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.
Honestly, I feel like "structure" can feel like an imposition on a story. Not all storys are about "the hero's journey" yet all the gurus seem offer that specific thriller genre structure as a blueprint for all stories. It frustrated me at first until I realised that some of these 'gurus' are imbeciles. They often lack insight into human behaviour and so they look at stories in abstract. They come up with reasons they think a story works without understanding the fundamentals (I think).
Another thing I realized is that some other writers follow their rules like hawk to the detriment of their stories. Now I'm not saying they don't help at times but here is an example of a writer of combining Trottier's Bible rules and Save the Cat's.
Though I'm no fan of August, he makes the point succintly here:
Quoted Text
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.
It's good that you mention this. Scott Frank made an appearance on another forum to answer questions. One writer asked about whether he employed the eight sequence method or any other variation. He didn't know what that was. But when he explained it, he replied with:
Quoted Text
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. But after that, a writer should be able feel his way through a story.
In my opinion, using structural templates helps writers starting out.
I don't agree. I remember taking some film courses a couple years ago and cannot remember a single time an instructor recommended any of these structures except vaguely mentioning syd feld's "screenplay"(which I avoid like the plague).
One instructor's advice was "make sure something interesting/big happens every ten pages... and make sure all the scenes are vital and hit different beats)
I was in a muddled mind-frame the other day and took a look at "save the cat" after another poster praised it. Man, that messed me up for a few good days. The story I had in mind didn't fit his beats and it would've changed the story in such a fundamental way that it would be a complete other story. A cliche.
So I suggest that newbies learn dramatic fundamentals instead of following templates.
One guy(let's call him Truby because... well because that's his name) raged against the three act structure here (maybe because he thinks his template is better)
Quoted Text
... 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 do agree with Why One, and the quote from Scott Frank. It's exaclty the way I write, and exactly the way I feel when one points out that my struture is flawed, because it doesn't follow certain beats, or it's not typical 3 Act, blah, blah, blah.
I've said this so mnay times, and it looks like I'll keep on saying it. The reason that basically every movie is a piece of crap these days, is because they're all the same thing...all the same structure, and the same obvious plotlines and structures...all so copycat, been there, seen that.
I do agree that all writers need to have a basic understanding of these fundamentals, but write your own story, the way you see it...the way you want it to flow and turn out. Buck the system, be original, and be proud of what you write.
I disagreed that a newbie should use the template at first. To me templates only kill your story...
my issue is with this "Hero's journey" that everyone's written on.
step 1 a guy lives life regularly until a big event changes things. step 2 he questions whether he should follow through step 3 a catalyst makes up his mind for him. step 4 things go very bad.
Act2 step 5 he tries to fix things. step 6 fails. step 7 he tries another way step 8 wins step 9 a worse thing occurs
Act3 step 10 he fights, fails but... step 11 he realizes how to win step 12 his method doesn't seem to work step 13 then it does. the end.
How does a story like "To kill a Mockingbird" or "taxi driver" fits within this template?
I guess it's a tough call. If a "newbie" is having trouble understanding how structure works, they most likley could benefit from a template of some kind. But, they shouldn't follow it to the "T" if it messes up their story, but then again, maybe their story is very flawed to start out with?
I think you know how against "the rules" I am, but then again, you see me constantly admonishing scripts that have camera direction and we see, we hear, etc. in there. I guess what I'm against is people thinking they have to write something a certain way because some one says so, or a cetain script is written that way. I say write it anyway you want to, as long as it makes sense, and follows proper formatting, etc. Keep it an easy and enjoyable read, don't clutter it with unneccessary things that take the reader out of the read.
Every story should be unique, and based on that, they're all not going to fit into whatever little shell, so and so tells you to cram it into.
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.
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.
I don't think I've seen any of these but I've heard good things about Minority Report, Get shorty(maybe I saw that with danny devito) and Marley & Me(I started watching but stopped after they named the dog. Bob marley should be respected! lol I just couldn't watch a movie about a dog) but I'll check them out.
