Quiz time! A.K.A. Urban myths about dialogue and screenwriting?

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
So I keep hearing how one should be able to cover the names of characters on a page and still deduce the characters, because each character's dialogue pattern should be unique, identifiable-- reverse engineering of a sort. Or really? I would like to see this put to the test. Anybody game? First with lines from a horror screenplay, then from an Oscar winning screenplay.

First the horror screenplay dialogue. I am not giving the title because you might be tempted to look it up. But this is a very popular horror flick. No Oscars, but extremely profitable. Ten lines, two characters 'A' and 'B'. Can you sort which lines of dialogue belong to A and B, as we are supposed to be able to do according to the advice of screenwriting gurus / how-to books? I would not be able to do so, for the record. And most of the dialogue throughout the movie if pretty generic like this, I just do NOT see any highly distinguishable character voicing. Or am I missing something? So what about that rule?
1. What was that?​
2. Oh my god you're bleeding.​
3. It was an accident leave him alone.​
4. I hope so, I hope we didn't kill it.​
5. But I thought...​
6. Is everybody okay?​
7. Where is it?​
8. A dog couldn't have done that.​
9. Oh my god this isn't happening.
10. If it was a deer then where is it?​

Next up. Dialogue from an Oscar winning drama. Maybe genre matters?


 
Last edited:
And from an Oscar winning film-- Oscar for best screenplay written directly for the screen, two characters C and D, can you pick out which of the four lines of dialogue go with C or D, based on their distinctive dialogue? I can't. What does that say about the rule that all the dialogue on a page should be so unique for each character that we should be able to cover the character's names and know who is saying the lines based on distinct dialogue use of words, voice, tone, slang? Honestly, I think that sort of 'rule' is hyperbole to say the least. Yes we can give characters unique things to say, a tone throughout the story, but seriously, for gurus to keep harping on the notion that we should be able to easily 'reverse engineer' dialogue and know the character names, geesh.
  1. [*=1]We're not gonna get to the cabin till after dark as it is.[*=1]How much longer is it gonna be? I'm hungry.[*=1]I just haven't seen you like this in a while. I'm used to seeing you more sedate.[*=1]I'll have Wild Turkey straight up and a Coke back, please.
 
Last edited:
Yet another set of dialog passages, as a friend of mine replied saying longer passages were needed, that it is not fair to use short passages (but unfortunately most dialog is short).

Okay so where are some pretty lengthy (breaking the normal rule of no more than 3 lines of dialog for most dialog) passages of dialogue from FOUR CHARACTERS. Which of the 8 passages, numbered 1..8 belong together as distinctive characters? Do passages 1 and 6 belong to the same character, and so on. If it can not be done, then the general rule of being able to cover the names of characters and still pick out characters' dialogue as distinctive is pure bullsheeeet in my opinion. Sure you can find examples of very specific dialogue that gives away what character is saying it, but am referring to the general directive that writers should write so every piece of dialogue is distinctive for each character.

(1) Warrior deity of the Kothoga, an extinct South American tribe. He led an expedition that found the only known representation of Mbwun. The statue is said to carry a curse. (looks away, quiet) Every member of Whittlesley's expedition died.

(2) Come, We all know you're superstitious. But you're among scientists here. We deal in facts. That statue had nothing to do with
what happened to Beauregard.

(3) Yes. That's my case. Now it's yours. All the corpses were badly mutilated in a very particular way. Decapitated. Brains extracted. Limbs torn to shreds. It looked like the work of a large animal, but there was no sign of an animal on board.

(4) That, apparently, is the problem. I'm yesterday's news. Who needs a Curator of Plant Biology in a museum with one exhibit on plants? Monsters and dinosaurs, cannibals and shamans are the new currency of the realm.

(5) He was afraid of himself. He tried suicide once. He was ill. Manic depressive. He had wild emotional highs and lows. Not a happy
affliction for a scientist. He'd been revered in our community. By the end he was a joke.

(6) I got the relic out yesterday to put on display. Beauregard was there. The crates had been broken into and the contents were strewn about. But nothing was missing. It was downright weird. We joked that it was the curse of Mbwun. I'm not laughing now.

(7) Mbwun. A South American warrior deity. He carries a powerful curse. Every member of the expedition that
found this statue, died.

