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.
This is just my opinion, but reading screenplays seems the best way to do it. Instinctively, we all pick up what works, and what doesn't. Good and bad screenplays teach you something. In terms of produced vs unproduced writers, I guess it really does depend on what type of advice you are taking.
Fact is, if you don't have a good story, then you have nothing anyway.
But we're not talking about feedback. We're talking about someone telling us how to write a screenplay when he hasn't been produced, himself. This isn't the same as what goes on here, with everyone helping each other. This is an unproduced writer selling us a book on how to get produced.
Syd Field- the author of the three acts doctrine( yeah I know he claims aristotle said it first, blah blah) what has he written? a couple tv episodes between 1964 and 1965 and a script in 2002 that noone's even heard of. nice job, guru.
JamminGirl quoted: All the manuals insist on a three-act structure. I think this is a useless model. It's static. All it really means is that your screenplay should have a beginning, middle and end.
Ok, let's go back to school for a minute here and check on this. I googled something very simple: basic story elements. No screenwriting here. We're just telling a story. So here's a site that has nothing to do with screenwriting: http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/engramja/elements.html.
Here's the definition it posts for plot for the benefit of its readers: The plot is a planned, logical series of events having a beginning, middle, and end.
In fact, it's expounded upon like this. This might look familiar:
a) Introduction - The beginning of the story where the characters and the setting is revealed.
b) Rising Action - This is where the events in the story become complicated and the conflict in the story is revealed (events between the introduction and climax).
c) Climax - This is the highest point of interest and the turning point of the story. The reader wonders what will happen next; will the conflict be resolved or not?
d) Falling action - The events and complications begin to resolve themselves. The reader knows what has happened next and if the conflict was resolved or not (events between climax and denouement).
e) Denouement - This is the final outcome or untangling of events in the story.
That's not from any screenwriting "guru" trying to pimp the three act structure. That's from a website for Ms. Engram's English classroom for grades 10-12 in California. Here's the summary her site: "This page is for use with my grade ten, eleven and twelve English classes . The links to the left will direct you to the various units that may be covered in each class during the semester. Within each are links to lessons, class activities and handouts . My intent is to provide students with access to the material covered in class, as well as to provide a useful resource to other teachers of English."
Hm, all this sounds like structure to me, and we're not even talking about screenwriting nor are we listening to Syd Field. I mean, you can write whatever you want, but what Ms. Engram has is pretty tried and true...for centuries. It's one thing to want to buck the system and write something different, but the structure is going to have to be there whether you like it or not, or it isn't going to work.
That is a good post and it is quite revealing in lots of ways, intended and unintended.
The key thing for me is that there are underlying things that have nothing to do with story or structure in terms of quality, but that affect the success of a script.
Run, Fatboy, Run, I presume is the film that Pegg wrote. It's pretty hopeless. It's by the numbers, it isn't funny, but it did much better than Grow Your Own.
Is that down to the structure of the story, or the fact that it was marketed better and had a recognisable genre? How much of the fact that it was easily marketable came down to the fact that it follwed the traditional heroes journey model to the letter?
How much is it down to the simple fact that one of the films at least had an accessible premise that would appeal to audiences (A lazy, fat everyman kind of guy trying to run a world famous marathon to get his girlfriend back compared to a bunch of refugees growing a few vegetables)?
What I'm trying to say is that you can look for answers to questions in the wrong place.
Structure had nothing to do with the failure of Grow Your Own. It failed at the BO because the premise is boring, because it is a film geared towards no discernible market and holds no interest to the wide viewing world and not even to the British audience and it wasn't marketed anywhere.
It's a niche film, and the type of film that filmmakers should fund themselves IMHO. A worthy film, not one to base an industry on.
Indeed for those who are interested, this article highlights one of the most absurd discrepencies that exists in British film. The UK Film Council and its respective regional bodies have a policy that favours films that deal with "social exclusion" over other films. It's a key criteria in their selection process.
In other words they deliberately select films to be funded that are about and are aimed at tiny groups of people. Then they sit back and wring their hands wondering why they tank.
It surely must be the only country in the world that pours millions into the coffers and then forces films to be selected that have absolutely no mass market appeal.
It's a joke, a complete farce. They then have the audacity to say things like: "No-one knows anything in the film industry", as though their mistakes are all down to bad luck.
The same people, making the same kind of lo-concept films get given the money. They are tied into a cycle of doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
Anyway, I digress.
The point I am trying to make somewhere or other about structure is that it should be under your control, not the other way around. It's about identifying your market and your goal. Are you trying to write a solid genre film that will sell? Then feel free to stick to the template. It clearly works. It doesn't frighten audiences in any way. They understand it. It's precitability seems to be something that studioes are comfortable with.
If you are trying to do something else, you can depart from any given structure as and when you see fit. It's your work, you can do anything you want.
You can write a "one act film" that doesn't have any climax or resolution of you want.
Off the top of my head I can imagine a film about a bank heist that might be interesting in a way. A 90 minute set up that ends just as they are going to go to the bank. We get to meet each character and understand their respective personalities and motivations. Then the film just ends when they are about to do the job.
