[Ted Cunterblast]

I noticed this a lot on the Skyfall thread, lots of comments about 'nothing happens' or 'too much talking' or 'not enough action' etc.

I have also seen similar comments regarding Inglorious Basterds being talky and boring.

People forget that Bond films are supposed to be spy films...they have been indoctrinated into believing the quintessential Bond movie is an action spectacular with a set piece every 5 minutes. With a lot of silliness thrown in between, and when things start to flag, lob in a few gorgeous girls.

But didn't we tire of that back in the 80's and 90's when the franchise was practically on it's knees?

And of you look at the early Connery films, set pieces were kept to a minimum.

But the issue is there seem to be a lot of people who just don't seem to actually get diaogue at all...and crucially they don't seem to listen and switch off until something big and loud happens. A dead giveaway are the ones who say the plot made no sense, or point out what they call 'plot holes', that are usually nothing of the sort...they just were not paying attention.

Inglorious Basterds is another good example of this...there will be those who will expect the same things from a Tarantino movie...blood, guts, violence etc. And yet a staple of his movies has always been very well written dialogue...Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown to name three noteable examples. And for me the dialogue in Basterds is actually the best thing about the movie...especially the farmhouse and tavern scenes.

But there seem to be a section of people who 'switch off' during dialogue scenes and just don't listen to whats going on.They equate dialogue with boring.

I watched Glengarry Glen Ross with a friend once, and the whole thing went completely over her head, and she just described it as a film about people talking, and used that classic phrase 'nothing happened'. It really makes you wonder what she expected to happen, and also maybe it says something about the state of modern cinema, how movies are sold and marketed, and what people expectations are from watching a movie.

[Eddie Badger]

I once loaned someone All The President's Men and they said it was rubbish "just lots of talking with nothing happening." He reckoned it could have done with some shooting and a car chase.

But then he's the kind of person who will fast forward through the dialogue and just watch the action scenes. He also wonders why Steven Segal has never won an Oscar... because "his films are better than the crap that does win!"

[Ted Cunterblast]

Of course it's fair to day that badly written or pedestrian dialogie can be extremely boring and can drag a movie down...but then again so can endless action scenes.

[jrmswfc]

My mate's like that - he said the other day that Saving Private Ryan is brilliant for the first half an hour, brilliant for the last hour, and really boring in the middle. That'd be the bit called "plot", then. I don't even think it was dull in the middle, there was still enough going on to hold the attention.

Action scene after action scene gets boring, you need to have a breather and some build up to the next one.

[Dr. Linus]

I totally agree about Tarantino - so many people completely miss the point and think his calling card is gratuitous violence, when in fact it's clever dialogue and surreal characterisation and plotting, and this has always been the case. Look at Reservoir Dogs - the ear-cutting scene isn't about the violence, it's about how over-the-top and dark it is for a character to be doing that, and the film as a whole is basically all dialogue between the same few people. And it's FANTASTIC. Same goes for Pulp Fiction - Sam Jackson's swearing non-stop at the beginning is there because it's so ridiculously over the top, not in spite of it. To understand Tarantino you have to accept that pretty much everything's tongue in cheek.

I often suspect a lot of apparent "big fans of Tarantino" only have any real knowledge of Kill Bill, which is actually pretty left-field and gory for Tarantino.

[degsyhufc]

I have friends like that. I tried to get them to watch Clerks. First off it was black & white. SHOCK HORROR. Then they said it was just talking. What's good about it?

[Helbore]

I liked all the slow, talky parts of Skyfall. They made the action scenes all the more tense and enjoyable. Action without story is pointless.

[Chairman___Meow]

I think anyone who doesnt like scenes with lots of dialogue is an idiot.

[wakey]

As with anything it comes down to the quality of it, there are films where dialogue scenes can be boring as they are just aren't well written. Even worse there are films that set out to be dialogue driven that are badly written so you do finish the movie with the view that 'nothing happened' because the dialogue was so poor that ultimatly nothing did.

Two of my favourite films are Before Sunrise and its sequel Before Sunset but these movies are just two people walking around talking so most people I recommend them to find them boring.

Now I don't think it in most cases it has anything to do with them being too stupid but it seems more to do with people not having the attention span to listen to dialogue. Its much easier for them to appreciate explosions or simply setup/punchline jokes found in rather poor films like Transformers or Valentines day over movies like Clerks, Before Sunrise/sunset, Social Network and the likes which are all about the dialogue.

Tarantino mind you is someone who seems to get away with pleasing both sides as there is enough action and gore for people who don't have the attention span for dialogue to still enjoy

[Big Boy Barry]

People who find dialogue scenes boring should basically stop watching movies altogether.

[BrianWescombe]

Originally Posted by Ted Cunterblast

I noticed this a lot on the Skyfall thread, lots of comments about 'nothing happens' or 'too much talking' or 'not enough action' etc.

I have also seen similar comments regarding Inglorious Basterds being talky and boring.

People forget that Bond films are supposed to be spy films...they have been indoctrinated into believing the quintessential Bond movie is an action spectacular with a set piece every 5 minutes. With a lot of silliness thrown in between, and when things start to flag, lob in a few gorgeous girls.

But didn't we tire of that back in the 80's and 90's when the franchise was practically on it's knees?

And of you look at the early Connery films, set pieces were kept to a minimum.

But the issue is there seem to be a lot of people who just don't seem to actually get diaogue at all...and crucially they don't seem to listen and switch off until something big and loud happens. A dead giveaway are the ones who say the plot made no sense, or point out what they call 'plot holes', that are usually nothing of the sort...they just were not paying attention.

