Screenwriting : Pet Peeve or stubborn? by Constance York

Stubborn. I've made it a point to read screenplays of successful films this year and have read many by revered writers who use We see.

I've avoided it. I'd rather say, "A car pulls into the driveway" rather than, "We see a car pull ito the driveway." Just sounds better to me. I read a script not long ago where EVERY action started with "We see," and it just got so annoying. In my humble opinon, it interrupts the flow of the read.

I think overuse kills momentum Lisa Clemens. It's a style choice. I asked a manager about this and a few other things writers obsess over and he said "Jesus! Write a great story. I don't care about how it gets done". That's a direct quote!

A few won’t make a difference. “We see, cut to, fade to black, angle on, off-screen, bold, underlining, CAP words.”

Wow Readers from the first sentence, first scene.

As a former Reader I would look for excuses to skim to the ending. So don’t give Readers any excuses. Write awesome.

It is perfectly fine to use it. This seems more of a touchy, white-hot, myopic, fearmongering issue within teaching and amateur circles. Not so much elsewhere. And misuse or overuse or poor use of ANYTHING is bad writing. So it really boils down to how it is used, creative content and style, and personal taste (pet peeve). Me, I personally do not care for it either, but I'll use it in a heartbeat if it helps with clarity and/or is effective.

Constance's use example above is of an ineffective use. TO BE FAIR, instead of only pointing at the usual bad use example... perhaps also examine an effective, GOOD use of "we see/we hear"—see the script for It Follows, page one. :)

On this writing tool, I follow John August's advice. Here's an excerpt from his blog:

"'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."

You only write what appears on screen so it is not necessary to say "we see" but if someone wants to that is fine but I would do so sparingly because some people out there think it is amateurish.

'We see' is the mark of an amateur and unnecessary bloat. It's obvious Actions are the visuals - it's a screenplay with words and images.

As long as you maintain verb-subject agreement. "Deer walk in a meadow of flowers" should be "A deer walks in a meadow of flowers." :)

Well, if it is many deer it could be "Deer walk in a meadow of flowers" Ya know, since it is both singular and plural LOL

Point taken, my bad. One would be, "A deer..." It could also be "A herd of deer (or deers)..." Deers is an accepted plural not many use, dear. :{

Good for them.

I know it appears in award winning screenplays, I've read it also- but that doesn't always mean it's the only way to write it- or that it made it an award winner. I think a better question is - who sees? If it's the protagonist, then you can still say - (protagonist) sees deer in the meadow. Or deers. ;) Just kidding.

We move slowly... is a camera direction. Not a good idea to use in a spec.

Exactly, established writers, or prifessionals, do as they wish.

Very funny.... not, Constance. Just kidding. ;)

Audiences don't read scripts, readers do. Audiences see how the director interpreted the script, if it makes it past a reader. In Specs, "We see..." "We move this way or that" is a red flag of amateurism as back-seat directing for readers.

It's to the writer's advantage to infuse a script with voice rather than a vision and bloat.

I agree Laura, except I seldom find a time when it can't be written another way. Larry faces the bad guy, In his back waistband is a gun. OR Larry approaches the bad guy- there is a gun in his back waistband... etc. etc.

Now - for my example- The Protag sees deer in a field- we still don't know which direction the camera is aimed. Straight from Protag's point of view- or are we seeing him watch the deer from a side shot? Still ultimately camera directions.

I'm not saying I've never used it myself, but if there's a way not to- I won't.

I try to use them sparingly to allow the director the freedom to do his job. I don't think it's appropriate to use it in every scene action. I also use CU and INSERT at times (if something is on a screen or display, etc.

I used "We descend" in my recent script in the opening but I don't think I used we see or we hear or anything like that elsewhere.

I used it because we open with an establishing shot in orbit and then descend down to the planet surface so there's a change of "location" but it's not a cut change.

I'm a big fan of providing the actions and sounds with the assumption that I'm NOT stupid and need you to tell me what I see or hear.

"We see Margaret walk in the room and take a seat. We hear someone WHISTLE at her."

"Margaret walks in, sits. Someone WHISTLES at her."

However I am very guilty of overusing parentheticals in dialogue in my first drafts and I make an effort to go back and remove them in rewrites. To save page real estate and as above, allow the Actors the freedom to apply their craft. It also incentivizes me to make sure the dialogue I write is clear and unambiguous.

So there's no hard or fast rule as to their usage but IMHO an overuse after a few scenes where it's always used starts to sound like "you know" added to the end of every line someone might be speaking...you know?

So be judicious, you know. Don't like, you know, always tell us what we see and what we like, you know, hear. We're all smart enough you know, that if you just write the visual action and like, you know, highlight the audible sounds, we can usually figure it out, you know.

EXT. SPACE

A spacecraft glides by and descends to

CHAD'S BACKYARD

When Margaret sits her dress hikes up. A WHISTLE. She smiles and swings her head to find the source.

I hope this won't be another CUT TO: marathon.

Not all of us self-produce.

Note from the real world: just leave it out (right/wrong - just avoid the hassle).

Exactly Derek Reid As a reader it doesn't immediately discount a script but it's a small mark against and a bad indicator. Add a few more small marks in typos, misspellings, incorrect formatting, etc. they add up and you're toast.

