All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Preface: There appears to be a division between SCREENwriters whose goal it is to actually have their screenplay up on a theater screen - and - just plain ol' writers that happen to enjoy writing for pleasure in screenplay format but with little intention of changing their work to get "The Man" to let go of some of his cabbage.
This thread is directed toward the former. The SCREENwriters. Especially feature length screenwriters.
By my obvious super-human powers of observation and analytical skillz, over the last couple of decades of movies I've noted the director's reoccurring story structure having the hero fight the bad guy, win a victory of some such, then get the carpet yanked out beneath him for the express purpose to have the hero climb out and overcome the bad guy or life's ob-stackles *. Made sense. Just jerking the audience's emotions for fun and profit.
Then the other day I happen to have run across the late Blake Snyder's Beat Sheets (not to be confused with Dee Snyder's beat sheets being discussed on a completely different site) which apparantly he had been peddling/teaching for the last few years before his premature** demise. And I smirked a long and crooked, evil smirk. Wryly, I might add. Seems Blake had quantified and delineated a coalesced version of the nebulous smog that had only drifted about my aforementioned super-human mind.
If you're not familiar with Blake Snyder's Beat Sheet it goes something like the following:
Opening Image – A visual that represents the struggle & tone of the story. A snapshot of the main character’s problem, before the adventure begins.
Set-up – Expand on the “before” snapshot. Present the main character’s world as it is, and what is missing in their life.
Theme Stated (happens during the Set-up) – What your story is about; the message, the truth. Usually, it is spoken to the main character or in their presence, but they don’t understand the truth…not until they have some personal experience and context to support it.
Catalyst – The moment where life as it is changes. It is the telegram, the act of catching your loved-one cheating, allowing a monster onboard the ship, meeting the true love of your life, etc. The “before” world is no more, change is underway.
Debate – But change is scary and for a moment, or a brief number of moments, the main character doubts the journey they must take. Can I face this challenge? Do I have what it takes? Should I go at all? It is the last chance for the hero to chicken out.
Break Into Two (Choosing Act Two) – The main character makes a choice and the journey begins. We leave the “Thesis” world and enter the upside-down, opposite world of Act Two.
B Story – This is when there’s a discussion about the Theme – the nugget of truth. Usually, this discussion is between the main character and the love interest. So, the B Story is usually called the “love story”.
The Promise of the Premise – This is the fun part of the story. This is when Craig Thompson’s relationship with Raina blooms, when Indiana Jones tries to beat the Nazis to the Lost Ark, when the detective finds the most clues and dodges the most bullets. This is when the main character explores the new world and the audience is entertained by the premise they have been promised.
Midpoint – Dependent upon the story, this moment is when everything is “great” or everything is “awful”. The main character either gets everything they think they want (“great”) or doesn’t get what they think they want at all (“awful”). But not everything we think we want is what we actually need in the end.
Bad Guys Close In – Doubt, jealousy, fear, foes both physical and emotional regroup to defeat the main character’s goal, and the main character’s “great”/“awful” situation disintegrates.
All is Lost – The opposite moment from the Midpoint: “awful”/“great”. The moment that the main character realizes they’ve lost everything they gained, or everything they now have has no meaning. The initial goal now looks even more impossible than before. And here, something or someone dies. It can be physical or emotional, but the death of something old makes way for something new to be born.
Dark Night of the Soul – The main character hits bottom, and wallows in hopelessness. TheWhy hast thou forsaken me, Lord? moment. Mourning the loss of what has “died” – the dream, the goal, the mentor character, the love of your life, etc. But, you must fall completely before you can pick yourself back up and try again.
Break Into Three (Choosing Act Three) – Thanks to a fresh idea, new inspiration, or last-minute Thematic advice from the B Story (usually the love interest), the main character chooses to try again.
Finale – This time around, the main character incorporates the Theme – the nugget of truth that now makes sense to them – into their fight for the goal because they have experience from the A Story and context from the B Story. Act Three is about Synthesis!
Final Image – opposite of Opening Image, proving, visually, that a change has occurred within the character.
THE END
And here's a graph:
So... my question to the fine establishement of SCREENwriters at Simply Scripts is "Do you find the beat sheet format WILDLY useful?" Or is it kinda like a pirates code guideline? Or a rigid backbone to be adhered to with minor mis-pagination transgressions? Or do you write by the seat of your pants, au naturel? Devil take the hind-side? What alternatives to the BSBSs are you using?
My take on the whole beat sheet thing is that it is useful if you are trying to sell your script in Hollywood. From what I understand the biz people reading do skim your script to see if you have the right events in the right places in your script. If they don't find them where they expect them then your script may be passed over.
