How can you tell if a film has good writing?
You just make up reason and say if it's bad or good, anon.
>>66956398
if it has good writing.
When it make your peepee feel funny
>>66956511
This
>>66956511
That's cinematography
>>66956637
That's casting
>>66956696
That's Blocking
>>66956398
>Very little exposition
>Characters are not constantly antagonizing each other
>Not all characters have to arc
>Small setups and pay offs throughout
>There is a bigger theme at work: Why is this story being told?
Dialogue ladder:
Stupid people talk about other people
Normal people talk about events
Intelligent people talk about ideas
>>66956985
Kek, spotted the pleb red.ditor
>>66957393
>talk about other people
Ok lets hear your list homeslice.
>>66957442
There isn't a list. What you described is just the sort of dialogue you like
>>66957475
There pretty much is and you can distill good writings characteristics like any other craft.
Look at Stephen King's book on writing OR
Alan Moore's on comics OR
101 tips for successful novelists and so on.
>>66956985
i like exposition. i don't mind shit being explained as long as it's not dumb
>>66957522
I'm aware of the general principles and I broadly agree with Stephen Kings' for example but you can't pretend that these are hard and fast rules. Not everyone writes like Stephen King. Not everyone likes Stephen King's writing
Even now, the evil seed of what you've done germinates within you.
>>66956398
I think good writing is demonstrating philosophy through realistic dialogue.
Realistic dialogue without philosophy is preferable to unrealistic dialogue with philosophy (cryptic nonsense, monologues, dry arguments replacing conversation, etc)
Usually good signs of realistic dialogue is doing more with less. Silence and pacing are well done, little filler.
Most if not all of this requires engaging characters. Even if there is just one, I need someone who wants something, and there are consequences if they dont get this want. Just one character even in a very open, large, world with them saying very little. That's enough.
>>66956844
That's Checkingsome nice dubs
Good dialogue = dialogue that I like
/thread
>>66957568
>... as long as it's not dumb
Exposition must only give absolutely vital information that the audience cannot deduce from what they're seeing or hearing.
Beyond that it has to be used sparingly.
Don't tell me what you've done, show me what you do and who you are.
That's basic writing.
>Writers do not know the difference between "will" and "going to"
>>66957595
I wasn't giving the ten commandments, I was giving some general points.
By all means add or contest, that is how we all learn.
>>66957664
right
i like exposition when it's explaning shit as a means of world-building or whatever. sometimes you gotta do it
It's something that you just instinctively know
and it's pretty universal between well-read people, you just know when a script is really good. My only recommendation is to read more (if you read at all) and eventually you'll get a sense for it
I really can't explain it, sorry man
Erm actually let's look at this sentence
>In January, Eilis felt the fierce sharp cold in the mornings as she went to work.
This sentence is well-crafted, it reads very quickly without much punctuation, the fierce and sharp cold make you understand it's uncomfortable, we get instantly a scene where someone is freezing and it's miserable as they have to make their way to work every day
Good writing is succinct and provocative, or whatever the writer wants it to be. You just learn to understand these things the more time you live in the literary world
>>66957613
Shouldn't it be "...the evil seed of what 'you will do'.....", since a seed grows into something.
>>66957750
You know if you want to see how exposition turns into ham in the first minute of a film, watch any sci-fi Roger Corman. Also you tend to see it a lot in other low budget films.
ITS A TRAP! BEWARE.
Exposition sometimes works, but you have to put some thought into it.
Example, Fight Club: Explaining a character more than a setting. Internal motivations and concerns rather than environment.
>>66956398
>you learn something
>plot is surprising
>dialogue feels real
>>66957830
>succinct and provocative
Good job.
>>66956398
Well some clear signs of good writing are.
>things don't just come out of nowhere, concepts are established and built upon
>qualities of characters/objects are shown (ie we see a character be charming, not just told the character is charming)
>the story has a purpose, it has an underlying message or concept it conveys.
>every thing shown is necessary somehow and isn't just filler or gratuitous.
>the plot is pushed forward through actions, not exposition (again, showing not telling)
>characters are genuinely interacting (chemistry), not too individuals who happen to be next to each other.
>characters contrast each other, no redundancy (ie we don't just have two character both being angry, there's some sort of dynamic)
That's off the top of my head. There are exceptions but the majority of the time if a movie isn't following these basic guidelines, it's poor writing.
There are no concrete rules for writing: for every 'rule' you put down you could find examples of good writing that breaks it. Rules are also re-written over time, and good writing depends on when and where something is written, who it's written for, and the purpose of the text. A 17th-century polemicist would have had a very different idea of what constitutes good writing than, say, a 19th-century popular novelist, or a 21st-century journalist. But there are some very general guidelines and principles that, most of the time and for most purposes, it makes sense to follow.
I really enjoyed pic related as an introductory guide for novel-writing. It's very funny and accessible, and lays down some good general guidelines. I recommend it. I'm not as familiar with writing for the screen, but for dialogue most of the same principles would apply
>>66958114
>showing not telling
Show don't tell is one of the staples in modern writing.
>>66958130
> A 17th-century polemicist would have had a very different idea of what constitutes good writing than, say, a 19th-century popular novelist, or a 21st-century journalist.
Very true. In the 19th century many novels like Dracula for example, took the form of a diary. Its was perceived as being more authentic. The style has all but vanished in the 21st century.
I'll check out that book by the way, so thanks.
When it's not The Lobster.
>>66958130
I think the two big differences between writing for a book and writing more a movie is that "show don't tell" is far far far more important and effective in film and secondly, you don't know what people are thinking in film so you must write like you are a third person observer. For film, everything must be told through some sort of action (or the environment) where as a book can use narration.
>>66956511
checked
