It's worth remembering that "show don't tell" isn't just visuals vs dialogue. You can still "tell" with visuals and "show" with dialogue. *Show* is where the audience is invited to infer things and draw conclusions for themselves, thus having a deeper emotional or intellectual engagement with the scene/characters, and *tell* is where the information is just explained for the audience for the sake of clarity or brevity. Example: INT. BEDROOM - Steve awake in bed, in the dark. Alarm clock reads 5am/morning radio jingle plays. INT. BEDROOM - Steve awake in bed, in the dark. We hear noises you associate with early morning, like birds, a garbage truck (so we know it can't be evening). Sometimes you want the audience to know immediately that it's 5am because 5am is relevant and you don't want to waste time. Sometimes you want them to recall the sensation of waking up early.
I think Show Don't Tell is a useful heuristic but the first example is not necessarily bad. For instance, most people hate seeing the alarm clock read 5am. So you can create a sense of anxiety in the audience with the first example if that is what you are going for.
@@ssssssstssssssss I'm not saying one or other example is bad. Sometimes you just want the audience to know it's 5am, and there's no need to waste time or be vague about it. That is the purpose of 'tell', IMO, convey information concisely and clearly. It's just an example. I'm just saying that people often confuse 'tell' with dialogue or narration, and 'show' with visuals, or assume that 'show' is always better or more sophisticated, and it's not as simple as that.
The problem isn't so much the line in concept, as in there's magic and cloning and whatnot, the people talking about are regular fighters not knowledgeable on the Force or how it works so it makes sense... The problem is it is a very boring standard way of conveying that information. A more visual way would have been to have Palpatine appear before various people, all over the Galaxy, and we'd see them reacting, some in terror, some in disbelief and maybe some in determination to "defeat evil once and for all" uniting these people who were scared or in denial etc, showing why they are the one to be the leader. "May the force be with you" isn't inherently BETTER dialogue and nor is "this is the way" they are odd enough compared to everyone else talking (in mostly correct grammar even if it is occasionally nonsense words "I was going to go to Toshi's station to pick up some power converters" that therefore the "May the Force be with you" stands out as sounding old, which we infer to potentially be religious due to the context, the incantation like use of it, the odd grammar structure making it sound jumbled up like how old language like how Chaucer does to us now. It is less about the words specifically and more about HOW you USE them.
Good dialogue: “Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” Bad dialogue: “Somehow Palpatine returned.”
This is accurate. People love to site QT, for good reason, yet ''good'' can be defined relative to individual films/stories as well. Simple and impactful statement lines, such as those of the wiseman (Obi-wan) work when the character is crafted well enough to engage the audiences' earnest belief. . . Another way to define ''good'' is believable - which means that which deepens the understanding of a character, word, or story.
Even with small talk one can reveal parts of the characters with a description of their demeanor or the appearance or surroundings... if they are important to the story.
Star Wars was our only big family event when it came out. Getting the tickets as soon as they were available, and at a theater billed as the largest screen in Denver, and being on time - or else. It was a big deal. 5 kids and my parents, as if we were making curtain time for an epic theater performance. Years later, I remember Roger Rabbit was a must see for the animation house I worked for. We closed up and every employee met at the theater, the same large screen Dolby sound theater. I guess what the two films had in common were the cutting edge special effects, the new worlds they developed. But the dialogue, that balance, that movement of the story. All there. And images/phrases that became iconic.
Thank you @filmcourage - Steve Douglas-Craig is one of your best at sharing glimpses from within the trenches. One of the Great Tragedies of the current era is the waste of absolutely incredible productions (sets, costumes, cinematography, locations...) with the pollution of contemporary/lazy vernaculars and pronunciations on characters who 'would' have very distinct manners, ideas, and ways of speaking. How often do we see a film, especially a period piece, where the effort is made to truly deliver the ways in which those characters would speak within the periods shown?
