Using "ING"
- Thread starter TomBays
- Start date
vcassel
Veteran
You're talking about the present participle form of verbs, i.e. run/running. The normal verb for run indicates that in the scene he actually starts to run. Use the present participle form of run which is running to indicate that it's something the character has already been doing when we cut to him in the scene.
INT. LAX - DAY
Harry running through the airport. He glances at his watch.
Here we open on Harry already running through the airport. Then he glances at his watch.
No one splits hairs on this other than people who are pedantic about what gurus say. These people won't be the producers or execs who read your scripts.
INT. LAX - DAY
Harry running through the airport. He glances at his watch.
Here we open on Harry already running through the airport. Then he glances at his watch.
No one splits hairs on this other than people who are pedantic about what gurus say. These people won't be the producers or execs who read your scripts.
Last edited:
If you're writing a spec script and want to sell it or use it as your calling card, then you should avoid it. It's more about presenting a mood for the reader than it is any mechanical rule.
If you're writing it for your own use, it doesn't matter.
If you're writing it for your own use, it doesn't matter.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
It's usually better to write "Joe walks to the door" than "Joe is walking to the door" since this is generally an acting direction as well as a description. You'd normally instruct an actor to 'walk to the door', not 'do some walking' to the door.
As with everything, of course, there are exceptions...
As with everything, of course, there are exceptions...
Spent half a day last week on this topic as part of my writing refresher, and honestly there's a bit of validity to it. As with everything, once you learn why then you decide when and where to break the "rules".
Vcassel's explanation is where I landed. I use ING too much, way too much, but I also intend to shoot my own material so it kinda doesn't matter. If I were writing for someone else or a spec, I would use ING only to refer to action already happening at the top of a scene.
Vcassel's explanation is where I landed. I use ING too much, way too much, but I also intend to shoot my own material so it kinda doesn't matter. If I were writing for someone else or a spec, I would use ING only to refer to action already happening at the top of a scene.
vcassel
Veteran
Owen lowers the gun. Beads of sweat drip down his forehead. He pulls a second pistol from its scabbard. Aims.
No need for present participle here.
vcassel
Veteran
The only other problem may be the word scabbard. Holster is more recognizable. Perhaps also using more specific nouns for gun/pistol like Gat or 9mm, but I guess that depends on the specific gun the character is using in this scene and how well known it is.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I don't have a problem with 'sweat beading...'... since it 'reads fast'... as for scabbard... only Clint's 44 Magnum would probably be held in a 'scabbard'... holsters for ordinary mortals' guns... I mean fire arms...
Egg Born Son
Veteran
Keeping your own turn of phrase:
Owen lowers his gun, sweat beads on his pale face.
Many instances of -ing work just as well with -s.
You should also be specific as to the ownership of the gun, he lowers his gun - a small thing but any possible point of confusion should be avoided. By giving him ownership of the gun it is a smaller assumption to assume it is in his hand. If the gun is being lowered then the action of being physically lower has a more dominant relationship to the gun than who is holding it. If the reader has to take a microsecond to remember that two lines ago the guy picked up the gun then the flow is broken. Also the term gun would be fine except his second gun is more specifically referred to as a pistol.
If there are two similar items you don't want to mix a general term with a more specific term so the first gun should be a revolver or a semi-automatic. If the first gun is also a pistol then they should each be differentiated by model. With multiples of a similar item a reader should be afforded no opportunity to confuse the two. He could lower the 9mm and reach for the .38 special. Alternatively you could differentiate by function: lower the semi-automatic, reach for the pistol. Or by a functional description: lower the 9mm (in his hand) and reach for the concealed pistol (or backup pistol). As long as the two props cannot be confused even by an idiot.
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
Look at The King's Speech (google king's speech screenplay pdf), last year's winner for best original screenplay. You will encounter the use of lots of "-ing" verbs, but not for the primary action of the subject. What I mean is you want the primary action to be the active verb tense (He runs into the bar...) not passive (Running into the bar he....). But you will often see the ING following the active, e.g. She gives him a loving peck on the cheek, quickly rubbing off a fleck of lipstick.
