Avatar (2009) Written by James Cameron JAKE (V.O.): Me and Norm were out here to drive these remotely controlled bodies called avatars. They're grown from human DNA mixed with DNA from the natives here. http://movieclips.com/drFSQ-avatar-movie-this-is-your-avatar/ Instead of giving us this information through action or dialogue, Cameron decided to slap on a Voice Over to make sure that everybody understands what's going on. Pure laziness and with zero finesse. Just... "This is what we're doing here. Here's how it works." Me Tarzan. You Jane. And I don't care how many gazillions of dollars this movie made, it's full of terrible exposition like this. The next example is the worst. I couldn't find a clip for this following scene that made me want to walk out of the theatre as I was watching it, but here is the dialogue: SELFRIDGE: Well — lucky your guy had a twin brother, and lucky the brother wasn't an oral hygienist or something. A Marine we can use. I'm assigning him to your team as security escort. GRACE: The last thing I need is another trigger happy asshole out there! SELFRIDGE: Look, you're supposed to be winning the hearts and minds of the natives. Isn't that the whole point of your little puppet show? If you look like them, if you talk like them, they'll trust you. Selfridge crosses to his office, behind a glass wall nearby. Grace follows. SELFRIDGE: But after — how many years? — relations with the indigenous are only getting worse. GRACE: That tends to happen when you use machine guns on them. On Selfridge's desk is a magnetic base, and hovering in mid-air, in the invisible field, is a lump of METALLIC ROCK. Pure UNOBTANIUM. He grabs it and holds it up between thumb and forefinger, in front of Grace's eyes. SELFRIDGE: This is why we're here. Unobtanium. Because this little gray rock sells for twenty million a kilo. No other reason. This is what pays for the party. And it's what pays for your science. Comprendo? He places it back in the magnetic field. SELFRIDGE: Those savages are threatening our whole operation. We're on the brink of war and you're supposed to be finding a diplomatic solution. So use what you've got and get me some results.

From "Twister" by Michael Crichton and Anne Marie Martin: Bill: Jonas Miller. He's a nightcrawler. We all started out in the same lab, but Jonas went out and got himself some corporate sponsors. He's in it for the money, not the science. He's got a lot of high-tech gadgets, but he's got no instincts. Thank you, Bill, for summing up the antagonist for us.

Bladerunner comes to mind, the unnecessary voice over explaining things at the end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fCeH-WnJYM

The heavy-handed Bladerunner exposition: Deckard (voice-over): Gaff had been there, and let her live. Four years, he figured. He was wrong. Tyrell had told me Rachael was special: no termination date. I didn't know how long we had together, who does?

It was so hard to pick a section. Everything sucks equally! Star Wars: Attack of the Clones