(8) Yes. That's my case. Now it's yours. All the corpses were badly mutilated in a very particular way. Decapitated. Brains extracted. Limbs torn to shreds. It looked like the work of a large animal, but there was no sign of an animal on board.


 
Last edited:
I don't recall reading that particular piece of advice in any of the many SW books I've read (although I may have just forgotten it), but I have to say I think it's good. You make a valid point about it not being clear from your dialog examples who is who, but I don't think that invalidates the guru's case. Which I would read simply as 'make every effort to write each character's dialog in a distinctive voice'. The author may have framed the hypothetical proof of that idea a bit oversimplistically, but it's still good advice IMO.

A writer/director I've worked with on a number of features (as music scoring mixer, I should mention) is very guilty of the opposite IMO. In some cases virtually all the characters speak in the (nearly) exact same, quite distinctive style. Since I know him rather well, I can tell you definitively that that particular style of speaking happens to be *his own*...

So in spite of your guru(s) setting up an easily broken 'proof' in this case, I do agree that it's a worthy pitfall to look out for. And an important imperative to keep in mind in a constructive way while creating characters and their voices:

Make them distinctive, and *their own*...

I'll take a crack at your quiz later. Some patterns do appear to exist. Which doesn't invalidate *your* point either...
 
Last edited:
Ted I am in agreement with you in principle, I just think the 'rule' is overblown, when the reality of screenplay examples seems to show you can NOT do what the gurus say (cover the chars, still know who is saying what). I do agree writers should strive to give characters a unique voice/tone/slang, but from the evidence I see in actual screenplays, at this point I am not going to spend weeks going line by line in a screenplay during rewrites looking to invent unique character dialogue, at least NOT to the DEGREE where one could cover up names and know who is saying what. I think the only way, for the vast (90%+) majority of screenplays to know who is speaking (covering up names) is by the context of a scene, by actual names being used inside the dialog.
 
I think those dialog snippets (at least in the first two posts) may be a bit too short to have much distinct characterization in them. It would have a lot more to do with how the actor says them than with the words themselves. Longer sentences make a difference, because there's more opportunity for unique and distinctive word choice and cadence.

It's true that you can sometimes peg a character with a single word, but that requires a previous, intimate knowledge of the character.

For example, Captain Sisko might well say "undoubtedly." Knowing it's Captain Sisko, you can hear his voice. Not knowing anything other than the line, it could be anyone.
 
Or, for another example from Star Trek, in Generations, if you listen to Scotty's or Chekov's dialogue, you can tell without a doubt that it was written for Spock (Scotty's) and McCoy (Chekov's). And they're short sentences -- but again, that requires prior knowledge of the characters.
 
On this theme, an exercise we did back in undergrad classes was to write a character sketch which was an internal monologue for a character. It's basically a stream of consciousness written in that character's voice. It's not unlike imagining what someone you know would say in a given situation, like getting to know a friend. If you write out a couple of pages, you begin to get a pretty good idea of what the character sounds like, how he/she talks, and that helps you write his/her dialog -- and also guide you as to how the character would act/react in the situations you create.
 
David Jimerson said:
I think those dialog snippets (at least in the first two posts) may be a bit too short to have much distinct characterization in them...
Click to expand...

Well you are only confirming my disbelief in the guru statement that a writer should be able to cover the char names and assign the names based on dialog; at least for dialog that is short (but again, most dialog should be short, 1-3 lines, so that means most of a screenplay).

As for longer dialog, I did post an example, but removed the typical dialog formatting so it might have looked shorter. Here it is more properly formatted, and as you can see the characters are saying quite a bit. Again, the guru rule never says anything conditional, just that for ANY page, ANY dialog, we are supposed to pick out chars based solely on what they are saying? I don't but it.

(1)Warrior deity of the Kothoga, an
extinct South American tribe. He
led an expedition
that found the only known
representation of Mbwun. The statue
is said to carry a curse.
(looks away, quiet)
Every member of Whittlesley's
expedition died.


(2)Come, We all know you're
superstitious. But you're among
scientists here. We deal in facts.
That statue had nothing to do with
what happened to Beauregard.