Excerpt from The King's Speech to illustrate:
[scrippet]
ELIZABETH
Time to go.
He stares straight ahead, frozen. She gives him a loving peck on the cheek, quickly rubbing off a fleck of lipstick.
[/scrippet]
Last edited:
vcassel
Veteran
"Rubbing" in that example feels wrong. I know this is all grammar nerd stuff, but the present progressive form of "rub-bing" denotes a verb form that conveys a sense of ongoing action that we've dropped into. Has she been rubbing off the lipstick since before she gave him a loving peck on his cheek? I'm splitting hairs, sure, but I wouldn't write it that way. Present progressive is a very particular tool to me.
Egg Born Son
Veteran
Lov-ing is right but I don't like rubb-ing. The whole sentence is wrong. It makes it sound like the peck is rubbing off the lipstick rather depositing it. Don't like fleck either...lipstick isn't brittle.
I'd prefer: She gives him a loving peck, leaves lipstick on his cheek. Quickly, she rubs it off.
Or even: She gives him a loving peck, leaving lipstick on his cheek. She quickly rubs it off.
While maybe not perfect, the use of leav-ing denotes a consequence of the action rather than describing the action. The decision which to use should come down to which flows better.
I'd prefer: She gives him a loving peck, leaves lipstick on his cheek. Quickly, she rubs it off.
Or even: She gives him a loving peck, leaving lipstick on his cheek. She quickly rubs it off.
While maybe not perfect, the use of leav-ing denotes a consequence of the action rather than describing the action. The decision which to use should come down to which flows better.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
While I agree that the form 'is/are ...-ing' in a independent clause would be 'visualized' by me as 'we drop into an on going act', in the case of the "King's Speech" example, to me it is a 'smoothing' effect, where as a full period, then 'she rubs...', for the next sentence, making it an independent clause in its own right, means '...' full stop '...', rather than '..., ...'.
The only quibble being the -ing vs. the -s, if one maintained the ellipsis of the clause.
I'm pretty sure I would draw (or have drawn, as my art skills tend to not be very good for people...) the same picture.
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
If the concept is great as is the case with TKS, it probably matters little if some -ing verb usages occurs throughout the script (which it does). Concept is king.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Individual cases can be found to 'put the lie' to any guideline, rule, or conventional wisdom. Just as ostensibly 'bad' movies sometimes make tons of money (even Michael Bay himself admitted that "Transformers 2" was crap). But it doesn't serve any purpose to cite the exceptions aside from illustrating the obvious: there are exceptions. Rules/guidelines for aspiring writers, actors, cinematographers - you name it - are useful, and when a consensus of highly credible experts agree, IMO they should be taken to heart. Break rules if you feel it's what you must do, but foremost, *know what the rules are before you break them*. Picasso was a fine representative painter before he (and other contemporaries) shattered all the rules to invent cubism...
Randall_Oelerich
Veteran
I maintain it is not an individual case-- you will find many uses of the -ing form of verbs in just about any sample of screenplays chosen at random.
vcassel
Veteran
Because it's a valid grammatic tool used to clarify when an action starts. We are writers, and it's just good usage if it clarifies.
What is this "no -ing" rule people are citing here? It definitely isn't passive voice. Show me a list of this consensus. What are their credentials? Where are they getting this feedback from? And why, as writers (presumably), would they do away with something so useful? What development exec or producer goes around counting present progressive verbs? Who rejects a great script on that basis?
I call B.S. on this supposed stigma. Maybe, if anything, gurus use it to scare newb writers into paying for their 'expertise', but I can't see why this would mean anything to the people who would actually buy the script.
What is this "no -ing" rule people are citing here? It definitely isn't passive voice. Show me a list of this consensus. What are their credentials? Where are they getting this feedback from? And why, as writers (presumably), would they do away with something so useful? What development exec or producer goes around counting present progressive verbs? Who rejects a great script on that basis?
I call B.S. on this supposed stigma. Maybe, if anything, gurus use it to scare newb writers into paying for their 'expertise', but I can't see why this would mean anything to the people who would actually buy the script.
Last edited: