Bill Conrad's Blog - Posts Tagged "scripts"
Dialogue Is Easy; Scripts Are Difficult
Dialogue is the written form of speech. Sarah said, “Hello, Brad. Did you have a wonderful weekend?” These sentences read just like a person talking.
How does a writer come up with dialogue? That’s easy. A writer thinks about what a character would say, and they write it down. As a bonus, readers have low dialogue expectations because people are undisciplined when they speak. Verbal sentences get loaded with poor grammar, incorrect words, lazy abbreviations, invented words, goofy sounds, and lots of nonsense. “Umm. Ahh, hey. Like, what are you doing dis weekend? You know, after Friday and such? Can you answer that? Now? Today?” Am I exaggerating with that example? Not really. People can be lazy when they speak.
A typical fiction book contains 10 to 40% dialogue. This means that I only spend 20% of my self-editing time on the dialogue. Why? Because dialogue sentences are simple. The spoken information is, and the intent is obvious. However, the sentences supporting the dialogue are a different matter. They are direct, full of feelings, elaborate descriptions, and plot. Readers expect a lot of detail and clarity.
Plays and movies are in a distant category. They use a short [compared to a book] script containing 90% dialogue. The remaining 10% are terse notes about the scene and acting direction. The story within a play or a movie can only be told through dialogue, which makes every word critical.
The dialogue in a script must be perfect for carrying the story and fitting in a short time. A single spoken sentence can make or break the entire work. Want some proof? “Luke, I am your father.” Five simple words made the entire movie. Dialogue does not get much better than that.
I have an idea for two short plays and a movie. Are they any good? If I am, to be honest, I would say they would rate a grade C at this stage. If I worked on the concept, I think I could improve them. I would never consider those concepts letter grade A. Well, why not take the leap? Write a script and submit it. Perhaps I will get lucky, or somebody with more experience could polish it into something extraordinary.
I find creating a script too intimidating, but I enjoy writing dialogue because it is fun thinking about what a character would say.
Besides, readers do not read scripts. Instead, they watch movies or plays. Have you read the script for the epic movie Star Wars? Only the most devoted fan has ever read the script. Why? People enjoy watching the film, and there is no need to read the script. Besides, scripts are boring. Talk, talk, talk. A person reading a script needs all their imagination to view the scene.
A script is only worth something to a person who wants to turn it into a play or movie. Once accepted, many people get involved in production, which leads to another problem. When a movie or play fails, lots of people know about it. However, if a terrible book does not sell, it does not sell. The worst case is a warehouse full of unsold books and a few critical reviews. “Stan’s latest book is not a recommend read.” Granted, the author/publisher would not be too happy.
Does this mean that scripts are the pinnacle of writing? Perhaps. However, scripts are shorter than books, and when they do not sell, the public does not know. Will Hollywood ever get a hold of one of my scripts? Hmm. Probably not. Or is that something to aspire to? Hey, I got this. I could write a script about writing a script. I will call it “play on words.”
How does a writer come up with dialogue? That’s easy. A writer thinks about what a character would say, and they write it down. As a bonus, readers have low dialogue expectations because people are undisciplined when they speak. Verbal sentences get loaded with poor grammar, incorrect words, lazy abbreviations, invented words, goofy sounds, and lots of nonsense. “Umm. Ahh, hey. Like, what are you doing dis weekend? You know, after Friday and such? Can you answer that? Now? Today?” Am I exaggerating with that example? Not really. People can be lazy when they speak.
A typical fiction book contains 10 to 40% dialogue. This means that I only spend 20% of my self-editing time on the dialogue. Why? Because dialogue sentences are simple. The spoken information is, and the intent is obvious. However, the sentences supporting the dialogue are a different matter. They are direct, full of feelings, elaborate descriptions, and plot. Readers expect a lot of detail and clarity.
Plays and movies are in a distant category. They use a short [compared to a book] script containing 90% dialogue. The remaining 10% are terse notes about the scene and acting direction. The story within a play or a movie can only be told through dialogue, which makes every word critical.
