooned at the creativity (or didn't care as long as the film was effective). I believe Gyllenhaal loved it too for its difference.

Until a H'Wood big shot, readers are merciless on Specs: no transitions, white space, active voice, sparse, well-written actions, no adverbs or adjectives ending in 'ly' or 'ing' and tight dialogue. I remember Affleck and Damon said the limit to dialogue should be thirteen words (that count may not be exactly correct, but the sentiment is). A&D won the Oscar for the "Good Will Hunting" script. They definitely know better than me.

I got banged by a well know analyst I paid a lot of money to because I used a single dash (-) rather than a double (- - ). Both are acceptable in English usage and mean the same thing. Huh? Really? Okay, it's two from now on.

While not in complete agreement with the nature of those elements, I bend with the breeze. Too much competition. Too many ways to get rejected, though some sins are forgiven if the story is stellar. So why not do both; play the game and write a great story.

Beth Fox Heisinger

I used fade in / fade out once - something like this;

DARK SCREEN. SOUND OF MARCHING ON GRASS. SCRIPT LETTERS WRITE ON SCREEN:

blah blah blah

FADE OUT:

(pause)

SCRIPT LETTERS WRITE ON SCREEN:

This is their story...

FADE IN:

[---]

I felt it was appropriate because it was, well, a fade in. I'm hijacking the thread, but is there a more appropriate method?

It"s your call - you want your script read: or you don"t.

I've only used CUT TO: when I need to emphasize a dramatic scene change. Otherwise, leave it out.

Tony S. , my intent was never to be disparaging... I just got to the point quickly. You and I are in complete alignment and agreement. And it's not because it's the way we want; rather, it's a reflection of BOTH the business and creative realities of this industry when it comes to screenplay format. Half the battle is submitting a screenplay that says, "Okay, this writer is experienced, or at least, aware..." When I receive a screenplay where the first page, has a character dialogue that's pure exposition (My apologies to Ready Player One) with a CUT TO prior to the second slugline. I know I won't even make it to page 10.

I say this with joy and a positive tone, but the idea that a script might not be read because it contains CUT TO is absolute nonsense. That's script consultant guru nonsense.

I was a professional reader and that stuff on the right margin of page doesn't make a difference.

It is just a tool. And misplaced blame. If your script is not being read, then, typically, it's because the story or the subject matter may not resonate for that particular reader. Or there is an amalgamation of many writing issues.

David Christopher Loya I never thought that. Apologies if that was inferred because it wasn't. Complete agreement. Also a first page with fifteen lines of an Action, or half a page of dialogue. I know then the read will be a s-l-o-g.

Kody Chamberlain Not be read, be viewed with a jaundiced eye, as David said. Big difference. Last I checked it was a free country. Do what you feel. We're a community. Speaking for myself, I post what I know and see as a pubic service. I'm grateful to those who helped me as paying forward. Take what you like and leave the rest. In context, CUT TO: is not necessary and disrupts flow.

Dan MaxXx Except some justify left.

Kody Chamberlain Agreed! Adding to it the fact that sometimes it might not get read because it doesn't contain CUT TO. So, where do you go from there? Something like UNCUT TO?! Pure nonsense & to put it in Ridley Scott-ian terms just a bunch screenwriting politics. I suggest you guys, for those of you who wants to, to go find and read the script of Sergio Leone's Fistful of Dollars. That script sucks!! On a technical and formatting level I mean. It shouldn't have had a chance on a thousand to be even considered. And yet, a film was made of it which I can bet, none of the people with all this screenwriting technique and amazing skills professed in here, will ever be able to make in their lifetime. Content counts. Story counts. The vision/s you put in it counts. If you don't have that, all the CUT TOOS in the world won't save you during the pitch. Believe me! Relatively young; but been there already!

LOL

Kevin Carothers Those transitions seem unnecessary. It looks like you are opening with superimposed type and sounds over a black screen before you "Fade In." You could just write that simply and use SUPER for type that is to appear on screen, or perhaps TITLE CARD, depending. For a quick, blah blah example...

OVER BLACK

The SOUND of blah blah blah.

SUPER: "Blah blah blah"

FADE IN:

EXT. BLAH BLAH - DAY

Blah Blah Blah.

Technically, "Fade In" brings you in, but, me, I'd probably leave it out. The first main heading "fades in," in my opinion, but that's just me. Others may feel otherwise. ;)

And... if for some story-related reason you wish to suggest the type seem as if being written by hand on screen as it appears, then just make quick note of it in description. But don't go overboard. If/when the script is produced, how that would be handled -- if at all -- is someone else's decision.