A lot of the audience would hate it. I reckon it could work though for some. You'd wonder whether they succeeded, if they didn't whose fault it was, re-watch the film for clues on who blew it or decide who you reckon got away with it. Who was the snake in the grass etc.
It's really all about what you are trying to do, what you want the audience to take from the film and more mundanely, who you are trying to sell it to rather than about right or wrong.
You can write a "one act film" that doesn't have any climax or resolution of you want.
Off the top of my head I can imagine a film about a bank heist that might be interesting in a way. A 90 minute set up that ends just as they are going to go to the bank. We get to meet each character and understand their respective personalities and motivations. Then the film just ends when they are about to do the job.
A lot of the audience would hate it. I reckon it could work though for some. You'd wonder whether they succeeded, if they didn't whose fault it was, re-watch the film for clues on who blew it or decide who you reckon got away with it. Who was the snake in the grass etc.
It's really all about what you are trying to do, what you want the audience to take from the film and more mundanely, who you are trying to sell it to rather than about right or wrong.
Even so, this film would have to have a structure of some kind. It would have to have some kind of conflict within it to drive it to its final resolution of going to do the job. You can actually write this film and you can make it interesting as well. You can build it so that you know how the final job will play out without ever seeing it. Frankly, if you did it well enough, it would be ingenious to watch because you're leaving what would normally be the high point to the audience's imagination, and yet they would know what would happen instinctively.
I know you only said this as a joke, and as a premise, it almost seems senseless. Yet, someone who can write could turn that ridiculous premise into something very clever. Instead of an action movie, you'd have a character drama. I'm afraid you would likely have a climax near the end and your resolution would be deciding to do the job. Avoiding these things is like refusing to tell a story for the sake of refusing to tell a story.
JamminGirl quoted: All the manuals insist on a three-act structure. I think this is a useless model. It's static. All it really means is that your screenplay should have a beginning, middle and end.
Ok, let's go back to school for a minute here and check on this. I googled something very simple: basic story elements. No screenwriting here. We're just telling a story. So here's a site that has nothing to do with screenwriting: http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/engramja/elements.html.
Here's the definition it posts for plot for the benefit of its readers: The plot is a planned, logical series of events having a beginning, middle, and end.
In fact, it's expounded upon like this. This might look familiar:
a) Introduction - The beginning of the story where the characters and the setting is revealed.
b) Rising Action - This is where the events in the story become complicated and the conflict in the story is revealed (events between the introduction and climax).
c) Climax - This is the highest point of interest and the turning point of the story. The reader wonders what will happen next; will the conflict be resolved or not?
d) Falling action - The events and complications begin to resolve themselves. The reader knows what has happened next and if the conflict was resolved or not (events between climax and denouement).
e) Denouement - This is the final outcome or untangling of events in the story.
That's not from any screenwriting "guru" trying to pimp the three act structure. That's from a website for Ms. Engram's English classroom for grades 10-12 in California. Here's the summary her site: "This page is for use with my grade ten, eleven and twelve English classes . The links to the left will direct you to the various units that may be covered in each class during the semester. Within each are links to lessons, class activities and handouts . My intent is to provide students with access to the material covered in class, as well as to provide a useful resource to other teachers of English."
Hm, all this sounds like structure to me, and we're not even talking about screenwriting nor are we listening to Syd Field. I mean, you can write whatever you want, but what Ms. Engram has is pretty tried and true...for centuries. It's one thing to want to buck the system and write something different, but the structure is going to have to be there whether you like it or not, or it isn't going to work.
George, all the website is doing is regurgitating what has been said in these screenplay books. If there was anything really about the art of storytelling it would've mentioned things like the art of suspence, secrets, revelations, emotions etc...
George, all the website is doing is regurgitating what has been said in these screenplay books. If there was anything really about the art of storytelling it would've mentioned things like the art of suspence, secrets, revelations, emotions etc...
Once I stopped my laughter at this comment, I figured I'd say something. So you're telling me that this woman decided to teach her 11th grade English class about screenwriting when the site clearly labeled "elements of short stories"?
I know you're vehemently against the oldest elements of structuring a story, but this really is the most ridiculous comment I've ever read.
...regurgitating what has been said in the screenplay books...
Can I point out that 'structure' and 'the art of storytelling' (whatever that's supposed to mean) are NOT the same thing? Stories have structure, exactly like George said. They do. That's undeniable. Beginning, middle, end. They have plots, whether they're resolved or not.
As much as I hate stupid analogies, I find myself compelled to use one - a building metaphor. You're building a house. You NEED foundations, walls, a roof, if the thing is going to be a house. That's its structure. But as for the 'art of storytelling'? Well, that's the architecture, how nice the thing looks once it's done...okay, so that's not very well explained, but you get what I'm saying, right?
The title of this thread is about STRUCTURE. Not about what makes a good screenplay, or even a good story. Of COURSE suspense, emotions, character development and all that stuff is crucial. But you need a structure to build that stuff onto! Good luck trying to decorate a house that has no walls or roof. Stories have structure, even the rubbish ones. They start and they end. That's all there is to it.
Pages: 
Author
That's not how you Structure a script!
Logged
Locked Board