I only used 9 words wore than you; that’s not a lot. I could possibly even cut 9 words from my dialogue without really changing it. What else do you feel is ‘covered’ in my version? They may say more words, but they tell us less. I’m assuming that Margot (is there a T or not???) is a journalist? You don’t need to tell us she’s covering the case; we can make some assumptions based on my dialogue, as she’s trying to find out information from her police officer boyfriend. I’m sure that later on, we’ll be explicitly shown that she’s a journalist. I only added the burrito to emphasise that your character was merely “eating a snack”. What does that mean? What does it tell us? Nothing. In my version, we now know that Chalmers enjoys Mexican food. You need to breath character in to your characters. Again, show-don’t-tell. The dropping of the burrito is unimportant, but since he was eating it, you can add a little to the character by explaining what he does with the burrito. If, as mentioned below, he continued to eat it as he approached Manning/Sheila, we’d know he was arrogant and unprofessional. You do need to get to the point, but skipping details doesn’t help anyone. I don’t know, that’s up to you. Is the character, a lawyer, so unprofessional that he’d ask people questions while holding a burrito? Unfortunately, it’s impossible to tell how your characters are feeling from your short extract. Presumably, a reader would get a good idea of this from the previous scene. However, you’re characters actions should tell us how they feel. That’s the difference between show and tell; I included actions to emphasise their word. It’s the difference between someone looking angry or someone saying “I’m angry”. I made a guess as to how they were feeling, and got it wrong. Still, what I’ve written, in its own context, works. Only you know how these characters feel, so it’s up to you to correct it in the most appropriate way. It’s not bad if the character is blunt. But they need to be blunt for a reason. Irrespective of that, what I meant when I said blunt, was that they cut themselves short, making their dialogue unrealistic. I suppose ‘stunted’ might’ve been a better choice of word. But I’m only trying to convey the same thing that has been repeated before; Your characters need to speak like real people. Real people don’t tell people things they already know. When they do, it feels ‘stunted’. They should be talking about other things. I know you’ve been told this a million times, but read other people scripts. Try and actually learn from them.
Okay thanks. And yes it's Margot with a T, at least that's how I read it was spelled when I got the idea to use the name. So when Margot asks her bf to tell her more about the case, should she just say tell me more, and that's it then? I can rewrite it the parts you improved. Thanks. However, as far as characters explaining things to each other, they already know, this happens in scripts and movies all the time. I recall a movie for example, where a cop explained a legal technicality to another cop in the line of duty. The other cop would have known that though, and it was just so the audience, would understand it. Margot wanting to know about a case can be cut, but what about technicalities, that the average person is not going to know? Wouldn't one character have to explain it another, even if they would know? Also if I do not establish Margot as a journalist earlier on, do you think it could come in as a deux ex machina later, or too sudden, if it's not set up, before the climax?
(smirks and shakes his head) It's usually not until after a woman has experienced me, that she takes up smoking. But I'm not surprised. ^this is super on the nose Heres something thats the same but isnt kn the nose "Usually it takes a few dates before I get a girl smoking like that." The difference is that one is a direct mention of sex snd the other implies sex. Not perfect tho just off the top of my head.
Oh okay. I thought that by adding "But I'm not surprised", it adds a bit of cockiness to the character. Is it possible to get that across still, without adding the extra line?
Can you give us a bit of a synopsis of the story? Who are all these characters, and what's going on? Hard to say what would sound "natural" when we don't know the motivations of the characters or much about the situation.
For sure. Basically Sheila was the victim of a kidnapping and has been rescued. The police are escorting her back to her car after interviewing her. The kidnapper who was arrested, Chalmers' is the man's lawyer, and he wants to ask her questions about the case for his defense, but the cop who is giving Sheila a ride home, has mixed feelings about her talking to the lawyer, since he is on the suspect's side. Guy is another cop in the story who is investigating the case and Margot is just his girlfriend really. Their relationship is compromised by the case later, but right now this is her first scene, and is just being introduced to the reader, so the relationship is set up for later. Does this help?
