Speaker 1: Get ready for round three. Today we're gonna tear apart five brand new types of bad dialogue with plenty of examples. By the way, my name is Brandon McNulty. I'm the author of Bad Parts, also the author of Entry Wounds, and welcome to my writing channel. A lot of my subscribers have been asking me to do more bad versus good videos, so I thought we'd start with another round of bad dialogue versus good dialogue. We're gonna have a lot of fun today, and we're gonna start with a quick refresher on what makes good dialogue good. And there are three things here. The first one is that good dialogue sounds natural and appropriate, and this is in terms of the character speaking it, the setting in which it is spoken, the tone of the story, and also the current situation in the story. And you have to remember, different stories will require a specific type of dialogue. For example, what Super Mario says won't work if it's spoken by Michael Corleone from The Godfather. And likewise, what Michael says in his movies wouldn't work if they were spoken by Mario. Character, setting, tone, and situation will determine what dialogue works best. Now the second thing good dialogue does, it attacks and defends. This means that every time a character speaks, they should be trying to learn something, or hide something, or intimidate someone, or protect someone. And then the third thing that good dialogue does, it expresses unspoken meaning or subtext. And the thing to remember here is that when characters speak, there should be meaning beneath the surface of their words. Now here's a clip from Breaking Bad that hits all three points. And Breaking Bad is, of course, the story of Walter White, a chemistry teacher who teams up with a former student of his named Jesse Pinkman, and the two of them start a meth business together. And the clip I'm going to show you is from season two. It's a scene where Walt and Jesse are trying to build a battery using basic resources. I'll play it for you now.

Speaker 2: What shall we use to conduct this beautiful current with? What one particular element comes to mind?

Speaker 1: Ah, wire. Ah, copper. So this works because both characters sound natural. Walt's passion for chemistry and teaching come out in his words, and Jesse's airheaded enthusiasm shines here as well. You also have attacking and defending. Walt challenges Jesse to answer the question, and Jesse attempts to meet that challenge. And then finally there's subtext here as well. There's meaning beneath the surface of their words. They're not simply discussing chemistry or how to build a battery. They're trying to build a father-son type of bond together. All right, now let's talk about bad dialogue. And for this video, I came up with five brand new types of bad dialogue. What I'm going to do, I'm going to go through each type. I'm going to explain what it is, then I'll give you an example of the bad dialogue, and then I'll give you a good example for comparison. First type of bad dialogue is forced comedy. You'll often hear this referred to as bathos, and what this is, it's when you disrupt serious or sincere dialogue with an unnecessary joke. And the problem here is that it undercuts the emotion in a scene, and it can often come off as phony or unnatural, and it can also muddy the subtext of a conversation. Now for a bad example, let's take a look at Star Wars The Force Awakens. And this movie opens up with high stakes, tension, and an introduction to our villain Kylo Ren. He's initially portrayed as this threatening presence, he kills an old man in the midst of a conversation, and everything builds toward a confrontation between Kylo Ren and a fighter pilot named Poe. And here's their dialogue exchange. Notice how humor undercuts the emotion in this scene. So who talks first? You talk first? I talk first?

Speaker 3: The old man gave it to you. It's just very hard to understand you with all the... Search him. Apparatus.

Speaker 1: This sucks because while humor fits Poe's character, it does not fit the situation. The humor undercuts the severity of the scene, and remember, this movie opened up with tension, high stakes, and death. A lot of dark stuff, but the humor betrays that tone. The writers get cute here when they should just let the tension ride. We're only a few minutes into the movie, we don't need a breather from the tension just yet. And the biggest problem here is that the moment characterizes Kylo Ren as weak. He should be this intimidating villain, but Poe is cracking jokes in his face, not taking him seriously, and Kylo fails to punish Poe for this. This is not the way you want to introduce the villain of your epic trilogy. Now for a good example, let's look at a similar scene from the original Star Wars movie. It's roughly the same scenario, here you have Darth Vader confronting a rebel about the stolen Death Star plans. I'll play it for you now.

Speaker 2: Where are those transmissions you intercepted? What have you done with those plans?

Speaker 4: We intercepted no transmissions. This is a consular ship. We're on a diplomatic mission.

Speaker 2: If this is a consular ship, where is the ambassador?

Speaker 1: This works because it's sincere. It fits the characters and the situation. Remember, this is not the time for comedy, this is a serious intro scene for the villain. And it also attacks and defends here, Vader demands answers, the rebel lies, then Vader calls out that lie before punishing the rebel. And the best part here is that this characterizes Darth Vader as strong and ruthless. He's a threat we should take seriously. Second type of bad dialogue is info dump dialogue. This is where you have characters spilling info related to backstory, the plot, or world building. And it's a cheap and lazy way to convey story details, and it often sounds long-winded and unnatural. Now for a bad example, let's take a look at Troll 2. If you haven't seen Troll 2, it's a legendary 90s movie about a family that gets trapped in a small town full of hostile goblins. And early on, we meet the family on the eve of their vacation, and we get a clear sense that they're about to go on a trip. Then the teenage daughter invites her boyfriend along, and she info dumps all the vacation details to him. I'll play the scene for you now. Where are we going?