I really enjoyed his points as I am writing a story for common readers which is nearing a novelette. Due to it being my 1st literary piece and the 1st draft, all of my characters have the same voice - mine - save for one person. I must say that it is fun working with him because his personality and use of vocabulary is nothing like me, but I understand him. I really appreciate this writer's insight and perspective on creating dialogue. As always, thank you for sharing.
Dialogue shouldn't hold the story back which a lot of long dialogue does. What QT does in Pulp Fiction though is put long dialogue/monologue into slower parts of the movie so other parts can be quicker. The gold watch speech is long but it means the Bruce Willis segment can have an urgency to it. He doesn't have to sit and explain the backstory, he's out the door.
You are keying in here. The pacing is everything. How he envisioned this, or whether he workshopped it, is the beautiful mystery. Then there is the mastery of the editing which, if cut any other way, would have made PF feel at once encumbered & rushed.
Best use of dialogue I've seen in a long time is in the tv show Shoresy. Every character has their own way of speaking, conversations are tight, the show don't tell scenes are unique, and the humour is spot on.
It's like anything; sometimes sparse dialogue is required and sometimes it isn't. It depends on your characters and audience. If you're writing soap opera then it's mainly females who watch and they love nothing more than talk, talk, talk. Everything depends. I write sparse dialogue but only sometimes as it can be a bore to read and listen to. I write full bodied lyrical dialogue with a high concentration on freshness and surprise as it's a dream to read and listen to; I then know when to stop and return to sparse. The story/characters/setting tell us when one is appropriate and when the other isn't. Everything's about balance. Our main job is to keep audience attention; we all know how easy it is to move from one Netflix film or series to the next if we're not being hypnotised. Never forget the audience; think about them as much as the characters; we've thousands of points of reference; we know what they like and what they don't like; what they need and what they don't need.
For me it's not so much about being sparse, but more about there being subtext between the lines, that I can see and dig out. That's the most satisfying part when you feel the "undercurrent". A lot of bad dialogue is either characters spilling subtext on the surface or not having any subtext at all.
It depends on the target audience, the style of movie, and the characters. Some characters are point-by-point on their intentions outlaying everything in their plan which is later juxtaposed to how the plan actually went. " Intent VS Outcome". Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith films are primary dialogue-driven with snappy quips, quotable one-liners, and monologues. It's an absolute meal for an actor that smacks of theatre. Some introverted characters are likely to internalize, and it's up to the actor to convey their intentions. A film like "No Country For Old Men" has a silent antagonist who only speaks if he deems it absolutely necessary. The audience has to "read" the character their gesture and behavior, much like a pantomime. Either make the dialogue either serve the narrative, be entertaining, or don't have it at all. Any dialogue that is either preachy or mere filler will irritate or lose an audience.
QT gets a pass on his monologues because the joy of the scene is usually the monologue itself. He writes them to be witty and memorable, and manages to attract great actors to deliver them. The Walken watch scene is a good example. Sure it's relaying information in how important the watch is to Butch and the long path it took to get to him, but that's almost secondary. The main draw is Walken's anecdote and the clash between a child's understanding vs a veteran's no-holds-barred delivery of the facts, complete with graphic description of where the watch was hidden and littered with disdainful racist language. Walken's in the movie for all of five minutes, but everyone remembers the watch scene.
Star Wars didn't depend on clever dialogue as a standout. Star Wars is such a beloved movie and used as an example for so many aspects of good movie making because it uses so many aspects of good movie making as complimentary to each other. It doesn't use dialogue as a standout. It uses good dialogue. It tells the story of Luke. It informs the audience of what the force is. It illustrated the personality differences in characters and was an engine for how those traits played out in the movie. There was no set aside big special effects scene. All the special effects were used to help flesh out the story. Which is why the opening Imperial Cruiser scene is so iconic. And it uses the hero's journey that we've seen in so many other movies that have good story telling. And all later versions or sequels, whatever you want to call them, are used so much for examples of bad movie making because they abandoned using aspects of good movie making as complimentary to each other.
