The audience seem to have much more understanding than you do Ryan? You really believe that they'll get confused when it suddenly gets dark? Of course they won't! Time has passed. You then set up how much by the next scene - a few hours a week, ten years, millions of years? Every one of these has been done and audiences were quite happy. Stop making problems that you can't cure.

But not that much time would have passed though. Only about 30 minutes. So would the audience by that all of a sudden it's pitch black sky, in 30 minutes as oppose to middle of the day in the previous scene, when the next scene would only be 30 minutes after? The audience will think "only 30 minutes about has gone buy, so how did the sun go this dark in only in 30 minutes?".

How do they know only 30 minutes has passed? A caption saying "later that day" doesn't need to say "29 minutes 30 seconds later".

They see it's got darker, it's later, done!

Well in the scene, the police bring in a witness to be interviewed. But then the police take what she says and talk about the evidence. During this the witness is waiting in in the interview room. But is she going to want to wait in the room for more than 30 minutes? I mean she is going to want to get on with her day, isn't she just going to want to leave? If it's pure daylight, why would she stick around till it's pure dark out?

And, why would the cops want to keep her waiting and take forever to discuss it, rather discuss it and move so they can send her on her way? It just seems kind of strange that they would keep her waiting for so long, or that she would be willing to wait for so long.

But if I cut from a pure daylight scene, to a pure night scene, the audience is going to think they kept her waiting for such a long time, and that why was she willing to stay for such a long time, wouldn't they?

Do you ever watch cop shows in TV?

Have a look at the Nordic ones like "The Bridge" or "The Killing" or the French one "Spiral", they might break you one of the boring trap you seem to have fallen into.

You waste so much time, if they're not required for dramatic reasons, send the witness home, get rid of them,

Well I want the main character cop to drive the witness home himself, because a new plot development happes as he drops her off. But I need him to go over the evidence with the others first before driving her home.

So she cannot be sent home before then, in order for the plot development to happen with him there.

They wouldn't have witnesses waiting around, Cut the discussion to a couple of minutes and have him drive her home if it's important, The discussion scene doesn't sound that interesting and if it's just exposition definitely get rid of it and find a dramatic way to convey the information..

Well it's just a new plot development happens after he drives her home, but in order for this to happen, I need the prosecutor in the case, to know what she said in the interview. So after the interview, they call the prosecutor and send him her statement and talk about it. But I need this to happen first before the next plot point at her house. I want the main character to talk to the prosecutor before driving her home too, because then he has that discussion with him that drives the plot. If that's possible. It's not exposition though, the prosecutor has to make a decision before she arrives home that drives the plot point at her house.

So I thought therefore, they should discuss what to do with the prosecutor before deciding if they are done with her in the interview, but they wouldn't want to keep her waiting around too long of course.

Smoke is coming out of my ears again from reading this. Time for a beer.

Ryan, you mimic the camera technique, the music, the editing, the sound and everything to minute detail, irrespective of appropriateness and now you demonstrate a total misunderstanding of how script writing works. You obsessed recently about how to cope with a few words being chopped. You've lost your grip totally now. What people say, how they say it or sometimes how they don't say it are important. Plot points vary from overt and critical or covert and critical through to padding to prevent silence. Does it matter if somebody spent 30 minutes or three hours in the police station. You are making mountains out of molehills. You are even thinking about creating an entire scene to explain something that doesn't matter. You really need to consider what happened here.

Oh okay, but I thought it matters how much time is spent in the sense that the character, the witness being interviewed, would not choose to wait there for three hours. She would want to leave soon, so the cops only have about 30 minutes to go things with the prosecutor before taking her home.

So if she were to stay for 3 hours, it be inconsistent in her character to do so, and she has no reason for wanting to stay. So wouldn't the audience think 'why is she waiting there this long when she has no reason for wanting to stay'?

Unless this person is a suspect they will probably send her home after she finished giving a statement. The discussion with the prosecutor can take place anytime if she's just a witness, if she's a possible suspect or a victim that may be another another matter. In the latter case it's more likely they'll drove them home.

If they've been inside the police station, in a room without any windows, they won;t know if it's dark. If their room has windows they can see it's now dark outside and they'll know that time has past.

If they walk out and it's dark, the witness can just comment on it now being dark. That's what people say if they leave and are unaware of how long these been inside a building.

