The use of Voice-over

[mjjason]

My main problem with v/o is not the v/o itself but the use of it. In a short people tend to use it throughout the short. Sometimes its the only thing you hear. That is what turns me off.

In a full length film it can be less of an issue unless it is overused but in a short alot of people use it way too much. That is what I dislike.

 

[StefanHaynes]

Good use of V.O. in shorts:

http://www.chickenfactory.co.uk/shamepage.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DvyBCpv5-RM

Essentially: if it is an element of the film that adds artistic motivation and is unique in and of itself, then it is acceptable; both of those shorts create additional character depth through poetic dialog and sharp interaction with the live footage.

If it is there merely to "fill in the plot" or state some coy character trait, then no. Absolutely not. A five minute time constraint is no excuse.

 

[deedive]

add a '"when used correctly" and i'll click that.

 

[John LaBonney]

add a '"when used correctly" and i'll click that.

But that's been my point! Who's to say what correctly is?

We could refer to a set of guidelines, as some have done in this thread, but is it not okay to break/bend/expand the rules of the art?

I surrender already.

 

[Noel Evans]

Well it is OK to break and bend etc. But if its rank then thats all it is.

 

[deedive]

But that's been my point! Who's to say what correctly is? We could refer to a set of guidelines, as some have done in this thread, but is it not okay to break/bend/expand the rules of the art?
I surrender already.

since this is art it is not an easy answer. Just like certain genres, some people will automatically hate it. Sometimes it is hard to be objective but usually if u can honestly say "I would want to see this movie" then go with it. Ultimately the movie is for people like u

This may be vague but here is my formula
visual + VO = something that couldn't be created without either

 

[Barry_S]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the use of VO's. There are plenty of films where they work beautifully and strengthen the connection between a character and the audience. Like any technique, they should serve the story and not be used as a shortcut. Every technique can (and will be ) abused in filmmaking, just as nothing is off-limits if it's used well.

I have a bigger complaint about the use of guns--not from a moral standpoint, but as a narrative crutch. Yeah, just have some guy pull out a gun and that creates interest, drama, and tension. Bullsh*t! Three-quarter's of the time, it's a cheap band-aid for the lack of character and story development. Quentin Tarantino's characters aren't memorable because of a *prop*.

There's no right and wrong, there's only what works.

 

[Blaine]

Like any technique, they should serve the story and not be used as a shortcut. Every technique can (and will be ) abused in filmmaking, just as nothing is off-limits if it's used well.

And that's why I generally don't like VO. Too often it used as a way to present exposition. If a writer is using it to present his/her exposition he/she needs to take more time with the script and see if he/she can't find a better way to present the information. Flashbacks often suffer for the same reason.