What is more important? [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

Optimus

03-08-2005, 05:16 AM

This answer will sound dumb and generic, but it's all of them. None of these elements are mutually exclusive in screenwriting (and, I would argue the case is the same in novels, as well).

A script cannot survive purely on dialogue. You can have the snappiest, wittiest, greatest dialogue on Earth, but if your concept sucks, or your plot is horrible, it won't really matter.

Also, if your characters don't have depth and aren't well-developed, then the best dialogue in the world won't save them, either, because the dialogue might not sound/feel organic to those characters.

Great dialogue is the natural product of great characters. Characters guide dialogue, not the other way around. I know several writers who come up with the dialogue first - a great joke, a stinging insult, a profoud realization - and try to force it into a scene by having a character say it, just because they are so in love with the line they came up with. But, in most of those cases, it comes off as forced because the dialogue - no matter how good it is - doesn't fit the character and/or the scene.

You can also write amazingly deep, developed, interesting characters, but if you put them into a meandering, crappy plot, your script is dead.

Narrative is important, however, I don't feel it is AS important as plot, characters, and dialogue. Narrative is the support structure of the script. It sets the tone and both creates and supports the mood of your story. If it dull, over-written, under-written, choppy, etc., your script MAY crumble.

However, it might not, if your concept and story is strong.

And, I disagree that a screenplay is all about plot and dialogue. Sure, I agree with the plot. But, in some films, the action and visuals dominate and are more important than the dialogue. Speed didn't have great dialogue, but the action was fast-paced and riveting.

Action is a product of plot. Dialogue is a product of characters. Both are products of story and concept. There is a complex interplay between all the aspects of a script. They all support each other.

The skilled writer is the one who can blend all of them together seamlessly.

Joe Calabrese

03-08-2005, 05:28 AM

Here Here Opti! Good show and well put.

maestrowork

03-08-2005, 06:19 AM

I think it depends on the script though... hmmm... I mean, for example, the original script of When Harry Met Sally (not the shooting script) is entire dialogue -- no action line. The dialogue is the plot. Or in a film like Closer, again the dialogue is everything.

Then you have some films where dialogue is secondary -- a horror film, for example, where the visuals, etc. are more important.

Optimus

03-08-2005, 06:47 AM

I don't think "the dialogue is the plot."

I think the dialogue is the vehicle through which the plot manifests. That particular story required that the motivations of the characters be told through dialogue. To use the example of one, or even a few, movies/scripts and try to apply them as a blanket explanation of all movies is faulty.

However, WHMS wasn't just a movie about people sitting around talking. They were doing things. They were going on dates, and singing karaoke, and playing Pictionary. The activities they were engaged in advanced the plot, and that plot was expressed through dialogue.

As you said, though (and the point I was trying to make as well), every script is different and to make a generality like "a screenplay is all about plot and dialogue" or to interrogatively imply that "dialogue is everything" is inaccurate.

Some screenplays are driven by dialogue. Some are driven by action. But ALL are really driven by plot, which grows from concept. That plot is merely expressed through dialogue and action.

Some scripts are heavier in dialogue than action. Some are heavier in action than dialogue. But ALL consist of both dialogue and action and could not survive without one or the other.

To say that one is more important than the other is missing the point.

Again, it is the task of the expert screenwriter to decide which his/her plot requires more of and to seemlessly interweave the two in a delicate balancing act.

maestrowork

03-08-2005, 07:23 AM

You've made some good points, Optimus. Of course, as I prefaced the original question, the ideal case is when EVERYTHING works together -- a good writer should take care of making everything work together well.

However, I don't want to make any conclusion here. The purpose of this thread is to engage people in some discussions. I would be interested in knowing what others are thinking, instead of stating the ideal case.

I mean, let me put the question another way. If you (anyone who wants to answer this?) can only focus on one or two things (less than ideal case), what would be the MOST important thing for you (personally)? Would you focus on having the best dialogue (which, by the way, IS the product of good characters/relationships/plot) or the structure (scenes, etc.) or what?

I think it's good to know how everyone prioritize their efforts... we all aim at perfecting all aspects of screenwriting... but surely, we all have different priorities...

To me, I write dramas, so dialogue (again, it's the product of characterizations, relationships, etc.) seems to be very important to me. It's not to say I'd ignore plot, action, setting, structure, etc. But to create incredible characters for a character-driven drama, dialogue seems to me, personally, one of the most important aspects. Obviously, when I'm writing a thriller, the priorities seem to shift for me... getting the plot twists out becomes more important, instead of deep, insightful, complex dialogue.

