When I was first starting out, I was paranoid about structure � but that�s because I didn�t know what it really was.

I had of course read Syd Field�s book, and I worried that if I wasn�t hitting my act breaks at exactly the right page number, I was a dismal failure. Then at USC I was introduced to a �clothesline� template, which was baffling. People smarter than me would talk about eight sequences, or eleven sequences, and I would nod as if I understood.

And now I do: It�s all bunk.

At the risk of introducing another screenwriting metaphor, I�ll say that structure is like your skeleton. It�s the framework on which you hang the meat of your story. If someone�s bones are in the wrong place, odds are he�ll have a hard time moving, and it won�t be comfortable. It�s the same with a screenplay. If the pieces aren�t put together right, the story won�t work as well as it could.

But here�s the thing: not every skeleton is the same.

Think about it in real-world terms.
Human skeletons are pretty consistent, but you also have gazelles and giraffes, cockroaches and hummingbirds, each with a different structure, but all equally valid designs. The standard dogma about screenplay structure focuses on hitting certain moments at certain page numbers. But in my experience, these measurements hold true for Chinatown and nothing I�ve actually written.

My advice? Stop thinking about structure as something you impose upon your story. It�s an inherent part of it, like the setup to a joke. As you�re figuring out the story you want to tell, ask yourself a few questions:

What�s the next thing this character would realistically do?
What�s the most interesting thing this character could do?
Where do I want the story to go next?
Where do I want the story to end up eventually?
Does this scene stand up on its own merit, or is it just setting stuff up for later?
What are the later repercussions of this scene? How could I maximize them?
If you answer these questions at every turn, I guarantee you�ll have a terrifically structured screenplay. It might not hit predefined act breaks, but it will be consistently engaging, something that can�t be said for many �properly structured� scripts.

http://johnaugust.com/archives/2004/stressing-over-structure

This gives me a headache. But if it works for you, go for it.

I wonder, though, if Steve Zallian organizes his scripts this way. Or Tony Gilroy. Or Charlie Kaufman. Or Paul Attanasio. Or Paul Thomas Anderson. Or the Coens. Yes, now I that I think about it, Slumdog Millionaire could have benefitted from being a little better sequenced.

I'm sorry. I'm being snarky. An asshole even. But as a rule, I'm not much for methods or templates. It's like teaching people who can't draw how to draw by copying an original, the method being to turn the original drawing upside down so you can better see the lines. It's all very outside-in. It doesn't often lead to a great artist. And I don't know that the method you describe leads to anything other than well organized deadness.

If your characters are living breathing souls, you'll know when you're ignoring them or when the story is veering. You'll know when not enough is happening or the story has stopped or digressed. You'll know because you're a storyteller and you feel it, or others feel it when they read it if you've gotten too close.

I also can see Studio Executives getting jacuzzis in their pants over something like this. And every meeting turning into a counting session.

Though you just know that after all this I'm now going to look at my current script and start adding up sequences. I'll get back to you...

In my opinion, using structural templates helps writers starting out.  

...
When they do decide to get a little knowledge, most writers go out and buy a couple of books on screenwriting. And what do they learn? Almost invariably, these books tell them about the so-called 3-act structure. These writers have just killed any chance they had of writing a script that will sell.

The so-called 3-act structure is the biggest, most destructive myth ever foisted on writers. I would like to call it obsolete. But that implies that it worked in the first place. It didn't. Let me explain why.

The 3-act structure exists for one reason and one reason only: a story analyst declared it into existence. He found that something important seemed to happen in some successful scripts on page 27 and on page 87. He called them plot points, said that based on these plot points every screenplay had three acts, and incredibly, everyone bought it.

Such has been the sad state of screenwriting training and the desperation of screenwriters themselves that no one noticed that the emperor was in fact naked. Instead, a lot of people who should know better joined in the chorus and wrote screenwriting books (over 100 to date) agreeing with this silly idea.
...
http://www.raindancecanada.com/?q=node/69

I like when produced writers buck these notions we read in bestselling books

Who is Scott Frank?

How many of these bestselling books are written by produced writers?


Phil

Scott Frank's most notable credits include "Little Man Tate", "Malice", "Get Shorty", "Out of Sight", "Minority Report", "Flight of the Phoenix", "The Lookout", "The Interpreter", "Marley & Me".  He got an Oscar nomination for "Out of Sight" and has been nominated and won a number of Edgar Awards.

He's done a ton of uncredited work and is apparently one of those go-to guys that directors and studios favor.  I heard he's quite the respected writer amongst other pro screenwriters.