Yeah that definitely helps. Here's my 2 cents then, and keep in mind they're just my personal observations/suggestions, and it's kind of hard to interpret such a small section of a script. EXT. PARKING LOT, POLICE STATION -- DAY -- LATER CHALMERS (40s), leans against his car, having a snack while watching the police station. He's in a suit and tie, with his hair slicked back. He sees Manning opens the back door, and peaks out. He makes sure it's safe, and holds the door for Sheila. She comes out while rummaging through her purse. MANNING I don't think they would have taken anything-- Whether she's rummaging in her purse or not here doesn't seem important. Not clear who he's talking about either. If she was kidnapped it's weird that she even still has her purse. If it's sometime later and she took her purse with her to give an interview, don't think they would take it off her? Also, doesn't she have any family or friends that would be with her? Manning leads her to his car as Chalmers walks over and intercepts them. CHALMERS Excuse me, I'm John Wray's attorney, Jerry Chalmers. Manning becomes alert and leads Sheila to the car. CHALMERS I just want to ask you some questions about the case, that's all. MANNING We'll pass. Chalmer would point out that it's not Manning's decision, lawyers know all the rules. SHEILA No, I'll answer. What is it? She's the victim, and this stranger who's defending her kidnapper wants to ask her questions. I think she'd ignore him at first, and if he continued to push she might get defensive, or angry. CHALMERS Okay, thanks. I just want to say I'm sorry for your ordeal. But did you say anything to the police? He must be a very stupid attorney to ask her that in front of a cop? Especially when he just saw them come out of a police station. Are you sure the defence attorney is the right character for this? Maybe a journalist, or a family member of the kidnapper, would make more sense? MANNING Nevermind what she told us. SHEILA No, nothing at all. CHALMERS I just need to know, because what the police know, could come up. (to Sheila) What are you going to say in court? I'm like 99% sure that he would formally request all of her police statements from the police and they would be obliged to give them to him. Maybe do some more research about that process? Again I don't think he's the right character for this based on how you've written it. If he wants to interview her, he would formally request an interview at a later date, and he would record it and take notes, there'd be witnesses to it, etc. He wouldn't hassle her on the street. Also these cases are built over months, at least, and he would presumably have studied her police statements and a whole body of other evidence before he bothered to interview her. MANNING (opens the car door for her) C'mon, let's get going. SHEILA (to Chalmers) I'm not going to say anything. She gets in and they drive off. CHALMERS Okay, thank you Ma'am. Ma'am generally refers to a superior, he should use her name. Chalmers walks back to his car, as Guy exits the police station, holding hands with MARGO. An attractive woman (late 20s), in fashionable dress. Why was Margot in the police station? MARGOT They gave me the story and I'm covering it at the trial... Can I come over and pick up some things the night before? There doesn't need to be a reason for her to go to his place, they're a couple. But here we go... a journo who's covering the story, maybe she could take over the role of the defence attorney in this scene? Could create an interesting conflict between Margot and Guy. Guy comes out and sees her, pulls her aside, "You're way out of line", "I'm doing my job", etc, etc. GUY Sure. I'm back on the case now. MARGOT C'mon, just tell me more about it. What do you think I started dating you for? This is a question she should ask after wine, and sex, and a bit more subtly. Usually when it's something like this, she would wait for him to start talking about it and then lead him into a few questions. GUY Well, as I recall... This isn't a good enough reason to have a flashback. If it's important enough, they could talk about it, but it doesn't seem very important. If it fits chronologically into the story in an earlier scene that would be okay too, but I'd leave out the whole smoking thing, a few looks and smiles across the bar would probably do the trick. EXT. PLAZA -- DAY -- MONTHS EARLIER (FLASHBACK) Margo is walking down a pathway with a FEMALE FRIEND (30s), and she sees Guy, on the same bench. He tries to light a large cigar, but the lighter won't work. Margo stops walking, and grabs her friend, gently by the arm. MARGOT Hey, that guy is cute. Check him out. FRIEND Well go get him, tiger. MARGOT Yeah, right. FRIEND Why not? Just go talk to him. MARGOT And say what? Guy looks up at her, and she turns away. FRIEND You see? You're going in... Just put your ovaries where your mouth is and go for it! The friend pushes Margo, lightly -- Margo walks on down the path, away from him -- She stops, takes a deep breath, and walks over towards him looking shy, but trying to act confident. He sees her and she comes over and he stands up off the bench. She comes up to him and snatches his cigar out of his mouth, to him being surprised -- MARGOT Got a light? He is intrigued... GUY Yeah, sure. He lights it for her as she tries to smoke it but inhales it and coughs... He sees that she is inhaling, and is amused. MARGOT (coughing) Not bad. She takes another inhale and coughs again. GUY (smirks and shakes his head) It's usually not until after a woman has experienced me, that she takes up smoking. But I'm not surprised. MARGOT (in disbelief) Oh really? Guy nods. She steps closer and tries to stare him down -- MARGOT Wanna bet? They look at each other in attraction... EXT. STREET -- DAY (BACK TO PRESENT DAY) Margo lights herself cigar, inhaling it, no problem -- Young busy woman smoking a cigar in the street? Unlikely. Cigarette, sure. MARGOT (to Guy) Well, you were right about one thing. They smile as he puts her arm around her and they walk off. GUY You'd have to leave me if you'd wanted to quit.
