When Should Editors Cut Lines That Make Characters Talk Nonsense?

I get oddly proud when subtitles handle nonsense well — it feels like a tiny bit of magic. Over the years I’ve noticed a few reliable tricks: sometimes they transcribe gibberish phonetically (like "bluh-blah"), sometimes they bracket it as [gibberish] or [incomprehensible], and sometimes they choose to paraphrase the intended meaning rather than the literal sounds. For instance, in whimsical scenes where a character sings nonsense like in 'Alice in Wonderland', a subtitler might keep a short line of playful syllables and then a parenthetical to explain the mood: (nonsense singing, joyful). Timing and space are huge constraints, so subtitlers often condense. If a character rambles on with meaningless babble for ten seconds, the subtitle might show a single cue like [incoherent babble] to preserve readability. For hearing-impaired tracks you'll also get more descriptive tags — emotions, music cues, and background talk — so nonsense is contextualized rather than phonetically spelled out. When localization teams care about a joke, they sometimes invent a target-language equivalent nonsense that carries the same rhythm or comedic effect. It’s a balancing act between fidelity to sound and delivering the viewer the feeling the scene intends, and when they nail it, I actually clap quietly at my screen.

There are moments in stories when a protagonist babbles, lies, or slips into half-coherent rambling, and honestly, I love the messy beauty of it. For me, it signals a writer planting questions: Is this person hiding something? Are they confused, lying, or being gaslit? Letting a character talk nonsense can be a deliberate curtain to obscure a later reveal, or it can be a crash test that shows the reader how fragile the narrator's mind is. I’ve felt that excited prickly feeling reading 'Mr. Robot' scenes where Elliot’s internal chaos leaks into speech — it creates an uneasy intimacy that makes every revelation land harder. Another reason writers lean into nonsense is to control pacing and tone. A string of cryptic lines, non sequiturs, or outright contradictions drags time out, stretches suspense, and makes readers linger on small details. In 'Memento' the fractured recollections aren’t just gimmicks; they force you to experience confusion alongside the protagonist. Sometimes the nonsense is comedic misdirection — think unreliable boasting or drunk rambling — which relaxes readers' guard so a twist can sting more later. I also notice nonsense used to develop voice. Characters who babble reveal culture, education, trauma, or mood through the way they fail to make sense. It’s a risky tool: when done right it deepens empathy and ratchets suspense; when done poorly it feels like filler. Personally, I like it when the nonsense keeps me guessing long enough that the eventual clarity feels earned, like solving a puzzle you were almost too tired to finish.

I get a kick out of how what looks like nonsense can actually be a secret shorthand in a script. Sometimes characters jabber on about odd, half-baked things and it seems like the writer lost the plot, but more often it's deliberate: the dialogue is doing work beneath the surface — showing a character's brainstorms, deflections, or emotional spillover. In films or shows where people are nervous or trying to hide something, speech fragments, tangents, and non sequiturs feel authentic because that's literally how we talk when we’re uneasy. I’ve sat in cafes eavesdropping on conversations that went nowhere and realized that same scattershot quality is gold for making scenes feel lived-in. Another reason is rhythm and tone. A string of bizarre lines can set a mood — comic, eerie, or surreal — in ways tidy exposition cannot. Think of the odd talk in 'Twin Peaks' or the aimless banter in 'Seinfeld'; those moments create texture and let the audience breathe instead of hitting them with information. Sometimes writers use nonsense to mask exposition: characters talk in circles while the camera reveals clues, or the gibberish itself becomes a red herring. There’s also stream-of-consciousness and poetic approaches where literal meaning is less important than emotional truth. Finally, technical choices matter. If a line seems nonsensical on the page but lands in the actor’s delivery or the edit, it can become iconic. Table reads, rehearsal, and trusting actors to shape the gibberish into subtext are all part of the justification. If I had one tip from my own scribbles and late-night script swaps, it’s this: keep the nonsense that reveals something — a fear, a lie, a relationship — and kill the rest. The weird lines that survive tend to be the ones that make you sit up, not just scratch your head.

I get oddly thrilled when a dub goes off the rails because it lets you reverse-engineer what the studio fiddled with. Sometimes it's innocent—ADR (Automated Dialog Replacement) lines get trimmed or stretched to match mouth movements, and that can chop out context so a joke or emotional cue turns into nonsense. Other times, translators replace culturally specific phrases with something more 'relatable' and end up creating a line that makes no sense in the scene. Beyond that, censorship and rating edits are big culprits. If a distributor asks for milder language or removes a reference, editors will splice or rewrite dialogue to fit a required runtime or tone, which can leave odd gaps. I've seen scenes where a single cut for time made two characters appear to be talking past each other—so one of them sounds like they're non-sequitur talking about hats in the middle of a duel. Personally I like comparing the dub to the sub-track when this happens; it’s like doing forensic linguistics for fun. If you want to avoid confusion, try finding a director's commentary or translator notes—those often explain why a line got mangled, and sometimes it's hilariously bureaucratic rather than creative.