If you are trying to sell your script elsewhere, then I think you probably have some leeway with structure. And if you're going to produce it yourself then you can pretty much do whatever you want. In other words, not using a rigid structure does not make your script less valid or incorrect, it only means you may not be able to market it in Hollywood.
And I also think if you have any inclination toward writing and storytelling you are going to pretty much hit those beat sheet marks anyway. I don't see any of the great writers having to worry about these sort of things. They write and their stories naturally have that structure and the fact that they include it in such an unforced manner is what makes them great writers.
Like Mcornetto says, a lot of these things are a way of trying to codify something that is natural to story-telling...and have been for thousands of years.
One has only to look at the number of Hollywood releases to see that it has some validity in terms of sales, although there's always the chicken and egg situation with that.
Do people go and see these films because they like them, or is it just that they are the only thing that Hollywood releases?
If Hollywood marketed more off-the-wall ideas better, would they do better at the BO?
Do Hollywood execs favour it because it's "better" or is it just because they are scared of losing their jobs if they take a risk?
As for alternatives:
I recently downloaded a program called Dramatica Pro to play with. I had a story that I believe has great potential (it's not a Hollywood story though) but I was getting a bit lost with it. The program is fairly complicated, it asks you numerous questions about the characetgrs and what the film is about etc and you end up with a kind of template that purports to show you have to tell that particular story most effectively.
I found it very useful...it's kind of like having a script coach there because it makes you think about what's important to the story....I'm not saying you need to follow it religiously, but it illuminates how you really want to tell the story, if nothing else.
This is a comparison of the theory behind it, as opposed to other famous theories (Mckee, Vogler etc).
You can download a trial version of the software I believe to have a go with it yourself.
The essential theory is the "Grand Argument" design of story...that all stories are essentially an argument about something. EG Terminator. That man will become obsolete to advanced technology. Within the story various characters represent different aspects of the argument...and their argument is that unless all aspects of the particular argument are in place, the story isn't as strong as it could be.
It's basically got all the beat points that the other systems have, but it has a bit extra besides. Not saying it is definitely the best, but from a purely academic point of view the theory seems more "complete" than any other.
As for structure in writing in general...it all depends on what I'm writing. If I was writing for Hollywood, I'd write a comedy and I'd fit it almost exactly the the template you suggest, simply because there's no point in doing otherwise. I'd put all my effort into making things fast-paced and funny and try to create some genuinely inventive stuff, I wouldn't waste a second worrying about structure.
Other stories I'd work on in different ways. Structure should reflect the type and style of the story...eg if you are writing a film about identity or memory, things that are transient and prone to distortion, it makes sense that the structure would be looser and less linear.
The three act structure is designed to have the maximum emotional impact. That's its great strength and even the likes of Tarkovsky, who was always trying to invent new ways, considerded that it was the best structure yet created. It's weakness tends to be its sheer predictability....watch the first 6 minutes and you can usually tell minute by minute what's going to happen.
Aside from all of that, the biggest problem most writers face is not structure, it tends to be an inability to create interesting story-lines and characters...something that most books don't seem to focus on at all.
Everyone probably knows I'm not much of a tight structure writer, so here's my take on storytelling with a beat sheet outline:
If you have a good story to tell, it will naturally have a beginning, a middle and an end. It will naturally have conflict. It will naturally have a protagonist with obstacles to overcome and more obstacles to impede her/him. So by and large these elements should naturally fall where the industry expects them to fall, page wise.
If you don't have this type of story to tell at the outset, then you don't have a screenplay. You may have a novel, depending on theme, but not a script.
I find writers that have to shoehorn and spoonfeed these elements into their work at certain times and on certain pages really don't have a grip on the story they want to tell.
I'm with Anthony to a certain degree, but I'm probably even looser with structure than he is.
I am vehemently against doing anything "the way it's supposed to be done", for the sake of doing it the way it's supposed to be done..if that makes sense. Does that mean that the way I do things is wrong, incorrect, or doesn't achieve the same effect? I don't think so.
Pretty much my entire life, I've felt this way...maybe it's some weird rebel instinct, I don't know. But, when I have a job to do, I find the best way to do it...the best way for me to do it, that is. Sometimes, that means finding the easiest way, or fastest way. Why others haven't already figured that out is beyond me. I'm a stickler for efficiency, details, and organization (I'm talking about life, right now, but I think it comes into play in screenwriting as well).
Do I agree with Blake Snyder's philosophy? No, not at all. Do I think it works for some movies? Of course. For all movies/scripts? No way!
I'm sure I'm going to draw alot of fire here for saying this, but here goes...