(3)Yes. That's my case. Now it's yours.
All the corpses were badly mutilated
in a very particular way.
Decapitated. Brains extracted. Limbs
torn to shreds. It looked like the
work of a large animal, but there
was no sign of an animal on board.


(4)That, apparently, is the problem.
I'm yesterday's news. Who needs a
Curator of Plant Biology in a museum
with one exhibit on plants? Monsters
and dinosaurs, cannibals and shamans
are the new currency of the realm.


(5)He was afraid of himself. He tried
suicide once. He was ill. Manic
depressive. He had wild emotional
highs and lows. Not a happy
affliction for a scientist. He'd
been revered in our community. By
the end he was a joke.


(6)I got the relic out yesterday to put
on display. Beauregard was there.
The crates had been broken into and
the contents were strewn about. But
nothing was missing. It was
downright weird. We joked that it
was the curse of Mbwun. I'm not
laughing now.


(7)Mbwun. A South American warrior
deity. He carries a powerful curse.
Every member of the expedition that
found this statue, died.


(8)Yes. That's my case. Now it's yours.
All the corpses were badly mutilated
in a very particular way.
Decapitated. Brains extracted. Limbs
torn to shreds. It looked like the
work of a large animal, but there
was no sign of an animal on board.
 
I think the magic is in the subtle differences.
Subliminal variances.

Normally you will have one (or very few) "extreme" / "über-colorful" characters
with whom this cover-up-the-name jazz would apply to on any given page.

That's why I feel Star Trek is a bad example. You have a disproportionate number of extreme characters:
-Scotty (extreme high blood pressure Scots-ness)
-Chekhov (extreme Andy-Kaufman-foreigner-ness)
-Spock (extreme level of level-ness)
-Kirk (extreme killer-of-the-one-page-equals--------------------------------------------one-minute-rule-ness).
-etc. etc. etc.

It is the same as the unwritten (or sometimes written) rule on keeping the outlandishly-named character to a minimum.
 
Last edited:
Well... the way that you have presented the examples, doesn't match the setup that you claim for the 'gurus'. That is, we don't see the action lines, and the only unknown are the speakers of the dialog.

Since I don't have any scripts handy... I'll just note a few recollections about 'star trek'...

Picard uses the phrase 'Make it so'... I don't recall Kirk ever say that... (perhaps I've repressed the memories...)
Spock uses 'Logical'... I don't think any of the other crew use that word, if they do, it is probably not as frequent, or the same contexts as Spock.
Scotty uses "I'm doing all I can"... again none of the other crew seem to use that phrase in any 'typical' way.

Further, while it may be that after reading 30 pages of a script, covering up the names, and then identifying the speaker is 'possible', doing so on the first page... which is essentially what you have done with your "What's my Character" setup... seems pretty impossible, unless there are specific markers like a parenthetical (deep scottish brogue...).

Also, with something like 'star trek' it should be far easier to have unique, easily identifiable dialog... since the characters have significantly different backgrounds... In dramas where the speakers are from the same 'social' environment... much more difficult. Take "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou"(2000). The three main characters tend to come from the same 'background/speech pool', yet I think once one has seen examples of each character's speech, it can be identified later on through out the script. Clooney's character has lots of 'verbage', and sometimes has 'real words' but also includes neologisms created on the fly. The other two characters are more 'country bumpkin', but still have differences one to the other. But again, it takes a certain amount of dialog to develop the distinguishing markers.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
Well you are only confirming my disbelief in the guru statement that a writer should be able to cover the char names and assign the names based on dialog;
Click to expand...

Well, which "guru" said this, and in what context? As jclark said above, I'm not sure you're presenting it in the way they mean.

If you had a transcript of a conversation among your friends that you know well, with no names attached, couldn't you tell who's who? It's the same kind of thing.

It's not something you can do cold, though. You already have to be familiar with the people involved.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Well... the way that you have presented the examples, doesn't match the setup that you claim for the 'gurus'. That is, we don't see the action lines, and the only unknown are the speakers of the dialog.....
Click to expand...

True. And yes, if I see the action lines, and dialog where the character mentions other characters talking, yes I can almost certainly pick out who is speaking without seeing their name. But then that proves my point, that it is not the nuances of dialog tone being said, words used, but rather the context of the scene.