So what are the fundamentals you employ in your scripts and btw how do I get my hands on some of those sold scripts by newbies? would love to see their strategies...
I think you should use "the rules" as a basic guideline and then go from there, creating your own style. However, if you come to find out your style doesn't work (after receiving peer reviews), you might want to change it up.
Basically, write how you feel comfortable writing, but be willing to change it if it flat-out doesn't work.
I think story should come before structure. Unless you're a really terrible writer, whatever you decide to write is ultimately going to conform to the three act structure anyway. Something starts and something ends. That's a story. I think it's important to understand structure before you start to mess with it but once you know what you're doing, it really doesn't matter how long it takes to get to the first turning point or the conclusion. If it doesn't work, you'll know. Otherwise, you don't know what your doing and need to stay close to the rules a little longer. And after that, if it's still not working, they'll be enough people telling you about it for you to realize. When 80% of people who read your script are telling you something's wrong, they're usually right. 50% is a different story; that usually boils down to taste.
So yeah. Story first. I can't say something like Mean Girls or your average Matthew McConaghy movie doesn't have their structure down pat but in the end, the stories are worthless.
James, why do you say that whatever you write is ultimately going to conform to a 3 act structure? That's not true at all, as far as I can see. And also, I don't think it comes down to being a terrible writer when it doesn't conform to said structure.
I think it's pretty much the opposite...it takes a pretty good writer to make something work that is atypical in structure and the like.
That's it. It doesn't matter what structure you have or what is going on, or what genre it is, it should never ever get boring.
So many films get made that stick like super glue to the heroes journey template that I find it hard to say you SHOULDN'T stick to it, but my God they are predictable.
James, why do you say that whatever you write is ultimately going to conform to a 3 act structure? That's not true at all, as far as I can see. And also, I don't think it comes down to being a terrible writer when it doesn't conform to said structure.
I think it's pretty much the opposite...it takes a pretty good writer to make something work that is atypical in structure and the like.
My thoughts exactly. I think one of the problems a writer finds him/her self in is when someone says "you gotta know the structure rules in order to break them". These "rules" are templates.
I subscribe to the Done Deal Pro database which provides updates on the latest scripts sales.
I get my scripts from the nice people at the Done Deal forum. They have a nice bunch there. Some industry insiders. Many have representation. Three of the members sold scripts last year, two of which ended on the black list. Another member was also a 2008 Nicholl winner and is now getting paid studio gigs.
One of the members has kindly made ALL of her scripts available online. Props to PJ AKA Limama!
From the top of my head, the recent, noticable newbie specs include:
Prisoners by Aaron Guzikowski - which has Christian Bale, Mark Whalberg and Bryan Singer attached. This one was a definite page turner for me!
The Days Before by Chad St. John - which has Robert Downey Jnr, Reese Witherspoon, and Wanted director attached. Fun sci-fi action.
The Low Dweller by Brad Inglesby - sold and became black list script and had Ridley Scott and Leonardo DiCaprio attached at one point. Apparently the breakthrough writer of 2008. Landed lots of writing gigs.
James, why do you say that whatever you write is ultimately going to conform to a 3 act structure? That's not true at all, as far as I can see. And also, I don't think it comes down to being a terrible writer when it doesn't conform to said structure.
I think it's pretty much the opposite...it takes a pretty good writer to make something work that is atypical in structure and the like.
In almost all of the scripts I've read here, something happens and it's concluded somehow. It's not an issue of a problem being solved. Just concluded. I know there's a handful of writers who aren't fans of "following the rules," so to speak, and yet they do for the most part. They just take a few liberties. Even in nonlinear scripts, the information you need to follow the story is given in the beginning and usually things get wrapped up in the end. So even something like Memento or Reservoir Dogs follows the three act structure, while being seemingly free of it at the same time.
I don't know. Maybe I'm not making much sense. I just feel like most of the scripts I write end up having a beginning, middle and end, even if they're out of order, there's no "real" conclusion or the first act is more than half the script. I never think about conforming to structure while writing. I just go where the story takes me and it usually works out and makes sense in the end. So I guess I'm just speaking from experience.
