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

Long scenes

My story requires for quite a few of long scenes in of enclosed locations, and I want to know how to keep it tense and exciting, but not gimicky or corny, or WAY overdone like a lot of B movies, which have done something similar takes place. I plan on in the future filming one of these scenes as part of the road to getting the whole movie financed...

I remember watching a Poseidon adventure copy off called "Deep Water" and it had the problem I want to avoid, "The mist" of course did this right.

What happens in one scene is that a Pleasure boat, from a cruise ship is stranded after the ship is blown up by NATO after there is news that a people infected with the virus that is part of the plot is on board, and the main charachters bicker about what to do.

The other one is that the main charachters are stuck in a building,(Hotel or office floor) as NSA agents try to come in to try and Arrest the main character to keep her from exposing the villain for what he's done, killed lots of people despite the fact there could be a cure for the virus.

Another movie story I am working on is even more enclosed, it's mostly set in a couple of condos and night clubs it's kind of similar to the Informers, but with even more sex... I guess you can say it's a lars von trier type film.
 
Hi Raymond,

Remember, the great part about being the filmmaker is that YOU choose what the audience will see! It isn't hard to keep variety by changing setups angles or also blocking your actors in an interesting way.

There is an endless supply of movies you could watch to get inspiration:

GlenGarry Glen Ross - Most of it takes place in a real estate office, or a chinese restaraunt.
God of Carnage - Takes place almost entirely in a small Brooklyn apartment.
12 Angry Men - A jury room
Buried - The entire movie takes place inside a coffin buried underground.
Cube - The movie takes place in a series of interlocking cubes that all look the same.
Phone Booth - Self explanatory.

I'm sure others will come up with more titles.
 
Sounds like you want the film to be set in one or very few locations.

Like pretty much everything relating to making a film, it really comes down to the execution of the project.

My advice to you would be to cut out any scene or line of dialogue that does not movie the story forward. Every piece of a film and every piece of info a line reveals should keep the story moving. Cut out the filler, and scenes when nothing is going on.
 
i definitely agree with you guys..the most beautiful thing is being the film maker..every piece of footage you have is only beknownst to you :) my advice..is just take your time and review the sequence over and over until you feel like..damn..now thats fuckin dope lol..good luck man! also if you get a chance check out my thread i just posted ..new short called 37 STEPS...lemme know what you think plz :)
 
My advice to you would be to cut out any scene or line of dialogue that does not movie the story forward. Every piece of a film and every piece of info a line reveals should keep the story moving. Cut out the filler, and scenes when nothing is going on.

I have to say, as a writer, I disagree with this. Dialogue and scenes do not necessarily need to keep the story moving. They can simply give an insight into a character, his/her motivations, backstory etc.

Think about 'bottle' episodes on TV... the very best do just that. Often there is no story at all and only tangental references to the season story arc. Consider the brilliant Breaking Bad episode 'Fly' (aka the utterly pointless Breaking Bad episode 'Fly' depending on your point of view!). It is a moment of calm that allows you to get invested in the characters, and that's through dialogue that 'moves the story on' very little.

I agree that removing redundancy is a good idea, but it's not all about plot. A screenwriting seminar I attended suggested that every line of dialogue should either a) progress the plot, b) enhance the viewer's understanding of the characters, or c) be a joke to lighten the mood (which should ideally serve dual purpose with a and/or b). That sounds about right to me.

As an aside, I think the fast-cutting nature of modern movies/TV, where long scenes or extended stretches of dialogue seem to be frowned upon, is a real loss to drama and good writing.
 
I have to say, as a writer, I disagree with this. Dialogue and scenes do not necessarily need to keep the story moving. They can simply give an insight into a character, his/her motivations, backstory etc.

Yes, but revealing information about a character, in a way, is moving a story forward. If you learn about motivation and backstory, that is a chance for some powerful and interesting scenes.

What I'm trying to say is that there are hundreds of films and videos that are 70% filler.... which is boring. I think it's generally good practice to cut out anything that does not make the film/episode any less interesting or powerful.

