Good, strong, smart writing.

Well set scenes.

A story/plot that makes sense and make me want more.

I look for a good story first and foremost.  Then a protag(s). Then inciting incident. I also look at things philisophiclly so I'm wiling to wait around a bit for things to start.

Quoted from Female Gaze What is your people's aversion to dialogue? I have never seen a group of people so turned-off by dialogue in my life. Like. what do you think actors do? They don't just get on set and give each other stolen glances whilst walking around a room. And, I don't know about ALL directors but I know when I directed and all the people I knew directed, we did not pay attention to the action whatsoever...we made up our own because that's the job of a director.   Fight coordinator does the fight scenes. Scene designer makes the sets from their own imagining. etc. We need a thread on the realities of working on a set and how it translates from a script. Anyway, I look for a good story first and foremost.  Then a a protag(s). Then inciting incident. I also look at things philisophiclly so I'm wiling to wait around a bit for things to start.

Who said anything about having an aversion to dialogue?  Personally, I love dialogue heavy scripts and movies, as in reality, dialogue is how characters show real "character".

I assume you're talking about being on set for low/no budget shoots, because if you're not, what you're saying is completely untrue.  Directors do not "make up action".  "Scene designers" (Huh?  Scene designers?  Really?) do not make the sets from their own imaginings.  The look and feel of a real movie is set up long before shooting takes place, and most of the time, it comes from the script.

Quoted from Female Gaze My comment about dialogue comes from everyone going 'OMG so much dialogue....' Am I wrong on this front? Ok, I'm wrong about everything, let me just shut up from now on.

Again, as I said earlier, just because someone or a few peeps say something, don't take that to the bank...they may be clueless as to what good dialogue is, or how much is too much.

Good dialogue is paramount to a good character, IMO.  You can't have a "real" character without "real" dialogue.  So many peeps cannot write good or even decent dialogue to save their lives...literally!

I'm not saying you're wrong about anything, but if you believe in something, than stand by it and don't let what others say, make you think you're wrong.  Although, you definitely could be wrong and sometimes, it takes someone else to show you that.

You get me?

Quoted from Female Gaze My comment about dialogue comes from everyone going 'OMG so much dialogue....' Am I wrong on this front? Ok, I'm wrong about everything, let me just shut up from now on.

It's the old "Show don't tell" rule of thumb.

Film is a visual medium. Generally it is better to show something happening, rather than tell the audience in dialogue.

You saw this in the OWC where the whole story was often told in dialogue, rather than being discovered as we went along. It can make the whole film expositional...almost like a lecture, lacking tension, and also can make it visually static because it becomes just two people stood or sat talking for the entire time.

Dialogue's critically important, of course, to push action, to reveal character and even just to entertain, it just helps to have a think about how some of the information can be told visually.

It's as simple as showing someone digging graves, so we know he's a gravedigger rather than just having him sat down telling someone that he's a gravedigger.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It's the old "Show don't tell" rule of thumb. Film is a visual medium. Generally it is better to show something happening, rather than tell the audience in dialogue. You saw this in the OWC where the whole story was often told in dialogue, rather than being discovered as we went along. It can make the whole film expositional...almost like a lecture, lacking tension, and also can make it visually static because it becomes just two people stood or sat talking for the entire time. Dialogue's critically important, of course, to push action, to reveal character and even just to entertain, it just helps to have a think about how some of the information can be told visually. It's as simple as showing someone digging graves, so we know he's a gravedigger rather than just having him sat down telling someone that he's a gravedigger.

What if you're story takes place after something happened, and your characters talk about it? You could either start the story just at the incident, or you could show it to the audience via flashbacks.

If you don't want to show the audience anything at the beginning, you'll have to use dialogue to bring up the incident, then a flashback to show it.

I have a story where a guy is divorced and tries to raise his son. It starts after the divorce, but the events of the divorce will be shown later, but talked about before that.

My theory on dialogue is this...actors can deliver their lines in the most amazing ways. Directors can interpret scenes in a myriad of ways. Set designers or directors can work together to create a scene that seemed like nothing into something. That's all I was saying.

Quoted from Female Gaze My theory on dialogue is this...actors can deliver their lines in the most amazing ways. Directors can interpret scenes in a myriad of ways. Set designers or directors can work together to create a scene that seemed like nothing into something. That's all I was saying.

Sure, but understand where that dialogue comes from - a screenwriter.

We've all seen tons and tons of big budget movies in which the dialogue is just God awful...cringe worthy, even.  I always get pissed and wonder why no one read that dialogue, listened to that dialogue, and said, "Hey, wait a minute...this dialogue is terrible!".  

Quoted from Steven What if you're story takes place after something happened, and your characters talk about it? You could either start the story just at the incident, or you could show it to the audience via flashbacks. If you don't want to show the audience anything at the beginning, you'll have to use dialogue to bring up the incident, then a flashback to show it. I have a story where a guy is divorced and tries to raise his son. It starts after the divorce, but the events of the divorce will be shown later, but talked about before that.