I think the last thing you said is true as well though. I won't dispute that.
It was OK. It read quite quickly. I think that it should give people a lot of hope though if that's the very best around.
It's just the old abduction story with a bit of undeveloped Satanist action it. There's nothing new in there or anything particularly moving or powerful.
Um, ok. Let's boil the "three act structure" down to what it is.
Beginning - Middle - End
All stories have a beginning, middle, and end. That's a fundamental characteristic of storytelling. If you are missing one of these three elements, you don't have a complete story. No matter how long or short your story is, it has a beginning, middle and end. This is the source of the "dreaded" three act structure.
So no matter what you write, it will have these pieces.
Now, as for the "Hollywood" three act structure... All that is is some guideline that stretches these three fundamental pieces into at least 90-120 minutes. It's a suggestion to help your audience remain interested. You're dealing with a group of people who have short attention spans. A lot of these people watch movies because they don't have the wherewithall to actually sit down and read a book. So if you haven't hooked them in 10 minutes, chances are they've already started looking for something shiny.
Do you need to adhere to page numbers? No. It's a really good idea for the act one break to fall around page 20, but that's about the only only to keep your short attention spanners happy.
Now, Phil proposed the question of "are any of those book writers produced?" To me, that doesn't really matter. Those who can't do, teach, right? But take the information they give and test it against the writers who ARE produced. Didn't Dreamscale complain that all the movies are boring because they follow the same structure?
Wait, wait, wait, wait... So in that complaint, he says that the structure touted in the books is used by professional writers who are being PAID to do what we're dreaming of doing. Another thread about camera directions complained that people were advising against doing what the pros are doing in their scripts, and now this thread is shouting AGAINST doing what the pros are doing in their scripts.
Weird. So do you want to follow the professionals or not? You want to put in camera directions but not follow the structure. You want to pick and choose the stuff that the pros are doing to make yourself happy.
Ok. That's fine.
Now, let's talk about the point of this board, labeled "Screenwriting Class." This is for people looking to learn something about screenwriting, whether that be format, structure, character, whatever. There have been some very insightful posts about all of these things and more, but recently, the posts have been saying "this whole practice is crap. I want to do it my own way."
My advice is to do it your own way. I mean, it's your story. Your script. No one is going to stop you. My only question is why are you posting threads to tell everyone that you're not going to listen to them?
What do I know? Well, I have read several books. I've seen probably 1,500 movies ranging from 1880 to the present from every genre. I've read hundreds of screenplays. I've written around sixty scripts including stage plays, musicals, screenplays, shorts, and teleplays. Of those, I've had a play, a musical, a short, and a screenplay produced. Of course, I produced and directed the short and screenplay. The teleplays were written for virtual series for someone else who liked my writing. I've finished my first novel recently in its entirety which should be available on Amazon in the next couple months. I am going to record some of the music I've written here pretty soon, and there's a band interested in me as either a bass or piano player. There. A quick bio for those who have no idea who I am.
If you have a question about writing, I'd be happy to answer whatever I know. If you're going to post a thread about how much the learning tools for writing suck, there are other boards for it.
Now, Phil proposed the question of "are any of those book writers produced?" To me, that doesn't really matter. Those who can't do, teach, right? But take the information they give and test it against the writers who ARE produced. Didn't Dreamscale complain that all the movies are boring because they follow the same structure?
I might be wrong, here, but no one really sets out to write a book on screenwriting. They set out to be the screenwriter. And, for whatever reason, they don't make it.
I might be wrong, here, but no one really sets out to write a book on screenwriting. They set out to be the screenwriter. And, for whatever reason, they don't make it.
I'd rather learn from those who made it.
The point of that paragraph was to say to look at what the books are saying and then see how it compares to what is produced in regards to structure. Barring the books, the rest of what you quoted pointed out that some people have no interest learning from those who made it either. Just seems kind of hypocritical to say you want to learn from those who made it, and then criticize what those who made it are doing.
