All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Hey guys. I'm taking a screenwriting class and my instructor insists on having about a ratio of about 75% action to 25% dialogue. She wants our scripts to look like this, basically:
CHARACTER 1 Blah blah blah.
Reaction.
CHARACTER 2 No way!
CHARACTER 1's reaction.
Reaction.
Reaction.
CHARACTER 1 Blha blah blah
Reaction.
CHARACTER 2 blah blah blah
Reaction.
I know the example doesn't make sense, but she wants every line of dialogue to be followed by a reaction. I think what she wants us to do is a little much, but I'm doing what she wants to get an A.
I think that looks close to correct. I wouldn't say you need to have action between every piece of dialogue but between the majority of it is pretty much how it should be.
I've been doing lots of production lately and find that those little reactions between dialogue are essential to having your script interpreted correctly - much better than using wrylies.
I see how it's made my writing better and cleaner, but it's hard for me to think of creative and character-specific actions to write. I can't believe I have problems writing action. I could write pages and pages of dialogue and I guess that's the problem.
I'm actually trying not to write dialogue, but use action instead. It's very complicated and I'm not used to doing it. I don't like it!
So people are only talking 25% of the time in a film? That is an interesting tidbit. I'll have to do some ciphering on this one. I'll watch some films and do some time-checking.
I don't think that's exactly what she means. A movie isn't made of "I'm talking, and then I'm walking, and then I'm talking again." Actors talk and walk at the same time.
I don't think that's exactly what she means. A movie isn't made of "I'm talking, and then I'm walking, and then I'm talking again." Actors talk and walk at the same time.
That makes sense. It just seems like it would feel clumsy writing an action so often between dialog.
It sounds like a good rule of thumb. I wonder how that will pan out with the page to minute ratio. I'll have to try it sometime.
My opinion on the ratio is to do what's right for the story. This is one of those things that you might keep in mind deliberately while writing one script, but go back to what works for you on the next keeping it in the back of your head. Right for the story is how you measure everything you do. If that reaction is benefitial to the story, then right on. If it detracts or is unnecessary, don't do it.
Wow - according to page to stage, my ratio is the opposite (75/25 in favor of dialogue)...
I guess what they mean is if there is anything in dialogue that can be shown with a head nod or a body gesture, then do it that way, because that represents real life better than "Oh yes, I see what you mean!"
It sounds like a good rule of thumb. I wonder how that will pan out with the page to minute ratio. I'll have to try it sometime.
My opinion on the ratio is to do what's right for the story. This is one of those things that you might keep in mind deliberately while writing one script, but go back to what works for you on the next keeping it in the back of your head. Right for the story is how you measure everything you do. If that reaction is benefitial to the story, then right on. If it detracts or is unnecessary, don't do it.
I'm with George on this one. Sometimes you might have a film that is practically silent and relies on intense or thoughtful action. Another time it might be dialogue intensive.
The action should have some genuine relevance to the story. It might be as an alternative to dialogue. EG someone is being questioned about something(let's say a woman is grilling her husband about a possible affair) She could be asking whether he's slept with one of her friends and starts listing names.
Under the table the husband is holding a pencil.
As she goes through the names, Samantha, Rosie...the husband grips the pencil a bit tighter.
When she says Deborah, he snaps the pencil.
We know that he's slept with Deborah without him saying anytihng and we've also made the scene a bit more interesting visually by breaking up the shot/reverse shot thing that a conversation can naturally lead to.
As regards your example, it seems overly regimented because it seems to be assuming that each and every reaction have equal importance and it also dictates a certain style of directing IE
Shot of character delivering lines
CUT TO:
Reaction shot. Then Character 2 delivers lines
CUT TO: Reaction shot of character 1, followed by lines.
It's quite clunky and lacks style.
That being said. Films can often be improved if dialogue takes place whilst something is happening. In a lot of films there tends to be a lot of talking whilst people are sat down explaining things, then the action takes place.
Depending on the style of the film (sometimes that kind of thing is unavoidable), you can usually find a way to stick the conversation into an action scene. So your character development scene where someone is talking about their past can be cut and pasted into the scene where they are trying to defuse the bomb (very generic example).
That way you are fulfilling your criteria, and you're also alleviating the lack of drama in expositionary scenes.
Depending on the style of the film (sometimes that kind of thing is unavoidable), you can usually find a way to stick the conversation into an action scene. So your character development scene where someone is talking about their past can be cut and pasted into the scene where they are trying to defuse the bomb (very generic example).
I might point out that one of the best examples of this is when Reese delivered the entire exposition needed to understand where he came from, the terminators, skynet, etc. in the original Terminator film...during a chase scene with Sarah hiding on the floorboards as Reese drove at high speed through a parking garage being chased by the Terminator. Not only was the scene exciting, but we also learned pretty much everything we needed to know about the backstory to survive the film.
However, be careful with your visuals here. Spielberg screwed it up in Temple of Doom when heavy exposition was delivered during the highly distracting dinner scene. Talk about lost in the background.
I think it depends on the type of movie you are writing and what is happening in the actual scene. There isn't really a one-size-fits-all formula that can be applied to every script to make it perfect. I mean if you are writing an action film it's likely you are going to have a lot more action lines than say, a romantic comedy. In a rom com you can get away with two characters sitting down talking with no action really taking place, but in an action movie you'd start to lose interest.
Everyone has a different idea of what they think the best way to structure a script is. But the truth is, there is no best way. I did a short screenwriting course and my teacher said pretty much the opposite. That she had been taught by industry professionals to try to limit the action to the beginning and end of a scene so as to not interrupt the dialogue. So it would be like this:
Character 1 does something.
CHARACTER 1 Says some stuff.
CHARACTER 2 Says some different stuff.
CHARACTER 1 Says the funniest line in the history of cinema.
CHARACTER 2 Wow that was really funny.
CHARACTER 1 It was, wasn't it?
Character 1 and 2 do some more stuff.
The reasoning was that when there are too many desscriptions it disrupts the flow of dialogue. Personally, I kinda agree. Most of the scripts I read that have action between dialogue reason that they want to make sure the actors have something to do while speaking. But most of the action is a pointless waste of space that the actor would be able to figure out anyway.
I mean if it is relevant to the story or reveals more about your character, go for it. But I read a lot of stuff like 'takes a sip of his drink; scratches his nose; twiddles his thumbs' etc. Actors aren't cardboard cutouts who won't know what to do unless it is explicitly written for them (okay maybe a few of them are, not naming names *cough Ben Affleck*). They will generally come up with their own mannerisms and quirks or whatever that they will use while they are talking. Also by having less pointless action lines your script will be less cluttered and you will cut down on pages. When people say a script was a quick read it tends to have a higher ration of dialogue to action than the average script.
But there are plenty of people who would disagree. That everything should be spelled out and you leave no doubt about what every character should be doing at every moment on screen. Both points are valid and I don't think there is any 'right' way. But for the purposes of your class it's probably wise to do what your teacher suggests. Afterwards, you just have to find your own style and do what you think is right for your particular story.
"But most of the action is a pointless waste of space that the actor would be able to figure out anyway."
That was my argument when I started this class, but after a few weeks, I got tired of seeing "reaction?" a million times on my script, so I started writing it.
When I can, I'll post some before and after versions of the script I worked on in class.
Pages: 1, 
Author
Ratio of action to dialogue?
Logged
Locked Board