Screenwriting : Do you ever "dumb it down"? by Kathryn Zizek

No.

(1)

There's always one or two people that miss the point.

(2)

Making it more obvious could ruin your writing.

Hmmm, I have struggled with this question. A couple of times, I had feedback on a script or pitch, where it was obvious that the reader did not get it at ALL. As the writer, you obviously ask yourself if what you wrote is gibberish. But then I have others, who really get into it and praise the same plot and language that apparently tripped up some readers.

So I think you have to decide who your audience is and focus on people who represent that audience. If a reader gets it, but still has a critique, I will take it very seriously. If a reader gets the characters mixed up or tells me my language is difficult, I have gotten to the point of assuming that this reader is not in my target audience.

I should add that I do not write complicated, artsy, philosophical epics. Most readers who have an 8th grade reading level or better enjoy the yarns I write and find them entertaining.

Nah. Actors on "Tenet" admitted that they didn't even know what was actually going on plot-wise!

Kathryn Zizek never, ever dumb it down. No matter what you write, some people will get it, love it, engage with it. There will always be those who ‘don’t get it’, hate it and maybe even regret reading it.

Don’t think that what you are writing is ‘for everyone’, because in a world of many choices, that isn’t the case. We as writers need to know who our audience is; the universal story that everyone loves and drools over is a fantasy. I write for a particular audience and those who fall outside of that, well, that’s not my concern.

Honestly, it's all about keeping it you . The deeper stuff? That’s what makes people obsessed. You don’t wanna spoon-feed everything—let your readers work a bit, connect the dots. If some miss it, that’s cool. The ones who get it, they’re gonna love you even more because your not an idiot lol . That’s how you build something that lasts in my opinion (:

I'm not a fan of dumbing it down, which, to me, is the same thing as not setting it up well enough.

Chase Cysco Hi Chase, I’ve just watched a video with Anthony Hopkins about acting and holding back. He used a telling phrase, “let the audience do the work.” That for me is the key to good writing, it just means we have to be good enough to leave the clues, the breadcrumbs for people to folow.

Depends on your definition of "dumb it down." I would focus on the reading. Forget the movie for now; thats cart before horse thinking.

You got to win over readers, and they have to send your idea to higher up's, and higher up's got to send it final bosses, with you or without you but the idea keeps moving forward to production (hopefully).

I've always start off with this philosophy in writing, "Start it simple, complex it later." Accomplish the main goal and then add layers in for more depth. Though keep in mind, not all readers are the same. For example, if I didn't understand the point or got confused on your script, someone else will. In my opinion, you shouldn't need to dumb it down because one person didn't get the point. If more people are confused at the script, then it is a good idea to re-evaluate the script and start off again from a simple goal and then work your way back into adding layers.

If you take it a step further and consider the ausdience you'd like to watch your work. The reader will be, so if you're aiming for an audience that will want to follow the puzzle you can let the reader do the same. If you want to have something that lets the reader know there will be twists and turns you can mention this in your cover email or any other supporting information (deck etc. if you are making one).

Obviously one should never deal in absolutes in general, but a bunch of people claim executives only read dialogue, which is why parentheticals might not be so bad after all...

Personally my primary goal, now, is to bait the reader as quickly as possible, I will worry about story complexities never.

Yes.

But it takes a few drinks to do it.

Yeah, I’m with Ewan Dunbar on this! It really depends on what I'm writing. If it's something like Dumb & Dumber, I’m all in on the dumb vibes lol . But when I’m working on something deeper—like this movie I just watched, Escape from Pretoria,—there were some life lessons in there that will stay with me forever , but my gf didn’t catch any of it. So yeah, like we’re all saying, some people will get it, some won’t. Doesn’t matter—just keep writing and making dope stuff interesting stuff ect .

“Dumbing down” writing risks puerile simplification of story/plot . Instead lay a trail of seeds. Audiences aren’t always meant to “get it” until a later holy cow moment, didn’t see it coming BUT looking back it makes perfect sense.

I've already mentioned "Tenet", but when I think of films people have complained about being 'too confusing' I immediately think of Nolan (and I guess his brother is the actual screenwriter?). "Interstellar" and "Inception" also seemingly baffled people. I like hard science in my sci-fi so that's how I write. I use laymen characters to "dumb down"/explain the science stuff.

I find that I like to get the audience involved in the mystery. Have them asking the questions based on clues.

"Is that person really the killer?" Then I add in new clues that make the audience question if someone else is really the killer but I leave the audience wondering. I recently saw the movie Never Let Go and I believe the mystery is done very well in that movie. Another great example is John Carpenter's The Thing. Those movies keep the audience questioning.

I like to give the audience pieces to the puzzle to chew on and keep them questioning the pieces until the puzzle is put together at the end of the story. Even at the end I think its interesting if the audience isn't 100% sure of the answer.

On the topic of magic, science fiction, technology, and supernatural things I feel its tough formula to figure out. I find that I try to use enough explanation to sell the audience on a particular person/place/or things function in the story and not come off at totally bs. The other side I try not to over do the explanation and ruin the fun for the audience. Most of the time I tell myself this fiction and fun. Great example for me on this is something like The Martian or The Matrix.

