By - Lazy_Ad_6232
Tarantino. His dialogue is more real in the sense that his characters talk about stuff that every Joe Schmoe talks about but just in an interesting way. This was more the case in Pulp, Res, and Jackie. And I think he has gone back to that with OUTH. Like for how stylized some of his dialogue is I can see people talking like that. Im a fan of Sorkin but i can’t see anyone talking like that in real life, not even even the smartest person in the room.
I’m more excited and energized by Tarantino; you fall into his characters as they go off on their schpiels
But Sorkin has such a mastery over brevity; and the way he develops a scene/story maybe not all of his words have a punch, but then out of nowhere you get KOed with a single line
[This is my vote! ](https://youtu.be/sQ_4m2ocxhI)
Holy shit. I’ve never seen this movie but this scene was a master class in so many things. I need to see this film.
I'm also a huge fan of The West Wing
I knew the video before I even clicked on the link!
The subtle way it becomes clear that everyone in that outer office can hear what's going on, and has gone from being visibly uninterested to paying absolutely rapt attention. All in the background.
The longer he goes on the more I find Sorkin to be a pretentious, classist cunt. I can't pretend I don't appreciate a lot of his work, but I groan through so much of it because he is either A) not self-aware or B) is really proud of how pretentious he is.
New to this subreddit and mostly here as a lurker but I know who Sorkin is and like lots of his work. What examples do you have that support what you’re saying? I don’t really know enough about him to know and the only work of his that is relatively fresh in my mind is The Newsroom.
Hard to give specific examples because I feel like it is in every line, every scene, every monologue of every work.He *loves* white paternalism. From the op-ed he wrote to his daughters after Trump won to the scene in Molly's Game with Molly & her dad, he is condescendingly paternal towards women. He depicts women as "whip smart, confident, classy-sassy" up until the man in their life is around and it is revealed that they are insecure for his approval. It communicates, "You're smart, but you're still learning, Doll" from the male authority figures. Even if there is a "boss bitch" character she always has to need the approval of the male authority figure.
That is just one side of it. Overall, he gives off major resentful Gamma energy in everything. Like he is trying to prove to all the alphas who picked on him in high school that it is Revenge of the Nerds time. My partner called it "toxic masculinity for pussies." And classist as hell. All the characters swing their "worth" around as being based in their ivy league education, or other elitist achievements that are associated with wealth and class. If a character pulls themself up by their bootstraps, it is by proving themself in an elite wealthy-white institution of excellence along the way. "He was a *Rhodes Scholar*," delivered haughtily
You can tell he's insecure about it because of how hard he tries to make his male leads uber mensch's. "He came from a rough upbringing with a mean alcoholic father. Then he earned a full ride to Yale, landing on the Deans list every year, graduating valedictorian with full honors. He was invited to further his studies at Cambridge where he wrote a dissertation on \[wanky-wank wank\] and from there he started working on the \[...\] presidential campaign. Along the way he had casual jam sessions with Ted Nugent, played tennis with Roger Federer, and even mentored a young Elon Musk. He even volunteered his basic emergency medical training in a war zone just so you don't go thinking he's a pussy."
The delivery is as imperious as the writing. He needs a pie in the face.
Tarintino but that has it's limits. The longer a character goes the the less engaged I get. I love Royale with cheese talk in Pulp Fiction but absolutely hate the round table discussion in Death Proof.
Sorkin, while remarkably witty, I'm not keen on because every character is the smartest person in the room when it comes time to make a speech. Everyone has to stop and listen and look on in awe or disbelief.
[Sorkin’s best advice for writing dialogue](https://youtu.be/pX7Enc8UElM)
I think he was almost parodying himself in Death Proof. It was a pastiche of things you expected to see in a QT film. It's almost a demarcation point, because his films post-DT are a lot different than pre-DT. They're all historically placed so they're not dependent on the pop culture references his first few films were.
Sorkin reminds me so much of Mamet in how his characters have a particular way of speaking. You definitely know he got his start in theater. I always remember Josh and Sam talking at the beginning of the episode The Leadership Breakfast, when they're trying to start a fire in a fireplace because the heat is out.
Josh: We'll make a tripod with the wood.
Sam: Rght, we'll take three pieces of wood and slant them towards a common center.
Josh: Isn't that what a tripod is?
Josh: You just thought you'd say a bunch more words?
>You made my partner's day. He said, "I would take one monologue from Malcolm Tucker over the entirety of Sorkin's canon"
Guys we gotta stop equating snappy and smug with good
The Coen brothers
He didn’t mention the Coen brothers tho.