Optimus

03-08-2005, 07:43 AM

Well, I believe that if EVERYTHING doesn't work well together, then your script sucks.

And, as I've said and as you've said, it all depends on your story. One element will NEVER be more important than another in EVERY story. So, it seems to be to be an inarguable point to begin with.

However, I think we're getting into an "apples/oranges" discussion here. But, if I must choose between, for example, dialogue and structure, I'll choose structure.

A good concept that is conveyed in a poorly structured screenplay, will result in a sloppy, disjointed mess. Great dialogue means nothing if it is entangled within a structurally crippled story.

On the flip side, crappy dialogue contained in a screenplay with pristine structure will produce an "OK" script. You might at least get some assignment work from a script like that. Why? Because even though the dialogue sucks, it will make sense, advance the story, and the script will invariably hit all the correct dramatic plot points and beats as the result of its superb structure. You will be recognized for having great skill in dramatic structure.

Structure alone can enhance weak dramatic tension.

However, we again run into the problem of the interplay of components. Tight, expert structure comes from a well-thought-out, clearly defined plot. If the plot is crisp, then great dramatic structure will both spring from and enhance it.

However, crappy dialogue is the result of poor skill, poor imagination, or poor understanding of the characters. These won't necessarily detract from great structure, but can't make up for bad structure, either.

If scripts are like cookies, then structure is the flour and dialogue is the sugar. If you leave out the sugar, your cookie will be nasty, but it'll still be a cookie. It will be bland and tasteless, but you could still eat it.

If you leave out the flour, you won't have a cookie at all. You'll just have a puddle of melted sugar (and butter and eggs and vanilla). You can't eat it at all.

Or, think of it with respect to the checklist a reader must fill out when reading your script. If you have incredible structure, it will enhance your plot and conflict and you might still be able to have interesting characters, if you portray them that way through action. So, the only thing you're really missing is dialogue. If you just have great dialogue, you won't necessarily have good structure, or conflict, or plot, or even great characters.

You'll just have a bunch of characters standing around saying cool things we care nothing about.

maestrowork

03-08-2005, 07:53 AM

This is not to challenge your points -- I think you've hit on something quite profound here. Let's not talk "perfect" or "ideal" -- that's talk about reality... scripts that are usually not perfect.

Can we come up with a few examples where a film has great structures but poor dialogue?

Or vice versa. A film with great dialogue but so-so structure (or plot of story)?

On a side note.... just an observation. How come a lot times the Best Picture doesn't win the Best Screenplay (the Titanic comes to mind)? And the one that wins the Best Screenplay sometimes is not even nominated for Best Picture (Ethernal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind comes to mind)? ... of course I know the answer already, but I'll give the floor to someone else.

Well, I believe that if EVERYTHING doesn't work well together, then your script sucks.

I'm not so sure about that... for example, some people criticize the "dramatic" part of Titanic, that it drags and the dialogue is stilted, etc. (I'm not saying I agree) But does the script "sucks"?

randesq

03-08-2005, 08:03 AM

Joe Calabrese

03-08-2005, 08:03 AM

I'll leave it to you to to fight it out in a gentlemenly way, but my opinion is that a good story with bad dialog can be fixed much more easily than a bad story with killer dialog. I believe dialog to be an extention of action. Let us not forget that the first few decades of film had no dialog to speak of (no pun intended). Even "My Dinner with Andre" could not stand alone without it's action as minimal as it is.

maestrowork

03-08-2005, 08:35 AM

"To me, I write dramas, so dialogue (again, it's the product of characterizations, relationships, etc.) seems to be very important to me." Maestro

It's what isn't said, but understood that makes great drama. Take the best screenplay dramas - Ordinary People, tender mercies, in the bedroom, You can count on me, searching for bobby fisher, finding forester, smoke, kramer vs. kramer, etc... sure the dialogue was important, but it isn't the tape measure for drama.

Some writers breath life into things and then there's the rest of us. Why drizzle truffle oil on a dominos pizza?

With all due respect, "what's not being said" -- silence, etc. is part of "dialogue." Some may argue that's actually "action" -- the action of being silent or "not saying something." But to me, that's part of the art of dialogue (or the lack of).