Again watch those TV shows I mentioned to see how they do it. They have scenes like this all the time and also have levels of complexity way beyond anything you're thinking about.

You don't need a lot of business, the policeman can give a brief summery to the prosecutor over the phone and tell her he'll forward her the witness statement. She''ll pass an initial reaction during the conversation that the policeman can act on that.

Unless it's dramatically important that the witness spends time waiting, you're building a mountain out of a molehill. Plus, also boring the audience while you send statements around, have people read them and have yet more discussions. The police won't want a witness hanging around the police station, unless there's more to it.

The character doesn't need to stay after giving the statement unless they're under arrest.

Oh okay, well it's just that after they pass her statement onto the prosecutor, what if they have some follow up questions after the prosecutor looks it over? Sure they could ask her later, it's just there is a court hearing the next morning, and her statement will greatly effect the hearing. So wouldn't they want her to wait, while the prosecutor looks it over, so they can ask her follow up questions there, so it can be completed for the hearing tomorrow, rather than wait till later to ask her? I mean what if the prosecutor thinks of additional questions after looking over the statement that they didn't think of? Wouldn't they want to hold onto her, until he is done looking it over therefore?

Also, I wanted the main character to go over the statement with the prosecutor himself, because it establishes his relationship with the prosecutor which is a set up for things to come later. If he is busy taking her home, and someone else talks over the statement with the prosecutor, then that relationship with the main character cannot be established.

So I will have to write another scene where it is established earlier then. But then that's another scene. So shouldn't I write it so that the main character goes over the statement with the prosecutor to establish the relationship and kill two birds with one stone so to speak, rather than write another scene for it?

But as far as TV shows go, I haven't seen a TV show, where they wanted to get a statement in before the next morning though, so wouldn't they want to keep a witness waiting therefore, to get it in the night before?

All this is pretty boring for a thriller, they'll be switching channels. .

Doesn't the policeman know what details are required for the court hearing? Wouldn't he have known before doing the interview? Can't he think for himself if he;s an experienced officer?

No the policeman cannot know what she is going to say unless he interviews her first if that's what you mean? What do you mean by 'details'? Do you mean the details in her statement for the hearing?

As for it being boring, well there have been fictional stories that deal with crimes, and witness statements and court cases before, so is this not normal for that type of writing?

If there's going to be a court hearing they will have already been putting a case together. If there isn't at least part of case against someone they won't usually proceed to the court. The police will want to either confirm or elaborate on what they already know, so that can be presented in court.

The French TV serial "Spiral" does this type of stuff, although, the French legal system is different, it is built around the relationship between the female detective and the much older justice (the gray haired man below) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examining_magistrate who is in charge of the case.

Spiral Season 2 (Trailer) - YouTube

It's the way that you're telling the story that will have the audience switching off.

Oh okay. In my story there were already putting a case together and there was a new development with the witness that they wanted to bring her in for a statement before the hearing the next day.

But what is it about the way I am telling mine that is a turn off? Isn't it pretty straightforward, or is that bad?

You're labouring over statements and then discussing it, while keeping the witness waiting.

Having been involved as a witness in crimes, they got your statement and sent you on your way. A detective will know how to interrogate a witness, if they're the main character it weakens them as an expert in their job if they need to check up, they'll know what's needed for the case.

Any such discussions will take place before the interview. That will act as a set up for the audience.

Boring Ryan. Unrealistic and boring - too much emphasis on the trivia, not enough guts and it sounds totally un-gripping. Too much dialogue about unimportant things. Frankly, even your explanation of the plot here is the same. What is the hook? What exciting things are going to happen. Legal dramas are very specific, dramas that need legal stuff in them rarely spend any time on reality.

My Police Officer son cannot sit and watch TV when they are doing Police things because they NEVER follow the reality of his job, just the bits the public are aware of. Procedural issue are so dull. He's had the TV people working with him in the Station for a couple of months - they sit in the back of the police car and one shift he drew the short straw and had them with him and they complained that nothing ion the 8 hour shift would be of any use - all boring. They HATE it when somebody gets arrested, because on TV the Police Station work takes air time of two-three minutes but the reality is 3 hours at the very least. None of this stuff EVER gets on TV.