EXTERIOR: APARTMENT BUILDING - TWILIGHTA graceful skyscraper twinkles in the evening light ofCoruscant.INTERIOR: APARTMENT BUILDING ELEVATOR - TWILIGHTANAKIN and OBI-WAN ride in a windowed elevator attached tothe outside of the Senate Building. They are on their wayto SENATOR AMIDALA'S apartments. ANAKIN nervouslyrearranges his robes.OBI-WAN: You seem a little on edge, Anakin.ANAKIN: Not at all.OBI-WAN: I haven't felt you this tense since we fell intothat nest of gundarks.ANAKIN: You fell into that nightmare, Master, and I rescuedyou, remember?OBI-WAN: Oh yeah. (they laugh) You're sweating. Relax. Takea deep breath.ANAKIN: I haven't seen her in ten years, Master.OBI-WAN: She's not the Queen anymore, Anakin.ANAKIN: That's not why I'm nervous.INTERIOR: APARTMENT BUILDING, APARTMENT CORRIDOR - TWILIGHTThe door to the apartment slides open. JAR JAR walks intothe corridor, where TWO JEDI are exiting the elevator. Herecognizes OBI-WAN and becomes extremely excited, jumpingaround, shaking his hand.JAR JAR: Obi! Obi! Obi! Mesa sooo smilen to seein yousa.Wahooooo!OBI-WAN smiles.OBI-WAN: It's good to see you, too, Jar Jar.JAR JAR notices OBI-WAN'S APPRENTICE.JAR JAR: ...and this, I take it, is your apprentice...Noooooooo! Annie? Noooooooo! Little bitty Annie? (Looks atAnakin) Noooooooo! Yousa so biggen! Yiyiyiyyi! Annie!!ANAKIN: Hi, Jar Jar.JAR JAR grabs hold of ANAKIN and envelops him in a big hug.JAR JAR: Shesa expecting yousa. Annie... Mesa no believen!INTERIOR: SENATE BUILDING, APARTMENT - EVENINGPADMÉ is in a conference with CAPTAIN TYPHO and DORMÉ. JARJAR enters the room, followed by the TWO JEDI.JAR JAR: Mesa here. Lookie... lookie... Senator. Desa Jediarriven.PADMÉ and TYPHO rise as OBI-WAN and ANAKIN stop before theSENATOR. OBI-WAN steps forward. ANAKIN stares at PADMÉ. Sheglances at him.OBI-WAN: It's a pleasure to see you again, M'Lady.PADMÉ walks over to OBI-WAN and takes his hand in hers.PADMÉ: It has been far too long Master Kenobi. I'm so gladour paths have crossed again... but I must warn you that Ithink your presence here is unnecessary.OBI-WAN: I'm sure the Jedi Council has their reasons.She moves in front of ANAKIN.PADMÉ: Annie? (stares) My goodness, you've grown.They look at each other for a long moment.ANAKIN: (trying to be smooth) So have you... grown morebeautiful, I mean... and much shorter... for a Senator, Imean.OBI-WAN looks disapprovingly at his apprentice. PADMÉlaughs and shakes her head.PADMÉ: Oh Annie, you'll always be that little boy I knew on Tatooine.

Argh. HTML commands not working.

Properly formatted script at Drew's Script-o-Rama

http://youtu.be/x5-JVvCrGC8 -- Still my top contender lol. Magneto defeated by a wooden gun.

I love this topic. Want to point out there is a difference between necessary exposition and terrible exposition. The line between terrible and necessary exposition is razor thin. Most Hitchcock movies start with a TON of exposition, handled in a less than eloquent manner. DIAL M FOR MURDER, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. But they are setting up the viewer expectation so that they can later deviate from it. Thrillers, Suspense films, and Comedies tend to do this. Likewise, Fantasy and Scifi may have to explain some things that are less that poetic. Reese's entire backstory in THE TERMINATOR isn't eloquent. It however, comes at a time in the film when the audience actively wants to know this information and is further hidden in the tension of eluding capture. It's not always how bad the exposition, rather how well it is hidden and embedded into the scene. I also find there is a sliding scale. Exposition is easier to take at the beginning of the film (AVATAR for example) as opposed to the end of a film (Blade Runner for example). For some reason Mysteries, Agatha Christie type ones, seem to be able to skirt this issue. (Most cop TV dramas employ this). Good versus bad exposition is a slippery slope.

Are the first ten minutes of Horrible Bosses online yet? JASON SUDEKIS (VO) Instead of having a first act, we're going to just tell you who everyone is and what's going on. And by the way, any half decent employment lawyer could have solved all our problems and made us millionaires without us having to kill anyone.

James' point re how Hitchcock would lay in exposition up front is a valuable one. Act One, which I've always thought of as The Set Up, is where -- in most stories -- a majority of exposition is likely to go. In part, this is a natural component of narrative structure. We introduce the story universe, characters, dynamics, all of which will require some sort of exposition. So a reader anticipates when they start a script they will run into a fair amount of exposition. Plus you can do things like start with a big Opening Incident or a mysterious event which isn't resolved for several pages to buy yourself some latitude with a reader in terms of laying out exposition. Conversely as you charge into Act Three and the Final Struggle, that's most likely not the time to stop the action and dole out a bunch of exposition. I call them "Mr. Bond," as in, "You know, Mr. Bond, now that I've captured you, I'm going to explain my devious plan to you in detail before I send a laser beam up your crotch." Which is to say sometimes the best way to handle exposition is simply by making sure you put it in the right place. Or course, circling back to Hitchcock, there's Psycho in which Dr. Fred Richman (Simon Oakland) goes on and on explaining the psychological issues with Norman Bates after the Final Struggle, one of the longest expository denouements in cinema history.

