Greetings community and fellow writers. I find when watching movies that a lot of times, writers write dialogue simply to finish the scene without writing to make the supporting characters work for what they want or are looking for. And it makes me ask several questions of what, when, why and how? For me, I find this technique a bit frustrating due to the fact where if I have to ask a numerous amount of questions why this didn’t occur or why that didn’t occur before the decision is made, and with cinema, when it’s too easy a way out, this is what makes me lose interest in the film itself. I would like to see more where the antagonist or protagonist works a little harder to achieve that goal or come to a conclusion that makes watching the movie more compelling.
Screenwriting : The Easy Way Out by Abram Christian
Writer / director at HIM B Productions LLC ♦ Director, Screenwriter
2 months ago
The Easy Way Out
Other topics in Screenwriting:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
3 people like this
Hey, Abram Christian. I see your point, but one reason is the length of a movie or show. There's not enough time to ask and answer a lot of questions in a scene a lot of times. And the writer might've written a scene that way, but it might've been changed in pre-production, production, or post.
2 people like this
Jay Gladwell I was watching Beverly Hills cop earlier today and in the beginning scene where Mikey is caught with the bonds. One? he has the bonds in his hand which are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars those bonds should’ve been best served hiding an Axel Foley’s apartment. In addition to that, I believe the writer should’ve kept the bonds in Foley‘s apartment. They caught up with Mikey, not finding the barrel bonds, they clearly traveled 3000 miles from California to Detroit to locate. They should’ve ransacked Foley‘s apartment then finding them then executing Mikey. That would’ve made a more compelling scene, but it seemed too easy for him to have taken the bonds to a bar, which is not fathomable to me as opposed to those bonds being hidden in Foley’s apartment them ransacked that apartment, finding them and then executing Mikey. That’s the example that I am referring to. And it seemed too easy a way out rather than having those goons since they’ve traveled all the way from California to find the bonds and then executing Mikey afterwards.
2 people like this
It's a script/story issue a lot of times, Jay Gladwell, but a lot of times it's a production/budget/post-production issue.
2 people like this
As mentioned by Maurice Vaughan, a lot of it comes back to production constraints and keeping runtime down.
The other common factor is sheer entertainment. Most films leverage implausibility to keep things fun. Christopher Nolan films tend to be good examples of this. Some of the stuff that happens is so contrived and ridiculous, yet people love his films and see past those issues.
It's very easy to nitpick, and a lot harder to come up with an equally entertaining solution that works for production and doesn't add time.
1 person likes this
If they are executives with power or money, they "know' that their opinions are important. Hmm. I wonder what happened to the STAR WARS series? Let's lose another 100 million.
1 person likes this
That's a writing issue, Jay Gladwell, but what I was talking about is when things change during pre, production, and post like location changes, budget cuts, scenes that don't work during editing so they have to be cut, etc.
2 people like this
I most definitely second that emotion. It’s like they build you up to a point and you’re with them on this journey and all of a sudden you just get dropped, thrown by the wayside. I don’t know if it’s because they’ve switched up screenwriters midstream, or it’s just lazy writing, or they’ve run out of budget. Either way, it is very frustrating to see, and it really diminishes a great story. I think it’s very important to make the antagonist and supporting characters important and powerful as well. It brings about a balance when you’re telling your story and creates multidimensional characters. It adds balanced to the characters in that world and it makes better stories. For example in the TV show “Breaking Bad “ , the protagonist character was brilliantly written, but “Walter White” would have been nothing without the great team of well rounded characters. Another things that bothers me with “ “lazy writing “ is Instead of screenwriters taking the time to use dialogue or read a thesaurus, they drop the F-bomb 20, 30, 40 and sometimes more than that throughout the script. It’s nothing but lazy writing.
3 people like this
Monet-100% percent on the cursing. They want intensity and don't have a clue how to write it without this crutch! I asked for an add!
2 people like this
Mone't, I'm definitely with you on the constant cursing...especially when an "F" bomb or an "S" bomb is the first word of dialog in a script.
And here I am...someone born to parents who cursed just about all the time (especially Mom)!
2 people like this
My Mom did too. I definitely understand. I've even used her character in several of my plays and TV scripts because she is very funny, but only with one or maybe to curse words. Most of the dialogue that she says in the shows are very funny and that's what I focus on the most. I think the biggest point I'm making is when some screenwriters take the easy way out and not the tell the story, but substitute a bunch of profanity instead. Even if the character curses we still need to tell a story.