It was OK. It read quite quickly. I think that it should give people a lot of hope though if that's the very best around.
It's just the old abduction story with a bit of undeveloped Satanist action it. There's nothing new in there or anything particularly moving or powerful.
Finished it too. It hit all its genre beats which was why it didn't feel very different. The thing that made it stood out was the fact that one of the main characters(or protagonist) is sort of a hmmm... how do I describe him... he's not a very populist kind of man. Probably a kkk person... He hunts animals and he tortures someone he thinks is harming his baby daughter. That's the difference and that's what actors want to act. An emphatic character who you can equally dislike.
The reading was fast and the first half was very well written. Absolutely no holes exists in it.
He used alot of "we"s in the beginning of the script and he's a total newbie so what we should take from that is that we shouldn't be so pedantic( rules wise) if we have a decent story.
I hear that management companies are more open to new writers than agencies. You can find emails addresses online if you look hard enough. There's a good site that lists quite a few names and email addresses of reps:
If you get a bounce, try different email structures: firstinitiallastname@... firstnamelastinitial@... firstname@... lastname@... firstname.lastinitial@... ... etc
You will usually find one that works.
I subscribe to HCD and IMDBPro to do my research on "who's who". I think it's important to get to know the names, credentials, and reputation of the reps working around town. Cross referencing rep names with the ones in the black list helps. You tend to develop an idea of what types of scripts certain reps lean towards.
The Done Deal forum is a great place to get other people's experiences working with the reps you wish to target, and provides updates on upcoming reps and which company reps currently work at as many tend to move around a lot.
I've received about 8 read requests from mid to top-level management companies a couple of months back -- including the same one that repped The Prisoners script. It's good to know that cold querying still works.
Awesome! I've saved the html page to my harddrive. Karma means you'll get your script(s) sold very soon being so helpful and all...
Are you guys actually saying that anyone you know has had any success at all with this list? I've seen this thing for years, and the guy who runs it is a whacko. He's always talking about his book, Ginny Good, or whatever it's called. I've seen numerous people complain about the list and ask politely to be taken off of it.
I just assumed it was all bogus. Let me know. Thanks.
Are you guys actually saying that anyone you know has had any success at all with this list? I've seen this thing for years, and the guy who runs it is a whacko. He's always talking about his book, Ginny Good, or whatever it's called. I've seen numerous people complain about the list and ask politely to be taken off of it.
I just assumed it was all bogus. Let me know. Thanks.
A while back, I was on Radio 4's Film Programme the same day as Simon Pegg. We were asked what we thought of screenwriting manuals. I dismissed them as get-rich-quick compendiums of cliche. Pegg said he thought they were really useful. Our films opened that weekend. His vacuumed up money. Mine tanked. It may well be, I thought, that I've been missing something. I decided to watch all my favourite movies again, notebook in hand, to figure out what made them work. Here are some of my observations. This is not a description of how I write. It's more how I wish I'd written. A map of the rocks on which I perished.
1. Write a play instead Are you sure you need to write a screenplay? Almost any movie takes years. I've just done a TV film for the BBC that has taken 20 years to go from idea to execution. If you've got a great story, it might be worth writing it as a play first, or a book. To get a movie into the world, someone needs to love it enough to spend millions of pounds on it - and years of their life. A play costs a few thousand and takes a couple of months. Plus it makes you a playwright, which is way upmarket from a screenwriter. And if it's successful, people will want to make the movie.
2. Do the title first Seems obvious, but you'd be amazed. A great title can make a big difference. The musical Oklahoma, as it was initially called, famously flopped in the provinces, but became a massive hit after they added the exclamation mark. Orson Welles said Paper Moon was such a great title they wouldn't need to make the movie, just release the title. If you want a good title, you need it before you start, when you're pumped up with hope. If you look for it afterwards, you end up thinking like a headline-writer. If Victor Hugo had waited until he'd finished Notre-Dame de Paris, he would have ended up calling it I've Got a Hunch.