Okay thanks. Margot was in the station cause she came to meet Guy, so they can go out, as Guy is now off duty. I wanted the kidnapper's lawyer to question Sheila, because after Sheila tells the lawyer, that she did not tell the police anything, the lawyer then reports back to the kidnapper that she didn't, and this causes the kidnapper to do some things that will send the rest of the plot in the direction I want it go. I cannot have it be a family member or reporter that questions Sheila, because a family member or reporter would not report back to the kidnapper in this case. I could write it so that the lawyer does not question her in front of the cops, like maybe she leaves the station alone... The lawyer can get what she says from the police, but he wants to hear it from her specifically, because the lawyer and her are secretly working together, but he hasn't had anytime alone with her since she is always surrounded by cops, out of reason that the kidnapper has accomplices that after her and knows where she lives. So she is surrounded by cops a lot and it's hard to get her alone. As for requesting time with her later, he wanted to get what she knows right away, cause time is of the essence here. But that's a whole other discussion and not a dialogue related issue of course . Does this help? The reason why I wanted to have the flashback, is because the MC being popular with women is a theme in the story that relates to the jealously and loneliness of the arrested kidnapper. I am debating whether or not to change it though, as it may come off as a bit random to have the flashback, the way it is done. Does this help at all? When you say that Margo would ask Guy why she started dating him over wine... after a few months of dating, is not okay to say something like that casually? Can you make remarks about why you started dating a person without alcohol being involved? Me and my gf talk about that easily, and we do not need wine to get on that subject at all. It can happen while we are at work even, and it's just talking. Is that abnormal? As for cutting out the whole cigar scene, dialogue and all, I wanted to show the seduction process through dialogue, rather than skipping ahead. I mean lots of stories do this where they will actually show it in dialogue. James Bond does it and they show it in dialogue. They don't have to, and it's not relevant to the plot, but they do it to add depth to the character interactions, rather than just skipping ahead. So what am I doing differently, than the interaction comes off as redundant, to the plot, where other stories do it, even though it has nothing to do with plot. It's about character interaction.
Matter of fact would be my interpretation of "on the nose". As I read, I didn't really notice anything wrong at all, but after reading the other remarks, I see the point. I feel that I have the same problem myself. Dialogue that gets as quickly as possible to "the point" so as to move the action along has no "er's or "um's", interruptions or random subject changes that real life conversations have. It makes sense to write and then feels unnatural to read back. I fell like recording some real life conversations and then writing them out to see how a real chat should look on a page. I have started to write an in depth break down of each character's personalities and motivations to help myself with this process and it has helped me to think like each character as I'm writing their line.
I am not saying it is unnatural to get to the point quickly, it feels like an unnatural conversation when reading it. I suppose it must depend on if the characters would need to be to the point. In some settings, like the opening, then there would be no room for anything but getting straight to the point as none of them really want to speak to each other, but on the other hand in a relaxed setting there tends to be more digression. If every character gets to the point immediately, that is going to seem unnatural in my opinion. A different turn of phrase for each character is probably hard to write but is certainly true to life. You should be aware that I am at level 001 where writing is concerned, so my opinions should be read with that in mind.