Example-- we can tell who is speaking below. But not because of the words chosen for the dialog, but rather from the action, the narrative, the scene. NOT from crafty dialog.

[scrippet]

EXT. FIELD


James picks up the gun, points it at Glenn who stands with his hands tied behind him.


CHAR_A
I'll put 3 slugs in your brain right here if you don't tell me where it's stashed!


CHAR_B
Do your worst. My blood won't save your arse.

[/scrippet]
 
David Jimerson said:
Well, which "guru" said this, and in what context? ....
Click to expand...

I have come across many how-to gurus saying the reader should be able to cover character names and yet easily and instantly tell one character from another. In fact I am looking at this now in a book on dialogue by a very well known and well respected guru and screenwriter, that i just read again (which got me thinking on this).

I see this directive in many how-to books (most of which I have thrown out by now), blogs, etc. I do not think I want to single out and disrespect any one particular guru, as forum postings are permanent have the potential to come around and bite one in the arse sometimes. :) I am sure others here have come across this though, and if not well then they have not read some of the more prolific screenwriting how-to gurus.
 
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Further, while it may be that after reading 30 pages of a script, covering up the names, and then identifying the speaker is 'possible', doing so on the first page... which is essentially what you have done with your "What's my Character" setup... seems pretty impossible, unless there are specific markers like a parenthetical (deep scottish brogue...).

Also, with something like 'star trek' it should be far easier to have unique, easily identifiable dialog... since the characters have significantly different backgrounds... In dramas where the speakers are from the same 'social' environment... much more difficult. Take "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou"(2000). The three main characters tend to come from the same 'background/speech pool', yet I think once one has seen examples of each character's speech, it can be identified later on through out the script. Clooney's character has lots of 'verbage', and sometimes has 'real words' but also includes neologisms created on the fly. The other two characters are more 'country bumpkin', but still have differences one to the other. But again, it takes a certain amount of dialog to develop the distinguishing markers.
Click to expand...

Star Trek is a bit extreme, but at the same time, how extreme is it, really? It's not like these people just came together out of nowhere, having very different backgrounds and meeting each other for the first time. They're all trained in the same place and have lived in the same professional environment for years, so they're "socially" in a very similar cohort. It could be argued that it's an illustration of how you can write differing personalities who are all the product of the same environment.

O Brother Where Art Thou could be a good example, because you have Clooney's character as a very forceful one, given to excessive wordiness, and also attempts at cleverness, whereas the other characters are considerably more reserved and speak more simply. Such is life -- some people use too many words. Some people don't use enough. Some people say things they obviously don't really understand. Some people are very good at describing complex things simply. Some people aren't. Some people get frustrated easily. Some people are constant, even keels. This can all be expressed in dialog, even between members of the same family, the ultimate social group.
 
Oh Brother would speak to my angle on this (which got lost on the first page).
Clooney being the "extreme" (with lines like: "Yessir, it is a veritable age of enlightenment" or whatever it was.)

John Goodman (as he always is) was another "extreme".

But
Could you really (consciously) pick out John Turturro's vs Tim Blake Nelson's respective bits of dialogue??
 
Dunno. I will say I have thought there's no real reason to have both of the characters in the story, so that's probably not unrelated.
 
It's like the joke:
Why does (ABC U.S. state) exist? To make (XYZ U.S. state)-ians look smart/good/classy.
Again, very subtly different tho.

Regardless, in this "world" most inhabitants speak with similar patterns that purposely do not stand out.
That's how these other main characters were crafted... to make Clooney's Everet seem all the more extreme by contrast.
 
I think the Coen brothers are generally very good at what these gurus are recommending...

EDIT: I'm referring specifically to the consideration we're discussing in this thread.
 
Last edited:
I certainly think the Coens have established their bona fides at knowing the rules, so they're free to break them, too.

But in any case -- can you find an exception to every single "rule" anyone could ever possibly offer, in a well-regarded film? Absolutely. Yes. You can. Probably multiple, heck, probably numerous.

Do you dismiss the validity of the concept because of that? Wisdom would suggest that maybe you shouldn't. Consider the purpose of the rule and how it may make your script better. Simply dismissing something out of hand because you can find scripts which don't do it is probably not the best thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top