3. Read it to people It's easy to fool yourself on the page. Tell people your story and watch them. Is there a bit where they check their watch? Are there bits you unexpectedly feel you want to skip? Do they guess the ending? Get it worked up into a good anecdote. This also means that if you bump into The Money at a film festival, you can pitch the story right there. The same applies after you've written the script. Danny Boyle, director of 28 Days Later, makes you read your script out loud to him. It's horrible. It leaves you nowhere to hide. But it saves weeks of second-guessing.
4. Forget the three-act structure 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. When you're shaping things, it's more useful to think about suspense. Suspense is the hidden energy that holds a story together. It connects two points and sends a charge between them. But it doesn't have to be all action. Emotions create their own suspense. In American Splendor, the film about comic-book creator Harvey Pekar, you hope till it hurts that his relationship will work out. Secrets are good at generating tension, too. In A Knight's Tale, you fret all the way through that someone will discover that William is not really Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein.
A delicate art. If a setup is too obvious, it can announce a payoff. I remember watching Se7en in a multiplex. When Morgan Freeman said he was going to retire in a few days, someone shouted: "Gonna die!" (For once, it wasn't true.) On the other hand, if the setup doesn't signal something, it doesn't generate any suspense. The trick is to create an expectation but fulfil it in a completely unexpected way. I'm going to give the Oscar for this to Geoffrey Chaucer for The Pardoner's Tale, where they go looking for Death but find a pile of money instead. And the twist is ... they scheme over it and kill each other. 6. Don't write excuse notes Sympathy is like crack cocaine to industry execs. I've had at least one wonderful screenplay of mine maimed by a sympathy-skank. Yes, of course the audience have to relate to your characters, but they don't need to approve of them. If characters are going to do something bad, Hollywood wants you to build in an excuse note. If you look at Thelma and Louise, you'll see it's really just one long excuse note with 20 minutes of fun at the end. The US cop show The Wire, on the other hand, gives you characters you couldn't possibly approve of, or even like. Then, when it needs to, it gives you another glimpse of them. In one heart-scalding scene, a nasty, hard-nosed young drug-dealer from the projects finds himself in a park and says: "Is this still in Baltimore?"
7. Avoid the German funk trap People have a tendency to set up the characters and then have the stories happen to them. I think it comes from TV, where you want the characters to survive the story unchanged, so they can have another adventure next week. It's like in detective fiction, where "characterisation" means the detective is really into 1970s German funk. And "complex characterisation" means his wife is leaving him because she doesn't understand his love of 1970s German funk. In a film, you should let the story reveal the character. What happens to Juno - getting pregnant - could happen to any teenage girl. It's how she reacts that leads you to conclude she's charming (or sickening, depending on your point of view). Do it the other way around and it's like when someone introduces you to one of their friends and says: "I know you're going to like each other." It just makes you think: "I have to go now."
8. Do a favourite bit No one leaves the cinema saying: I loved that character arc. They come out saying: I loved the swordfight, or the bit with the bloated cow, or whatever. The manuals emphasise the flow of a narrative, but it's better to think of a film as a suite of sequences. That's where the pleasure is. I'm working on an animated feature at the moment. Traditionally, these films had no script at all. Teams built up a series of set-pieces and sequences around the story and characters. This is a great way to think. If you look at the first Godfather film, it's really an accumulation of anecdotes held together by the moral decline of Michael. Kes also works like this: the football match, the taming of the hawk, the careers officer and so on. Try breaking your script down into a series of chapters and giving them headings. If you want to see this not quite working, look at the Mission: Impossible films. Terrific action sequences marooned in quagmires of soggy exposition.
9. Cast it in your head Characters tend to be blurry in screenplays, partly because, if you over-define things, you limit the number of actors you can cast from. But just because you can't describe their eyebrows shouldn't stop you understanding thoroughly what makes them tick. When Sam Peckinpah was rewriting scripts, he used to cross out all the characters' names and replace them with the names of people he knew, so he could get a fix on them. Sometimes an arresting stage direction works wonders. The example writers always quote is Guy de Maupassant's line: "He was an elderly gentleman with ginger whiskers who always somehow made sure he was first through the door."