Letters To Juliet (2010) “We're leaving in twelve hours and you haven't packed for Verona.” http://movieclips.com/9N4G8-letters-to-juliet-movie-noodle-tasting/ Here's another type of bad exposition. In this case, it's not the dialogue -- although the above-referenced line is a bit on the nose. The point of this scene (and EVERY scene these two characters have together) is to show how wrong this guy is for her. He is obsessed with his work, neglects his girlfriend and that will eventually doom their relationship. It is done so over-the-top and so badly, with the hanging noodles and an actor who seems to have never set foot in a kitchen before, and apparently, neither has the set designer, writer or director. There are multiple scenes like this throughout the movie that keep repeating the same message: “He is wrong for you! Go with the tall blond guy instead!” Jeez, make your point and get out of there, no need to hit us over the head with it. PS. Will anyone bring up Inception?

My biggest pet peeve is when characters have things explained to them that they clearly should already know, simply to give the info to the audience. The unintentionally humorous Con Air is chock full of them. Here’s a chief officer telling the rangers about themselves: CHIEF OFFICER: Army Rangers have a proud history. Since the Revolutionary War in 1776, rangers have led the way in every major confrontation in which the United States has been involved. Here’s a US Marshal telling his men about themselves, and about a mission they already know about: CHIEF DEVERS The U.S. Marshal Service annually flies 155,000 prisoners around the country for transfers, legal hearings and medical exams. As you know, today's flight is a special one. We're populating Alabama's Feltham Penitentiary, the newest super-max facility in the system. This place was designed to warehouse the worst of the worst. Now, most of these guys are lifers, some on death row. Pure predators, each and every one of them… In the ten years we’ve been operating, we’ve never had a breach of security… And another one, Larkin teaching a DEA SPECIAL AGENT about the world’s biggest drug lord’s son: LARKIN This is your man, Francisco Cindino, son of Eduardo Cindino, the prime mover of narcotics in the world. That kid's a potential fountain of information about the family business. Look at him. Nice college boy, right? We interrogated him for months. He gave up nothing. This is our last chance before the FBI gets him.

Haha @ Inception Better you than me.

That line would be fine without Verona. "We're leaving in twelve hours and you haven't packed yet?" sounds like an angry girlfriend. I read a decent--albeit dated--play recently called The Monogamist. It had a marital spat where the wife says to the husband something like, "Why don't you go to your studio in the village?" It drove me nuts. The husband presumably knows where his studio is located, just as Gabriel Carcia Bernal knows where they're flying in twelve hours.

Inception... where to begin... there's just so much of it. Here's an example: COBB (shakes head): We were supposed to deliver Saito's expansion plans to Cobol Engineering two hours ago. By now they know we failed. Time to disappear. He says this to his partner. Smooth, Nolan. Or this: INT. DILAPIDATED HOTEL ROOM-DAY Saito turns from the carpet to look up at Cobb. SAITO: Which means I'm not lying on my carpet, in my apartment... (smiles) You've lived up to your reputation, Mr. Cobb... I'm still dreaming. Oh, you're dreaming. I guess it's much quicker to have the character just tell us that than it is to actually show it. Good job.

If exposition equals death, then The Room is a goddamn holocaust. Johnny: "I'm so happy to have you as my best friend, and I love Lisa so much." (52 sec. into the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ4KzClb1C4 Watch the entire scene for full hilarity.

