"Trademark" Dialogue

I don't think that the kind of distinctive dialogue that you are talking about is ever a problem. The particular styles of Tarantino and Whedon and Aaron Sorkin are a crucial part of what makes their work so special, and appealing.

Take the Tarantino style away from Pulp Fiction and there wouldn't be much of a film at all. The same would be the case for other author's works like The West Wing or Buffy. God forbid that a writer should have a singular voice .

It really irks me when people complain, about the works of Whedon and Sorkin in particular, that all their characters sound the same. It's like, for god's sakes, open your ears . They don't all sound the same, they just all sound different from everything else. Would they prefer Buffy dialogue to be written by some CSI hack? That's like wanting Paul Walker when you could get Vincent D'Onofrio. It's like (hyperbole acknowledged) saying "Why do Hamlet and Ophelia have to sound the same? Let's get rid of that pesky Iambic Pentameter and have Hamlet sound like contemporary suburban white kid".

Distinctive dialogue should be no obstacle to enjoyment, it should (and does) facilitate it. And in many cases pave the way for greater narrative resonance.

I know what you mean. I saw the SERENITY trailer, and immediately I was put off by the Buffyesque dialogue I heard. But it all depends, I guess. Buffy's success for me came from that dialogue in the beginning, but after a while, it really grated.

Tarantino can be great, but his dialogue can be out of place in certain circumstances (the whole Silver Surfer deal in CRIMSON TIDE).

Recently I watched the Buffy episode Hush in a rerun, it's written and directed by Whedon. One thing that struck me about that episode was how the characters, when written by Whedon, have a much more distinctive voice than when they are written by other writers on the show. Because, frankly, they have a tendency to all sound the same at times. Whedon seems to have a very firm grasp of the characters and what they should sound like.

As for tarantino, I've never gotten the impression that everybody talks the same way in his films. For a good example of distinctive character voices: watch Jackie Brown and listen to De Niro, Jackson and Grier.
I didn't know T. had written dialogue for Crimson Tide.

To answer your question, I'd say that it becomes a problem when the artist does something like this. I don't think Mamet has ever sat down and decided to write a "David Mamet" play, or thought "Man, this character's stuck, maybe if I kick around some of that trademarked dialouge, I'll figure a way out of this situation. Okay, we'll start with 'Fuck...". To be fair, I don't know the exact quote that you're talking about, and there's something to be said about guys with distinct voices, but when the character of the writer becomes the character of the peice, I think there's a problem. Of course, all of this is moot if the work is great.

"I think that hits on it. A lot of this "trademark" voice is shoehorned in where it really doesn't work."

How can you really say that Helix? I mean yeah his little contributions to Crimson Tide were unnecessary and a little distracting but his "trademark" voice works in every film he directed and/or wrote like Dusk Til Dawn. I just don't see that many examples where his voice is thrown in other than Crimson Tide. Though I never did see that movie he did with Belush (Destiny turns on the Radi?) so...

Ah apologies. I misread "this" for "his." You bring up good points about Whedon and Smith. In Smith's case I would say his dialogue is about all he really has going for him.

P.S. You really are a combative, easily irritated guy aren't you?

Well, the claim that Whedon's dialog is a crutch or that it is all the same rings very false. Most people that like the guy like him because he is so good with character. The fact that he can write very humorous banter is just icing. Really, the voices of the kids and the adults are drastically different in Buffy, and the dialog between shows is also quite different. Personally, I think Whedon's biggest weakness is his tendancy to fail to deliver endings that are satisfying. Really, I think your complaints have more to do with your personal dislike for the man, his fans, or his work. I completely understand why some people don't like his dialog, but that doesn't mean he is without talent or his work is without merit.