Oh okay, I can have the main character cop take the witness home, but then someone else will have to go over the statement with the prosecutor because the prosecutor needs to make a decision that drives the plot after seeing the statment. But I wanted the main character to go over this decision with the prosecutor, so he knows more of what's going on and to establish the relationship.

Is there a way I can do this with the prosecutor and the main character, and also drive her home because when he drives her home, another plot point happens there as well. Or can he not do both, and I have to pick one?

But why is it unimportant? There are major plot points here that are set up for a pay off later, so why are they unimporatant? Don't I need them for the pay off to make sense later? Because if I cut them out, then I have a pay off with no prior set up.

The whole scenario sounds clumsy and I don't believe it.

Oh okay, thanks. Is it just that they want to stay until the prosecutor seees the statement first, and decides he has no follow up questions, that is clumbsy or are there any other parts that are clumbsy? Any specifics?

It just doesn't happen like this in the real word Ryan - it just sounds dull and word heavy. Somebody told me once I should always think of how deaf people would cope if you had a signer in the corner. Could they keep up? Would people be able to follow if watching the signing, and not able to look at the action? Using dialogue in this way is a very heavy way to write.

Okay thanks, but what are the specifics though? You said it just wouldn't happen this way, but what are the specifics of how it wouldn't happen this way? Is their more than keeping the witness around, or is that it? If there is more, what are the specifics of that?

Plus I don't see how using dialogue to tell the story is that bad, as there are many crime thrillers that do use dialogue especially in scenes of police talking to witnesses and discussing the next move on what to do in a case. It's normal and I've seen it before, so what am I doing different?

Also, I could write it so that the arrest the witness because she keeps dodging subpeonas if that's better, and then they can hold her longer for questioning, because has been arrested then?

There's dialogue which pure exposition, which is what a good writer tries to avoid or tries to bury. Good writers can use exposition in a way that Robert McKee calls like firing bullets. Poor dialogue, as commonly found in soap operas. is on the nose, which is to be avoided.

If you can write dialogue in a manner that avoids these pit falls it's fine. However, you create the impression that yours is expositional.

You should try to be more natural about how you do these scenes, At the moment they sound plot driven, rather than driven by the characters.

Oh okay, well I thought that asking a witness to stay while they go over somethings, was character driven. I can see the characteer doing that, but it is that a flaw in the character I have created?

Also, I didn't think the dialogue was expositional, because her statement drives the case to go in a certain direction and the audience has to hear that statement and hear the prosecutors decision on it, in order to understand the direction it's being driven into. So it's not expositional if it drives the plot in a certain direction, and it reveals information that the audience needs to know, is it?

Sounds boring and tedious.

Oh okay, thanks. But I can't really make any changes unless I know what is boring or tedious about it specifically though. Well I asked a LEO I utilized for research on the script before, and he said it's perfectly fine to ask a witness to wait while the investigators and prosecutor go over it, and he doesn't see the problem, he said. So I am not sure which way to go now.

As Kubrick said *It might be real, but is it interesting?"

Well it was said on here before that my plotting was unrealistic. Thus implying that being unrealistic is bad?

Not to complicate things by defending Ryan’s dubious choices, but really, is his idea any more boring/tedious than an episode of any police/law procedural (e.g. law & order, Bosch, etc)? I mean, those shows are mired in tiny details and seems to have worked out well enough for them.

You do get this sort of stuff in TV police cop shows, however, he seems to trying to make a thriller, which is a different animal.

Again, not to defend, but "forgettable crime thriller" is definitely a genre. Shelves were filled with them at Blockbuster back in ye olden tymes

Oh absolutely, every genre is full of the instantly forgettable.

Not to complicate things by defending Ryan’s dubious choices, but really, is his idea any more boring/tedious than an episode of any police/law procedural (e.g. law & order, Bosch, etc)? I mean, those shows are mired in tiny details and seems to have worked out well enough for them.
It occurred to me too what he was describing reminded me of the flood of those awful procedurals. What's funny the two things Ryan isn't good at, he's drawn to: writing dialog and finding good actors to read it naturally. Yeah it also reminds of those complex thrillers of the 90s with a those ridiculous plot twists. Speaking of those memorable interrogations Basic Instinct. Without Sharon Stone and the leg scene no one would remember that movie.

whoa bro. Dont be baggin on SVU and Bosch.

whoa bro. Dont be baggin on SVU and Bosch.
You can relax I don't watch either I'm more of a CSI Miami kind of guy. Sorry to put the kiBosh on your shows. Yeaaahhhhhhwooo!