You're so right! The Matrix was full of exposition but, for me, being in the matrix was handled so much better than Inception's being in dreams. I cringed a lot watching Inception but this one got me: Most Skilled Extractor Scene. Here's the serchable script. The line that made me laugh was "Because I am the most skilled extractor." Really? Ugh.

No one's mentioned Dune? Maybe it's just me... :/

Here's a mypdfscripts link to the 3 DUNE drafts. http://www.mypdfscripts.com/index.php?s=dune Pick a draft, any draft. ;)

Funny, I laughed there too. Inception's problem with "most skilled extractor" is an atypical problem. The film shows COBB being a badass at his job. The problem is -- they don't show anyone else being a badass at the same job. He may be the most skilled extractor, but aside from his team, he's the ONLY one the movie presents the audience with. What really should have happened -- the opening scene should have had a competitor trying to beat COBB to get the info from whatshisfaces dream -- and perhaps even winning. They sort of have this element in the girl, but we quickly find out she's just a figment of Cobb's imagination. Later in the script there are also ambiguous competitors. But really, his competition should have been setup and had a singular recognizable face.

I'll do it -- INCEPTION [scrippet] INT. WAREHOUSE - CONTINUOUS Yusuf and Eames PULL Fischer from the cab, HUSTLING him through a doorway. Cobb JUMPS out of the sedan, furious. COBB Arthur! Arthur what the- Arthur pulls the bloody Saito from the front seat. COBB Oh, Christ. Is he dying? ARTHUR I don't know. What happened back there? Where were you? COBB We were blocked by a freight train. ARTHUR (to Ariadne) Why would you put a train crossing in a downtown intersection? ARIADNE I didn't. COBB (snaps) Why were we all ambushed, Arthur?! Those weren't regular projections they'd been trained! ARIADNE How could they be trained? ARTHUR Fischer's had an extractor teach his mind to defend itself. His subconscious is militarized. It should've shown on the research- COBB So why the hell didn't it?! ARTHUR Calm down. COBB Don't tell me to calm down-you were meant to check Fischer's background thoroughly. You can't make this kind of mistake-we're not prepared for this kind of violence- ARTHUR Cobb, we've dealt with sub-security before. We just have to be more- COBB This wasn't part of the plan, Arthur! (points at Saito) He's dying! EAMES So we put him out of his misery. Eames steps into the room, pulls his gun and moves over Saito. COBB No. EAMES He's in agony. Let's wake him up- Cobb GRABS Eames's arm. COBB No! (they lock eyes) It won't wake him up. EAMES What do you mean, it won't wake him? When you die in a dream you wake up. YUSUF Not from this. We're too heavily sedated to wake up that way. Eames looks at Yusuf, then to Cobb. EAMES So what happens if one of us dies? COBB That person doesn't wake up. Their mind drops into Limbo. ARIADNE Limbo? ARTHUR Unconstructed dream space. ARIADNE What's down there? ARTHUR Raw, infinite subconscious. Nothing there but what was left behind by anyone on the team who's been trapped there before. On this team... just Cobb. ARIADNE How long would we be stuck there? YUSUF You couldn't even think about trying to escape until the sedation eases- EAMES How long? YUSUF Decades-it could be infinite-I don't know! Ask him-he's the one who's been there before! Eames moves to Cobb. Looks him in the eye. EAMES Great. So now we're stuck in Fischer's mind battling it out with his private army, and if we get hit we're stuck in Limbo 'til our brains dissolve into scrambled egg? Cobb says nothing. Saito groans more loudly. ARTHUR Let's just get him upstairs. [/scrippet] The real problem with this exposition is that: 1) It occurs on page 79-81. Now, I'm not a stickler for page count. BUT -- this type of exposition, setting up the rules for your world, really needs to occur at latest early in Act Two. Preferably in Act One, but as it is a twist, seems like it is the type of information that is an "Oh, by the way... Act Two is different." 2) It violates the films own rules already established. This is compounded by how late in the script this info occurs. The opening scene illustrates that people can't die in dreams. The problem with this is that there are no stakes inside a dream state. Nolan realizes this and AMMENDS HIS RULES to create stakes. The problem is it happens too late. He probably should have just axed the idea that people can't die in dreams altogether. Take the MATRIX's solution to a very similar problem. You die in the Matrix, you die in real life. Simple. Never changes in the movie. We know the stakes. Inception's sleight of hand occurs so late in the movie, that it does a great deal to undermine its own stakes and film logic. BTW -- "This wasn't part of the plan" is cliche dialogue on the level of "I didn't sign up for this" which appears in another Christopher Nolan film: TDK.