Speaker 5: Nilbog, a wonderful half-empty town. It's an exchange. A family from the country is coming to live here, and we're going to live in their house. Oh, Elliot, it will be wonderful. You and me, in the woods.

Speaker 1: So this sucks because it's stilted, unbelievable speech. This is not how a teenage girl talks. This is not how any human being talks. It also sucks because there's no attacking and defending. The boyfriend just absorbs the info dump. He doesn't ask for more information, he doesn't press her on any details, he just absorbs. And then another problem here is that there's no subtext here. She's just dumping information, she's not hiding anything, and I feel like she should be hiding something because this whole trip is kind of weird. I mean, there's a whole family exchange. I feel like a teenage girl should be embarrassed by that. She should be holding back about it. Now, for a good example, let's take a look at The Stepford Wives. And this is a movie about a family that moves from New York City to the mysterious town of Stepford. And shortly after moving into their new house, the wife and husband have a conversation about their recent move. We get an info dump here, but pay attention to how the writers deliver that info in a tense, interesting way.

Speaker 6: What do you suppose the people are like here? Friendly. That was a good casserole she cooked. Why did we move? We both agreed it was best. I mean, it's best for the kids, and, uh, well, it's best for you. You know, I mean, you got more space here. You make yourself a darkroom. It was time to move. You know, I got a

Speaker 1: terrific deal on this house. So this works because it sounds like an authentic husband-wife conversation. It's a low-key argument. And it also works because the info comes out naturally while the characters are attacking and defending one another. The wife attacks their decision to move, and then the husband has to defend it. And there's subtext here as well, and the subtext is that there's marital tension. He wanted to move here, but she didn't. Third type of bad dialogue is cartoonishly evil dialogue. This is when villains say cheesy things, or they discuss over-the-top plans, or they even label themselves as evil. And it makes your villains look shallow, brainless, or unrealistic. And usually this type of dialogue sounds unnatural. Oftentimes it lacks subtext because you have these villains who are just, they're all about destroying the world, and there's no real deeper meaning there. For a bad example of this, let's take a look at Batman and Robin. And this is the one where Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy team up in order to battle George Clooney. And this movie is full of memorable lines, a lot of funny moments in this movie, but I want to focus on the scene where Poison Ivy convinces Mr. Freeze that his wife is dead, and that he should destroy the world. And I'll play bits of this scene for you right now. This sucks because there's lots of cheesy, unrealistic dialogue. You have this ridiculous over-the-top plan to end the world, you have these silly jokes like Mother Nature and Adam and Evil. And one thing I want to point out here is that with villains, villains should never see themselves as evil. They should see themselves as the heroes of their own story. And one last reason why this scene sucks is because Poison Ivy easily manipulates Freeze into going along with her plan. She attacks, but he doesn't really make much of an effort to defend. He's just, one moment he's all about getting revenge on Batman, then she's like, oh yeah, we should just destroy the world. And he's like, yeah, yeah, let's do it. Now for a good example, let's take a look at The Dark Knight. If you remember, in the second half of the movie, there's the hospital scene where Joker corrupts Harvey Dent and encourages him to become a criminal. Pay attention to how Joker manipulates Harvey by attacking his identity and appealing to his obsession with fairness. When you and Rachel were being abducted, I was

Speaker 3: sitting in Gordon's cage. You're a man. You're a plan. Do I really look like a guy with a plan? The mob has plans. The cops have plans. It's the schemers that put you where you are. You were a schemer. You had plans. And look where that got you. Introduce a little anarchy. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the

Speaker 1: thing about chaos? It's fair. So this works because, first of all, it sounds natural. It sounds natural in terms of the characters speaking it, as well as the situation. Second, it attacks and defends. Joker uses his words to disarm Harvey before attacking Harvey's identity and appealing to his intelligence, emotion, and desire for fairness. And a couple other things I want to throw out here with this scene. The characters don't label themselves as evil. Joker considers himself this enlightened agent of chaos, and Harvey simply wants what's fair, what he believes is fair. Fourth type of bad dialogue is when you have a jarring change of subject. This is where you have a clumsy and noticeable shift in a conversation. Character tries to change the subject, and instead of doing so in a smooth way, they draw attention to the dialogue. They break the reality of the story. And oftentimes this happens because the scene is being rushed, or the scene was poorly planned. For a bad example of this, let's take a look at the room. And this is, of course, the tragic story of a guy named Johnny. He's caught in this unfortunate love triangle involving his girlfriend Lisa and his best friend Mark. And about midway through the story, Johnny is accused of hitting Lisa. He's torn up about this, and he looks to vent his emotions on the roof of his apartment building, but that's when he bumps into Mark. And I'll play the scene for you right now. This sucks because you have clunky transitions from one subject to the next. At first Johnny's talking to himself about this serious private matter, then he addresses Mark with this absurdly casual greeting, and then Johnny mentions these serious accusations before immediately burying the subject. There's an unnatural progression here, and the flow of information is backwards. Usually you have a mundane subject that works its way into a more important subject, but here you start with the important stuff and then it just gets buried along the way. Ideally you would want Johnny and Mark attacking and defending one another until the important details spill out, but that's not what we get here, and it ends up being unintentionally hilarious. Now, while you usually want to avoid a jarring change in subject, sometimes it can be used strategically for shock value or humor. And for a good example of this, let's look at an early episode of Seinfeld. This is the one where Jerry and his friend Elaine agree to sleep together as part of a friends with benefits deal. And the next day, Jerry wants to discuss this at the coffee shop, but he's hesitant to bring it up in conversation with George. Here's their exchange.

