Another name question!

Depends on the context of the script. If you're writing some sort of parody, or comedy, and the character's names are never mentioned - it might keep the reader amused. Better than "Tall Man #1". No harm, no foul.

But if the tone of the script is serious, perhaps a thriller or drama, then naming a character, however light his moment on screen might be, as "Tweedledum" - I think the reader would find it jarring. Better to stick with CLERK or ANGRY WOMAN.

You say these characters appear THROUGHOUT the script - meaning they appear over and over again - but their names are never mentioned? Then give them a name. It sounds like they are important. Even if their name is never mentioned.

So what you're saying, is that you need the reader to know that the SAME character he saw in an earlier scene, is back - speaking and interacting with the principal characters?

Name them. Name them whatever you want - but the reader has to be able to keep track of, and identify with the fact that it's the SAME person in this scene as in the last scene. "Man in Red Scarf" is not as good as "Tweedledum" - But we need to know WHY he is called "Tweedledum". Does he look like a Louis Carol Chraracter? How do you introduce each of these characters? They DO get introduced right? Since they are appearing over and over - you have to introduce them at some point in the screenplay.

stuckupmyownera said:

Well no. It's not about whether I name them. They're all obviously going to have names, because they're all distinct (though small) characters. It's about WHAT I name them.

Personally, I feel that Wednesday, Tweedledum (actually it's Tweedle and Dee), Quasimodo and Juliet are better than Goth Girl, Fat Kid (Fat Guy and Fat Girl), Ugly Guy and Romantic. Or Sally, John, Peter and Dawn...

Just like any other character. That's what they are. But a bit smaller... It's kind of like an ensemble cast, but not... A background cast with a few main characters living their story among them.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'd avoid doing what you're doing. The purpose of the kinds of names we're talking about is to "be descriptive" -- the reason that you're calling a particular background character "Goth Girl" rather than, say, "Sally" is because, well -- she's a Goth Girl but we're not going to get to know her well enough and there are so many other characters that giving her that name is the only sure way that you can be sure that the reader is going to remember, from one scene to the next that the character in question is actually a Goth Girl.

The trouble is, if you call her Wednesday -- sure, a lot of people are going to make the connection to the Addams family -- and a certain percentage won't. It's just going to be a name. Same deal with Tweedle and Dee.

Essentially, what you want are descriptive names, but instead you're substituting literary and cultural references because, to be brutally honest, you're trying to get cute.

The problem is, all that's going to accomplish, ultimately, is that a certain percentage of your readers (and it's always going to be a far larger percentage than you imagine) will miss the references and not understand that "Tweedle and Dee" mean Fat Guy and Fat Girl and instead they'll just be two other names that will be as forgettable and as undescriptive as Winkie and Tinkie.

There is a legitimate place for cleverness in a script and a place for simplicity and transparency. You don't want to get clever about stuff like the naming of minor characters (or really the naming of any character).

I think it will ultimately prove to hinder rather help the script.

NMS

I'd avoid Quasimodo. Not quite sure what you're trying to imply with it, unless it's the reductive conclusion that the guy has a hunched posture.

stuckupmyownera said:

Aww, hey, I'm not trying to be anything - it's just what popped in my head at the time. So what are you saying? Use FAT GUY and FAT GIRL? Even though most people would get the references??

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that the number of readers, producers, and execs who have not read Alice in Wonderland or who, having read it or even seen the movie, would still not understand that two characters named Tweedle and Dee were, on the basis of those names, supposed to be a Fat Man and a Fat Woman, are vastly greater than you imagine.

Moreover, since we're dealing with characters who are not, in fact, even named Tweedle and Dee in the universe of the story -- who actually have no on-screen names, or even names at all -- what is gained by giving them -- pardon the expression "cute" names?

I understand fully the impulse to give minor "walk-on" type characters memorable names so that, if they show up repeatedly, readers will remember who they are.

You also want to give them names that, in some way, are linked to some descriptive characteristic. That is, some physical characteristic, some way they dress, some way they act.

But you, apparently, have some additional criterion in mind. You want to do these things -- but you also want to be "creative" in your naming of these minor walk-on type characters by linking those physical or behavior characteristics to some literary or cultural reference.

So instead of Tall Man and Short Man, you want to call them Mutt and Jeff.

Okay. How many people here know who Mutt and Jeff are?

Well, if you're someone of my generation or older, you do, because they're among the most famous comic strips of my generation -- and earlier.

But I strongly doubt that my kids -- ages eighteen and twenty-two, would even have heard the names or would even understand the reference. I doubt they've ever even seen a Mutt and Jeff comic strip.

They've barely ever even seen Charlie Brown.

And you see -- that's the problem, because what you're writing is going to be read by twenty-two year olds, and twenty-five year olds, and thirty year olds, and forty year olds and god-forbid, even fifty year olds.

And certain references may be clear as a bell to some, and go completely over the heads of others.

Now, it's one thing if you're talking about a cultural reference that's within the script itself. Sometimes that's the nature of the game. If you're writing a script about the world of "X" -- whatever X is, and it has its own sub-culture, then the reader may very well be unfamiliar with its particular terms or culture or whatever.

But that's the universe of the script -- not the language that you use to convey that universe. If that language is, itself, obscure then the reader is going to miss things.

I don't know how many people are going to miss what I mean when I call some characters Mutt and Jeff. It will definitely be some.

I don't know how many people are going to miss what I mean when I call some characters Dweedle and Dee. It will definitely be some.

But I do know how many people are going to miss what I mean when I call some characters Fat Man and Fat Woman.

That would be -- zero.

So tell me again why you want to call them Tweedle and Dee?

I know what you lose, but what do you gain?

NMS

Why not give them names that are related to their nicknames but aren't so weird. It'll still be cute to you, but not weird to a reader. Juliet is fine, Quasimodo could be called Victor or Hugo in honour of the creator of the character. Wednesday could be Lisa or Christina after the two most notable actors who played her. And Lou and Carol for Tweedle and Dee.

If you spend too much time on minor or any character names - yes of course your leads' names are important - then it's indicative of the fact that either you're a perfectionist and/or you're putting form above substance. You want to carry your reader with you, and not everyone reading your script will have had the same level of education as you, or have come from the same part of the world, or the same generation, as NMS says. Finish the script - then worry about the names. Use your own code or any name while you're writing. I've changed the name of the protagonist on a script about 5 or 6 times to fit in with other people's 'vision' and their take on the ramifications each name brings...which is a very very personal thing, so 'fat man' etc works for me every time for minor characters with only one, maybe 2 scenes.

As it is, I'm writing this message rather than writing a science fiction script that I'm meant to finish in 10 days, which shows how easy it is to let yourself be distracted by something small instead of tackling the big issue.

It's definitely too early for a glass of red wine.