Nice analysis, James.

I second - great analysis James. I could maybe understand breaking the rules so far in, even after the huge exposition, if it actually created higher stakes. But Saito's death seemed less important than Mal chasing them with trains. I'm so curious about Nolan's earlier drafts. When I think of the movie I wonder what could have been. Then I just go watch Primer or the Dreamgate episode of Hyperdrive.

Exactly. And. He kind of sucks at his job. He does things he shouldn't do, he breaks every rule he sets out, he endangers everyone - even people who weren't aware of the danger he posed - and he's constantly being outdone by Mal. I love the idea of a competitor but in order to be in a dream they had to be in the same room using the same machine. They couldn't just jack-in like The Matrix or eXistenZ or The Surrogate. Which severely limited the story.

-- The Beach has lots of unnecessary voice-over a la Blade Runner that tells us what we’re already seeing or can easily derive. EXT. BANGKOK. NIGHT A single headlamp in close up shines directly and brightly out. Extreme noise and light. Beyond its glare can be seen the outline of a motorized tricycle ("tuk-tud") and its Thai driver. A young man, Richard, sits in the back, his rucksack beside him, swaying with the motion of the vehicle. He is worn and sweating. They travel through nocturnal Bangkok: fleets of tuk-tuks, taxis, road works, food vendors, dogs, tourists. Music and credits. EXT. KHAO SAN ROAD. NIGHT The bright headlight comes to a halt. Richard climbs down from the tuk-tuk. RICHARD (V.O.) When you hit Bangkok, there's really only one place to go. The street is busy, full of Thai's and travelers. Richard picks his way through the crowd, his rucksack on his back. He absorbs the scene as he passes boarding houses and hotels, and the shops and stalls selling food, clothes, pirated tapes, jewelry, travel tickets, and international phone calls. Restaurants are filled with western travelers watching American films or European sport. RICHARD (V.O.) (continuing) The Khao San Road is a decompression chamber between east and west. It's where you learn to breathe car fumes and tropical air for the very first time, or else carefully rearrange your memories before you catch your flight home. Richard is approached by a young male Thai Hustler who walks backwards in front of him while making his pitch. HUSTLER You need somewhere to stay? RICHARD I'll be OK, Thanks. Richard politely ignores each of his subsequent offers. HUSTLER What do you want? Sell your passport? Buy passport? Airline tickets? You want silk? I'll take you to the best silk place? You get a suit in twenty-four hours. Diamonds? You want to come with me, you get present for your girlfriend. Maybe no girlfriend. You want a girl, no problem. Good time. Boy girl fucking no problem. You want to drink some snake blood? At this last one Richard stops and addresses the Hustler. RICHARD No thanks. Richard walks on, the hustler fading out behind him. HUSTLER You want designer clothes? I get you Versache, Gucci, Armani, no problem. You want a camera, all the best makes: Nikon, Leica, Canon I can get you. RICHARD (V.O.) Yeah, it's all here: you can phone home, meet up with strangers, split up with your friends, watch Hollywood movies while you sip Budweiser and eat a burger or get some massage and green chicken soup. You could be anywhere in the world but you could only find it here. And what do they want, all these people? EXT. KHAO SAN ROAD. NIGHT./ INT. BARS AND SHOPS. NIGHT. Various young travelers, male and female, in snapshot exerpts, address their comments to the camera or each other. TRAVELER 1 Where you been? TRAVELER 2 Where you going? TRAVELER 3 I've been there. TRAVELER 4 It's a waste of time. TRAVELER 1 We just got back. TRAVELER 2 Fantastic. TRAVELER 3 How much did it cost? TRAVELER 5 A complete rip off. TRAVELER 3 Too many people. There's a much better place along the coast. TRAVELER 4 We're going exploring. We've read this book. It tells us all the best places to explore. TRAVELER 2 I know a place that everyone says is really unspoiled. TRAVELER 1 I heard they built a big hotel there. TRAVELER 5 Some sort of sewage problem, apparently. TRAVELER 1 We're going anyway: all the rooms have got air conditioning. RICHARD (V.O.) But for me it's all about finding out something about a place, and something about yourself. And when you get off the beaten track, that's where you find out what there is to find out. Richard turns into one of the restaurants. -- Another, as he watches a couple longingly: The couple reach their door. They enter their room and the door is closed behind them. Alone in the corridor again, Richard contemplates their presence. RICHARD (V.O.) I was traveling alone for two reasons. First of all, being alone allows you more opportunity to absorb your experiences on a personal level. Secondly, and this I felt acutely at that moment, there was no one who wanted to go with me. -- And another -- INT. TRAIN. NIGHT Richard is awake. Opposite him, Etienne and Francoise are slumped together in sleep. RICHARD (V.O.) Etienne, however, and I have to hand it to the guy, was fucking great. He organized the whole thing: tickets, timetables, best route, the whole damn trip. EXT. SEA. DAY. The bow of a passenger ferry crashes through a wave. EXT. BOAT DAY. The decks are crowded with travelers and their packs. Amongst them are Richard, Francoise, and Etienne. Maps and guidebooks are being studied by many. The noise of the engines and the wind deters conversation. RICHARD (V.O.) Thanks to him we hit the final stop on the tourist trail inside twenty-four hours, where, Etienne assured me, we would hire what he called a "local fisherman" to take us on the last stage of our journey.