Like all things, it's a rule of thumb, not an absolute.

Whatever works.

In the type of story you are describing, you are risking having a weak narrative drive, you'll have to find some way to compensate for that. That type of story is usually organised more around theme than plot.

One of the problem with films that I've learnt as a director, and as an audience member talking to other audience members is that a large number of people do not absorb information delivered in dialogue.

Showing someone being beaten is much more effective than having someone say "My Daddy used to beat me". Again, it;s just a general rule of thumb, there's always exceptions.

Quoted from Dreamscale Sure, but understand where that dialogue comes from - a screenwriter. We've all seen tons and tons of big budget movies in which the dialogue is just God awful...cringe worthy, even.  I always get pissed and wonder why no one read that dialogue, listened to that dialogue, and said, "Hey, wait a minute...this dialogue is terrible!".

Because city-wide CGI destruction and slow-motion heroes brings in the 18-25 year olds.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Like all things, it's a rule of thumb, not an absolute. Whatever works. In the type of story you are describing, you are risking having a weak narrative drive, you'll have to find some way to compensate for that. That type of story is usually organised more around theme than plot. One of the problem with films that I've learnt as a director, and as an audience member talking to other audience members is that a large number of people do not absorb information delivered in dialogue. Showing someone being beaten is much more effective than having someone say "My Daddy used to beat me". Again, it;s just a general rule of thumb, there's always exceptions.

I agree with that.

Dialogue, regardless of how captivating, won't replace visuals if you have to choose between the two.

Say you have a character in a psychologist's office, and they're talking about the character's history and why they feel the way they do. Would you flashback with VO, flashback completely with dialogue or just let the character speak without cutting away?

I need a break from this site.

I wish I had never done the OWC and just kept to myself like I had been doing all year.

Quoted from Steven I agree with that. Dialogue, regardless of how captivating, won't replace visuals if you have to choose between the two. Say you have a character in a psychologist's office, and they're talking about the character's history and why they feel the way they do. Would you flashback with VO, flashback completely with dialogue or just let the character speak without cutting away?

All depends on the story you're telling, doesn't it and what you're trying to tell the audience?

Flashbacks generally disrupt the narrative drive because they go back in time and deal with things that have already happened, so they tend to lack tension because whatever was at stake has already happened.

But not necessarily.

In your example perhaps the flashbacks show what actually happened, and the character is telling a completely different version of events.

Or perhaps you just show the events and cut the to the Psychiatrist's office and the patient then says: And that's about it...so you've disguised the flashback.

You just need to know enough about the different effects things have to then make the best choices for your own story.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films All depends on the story you're telling, doesn't it and what you're trying to tell the audience? Flashbacks generally disrupt the narrative drive because they go back in time and deal with things that have already happened, so they tend to lack tension because whatever was at stake has already happened. But not necessarily. In your example perhaps the flashbacks show what actually happened, and the character is telling a completely different version of events. Or perhaps you just show the events and cut the to the Psychiatrist's office and the patient then says: And that's about it...so you've disguised the flashback. You just need to know enough about the different effects things have to then make the best choices for your own story.

Ahh you son of a bitch, thanks for that.

But when formatting the screenplay, if you were showing one event but describing it differently, would you have to specify that? Or would the fact that the VO doesn't match the visual be explanation enough?

As for the disguised flashback, you'd still tag it as a flashback in the scene description right?

I think the VO is enough in the first one.

I also think you'd label the second, but Jeff (Dreamscale) is the go to man for formatting. ;)

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I think the VO is enough in the first one. I also think you'd label the second, but Jeff (Dreamscale) is the go to man for formatting. ;)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yeah, any and all Flashbacks need to be labeled as such.  Most Flashbacks are aways back in time, meaning everything in the scene, including the characters (what they look like, what they're wearing, etc) will be "different".

Using VO over a Flashback is fine and often done.  If the VO doesn't describe what's being shown, you're basically saying whoever is giving that VO is lying/can't be trusted/etc.

Remember, start with - "BEGIN FLASHBACK" (not in the Slug), and end with "END FLASHBACK".  Your Flashback can then carry over into multiple scenes/Slugs.

Quoted from Dreamscale ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Yeah, any and all Flashbacks need to be labeled as such.  Most Flashbacks are aways back in time, meaning everything in the scene, including the characters (what they look like, what they're wearing, etc) will be "different". Using VO over a Flashback is fine and often done.  If the VO doesn't describe what's being shown, you're basically saying whoever is giving that VO is lying/can't be trusted/etc. Remember, start with - "BEGIN FLASHBACK" (not in the Slug), and end with "END FLASHBACK".  Your Flashback can then carry over into multiple scenes/Slugs.