I really don't understand why Blake Snyder has been turned into some sort of God. He wrote Stop or my Mom will Shoot! One of the worst movies of all time. He wrote Blank Check. OK, great. What else? Nothing that I'm aware of. Why does everyone follow his words like blind dogs? I seriously don't get it.
I say it alot and I'll say it again right now...IMO, a script/movie either works, or it doesn't work, and it has nothing to do with following along a certain beat sheet or not.
Most of my favorite movies have absolutely nothing in common with Snyder's Beat Sheet, and in my eyes, that's a good thing.
This seems to be the only thing with any universal value and I'd say it's more something to strive for than to adhere to. If you've got someone to read past this point, I think it's safe to say they're hooked. Also, why page 12 for the inciting incident? The rule of thumb is the first ten pages.
I'd say more than anything, movies are about making people feel something. If you need a graph to tell you how to do that, you're never gonna get it right.
I'm with Anthony to a certain degree, but I'm probably even looser with structure than he is.
I am vehemently against doing anything "the way it's supposed to be done", for the sake of doing it the way it's supposed to be done..if that makes sense. Does that mean that the way I do things is wrong, incorrect, or doesn't achieve the same effect? I don't think so.
Pretty much my entire life, I've felt this way...maybe it's some weird rebel instinct, I don't know. But, when I have a job to do, I find the best way to do it...the best way for me to do it, that is. Sometimes, that means finding the easiest way, or fastest way. Why others haven't already figured that out is beyond me. I'm a stickler for efficiency, details, and organization (I'm talking about life, right now, but I think it comes into play in screenwriting as well).
Do I agree with Blake Snyder's philosophy? No, not at all. Do I think it works for some movies? Of course. For all movies/scripts? No way!
I'm sure I'm going to draw alot of fire here for saying this, but here goes...
I really don't understand why Blake Snyder has been turned into some sort of God. He wrote Stop or my Mom will Shoot! One of the worst movies of all time. He wrote Blank Check. OK, great. What else? Nothing that I'm aware of. Why does everyone follow his words like blind dogs? I seriously don't get it.
I say it alot and I'll say it again right now...IMO, a script/movie either works, or it doesn't work, and it has nothing to do with following along a certain beat sheet or not.
Most of my favorite movies have absolutely nothing in common with Snyder's Beat Sheet, and in my eyes, that's a good thing.
The entertainment INDUSTRY is continually trying to turn filmmaking into an industrial process. They love their formulas.
A lot of Producers are just money men, careerists, trying to climb the corporate ladder, they are not film experts. The days of filmmakers owning the studios are long gone (Deamworks perhaps excepted).
The execs are all scared of getting fired, so they try and minimise their risk by sticking to things that have been proven to work. That way they can pass the buck and blame the writer or the Director. This is also why budgets get higher and higher, it enables them to say that they gave the Direcotr the best set, the best actors, the best best of everything, so it's not their fault that it went tits up.
It is funny that he's held in such regard to a degree, not even so much because he didn't write much that's good (I suppose you don't need to be good at something to teach it, the same way a mediocre footballer can be the best coach), but because the book itself is quite simplistic.
As Babs said on a podcast recently though. Hollywood wants mediocrity.
Following Blake Snyder down a blind alley assumes that everyone wants to sell their material to Hollywood.
Most of the work posted here would be considered independent. And if you don't have an agent there's zero chance of getting your script made at a studio.
I hope Hollywood and mediocrity are very happy together. I'd rather write something that's different and (hopefully) entertaining.
I have been looking for a good analysis of the beat sheet for awhile. You created, or found, a superb one.
I guess that answers your question on whether or not we all respect formula.
Look, I'll break it down like this. I'm not writing for the thrill of reviews. I want to work as a writer and the best way to do that is to learn your craft.
Someday I might be able to leave the formula behind, but I'm smart enough to know how stupid I really am. I want to learn all there is about my craft, and that's all there is to it.
If you want to work as a writer, remaining ignorant is not an option.
Any old day now Don may post a 9 page opening scene , "La Malinche", I've submitted for the express reason to see if my sh!t magically looks any different than that of others. (Silly experiment, I know. Paint chips at Home Depot look different than in your own living room sorta thing.) I clearly see I'm going to have to step my game up about fifty eight notches. Please be... easy with me, you bull. Thank you, in return.
The Blake Snyder material above I scammed off the internet from three different sources uneder a webcrawler search for "snyder beat sheets". None of which are mine. I just assembled the parts.
>> Someday I might be able to leave the formula behind, but I'm smart enough to know how stupid I really am. << I laugh at and respect your sincere humility. Good to see I'm in like company.