Totally agree with the "movie it could have been" comment. It's really split itself over two different movies. 1) It could have been a really slick psychological heist movie. Add an antagonist that ultimately wants to do the job COBB is doing and one-ups him at every turn. Or 2) A sort of psychological tone poem delving into the question of what is reality? Does Mal kill herself? Or just wake up in another higher dream state? Where the story falls apart is that the heist aspect is incidental to this deeper question. I also think this is the very reason why the rules get jacked up. Nolan couldn't decide if he wanted a thriller heist movie or something deeper. The rules needed for either are mutually exclusive. The thriller needs death in a dream state to have stakes and suspense. The deeper question needs the ability to not die to go to a higher dream state. That way, if in the end of the movie Cobb decided Mal was right, there is another dream state, and put a gun to his head -- in theory, he'd have the possibility of waking up with her. Nolan tried to put a bandaid on this problem (which is the scene above). Essentially saying: If you go too deep, and then are killed, you die. But that seems like an awfully arbitrary distinction to make.

As part of this exercise, why don't we identify a list of 'markers' that suggest why certain dialogue is terrible exposition. For instance: * If it's unnecessary, it's terrible exposition. * If it is dialogue intended solely for the reader and is redundant within the context of the story universe, it's terrible exposition. What other markers would you add to the list?

Brilliant. Again. If we could only harvest your grey cells. Two movies in one? Nolan agrees with you</. I read, and I'm sure this is either common knowledge or myth so pardon me for spouting it - Nolan spent ten years writing and rewriting the script, changing, rearranging, and finally getting the green light from Warner Bros. DiCaprio was also heavily involved in rewrites. Somewhere, surely, in all that time he could have called his brother.

Argh, I meant to send you this.

If it directly verbalizes something we've seen happen in another scene. I know it's a whole 'nother bag of hammers but, I think J.J. Abrams' TV shows are very much this way.

tracinell, grab any side you feel is terrible from Dune and post or email me.

[...] Daily Dialogue theme for the week: Terrible exposition (gointothestory.blcklst.com) [...]