Speaker 4: So how's the job situation going?

Speaker 1: Still looking. Pretty bad out there.

Speaker 4: What about you? Nothing much. I slept with Elaine last night.

Speaker 1: This change of subject works because it's deliberately jarring. It's strategically written for comedic effect. Here you have uncomfortable small talk that builds toward a punchline. And this is not like in the room example where Johnny just mentions the accusations right up front and then he tries to bury them. No. In the Seinfeld example, you build toward the punchline. And there's attacking and defending going on. Jerry and George, they're trying to make small talk until Jerry drops his bombshell. And the fifth type of bad dialogue is rushed reactions. And this is dialogue that makes an unrealistic jump from one emotion to another. Oftentimes, you'll have missing beats within a conversation, and these missing beats will lead to responses that aren't natural or appropriate. And the problem here is that strong emotions need more time to develop, but sometimes writers will just try to force them in there. For a bad example of this, let's take a look at The Last Jedi. And if you remember, toward the end of this movie, there's a scene where the First Order is powering up a cannon in an attempt to destroy the Resistance. And that's when Finn decides to fly his speeder into the cannon in hopes of protecting his friends. But then he gets foiled when Rose crashes into him and nearly gets them both killed. And shortly after the crash, Finn chases down Rose, and they have the following exchange.

Speaker 2: Why would you do that? Huh? I was almost there. Why would you stop me?

Speaker 7: I saved you. Tell me. That's how we're gonna win. Not fighting what we hate. Saving what we love.

Speaker 1: This sucks because of Rose's reaction. Finn actually responds appropriately here. He's angry, he's in a state of disbelief, he's trying to get answers out of her. But Rose speaks like they're on a picnic instead of a battlefield. And considering the situation, considering they were just in a huge crash, there's this high-stakes battle, considering all that, Rose's words should be raw and frantic as she tries to explain herself. But what we actually get in the movie, it's forced poetry, it's light-hearted, and it would be more appropriate to have something like this once they got to safety and once things calmed down. But right here and right now, it just doesn't ring true. And it's a case of when the writer prioritizes the message over the moment. Now, for a good example, let's look at a similar situation in Top Gun Maverick. Toward the end, there's a battle where Maverick's group runs into all sorts of trouble. And at one point, Rooster, who's like a son to Maverick, Rooster gets targeted by a rocket, and Maverick sacrifices himself so Rooster can escape. But instead of escaping, Rooster hangs around and sacrifices himself to protect Maverick. Shortly afterwards, Maverick locates Rooster, and the two men have this exchange.

Speaker 4: What are you doing here? What am I doing here? You think I took that missile so you could be down here with me? You should be back on the carrier by now. I saved your life. I saved your life. That's the whole point. What the hell were you even thinking? You told me not to think. Well, it's good to see you. It's good to see you, too.

Speaker 1: So what's the plan? This dialogue works because the reactions are believable. Maverick is angry, and he provokes Rooster's anger as well. The two of them argue back and forth, attacking and defending, and that argument leads to silence. Then there's a silent beat of 20 seconds for them to collect themselves. And after that, they accept their new situation, they make peace with one another, and they plan on what to do next. And very simply, this emotional exchange works because it's real. It develops, and it's earned. So I hope this helps. And now I'm curious what you think. Are there any examples of bad dialogue that you can think of that fit into the five categories I mentioned today? Let us know in the comments section below. Thank you guys for watching. If you want to support the channel, please pick up a copy of either one of my books, and be sure to leave reviews on Amazon, Bad Poets is great if you like small town horror. It's about people trading away their sick and injured body parts in order to get healthy again. And Entry Wounds is great if you like thrillers. It's about a guy who picks up a haunted gun, and he cannot put it down until he kills six people with it. Also, be sure to check out my other videos. Hit the like and subscribe buttons for me. Share this video with a friend, and as always, remember to keep on writing.