At least that's my definition (note when I said: "...dialogue -- again, it's the product of characterizations, relationships, etc.") To ME, dialogue is an extension of characters and relations, at least in a drama. Dialogue is not what's being said only. Perhaps I've been hanging around novelists for too long. :-) In one of the best books on dialogue, there's a chapter on "silence." Wonderful stuff.

Optimus

03-08-2005, 09:08 AM

With all due respect, "what's not being said" -- silence, etc. is part of "dialogue."
With all due respect, it's not. *Shakes fist at maestro*

Dialogue, by etymology, is the spoken part of conversation. "Not talking" is still communicating, but not through dialogue.
At least that's my definition.
Indeed. ;)
Perhaps I've been hanging around novelists for too long.
Perhaps. I think, though, that discussions such as this get mired down in personal "definitions" of words, and artistic opinions of concepts, rather than adhering to the actual meanings of these concepts. It's very artistic and imaginative and warm and fuzzy to consider silence as "dialogue" and to embrace and romanticize that idea as some truth, and may even make the author of that book seem somehow insightful (though misinformed), but it doesn't actually fit the defintion of what dialogue actually is. (Dialogue from dialogos where dia means "through or across" and logos means "speech, word, reason." Also akin to Greek legein "to gather, say." Also dialegein "to gather and speak").

Silence is part of a conversation. It is part of the communication of ideas. However, it is the non-spoken, non-dialogue, part of the overall conversation. This is especially true in terms of screenwriting, where dialogue (usually) strictly means the spoken words of the characters.

And, I think you've hit on another great point. Dialogue, by itself, doesn't necessarily make a great conversation between characters. It is the interplay of the dialogue (words), facial expressions, overt actions, silence, etc.

(If you want to be technical, dialogue itself is an action. But, that would be too broadly inclusive a definition for this debate.) :tongue:

Back to the original question, I still believe that good structure can save bad dialogue, but good dialogue cannot save bad structure.

Dialogue comes from the characters. It is their reaction to the situations the writer puts them in. The situations themselves, however, are guided by structure.

Structure comes first. Then dialogue. That's the natural progression of a well-crafted story. That's why, to me, structure is more important (in your hypothetical scenario), though only slightly.

IMO, Screenplays evolve from a top-down process, IMO. Correcting things from the higher orders has an affect on the lower ones (trickle down). That's why, IMO, concentrating solely on dialogue to strengthen a story is the wrong approach, because that is a bottom-up process (you can't trickle up).

Adjusting structure will invariably have an effect on dialogue (as it will influence the situations and motivations of characters), but adjusting dialogue will not necessarily have any effect on structure.

maestrowork

03-08-2005, 09:24 AM

Me thinks good structure is an indication of a good plotting techniques, storytelling, etc. Some people are very good at that. They have the three acts structure down pat. Scene work together like a jigsaw puzzle. It flows well, cut well, etc. Of course, a lot of times, a good editor can fix bad structures as well. A script is the blue print... some has said that the final film is made in the editing room (which can be VERY different from the shooting script, BTW).

But bad dialogue. Man. To me personally, that's one of my biggest pet peeves. I can't tell you how many movies are ruined for me because of bad dialogues. You'd think once the structure is good to go, there's a good story to tell, the writers would go back and fix the dialogue, or the director or actors would say "hey, this dialogue is rough, man. Let's make it better." To me, bad dialogue almost always is the result of poor characterization, so they're related. You may have an excellently plotted story, but if your characters suck, your film suffers. And poor dialogue is one indication of poor characters.

Optimus

03-08-2005, 09:30 AM

Indeed, and I agree with you, but that seems like a different argument ("Bad dialogue can kill a good script" versus "Would you rather have good dialogue or good structure?").

Sometimes, it's the actor him/herself that makes the dialogue suck.

As Michelle Rodriguez once said, she "writes" all of her own dialogue because she doesn't think a screenwriter can write dialogue for "her" characters as well as she can. So, many times she ignores what the script says and ad libs.

Which, I find funny since she is probably the most one-dimensional (and morbidly untalented) actress working in Hollywood and most of her dialogue sucks. In all of her movies, she basically plays the same character, devoid of any depth, likeability, or nuance.

So, I have no doubt that she "writes" her own dialogue because it's usually as bad as her acting.

maestrowork

03-08-2005, 09:33 AM

LOL. Certainly. Then there's Robin Williams -- his stream of consciousness s*** is often better than anything a screenwriter can come up with... And a good actor can "save the film from the poor material" as they always put it. Or maybe not (e.g. I didn't like "Hide and Seek" despite Robert DeNiro's effort).

