This article isn't the most well-written, but I think it addresses many of the problems with dialogue found in fan films.
Fan Film Scriptwriting — Dialogue
- Thread starter Ryan Thomas Riddle
- Start date
That's an excellent article, although I think he could have worked a little harder on the examples (I love Sorkin, but it's also not hard to find examples of monologuing in his dialogue). That said, every point is dead on.
Too much dialogue is a problem I have, a lot. Number Two - subtext - is something that frankly Star Trek films fall afoul of a lot, because studio Star Trek itself handles subtext absolutely terribly. "No subtext, no irony" = 90% of Trek (so much so that when a writer occasionally gets it a little closer to right, ala ST:TWOK, fans sense that and fall in love with the piece in question), and fan filmmakers copy the worst aspects of that IMAO.
I don't remember who said this or why, but it's in reference to acting and it parallels the observation about subtext in writing: most people do not show what we feel most of the time; we spend a great deal of our energy hiding what we really feel.
One thing he doesn't really get into - which is, again, a particular problem with fan films - is too much functional or expository dialogue, basically explaining to the viewer what is going on and quite often giving him a lot of information he or she doesn't need anyway. People doing a job rarely talk about the tasks they're doing and why they're doing them. They talk about their spouses, vacations, who in the office they're pissed at, etc etc. Replicating small talk isn't the ideal either, of course - but "I'm re-routing power through the lateral array" is neither dramatic or interesting in any way. It's just giving the characters lines to say so that they have lines to say.
Too much dialogue is a problem I have, a lot. Number Two - subtext - is something that frankly Star Trek films fall afoul of a lot, because studio Star Trek itself handles subtext absolutely terribly. "No subtext, no irony" = 90% of Trek (so much so that when a writer occasionally gets it a little closer to right, ala ST:TWOK, fans sense that and fall in love with the piece in question), and fan filmmakers copy the worst aspects of that IMAO.
I don't remember who said this or why, but it's in reference to acting and it parallels the observation about subtext in writing: most people do not show what we feel most of the time; we spend a great deal of our energy hiding what we really feel.
One thing he doesn't really get into - which is, again, a particular problem with fan films - is too much functional or expository dialogue, basically explaining to the viewer what is going on and quite often giving him a lot of information he or she doesn't need anyway. People doing a job rarely talk about the tasks they're doing and why they're doing them. They talk about their spouses, vacations, who in the office they're pissed at, etc etc. Replicating small talk isn't the ideal either, of course - but "I'm re-routing power through the lateral array" is neither dramatic or interesting in any way. It's just giving the characters lines to say so that they have lines to say.
Last edited:
Definitely gonna copy that article down somewhere...
I wonder how many people reading this article thought "Thank God my script does all of this!" even though in reality, they don't. I know I started to do it, and then I realized that I was kind of "seeing what I wanted to see" in regards to my own script.
I'm about ready to do another pass at it, anyway. I will definitely keep subtext (and other things outlined in the article) in mind!
I'm about ready to do another pass at it, anyway. I will definitely keep subtext (and other things outlined in the article) in mind!
I am a firm believer of the "less is more" approach to script writing. Don't treat your audience as if they are dumb, and have to have everything explained to them.
A Lot of good points, there.
I'll add one that seems to be particular to Trek fan-films: characters who are quoting themselves or other characters from Trek movies or episodes. It pretty-much never comes off as clever as much as it just seems like "see what we did there?" kind of thing.
I'll add one that seems to be particular to Trek fan-films: characters who are quoting themselves or other characters from Trek movies or episodes. It pretty-much never comes off as clever as much as it just seems like "see what we did there?" kind of thing.
Pretty good article. I like to think most of us who try to write are at least somewhat aware of our strengths and weaknesses, but there's a lot of useful points of reference in this piece. Thanks for posting it. 
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Great article, great points all. Thanks for sharing!
That's what he said and what you heard.
Exposition's action should also be economized as well as dialogue. Things don't have to be shown happening or having happened, Script readers like alot of white on a pageb but conversely I don't have a ploblem with prolixed dialogues, just monologues. The fact that everything should be less than three sentences is just a reaction to bad, slow and drawn out pacing and singular povs. staticy approaches are death for Trek for me just like they would indicate trouble on a communicator. The best things are hidden and non linear just like in music the silences are the most important things.
