I was reading a few helpful and well-meaning websites and screen-writing books about structure and beats and I found myself honestly questioning the advice I was given.

Every screenwriting book out there I've read about, explains to you a certain patented variation of an 'age-old' formula that all "good" screenplays apparently follow. It's not so much that I mind following structure, I think it's imperative in screenwriting, but what struck me was the examples these books were supplying as evidence of their theory.

Legally Blond
Miss Congeniality
American Pie 2

And so on.

While they claim the method is universal the examples given are always incredibly mediocre movies, IMO. Maybe that's because no one can teach you to write a great movie, only the assembly-line ones?

So I guess I wanna debate whether or not adhering to this rather rigid structure is advice to creating a marketable screenplay and not necessarily a good one.

Many of the best movies I've ever seen, do not follow this formula slavishly, and this is not just a case of "you're not William Goldman, you can't afford the luxury of being creative".

While I do believe that 99% of all great films share certain inevitable plot-points like the climax and the PONR, all this business of cramming a screenplay into 15 set beats, seems to make our work that of a craftsman as opposed to an'artist' (and I use the word hesitantly).

My question is, are you conscious about making all your scripts marketable (in the Hollywood sense)? Or do you write some specifically for the high-concept readers and some for the more 'avantgarde' (again, I hesitate) crowd?

Never follow a "formula" for the sake of following a formula.

I personally think that the best use of screenwriting books is as a diagnostic tool for if something is wrong with your script. I think they can be useful as a checklist if something feels like it is missing.

When it comes to being marketable or not the choice should be yours and yours alone. As a writer or as any kind of artist you should ask yourself what you really want and be honest with yourself. You should then set specific targets to reach your goal.

If you want to make a living from screenwriting then marketability is a bigger factor than if you just write as a hobby.

I do think it makes it easier to sell, because it puts Producers at ease. They know what they are getting.

It can make your films very transparent though. Some films are written to such a template that you can predict to the second what is going to happen. I watched Monster House not so long ago. It had been written to the Heroes Journey template in such a way that you could predict every last detail.

You can always do both John Sayles used to write horror specs like the Howling for the money to make his own independent films.

There is also the happy medium which is hard to find; The meaningful but marketable film.

From a personal point of view I write everything from art-house to deliberately commercial projetcs. I have eclectic tastes in all kinds of art and films.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Never follow a "formula" for the sake of following a formula. I personally think that the best use of screenwriting books is as a diagnostic tool for if something is wrong with your script. I think they can be useful as a checklist if something feels like it is missing. When it comes to being marketable or not the choice should be yours and yours alone. As a writer or as any kind of artist you should ask yourself what you really want and be honest with yourself. You should then set specific targets to reach your goal. If you want to make a living from screenwriting then marketability is a bigger factor than if you just write as a hobby. I do think it makes it easier to sell, because it puts Producers at ease. They know what they are getting. It can make your films very transparent though. Some films are written to such a template that you can predict to the second what is going to happen. I watched Monster House not so long ago. It had been written to the Heroes Journey template in such a way that you could predict every last detail. You can always do both John Sayles used to write horror specs like the Howling for the money to make his own independent films. There is also the happy medium which is hard to find; The meaningful but marketable film. From a personal point of view I write everything from art-house to deliberately commercial projetcs. I have eclectic tastes in all kinds of art and films.

I agree with you about that.

I loved Monster House, mostly because it was an homage to the kind of 80's adventure  that I grew up with, but its template was very transparent. As was the template of the films it paid tribute to. Indiana Jones, Back to the Future etc. And that's fine, because not everything is meant to break the rules.

But I find sometimes I have difficulty diverting from the formula because it's so engraved in me now. If I don't have a MAJOR SETBACK at page 75 I feel a little guilty as if I'm doing something wrong.

Like you I wanna write small and big, art-house and fun-house.

I'd say that the style of the film should dictate the structure.

What's the film about? What are it's themes?

If the film is about memory or identity you might want a very loose structure and a very independent feel to proceedings.

If your film is about one man who saves the earth from a terrible fate the 3 Act Structure/ Heroes Journey template will probably be best.

I think if you want emotional, visceral action 3 act structure is best if you want a more intellectual or philosophical film you can use a less rigid structure.

A lot of it comes down to audience expectation, they want to leave the cinema happy.

Those books give you the formula because that is what people actually buy the books for.

If they need a book, they consider themselves beginners, and want to know how it is done.

It's like cookbooks.  You wanna make a cake?  This book gives you a reliable and traditional method to make cakes.

Then -- when you have read all the cookbooks -- you are ready to fiddle with the recipe and try something different.

But you can't look to those books for new ways to deviate from the formula.  You gotta find those yourself.

If they were in a book, they wouldn't be new, would they?

I don't think I would ever write anything for a Hollywood audience because the simple fact is they do not care if you're entertained after the movie is over as long as they get your money.

That is where they have went wrong.

Lots of writers follow the basic formula which is why they get praise to a point where nobody cares about the projects anymore. This is describing a few years back when the site was taken over by Horror after horror and they were all the same.

I like to write my own way and if people like it good, if they don't they can offer advice and points and we can go from there.

That's how all writers should be, open to advice but some people have become standoffish. Especially unproduced writers and if you're on this site that is what you are no matter how much you tell yourself otherwise.

BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA is a great movie because it throws elements of conventional formulas out the window.  KURT RUSSEL looks like the hero, and the camera -- for the most part -- follows him as if he's the hero, but he's actually the bumbling side-kick.  The guy who looks like his side-kick is actually the guy who knows what's going on, yet we see things from KURT RUSSEL'S point of view more often since he's the guy who has the LOOK of the hero.  So KURT RUSSEL's character's name is JACK BURTON, and when JACK finally confronts the main boss, you expect a long drawn-out battle, but the contrary choice they made is hilarious.  And in the end, at the point when the hero usually kisses the girl, JACK makes a choice that I believe generates much more chemistry than many screen kisses ... and the particular choice he makes goes totally contrary to what you'd usually see in formulaic movies.  And the final scene also goes contrary to forumula in a great way.  If you haven't seen BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, it's a must-see because of how it goes against many formulas and ultimately became a much better movie than most movies out there.  It's very close to the top of my list of favourite movies of all time.

Follow formula.  After you're rich and famous and succesful as a writer, then you can go Quentin Tarantino on your scripts.


Phil

What prompted this thread was actually the book "Save the Cat" by Blake Snyder. I got it in a bundle offer when I bought The Screenwriter's bible.

What Snyder says is that on page 25, and on page 25 EXACTLY, your act must break in a 110 page script. No page 26, not page 28. Page 25. He goes on to say that on page 12 EXACTLY you must introduce the change that will eventually send the heroes on their journey. Not page 11, not page 13. Page 12.

This makes it seem like more than just a template.

Blake Snyder wrote "Blank Check" and "Stop or my mom will shoot".

As for the entire "Don't stray from formula unless you're already successful", well that has never made much sense to me. That's like saying to a rock-band they have to play calypso music until they're successful and then play what they want. You can write scripts that follow formula, that will appease the Hollywood reader, and you can write scripts that will get the attention of indie-people. I write one kind, some of the time and the other kind most of the time.

Quoted Text Follow formula.  After you're rich and famous and succesful as a writer, then you can go Quentin Tarantino on your scripts.

Isn't that statement something of a contradiction in terms?

After all the reason Tarantino was so successful was because he DIDN'T follow the formula.

By all means learn the formulas and become proficient at telling a story with them, but never be afraid to break the rules because other wise you're in danger of killing your 'voice' before you've even found it.

Quoted from Death Monkey Blake Snyder wrote "Blank Check" and "Stop or my mom will shoot".

Snyder's book pissed me off immensely but I did find parts of it helpful and I've been loosely using his beat sheet to plot my latest feature and it's working surprisingly well.

What gets me is how the writer of "Stop or my mom will shoot" can spend much of his book slagging off films like Memento because they didn't smash the box office and then go on to draw examples from his own spec called Drip, an apparently lame comedy about two rival plumbers. He describes a great scene in Drip where both plumbers need to pee after an ice tea drinking contest and the genius that is Snyder throws in a garden sprinkler and a reference to waterfalls to up the tension. Wow!

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Isn't that statement something of a contradiction in terms? After all the reason Tarantino was so successful was because he DIDN'T follow the formula. By all means learn the formulas and become proficient at telling a story with them, but never be afraid to break the rules because other wise you're in danger of killing your 'voice' before you've even found it.

Tarantino also produced his own work.  He used his money.  If you can write/direct/produce, then knock yourself out,  If, however, you don;t have the money to make your own, then you have to follow formula until you make a name for yourself


Phil

Quoted Text Tarantino also produced his own work.  He used his money.

What on? My Best Friend's Birthday in 1987?

He was going to with Resevoir Dogs, but Harvey Keitels involvement got them backing to the tune of $1.2M. The rest is history.

Quoted Text If, however, you don;t have the money to make your own, then you have to follow formula until you make a name for yourself

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that one. I reckon that as soon as you get a name for writing one kind of thing, you'll be stuck in that for as long as you live.

Quoted from Martin Snyder's book pissed me off immensely but I did find parts of it helpful and I've been loosely using his beat sheet to plot my latest feature and it's working surprisingly well. What gets me is how the writer of "Stop or my mom will shoot" can spend much of his book slagging off films like Memento because they didn't smash the box office and then go on to draw examples from his own spec called Drip, an apparently lame comedy about two rival plumbers. He describes a great scene in Drip where both plumbers need to pee after an ice tea drinking contest and the genius that is Snyder throws in a garden sprinkler and a reference to waterfalls to up the tension. Wow!

I'm getting increasingly pissed off as well as I'm reading. there are a few good things in the book if you filter through the bullshit, but the way he references his own spec and unproduced work is tiresome, when he could be referencing scripts and movies people actually knew. Also it's very clear to me that the comedy he thinks is funny is what I categorize as "Bingo night" humor.

Also, he doesn't explain the reasoning behind the rigid tenets of his patented formula. If he would tell me WHY you must always break into act two on page 25, and never page 26 or 27, then perhaps I would learn something, I would understand. but as it is right now, all I'm getting is "because I said so."

Quoted Text I'm getting increasingly pissed off as well as I'm reading. there are a few good things in the book if you filter through the bulls*** , but the way he references his own spec and unproduced work is tiresome,

He's part of Michael Wiese's lot

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0927595/

They always self-reference each other and themselves, it's how they keep making their money.

They're still re-releasing Hardware Wars, a shitty twenty minute piss-take of Star Wars, 30 years after it first came out. It's made them millions.