On the other hand, I'd agree that all Kevin Smith really has going for him is his dialog, and it is all very much the same, and after a few exposures to it, pretty damn boring. Tarantino uses a lot of profanity, and some of his characters across his works do sound similar, but they usually have somewhat similar backgrounds (thieves, murderers, drug dealers, etc.) Within any one of his works I think you hear characters that speak in their own distinct voices. Jackie Brown, Ordell, Ray Nicolette, and Max Cherry all talk in distinct voices, though I definitely can hear a commonality between Ordell and any number of characters in Pulp Fiction (Jules and Vincent in particular)...but given what type of people they are it really isn't all that surprising.

QT has a definite voice, but it varies between characters. It's not that they all sound or talk the same, but his films are recognizable because of the dialogue of the characters. His style is, IMO< that his characters never sound like "real people", but they sound like great "movie people". No one in the real world talks like a QT character, but he makes movies about movies, so that's what fits. His characters like like larger than life cinema gods, which is what he wants them to sound like.

I'd say Guy Ritchie has been, so far, very close to that as well.

Kevin Smith also has that distinctive style to his films, though I think he has started to take it too far into self-parody. It's getting so outlandish that it hardly seems real anymore.

To me, "trademark dialgoue" becomes a problem in a few circumstances.

For one example, when Mamet is directing someone else's work, if he changes up any dialogue, it instantly becomes Mamet dialogue and sticks out like a sore thumb (e.g. when he directed Rattigan's "The Winslow Boy" play for the film, the re-written sections are very clearly an entirely different tone than what Rattigan wrote). So if you're a writer with a distinct style, and you toy with someone else's writing, it tends to be obvious what you changed.

While having a certain style does not mean that all characters have one voice (a la the Shakespeare reference earlier in this thread), there can be times when the style interferes with the character or the scene, at least for some viewers. Again using Mamet as an example, while his abrupt staccato tone works very well for some situations, there are times that it simply doesn't work for certain emotions, for me.

And then, of course, if you have one style then it's a love it or leave it situation. If you don't like the sound of Whedon or Mamet or Sorkin or whatever, then you just won't like them.

I dont dislike Wheddon or any writer who has a distinctive voice, but i think I'm much more impressed by writers who can write dialogue that is so uniquely tuned to the characters that any "Trademark" is absent.
Also Charlie Kaufman scripts are not really noted for having a Trademark tone to the dialogue but are more recognizable as his work because of their narratives and thematic concerns.
Thats cooler, i think.

I could never watch Buffy or Angel but I watched all of Firefly on DVD. Sometimes all the characters in an episode would speak like clever teenage girls, with dialogue full of cutsie asides. And I would look at the DVD case and sure enough it was penned by Whedon. I give him credit for creating some interesting characters, though. But hey, I think all of his characters sound the same, so count me into that camp.

Coen Brothers dialogue is some of my favorite, and it's pretty distinctive for their heavy use of regional/period slang and the repetition of catchphrases.

I'm actually very annoyed by Kevin Smith dialogue, and that's one of the main reasons I don't enjoy his movies. It sounds too much like a vaudeville act to me.

Helix is dead on about the problem of Tarantino shoehorning dialouge where it doesn't fit, on occasion. Every bit of dialogue that Tarantino punched up for Crimson Tide sticks out like a sore thumb. I DID like it, but there was no mistaking it and the Silver Surfer stuff didn't really fit. I wasn't to crazy about Bill's Superman speech in part 2, either. I love Tarantino's dialogue, especially when the right actor is delivering it, but sometimes the need for a pop culture reference is distracting.

I like the pointing out of Mamet's style is more about timing and rhythm. That's exactly it. You may not recognize a Mamet passage by words or references, but if you know his work, you'll recognize the sound of it.

I think too much is made of all of Whedon's characters sounding the same. There's a certain, brainy smart ass patter going on, but I think of it in the same way as I do about some of the snappy patter of 30's and 40's movies. It's not the only style of dialogue that goes on in the Buffyverse. It's just gets remembered the most and that's because, in general, it's pretty good. Besides, it's not unusual for a group of friends to share a certain style of talking and mimic each other's slang and delivery.