I wasn't going to respond to this but I couldn't resist! Apologies! I love scripts, I'm primarily a script writer. I think it's important to keep in mind that usually when people complain that a dialogue scene is too "on the nose" it comes from a problem with lacking subtext. You have to remember that every scene in a scripted piece should have some kind of subtext that is going on as the scene is carrying on. Otherwise it'll just be boring exposition and a scene with just exposition is one of the worst scenes you can write in a script. I'll take a look at your Margot scene and describe what personally bothers me about it. EXT. PLAZA -- DAY -- MONTHS EARLIER (FLASHBACK) Margo is walking down a pathway with a FEMALE FRIEND (30s), and she sees Guy, on the same bench. He tries to light a large cigar, but the lighter won't work. Margo stops walking, and grabs her friend, gently by the arm. MARGOT Hey, that guy is cute. Check him out. This dialogue bothers me. It's not that it's too quick to the point, it's just that it's very flat. It's a very uninteresting way to express romantic interest. "That guy is cute. Check him out." I would find another way to write this that reveals more about her character a little more. For example. If she's a very shy and modest person, I'd probably write something like: "He seems nice." That's all, she wouldn't be so openly romantic if she was that kind of character. Or, on the opposite extreme, maybe I'd write her as: "Amazing bod, 2 O'Clock. He looks fun." These are pretty bad examples off the top of my head but dialogue needs to be more than just expressing a thought or interest. It needs to betray the character underneath, or atleast fit the mood and environment of the character and the story. That's subtext and a lack of it will make your scene feel super flat and uninteresting. FRIEND Well go get him, tiger. MARGOT Yeah, right. FRIEND Why not? Just go talk to him. I would get rid of the "Why not?" and have her just say "Just go talk to him." The "Why not?" feels unnecessary and just takes up space to me. There's enough here for an actor to chew on without the "Why not?" if your dialogue is too wordy, it can really make it hard for the actors to perform it with enough of a punch because they can get lost in your words. Especially with casual banter. Trust me I know, overwriting dialogue is an issue with me too and there's nothing worse than being on set and seeing your actors struggle through a labyrinth of words even when it was rehearsed. MARGOT And say what? Guy looks up at her, and she turns away. FRIEND You see? You're going in... Just put your ovaries where your mouth is and go for it! The friend pushes Margo, lightly -- Margo walks on down the path, away from him -- She stops, takes a deep breath, and walks over towards him looking shy, but trying to act confident. He sees her and she comes over and he stands up off the bench. She comes up to him and snatches his cigar out of his mouth, to him being surprised -- MARGOT Got a light? He is intrigued... GUY Yeah, sure. He lights it for her as she tries to smoke it but inhales it and coughs... He sees that she is inhaling, and is amused. MARGOT (coughing) Not bad. She takes another inhale and coughs again. GUY (smirks and shakes his head) It's usually not until after a woman has experienced me, that she takes up smoking. But I'm not surprised. "usually not until after a woman has experienced me" feels really weird to me, unless you are going for the guy being weird. Or this is a specific innuendo you want to tackle. This line reminds me of the line in "A Few Good Men" where Tom Cruise says "Ordinarily it takes someone hours to discover I'm not fit to handle a defense." I'd probably write, "It usually takes a woman to know me before she has to take up smoking." It's just a thought that's a little easier to follow for me. This is subjective of course, but if you're characters are being coy, you want to word things smoothly so that their thought process can be followed easily. MARGOT (in disbelief) Oh really? Guy nods. She steps closer and tries to stare him down -- MARGOT Wanna bet? They look at each other in attraction... EXT. STREET -- DAY (BACK TO PRESENT DAY) Margo lights herself cigar, inhaling it, no problem -- So beyond that, I don't see anything wrong with this scene (out of context of course). But those are instances where I feel that the dialogue could use some improvement. My 2 cents. Hope that helps!
Okay thanks. I see what you mean about the "Why, not?" I will take it out. You say that she is contradictory cause she seems unshy around her friend, but shy around the guy. But isn't it normal for a person to be more comfortable around their friends than with strangers, for some people? I have a friend who is not shy around me at all, but when she goes to talk to guy stranger, she becomes really shy. Can shyness be apparent for one thing, and not another, depending on a person? I guess when the guy says a woman gets to know me, it implies something that sounds more negative if he were to use the word 'know' instead of 'experienced'. For some reason 'get to know', just sounds more negative, like there is something negative about him that causes a woman to take up something, rather than something that sounds more positive, if that makes sense? And yes, I was aiming for him to be coy.
Oh no, I didn't say that it's contradictory. I just said it's an uninteresting way for her to show romantic interest. I want something more in that dialogue that shows her character more. I only used the shy thing as an example of how I'd write it if I'd wanted her to be shy and unsure of herself. The way it is written now the dialogue just comes across as very plain and, even if people express themselves plainly in real life, it comes across as flat in a fictional scene. Well, first off, good job because I did get a sense of that from the way you wrote it. I'd just like it to feel less awkward to go through. I personally disagree, I think whether the phrase "It usually takes a woman to know me"- doesn't contain a positive or negative connotation until the second part of that sentence is revealed. Which you wrote "to take up smoking". That ending bit gives it a negative connotation to me regardless of how the first part of the sentence is written because it implies that she picked up a bad habit from him or she picked up that habit because "knowing" or "experiencing" him means they need to smoke to relax. But my problem with that line of dialogue is more of the phrasing rather than word choice. If you really want to keep it as experienced, it can still work with "It usually takes a woman to experience me before she has to take up smoking." I just need the phrasing to be simple if you are writing banter between characters. There are exceptions to that principle of course, but in your type of scene I think it applies since they are normal people at a bar. Hope that helps!