The dialogue in a script must be perfect for carrying the story and fitting in a short time. A single spoken sentence can make or break the entire work. Want some proof? “Luke, I am your father.” Five simple words made the entire movie. Dialogue does not get much better than that.
I have an idea for two short plays and a movie. Are they any good? If I am, to be honest, I would say they would rate a grade C at this stage. If I worked on the concept, I think I could improve them. I would never consider those concepts letter grade A. Well, why not take the leap? Write a script and submit it. Perhaps I will get lucky, or somebody with more experience could polish it into something extraordinary.
I find creating a script too intimidating, but I enjoy writing dialogue because it is fun thinking about what a character would say.
Besides, readers do not read scripts. Instead, they watch movies or plays. Have you read the script for the epic movie Star Wars? Only the most devoted fan has ever read the script. Why? People enjoy watching the film, and there is no need to read the script. Besides, scripts are boring. Talk, talk, talk. A person reading a script needs all their imagination to view the scene.
A script is only worth something to a person who wants to turn it into a play or movie. Once accepted, many people get involved in production, which leads to another problem. When a movie or play fails, lots of people know about it. However, if a terrible book does not sell, it does not sell. The worst case is a warehouse full of unsold books and a few critical reviews. “Stan’s latest book is not a recommend read.” Granted, the author/publisher would not be too happy.
Does this mean that scripts are the pinnacle of writing? Perhaps. However, scripts are shorter than books, and when they do not sell, the public does not know. Will Hollywood ever get a hold of one of my scripts? Hmm. Probably not. Or is that something to aspire to? Hey, I got this. I could write a script about writing a script. I will call it “play on words.”
Movie and Book Plots Are Different
I have been spending my Friday evenings hanging out with friends for the last 30 years. One of our favorite pastimes is to watch YouTube videos. The subject matter encompasses music, humor, crafting, technical lectures, computers, racing, and educational topics.
Last week, we watched a YouTube Pitch Meeting about the live-action Snow White movie. If you’ve never watched one of these videos, the host pretends to humorously tell himself (as if he were the movie studio) about the movie and why it would be a good idea to make it. IE, he is “pitching it.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0nSF...
One of the popular catchphrases in these Pitch Meetings is “super easy, barely an inconvenience.” The host uses this comical phrase to describe a scene where the characters easily overcome a significant obstacle. One example occurs when Snow White breaks the evil queen’s spell by saying the names and occupations of the townspeople.
This funny phrase got me thinking about the differences between a movie plot and a book plot. But first, what is a movie from a story perspective? A screenwriter creates a script to capture the plot, using a relatively small amount of dialogue to convey the story. The remaining details are visually conveyed.
A book contains a vast quantity of text and sometimes pictures. More text is required because something simple, like a car, needs a paragraph to be described accurately. The resulting book has substantially more details, but the movie provides a more visually appealing representation.
Yet, there is more to it. I contend that the story is different because of the limited movie format. Sure, the characters could spend ten minutes describing something, but moviegoers would be bored to tears as they sat through a five-hour movie.
Unfortunately, this limited format results in scenes that range from glossing over details to those that lack coherence. Typically, moviegoers ignore these issues and enjoy the film, but sometimes, the omissions are so glaring that the movie suffers.
I wanted to highlight a classic inconsistency that occurred in the Lord of The Rings trilogy. At the beginning of the first movie, the main characters ride large birds. Then, they spend days traveling by foot through harsh terrain while fighting off the enemy. So… Why not fly the whole way?
The author, J.R.R. Tolkien, provided a logical reason why it was not possible to fly, but this detail was omitted from the film. And the audience understands. “Hey, they glossed over that. No big deal.”
The reason behind this decision is that the audience did not need a boring bird explanation. Instead, they sought drama, action, large-scale battle scenes, epic music, attractive characters, computer-generated dragons, impressive weaponry, and over-the-top action. All in 4K with Dolby Digital sound! And the movies indeed delivered.