Exposition's action should also be economized as well as dialogue. Things don't have to be shown happening or having happened, Script readers like alot of white on a pageb but conversely I don't have a ploblem with prolixed dialogues, just monologues. The fact that everything should be less than three sentences is just a reaction to bad, slow and drawn out pacing and singular povs. staticy approaches are death for Trek for me just like they would indicate trouble on a communicator. The best things are hidden and non linear just like in music the silences are the most important things.
Thanks for posting! I'm writing a bunch of screenplays (curiously, none of them are Trek--all independent), and anything to help me with film dialogue is welcome.
On that note--in a Charlie Rose interview, Quentin Tarantino made clear that his secret to his legendary "Tarantino Dialogue" isn't just "I have a good ear." He noted that what he does is just get them talking--and let character control the words. The direction the conversation goes thus adds richness to the scene. He sees if he can work in the information the scene needs--but it has to fit, naturally.
Look at the immortal opening sequence to Reservoir Dogs. It arguably has nothing to do with the storyline. It arguably could have been cut out, and viewers wouldn't have noticed anything was missing. And yet...it adds richness to the film, which would have otherwise been missing. QT takes time to develop Mr. Brown and Mr. Blue as flesh and blood people...even though they're technically minor characters.
Mr. White is established as a cool, wise veteran with a sense of compassion (his attitude towards waitresses)--but with no patience for foolishness. Mr. Blond is a quiet, soft-spoken fellow with a hint of threat in his mannerisms...something just doesn't seem right about him, but we can't put our finger on it. Mr. Pink is a stubborn intellectual with an excitable streak. Mr. Orange is a rookie trying to fit in with the group...almost an outsider. Eddie is a jock who likes throwing his weight around. And Joe is a cranky yet tired boss.
The key for Quentin is naturalism: going with the characters, and not fighting them when you write the first draft--otherwise you risk it coming out as forced, George-Lucas dialogue. (Oh, yeah. I went there.)
After he's done writing the scene, he then goes back to "clean it up", and see where he can work in the rest of the important info. If he can't...well, maybe it's better to save it for a later scene.
On that note--in a Charlie Rose interview, Quentin Tarantino made clear that his secret to his legendary "Tarantino Dialogue" isn't just "I have a good ear." He noted that what he does is just get them talking--and let character control the words. The direction the conversation goes thus adds richness to the scene. He sees if he can work in the information the scene needs--but it has to fit, naturally.
Look at the immortal opening sequence to Reservoir Dogs. It arguably has nothing to do with the storyline. It arguably could have been cut out, and viewers wouldn't have noticed anything was missing. And yet...it adds richness to the film, which would have otherwise been missing. QT takes time to develop Mr. Brown and Mr. Blue as flesh and blood people...even though they're technically minor characters.
Mr. White is established as a cool, wise veteran with a sense of compassion (his attitude towards waitresses)--but with no patience for foolishness. Mr. Blond is a quiet, soft-spoken fellow with a hint of threat in his mannerisms...something just doesn't seem right about him, but we can't put our finger on it. Mr. Pink is a stubborn intellectual with an excitable streak. Mr. Orange is a rookie trying to fit in with the group...almost an outsider. Eddie is a jock who likes throwing his weight around. And Joe is a cranky yet tired boss.
The key for Quentin is naturalism: going with the characters, and not fighting them when you write the first draft--otherwise you risk it coming out as forced, George-Lucas dialogue. (Oh, yeah. I went there.)
After he's done writing the scene, he then goes back to "clean it up", and see where he can work in the rest of the important info. If he can't...well, maybe it's better to save it for a later scene.
Last edited:
The small talk while on duty was routinely one of things that drove me up the wall on all TNG and post TNG Trek series. To illustrate why, here's a scene from some imaginary episode, TNG: Exaggerated for Effect.
I guess Starfleet personnel aren't easily distracted.
To the OP, thanks for posting; I too have saved the article. I'm always keeping my eyes out here for tips and instructions to improve writing and productions.
On the other hand, I think we do see examples of good small talk in DS9: but off duty. Note the conversation between Jake and Sisko in the beginning of "Move Along Home". Dialogue gold.
