Action/Dialogue balance

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Action/Dialogue balance

    hey all

    i'm finishing the 1st draft of a big biopic and i ran a statistics report in FD out of curiosity.

    came out to Action: 38%, Dialogue: 52%.

    admittedly it's a fairly "talky" script, a la Scorsese or Sorkin (I WISH).

    just wondering if that balance rings any alarm bells or if you guys have a "sweet spot" you try and aim for.

    also curious if you often rework dialogue in a 2nd draft and a) cut it down a lot, and b) write as actions what you had originally written as dialogue.

  • #2
    Re: Action/Dialogue balance

    It should be 57% action and 34% dialog. Anything else and you're doomed. Sorry.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Action/Dialogue balance

      (In my best Joe Pesci) How about 99% action and 1% go **** yerself

      Originally posted by Unfinishe View Post
      It should be 57% action and 34% dialog. Anything else and you're doomed. Sorry.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Action/Dialogue balance

        Hey, man, like, the dude was just tryin’ to be humorous, man, y’know, like, don’t get your hackles up, man, yeah, y’know what I'm sayin’?

        First of all, your percentages total only 90%, so already from the get-go, your screenplay is missing 10% somewhere in there (stated for dramatic effect).

        Unfinshe’s total adds up to 91%, so it’s 9% shy of 100% (even though I do believe Unfinshe is kidding around here; maybe not, though).

        Anyway, this business of measuring your screenplay by percentages of dialogue versus action seems ridiculous to me. It smacks of some theoretical formula that exists for a “perfect” screenplay or a screenplay that has mass appeal to humankind (on my planet, we just let a panel of સ્ક્રીનવીટર્સ — or Skrīnavīṭarsa to you — read each of the screenplays and decide whether or not any of them have a good story).

        For example, a Woody Allen screenplay is bound to be heavy on the dialogue and light on the action. Wouldn’t you think so? Allen’s movies did do tolerably well, though, don’t you think?

        12 Angry Men is a classic film which was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." It was practically all dialogue.

        It’s as William Goldman writes in his Introduction to “Five Screenplays”: “Movies are finally, centrally, crucially, primarily only about story.”

        William Goldman ought to know, and I believe he’s correct. As ever, though, I could be wrong, but when it comes to screenwriting, story is paramount.
        “Nothing is what rocks dream about” ― Aristotle

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Action/Dialogue balance

          I agree. Dumb questions get dumb answers. My bad.
          I guess I was worried that too much dialogue = telling instead of showing

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Action/Dialogue balance

            Originally posted by TravisPickle View Post
            I agree. Dumb questions get dumb answers. My bad.
            Nah. Fuggedaboutit.

            Originally posted by TravisPickle View Post
            I guess I was worried that too much dialogue = telling instead of showing
            In this day and age, it's easy to understand why a question like this could arise in your mind. Counting things is what computers do well, and as computer users, we writers would like to know what are our count numbers if only because we can know them.

            With the advent of computers, a wide variety of tasks and functions were made available to, or added for, the would-be prose writer. For one thing, word count became simpler to do because the program would count the actual number of words for the writer.

            There was once a question on Amazon Studios’ “Commissary Forum” the basis of which was a dissection of how many words there were in screenplays of hit movies versus the word count of screenplays of movies that were commercial duds.

            As if that mattered as much as whether or not the screen story premise was any good at all from the outset. This failing is a common mistake of many a screenplay. The story may be well written, but where is the interest for the audience and the return on their investment of time (and money) in a screenplay about a guy who works at a widget factory whose goal is to make more widgets than his co-workers so that his employer can profit from it?

            The word-count of a written work goes back to a related, previous thread posted by you asking about fudging the mechanics of page architecture such as margins and line lengths to hit the hallowed, magical mark of “X” number of pages.

            It gets back to why there is a standard (a *rule*) of using only Courier 12-point font and of using standard margins. This requirement is not “requested” to see whether or not the neophyte screenwriter will conform to seemingly archaic maxims of yore. This requirement has its purpose in giving the trained eye a nearly accurate count of the work’s length in run-time at one minute per page. In this case, 120 pages of screenplay purportedly equate to 120 minutes or 2 hours of run-time. This calculation is made possible by the spacing of all characters in the Courier 12 font having equal measure.

            So, as you see, there ARE a few hard and fast rules about screenwriting. One of them is only to use the Courier 12-point font; the other is not to monkey with the standard margins (1½” left margin, 1” right margin, 1” top and bottom margins). Rumor has it that some executives won’t read a script that isn’t in Courier 12 font. Who can blame them for that? If there’s a so-called writer who wants to rock the boat with a different font to make herself or himself “stand out from the herd,” then that writer will most likely be cut from the herd.

            Getting back to and more in alignment with your thread topic, another good rule of thumb (which is a rule you choose to follow rather than one that you must follow) is to write screen stories about which you have a passion or a burning desire to see on screen.

            Once again, I quote William Goldman, not only because I think he was a great writer and screenwriter, but because his wisdom regarding the craft of writing and screenwriting seems as sound as a dollar to me. In his introduction to “Five Screenplays,” he states this about his screenwriting:

            “I don’t like my writing, and I’m not ****-kicking when I say that. Some of the moments in these movies were so golden in my head. But what came out on paper was only black and white. Can’t help that. I constantly remind myself of my two salvations. First: I really did do the best I knew at the time. Second: I have only written stuff I wanted to write.