But somehow still a valid answer.
Came here for this correct answer.
Sorkin. But, I once read a David Fincher interview about the social network where he mentioned that he had to have Sorkin, un Sorkin a lot of the characters because they were all to witty and the smartest persons in the room. And I agree with David Fincher on that and it may be why the social network is my favorite Aaron Sorkin script.
Sorkin requires a GREAT EDITOR (Fincher in this case) and nobody can touch him.
Shane Black deserves a mention, at least for Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
That movie is fucking great. The running gag with usage of good or well was really fun, especially Val Kilmer dropping a hammer on it.
The narration is perfect in that movie. And all the dialogue is so rapid fire and witty.
Long Kiss Goodnight as well.
I have never understood the praise Shane Black receives. 80s screenwriting God but to my taste all his movies are either meretricious are not good at all. Most of his dialogue has aged terribly and The Nice Guys was never good.
Specifically the social network is fantastic, so I guess sorkin if we’re talking specifically dialogue.
Sometimes sorkin doesn’t hit well tho. Especially after watching the Trial of Chicago 7, sorkin just kinda left a bad taste in my mouth. Like everything felt like it was trying so hard to be smart and it just didn’t sit right with me in that movie.
I love the Social Network, that scene where Mark Zuckerberg eats the second forbidden apple and finally accepts his scaly lizard form is one of the best scenes in all of cinema, same when his friend Andrew Garfield decides to quit Facebook and become Spiderman.
I like Tarantino movies but the dialogue feels written. There's an undercurrent of winking to the camera in the interchanges. Sorkin's dialogue just sounds like really sharp people actually talking to each other.
I'd say the opposite. Sorkin's dialogue has an intentional rhythm to it that you'll never see in real life. And he never let's up. It's like slam poetry from the first line to the last.
Tarantino's sounds just like how he talks himself, which is idiosyncratic and verbose but at least we have one living example of a person who speaks that way. And he will also have characters who are a contrast to that and are inarticulate, like Robert DeNiro in Jackie Brown.
I was going to say this. Sorkin dialogue is like a well-rehearsed, choreographed debate. It's an ideal of what clever professional people sound like. It's a commercial to go to college, idk.
Professionals in real life may be clever, but they're still human beings
Heartily agree. The pretention drips all over you. As a person from the southern region of the US, he had no business fouling up To Kill A Mockingbird on Broadway.
His Atticus Finch (and Scout, for that matter) was very haughty about his "effete intellect" in the face of is lower, redneck neighbors. It totally spoiled the spirit of the story. I swear it must be nice to get paid and celebrated so much to write fanfiction of other people's stories.
You know, that's an interesting point. I despise slam poetry, and I can see what you mean about Sorkin dialogue having similarities to it. But, for me it still works really well and I like it.
A little too sharp sometimes imho
Could you clarify? I feel like most of his dialogue feels like a convo between friends.
The first examples that spring to my mind come from Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction. Dialogue that sounds written to me: The conversation about whether or not to wake up the Gimp, and later the conversation about how Zed is dead just don't sound like a conversation between friends to me. Neither does O-Ren Ishii's tirade about sexism sound like a "real" tirade.
I would contrast that with every scene with Eisenberg and Jones in the meeting room in Social Network, their back and forth just clicked for me.
I get that *none* of this sounds like how people actually talk. Usually if you read a transcript of a real conversation, it's inscrutable. People use fillers, nested ideas, on the fly corrections and body language to the point where it's useless to simply transcribe the words, and you can't actually write how people speak extemporaneously.
But the question was whose dialogue do you prefer and for me it's Sorkin for the reasons I said.
This is not the same thing as saying Tarantino dialogue is bad! I think MJ is the better player than LeBron James, but that's really not a dig against James.
In terms of dialogue, Tarantino reigns supreme with the Coens and Kubrick coming close.
Sorkin definitely deserves his credit tho
Aaron Sorkin wears tiny, ridiculous, pretentious glasses. They just get tinier and tinier like he’s daring you to mention it.
—and somehow, you just KNOW he will be offended.
Sorkin. No question.
Mamet's dialogue in GGR tops Sorkin and Tarantino ANY DAY.
God, how I miss peak Mamet. All he does now is shake fists at clouds.
You get... you know, buddy, you... you get your... your whole... you and your... you just... you get you whole... thing... buddy, you get out of....hnnn. You just...
It's a style. It's a style, and it has... It's a style.
Was gonna say this
Brings to mind that BET interview...
Holy shit I just watched it and man the cringe... I love Quentin but damn he's damn stupid at times
I should've said if you like him, don't look it up; it's better to not know.