I'm glad we have these discussions. I think it's helpful. By no means I want this to become a pissing contest. I think we all have our perspectives, and hopefully we can take something from these discussions.

Compton

03-08-2005, 09:41 AM

Good thread. Informative and provocative.

This section needs more like it, so that my brain may absorb information, like sawdust to vomit in aisle 2.

Optimus

03-08-2005, 10:11 AM

By no means I want this to become a pissing contest.

Says the guy with a urinating dog avatar.

;)

NikeeGoddess

03-09-2005, 04:04 AM

Let us not forget that the first few decades of film had no dialog to speak of not really. the earliest films were documentaries but, as soon as they started making narrative stories then dialogue was always there....just in the form of subtitles.

maestrowork

03-09-2005, 04:08 AM

maestrowork

03-09-2005, 04:15 AM

Says the guy with a urinating dog avatar.

;)

Correction: peeing puppy.

;)

randesq

03-09-2005, 04:18 AM

Joe Calabrese

03-09-2005, 04:18 AM

not really. the earliest films were documentaries but, as soon as they started making narrative stories then dialogue was always there....just in the form of subtitles.

1 title card every minute or so doesnt amount to much and the characters would have done a whole bunch of action for a title card that read "I'll save you, my dear..."

maestrowork

03-09-2005, 04:27 AM

I wasn't talking about the absence of dialogue, just the nuance of it. When characters interact we understand that there's a sense of history amongst them. That they communicate with inference, nuance, subtleties, etc and a great screenplay (drama or otherwise) has textured dialogue. It's hardly ever about the exact words being said...

It's what ISN'T directly said, but understood (in context to the story) that makes a great story. By no means was I referring to silent film :box:

That's what we called subtext. What's revealed by not having had to say it. Good dialogue does that though. But you need the actual words, the blanks and the characters (and context) to carry that out. If it's just two characters staring at each other, it's really hard to decipher the subtexts (watch "Birth" with Nicole Kidman -- I think that script overdoes the "silence" thing).

Good drama has a lot of subtexts, and that's what make them so fascinating to watch. One of the best shows on TV that hinges on kick-a** dialogue and subtexts is Six Feet Under. I adore the writing on that show.

randesq

03-09-2005, 05:49 AM

what's subtext and where can I purchase it?

Optimus

03-09-2005, 05:53 AM

I was just reading a story on the new Star Trek movie... and they asked a writer why the recent ST movies sucked so bad. She said "bad dialogue." She blamed it all on the dialogue -- the inane explanations, the sermons, the self-referential conversations... I think that was an interesting observation from an insider...

Funny, I would've blamed it on the horrendously crappy story ideas, terrible writing, and Rick Berman (But, I might switch Berman to first on that list). The dialogue was the very least of the problems of three out of the last four Trek films (First Contact was the only stomachable Next Generation film).

maestrowork

03-09-2005, 06:04 AM

what's subtext and where can I purchase it?

They have a sale now between the GAPs.

Vipersniper

03-11-2005, 06:03 AM

:poke: Well I rather like pissing contests as I have been in them all my life. With my family you learn who the skunks are real quick but I think a good script has a lot of all the things that you mentioned. Now when I did bits as an actor in plays the old scripts had the dialogue but created pictures in your mind as to what the next action is. Sometimes the story in a movie is not that great but I agree that Robin Williams and Jim Carey could take most scripts and make it work no matter how the story went. Take Bruce Almighty it got my husband's attention and he usually ignores films like that but he liked it a lot.

Writing Again

03-11-2005, 08:47 AM

Movies are first visual. To promote dialogue over the visual is to produce radio with pictures. I've seen sitcoms that seem to achieve this, but never a decent movie.

Movies are secondly auditory. The sound does not have to be dialogue, nor does it have to be dialogue to convey information. In fact sound can either compliment or contradict the visual. If you see a farmhouse and here a rooster crow it compliments the visual. If you see the inside of a house that could be a townhouse in New York City and you hear a rooster crowing you will be alerted that you may be seeing the inside of a farmhouse by the contradictory sound.

Movies convey stories through sight and sound, which must work together in all their aspects to be effective. These are the tools that movies use. It is a horribly limited set when you stop to think about it. The other senses, smell, taste, touch, all must be conveyed through sight and sound and nothing else.