            ”These are the anchors that have kept me able to face tomorrow.”

            So if, like William Goldman, you want to be able to face tomorrow, don’t worry about Action/Dialogue balance. Worry about telling the best story you’re able to tell in as few words as possible. That ought to keep you busy for a good long while.

            And when you’ve completed a screen story to your satisfaction, don’t become upset when someone wants to change it, because they most certainly will want to do that. You can count on it.
            Last edited by Clint Hill; 02-11-2019, 03:59 AM.
            “Nothing is what rocks dream about” ― Aristotle

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Action/Dialogue balance

              I'm just being a worry worm is all. I hate myself for it but it's part of my process. I got 100 pages in the bag, 35 to go and a deadline to deliver in 12 days. So inevitably I'm starting to wonder if I'm dropping off a big ol' doo doo and killing any chances of future work. happens all the time.

              re: dialogue, it's interesting how one has an option to include all the blemishes, repetitions and hiccups that come with naturalistic conversation- making it very stylized, essentially. or embrace the "less is more" approach, relying on visuals to tell the story, stripping scenes to their essential elements and cutting on riffing.

              it's two really different approaches and I am starting to think that it's less about the writer and more about the task at hand. in other words, if you are given a "real life" story and the characters are loquacious people who talk in circles to avoid confrontation, you're inevitably going to have to embrace that. if on the other hand you are writing a crime thriller and you have a reserved protagonist who thinks words are trouble, then you might end up with a Drive or a No Country - simply because that's the world and those are the characters.

              essentially I'm agreeing with you Mr. Fang - trying to find a "perfect fit" is counterproductive and it's more about feeling the groove and the beat of whatever jam you're laying out.

              Originally posted by TigerFang View Post
              Nah. Fuggedaboutit.



              In this day and age, it's easy to understand why a question like this could arise in your mind. Counting things is what computers do well, and as computer users, we writers would like to know what are our count numbers if only because we can know them.

              With the advent of computers, a wide variety of tasks and functions were made available to, or added for, the would-be prose writer. For one thing, word count became simpler to do because the program would count the actual number of words for the writer.

              There was once a question on Amazon Studios’ “Commissary Forum” the basis of which was a dissection of how many words there were in screenplays of hit movies versus the word count of screenplays of movies that were commercial duds.

              As if that mattered as much as whether or not the screen story premise was any good at all from the outset. This failing is a common mistake of many a screenplay. The story may be well written, but where is the interest for the audience and the return on their investment of time (and money) in a screenplay about a guy who works at a widget factory whose goal is to make more widgets than his co-workers so that his employer can profit from it?

              The word-count of a written work goes back to a related, previous thread posted by you asking about fudging the mechanics of page architecture such as margins and line lengths to hit the hallowed, magical mark of “X” number of pages.

              It gets back to why there is a standard (a *rule*) of using only Courier 12-point font and of using standard margins. This requirement is not “requested” to see whether or not the neophyte screenwriter will conform to seemingly archaic maxims of yore. This requirement has its purpose in giving the trained eye a nearly accurate count of the work’s length in run-time at one minute per page. In this case, 120 pages of screenplay purportedly equate to 120 minutes or 2 hours of run-time. This calculation is made possible by the spacing of all characters in the Courier 12 font having equal measure.

              So, as you see, there ARE a few hard and fast rules about screenwriting. One of them is only to use the Courier 12-point font; the other is not to monkey with the standard margins (1½” left margin, 1” right margin, 1” top and bottom margins). Rumor has it that some executives won’t read a script that isn’t in Courier 12 font. Who can blame them for that? If there’s a so-called writer who wants to rock the boat with a different font to make herself or himself “stand out from the herd,” then that writer will most likely be cut from the herd.

              Getting back to and more in alignment with your thread topic, another good rule of thumb (which is a rule you choose to follow rather than one that you must follow) is to write screen stories about which you have a passion or a burning desire to see on screen.

              Once again, I quote William Goldman, not only because I think he was a great writer and screenwriter, but because his wisdom regarding the craft of writing and screenwriting seems as sound as a dollar to me. In his introduction to “Five Screenplays,” he states this about his screenwriting:

              “I don’t like my writing, and I’m not ****-kicking when I say that. Some of the moments in these movies were so golden in my head. But what came out on paper was only black and white. Can’t help that. I constantly remind myself of my two salvations. First: I really did do the best I knew at the time. Second: I have only written stuff I wanted to write.

              ”These are the anchors that have kept me able to face tomorrow.”

              So if, like William Goldman, you want to be able to face tomorrow, don’t worry about Action/Dialogue balance. Worry about telling the best story you’re able to tell in as few words as possible. That ought to keep you busy for a good long while.

              And when you’ve completed a screen story to your satisfaction, don’t become upset when someone wants to change it, because they most certainly will want to do that. You can count on it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Action/Dialogue balance

                Yup, agreed. These kinds of questions are more likely to hurt your script than help it. If it's a good script, no one will care about percentages.

                Comment

                Working...
                X