Lucas made Star Wars to be something you could only truly experience cinematically - the visuals, sound effects, musical score, archetypes, dialogue used as refrain, create a silent movie tone poem. And arguably for the authentic experience it has to be seen in a theater with an audience. Most movies are just filmed plays or adaptations of books.
@@Omnicient. He had cowriters working on the dialogue for American Graffiti. Additionally, that was a movie set in a specific time period in the US and not a sci-fi picture. Huyck and Katz also gave A New Hope a dialogue polish, even though the dialogue was stylised to be an homage to Flash Gordon. Lucas simply isn't that interested in how the dialogue sounds as long it conveys what is necessary to advance the story. However, he would schedule time for reshoots if he needs extra scenes, or add in/change dialogue during the edit, as is common in movie making. I don't know it's important for you to pretend you know what Lucas does or doesn't feel. I'm paraphrasing things he's actually said and what his inclinations are in what he wants to make. You speculating about someone you don't know adds nothing of value to what I wrote.
5:45 I am really unsure if he doesn't overlook something. But maybe he has played it through often enough that there is no room left. Although if to make this kind of room is an interesting endeavour or not is the question here... 10:40 okay I get it now.
Characters ought to behave like they would in a given situation. I want to relate to them. The things they say I should find relatable. In a given moment being relatable might be more important than pushing the sequence of events forward.But sure, why not strive for both.
This gentleman prefers “less is more” with dialogue, but there are also GREAT movies that are almost nothing BUT dialogue. Much of classic Hollywood film, all of Woody Allen, many of Tarantino’s great scenes, etc. When you analyze Sorkin’s A Few Good Men, EVERY scene is a dialogue scene; the major events, like Santiago’s death, have either already happened, or are presented in flashbacks, like the suicide of Col. Markinson. Maybe that’s why that movie FEELS like a classic Hollywood film.
A Playwright rules in his/her domain, but everyone, Producers, Directors, Actors...right down to the Boom Op 🙄, changes a Screenwriters work. Aaron Sorkin said (I'm paraphrasing), "I write just enough action to satisfy the audience so I can get back to the dialog". This video illustrates how, as a writer for the screen, several additional layers of skin is highly recommended.
That rule about not having your characters sound the same is always like whatever because the characters made by the people most touted for their dialogue skills, all sound the same, which is like that person!
It's best to try to make them as individual as possible but I know what you mean. An example: look at all these posts and almost all of them sound as though they were written by the same person but they're all very different yet their communications are mostly identical. That's real life! We learn from others be it written or spoken. We mirror everyone; be it consciously or unconsciously.
Different rules for different mediums. This is one of the conflicts that occurs in the social media fanbases surrounding adaptations from works that have a lot of dialogue. All the stuff that gets cut down and the more cynical snobbish gatekeeper sorts whine about it at the top of their lungs, not understanding that the 36 minute dialogue scene they think should be preserved may work in a novel, not so much in a film or TV show. And it’s really annoying because it’s hard to find fanbases not infested by these hyper dramatic cynical gatekeeper sorts that won’t allow anyone to post anything positive without spamming up the thread. I wish more people understood: novels are works of words, and films/TV are visual.
this is the diffrence between discribing and showing cause a picture is a thousand words while words are words but ok in the way one talks is a way of saying things as in the way one says something it means diffrent things ok shes hot to some that might mean shes beatiful to otheres shes over 96 degrees lil better shes fire as in shes hot or shes on fire cause shes fire ha get it and this just came to mind and im not even sure what this vid is about but that was my general idea and wtf nvm
I've got a script about a self-hating homosexual Klansman called Douglas who runs away to become a magazine editor. It's called "Everyone Else Is Bad". In terms of 'separating characters so they all don't sound the same' how can I delineate the mother's voice in his head?
I'd say I watch movies for the great dialogue before anything else. It's amazing to me to hear him call it a "last resort." Thanks FC, you never fail to give me food for thought.
