Hey, is it possible to go overboard on how much language you use in a script? I know Devil's Rejects was a bit (and that's an understatement) overboard on the language used.

it depends on the movie and the characters and the context of it all...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by too much language.  Are you referring to bad language?  Or someone who talks too much or too dramatically?


Phil

A film like The Devil's Rejects just wouldn't be the same without the language.  Actually, that film set the record for most uses of the F bomb with over 500.

It depends on the context of the film and the talent of the actors.  In Cradle 2 the Grave you had DMX sounding like an idiot everytime he cursed.  But Bill Moseley cursing every 2 seconds just sounds cooler.

Check thos out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_ordered_by_uses_of_the_word_%22fuck%22

You were right about Devils Rejects.

Heh, not number 1 anymore.  Evidently there's now a documentary out called "Fuck."  Haha.

I have no qualms with words as long as they fit into the scene. I think if you get to hung up on it you overuse words or you start to censor yourself.
Let the characters talk. If it's PC and G rated then it's PC and G rated. If it's vile, offensive, borderline NC-17 then let it be vile, offensive, borderline NC-17.

The big Lebowski's only 13?  Odd.

Anyway, that's a perfect example of why it's not necessarily bad.  That movie wouldn't have been nearly as funny with less curse words.

"I like your style.  But what's with all the cuss words?"
"What the fuck are you talking about?"

I find that curse words perform one function: character. If you consider their usage in language, they are simply filler words that tell you very little to nothing pertinent in most instances. I found this most evident in the military when little kids got away from their parents for the first time and went to town on the cursing. I had someone spout something to me once and every other word was cursing. I actually asked him to back up and say that again without the language so I could tell what in the world he was trying to say to me.

I have used one curse word in one script (that I remember). The purpose? The character was angry with a good reason and made an earlier point of never cursing and even using nonsense words to cover it. She spouted that word in that moment to express how severely angry and betrayed she was with another character. Ironically, you're the person for whom I wrote the script, Elliot.

Dialogue should be lean and concise and cursing detracts from it a lot. Since these words have a bit of a buzz to them in most people's ears, they will hear that word,  miss some of the dialogue as a result, and might lose an important part of a scene. Therefore, usage of these words shoudl be minimized, not because there are standards to uphold, necessarily, but because they are distracting and add nothing to the story side of the script. They add character and atmosphere ONLY meaning you can toss one or two in a few scenes with a few characters and the purpose is served.

I think "bad" language can be very beneficial when writing. ALL language, whether people consider it bad or good conveys emotion, mood, and character. They're just words after all, and shouldn't be excluded, unless it fits the purposes of the story, however, then you might want to be more discriminative. You obviously don't want to drop an f bomb every other line if you're writing a children's film, but otherwise language is real, everybody curses and bad language can help out a script very much. Examples: Bad Santa and Clerks, which wouldn't have nearly have been as good without the foul language.

Quoted from Chris_MacGuffin I have no qualms with words as long as they fit into the scene. I think if you get to hung up on it you overuse words or you start to censor yourself. Let the characters talk. If it's PC and G rated then it's PC and G rated. If it's vile, offensive, borderline NC-17 then let it be vile, offensive, borderline NC-17.

I agree.

If you're asking about just a lot of talking in general and not so much about foul language, check out the Tarantino interview on the Jackie Brown DVD (or even the Pulp Fiction DVD, for that matter).  He states that the reason his films are so dialogue heavy is basically because he knows the characters are human trash -- gangsters, killers and thieves -- but by allowing them their long dialogue (well-written dialogue, that is) it allows us to learn about each one and get to know them so we relate more to them as human beings first and foremost.  Tarantino's just one of those writers who does that, and does that well.

As for Rob Zombie with The Devil's Rejects, I loved the movie and his writing (a HUGE improvement over House of 1,000 Corpses, in my opinion).  He did the same thing in TDR that Tarantino does in all his movies; as expletive-heavy as it is, the lengthy and colorful dialogue lets us get a feel for these sadistic characters.  There's a sequence where Bill Moseley, as Otis, is about to kill two men.  He takes a minute to explain to one of his victims that he wishes hell would come down on him, basically admits he hates life and wishes he could suffer a horrible death.  We didn't really need that little speech as it does nothing to further the story, but it gives us insight into this vicious psychopath's mind.  We get the feeling that he feels as though he has no choice but to be evil, and knows he deserves to be punished for it but can't control himself, anyway.

That's the purpose of well-written dialogue.  But there's a difference between that and just rambling on and letting your characters talk too damn much without it moving the story forward or providing insight into that character.  If it does neither, then yes, it's too much.