Got it. I wouldn't want to portray this character as a liar, but thanks for the info on that.

As for the full on flashback, I'd label it as such, but I wouldn't superimpose anything on the screen. Then the "back to present" tag would introduce the scene where the character says "that's about it." or something along those lines.

One of the best films too use necessary exposition in a very good way os the first Terminator.

All the explanation that Kyle gives to Sarah about the future, who she is, etc,is done while the Terminator is chasing them. In the stolen car he tells her while he's hot wiring it, while they are driving. It still woulda been good if they were hidden somewhere an dhe tells it all but James Cameron makes it flow as there's all this action going on. His original script is a great read and a good example of writing.

But i've always laughed at some of Kyle's dialogue - he barks out stuff as if she would know what he's talking about 'you've been targeted for termination' and he gives the model number of the Terminator etc. That comes out as silly to me as Sarah has NFBI what is happening lol

Quoted from Female Gaze I need a break from this site. I wish I had never done the OWC and just kept to myself like I had been doing all year.

Don't take it to heart Ashlie, this site, like most forums, is full of opinionated peeps! Doesn't necessarily make any of them right ;-)

And on SS you have a bunch of aspiring screenwriters who all have their own views on structure, formatting, dialogue etc... but most (there are exceptions) are writers, not producers... and it's producers who your script is for really.

Use the bits that you think help you/your script and ignore the rest!

Quoted from stevie One of the best films too use necessary exposition in a very good way os the first Terminator. All the explanation that Kyle gives to Sarah about the future, who she is, etc,is done while the Terminator is chasing them. In the stolen car he tells her while he's hot wiring it, while they are driving. It still woulda been good if they were hidden somewhere an dhe tells it all but James Cameron makes it flow as there's all this action going on. His original script is a great read and a good example of writing. But i've always laughed at some of Kyle's dialogue - he barks out stuff as if she would know what he's talking about 'you've been targeted for termination' and he gives the model number of the Terminator etc. That comes out as silly to me as Sarah has NFBI what is happening lol

I guess the obvious info-dump was hidden by all of the action. But yea, no one really complains about that.

I do find it hilarious that Sarah just kind of goes with it.

Quoted from Steven I guess the obvious info-dump was hidden by all of the action. But yea, no one really complains about that.

That's called The Pope In The Pool. Whenever you need to have a lot of exposition, give it to the audience while giving them something visually interesting to destract them from realizing the info dump.  :)

1.Interesting Logline.
2. Description that sets tone as well as place.
3. Natural - realistic dialogue
4. Pace that balances with the story being told

Quoted from eldave1 1.Interesting Logline. 2. Description that sets tone as well as place. 3. Natural - realistic dialogue 4. Pace that balances with the story being told

Dave, #4 stands out to me. Care to further elaborate? So, are you saying that the 3 act structure should flow seamlessly together, almost as though the audience has no clue of the transition?

Quoted from TonyDionisio Dave, #4 stands out to me. Care to further elaborate? So, are you saying that the 3 act structure should flow seamlessly together, almost as though the audience has no clue of the transition?

That - and a little more. There are really two things:

Pace based on what's happening:

What I saying is that I don't mind slow pace if the story warrants it. So, let's say we open with a mother tackled with the job of telling her son that his father just died in a car accident. I want some emotion, nuance, careful thinking here. I want more then just a line of dialogue to get me to feel the heartache. I want the scene to be delicious for lack of a better term - something to savor.

Conversely, if the scene opens with two blokes at a coffee shop talking about going to that
Dad's funeral - I want to be in and out of the scene as quickly as possible.

2. Pace commensurate with only telling or showing me things I really need to know.

I've read several otherwise well written scripts that get bogged down in transitional based details. e.g., Protag wakes up at his house, doesn't bother to shave that day, gets in his car, drives down the freeway, exits his car, walks towards a gathering of people around a grave. It could be written in just a stellar fashion other than I want it to start with an unhaven man at the grave site.

Hope this helps clarify.

Indeed. Kinda like driving a 5 speed manual transmission.

I love horror, mostly the slasher subgenre. When reading a horror/slasher I need an interesting antagonist to be created within the first pages. My shallow two cents. :)

~Zack~

Quoted from Zack I love horror, mostly the slasher subgenre. When reading a horror/slasher I need an interesting antagonist to be created within the first pages. My shallow two cents. :) ~Zack~

seems almost ironic to me, due to the fact that mostly every horror amateur script starts out the same predictable way - set up an ordinary person about to do something with their friends that they really don't want to do (peer pressure) or a stock character running for their life about to die who means nothing at all to the script.

Hey all, new here. This isy second post.
I try and give the reader a sense of the protagonist's world from page one. What the conflict is or a sense of the conflict.
The earlier beats happen in a script, the better.