If 50% of the people think it is wrong so if you do it you might be cutting your chances by 50%. Why take that chance. This screenwriting business is a crap shoot so why anyone would do anything that might reduce their odds is beyond me especially if it does nothing to help your screenplay. However if people are writing a spec screenplay nobody is paying them to do it so they can write them in crayon if they think that would make them more colorful.

I've read a few of those too.

Don't do the job of the director : )

Isn't that when you should capitalize "BANANA PEEL"?

Emur is texting as he approaches, and doesn't see the BANANA PEEL. His foot hits it and he slips and falls on his ass.

Emur texts as he strolls. In his path, a banana peel. Whooops! He slips on it, somersaults and ends on his ass.

One step further: About to become a cheap comedy act, distracted Emur texts as he strolls. Ahead, a banana peel. Foot meets peel. Whoops! He somersaults to his ass. Passers-by APPLAUD.

The banana peel is evident. 'We see' is bloat. Why not add "We see" to everything then instead of one plot element, i.e. the banana peel. We see Emur is texting as he approaches, and doesn't see the BANANA PEEL. We see his foot hits it and he slips and falls on his ass.

“Emur, texting, approaches a banana on the street. “

In film your action is immediate so you can eliminate words like “as”, “while”, "suddenly", "then", "begins to" "starts to" and just make the action happen without any temporal qualifiers.

I would make a case for consistent verb forms, present tense and Active Voice as well. 'Texting' and "approaches' are a mix of forms and Voice.

Good to hear you got it! Now don't slipping on any frickin' bananas out there.

Just the facts Dan, just the facts.

...I was going to post something completely different after reading the comments, but a thought LITERALLY just came into my head that I’ve never done before but would be interested to hear what you all think.... What if you wrote, “YOU see...” or “Now you see...” See where I’m going? What do you all think? BTW, Stage 32!!! Let me know if you want to delete this comment too!?

The first line of one of my screenplays uses "us." It works well. It's effective. Simple. It's in that group: "us," "we," "our." I chose "us" because the character is sitting, facing and looking directly at the camera as if "we" are sitting across from her. There's story/theme/character purpose to this choice. I needed to be clear and concise without using technical camera direction. If you see my comment above I include an excerpt from John August's blog. He prefers to use "we" or "us" or "our" when he wishes to avoid camera direction, stating "...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."

At some point... you will find yourself in need of "we" or "our" or "us," in some tricky situation when it is the best choice for what you are trying to convey.

Below is a snippet from my script, how I used "us":

INT. SMALL OFFICE - DAY

A WOMAN stares directly out at us, dismayed. She’s seated opposite across a desk.

It’s hard to discern her age, she could be in her mid-to-late 30s. She’s tall, thickset, mousey-haired and nondescript.

Behind her: an insurance company logo in cut gold lettering.

Anyway, hope this helps!

“Hell or High Water” has 3 “we see” in the first page. Didn’t hurt Taylor Sheridan. None of his reps cared about “we see.” And he wasn’t known then. Spec script lead to an assignment job to write Sicario.

Ryan I don't think that is a good idea. If someone sees something on film you they see it immediately so you shouldn't write stuff like "now", "then", "suddenly", etc.

Dan M. You see that in shooting scripts because they aren't trying to get their script by some goofy reader that was taught how you are supposed to write a screenplay. Just because you see stuff in a production script doesn't mean aspiring screenwriters should be doing it in a spec.

I read Sheridan’s original spec when it was called “Comanche”. “We see” and “Cut to” are everywhere. Also read the original John Wick spec by another unknown. He used “we see, cut to, fade to black” . Didn’t matter.

Taylor Sheridan on his writing.

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/q-and-a/a53403/taylor-sheri...

Right. Comancheria (Hell or High Water)—not a shooting script. I've read the spec as well. Not much changed from spec to final production. I've also read SCORN (John Wick), the spec script. Not much changed other than some story changes, things omitted. ;)

As Dan says. Except not all readers are goofy, which means exactly what? Some have made their own path as writers. Felicitations. But many struggle to find that path.

August is an established writer who can write whatever he likes. Not true for most Spec writers. Agreed a strong story may shine through the bloat, but how many of them are floating out there. Far worse is weak Passive Voice and inconsistencies in the same sentence.

All writing tools are available to anyone — no matter who you are. What's key is how well you use those tools, the way in which you utilize them, wield them. How effective you are in your writing. Expertise. ;)

Better writing embracing the rules of English shines, poor writing does not.

Best intel is to read annual black list, tracking board hit list, blood list, Bitch List... (so many lists!!) Hundreds of repped writers writing specs looking for homes. Read what Reps are reading and telling Buyers.

The writer of “The Post” did something goofy. She put “begin opening credits” on page 10 or 11 after a long 2 character conversation opening scene. Her reps didn’t care, shopped it as is.

Shop it as strong as you can. Otherwise is goofy.

THUD!

Dan M. I never heard an agent not shop a screenplay for any reason.

Allowing established writers to bend the rules to suit because they can seems more proof of how lazy this industry has become.

I use it, when is necessary. Don't over use it. The least of any screenwriter's worry should be this.

I use "we see" up to half a dozen times in a script as a substitute for providing camera direction, such as "angle on," etc., because it's my impression there's more prejudice against the latter than the former these days.