• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Do you think that sometimes, having dialogue is a good thing, in this case?

H

harmonica44

I've been told by some beta-readers that sometimes the characters talk about things that are not relevant to the plot. But lots of movies do that, and they do it because it develops the characters more.

In Pulp Fiction for example, Jules and Vince have a lot of conversation in the car ride, in their opening scene, before they go kill those men they were assigned to.

But if that scene in the movie were cut, and it just started out with them going for the assassination, would have been better. For example, the foot massage philosophical debate, doesn't have anything to do with the actual plot at hand, but it helps develop the philosophical beliefs, of the characters and what they believe in.

I just think that little conversations like that, can really add to characters, even though it's not part of the plot at hand. Does it have to be though? What if it's an expression of character theme?

For example, in the script I gave to beta-readers, the MC meets a girl in the bar and seduces her. They develop a relationship and the relationship plays a part in the story.

I was told by a couple of readers that I don't need to show the seduction dialogue. I should just have to two characters give each other looks, and then skip ahead and that's all you need.

But doesn't that feel cheap in a way? I mean to use Pulp Fiction again, Vince took his boss's girl out and they showed all of it. Not that I am showing a lot, but I feel I should show something in dialogue, rather than just skipping ahead.

What do you think, about things like that?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Yes, QT has a different style. Plenty of posers want to imitate him.

Lets take that Royal w/ Cheese dialogue. One of the most memorable small talks I've ever heard on film.

Is your seduction sequence one of the most memorable dialogue sequences I will have ever seen in my life?
Or are you just wasting everyones time and going through the motions of what the audience already knows is going to happen.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I am not saying the scene is going to be one of the most memorable scenes of all time. But shouldn't the process still be shown in order to add depth to the characters. I am just going by my experience as a viewer, but we don't even have to use QT as an example. I didn't even have QT in mind when I wrote the story, I just thought of it as an example to prove that not all dialogue has to be plot related.

Let's go with James Bond. In Dr. No, if Bond saw Sylvia Trench in the Casino and then it skipped ahead to them being in bed, would this be better than actually showing Bond talk to her?

You can use this example for other Bond movies as well, as almost all of them show Bond do the talking first. Well let's go with a more conventional screenwriting rule. How come all the dialogue has to be plot related? Why can't the story just take some time to breath and get to know what the characters are like a little, especially in the first act, when introducing everyone and how they are connected.

Is that wrong? Rear Window is another example. James Stewart and Grace Kelly have a lot of dialogue to describe their relationship, before they start talking about the murder plot. If they cut out most of the relationship talk, would it be better?

Plus just because the audience knows something is going to happen, they still want to see how in a lot of cases. Movies will still show how all the time, so I don't see what I am doing differently.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
How come all the dialogue has to be plot related? Why can't the story just take some time to breath and get to know what the characters are like a little, especially in the first act, when introducing everyone and how they are connected?
Click to expand...

I've never heard that rule. Where did you read that at?

There are plenty of stories that are character driven and aren't even about the plot. This rule you're quoting would make absolutely no sense in that type of film, where it's about the characters and not the plot.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
H44 quit making up rules.
Learn about subtext.
Learn to look better: the footmassage dialogue seems out of place, but 1) Pulp Fiction is called that way for a reason: the dialogues are pulpy over the top, 2) it creates a kind of tension: the Travolta character has to entertain his boss's girl, but has to be careful to give her what she wants without upsetting the boss.

harmonica44 said:
.............

For example, in the script I gave to beta-readers, the MC meets a girl in the bar and seduces her. They develop a relationship and the relationship plays a part in the story.

I was told by a couple of readers that I don't need to show the seduction dialogue. I should just have to two characters give each other looks, and then skip ahead and that's all you need.

But doesn't that feel cheap in a way?
............
Click to expand...

You mean cheap like 'the audience will think that you skipped dialogue to save money'?
You should never think like that.
You should think: what am I communicating?
If they only look at each other and the next shot is in bed, what does it say?
If they never met: they are just acting on lust. (Could be a set up for future drama/problems)
If they met before, their previous meeting determines how this sequence will be interpreted.
If they talk, you can add subtext, and also convey why they match.

But like almost any of your questions: if done right, it is not wrong. So either solution could work if done right.
We can not tell you whether something works or not based on a discription of a scene.
Every scene relates to the other scenes
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No sorry, I don't mean to make up rules. It's just a lot of people have this rule it seems to only resort to dialogue when you have to when several movies will choose to have dialogue, especially in seduction scenes. Dr. No, and Lethal Weapon 3 are examples, of such.

When I say it comes off as cheap, what I mean is, is that it comes off as the filmmakers are in ADD mode and skip ahead cause they feel they want to get the story over with, rather than slow down and show the character interactions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think you could do it both ways. It's kind of stylistic preference in a way. Some films prefer to leave things more to the imagination or not focus on certain things. They prefer subtleties I guess I would say.

Then you have other films that really dive into the dialogue as a way of revealing the characters. This would include not only QT films but I would also say most films of the french new wave.