Haha, I also forgot another amazing example is "The Game"

It's such a balancing act: trusting the audience’s intelligence while providing just enough clues to keep them engaged and questioning. Subtle hints and layered details that create intrigue, but not overcomplicating or burying essential points in ambiguity. And I guess some of the balance lies in pacing — trying to reveal information slowly, allowing viewers to connect the dots at their own pace, but not frustrating them by withholding too much. Ayayai.

Kathryn Zizek Spot on, it’s a delicate situation. If the audience work it out by themselves (or think they have) they’ve love you but if you just give them the answer they’ll lose interest immediately. But equally don’t try and outsmart them because that’s insulting them. I’m always of the mindset of “The audience is intelligent, let’s take them on a journey they’ll enjoy”

Kathryn Zizek I would recommend that you NOT Scooby Doo it. The plot twists should be engaging and challenging in a well written script. DON"T ADD Voice Over or Exposition when it isn't needed. The best examples of it are movies like BLADE RUNNER and DARK CITY that dumbed it down with voice over. When we see the Director's Cut with both of these films, they are much better without it.

Re: Long Legs - You should have seen my face when the lengthy voice over chimed in to explain everything.

I wrote a slow burn horror and I consistently got notes that it's too vague. If you're slowing revealing one clue, build on the same wording or word group as that clue gets discovered. I revealed a secret villain in an action script of mine this way. It looks on the nose, but the visual equivalent in scripts of screen images is words. So the same clue being hinted should have the same or similar enough words.

Dumb down? Me? Never. I'll give a hint here and there along with some clues and exposition, but I never hold the audience's hand too much. If you dumb down your story, your content, etc. for the sake of your audience then you risk dumbing yourself down in the process.

I'm always super direct and obvious (dumbed down) on the page, knowing any director worth their salt will pick up on what the visual story needs and can help collaborate to make the direct/obvious bits engaging and unique on screen. You definitely want readers to be able to understand your concepts clearly. There is only one M. Night Shyamalan for a reason

I agree with Pat Alexander... you don't want your reader losing the plot!

Example: One of my characters squeezes a strange liquid into the protagonist's bathwater, then perches on the edge of the tub, in a deep squat (otherworldly balance) and stirs it through with a tree branch (part of a nature motif that runs through the entire screenplay). Protagonist, unaware, bathes in the water. Later that night protagonist goes into labor.

A reader didn't get what the purpose of the bath ritual was and didn't link it to the next scene of the baby coming.

So, I added in that an hour glass is turned over by the character that spikes the bathwater. When the last grain falls (in the night), the contractions begin.

I don't mind the hourglass, it's still cinematic, but it was added to make things more obvious. Even if most people would have connected the dots without it.

Yes, I had a pseudo producer who wanted to offer me the money to produce my show. I vetted him and found an imposter in producers clothing; his name is Adam Falkoff. Yeah, that's his name. You can't imagine what I found out about this guy. He was kicked off STAGE 32. Good riddance to scammers!

HI Kathryn Zizek - Do not, I repeat, do not dumb down or edit your script because only one reviewer did not understand something. Some reviewers are well worth listening to, but a reader not understanding a ritual written as you have (it's obvious) merely demonstrates their lack of experience and maturity in screenwriting and in life itself.

In my scripts (action/sci-fi), I sometimes use the term "Pile driver" to describe a bone-crushing punch and the reviewer wrote a small paragraph explaining incorrect use of the term "pile driver" because it is a move in professional wrestling. That left me ROFLOL.

Point being, in a spec, don't rewrite anything unless YOU agree that it was a good suggestion that will improve your story. What happened to the kid who read/reviewed my script? I assume they had to finish their homework because it was a school night ;-)

Please do not dumb down your script. I'm seeing that done far too much in the industry these days and one of the quickest ways to turn me off a script (especially for mystery/thriller) is to insult my intelligence.

Kathryn Zizek, it's one of subjects that's been going on for some time! You have excellent advice and comments to work with. However when coming to appeal to certain psychological mindsets as recalled there are educational programs that includes in presentation adequate visuals etc.. This concept to introduce to film regardless how prominent it's efforts to this date, is what I'm am emphatically working on with the introduction to the concept "Experimental Films"! My objectives of course to include a general public to be very much "curious" in understanding my intentions and passion to appeal to "everyone", thereby compelling support! I've already written directed and produced two short films, one of which is in genre "mystery drama" and as hereby further detailed entered in competitions as "Experimental Films" (short films) to be of course extended into full features! You can check my bio for general info. about me and relate with relevant advice acquired!

My advice, for what it is worth, is. NO! It isn't necessary. I find that people get smarter by these visualizations. My experimental film, "Beyond the Facade." Was just such a feature. It made people think! It explored the facade some people create for themselves to be something they aren't. And how many are very successful at doing this. (see IMDB)

Don't dumb down you work Kathryn Zizek! If they can't grasp it then that's their problem and those folks weren't the right people to read it anyway!

I so wholeheartedly agree with, Nick. If the reader is dumb to begin with they may just smarten up.

Depends entirely on where you want to be. Your artistic voice is your artistic voice, and compromising that can cause a lot of pain, even if it leads to financial success.