Some good nuggets here, but it's kind of ironic that the author isn't particularly adept at writing a magazine piece (and I speak as a former magazine columnist).
Dennis, it may not have been our conversations you were thinking about, but I do recall discussing with you that one thing I learned from trained actors I work with is that it's often good to play a different emotion than the character is experiencing, because people to spend a fair amount of time masking what they're feeling. So, your character may be furious, but you play it cool or cold and just let hints of the actual emotion seep through. I think we agree that applying that to writing is also valid.
Quoting other people's work is a trap a lot of beginners fall into, but it's lazy, because you're basically citing a known work to add dramatic gravitas to work that can't carry it on its own. Meyer did it pretty skillfully in TWOK, where it plays into the themes of the movie, but layered it on with a trowel in TUC, for instance.
The most valuable thing I've learned is to just be brutal and cut out anything that doesn't advance the story or illustrate the theme in a meaningful way, or doesn't add to the entertainment value. I've rarely found that judicious pruning has anything less than beneficial results.
Most exposition can be handled pretty efficiently if you think about it. It's not important that we as the audience understands anything more than what is necessary to follow the story and become engaged in it.
Finally, a fatal flaw of many fan films is telling us stories that are really nothing ore than giving us background on characters, but never rarely giving us a compelling reason to care about those characters in the first place. Just because you created them and love them doesn't mean we will or should. Tell us a good story that means something to the characters and that's worth 50 vignettes of them spinning out their life stories.
As to theme and subtext, in my rewrite of The Atlantis Invaders for Starship Exeter one thing I kept from the original script was an anecdote about Garrovick as a boy reaching into a fishbowl to grab the toy treasure chest there and knocking over the bowl and breaking it. It's told in the first act and then unmentioned until the end, where I invoked it again to illustrate the theme that starship captains often act without fully understanding the potential consequences.
Finally, SHOW, NOT TELL is something most beginning writers suck at.
Dennis, it may not have been our conversations you were thinking about, but I do recall discussing with you that one thing I learned from trained actors I work with is that it's often good to play a different emotion than the character is experiencing, because people to spend a fair amount of time masking what they're feeling. So, your character may be furious, but you play it cool or cold and just let hints of the actual emotion seep through. I think we agree that applying that to writing is also valid.
Quoting other people's work is a trap a lot of beginners fall into, but it's lazy, because you're basically citing a known work to add dramatic gravitas to work that can't carry it on its own. Meyer did it pretty skillfully in TWOK, where it plays into the themes of the movie, but layered it on with a trowel in TUC, for instance.
The most valuable thing I've learned is to just be brutal and cut out anything that doesn't advance the story or illustrate the theme in a meaningful way, or doesn't add to the entertainment value. I've rarely found that judicious pruning has anything less than beneficial results.
Most exposition can be handled pretty efficiently if you think about it. It's not important that we as the audience understands anything more than what is necessary to follow the story and become engaged in it.
Finally, a fatal flaw of many fan films is telling us stories that are really nothing ore than giving us background on characters, but never rarely giving us a compelling reason to care about those characters in the first place. Just because you created them and love them doesn't mean we will or should. Tell us a good story that means something to the characters and that's worth 50 vignettes of them spinning out their life stories.
As to theme and subtext, in my rewrite of The Atlantis Invaders for Starship Exeter one thing I kept from the original script was an anecdote about Garrovick as a boy reaching into a fishbowl to grab the toy treasure chest there and knocking over the bowl and breaking it. It's told in the first act and then unmentioned until the end, where I invoked it again to illustrate the theme that starship captains often act without fully understanding the potential consequences.
Finally, SHOW, NOT TELL is something most beginning writers suck at.
Too true. My favorite part of "Up" was the part at the beginning where we go through the main character's life from child to present. It shows his marriage, the fact that he and his wife can't have kids, his wife's sickness, her death, etc. It all comes in use later in the movie and, more importantly, not a single word is spoken. It is all facial expressions and body movement. That, to me at least, was brilliant.
Sometimes a simple look or gesture can say so much more than some expository statement. The statement feels overdone and forced most of the time anyway. Keep it simple and real and it comes off better.
Similar threads
