Open forum question from The Douche Guide:
bolded sluglinesthoughts?
Let me back into the subject by talking first about transitions — CUT TO, DISSOLVE TO, SMASH CUT TO, etc. My sense of style trends is that they are being used less and less. Why? I suspect because they can prove unnecessary. Worse they essentially eat up two lines of space. Two words for two entire lines of space? What a waste! If you insert a transition between each scene and your script has 60 scenes, that means you have over 2 pages of wasted space, pages you could have used to enhance your story or lower your pages count (thereby winning the gratitude of weary script readers everywhere).
And here’s the thing: If you’re consistent with how you use primary sluglines — you only use them when making a transition from one scene to the next — you can ‘train’ the reader to make the transition without using CUT TO, DISSOLVE TO, etc.
The singular advantage of using a transition is that it creates a literal break in the text that clearly communicates to a reader the story is moving from one scene to the next. For instance, here is an excerpt from Aliens that uses CUT TO to signify the transition from one scene to the next:
Ripley turns sharply away, trembling with frustration and anger. Dallas looks back at her from the video screen, his eyes burning from the photograph, as we:
CUT TO:
INT. CORRIDOR
Ripley kicks the wall next to Burke who is getting coffee and donuts at a vending machine.
All that white space to the left of CUT TO: creates a gap that signifies to a reader there is a scene transition. However that’s also wasted space. So what if you did this instead:
Ripley turns sharply away, trembling with frustration and anger. Dallas looks back at her from the video screen, his eyes burning from the photograph, as we:
INT. CORRIDOR - DAY
Ripley kicks the wall next to Burke who is getting coffee and donuts at a vending machine.
What if you bolded the primary slugline? Isn’t that equally effective in underscoring the scene transition — without the aid of CUT TO, enabling the writer to save two lines of space?
Are there screenwriters who do this? Yes. For example, Alan Ball. In his screenplay for American Beauty, Ball not only bolds primary sluglines, he underlines them, too:
Lester watches her through a WINDOW on the first floor, peeping out through the drapes.
LESTER (V.O.) That's my wife Carolyn. See the way the handle on those pruning shears matches her gardening clogs? That's not an accident.
EXT. JIMS' HOUSE - CONTINUOUS
In the fenced front yard of the house next door, a dog BARKS repeatedly. A MAN in a conservative suit (JIM #1) chastises the barking dog.
The bottom line for me is making the script as readable as possible, while avoiding wasteful screenplay elements like transitions and parentheticals. And to my knowledge, there’s no Golden Rule prohibiting bolding sluglines. So if it tickles your stylistic fancy, I say why not.
UPDATE: Responding to comments, let me underscore the point: You may use bold for sluglines, however that is purely a stylistic choice on your part, not my personal recommendation. Again if you are consistent in using primary sluglines to signify the beginning of a new scene, that alone should be enough to convey the transition to the reader – ergo you don’t need bold or underline. But like Alan Ball, an Academy Award and Emmy winning writer, you may choose to do it because it suits your style.
Not a fan of bold. Maybe for the single most important word in the entire script. I had an aspiring screenwriter argue that typewriters were capable of producing bold text. So why not? But his script really sucked badly.
Hate them. Hate bold, hate underlined. I read a script recently that bolded and the bolding didn't appear different enough from the regular font, just slightly different. But enough to be annoying and make me wonder about it and take me out of the story. If the writing is clear, concise, specific enough, then the writer doesn't need to rely on cheap printed visual cues to let the reader know what's happening and where. Just my opinion.
Gotta agree with the others. Not so much a fan – for the reasons januaryfire cites. In fact, I even wrote a whole post on it a while back.
Scott,
Quick question based off the script passage you included from Alan Ball:
EXT. JIMS' HOUSE – CONTINUOUS
I use the phrase "CONTINUOUS ACTION" occasionally in the time of day field to clarify for the reader that no time has passed between scenes or shots. I picked this up from Chistopher Riley's "The Hollywood Standard: The Complete & Authoritative Guide to Script Format and Style." Final Draft 8 ONLY has "CONTINUOUS" in "smart type/times."
EXT. JIM'S HOUSE – CONTINUOUS ACTION
Is there any difference between "CONTINUOUS" and "CONTINOUS ACTION"?
