However, this is not always true. Woody's films are very talky - it's his style. Quentin's is the same....I like talky films as long as there is good sub-text. To think an actor will go around making little facial expressions to show what his thoughts and feeling are would be like non-human. People talk and a variety of ways, so make the dialog riveting with good subtext and I'm good.
You are not wrong, but I think you might have misunderstood his main point. He shows one of Quentin's films in the end and states it as a stylistic choice. Its not necessarily about having a full movie about a person just making expressions (which making expressions without speaking is totally human, many people don't speak up about what they are feeling, but it is very impractical for a whole movie). I think the point he was trying to drive at was the audience doesn't just want to hear what happened, but see it happen. Its mostly about how you choose to tell your story and what you want the audience to see. Do you want your audience to SEE the person on the bus drunk or do you want to hear them talk about it later? Most people want to experience being in that emotion with the character, not hear about it way after. You just cant connect with a character when all you hear about is the aftermath, people like being involved in making those connections. In Quentin's films, the characters don't just tell another character everything they did after the fact. You get to experience it right there with them. I mean how silly would it seem if you got to hear the two robbers in the beginning of pulp fiction talk about their heist at the diner instead of just seeing it play out, which is way more exciting? People don't like summarizations of major events and there are a surprising amount of writers who do this because showing that moment seems like a lot of work (at least in a novel it is), but for scripts that shouldn't be that much of an issue because your actors fill in the rest of what you laid out. Dialogue is generally used to show a person's personality and wants (at least the public censored ones). Showing/action displays a lot more deeper connections/emotions/desires and it gives the audience the opportunity to be involved by filling in the blanks which is what most audiences want to do.
It should be noted that this definition of show don't tell is only useful for screenwriters, is not a comprehensive definition of the term, and may in fact have some vague detriments even to the craft of screenwriting. Other ways to say show don't tell: Describe do not explain. Dramatize don't summarize. Don't tell me what to think, give me something to think about.
Great advice, but in my opinion the example chosen with the girl on the train is not the best. One show that employs this show-don't-tell technique very well is "Better Call Saul".
There's a big problem here. Showing it in the most visually interesting way is far more expensive to film. Having her say in an existing scene "I'd like to be a mother one day" is far cheaper, than having to organise a train scene with paid extras and getting permission to film on the train, paying a mother and baby actor to sit on the train etc. That is going to be very expensive to film. Most people watching this are not going to have their scripts purchased by a big producer/studio deal. They're going to be making it themselves with no budget or less than $10,000, even less than $1,000 budget. I guess you could get creative and think of a 3rd option though. Like maybe she's writing a list of her life goals and having a baby is number 1. That would actually show she wants a baby far more. But would that count as telling and not showing?
Really helpful! Excellent clarification. I especially enjoyed watching the movie clip while seeing how it was written in the script 👍👍
Thank you!
Essentially, screenwriting and love have something in common. SHOW! DON’T TELL…
Wise words!
Thanks for the great advice!
Thanks super helpful in a concise way
Thanks for the info.
It's our pleasure!
Very, very important advices! Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
Good video.
Thanks Steve!
However, this is not always true. Woody's films are very talky - it's his style. Quentin's is the same....I like talky films as long as there is good sub-text. To think an actor will go around making little facial expressions to show what his thoughts and feeling are would be like non-human. People talk and a variety of ways, so make the dialog riveting with good subtext and I'm good.
You are not wrong, but I think you might have misunderstood his main point. He shows one of Quentin's films in the end and states it as a stylistic choice. Its not necessarily about having a full movie about a person just making expressions (which making expressions without speaking is totally human, many people don't speak up about what they are feeling, but it is very impractical for a whole movie). I think the point he was trying to drive at was the audience doesn't just want to hear what happened, but see it happen.
Its mostly about how you choose to tell your story and what you want the audience to see. Do you want your audience to SEE the person on the bus drunk or do you want to hear them talk about it later? Most people want to experience being in that emotion with the character, not hear about it way after. You just cant connect with a character when all you hear about is the aftermath, people like being involved in making those connections. In Quentin's films, the characters don't just tell another character everything they did after the fact. You get to experience it right there with them. I mean how silly would it seem if you got to hear the two robbers in the beginning of pulp fiction talk about their heist at the diner instead of just seeing it play out, which is way more exciting?
People don't like summarizations of major events and there are a surprising amount of writers who do this because showing that moment seems like a lot of work (at least in a novel it is), but for scripts that shouldn't be that much of an issue because your actors fill in the rest of what you laid out. Dialogue is generally used to show a person's personality and wants (at least the public censored ones). Showing/action displays a lot more deeper connections/emotions/desires and it gives the audience the opportunity to be involved by filling in the blanks which is what most audiences want to do.
@@SageIceDragonX Well said!
Good one!
Thanks for watching, Mark!
Not bad.
It should be noted that this definition of show don't tell is only useful for screenwriters, is not a comprehensive definition of the term, and may in fact have some vague detriments even to the craft of screenwriting.
Other ways to say show don't tell:
Describe do not explain.
Dramatize don't summarize.
Don't tell me what to think, give me something to think about.
Great advice, but in my opinion the example chosen with the girl on the train is not the best. One show that employs this show-don't-tell technique very well is "Better Call Saul".
Hi Bruno, thanks for your suggestion on Better Call Saul -- a great show!
Thanks. Get that camera out. Turn that audio recorder off! 😎😎
There's a big problem here. Showing it in the most visually interesting way is far more expensive to film. Having her say in an existing scene "I'd like to be a mother one day" is far cheaper, than having to organise a train scene with paid extras and getting permission to film on the train, paying a mother and baby actor to sit on the train etc. That is going to be very expensive to film. Most people watching this are not going to have their scripts purchased by a big producer/studio deal. They're going to be making it themselves with no budget or less than $10,000, even less than $1,000 budget.
I guess you could get creative and think of a 3rd option though. Like maybe she's writing a list of her life goals and having a baby is number 1. That would actually show she wants a baby far more. But would that count as telling and not showing?