I'll quickly chime in here, only because I was thinking about this today.

First, I haven't watched this movie all the way through, only bits and pieces,  but thought I would add anyhow. IMO, I believe there are two key elements going into a script, one being the storytelling, and other, telling the story. Storytelling; being the key ideas and character arcs, defeats and victories that make it relatable and effective on a personal level, that moves us emotionally. Telling the story; is making it understandable, clear and coherent. Both need to be in concert with each other to give a great script. If you concentrate on every line being an absolute device strictly pushing the plot forward, then why bother with subtext, you might miss out on just some plain memorable moments, that add to truth, more than story?  And if you can't write your story in a concise and easily digestible way, no-one is going to read it, lose interest, or not understand what you're trying to say, making the script moot. (sadly my own personal experience )

All this being said, I'm not sure if I'm quite on course with your topic, but I would agree most heartily with your maxim. And I was just thinking about this, so I thought I'd share my thoughts too.

Best

I will say that I thought the more unnecessary part of that scene was Kaffee kept standing up to walk away but Jo would ask another question. It happened three times and I swear that after the first time (which was completely reasonable), Sorkin just threw it in there to have Cruise do something. That was irritating the hell out of me.

As for doing the interesting scenes that may not necessarily have to do with the rest, that's not such a good idea. There's actually an old mantra that the best directors will cut their favorite scene of the movie if the movie works better without it. Try and fit in your great scene and have it be required, that the movie NEEDS to have it.

If you take the time and think about some of your favorite all-time scenes, odds are you're going to find that the plot would have fallen apart without it.

Quoted from leitskev This goes against the logic of the scene. Because at this point, Kaffee's goals are aligned WITH Jessup's. So why would Jessup antagonize him?

I think I may actually disagree with you on this little part. See, Kaffee, Jo and Jessup are all supposed to be portrayed as smart in their own ways. So, at the end, when Kaffee is drinking himself silly, Jo tells him that he could have asked for the transfer order from a dozen different people.

She says that he didn't want the transfer order, he wanted to see Jessup's reaction when he asks for it. So, I don't buy that he was on Jessup's side during that scene and all three of them knew it. In typical good writing fashion, each of them had their own motivation in that scene.

I say that none of them were with the others. Jo wanted to dig deep into what Jessup was telling them. Jessup was side-stepping it because he felt he was untouchable. Kaffee was feeling Jessup out so he might be able to make a better plea deal later.

Anyway, that's just my take but I'm not a huge fan of "A Few Good Men".

Oh God...

One scene from a 20 year old film being examined?

Uh...why?

Definitely not a fan of this flick, either.  Carry on...

The only scene or should I say line that I remember from this movie was Nicholson's "You can't handle the truth!"

I remember enjoying it though but I like courtroom movies, and I have to admit that all this talk has got me in the mood to watch it again after so many years.

Then I might be able to add something to this discussion.

Sorry, Kev.  I didn't mean to be a dick, but I see that I was.  My bad.  Sorry.

Honestly, I havent watched this movie, something I plan on doing eventually because its widely held as a modern classic.

But I do agree that sometimes things that may seem non-sequitur to the main story arc actually can have a major impact on it in the end and are quite necessary.

I'll try and gin up some specific examples Ive watched after I get some sleep.

Interesting idea Kevin.

In terms of that scene, what I am reminded of is cause and effect. Everything that changes must have a cause. If the character had no reason to suddenly change his style of work it would feel off.

Changing the topic.

One film that made a lasting I impression on me was the Illusionist - animation version. Such a powerful story with virtually no words.

Two things I remember.

1) the use of objects, or others, to illustrate the main characters character arc. In this film the magician has a white rabbit and in the first scene it is used to show how he is ageing, losing his touch but also how much the rabbit hates him, bites him, and wants to be free.

As the film progresses we see the rabbit relax, eventually with a beautiful scene of the old magician asleep with the rabbit sleeping on his chest leading to a moment where he takes the rabbit onto a hill and sets it free, just as he is doing something similar to a young girl he has meet and who he has become a father figure to. Yet it is the releasing of the rabbit that shows most vividly how he has moved on

2) the power of having a character repeat a scene - at one stage the magician is trying to get on stage after a pop band. Three times the band finish then carry on to an encore forcing the magician to wait. He then appears  on stage and everyone has left. A powerful way to show how things have moved on but through forcing him to repeat, it illustrates his lack of power. He may appear clever but he is beholden to events beyond his control, which are slipping away from him.

In that film he just has to take it and get on with things. From this we can deduce

It's out of his control- the world is moving away from his style of entertainment

He's resigned to it- he can't  change it, and doesn't have anything better to do. He's vulnerable.

His journey is then one of no longer being wanted and getting whatever work he can, indeed he has to travel to where the work is which is the force that propells him in his journey. So the scene helps to set the word around him and illustrate how powerless he is to change things.

This is almost a theme, or sub theme, as many of the characters he meets in his world of entertainment, eg a clown, are in a similar situation.

If he had gone on stage once and everyone had still left, I feel a similar message could have been concluded, but without the same impact.

Quoted from leitskev I really didn't want to debate my insight.

Sorry, mate. I wasn’t trying to debate your insight, more saying that I hadn’t seen this movie in a while and couldn’t remember that scene so couldn’t add much to the discussion about it.

Quoted from leitskev You can add any insight, Steve, about any movie.

Okay, Kev. I liked this statement.

Quoted from leitskev When writing, you have to look at multiple things. We want to look at the short term and long term needs of the story, but we also have to look at the things the story does to engage the audience. And that requires some planning and strategy. Tough work!

The movie Training Day was a great movie and upon coming into the third act, our protag Jake Hoyt (Ethan Hawke) is in a bit of a sticky mess.

He’s been set up by the antag Alonzo Harris (Denzel Washington) who has paid some Mexican thugs to assassinate him.

They invite him to play cards casually before bringing the conversation to weapons and then ask to see his own Beretta and basically get the upper hand, the whole scene is played beautifully and you know something is afoot.
A great thing during this scene is we also find out the problem of Alonzo and his next move.

Anyway, the inevitable happens and Jake ends up in a bathtub with a shotgun pressed against his head and certain death.

So how did the writer (David Ayer) get our hero out of this situation?

Quite nicely I thought and it’s all been set-up earlier in the movie without ever knowing it.

Jake and Alonzo are out on the beat when Jake notices a female high school student being sexually assaulted by two men in an alley. Jake jumps out and helps the girl, but Alonzo refuses to report the incident, telling the girl to leave.
He informs Jake that the girl's gang member cousin will seek the attackers out for revenge. Then before they leave, Jake discovers the girl's wallet on the ground and takes it.

This scene plays out as Jake’s objection to Alonzo’s use of “street justice” as he doesn’t care about the two attackers and will let the gangs take care of them. But…

The wallet is the major factor for Jake not having his head blown off when the Mexican thugs discover it and it turns out to be one of their cousins. They decide not to kill him because of this and this in turn with the info about Alfonzo earlier in the initial scene lead to the final confrontation between the two men.

The scene in the alley was a great way of showing the difference between the two cops. One goes by the book, while the other doesn’t. One is enthusiastic and wants to help the general public, but can also be considered naive, while the other one is more experienced but out for himself. It also and importantly gave our protag his “get out of jail free” card later on in the movie.

I liked that writer not only gave a scene which showed off the characters and their differences but also something that would later come into play later on in the movie.

Good stuff.