Inglorious Basterds is another good example of this...there will be those who will expect the same things from a Tarantino movie...blood, guts, violence etc. And yet a staple of his movies has always been very well written dialogue...Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown to name three noteable examples. And for me the dialogue in Basterds is actually the best thing about the movie...especially the farmhouse and tavern scenes.

But there seem to be a section of people who 'switch off' during dialogue scenes and just don't listen to whats going on.They equate dialogue with boring.

I watched Glengarry Glen Ross with a friend once, and the whole thing went completely over her head, and she just described it as a film about people talking, and used that classic phrase 'nothing happened'. It really makes you wonder what she expected to happen, and also maybe it says something about the state of modern cinema, how movies are sold and marketed, and what people expectations are from watching a movie.

Couldn't agree more, while some talky films are boring, I could listen to Tarantino's dialogue for hours! Films such as Shawshank and Green Mile (3 hours long, mostly dialogue) are not boring in the slightest

[roger_50]

It's true - there are quality dialogue scenes and dull, boring dialogue scenes in films.

Protracted dialogue isn't always a good thing by default, just like it isn't always a boring thing. It all depends on the quality of the writing, how the actors put it across, etc.

[RebelScum]

Originally Posted by roger_50

It's true - there are quality dialogue scenes and dull, boring dialogue scenes in films.

Protracted dialogue isn't always a good thing by default, just like it isn't always a boring thing. It all depends on the quality of the writing, how the actors put it across, etc.

Yes, but I think the OP is referring to people who take the position that dialogue scenes are dull by default.

[roger_50]

Originally Posted by RebelScum

Yes, but I think the OP is referring to people who take the position that dialogue scenes are dull by default.

I never said he wasn't.

I was just adding the relevant point that some dialogue-heavy films are dull because it's dull dialogue. I love Glengarry Glen Ross for example, just like the OP, but also find myself wishing certain other films would 'get on with it' and show more action/have less talky bits.

[RebelScum]

The varying degrees of dialogue quality is not what the thread is about, but thanks for your opinion anyway.

[roger_50]

No, it's directly relevant to what the thread's about since so much dialogue-heavy content these days is poorly written - and I therefore can't blame modern cinema-goers getting bored with it much of the time. It's a pertinent point and perfectly appropriate to the subject of the thread.

[RebelScum]

Originally Posted by roger_50

No, it's directly relevant to what the thread's about since so much dialogue-heavy content these days is poorly written - and I therefore can't blame modern cinema-goers getting bored with it much of the time. It's a pertinent point and perfectly appropriate to the subject of the thread.

Way to miss the point. There are people who can't tell the difference between good dialogue and terrible dialogue; they consider all dialogue boring - regardless of the quality. That is what the OP is talking about. You opinion is perfectly valid, just not what the thread is about.

[roger_50]

No - it's pertinent to the subject. It's all related.

Jeez, let it go.

[RebelScum]

Awritty, you have a nice day now

[dbob]

Those people are just dumb and aren't bright enough to understand and appreciate good dialogue. They should just stick to braindead blockbusters for their movie fix.

[indie.star]

I didn't think I was a 'talky film' fan until I saw Reservoir Dogs in my mid teens and loved it. Quentin Tarantino really opened my eyes and got me watching all sorts of films instead of just watching the ones that my friends always watched like Coyote Ugly and other teen films.

[RedSnapper]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Barry

People who find dialogue scenes boring should basically stop watching movies altogether.

Sadly there are plenty of films made for people who find dialogue boring.

[Virgil Tracy]

Originally Posted by Ted Cunterblast

I noticed this a lot on the Skyfall thread, lots of comments about 'nothing happens' or 'too much talking' or 'not enough action' etc.

I have also seen similar comments regarding Inglorious Basterds being talky and boring.

People forget that Bond films are supposed to be spy films...they have been indoctrinated into believing the quintessential Bond movie is an action spectacular with a set piece every 5 minutes. With a lot of silliness thrown in between, and when things start to flag, lob in a few gorgeous girls.

But didn't we tire of that back in the 80's and 90's when the franchise was practically on it's knees?

And of you look at the early Connery films, set pieces were kept to a minimum.

But the issue is there seem to be a lot of people who just don't seem to actually get diaogue at all...and crucially they don't seem to listen and switch off until something big and loud happens. A dead giveaway are the ones who say the plot made no sense, or point out what they call 'plot holes', that are usually nothing of the sort...they just were not paying attention.

Inglorious Basterds is another good example of this...there will be those who will expect the same things from a Tarantino movie...blood, guts, violence etc. And yet a staple of his movies has always been very well written dialogue...Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown to name three noteable examples. And for me the dialogue in Basterds is actually the best thing about the movie...especially the farmhouse and tavern scenes.

But there seem to be a section of people who 'switch off' during dialogue scenes and just don't listen to whats going on.They equate dialogue with boring.

I watched Glengarry Glen Ross with a friend once, and the whole thing went completely over her head, and she just described it as a film about people talking, and used that classic phrase 'nothing happened'. It really makes you wonder what she expected to happen, and also maybe it says something about the state of modern cinema, how movies are sold and marketed, and what people expectations are from watching a movie.

well there's good dialogue and there's ... all sorts in between .

Good dialogue is great , Goldfinger has some great examples , Skyfall not so much .

as for Tarantino - I'm not sure it even counts as dialogue most of the time , it's monologues , characters giving tediously long monologues on their theories about Jews , Superman , whatever !

[timebug]

I recently watched the four plays that the BBC
did last year as 'The Hollow Crown'. Good plots
in all four,but a lot of 'talking'.
Written by some chap called Shakespeare.
It'll never catch on!!!!!!

[GandalfsFeet]

They are idiots.