Sorkin and its not even close. Sorkin's characters have a purpose. Tarantino's are meandering.
Tarantino’s can meander because his visuals tell you more of the plot. Jules and Vincent are clearly gangsters going to do gangster business because of their look, affect, and because they get guns out of the trunk. So they can talk about Royales with Cheese and Mia Wallace footrubs back stories.
Most of the Sorkin I have seen is people talking in rooms. The whole story is in the dialog. It has to be way more expository.
They’re both great at what they do, but I’d argue Tarantino’s “meandering” style allows you to learn more about the world of the characters because he leans more on visuals to tell the story. I’m
not sure it’s accurate to say his characters don’t have purpose.
I agree. The point of visual storytelling is to advance the plot through the visuals. Dialogue is to develop character and set the mood. If you're using your dialogue to advance the story then just write a play.
I disagree, dialogue between characters that develops them more even if it doesn’t have a point in the story develops the story more. What I mean is it’s developed characters develop the story.
Cassavetes or Mamet would make a better argument.
It's like asking me do I prefer chocolate icecream or vanilla icecream.
It really depends on which day you ask me.
Edit: Fuck it, Tarantino.
For me, Sorkin doesn't age as well. Tarantino has lines that work everywhere and everywhen.
Both great, but Aaron feels more like a very sharp news reporter. Great in the moment, but tends to lose relevancy.
I can’t imagine anyone saying they prefer Tarantino’s dialog to anything.
Sorkin has dialogue that feels very theater, where the rythyms of speech are honed and everyone hits their mark. When you do that, you can get a lot of set-up, exposition, characterization, into a very small window.
Tarantine always feels more digressive and scattered, like his characters often feel like they are talking about a thing that happened before, which is very human and natural way of speaking, but it feels a bit more opaque.
Tarantino is perfect for the genre exploration that he does because characters can become "characters" without breaking genre. but it wouldn't work in a courtroom drama. Similarly Sorkin doesn't really do genre, so his dialogue is going to be more character driven.
I think prefence is really based on what type of movie you like and are doing. A lot of movie buffs try to emulate tarantino, because genre is what they are interested in. Playwrights will often choose sorkin.
It’s gotta be Tarantino for me.
I once went from a re-watch of the West wing to watching several episodes of The Wire. Then I went back to the west wing. It was an experience for sure.
Sorkins dialogue is amazing. A delight to listen to, beautiful to behold. But it's almost all aspirational dialogue. It's what you wish you said 10 mins later. It's all the stars in the cosmos lining up for a entertaining 2 minute conversation.
Sorkin is like watching a play. You know it's not real, you can see the set move, the actors might play multiple roles, and the car is just two chairs and a dinner plate. But while watching you believe. In sorkins world people just talk like that. And it's a joy.
Smash me into the wire and I'm met with gritty realism. People speak with slang. Characters have totally unique voices and styles. People swear (and not in Latin!). It's beautifully observed, but feels much more real. Much more so because it lacks all the theater and rat a tat you get in Sorkin. Why did I ever believe three people would spar back and forth in a witty exchange when they could just talk like people. Or even not talk at all just examin a scene?
Back to the west wing and the facade has fallen. They're all too smart, these aren't real people, these words are ridiculous no one speaks like this. Then I get pulled back into the play and it's fine. How could I doubt these guys? Josh, Toby, CJ! Of *course* the president and his advisors would speak like geniuses! Of course a Sorkin penned episode of the wire wouldn't work at all, but no-ones electing a moron and their idiot friends to the white house - geniuses is realistic here!
So in answer to your actual question: I much prefer Sorkin, but Tarentinos style suits his films well. If you don't have a room full of geniuses Sorkins style falls flat pretty fast.
Sorkin is overrated, characters sound too shallow like a machine. But still Sorkin
Sorkin but it's very close.
100% Tarantino. I love Sorkin's work but he gets too cute sometimes. To the point where you want to roll your eyes at him because you know as he was writing he was just thinking, "I'm soooo clever and witty." I guess Tarantino tends to go down that road too but his stuff always sounds more realistic. Or at the very least more entertaining.
You’re asking me whose dialogue I prefer?
Sorkin or Tarantino.
Because I’m pretty sure you already know the answer.
It’s Sorkin, right?
Sorkin. Sings like music.
I gotta go with Sorkin. I like Tarantino’s dialogue but I always feel aware it’s dialogue. Almost like watching a play, which is ironic since Sorkin is the playwright. But with Sorkin I buy into the characters more.
With Sorkin characters I’m like: I like how these characters speak.