10. Learn to love rewrites In Sunset Boulevard, the screenwriter says: "Maybe you saw my last movie. It was about Okies in the dustbowl. Of course, by the time it went out, it was all set on a submarine boat." Screenwriters famously kvetch about the rewrite. I don't get this. One of the glories of being a writer is that you get so many chances to get it right. Ask Norwegian footballer John Arne Riise how he would feel if he was allowed to say: "You know that last header, where I knocked it into my own goal? That didn't really work for me. I'm going to take it out. I've decided that match would be better with a happy ending." The trick is to stay in the loop and use the process to make your script better.
11. Don't wait for inspiration I think people see inspiration as the ignition that starts the process. In fact, real moments of inspiration often come at the last minute, when you've sweated and fretted your way through a couple of drafts. Suddenly, you start to see fresh connections, new ways of doing things. That's when you feel like you're flying. The real pleasure of any script is the detail. And a lot gets lost in the process. Put it back in at the last minute.
12. Celebrate your invisibility Ben Hecht famously said it would be easier to get famous by riding a tricycle than by writing screenplays. This is a good thing! When you go to a film festival, you'll see directors and actors besieged by the press and having to trot out the same old stories over and over, while you get to sun yourself. Remember: invisibility is a superpower.
13. Read, read, read, read, read Read other screenplays. Read wordplayer.com, which is full of discussion, advice and heartbreak. But above all, read Karoo, a novel by the late, great screenwriter Steve Tesich, who did The World According to Garp. It tells you everything you wanted to know - and a lot that you didn't.
Are you guys actually saying that anyone you know has had any success at all with this list? I've seen this thing for years, and the guy who runs it is a whacko. He's always talking about his book, Ginny Good, or whatever it's called. I've seen numerous people complain about the list and ask politely to be taken off of it.
I just assumed it was all bogus. Let me know. Thanks.
I have no idea about the owner of the site. But the site was a starting point for me when compiling my email list.
But I'm not too sure how up-to-date the list is. Reps move around all the time. Plus they change their email structure occassionally. I'd imagine that people want to be taken off the list because they're getting too much query spam.
I do my research and subscribe to other resource sites, so I can verify the ligitimacy of lot of the email structures.
Personally, I think randomly spamming people from the list is a waste of your time and theirs. I do my research beforehand so I know about the companies and can decide which to query. It's about knowing how to play the query game properly.
Oh yeah, and you'll probably need a solid query letter.
Awesome! I've saved the html page to my harddrive. Karma means you'll get your script(s) sold very soon being so helpful and all...
That's the kind of karma I would really like!
There're actually several pages just for literary agencies alone. You'll probably want to click through each one and save them. Some of the management companies are also under the "Movie Production Companies" section. I'd use the Search function.
There're actually several pages just for literary agencies alone. You'll probably want to click through each one and save them. Some of the management companies are also under the "Movie Production Companies" section. I'd use the Search function.
The point of that paragraph was to say to look at what the books are saying and then see how it compares to what is produced in regards to structure. Barring the books, the rest of what you quoted pointed out that some people have no interest learning from those who made it either. Just seems kind of hypocritical to say you want to learn from those who made it, and then criticize what those who made it are doing.
Whether I criticize someone or not, I still think I could learn more from those who have been produced as opposed to those who haven't.
I think we can all learn from everyone, whether they're produced, not produced, or a brand new "writer" with an opinion. Any feedback is good feedback, and you just never know what different angle someone new can find.
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.
BTW, everyone should get a copy of William Goldman's Adventures in the Screen Trade. Good book.
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.
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...
I'm not "against the oldest elements of structuring a story", I'm against the claim that fundamentally all stories are structured in that template. And yes, I'm saying exactly that about the teacher.