Both sight and sound must be used to their fullest.

They are the tools of the trade.

Plot, character, structure, pacing, conflict, goals, opposition, all the other elements are common to all forms of story telling whether it be a novel, or a play, or a radio show, or a movie.

To neglect any one of those in any medium is to weaken the story.

kojled

03-11-2005, 08:59 PM

story

Vipersniper

03-12-2005, 08:28 AM

:Hammer: Okay the story is important and once example of a story by a talented author Steven King did drag. Rose Red was too long at least in the movie and I got bored by that particular movie. One of his best was The Green Mile. So I think that the story has to give you a good base idea of what is happening but it cannot go on and on and your ice melts in the soda before you are finished watching it. Do a sequel if you must but don't drag your feet with the storyline. Now going back to movies that keep you on the edge of your seat the first Jurassic Park was a real thriller. I loved when the dinosaur ate the lawyer. But the sequels didn't do as well as the first one. The third was pretty good but the second I kind of got lost in. I do watch Independence Day, Volcano, Twister over again just because I like it.

IWrite

03-17-2005, 10:38 PM

I agree that you need to hit on all elements to create a great screenplay.

I think that genre has a lot to do with what elements can be cheated on.

Action movies for example rely heavily on plot, action and the visual elements. Many action movies are lacking in character development and the dialogue is merely servicable - and yet they can still work. But the great action movies - "The Wild Bunch" "Butch Cassidy" "Lethal Weapon" "Spiderman" to name a few are really strong on character and the dialogue is superb.

A movie like "Sideways" didn't have much plot - but still won tons of awards and was on a lot of 10 best lists. Primarily because the characters and dialogue were so strong. "Saving Private Ryan" was weak on plot too - that movie was all about character and theme - and the battle scenes made up for the weaknesses in the story.

But even though films can succeed if there is weakness in one area or another - the spec market is so competitive - that you really need to hit on all cylindars. A real weakness in any one area can kill your chances of getting repped or making a sale. If an agent doesn't think you can write dialogue or that you can't write character or can't tell a good story - he's not going to sign you. And the fact is that a real weakness in any one area - can make the script a really bad read.

The best advice I can give someone is if you have a spec that you feel is weak in one area - then you really need to do another draft that makes that area stronger.

Opty

01-25-2007, 03:15 PM

Thought this was a good discussion and thought I'd bump it back from the internet ether.

scripter1

01-25-2007, 06:42 PM

What if - the sound suddenly stops working?
What is going to be most important then for the audience to still get the point of the film?

We live in a world wide market, where the studios want to sell to every country and nation that can set up a camera and a sheet.
So, what is going to be most important to get your story across to someone in China or Zimbabwa, or wherever?

What is the most basic needs of story?
To keep the audiences attention and take them on a journey. To give them some type of an experiance THEY can't really get themselves.

I will never be able to ride on the Titanic BUT I can rent the movie and feel like I was on that ship.

I wanted to be a jockey but at 5'3" I am too tall. So, I go along for the ride on Seabiscuit.

I won't ever be Angeliina Jolie, you guys will never be Brad Pitt BUT we can fight and love like it through the screen.

The point is, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING in a story is taking the audience on that unique journey.

HOW you do it, now that is the detail work and every story will have different details.

What makes you a good or a great writer is knowing (or discovering) which details work the best with which stories.

And that takes study, trial and error, etc etc.

dclary

01-25-2007, 07:46 PM

Thanks for being pompous without answering the question, Scripter. Everyone in the thread who isn't banned already knows that screenwriting is about taking the audience on a journey. The question, as posed, is what elements of a screenplay are most important.

You say, in effect "it depends," but that's just an answer of convenience. If you look hard enough, you'll find that there's a common element in EVERY screenplay, regardless of if the films an intimate drama, a sweeping epic, or a kung fu musical.

The screenplay itself.

I submit that the most vital piece of a script is the script itself. You don't have to sell your script to all of america -- though if all of america loves it, you'll have a blockbuster. You don't have to sell your script to all the working members of hollywood -- though if all the working members of hollywood love it, you'll have an oscar.

You have to sell it to the 10-20 people who stand between you and a paycheck.

Regardless of your story, or your characters, or your dialogue, or any other factor that appears on the screen, how you write the story, characters and dialogue is what makes the difference between ordinary and extraordinary. A simple plot and characters can come alive with the right voice. A great plot and masterful dialogue becomes a script of legend with the right voice.