True! A warning shot across the bow of the many writers who try and force ''great dialogue'' which, if undelivered, only serves to encumber the passage of the ship.
Indeed, no dialogue exercises are great for amateurs and beginners, but ultimately becomes a burden once you grasp better the concepts of screenwriting. There are stories that need tons of dialogues, and others will require minimum dialogue.@@destinypirate
Here is our full interview with Steve - ruclips.net/video/adVxPaj17rU/видео.html
It's worth remembering that "show don't tell" isn't just visuals vs dialogue. You can still "tell" with visuals and "show" with dialogue. *Show* is where the audience is invited to infer things and draw conclusions for themselves, thus having a deeper emotional or intellectual engagement with the scene/characters, and *tell* is where the information is just explained for the audience for the sake of clarity or brevity.
Example:
INT. BEDROOM - Steve awake in bed, in the dark. Alarm clock reads 5am/morning radio jingle plays.
INT. BEDROOM - Steve awake in bed, in the dark. We hear noises you associate with early morning, like birds, a garbage truck (so we know it can't be evening).
Sometimes you want the audience to know immediately that it's 5am because 5am is relevant and you don't want to waste time. Sometimes you want them to recall the sensation of waking up early.
I enjoy movies like that let me think for myself without pointing out the obvious…they don’t rely on the audience to be stupid .
I think Show Don't Tell is a useful heuristic but the first example is not necessarily bad. For instance, most people hate seeing the alarm clock read 5am. So you can create a sense of anxiety in the audience with the first example if that is what you are going for.
@@ssssssstssssssss I'm not saying one or other example is bad. Sometimes you just want the audience to know it's 5am, and there's no need to waste time or be vague about it. That is the purpose of 'tell', IMO, convey information concisely and clearly. It's just an example.
I'm just saying that people often confuse 'tell' with dialogue or narration, and 'show' with visuals, or assume that 'show' is always better or more sophisticated, and it's not as simple as that.
Dialogue is energy. If that energy matches the character, then it will flow and resonate with audiences.
Not necessarily. A lot of dialogue is energetic unrealistic bullshit that turns the audience off
@@milessolomon3324 Not sure how that relates to what I said....
@@milessolomon3324 energy and energetic is not the same thing. You misunderstood the comment
@@vanjaarsic1616 They most definitely did misunderstand. Thanx for clarifying for them 😁👍
I’m watching Puss In Boots The Last Wish right now and I consider it a perfect example of how animation can do action and dialogue correctly
I’m typing dialogue right Meow
Good movie
Tried to watch it yesterday. Lasted five minute. ugh.
@@thetitansofbrahma6702 You missed out on a good film, TBH
Good dialogue - “The force be with you.” And “This is the way”
Bad dialogue - “Somehow Palpatine Returned.”
Well, that is not really dialog... the first are "one liners"... the second bad writing. For they last only a couple of lines.
It was a joke…
Was it? My bad then... Woosh!. @@tAc399
The problem isn't so much the line in concept, as in there's magic and cloning and whatnot, the people talking about are regular fighters not knowledgeable on the Force or how it works so it makes sense...
The problem is it is a very boring standard way of conveying that information.
A more visual way would have been to have Palpatine appear before various people, all over the Galaxy, and we'd see them reacting, some in terror, some in disbelief and maybe some in determination to "defeat evil once and for all" uniting these people who were scared or in denial etc, showing why they are the one to be the leader.
"May the force be with you" isn't inherently BETTER dialogue and nor is "this is the way" they are odd enough compared to everyone else talking (in mostly correct grammar even if it is occasionally nonsense words "I was going to go to Toshi's station to pick up some power converters" that therefore the "May the Force be with you" stands out as sounding old, which we infer to potentially be religious due to the context, the incantation like use of it, the odd grammar structure making it sound jumbled up like how old language like how Chaucer does to us now.
It is less about the words specifically and more about HOW you USE them.
brilliant advice, concise and informative, use of analogy and example, thank you both!
Cheers Matthew!