I think it just depends on what kind of movie/story you want to tell. I know a lot of people these days are built on "what's the right way of doing such and such." And there are arguably some wrong ways. But I think there are MANY right ways. Just make sure it doesn't feel unnecessary. The beauty in it is this is a creative industry and you can do whatever your vision calls for. Just have to be willing to take on the criticism and defend it when someone questions it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well I read John Truby's book on screenwriting, The Anatomy of Story. He made an interesting point, saying not everything needs to be shown and sometimes cutting ahead can be good, but when it comes to romance and love stories, if you want an emotional pay off in the end, then you shouldn't skip ahead, because that cuts out the build up to the emotional pay off.

Since I want my love subplot to end in tragedy, I want the reader to feel it. But he says if skip ahead on the romantic build up, then the reader won't feel it, and if the reader doesn't feel it, then it doesn't exist, he said.

So I kind of see what he is saying, and perhaps when it comes to a relationship build up, I shouldn't treat it as going through the motions, and treat it with care instead?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dialogue that deepens character understanding is just as important as dialogue that progresses the plot - as long as the characters are worth understanding deeper.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
.............. if the reader doesn't feel it, then it doesn't exist, he said.
..............
Click to expand...

Which is true for everything in a movie.

That is why is wrote:

WalterB said:
.......

You should think: what am I communicating?

.............
Click to expand...

Where communicating is showing, saying, the score, the pace, the colors, the acting, the framing.
In a script you are communicating what is done (shown) and heard (dialogue and important sounds).
So that needs to make sure that what you want to convey 'exists'.
If you cut something in a way that it loses meaning, it is a bad cut.
If you show something that is not only unrelating, but also boring, it's a waste of time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yep that's true. Actually when it comes to showing instead of telling with dialogue, here is a question.

In my story, a suspect is arrested and interrogated for information. The suspect doesn't talk, so the police have to let him go, since they couldn't get him to crack, and give up anything incriminating.

Now I could show the scene, but it's probably not necessary since he doesn't talk or give anything of value.

So I could cut it instead, and just skip ahead to another scene where one cop tells another, that they let him go, and he didn't talk. Now the first option you actually see the scene, which is showing; in the second option you are told what happened, without showing.

However if the scene does not need to be shown and can just be told with dialogue, which is better in that case? Showing or telling?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
In Pulp Fiction for example, Jules and Vince have a lot of conversation in the car ride, in their opening scene, before they go kill those men they were assigned to.
Click to expand...

The conversation is not quite as random as it seems. We find out that Vince has been laying low in Europe, which is a subtle way of giving his bona fides as a really bad guy. It also underscores the casual brutality in both of their natures that they treat their "mission" like anyone would treat their 9 to 5 day job. It's also a piece of levity that adds counterpoint to a couple of very violent scenes. So it is really a very carefully crafted piece of dialog that gives a lot of information about the two characters and sets up what will follow.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I say don't think about it too much and just write what comes from the heart. Don't let anybody tell you you can't write dialogue for a scene if you want to. Some movies have tons of dialogue and some don't have any at all. Just make what you like and let its own style shine through.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Well why not cut it? It's just going through the motions since the villain doesn't talk.
Click to expand...

You really don't see it, right?

This kind of 'logic' is one of the things that kill your scripts.

Since when are only talking scenes relevant?
You actually proposed to NOT show the (in)action, but to tell about it, without a storydriven reason for that, but because "the villain doesn't talk anyway".

Go rewrite your script: let 3 old ladies on a bench gossip about the events. Don't show anything but them and call it 'Did you hear about that story?'
The good thing about this approch is that it doesn't have to make sense, because they talk about rumors, so the truth might be twisted a bit. And you only need 1 location, no stunts....
May be you can promote it as a "100% Tell, don't show movie" :P

Yes, I'm being sarcastic here (just in case you miss that).
How good is your calculus?
That doesn't require any (emotional) understanding of a medium like movies or a species like humans.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
H44, all dialogue is purposeful in that it advances the plot and character development. Sometimes is just about one or two lines, not a whole page of dialogue. There is a difference between romance and lust. Picking someone up at a bar may not require more than one line. The power of the actors' performances can carry the scene. However two characters falling in love may take a few interactions. As others have pointed out, Tarantino is a 'verbal screenwriter'. He puts lots of dialogue into his films, not always well. However, he is very strategic in his dialogue. Many good screenwriters are very subtle.

If your beta-readers are suggesting you should skip ahead, then pacing may be an issue. Cutting out unneeded scenes and dialogue or stripping them down is a valuable skill as a writer. If you post the bar scene, we can give you more specific feedback. As it is, a description doesn't give anyone much to work on. Any advice is hit or miss.

If I wrote I have a pain in my shoulder, what should I do on a doctor's list, the advice would be all over the board. Is it radiating? Did you fall? To give feedback without a physical exam would be making wild guesses. You do that to this group over and over. Just post your script and let the chips fall as they may. Or at least append the scene and the one that follows that you want feedback on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is not just a funny dialogue. I don't know the name this function in English, but in this dialog has a "twist" (event, surprise). Two guys talking about mayonnaise and other things... It's killers! Wow! I did not expect!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top