We are writers, words are our bitches. Put those bitches to work and pimp them for all they're worth, G.

Joe Calabrese

01-25-2007, 08:06 PM

I see some people haven't had their morning coffee yet.

Rainy Night

01-25-2007, 08:45 PM

We are writers, words are our bitches. Put those bitches to work and pimp them for all they're worth, G.

That's some quote dawgg

scripter1

01-26-2007, 12:02 AM

I might as well actually BE pompus.

The question was What is more important.

My answer is again, taking the audience on a journey that they can't experience in any other way.

So we all know we should do that all ready. Doesn't change the answer.

Dialog and all that is mearly the means by which we do that.

And some stories/scripts need different dialog, in different amounts, then others.
Some scripts need stronger actions and tighter pacing then others.
No matter what it is you are making EVERYTHING takes elements and combines them to get an end result.
Use different elements or in different amounts and you get something different.

Scripts, cookies, horses, what ever the rule applies.

So, the writer's job is to do the best they can and work with other talents to get a finished product that works,
ie takes it's audience on a journey.

Sometimes the writer has a scene that is almost all silence, letting the story carry itself, letting the actors emote through body language, what ever. Then a director, actor, who ever says "I want dialog here" so they add in dialog. The film comes out and people whisper to themselves, "I thought they all talked to much."

You can't win em all.

zeprosnepsid

01-26-2007, 01:07 AM

I will now embark on an extended metaphor. If you want to ignore it, then let me just say that my answer at the end of it all will also be 'it depends'.

I think there are good movies that are largely dialogue. Good movies that are largely sight gags. Good movies that hardly have any plot. It does depend on the film. I think good one thing (dialogue for instance) can help make up for lacks in other areas (plot maybe). If your structure is a 7, your plot is a 9, but your dialogue is a 6 -- you're going to average a 7.3 which is a pretty alright film.

Think of it like women. You meet one girl and she's gorgeous but completely vapid. You can still appreciate her beauty but it brings down her average. Or you meet a girl who is kind of plain looking, but you get to talking and all of a sudden you completely forget how plain she looks, because now she looks amazing, because she's so smart and witty. All the elements work together.

And like with women, personal taste comes in. You can meet a girl you like a lot but she's blond and you just don't like blonds. It's not your taste, it's not your 'genre'. Although you don't think she's bad and wouldn't fault a friend for liking her.

Scripts and movies are this way I think. Strengths in one area make up for weaknesses in another. As long as it all adds up to something reasonable then it's still worthwhile. So I think dialogue could be the most important thing or plot could be the most important thing is those things are enough to buoy the things it lacks. And also, it comes down to personal taste a lot. Some people just don't like walking and talking films no matter how good the talking is. Some people don't like action films no matter how strong and visceral the visuals are.

So yeah, it depends...

Joe Calabrese

01-26-2007, 01:53 AM

I think there are good movies that are largely dialogue. Good movies that are largely sight gags. Good movies that hardly have any plot. It does depend on the film. I think good one thing (dialogue for instance) can help make up for lacks in other areas (plot maybe). If your structure is a 7, your plot is a 9, but your dialog is a 6 -- you're going to average a 7.3 which is a pretty alright film.

That is so wrong on so many levels. A script is much more than the averages of its parts. It isn't even the sum of it's parts. It is something unique where each element effects itself as well as others. They are judged independently equally as its other parts together.

To say that a otherwise great plot would still be really good if it has avarage dialog is wrong. Stories can be utterly ruined with the slightest errors.

A script is like the body. The heart is the plot, the visuals are the eyes, the structure the brain, etc., etc.. A body with a bad heart will die no matter how healthy the eyes or the brain are.

dclary

01-26-2007, 01:59 AM

And the text is the skin. Without the text, all the rest falls out and dies.

I win!

zeprosnepsid

01-26-2007, 02:35 AM

I think dclary does win in the battle of the metaphors =)

Anyway, I always enjoyed Clerks when really all it has it dialogue and characters. It has a plot but it's not much and the staging of the film is not great and the acting is barely good enough. But I think the strengths outweigh the weaknesses.

I didn't even get the plot of In The Mood For Love the first time I saw it. And even now that I get it I don't think it matters. The film is so beautiful and the emotions are there even without words or without them every explicitly telling you what's going on. I think the filmmaking makes up for what is at times a fairly incoherent script.