Hope that helps, Kevin! :)

@daniel letteo "it might not get read because it doesn't contain CUT TO"

Again, not read, looked upon unfavorably. Been there too, learned from it and moved past.

Sergio Leone worked in Italy. In the 60's and 70s. And again, a recognized talent who directed their own scripts. Not a Spec writer in 2018 hoping for a sale or represemtation after they get past a reader who looks unfavorably upon included Transitions.

Awesome. I think from this point forth, I shall not be using cut to.

Hallefrickinlujah. God bless you Anthony Lucas

However!!! One scene I have is people looking into an empty trunk. This is what prompted my original post. What I was think is

INT. ATTIC - DAY

Jane and Mardy open the trunk

CUT TO

INT. TRUNK - DAY

Jane and Maddy peer in.

CUT TO

INT. ATTIC - DAY

We see over their shoulders that the trunk is empty.

So I'm now thinking it should just be

INT. ATTIC - DAY

Jane and Maddy open the trunk. It's empty.

I know cut to should be aligned to the right

Tony S, don't worry buddy there's plenty more where that OP came from.

I'm certain. Maybe what you're thinking of is INSERT. "Screenwriter Bible."

Anthony Lucas

Yeah- I went right home and removed all the CUT TO's and re-submitted to Finishline. Maybe worth it-- No more "we see" and "we hear"'s also.

Oh- How does this sound?

[---]

INT. ATTIC - DAY

Jane and Mardy open the trunk

INT. TRUNK

Jane and Maddy peer in. It's empty.

...We already know it's day. It's telling me the implied POV is the interior of the trunk - but that's just what I'm gathering you wanted to convey.

Kevin Carothers yep thats what im gonna go with.

Yup, Anthony, in your specific scene above, I agree. I don't see the need for "cut to" or "we see." Unless there's some sort of juxtaposition or expectation set up in the previous scene?

Another suggestion or option, if only for more attention or emphasis on the trunk... I would put "It's empty" on a separate line. Make it a single line paragraph. ;)

INT. ATTIC - DAY

Jane and Maddy open the trunk.

It's empty.

For everything else, Anthony, keep an open mind. ;) Good luck! I wish you the best with your screenplay.

Wicked. Thanks mate

@Everyone in this discussion--

Stay awesome.

Anthony Lucas and stick to the conventions. Good luck.

I wouldn't recommend putting any direction at all in a script, that will all be done once your script has been optioned and a shooting script will be written for actual production, unless of course, you're producing and shooting your own film :)

Anthony. A scene heading tells the people making the film if it is going to be a interior or an exterior shoot. It also says where the scene is supposed to take place and if it is going to be a DAY shoot or a NIGHT shoot. The inside of a trunk is not a location.

INT. TRUNK - DAY is not a location where the scene would take place.

"We see over their shoulders" is telling director how to film the scene which is not the screenwriters job.

Every line, every word in a spec screenplay is giving direction. You are evoking a story visually on the page, writing for the screen. Suggesting. Hinting without overstepping. Pointing at what COULD be, not what should. It's that gray area between the two that elicits such white-hot debate within teaching and amateur writing circles. How much is too much? When is it appropriate to lean just a tad more on camera direction? Perhaps only when clarity could be lost, when a moment or scene could be confusing for the reader? Only for specific effect? And what, exactly, defines what is camera direction and what is not? Is there an "official" consensus or is it based on personal opinion and/or experience? Ironically, many in the industry consider "we see/we hear" as just a simple way to hint, to suggest without using technical camera direction jargon. No big deal. So... to each their own? Why the discrepancy? Often it is misuse, misunderstanding, mishandling, and overuse of writing tools that is the problem, not the tool itself. Bad writing is the culprit.

For new writers or for those who may not be aware, I mentioned the Scriptnotes podcast above with John August and Craig Mazin. With over 40 years of working experience between them, they certainly are voices of practical reason. Just to add information to the discussion, I thought I would share what John August posted on his blog about "we see." See below. Hope it helps. ;)

"'We” and “our” and “us” bothers some readers, who rightly point out that anything you describe using these terms could be adequately described without them. But I find it a handy way to avoid referring to the camera. It keeps the reader in story-mode, rather than thinking about the script as a technical shooting document.

So use “we” if you want to. But there’s no reason to overuse it. Always spend the 10 seconds to ask yourself if you need the “we see” or “we hear.” If it reads as well without it, drop it."

Beth, funny you mentioned Scriptnotes because I was finishing this week’s episode while reading your reply. The bulk of the question segment at the end is about the nonsense B.S. of “format landmines” that don’t actually exist.

You can download a bunch of award-winning screenplays for free and read them.

From established writers.

Never use it.

Never use it poorly. Learn to use it well. Should the need or creative choice arise. ;)

"Hell or High Water" - many folks regard as a great screenplay has over 20 "CUT TO'".

"The Post" - oscar nominated - has 0 "CUT TO".

Both original specs by unknown writers. Their Reps didn't give notes about CUT TO. Folks who make movies for a living know how to read scripts. Nobody cares how many CUT TO's are on the right hand margin.

The final script for "Silence of the Lambs" uses "cut to" throughout. I wonder if it's more of a style choice for writers.

You don't have to. I feel it takes up room needed for more vivid descriptions

Another purchased Spec, "Passengers" does not (it's really clean and easy to read).

Oscar scripts for "The Big Sick," "Three Billboards..." Sorkin's "Molly's Game," "Call Me By Your Name," and winner "Get Out" do not.

Cherry picking can be an exhausting pursuit.

With these scripts are you reading the spec or the production version. Almost all scripts you find online or buy are production versions - therefore will contain cut to’s and many other directors instructions.

Form follows function. Always. The concept that direction should never happen in a script is just more guru/consultant nonsense. When you read scripts, spec or otherwise, you see that ALL the tools are applied according to the writer’s intention. If a particular shot or cut is important to the story, it must be in the script or it won’t get shot.

Not always.

There's an assumption everything in a script is important to the story. Otherwise why would it be there. Why say, "LOOK HERE!!!"

Opinions vary. The aforementioned Scriptnotes are by John August - a Guru/Consultant. Perhaps that's nonsense.

Holly: The script available for Silence of the Lambs is a shooting script. That's why there's camera direction etc. Spec scripts don't require CUT TO unless you want it.

Most people were taught not use camera directions in a spec screenplay. CUT TO is a camera direction to tell of a scene change or cut. Every scene heading, or new paragraph of description is a cut, so it is not needed in your screenplay. It is better to avoid using them unless you feel it’s necessary.

You can cherry pick script examples either way. And John August is a working screenwriter, producer, director and novelist, not a "guru" or "consultant." ;)

Oh, and August is a writer often brought in to rewrite scripts in development. ;)

So are other Guru/Consultants just like August. Yeah, cherry pick. Like I said. ;)

Again, working writer. And because we can cherry pick examples either way, scripts that contain CUT TO or scripts that do not, that further supports that there are no universal absolutes.

Yeah, cherry pick. ;)

Of the 16 people offering an opinion in this thread, it broke down this way:

No, not to be used - 10

Use for effect - 5

Use openly - 1

'No' trumps with a near 2/3rds plurality.

Lol! Okay? There's no win/lose or right/wrong here... Just writing tools and devices, and ways, practices, and various opinions on how to use them. Speaking of which, I have to get back to work. Thanks for all the great comments, everyone!

No win/lose, but there is consensus. I did count the hanging chads as a No, but maybe Putin hacked the results.

Too funny. :) The only word in dispute really is "never." There are always gray areas. There is always creative context or specific situations to consider too. So... never say never? Lol! ;) Anyhoo, I'm done, I'm done. I do need to move on. Cheers!

Yeah, LOL :)

Never say never? Yes, never.

Glad to be in the 2/3rds column.

One more for 100! :)

Thanks for all the input! I guess if you plan to write and direct, you can leave the “cut to” in

Sure, why not Holly Jurbergs I see people seeking peer reviews that state up front it's a self-direct and to skip formatting, and grammar issues.

Holly Jurbergs I have a script currently in quarter finals that has way, way too many cut tos.... idk if it will get further (prolly not) but I’m not going to do it again.

Good luck.

Man, what a messed up thread. I see issues with the examples given and not just concerning the CUT TO, but also all the other crap around the CUT TOs and the justification for that crap.

Anthony, it's your script, write it the way that makes you comfortable because differing opinions will only confuse you and you'll find out what you should be doing when you get decent feedback, but this is what I do when I work on a client script. I remove all CUT TOs. They're superfluous, they add clutter to the page and they pull me out of the story. A slugline IS a CUT TO, you don't need to tell us twice. It's the same as using a slug, INT. BOB'S HOUSE - DAY followed by the descriptive text, "This is Bob's house". Yes, I've seen this and fixed it for the client.

Without trying to fix your example scene, just remove all the CUT TOs.

G'day, mate.

G'day.

Hey Pierre. Thanks mate. Hope you're well buddy.

Hey Anthony. I am and I hope you are as well? How's Sins Of The Father coming along? I'm sure you've made great progress.

It's going mate. I've put it on hold til my screenwriters bible arrives lol. I'm also working on a couple projects based on real life. The whole truth is stranger than fiction thing. You been busy?

Yes I am, but unfortunately it means I have way less time to work on my own projects. Oh well!

Too much work is better than not enough I always say

True

Working on my 4th screenplay rom-com feature set in Amsterdam. Also working on a 19th century comedy fantasy set in a small village on the Normandy coast. Other than that, working on getting my first 2 copyrighted scripts produced. I like the juggling ax visual brings new meaning to the word CUT!!

CUT that out Steven Harris Anzelowitz :)

Tony S. "Not always.

There's an assumption everything in a script is important to the story. Otherwise why would it be there. Why say, "LOOK HERE!!!” Opinions vary. The aforementioned Scriptnotes are by John August - a Guru/Consultant. Perhaps that's nonsense.”

Wait, hold on a minute. ..John August is a guru/consultant? When did this happen? And where can I sign up for his consulting service? I'd pay a LOT of money for that. LOL

And sure, things can be in a script that won't appear on screen. Happens all the time.

However, if the writer INTENDS for it to be on screen, it MUST be in the script.

These are not the same thing.

LOL

Guru, noun

any person who counsels or advises; mentor

LOL

I would listen to folks with steady paychecks from studios, prod companies, producers. I wouldn't listen to folks with steady paychecks from aspiring writers.

Different strokes.

I agree with DanXx. - too many phonies out there., but like tony says - to each their own

Linda Seger has never written a script, but she's recognized as a leading Consultant and Guru. She literally wrote the book, "Making a Good Script Great."

Same as non-produced Michael Hague. A great Consultant and Guru sought by many in "H'Wood.

Perhaps Seger is passe now, but in her day she's mentored hundred's of scripts for Hollywood elite.

No matter where you go for answers you'll always get different opinions.

I don’t have a problem with readers or consultants if the writer finds them helpful. I do have a problem when someone’s opinions are presented as rules to up and coming writers, when in reality, there are no such rules.

God this is a long thread. All for CUT To. Imagine if it was major issue,

It's all opinion here. Some opinions differ. It's a take what you want and leave the rest proposition. However, the preponderance of opinion on this topic is weighted in one direction.

Yeah, John. There's less debate in Congress.

Tony is right. If more people here think you should do something you'd get the same results out in the real world because everyone learns from the same books and when it comes to formatting they all say almost the same thing and the rest is filled with BS which is why I never read them.

To CUT TO or not to CUT TO? That is the question with a 125 responses so far. The right answer is...

CUT TO:

End of thread.

To much to hope for?

Yes.

I personally avoid is unless it is integral to the sequence as a whole. Considering the majority of edits in a film are going to be "Cuts", to me it is superfluous.

Nina. You can quit reading it.

No, not to be used - 12

Use for effect - 5

Use openly - 2

Dan: I'm just kidding. I can't look away. You know, like a train wreck. I'm kidding again. It's a great read.

But, if you really want to, you could use a bit of description to signal an important CUT or TRANSITION. I use the "treatment" or prose-like style of writing a lot, so do a lot of other established, and not so established writers; Cameron for one.

LOL! Train wreck indeed. (just kidding!) ;-P The majority in this thread have a similar opinion on how best to use this tool, which is really what this discussion is about: how to use a tool. Please see my very first comment at the very top of the thread. And my thoughts as well as all others for some reason are being tallied to make some sort of a point. All that is being acknowledged and talked about in addition to the typical "superfluous use" or "overuse/misuse" argument (overuse/misuse, which I would call "bad writing" choices and not blame the tool itself) are the gray areas, which I see and read in every-day reality; and the fact that the industry does not share in this hyperbolic, never-ever-do-this-sin-or-the-screenwriting-police-will-come-and-take-you-away-for-committing-such-an-atrocity thing; and those creative situations when CUT TO, "we see," and camera directions may indeed be needed for effect or just for clarity. Hell, the forum's go-to "official" format-guy David Trottier (Screenwriter's Bible) points out and acknowledges these options and uses as well. So... Sheesh! Why such intolerance for talk about the various or possible use of a tool? It baffles me? Truly. And if one cares to leave a thread you can "unsubscribe." It will no longer show on your profile page feed. Anyway, you guys rock! Whatta great debate. Thanks again. Cheers! :))))

LOLOLOL

Don't use it.

Already did. If it works, it works. ;)

Except when it doesn't, like as in always. ;-P)

Nobody know if or when something will work.

Mostly.