One of the the interesting things about the script to screen process, having been involved in making a lot of short films over the years, both directing and editing, is finding what you can cut down and remove even after you've shot it. How certain lines can almost be said in a look, or become inferred.

In my latest short, Dig, I excised an entire scene because 1) the peformance wasn't quite there and 2) i realized that I didn't NEED any of the dialogue in that section. But it wasn't until we shot it and I started editing it that I realized that. And we had done like 6 or 7 drafts on this short and had a lot of people read it.

It just wasn't until it became a real life event that so much more, performance wise, was on the screen beyond the words and we just didn't need them.

I remember something Spielberg said once, which was (and I'm paraphrasing) that you should be able to watch a film without the sound and still comprehend what the story is.

Joshua, I was just discussing this very same thing yesterday with a screenwriter. If you ever read a script while watching the movie version of that script, it's almost invariable you will find anywhere from 10-25% of the scripted material not present in the movie (this is aside from rewritten scene). A classic case in point is The Shawshank Redemption.

In our discussion yesterday, this writer and I agreed that we will tend to write more than we need in the script process because (A) we just don't know how things will fly visually and (B) we would rather err in overexplaining something than running the risk of confusing a reader. In terms of production, it's better to have that coverage to use in edit. If you discover you don't need it, simply excise it.

The thing is once the story moves into the visual realm of what is shot and assembled onto the screen, you will almost invariably discover what you did with your short: You just don't need as much content, especially exposition. Visuals carry so much more weight and even information than what you can communicate on the page.

Still whenever we can avoid exposition and narrative 'stuff' in a script, that's almost always a good thing.

Scott - 100%

Again, this shouldn't mean that you have to really stat cutting dialogue in your script. Sometimes overwriting is okay, especially in production. Better to have it and not need it than need it and be forced to go back for reshoots because you didn't shoot it.

Even though it may only be a short, it's so beneficial for writers to see something they wrote go through the production process. It just completely changes how you write and how you approach writing, in my opinion.

And you really get to see the power of the visual language through shot choice and the performance etc. How much can be conveyed through a look vs. a line.

Joshua, it's a good reminder: Movies are primarily a visual medium.

Wow, this is so helpful. I've always wondered why, when I read professional scripts, the dialogue somtimes seems so flat on the page (and yet having seen the finished film, I know that that same dialogue has worked brilliantly). I find so often that when I rework my dialogue, I hack and carve until it sounds great ON THE PAGE--much better (in my mind!) than the dialogue in those professional scripts. And yet, I realize, that professional "flat" dialogue works exactly where it needs to--on the set, and ultimately on screen. I will crawl away now in humility now... :)