Any old day now Don may post a 9 page opening scene , "La Malinche", I've submitted for the express reason to see if my sh!t magically looks any different than that of others.
Just let me know when it is up and I will be happy to review it!
Please be... easy with me, you bull. Thank you, in return.
Careful what you ask for, I might just go easy on you. All I ask in return is that if you do a review for me, that you be as absolutely harsh as you can be. I know it sounds strange, but I would rather have someone tear my work to shreds before I submit it to a production company.
I like Blake Snyder. Save the Cat has alot of the same information as other books, (Syd Field, McKee, Etc.) but is written in an easy, less didactic style. I'm writing my 7WC under this framework, so we'll see how that goes.
However, that being said, it is useful as a guideline, not as a rule. Micheal Hauge has a similiar template at http://www.screenplaymastery.com/.
All different routes to the same destination.
I also tried Dramatica Pro. 80 bucks and it still melts my brain. I suppose if I took a week and dedicated my life to mastering the nuances, I could find it usefull-but as it is, it just sits on my laptop and laughs at me.
Failure is only the opportunity to begin again more intelligently - Dove Chocolate Wrapper
I like Blake Snyder. Save the Cat has alot of the same information as other books, (Syd Field, McKee, Etc.) but is written in an easy, less didactic style. I'm writing my 7WC under this framework, so we'll see how that goes.
However, that being said, it is useful as a guideline, not as a rule. Micheal Hauge has a similiar template at http://www.screenplaymastery.com/.
All different routes to the same destination.
I also tried Dramatica Pro. 80 bucks and it still melts my brain. I suppose if I took a week and dedicated my life to mastering the nuances, I could find it usefull-but as it is, it just sits on my laptop and laughs at me.
Yeah, it's pretty complex and takes a long time to get to know inside out. I still don't have a complete grasp on all the things you can do.
You could probably write a script in the time it takes to learn the program.
Still...I think it's a very interesting package. It's a particularly good analytical tool for when you can tell something isn't working, but can't quite work out why.
I have read a LOT of books on writing screenplays and I had always heard about "Save The Cat" but I figured I had read everything I needed too. It was thanks to Babz that I decided to pick up Blake Snyder's book at Borders and give it a read.
I thought it was brilliant and brought things into focus in a way I hadn't seen before. It broke the script down in a very simplistic way and he made the structure of story so much easier to understand than any previous books I had read.
I think what many writers get caught up in is the idea that because a person writes a book about structure that it hardens them even more against it. I have never really been able to make sense of it other than the fact that maybe some writers don't like being told there is a definite form to follow. Not in one single book that I have read does it ever say that "this" or "that" has to happen on "this" or "that" page. The idea in itself is quite ludicrous. Think about it. All scripts vary in length and therefore could never always have the same things happening on the same pages.
What some people are interpreting as hard and unchangeable rules of structure are in reality "guidelines". If your "catalyst" happens on page 10 or 15 instead of page 12, I seriously doubt your script will fall apart. And I am pretty sure that if your plot points don't occur around pages 25 and 85 your script will be just fine. IF you have done your job as writer and properly developed your story, action, and characters.
From what I have read in almost all screenwriting books, these "guidelines" tend to be universal. I think too many writers want to believe, either out of inability to understand the structure or perhaps sheer obstinance, that because someone said there has to be a sort of structure to story that it somehow inhibits their ability as writers and tries to strangle their creativity. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The "form" is always in a state of flux and is always going to change as newer generations of writers come on the scene. We certainly don't do things the way they were done in the days of silent films, nor does story follow the same flow as movies did in the 60's or 70's. The structure of story has even changed as recently as the 80's and 90's.
I hear a lot of writers claim they don't care about structure because they don't care what Hollywood or producers think. That they do it for fun and they don't care what people think or ever getting noticed. Really? Then why be on this board? Why post your scripts? Why bother getting the advice of others and why turn around and rewrite to make your work better? If you don't care what people think or whether or not your work gets produced, why share it at all?
I think we are all here for the same thing, at least the writers among us. And that is to get something produced or at the very least a bit of validation we are on the right track. You may not care about the money and you may not care about fame, but I guarantee one thing. You DO care about your art and all art has form to it.
So do I believe in the structure or paradigm of a script? You bet I do. Does one stand above the rest? I don't think so. From Syd Field to Dave Trottier to Blake Synder and beyond, they are all saying the same thing and trying to teach the same principles. They ALL need to be read and thrown into the tool box.
Nothing can exist without form.
But... this is all just my humble opinion and may not be worth a hill of beans.
Pages: 1, 
Author
An Alternative to Blake Snyder's Beat Sheet?
Logged
Locked Board