I'm not saying that you should cut out info revealing how a character came to be, but rather, scenes and dialogue that slows the film/script down, ruins the pace and flow of the film/script, and doesn't improve it in any way.
 
Yes, but revealing information about a character, in a way, is moving a story forward. If you learn about motivation and backstory, that is a chance for some powerful and interesting scenes.

What I'm trying to say is that there are hundreds of films and videos that are 70% filler.... which is boring. I think it's generally good practice to cut out anything that does not make the film/episode any less interesting or powerful.

I'm not saying that you should cut out info revealing how a character came to be, but rather, scenes and dialogue that slows the film/script down, ruins the pace and flow of the film/script, and doesn't improve it in any way.


I think 70% is probably a little high. I assume there's a particular film/show you're thinking of for that stat? I'd love to know what it is.
 
I think 70% is probably a little high. I assume there's a particular film/show you're thinking of for that stat? I'd love to know what it is.

"Castaway" is a great example. Much of Tom Hank's stent on his island was spent walking around with his volleyball finding food, shelter and crap all the while mumbling to himself. Also, much of the movie was spent in one centralized location (obviously) since he was stuck on a stinkin' island! ....Even with limited dialogue and localized surroundings, Hanks still managed to keep the movie viewers connected and entertained. ....Great movie, by the way!

If you want a REALLY, REALLY long scene sans any dialogue ....anyone remember "Quest for Fire"? ....Zero dialogue and lots of filler (except for some prehistoric gibberish from time to time by Rae Dong Chong). BTW: Chong's excellent performance in this movie makes up for all the other ones she's acted in.

-Birdman
 
I think 70% is probably a little high. I assume there's a particular film/show you're thinking of for that stat? I'd love to know what it is.

This is purely my opinion.

John Dies at the End
Broken City
Transformers Movies
Pain and Gain
My Soul to Take
To the Wonder
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
Side Effects
Wanted
 
In close quarters, I think subplots between different characters really adds to the tension and the interest level of the film. I think you gave a great example with The Midst. Seeing different characters interact in different pairs really gave an interesting play out of the various arcs. By letting different characters have various types of conflicts with one another you can really play with the tension and have some nice nuances throughout the script.
 
"Castaway" is a great example. Much of Tom Hank's stent on his island was spent walking around with his volleyball finding food, shelter and crap all the while mumbling to himself. Also, much of the movie was spent in one centralized location (obviously) since he was stuck on a stinkin' island! ....Even with limited dialogue and localized surroundings, Hanks still managed to keep the movie viewers connected and entertained. ....Great movie, by the way!

What made the film so great was that they created interesting, rich, human characters (yes, even Wilson). When they were put in danger, we felt "there" because of the way they were so cleverly written and performed. There are plenty of movies in one location, but what made them great was that they kept us on the edge of our seat. Creating interesting characters is very important. They don't have to be likable, just interesting. I mean, while they are "bad guys", both Don Corleone and Norman Bates were so well written and directed so well that it kept us watching. A better example would be Jesse Pinkman and Walter White. Heck, even the grandaddy of them all, Charles Foster Kane.
 
This is purely my opinion.

John Dies at the End
Broken City
Transformers Movies
Pain and Gain
My Soul to Take
To the Wonder
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
Side Effects
Wanted

That probably explains why I disagree... I haven't seen any of those! I might check some out though. In learning screenwriting, lessons in what not to do can be just as useful (if not more so).

The only one I've seen a tiny bit of is the first Transformers movie, but I've never been able to watch all the way through. Maybe this is why :)
 
That probably explains why I disagree... I haven't seen any of those!

... and I advise you not to! They're downright horrible :lol:

I know some people might defend Malick or Soderbergh. I like most of their work, but I couldn't stand those two films.

The only one I've seen a tiny bit of is the first Transformers movie, but I've never been able to watch all the way through. Maybe this is why :)

Let me save you 2 hours of your life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzJuDo5ots0
 
Back
Top