So I still to my belief that one or two strong elements can carry the rest. If you have all elements and they're all fantastic then all the better for you.

jonpiper

01-26-2007, 07:04 AM

And the text is the skin. Without the text, all the rest falls out and dies.
I win!

Hold on. If the text is the skin, what is the subtext? Only, joking.

And don't we have to differentiate between great movies and great scripts. A so so script can be made into a great movie, while a great script could be made into a not so great movie.

I think I understand what zeprosnepsid is trying to say. Not every good script requires great structure, and dialogue, and action, and plot, and mood, and voice, etc. But every good script does require some great elements.

Rainy Night

01-26-2007, 07:23 PM

Hold on. If the text is the skin, what is the subtext? Only, joking.

A good massage

Joe Calabrese

01-26-2007, 07:56 PM

Someone show me a script that the dialog was so good that it didn't matter that the plot sucked.

Or how about great concept vs. bad structure.

Hell! I know people who lowered their overall enjoyment of a film because the roman soldier wore a timex.

If we start compromising elements because we feel that one or more elements will "carry" the script-- we'll be unemployed in the end. I know readers for legitimate agents that will throw away a script for having "on the nose" dialog in the first 12 pages-- regardless of the strength of the plot, characters, etc... They got a hundred scripts to read this weekend and they don't care. Now... if you have some really killer concept that is blowing away anything that has ever been written before, then maybe-- but don't fool yourself into thinking you have "the one."

You must write every element in your script with 110% quality and artistic vision. do not think "oh the dialog isn't that great but the plot will carry it."

Rainy Night

01-26-2007, 08:02 PM

I know readers for legitimate agents that will throw away a script for having "on the nose" dialog in the first 12 pages-- regardless of the strength of the plot, characters, etc...

I'm doomed, OTN dialogue and a crap ending, my script will never get read. :cry:

Joe Calabrese

01-26-2007, 08:11 PM

Keep in mind that when you get a read request, it is based on the strength (originality, marketability, likes of the person pitched to) of your pitch, and/or logline, and/or synopsis. These are concepts, plot, theme, etc... They are the general elements. So when a company requests your script, they expect that it's gonna be great all around-- they expect the entire script to follow their high expectations from what you promised in your pitch. Now imagine them getting your script and passing it to their reader for a report. The reader has dozens of other scripts that are also great in the concept, marketability, etc (otherwise they wouldn't have been requested as well). You are now par with every other script in the stack. The reader expects (hopes) each script is great. Now they find poor structure or poor dialog, or poor anything. Expectations are not met and ultimately will not be read through, especially if the reader has already read three scripts that night that did meet their expectations.

Now of course, there are instances where the concept was so cool or original that the reader passed it up, and then comes after it is sold and the rewrites (or filming of it) may break otherwise good elements, but my point is if an element is weak after you tried and failed that's fine I guess, but to not bother fixing a problem because the rest of the script will carry (or to even think that as a possibility) it is a poor work ethic and not good for your script in the long run.

And just so I don't sound like some infallible, all knowing guru (which I am not by any means) One my latest scripts was read around town and they all said the concept was great (a 9), the marketability was great ( a 9), the characters and dialog were... you guessed it-- great (a 9 and 9). But my hero had a less than prominent arc and lacked a sufficient fatal flaw ( a 7). I disagree and stand firm to the fact that he has an arc and I too thought why would it be so important when all the other elements are so great?

Needless to say, the script was passed, regardless of the strengths of the other elements. Based on Zepro's law of averages, I would have had a 8.6. But that 7 was all they could think about and no producer wants to make a 7.

zeprosnepsid

01-26-2007, 10:45 PM

If we start compromising elements because we feel that one or more elements will "carry" the script-- we'll be unemployed in the end.

I don't think anyone goes into writing a script thinking "well my characters are good, I'll let structure slide". I'm speaking from the standpoint of looking at someone else's script and finding value in it despite the flaws.

Someone show me a script that the dialog was so good that it didn't matter that the plot sucked.

I really do think this is the case in some Kevin Smith movies such as Clerks and Mallrats. Sure, stuff happens in Clerks, but there's not much of a story. The characters don't really change in the end. They start as characters who are self aware that they're doing nothing with their lives and end as characters self aware that they are doing nothing with their lives. I guess Dante's whole character arc is deciding he wants to be with his girlfriend and forget childhood crushes. It's barely a character arc. The bit of plot there is in this movie is so secondary as to be relatively unnecessary. The point being though, the dialogue is so strong that I could watch the movie (and have) again and again. Sometimes you only have to be able to do one thing really well to be successful.

