Exposition!.. Exposition!.. Exposition!.. Page 5

DEANO, CEREAL BOY, SUE AND NEVILLE ARE STOOD AT THE BAR DRINKING AND CHATTING. KATIE CAN BE SEEN STOOD AT THE OTHER END OF THE BAR LAUGHING AND CHATTING WITH A YOUNG SUITED MAN.

DEANO: (LAUGHING)
Yeah, he was just stood there, kegs round ankles...

THEY ALL LAUGH. DEANO AND CEREAL CAN BE SEEN CARRYING ON CHATTING TOGETHER, AS DO SUE AND NEVILLE.

SUE: (TO NEVILLE)
What time you got to be home?

NEVILLE:
Already been once, she was all a panic, telling me to come home, come home and that she needs me urgently.

CEREAL:
Yeah, but it was a blinding spot of breakfast.

NEVILLE:
Aye son it were. So as soon as I downed me second mug of tea, it was a mad rush down to the bookies for a quick flutter then straight home to Gladys.

Quote: Marc P @ April 8 2009, 3:15 PM BST

DEANO, CEREAL BOY, SUE AND NEVILLE ARE STOOD AT THE BAR DRINKING AND CHATTING. KATIE CAN BE SEEN STOOD AT THE OTHER END OF THE BAR LAUGHING AND CHATTING WITH A YOUNG SUITED MAN.

DEANO: (LAUGHING)
Yeah, he was just stood there, kegs round ankles...

THEY ALL LAUGH. DEANO AND CEREAL CAN BE SEEN CARRYING ON CHATTING TOGETHER, AS DO SUE AND NEVILLE.

SUE: (TO NEVILLE)
What time you got to be home?

NEVILLE:
Already been once, she was all a panic, telling me to come home, come home and that she needs me urgently.

CEREAL:
Yeah, but it was a blinding spot of breakfast.

NEVILLE:
Aye son it were. So as soon as I downed me second mug of tea, it was a mad rush down to the bookies for a quick flutter then straight home to Gladys.

View original

Mmm, So I'm telling too much.

My only worry is the loss of a more natural way of speaking. Would you cut it to the above? Or is that just an extreme example?

Quote: random @ April 8 2009, 3:22 PM BST

Mmm, So I'm telling too much.

My only worry is the loss of a more natural way of speaking. Would you cut it to the above? Or is that just an extreme example?

View original

No that's what I would do. If it helps.

Any advice from experienced individuals always helps, thanks

Personally may not go as extreme but its certainly made me think.

Quote: random @ April 8 2009, 3:22 PM BST

My only worry is the loss of a more natural way of speaking.

View original

Well, saying thirteen sentences at a time doesn't automatically make it more natural! In my experience, producers do like you to get across the information as economically as possible. I'm forever getting suggested cuts to my lines!

Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 8 2009, 3:26 PM BST

Well, saying thirteen sentences at a time doesn't automatically make it more natural!

View original

Then, of course, there's the difference between naturalism and realism.

Exposition is basically something any writer should instinctively avoid. Or should I say obvious exposition. After all, the whole script is a form of exposition isn't it? But the good writer does it by leaving clues that plant seeds in the reader's / viewer's subconscious, rather than spelling them out.

The two coppers in Early Doors are merely a returning gag, nothing to do with exposition. And at first glance it might be hard to see why the characters are there because they rarely have anything to do with the week's story. But they do have a developing story arc across the series which gets more and more interesting - where they get so disillusioned with the business of policing that they turn to crime themselves.

But as others have said, using exposition as a joke in itself can work too. For instance Basil Exposition in the Austin Powers movies.

Anyway, that's wot I fink like.

Quote: random @ April 8 2009, 3:27 PM BST

Any advice from experienced individuals always helps, thanks

View original

Don't mock him. He's got a dark side.

Did anybody see the new Casino Royale? The Felix Leighter character in that is a classic expositionary character - popping up mainly to explain to the audience the rules of poker as the hero gambles.

They should have had him in the Quantum of Solace to explain what the f**k was going on.

Quote: chipolata @ April 8 2009, 3:49 PM BST

They should have had him in the Quantum of Solace to explain what the f**k was going on.

View original

Too flipping right. What a load of cobblers that was.

Quote: David Bussell @ April 8 2009, 3:51 PM BST

Too flipping right. What a load of cobblers that was.

View original

Well I enjoyed Daniel Craig's cobblers very much...

Quote: random @ April 8 2009, 3:27 PM BST

Personally may not go as extreme but its certainly made me think.

View original

Go with Marc and Dolly. Concise concise concise. If you can say the same with less, that's the route.

Do not make the mistake of thinking naturalistic dialogue is wordy and flabby and reflects exact conversations. A writer is not aiming to reflect real-life speech, rather a false construct that has the 'appearance' of being natural, while it's actually completely artificial.

Marc's version is the one you should be driving for. It's not extreme, it's concise.

Quote: random @ April 8 2009, 3:22 PM BST

Mmm, So I'm telling too much.

My only worry is the loss of a more natural way of speaking. Would you cut it to the above? Or is that just an extreme example?

View original

Marc P's version sounds the more natural and it also got straight to the gag. You had the basic idea down, but padded it with too much unnecessary fluff.