Good dialogue: “Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”
Bad dialogue: “Somehow Palpatine returned.”
"The death star's a bad place"
This is accurate. People love to site QT, for good reason, yet ''good'' can be defined relative to individual films/stories as well. Simple and impactful statement lines, such as those of the wiseman (Obi-wan) work when the character is crafted well enough to engage the audiences' earnest belief. . . Another way to define ''good'' is believable - which means that which deepens the understanding of a character, word, or story.
Even with small talk one can reveal parts of the characters with a description of their demeanor or the appearance or surroundings... if they are important to the story.
Star Wars was our only big family event when it came out. Getting the tickets as soon as they were available, and at a theater billed as the largest screen in Denver, and being on time - or else. It was a big deal. 5 kids and my parents, as if we were making curtain time for an epic theater performance. Years later, I remember Roger Rabbit was a must see for the animation house I worked for. We closed up and every employee met at the theater, the same large screen Dolby sound theater. I guess what the two films had in common were the cutting edge special effects, the new worlds they developed. But the dialogue, that balance, that movement of the story. All there. And images/phrases that became iconic.
Thank you @filmcourage - Steve Douglas-Craig is one of your best at sharing glimpses from within the trenches.
One of the Great Tragedies of the current era is the waste of absolutely incredible productions (sets, costumes, cinematography, locations...) with the pollution of contemporary/lazy vernaculars and pronunciations on characters who 'would' have very distinct manners, ideas, and ways of speaking. How often do we see a film, especially a period piece, where the effort is made to truly deliver the ways in which those characters would speak within the periods shown?
I really enjoyed his points as I am writing a story for common readers which is nearing a novelette. Due to it being my 1st literary piece and the 1st draft, all of my characters have the same voice - mine - save for one person. I must say that it is fun working with him because his personality and use of vocabulary is nothing like me, but I understand him.
I really appreciate this writer's insight and perspective on creating dialogue. As always, thank you for sharing.
I love his happiness when he talks about his love for the series and movies (:
Dialogue shouldn't hold the story back which a lot of long dialogue does.
What QT does in Pulp Fiction though is put long dialogue/monologue into slower parts of the movie so other parts can be quicker. The gold watch speech is long but it means the Bruce Willis segment can have an urgency to it. He doesn't have to sit and explain the backstory, he's out the door.
You are keying in here. The pacing is everything. How he envisioned this, or whether he workshopped it, is the beautiful mystery. Then there is the mastery of the editing which, if cut any other way, would have made PF feel at once encumbered & rushed.
Great point.👏🏾
All of the monologues in True Detective season 1 we find out more and more about Rust
I’m glad he made it to that fate-sealing showing of Star Wars
Best use of dialogue I've seen in a long time is in the tv show Shoresy. Every character has their own way of speaking, conversations are tight, the show don't tell scenes are unique, and the humour is spot on.
It's like anything; sometimes sparse dialogue is required and sometimes it isn't. It depends on your characters and audience. If you're writing soap opera then it's mainly females who watch and they love nothing more than talk, talk, talk. Everything depends. I write sparse dialogue but only sometimes as it can be a bore to read and listen to. I write full bodied lyrical dialogue with a high concentration on freshness and surprise as it's a dream to read and listen to; I then know when to stop and return to sparse. The story/characters/setting tell us when one is appropriate and when the other isn't. Everything's about balance. Our main job is to keep audience attention; we all know how easy it is to move from one Netflix film or series to the next if we're not being hypnotised. Never forget the audience; think about them as much as the characters; we've thousands of points of reference; we know what they like and what they don't like; what they need and what they don't need.
Do you believe dialogue should be sparse?
Yes. Let actions do the talking
It completely depends on the character and scene tone. ruclips.net/video/JduADWt0XMI/видео.htmlsi=flJmiWfXDob_yd8J
Dialogue shouldn’t have to be anything besides effective.