With Tarantino characters I’m like: I like how Tarantino writes.
The first one is just more enjoyable to me.
Sorkin for sure
I liked Sorkin when he first started out, loved what he did with "A Few Good Men", even though much credit of that movie ought to go to Rob Reiner. But ever since, his dialogue tend to be too fast paced for my liking. I couldn't enjoy the verbal cat-fighting in "Molly's Game".
I'd much rather go with Tarantino. I'm not a fan of all of his movies, but his dialogue tend to pack a lot of verve and seductive banter.
Tarantino for me. It’s a little more poetic, and breaks more rules. Like gangsters famously talking about Madonna. His dialogue creates a lot more tension I feel.
Sorkin is still great, and I love the fast paced, high wit conversations.
Tarantino just takes the cake for me
Sorkin, because when I hear Tarantino’s dialog I tend to just wish I was reading an Elmore Leonard book.
I like both.
Kevin Smith all the way baby.
Snootch to the motherfucking nootch!
Glad to see KS mentioned here
Tarantino has dialogue? Colour me surprised.
I guess those 3 minute long meaningless dramatic pauses punctuated by faux-cool word soup vomits were 'characters', doing 'lines' then?
Bloody hell! Next you'll be telling me he makes 'films'. I've heard it suggested before but every time I watch one I think I must have picked the wrong project, because I keep accidentally picking 2.5 hour long videos of him masturbating alternately to himself and young actresses feet.
Please tell me more!
Dammit I can’t choose.
I don't even know who Sorkin is
It’s a shame I can’t use Tarantino as an example for my dialogue, seeing as I’m not him.
My Fair Man Willy Shakes
For me, Tarantino is street raw, Sorkin is house raw, if that makes any sense.
Also, and I know that they are way better writers than him, but Ingelsby's dialogue for Mare of Easttown really impressed me, even though I enjoyed Out of the Furnace.
haven’t seen sorkin... my bias is showing, but definitely Tarantino! he adds spice to his films✨
I prefer Tarantino. All of Sorkin's characters sound the same, fast-talking geniuses. But still pretty great dialogue.
Although they are both masters of dialogue, they are so different. Sorkin is limited by the real life characters and events he is working with but still has you on the edges of your seat listening to every word whereas Tarantino’s crazy imagination is entertaining however I don’t think he could do what Sorkin does but I’m glad he doesn’t because where would we be without his characters. Love both their work, long may it continue.
Sorkin for his intelligence and ideas. Trial of Chicago 7 should have won him another Oscar over Emerald. “Martin’s dead, Malcom’s dead, Medgar’s dead, Bobby’s dead, Jesus is dead. They tried it peacefully, we gonna try something else.” Bobby Seale/Sorkin
Tarantino everyday I think…
Sorkin is tennis match dialog.
I like sorkin. He can turn a relatively mundane conversation into an interesting one. I like Tarantino as well but his settings are a bit further out there
Sorkin is far better IMO
Sorkin by a mile. He writes characters who know their shit and don’t apologize for knowing their shit.
Tarantino is obviously still amazing, but I think it comes down to “which characters would you rather converse with in real life?” And it’s always going to be Sorkin’s characters for me.
Sorkin dialogue is like being spoken to by a family guy character
That dialogue was snapping.
I I’ve never seen this movie, although I’m rectifying that today. Thank you for expanding my horizons.
Sorkin’s snarky and arrogant. I don’t want to like him but this dialogue is winning me over.
It’s still Tarantino for me though.
Mollys game is a very good script, yes molly bloom seems the smartest, but this is balanced out very well with the plot which is also obviously sorkin, molly never feels above the stuff she gets into. Sure sorkin doesn’t really use naturalistic dialogue but when he gets his style off and it works within the film he’s making he’s up there in terms of writers.
Sorkin. I want to watch movies where everyone is super smart. I'm not being sarcastic. This is my fantasy. Super smart witty people all over the place yelling at each other. Still not sarcastic. I think it sounds like I am. I'm not. Why is this such a weird thing to want? It's my favorite ficitonal fantasy. Some people want dragons or spaceships or sparkly vampires. I want movies full of smart people.
I like Sorkin. Sorkin this dick
Sorkin, but I enjoyed them both a whole lot more before every film student started cranking out video essays on their styles. I appreciate their talents, but I don’t think any of my favorite screenplays or movies have especially unique dialogue and I couldn’t care less if characters talk like real people.
Ball. Fincher. Hill. Cameron. Black.
Neither. I don’t like either of them too much. I understand why they’re liked. I don’t like them that much.