Also, I love the Usual Suspects a lot. But I sure as hell don't watch it for it's amazing dialogue and fantastic character development...

And I think I would have laughed out loud if I had read "I see dead people" on the page. Talk about On The Nose...

But as I stated above, I don't think you should actually try to carry your script on one or two elements alone. That would be silly. But I do think you can appreciate a script/movie -- even think the movie is a 10 -- when some of the individual parts rate lower.

Joe Calabrese

01-26-2007, 11:27 PM

xhouseboy

01-27-2007, 05:10 PM

And I think I would have laughed out loud if I had read "I see dead people" on the page. Talk about On The Nose...

I'd suggest that this line was perfect, especially when considered in context.

An 8/9 year old kid who's being bullied, had many different issues going on, and his shrink is attempting to get to the root of the problem. He's hardly about to get into underlying psychological issues with his adult doctor. So he says it like a kid would, as it is. IMO, OTN hardly applies in this case.

Plus, it was a neat flag for further developments. As we discovered later, he was actually seeing a dead person while delivering this line.

dclary

01-27-2007, 09:09 PM

OTN would have been

"I see dead people like you."

scripter1

01-27-2007, 11:25 PM

This line is actually quite chilling.

And Haley did a phenomal job delivering it.

Other versions of this line that would have been OTN.

You are dead, but I can see you.

Dead people come talk to me.

Ever seen the movie Ghost? Well, I'm like
that Black Lady. Except I'm not black.
And I'm a kid. And I've never faked it.
I really do see people who have died.

Wait, am I in the wrong thread?

scripter1

01-27-2007, 11:30 PM

pompus Queen of Pat answers.

For all the newbie, novice writers here, yep even me,
The most important element of ANY script is the one

wait for it.....
wait..
wait

the one YOU struggle with the most.

Sour Lemon Pie

01-28-2007, 02:56 AM

I vote for the characters. I've seen very simple stories which are awesome only cause the characters are out of this world and have so much to tell and express.

zeprosnepsid

01-28-2007, 11:10 AM

I have to think about the newbies here or the occasional lurker that may stumble upon this thread and think that it doesn't matter. I am the warning sign up ahead.

Of course there are plenty of examples that you can cite, but in many cases, even a film like Clerks was not sold as a spec script.

...

Interestingly enough, most of the films you cite were written by or had a big hand by the filmmaker.

But a script by an unproduced writer is a different animal.

But the original post started out with this caveat: "Of course, the ideal situation is when everything works together like clockwork. But..."

So the answer pre-supposed that the script didn't have all elements.

And the question asked was: "Obviously, a screenplay is all about plot and dialogue. But would you say dialogue is everything (or at least the most important element) in a screenplay? Or something else?"

Not what is the most important thing in a spec script. So that's what my answer related to.

Also, if some newbie reads this thread and thinks they can write bad dialogue because their plot is good because of a post written by someone whose handle is pez dispenser backwards spelled incorrectly then they have bigger problems =)

*

As for "I see dead people" I honestly don't remember where and in what situation the line occurs because I haven't seen the movie again since my original viewing in the theater. But I disagree that it's how children talk. At least the children I'm around have a tendency to say things in ways that make very little sense without translation (see that recent TV commercial where the Dad puts his little girl in the backseat and then goes and sits in the front and she's talking the whole time about who knows what) and hardly ever so directly to the point. Although I suppose how a child would talk in a supernatural situation is something up for grabs. I do agree though that Haley's delivery sells it.

Hillgate

02-02-2007, 05:19 PM

Great thread.

Many non-spec screenplays are polished by someone else because of dialogue deficiencies whereas a spec screenplay needs great dialogue and a good storyline to get anyone to read it.

Some people whose name remains unknown/uncredited make an awful lot of money in Hollywood doing last-minute dialogue polishes for big-name writers.

And lastly - third strike - a lot of people who read a spec script only read the dialogue - especially if they're an actor, which I guess means it needs to be very good. It's a mini-Catch 22 scenario: to get read, you need to produce something at least as good as the best out there, ESPECIALLY dialogue.

And dialogue is the hardest thing to do well.