For me it's not so much about being sparse, but more about there being subtext between the lines, that I can see and dig out. That's the most satisfying part when you feel the "undercurrent". A lot of bad dialogue is either characters spilling subtext on the surface or not having any subtext at all.
It depends on the target audience, the style of movie, and the characters. Some characters are point-by-point on their intentions outlaying everything in their plan which is later juxtaposed to how the plan actually went. " Intent VS Outcome". Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith films are primary dialogue-driven with snappy quips, quotable one-liners, and monologues. It's an absolute meal for an actor that smacks of theatre. Some introverted characters are likely to internalize, and it's up to the actor to convey their intentions. A film like "No Country For Old Men" has a silent antagonist who only speaks if he deems it absolutely necessary. The audience has to "read" the character their gesture and behavior, much like a pantomime.
Either make the dialogue either serve the narrative, be entertaining, or don't have it at all. Any dialogue that is either preachy or mere filler will irritate or lose an audience.
QT gets a pass on his monologues because the joy of the scene is usually the monologue itself. He writes them to be witty and memorable, and manages to attract great actors to deliver them.
The Walken watch scene is a good example. Sure it's relaying information in how important the watch is to Butch and the long path it took to get to him, but that's almost secondary. The main draw is Walken's anecdote and the clash between a child's understanding vs a veteran's no-holds-barred delivery of the facts, complete with graphic description of where the watch was hidden and littered with disdainful racist language.
Walken's in the movie for all of five minutes, but everyone remembers the watch scene.
I've always thought this, I think a film/screenplay has to go Up and Down constantly in some form of emotion.
"Lock S-foils in attack position" and of course "May the force be with you" is the dialogue that sticks in my mind from 1977 Star Wars 🌟😳
Star Wars didn't depend on clever dialogue as a standout. Star Wars is such a beloved movie and used as an example for so many aspects of good movie making because it uses so many aspects of good movie making as complimentary to each other.
It doesn't use dialogue as a standout. It uses good dialogue. It tells the story of Luke. It informs the audience of what the force is. It illustrated the personality differences in characters and was an engine for how those traits played out in the movie.
There was no set aside big special effects scene. All the special effects were used to help flesh out the story. Which is why the opening Imperial Cruiser scene is so iconic.
And it uses the hero's journey that we've seen in so many other movies that have good story telling.
And all later versions or sequels, whatever you want to call them, are used so much for examples of bad movie making because they abandoned using aspects of good movie making as complimentary to each other.
Lucas made Star Wars to be something you could only truly experience cinematically - the visuals, sound effects, musical score, archetypes, dialogue used as refrain, create a silent movie tone poem. And arguably for the authentic experience it has to be seen in a theater with an audience. Most movies are just filmed plays or adaptations of books.
@@Omnicient. He had cowriters working on the dialogue for American Graffiti. Additionally, that was a movie set in a specific time period in the US and not a sci-fi picture. Huyck and Katz also gave A New Hope a dialogue polish, even though the dialogue was stylised to be an homage to Flash Gordon. Lucas simply isn't that interested in how the dialogue sounds as long it conveys what is necessary to advance the story.
However, he would schedule time for reshoots if he needs extra scenes, or add in/change dialogue during the edit, as is common in movie making.
I don't know it's important for you to pretend you know what Lucas does or doesn't feel. I'm paraphrasing things he's actually said and what his inclinations are in what he wants to make. You speculating about someone you don't know adds nothing of value to what I wrote.
I find Steve to be a fantastic youtube mentor.
Cheers Matt! You are hearing from a guy that worked in the studio system and is also a writer himself.
🎵A little less conversation, a little more action🎵
Great explanation by Steve
💯💯💯
5:45 I am really unsure if he doesn't overlook something. But maybe he has played it through often enough that there is no room left. Although if to make this kind of room is an interesting endeavour or not is the
question here...
10:40 okay I get it now.
Good dialogue is a tasty burger. And a milkshake.
A 5 dollar shake.
Characters ought to behave like they would in a given situation. I want to relate to them. The things they say I should find relatable. In a given moment being relatable might be more important than pushing the sequence of events forward.But sure, why not strive for both.