Thanks,
E.C. Henry
"The Muppet Man" by Christopher Weekes uses bolded sluglines and I really liked how it looked. You know exactly where you are.
I don't do it myself, though.
I like to keep this stuff–desolve, cut to, CU, etc– to a minimum to help the read. Unless I need them to create a specific affect, I leave them out.
I don't use MORE or CON'T either.
I've never understood some writer's fascination with CUT TO:… Unless there's a harsh transition you reeeally want to emphasize, leave them out. The reader can see by the heading it's a new scene, & the director and editor know when to cut.
I looked at the script for the recent KING KONG and couldn't believe how many words were capped unnecessarily. Very distracting. Not a good sytistic choice.
I do like the bold slugs tho. I think they do make a script easier to read. It might get a bit much if you bold secondary slugs & have a bunch of them.
I use bold not just for slugs but any major action that I would use ALL CAPS for. For skimming mostly, it highlights any of the major actions. M. Knight Shyamalan did this in the "Signs" script and I effin' loved it. It's all for function anyways so who cares.
Having read and digested the Preston Sturges library, I found he underscored and bolded his sluglines in such works as "The Lady Eve," "Christmas in July," and "Sullivan's Travels."
Because I shamelessly ape my heroes, I started doing it. It did sort of give my scripts an extra readability, I thought, and seemed the simplify the work as a whole.
However, I ultimately stopped, mostly out of fear, figuring the gatekeepers have enough reasons to slap a big red "NYET!" on my scripts, why give them extra ammo, y'know?
Sturges also wrote in a strange sort of "Sequence" style, thematically breaking his scripts up into "sequence A," "sequnce B," etc. Since he directed his own material, I suppose he could do whatever he wanted though.
Bold my slugs, got turned onto it by another scribe a couple years ago and I love it, I do … it looks and reads so much better …
I don't use it for secondary slugs, just regular slugs … which means that if you use it a lot, you have to really think, is this a secondary, or primary …
I don't use transitions like CUT TO, any of that, either … I use secondary headings when necessary.
But I really like bolded slugs, makes it read much better (of those pro scripts I've read who also do it).
I'm hoping it becomes a real trend … if I remember correctly, people were also resistant to secondary headings for awhile, were they not (felt it was directing the shot)?
But me likey, very much.
Sorry huge typo above…
I bold sluglines because I like reading bold sluglines. Sometimes when I get in the zone I forget to see the slugline and the bold makes me check up for a second before moving on. I'll even go as far to say I like reading bold and underlined sluglines lol I'm sure I'll be one of the few though
thanks for your response, scott.
i only asked because i noticed a lot of the 2008 Black List scripts using the style… and i liked it.
@januaryfire: yeah, maybe it's a cheap visual cue. but isn't capitalizing IMPORTANT EVENTS the same thing? i think overuse of that is more cloying than bolded slugs could ever be.
sometimes, i'm a pretty lazy reader and i find the bolded slugs help me focus. i honestly think it reads better. and if scripts are partially based on readability, i'm thinking why the hell not?
but if the bitter script reader thinks it doesn't fly than maybe not. but you gotta admit: it seems to be trending. i'm seeing more and more of it recently.
screw it. i'm using them. i like them too much. thanks for the thoughts, guys.
I understand the trend. Just the scripts I've seen with bolded slug lines, the bold isn't that much bolder and looks like some quirk or mistake when I read on my computer screen…maybe they come out different printed, but I haven't wanted to use so mch paper and printer toner. If the bold version of the font were thicker, maybe it would look better to me. I am coming at the whole bold issue from 15 years as a graphic designer.
Bold slugs won't stop me from reading, but they already annoy me when I start so the writing better be good to keep me interested.
Why add something to a script that the reader might hate? If there is an instructional reason for the boldiness or anything else, then that's another reason to dislike the script cuz it comes with instructions.
The old rule about being typed on one of those stone age typewriters still holds true for me. If you remember using typewriters, typing bold words was a bit of a pain in the butt.
I love CUT TOs. I love
WHITE SPACE
on a page. I use them sparingly, and it's usually for a harsh effect, but I may try BOLD to replicate the effect of CUT TOs.
I figured out one reason not to use bold while reading a script today. Your bold text isn't going to be so clear after a script gets copied a couple times. I'm sure you've all read scripts that have been copied multiple times. The letters start to blur and the bold text blurs most. Big bold blurry words, no thanks.