Oh okay, but I just don't see how a police procedural can be boring, because there are ones that do concentrate a lot on dialogue, that are well recieved as well.

You can relax I don't watch either I'm more of a CSI Miami kind of guy. Sorry to put the kiBosh on your shows. Yeaaahhhhhhwooo!

Poor David Caruso. I hear he sees everything at a 30 degree angle these days 'cause his head is now permanently cocked to the right.

Well in order to combine scenes and make them more convenient, what if I just wrote it so that while the witness is giving the interview on camera, the camera has a live feed that runs to the prosecutor's office and he's watching it on his monitor, live.

Would this help make things more convenient? Or is that stretching technology too much as to what they have?

In order to have the sharp police procedurals you need to have sharp, well written dialogue, which, currently, you are weak at.

The live TV feed is basically the same as the two way mirror, which has been used in a number of police films.

Oh okay, I just wasn't sure if they would realistically send a live signal from the interview room to the prosecutor's office through cyberspace in case anyone tried to intercept the signal, to see what the witness had to say.

I will work on the dialogue and perhaps someone else can help polish it.

You mean how courts have been doing it for years? As it’s a movie though, even if you can’t do something technically, you can in the movies. Like my own pet hate, magic radios that one moment have the goodies and baddies using them separately and privately, yet the next minute they all hear each other. Think Die Hard.

When do courts do them, or why? Do they want people possibly listening in, who are not suppose to be? Plus I wasn't necessarily thinking of having the villains tap the signal, if I write it that way, but I could have them do it.. I just doubted it would be realistic that they wound send a police interview through cyberspace that could be intercepted.

UK courts have had the option of the defendant not being physically present for years, they have a live feed from the prison. The layout in their courts is different to US courts, they don't sit beside the attorney, they are in a dock when in a criminal case.It's commonly used for remand hearings.

Courts cases are open for anyone to attend, The press are also there. I would assume that Canada has basically similar rules, unless the case is "in camera". https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/hearings-private-camera

Oh okay, but this is a interview with a witness in a police station, so it's not public of course. So would they be okay with sending out an interview to the prosecutor's office for him to view, if the interview is being sent to the prosecutor's office, and not a courtroom?

You would need to set it up that the villains have had access to this on an ongoing basis.

How easy it would be to hack would depend on the system they've got, if it internet or intranet etc. If you tell the story probably no one is going to care about the possibility of hacking. It only become of interest if it's part of the villain's MO.

Or, you could just use a two way mirror on the interview room, it's dramatically more interesting.

Oh okay. And originally I was going to have the villains find out what she said another way, but I can use this way too, if it makes the scene more convenient.

The thing about the two way mirror, is I thought about that before and I saw 4 possible cons to it, but maybe I'm wrong:

1. It will be more expensive to find a location that has a mirror built into the wall, and should just shoot it in a room with a camera, cause it's easier and cheaper to shoot?

2. The mirror is outdated nowadays, since they just use a camera nowadays in real police stations.

3. Would the prosecutor bother to come all the way down to the police station for this? I mean prosecutors normally look at statements after they are taken, I am guessing, and I thought the prosecutor watching it on his office computer, was pushing it. So he would he come all the way down to see it it live, when he can just watch the statement on tape a littler later, even if it's just a few minutes later?

4. The witness they are interviewing is actually the victim of the crime. They interviewed her before, but this is some follow up questions after a new development. So would they interview her in a room that is a mirror room? I asked a police officer this in my research and he says they have a different room for some victims, to make them feel more comfortable. So would a victim feel comfortable in a room with a mirror, therefore?

But maybe I am wrong and the mirror room would stil work, and the prosecutor would bother to come down in person, rather than just watch a video of the statement after, from his office?

You should explain the scenario when asking questions, other users aren't mind readers.

All that's probably needed is an audio feed, so that the prosecutor can listen in.

Oh sorry, I guess will try to exlain more next time. But isn't audio more risky to send over the cyberspace than video, since the audio is the more important part in a statement?