This gentleman prefers “less is more” with dialogue, but there are also GREAT movies that are almost nothing BUT dialogue. Much of classic Hollywood film, all of Woody Allen, many of Tarantino’s great scenes, etc.
When you analyze Sorkin’s A Few Good Men, EVERY scene is a dialogue scene; the major events, like Santiago’s death, have either already happened, or are presented in flashbacks, like the suicide of Col. Markinson. Maybe that’s why that movie FEELS like a classic Hollywood film.
The mood of the dialog is rather difficult to express, mostly by subtext.
I've believed everything he's said so far except when he said "great dialogue is Aaron Sorkin." I disagree with that with great prejudice.
A Playwright rules in his/her domain, but everyone, Producers, Directors, Actors...right down to the Boom Op 🙄, changes a Screenwriters work. Aaron Sorkin said (I'm paraphrasing), "I write just enough action to satisfy the audience so I can get back to the dialog". This video illustrates how, as a writer for the screen, several additional layers of skin is highly recommended.
That rule about not having your characters sound the same is always like whatever because the characters made by the people most touted for their dialogue skills, all sound the same, which is like that person!
It's best to try to make them as individual as possible but I know what you mean. An example: look at all these posts and almost all of them sound as though they were written by the same person but they're all very different yet their communications are mostly identical. That's real life! We learn from others be it written or spoken. We mirror everyone; be it consciously or unconsciously.
Different rules for different mediums. This is one of the conflicts that occurs in the social media fanbases surrounding adaptations from works that have a lot of dialogue. All the stuff that gets cut down and the more cynical snobbish gatekeeper sorts whine about it at the top of their lungs, not understanding that the 36 minute dialogue scene they think should be preserved may work in a novel, not so much in a film or TV show. And it’s really annoying because it’s hard to find fanbases not infested by these hyper dramatic cynical gatekeeper sorts that won’t allow anyone to post anything positive without spamming up the thread. I wish more people understood: novels are works of words, and films/TV are visual.
I really like this guy :)
The soul of wit is bla bla bla bla bla.
😂 that’s the opposite of brevity 😂
@@sabster79 And the definition of irony.
this is the diffrence between discribing and showing cause a picture is a thousand words while words are words but ok in the way one talks is a way of saying things as in the way one says something it means diffrent things ok shes hot to some that might mean shes beatiful to otheres shes over 96 degrees lil better shes fire as in shes hot or shes on fire cause shes fire ha get it
and this just came to mind and im not even sure what this vid is about but that was my general idea and wtf nvm
Bricks dont hit back!
I can’t help but disagree. My favorite movies are dialogue heavy
I've got a script about a self-hating homosexual Klansman called Douglas who runs away to become a magazine editor. It's called "Everyone Else Is Bad". In terms of 'separating characters so they all don't sound the same' how can I delineate the mother's voice in his head?
By throwing it in the shredder...
Dialogue is a last resort? Remind me to never see this guy’s movies.
What are your favorite movies?
Interesting that someone so eloquent about the artform of storytelling has such poor visual art permanently on his arm.
‘
Not to be rude, but this guy is talking about teaching. And his IMDB is almost empty.
Not a word about subtext.
Check the description of the video, it lists his credits far more extensively.
I'd say I watch movies for the great dialogue before anything else.
It's amazing to me to hear him call it a "last resort."
Thanks FC, you never fail to give me food for thought.
You must not like Wall-E very much then.
Give an example
It is the last resort because most actors can't learn their dialogues. It is not a creative oriented rule, but a production oriented one
True! A warning shot across the bow of the many writers who try and force ''great dialogue'' which, if undelivered, only serves to encumber the passage of the ship.
Indeed, no dialogue exercises are great for amateurs and beginners, but ultimately becomes a burden once you grasp better the concepts of screenwriting. There are stories that need tons of dialogues, and others will require minimum dialogue.@@destinypirate