Good point Paul. My comments are just a general impression of him talking about his film as a series of events and my feelings how his previous movies have turned out.

If youre gonna do that you should just encourage him to send the whole screenplay or however much he’s got.

Pete - yes, that's the impression I got. Brian's pretty good on script stuff, far better than me - but all we have is that 'gut reaction' which could be wrong if Ryan doesn't explain accurately.

Yes, but in drama, you need more, without being melodramatic about it. Especially, if this is the first time that the audience comes across the prosecutor. Having the cop persuade the prosecutor against his initial decision (which he wants to hold onto) to this new one is what would make the scene more interesting.

The conflict and struggle reveals more about the characters, that's why in films conveying a vital piece of information is made difficult.

Oh yeah, but I felt I had that kind of drama, since the prosecutor thinks the case is too problematic to go ahead, with, and the cop is pushing him to take the risk, even though he may likely lose, etc... Later he loses and it looks bad for the cop then.

So I thought I still had that kind of drama.

As for posting the script, well I was going to have a script consultant rewrite the dialogue first, to make it better. I could post some, it's just I don't know how to get it on here, without the format becoming messed up.

The format doesn't matter Ryan - The script consultant sounds a bit worrying?

What are you producing it in? Word? Simplest would probably to drop box it and post a link to it for those interested? That keeps it more private.

Just export it to pdf...that should “solidify” the formatting no matter how it originated

Oh okay, thanks, I can see about that. I wrote it in MMS.

Why are the script consultants worrying? I was told my dialogue is not good, so shouldn't I get someone else with better experience to rewrite it therefore?

Script consultants don't rewrite dialogue, you do. If you want the dialogue rewritten you employ another writer.

Oh okay, I can do that then. There is a particular person I have in mind who I thought of as a script consultant who offered to rewrite it, if I pay him to of course, but I can go to another writer, if not.

If you're paying them as a writer, it could cost your entire budget.

Because someone is a script consultant, it doesn't automatically mean that they're good writers.

Oh okay, I can do that then. There is a particular person I have in mind who I thought of as a script consultant who offered to rewrite it, if I pay him to of course, but I can go to another writer, if not.
It might cut into his prop budget. ie no handcuffs :-(

To tell you the truth I'm not too keen on seeing the entire script. I can only handle so many problems. Ryan why don't you just post a page or two of this particular scene.

Oh okay. Well here is a link to the scene if that helps. If I am not allowed to post links, I can take it down:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LhicGSM3qQpSpPCYUmIYuLJWlleS1e2F/view?usp=sharing

It's a rather ponderous scene and if this is the first time the audience comes across the prosecutor they don't know who he is, since it's never mentioned and so it's this unknown person talking on the phone. The audience can't see the name on the script.

Oh okay, thanks. I can give the prosecutor a name. It's just he is never mentioned by name and is always referred to as the CP (crown prosecutor), but I can give him a name.

How is it ponderous exactly? You said it came off as clumbsy before, but why exactly, or what are the specifics now?

The dialogue is ponderous, it's not sharp, there are unnecessary words, it's all on the nose, there's no sub text. If the prosecutor is important character in this he's just a voice, that fine if it's the mysterious criminal mastermind or a hoaxer sending phone messages, but not in this case.

Read some film scripts and look at the dialogue.

Oh okay, I can get someone else to rewrite the dialogue then, if that's better?

But also, I wrote the dialogue so not as much is explained before, but readers didn't like that before, and they felt not enough was explained, I had to go over certain details in the case, that I did not cover. I thought that the reader could figure certain parts out, but they were not able to they said, and I need to explain the details more, so certain angles are not left uncovered. So how do I do that, but at the same time, not be on the nose?

But so far it's not the plotting that's the problem and it's the dialogue then?

As for the proseutor's importance, I didn't think he was an important character at first, but other readers said to build him up and give him more, so I thought maybe he should be more important therefore, unless I am wrong...

However, it was said before, that at my level I cannot afford another writer to rewrite the dialogue. Therefore, should I just run with it and accept it, if another writer is not in the budget?

You've got to hide your exposition within the drama and feed it in drips, not in big blocks. Let the detectives and the audience work things out as the story progresses,

BTW Readers aren't always correct and what they say has to be interpreted in a way that works dramatically.

No, you rewrite the dialogue. However, read other scripts before you do so

Oh okay. When you say drips, are you saying I reveal too much, too fast?

Also, I just gave it a quick edit now, but is this better at all?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10l1ZnzyBiIuLiS8t4QrtdtRw1wRhH4kP/view?usp=sharing

But when you say let the detectives and audience work things outside as the story progresses, if you are saying to spread out the plot points in the case, doing so will make the script longer then, and I don't want to go over length, if that makes sense? Or is that not what you mean?

Sorry, I'm not going over your script, since I suspect it needs work on the scenes building up to this one. No scene stands alone.

It's up to you to know what's important to the story, you can have all sorts of what abouts suggested, but you have to decide on the key stuff.

Oh okay. But when you say I reveal in blocks and not drips, are you saying I give to much away, too fast?

Yes, you need to keep the audience intrigued, all this currently sounds like Hercule Poirot revealing the murderer at the end, rather than in the middle of the story. Usually they show this with VO, rather than just having him talk as if it's a stage play.

Oh okay but if I decide to draw out the plot longer though, it will become too long and the script length will be too long then, won't it?

The script doesn't need to be longer, you just need to be cleverer in how you stricture it.

Oh okay, but how is too much revealed in this scene though? Because before it was said that it sounds like exposition, but now there is too much plot, if that is right?