Books are vastly different. When I write, a big part of my thought process focuses on conveying exactly what is happening and why. Bad reviews confirm the difference. A moviegoer would complain about the lack of drama, slow pacing, and mild action. Yet, a reader would complain about a confusing plot, poor descriptions, lackluster characters, and missing details.
I spend hours at the outline stage to work out precisely how my plot will unfold. I never want to see logic problems, confusing characters, controversy, or poor flow. Then I spend months writing and even more time editing. Ultimately, my goal is to have every detail polished to perfection. Not one word out of place.
Thus, I would never allow one of my characters to use a silly method to break a spell. Instead, I would fully define all aspects of the spell. Then, the character would spend pages thinking of possible ways to break it, and only then would I allow them to try one of those methods. Of course, I would not allow their first attempt to work. Why? Trial and error often lead to great drama, and failures are frequently the most memorable moments.
While the two approaches may ultimately converge, the journey is different, and I have a final example to illustrate this. I have only laughed twice while reading a book, but I laugh all the time during movies.
You’re the best -Bill
June 19, 2025
Last week, we watched a YouTube Pitch Meeting about the live-action Snow White movie. If you’ve never watched one of these videos, the host pretends to humorously tell himself (as if he were the movie studio) about the movie and why it would be a good idea to make it. IE, he is “pitching it.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0nSF...
One of the popular catchphrases in these Pitch Meetings is “super easy, barely an inconvenience.” The host uses this comical phrase to describe a scene where the characters easily overcome a significant obstacle. One example occurs when Snow White breaks the evil queen’s spell by saying the names and occupations of the townspeople.
This funny phrase got me thinking about the differences between a movie plot and a book plot. But first, what is a movie from a story perspective? A screenwriter creates a script to capture the plot, using a relatively small amount of dialogue to convey the story. The remaining details are visually conveyed.
A book contains a vast quantity of text and sometimes pictures. More text is required because something simple, like a car, needs a paragraph to be described accurately. The resulting book has substantially more details, but the movie provides a more visually appealing representation.
Yet, there is more to it. I contend that the story is different because of the limited movie format. Sure, the characters could spend ten minutes describing something, but moviegoers would be bored to tears as they sat through a five-hour movie.
Unfortunately, this limited format results in scenes that range from glossing over details to those that lack coherence. Typically, moviegoers ignore these issues and enjoy the film, but sometimes, the omissions are so glaring that the movie suffers.
I wanted to highlight a classic inconsistency that occurred in the Lord of The Rings trilogy. At the beginning of the first movie, the main characters ride large birds. Then, they spend days traveling by foot through harsh terrain while fighting off the enemy. So… Why not fly the whole way?
The author, J.R.R. Tolkien, provided a logical reason why it was not possible to fly, but this detail was omitted from the film. And the audience understands. “Hey, they glossed over that. No big deal.”
The reason behind this decision is that the audience did not need a boring bird explanation. Instead, they sought drama, action, large-scale battle scenes, epic music, attractive characters, computer-generated dragons, impressive weaponry, and over-the-top action. All in 4K with Dolby Digital sound! And the movies indeed delivered.
Books are vastly different. When I write, a big part of my thought process focuses on conveying exactly what is happening and why. Bad reviews confirm the difference. A moviegoer would complain about the lack of drama, slow pacing, and mild action. Yet, a reader would complain about a confusing plot, poor descriptions, lackluster characters, and missing details.
I spend hours at the outline stage to work out precisely how my plot will unfold. I never want to see logic problems, confusing characters, controversy, or poor flow. Then I spend months writing and even more time editing. Ultimately, my goal is to have every detail polished to perfection. Not one word out of place.
Thus, I would never allow one of my characters to use a silly method to break a spell. Instead, I would fully define all aspects of the spell. Then, the character would spend pages thinking of possible ways to break it, and only then would I allow them to try one of those methods. Of course, I would not allow their first attempt to work. Why? Trial and error often lead to great drama, and failures are frequently the most memorable moments.
While the two approaches may ultimately converge, the journey is different, and I have a final example to illustrate this. I have only laughed twice while reading a book, but I laugh all the time during movies.
You’re the best -Bill
June 19, 2025
