There is no rule. Different movies call for different approaches. It depends on the tone you set. What the movie is about, IMO.

If you are writing a movie such as TAKEN or WORLD WAR Z, then the dialogue should push the story forward. The point of such movies is action and being relentless, pushing forward, not allowing the viewer to get bored. Jumping from one point to another while things are constantly happening. It's about keeping pace. Action. In such movies the dialogue only serves to initiate action and keep the plot moving. The dialogue is not the star of the picture.

Then there are movie that rely on mood. Like WENDY AND LUCY, ELEPHANT. Where the dialogue is very basic, minimalist and only there to convey a sense of realism. Limiting the dialogue creates a sense of atmosphere, where cinematography, music take priority to convey the mood the film is going for.

You have movies based on stage plays or limited location movies that rely on dialogue. Like CLERKS, TAPE, GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS. Where an abundance of dialogue is needed because its the thing that conveys the story, moves the plot.

You have dialogue heavy movies where dialogue and "pointless" banter adds to the film, making it quotable, memorable, cool. Usually in buddy-comedies, teen movies, action movies and so on.

I've notice that in today's comedies they really stretch out jokes in dialogue. They add more and more lines, dragging the joke out and beating you over the head with it. I saw TRAINWRECK and SPY last week and both movies had jokes, where after the punchline came and instead of stopping there they still tried to add to the joke and stretch it out, which made it worse and worse, IMO.

There is no one way of doing it. It all depends on the tone, genre, what you are trying to convey, through the story or the characters themselves. Do what you feel is best for your story.

"Pointless" dialogue can be good dialogue if written well. It can be entertaining and that's why most people watch movies, to be entertained.

The dialogue isn't pointless if it adds...

Quoted from BSaunders ...character on a deeper level, relate to our favourite characters by hearing their opinion on (what seems to be) a completely irrelevant matter.

If it works. Do it.

Many times, a character's "character" comes out through dialogue.

Peeps often call dialogue in dialogue heavy scripts, meaningless banter, and sometimes it is.  But other times, it is character defining.

Dialogue does not have to push the story forward all the time, but it does need to serve a purpose or set a tone.

My advice?  Keep it real.  Have your characters talk like real peeps.  Just be careful what scenes you show, as real life can be dull and uneventful at times.

I'm quite fond of dialogue driven material.

Of course there is the argument that you still have to learn to edit yourself - self indulgence can be a killer. If the dialogue is great dialogue and it's not rambling B.S. then it comes down to a certain style and a terrific story. Just look at Woody - Manhattan, Annie Hall, Match Point, Midnight In Paris and Blue Jasmine - mind you, that's Woody - and even he still loses the plot sometimes. I also liked Nora Ephron's dialogue - Heartburn, When Harry Met Sally.

We'd really have to see an example of your work. Post something up.

Welcome to SS, BSaunders.

P.S. Jeff makes a great point too (and I don't always agree with him  ) - movies are not real life cause real life can be really dull. Hitchcock quoted Truffaut when he said: "What is drama, after all, but life with the dull bits cut out."

I once read a script which had a couple of thugs drive across town. The banter was good, nice and snappy. It gave  me a feel for who they were.

Yet...it didn't really add to the story .

So, I think the challenge is often, how can we achieve both! How can the dialogue be an illustration of character, of relationship,  yet hidden within this either information we need or a driver for the story. Perhaps that's  the difference between good and great, the later manages to combine both.

Otherwise , I would agree that different styles will permit different levels of dialogue.

I think it comes down to the definition of 'useless dialogue'. For example, many people will say stuff like 'Good morning', 'Good evening' aso. is useless, but it could make perfect sense if a character is meant to be overly polite, like an old, wise man or a mentor archetype (think of Batman's butler for example).

I think as long as dialog has a purpose (which can be much more than just driving the story), it isn't useless. Not every reader might realize that purpose, but it's your script and if you think you need that dialog to get a character trait across or to serve any other purpose, then go and write it.

That doesn't mean that there is no useless dialogue in scripts. Often there are whole useless scenes in a script. I just recently read a few pages of a script posted here, where a character goes through various scenes where he takes a shower, drinks a cup of coffee a.s.o. - Lots of pages to cut because it's totally useless to show your character in a situation where nothing happens at all. Likewise, a character talking pages and pages about the weather without any relevance is equally frustrating for a reader.

I pretty much concur with everything stated in the thread. It isn't a matter of short or long - it is a matter of whether it fits.

Notes of caution - at least for the scripts that I have read -

* There is an over use of proper names used in the dialogue between characters that are familiar with each other (e.g., husband and wife, etc.). i.e., wife to husband -  "I thought I told you to unload the dishwasher, Dave.

* Dialogue where a simple action is more efficient in conveying the message.

e.g., Dave rolls his eyes.

* Dialogue that is not appropriately interrupted.  By that I mean, from time to time I'll run across something real lengthy that could appear to be crisper by having the listening character interrupt (e.g., I don't understand, etc.).

Anyway - I love good dialogue and will never complain about the length as long as it as good.

Cheers for the feedback everyone.

The advantage of having dialogue heavy scripts is it's budget friendly (in general). But you need really witty, quotable stuff if you want dialogue to carry your script. And of course, it has to drive the plot forward and/or show character.

Stay away. Excessive dialogue is often a trap. Especially for new writers. I love Tarantino as much as anybody. But I am not Tarantino and odds are, neither are you. He is the exception and not the rule. The fact is if your script is heavy on pointless dialogue you will lose readers once they realize your script is literally going nowhere.

You can have "pointless" dialogue but do your best to give it meaning. A lot of what Tarantino writes for example actually has a point. The long foot massage exchange in Pulp Fiction is set up the tension for Vincent later when he escorts Mia out on a date.

Think about what your characters say. If it doesn't advance the plot, even in small subtle ways, or doesn't build and show character then cut it. Your script will thank you.

I agree 100%.

I've read a lot of scripts with long dialogue heavy scenes that are not interesting, doesn't show character other than that the character is boring, and doesn't offer anything as far as clues or hints to the story. When I point this out, I'm usually told that QT does this all the time. You are right, we're not QT and his dialogue heavy scenes usually have a lot of meaning for those who pay attention.

Script is used for the production of movie, which is a visual media so it is better to show than tell. Too much dialogue not only bores us to death but hinders plot and character development. However, it is not totally correct. I have seen a film that focuses on dialogue but the dialogue is great and as a result it creates excellent suspenseful atmosphere. The film is 12 Angry Men.