I mean this is page 27 in this scene, so shouldn't some things have already happened by then, or isn't that enough time prior, to have these reveals? Or what is it that makes it too much plot exactly? I've seen movies with busier plots than mine, so I am just wondering, what is it exactly, that makes it too much plot?

At that point Act 1 should be over and you're into Act 2. I don't know your overall story, but the main part of the story should have started. by now. I would assume there is some sort of point of no return at the end of the first act will have happened.

Oh okay. Yes this is getting around near the end of act 1. Now that the prosecutor has this new information and now has to change his course of action, that is one of the turning points into act 2 more so. But is that bad? I mean usually act 2 seems to start around 30 pages in, give or take, or so I read, so is it bad to start act 2 around this point?

For a thriller 30 pages is pretty far in these days, roughly 20 pages it more common for a genre film like that, especially a 90 minute film. They get going very quickly because their audience doesn't like hanging around.

Oh okay, well I am not exactly sure where the second act in mine starts. It would either be the turning point, where the main character cop has found the reluctant victim, and talks her into making a statement, and then this is the Act 2 turning point, cause her statement will have plot points in that will drive into the second act...

Or, it would be at this scene when the prosecutor makes a decision based on her statement to take the case in a different direction.

Or would be after she is driven home from the police station and the villains were waiting and make an attempt on her life there.

So it would be at either of these points that the second act starts, which ranges from within page 20-30. But I don't think the audience is left hanging around though, since there is plot points happening about the case during that is still driving the plot, or so I thought.

You'll have to decide that, it's usually a climax which is the point of no return. It's' when the main story kicks off.

Oh okay, so it's okay for other plot points that drive the plot into different directions, to come before the second act as long as they are not point of no return ones?

When the main storyline goes past the point of no return would be a suitable point.

Don't confuse the plot with the story, they're different. The Plot is your "choice of events and their design in time" according to Robert McKee.

Oh okay. Perhaps the acts are seperated by story points and not plot points then.

I suppose the witness being attacked and an attempt made her when she is driven home, would be more of a point of no return though. But that doesn't happen until a little after page 30. Is that bad? There still a other plot points to keep the audience busy that change the course of the plot, prior, they are just not point of no return ones.

People here can't tell, we can't even tell if the rape victim is this witness, since you don't seem to know the difference.

Oh okay. Well perhaps I use the word witness in the wrong way, it's just the prosecutor refers to as a witness in court, but maybe that's the wrong term. Yes she is a victim of the crime.

Well when it comes to subtext in dialogue, it is hard for me to stop it. In this scene here for example, at 0:39 into the scene, where you have police talking over a case, where is the subtext in the dialogue, if I am having trouble spotting it?

Man-hunter Fingerprint Scenes - YouTube

Subtext will come across in how the actors deliver the lines and their body language, less in the words themselves. Much of how humans communicate isn't directly from words.

Using the term witness makes the prosecutor come over as a less sympathetic character, I don't know if that's what you intend.

Subtext will come across in how the actors deliver the lines and their body language, less in the words themselves. Much of how humans communicate isn't directly from words.

Using the term witness makes the prosecutor come over as a less sympathetic character, I don't know if that's what you intend.

Oh okay thanks. No I didn't intend that. I'll change it, thanks.

When you say that subtext will come across in the body language a lot more than the words, you said before though that the dialogue was lacking subtext though. So I thought therefore, that it was a problem with the dialogue, rather than the body language, the actors will use?

You can indicate the subtext in the script.

During a directing exercise on a workshop I got the actors to play the scene the opposite way to the words they were saying. It worked very well, the actors enjoyed playing it that way,

Oh okay, so it's not so much that the dialogue needed subtext necessarily, it's just that I needed to write more subtextual physical action then?

Just hint at it, good actors will automatically provide the sub text with very small hints.

Oh okay, but is there anything wrong with the dialogue then, or is it just mainly the body language, or lack of action description of?

The dialogue wasn't sharp and tended towards being expositional.

Oh okay, but since everything they talk about matters in the case later for the pay off, how is expositional, if it matters for later?

You want to reveal the exposition in the dramatic manner. Hiding it is a key skill required by a script writer.

Oh okay so having the police and prosecutors talk about the plot points or is not dramatic enough?

No, this why writers have power struggles and various other sub plots going on.

But there are power struggles with other subplots going on.well how do you write a senior investigators comment on the situation though? Like for example the scene I posted before from a real movie does the same thing .

No it's not the same, they're ordering some one to Atlanta for check for prints, so then this guy reports with new information and they wonder if someone has ever been fingerprinted. The scene where they discuss the latter as a group on the phone is way shorter and sharper then your scene, The body language in the first part is of someone who has authority and is decisive..

I don't know if the finger print expert has already been established in the film, but looking at these scenes it sounds like he has been,.

Commenting is exposition.

Oh okay. Well the reason why it's shorter in the clip is that the fingerprints are less to go over, or just one plot point, where as in my scene there are two plot points to go over, possibly 3 depending, on how you count them. So I thought my scene was just going to be longer either way, if they are discussing more plot points in the case.

The finger print man on the phone did not have any prior scenes in that scene.

But I can try to write it sharper.

Henderson thinks she's s lying, but there are a number reasons why someone will lie about something. The scene just gives the impression that the detectives have more to do and you're spending a lot of time doing it.without any real drama.

Was the fingerprint guy around in an earlier scene in the film?

Oh okay thanks, that's interesting. What about it specifically, gives the impression that the detectives have more to do?

When you say real drama, are you saying they should be more emotional about it, and get into a shouting match, for example?

No, the fingerprint guy was not in any earlier scenes in that movie.