Okay thanks. I see what you mean. Is there a way the second part of the sentence can have a positive connotation? Like is their something he could say, where he is saying, that when women experiencing him, they feel more 'liberated' after? That's what I was going for, is that he is saying he makes women more liberated, in a good way. Is there a way I can get that across better in the wording?
Hmmm... I'm honestly not too sure. If that's your intent I would maybe suggest keeping that dialogue structure you originally had. Maybe something along the lines of "A woman usually takes up smoking after they've experienced me." Maybe you can come up with something better than that But if you're going for the guy boasting about himself rather than being playfully self-deprecating (as with the Tom Cruise line) then I would keep the basics of what you had but just word it simplier and quicker to the punch. It may seem too subtle of a line if you want to draw attention to her smoking now before spending time with the guy but since this is a script, get a good director and he have the actors emphasize the after in "A woman usually takes up smoking after they've experienced me." and make it sound natural.
The kidnapper's attorney is going to try to get the victim to commit to the story that she's going to tell or not tell...and he wants to have this conversation IN FRONT OF a cop? Why not just tell the cop, flat-out, "By the way, this supposed kidnapping victim is a member of our criminal organization." You may as well; this interaction makes it totally obvious. (Yes, I know I'm a complete idiot to participate in one of these threads. But I find the scene mindboggling. If the cop isn't already trying to find a way to arrest this woman, this conversation should clearly tell him that he should be working on that, immediately.)
It is a bit on the nose. The characters engage in simple back and forth Q & A. Try having them talk in more statements and with a subtext, as if they were flirting with each other, so to speak. For example, I'd change one of your exchanges about seeing the cute guy to: MARGOT Cutie alert, blue jeans, red shirt, 11 o'clock. FRIEND Since you have the target locked, go after him. MARGOT That's a negative, captain. FRIEND This is an order, lieutenant. MARGOT Sir, the lieutenant does not possess the necessary tools to engage. And so on. A simple "Are you going out tonight?" "Yes." type of conversations are extremely off-putting.
Not to mention that the defense attorney would get the witness statements as part of disclosure anyway. That aside the real weakness in this script excerpt is the Margot and Guy bit "women don't normally take up smoking until they've experienced me " seriously ? who says that to a woman they've just met , and how many women would accept that astounding degree of arrogance as anything other than a turn off even if they were initially attracted by his looks. To me the flashback add virtually nothing to our understanding of the characters and is therefore pointless - the dialogue isnt so much on the nose as false and unbelievable ... think how you talk to a girl when you are chatting her up , and how she speaks to you... it doesnt sound anything like that
Yes. I can't wrap my mind around how it's supposed to be better than "get to know me." It's...mindblowingly creepy. If anyone said that to me, I'd be looking around for security and finding someone to walk me safely to my car.
Totally , I can't work out why he'd think women are 'more liberated' after experiencing him either - defining yourself by your sexual experience isn't exactly liberated thinking. when I was at college one of my team mates used to tell girls "you shouldn't sleep with me as the experience will give you unrealistic expectations of future partners" the same guy used to ask girls "do you smoke after sex ?" if they said yes (rather than 'fuck off you creep') he'd say "with me, you'd smoke during sex" - it was worth noting that the arrogant twat got laid a lot less than those who didn't use weak lines they'd read in 'how to pick up chicks' or whatever.
Well I was going by my own experience, and I actually had that conversation with a woman in real life, and it worked. However, I tend to go for very flirtatious and aggressive women, cause that is my type, so that is what I was basing it on. But a large part of it is not what you say, but how you say it. In my experience, you can make a line like that work as long as you say it right. I asked a couple of women and they said it was fine, but they were the more bold type. Perhaps this doesn't work on non-bold women? But the female character is trying to be bold though. I re-word it though, just not sure what else to use. As for the lawyer talking to the woman in front of the cop, the lawyer is asking her what she told the police. So if she tells the lawyer what she told the police, then what she is saying, is what the police already know. If the lawyer asked "What didn't you tell the police", then that would be bad, cause he is expecting her to give up information that the cops do not know. But if the lawyer asks her "what did you tell them", then she is only telling the lawyer what the police would already know.