I'm not "against the oldest elements of structuring a story", I'm against the claim that fundamentally all stories are structured in that template. And yes, I'm saying exactly that about the teacher.
You're correct, not all stories have a beginning, a middle and an end.
You're correct, not all stories have a beginning, a middle and an end.
Name one...that we can all find readily available. Not one that you wrote for an assignment in high school or one saved on your hard drive somewhere. One we can get at the library, video store, watch in a theatre. I'm talking one that is published, produced or otherwise publicly available.
I'm honestly interested in seeing a professional narrative that doesn't possess a beginning, middle and end.
I see Bert was able to think of a novel written in the mid-fifties based on the hallucinogenic ravings of a heroin addict. I imagine that is rather interesting.
What else do you have? Anyone? Let's up the ante to something that is relevant to the discussion and name a movie. An actual, produced, feature length film. After all, we are trying to learn from those that made it right? How many made it with a story with no beginning, middle, or end. I mean, this is where the discussion began, isn't it?
I was actually being sarcastic with my comment. All stories have a beginning, middle and end. They have to, otherwise they don't feel like a story.
Now there are films that don't have a beginning, middle, and end but that is an entirely different matter. We might see this non-story pattern in the form of character study, a slice of life type of film, or something more experimental. Where there isn't really a story but they do satisfy us as a film. My favourite film that doesn't really have a beginning, middle, and end - or for that matter might have a story but isn't sure - and if it was it might not have happened, could of happened, or is happening now - is Last Year at Marienbad.
We won't even go into the world of non-narrative film, an art form in which all bets are off. An example of this type of film would be Koyaanisqatsi.
Now there are films that don't have a beginning, middle, and end but that is an entirely different matter. We might see this non-story pattern in the form of character study, a slice of life type of film, or something more experimental. Where there isn't really a story but they do satisfy us as a film.
Like some Jean-Luc Godard's films. (but the first of them was an accident. During a screening, the projectionist mixed by accident the reels and people thought in was on purpose. Everyone then claims that Godard was a genius...
Quoted from mcornetto
Last Year at Marienbad
Alain Robbe-Grillet wrote it. He was someone VERY special in French films in the 60's. Such films like "Trans-Europ-Express", "L'Immortelle" or "L'Eden et Après" are more experimental films than real films. Robbe-Grillet was mainly a writer. He tried to "unbuilt" the telling of the stories through films that were most phantasms or dreams. "Trans-Europe-Express" is the perfect example. But I'm sorry for "last Year in Marienbad" does has a beginning (the meeting of the woman and the unknown man), a middle (the evocation of the memories of that man and the trouble of the woman) and an end (the woman leaves her husband and follows the unknown man). even if the construction is unstructured the story exists.
But at the same time, you have to start a story somewhere. From that point you have to progress it somewhere and then you have to find a place to end it.
Haha...you are worse than my kid, George -- wanting another example when you already insisted that even one would be enough.
You probably get the same thing from your kids, you big hypocrite
Well, I was also afraid how-to books would come up. Then we would get into books that have a purpose beyond telling a discernible story, and it turns into a big mess beyond what we're talking about.
Besides, without comment from those who started this mess to begin with, it becomes a moot point. People can write what they want to and others can choose to watch (read) it or not.
So I'm leaving this thread at this point (for real, this time), and if anyone wants to actually learn something, they can feel free to ask. If they want to argue about something as asinine as whether or not a movie needs a plot, please continue.
Let's take another example: George Cuckor's "Les Girls".
The same story is told three times by three different girls and each time the story is different. The story depends of the point of view of the girls. Who says the truth? Who lies? Is there a truth after all? That's the story of the film.
Name one...that we can all find readily available. Not one that you wrote for an assignment in high school or one saved on your hard drive somewhere. One we can get at the library, video store, watch in a theatre. I'm talking one that is published, produced or otherwise publicly available.
I'm honestly interested in seeing a professional narrative that doesn't possess a beginning, middle and end.
Beginning, middle and end is not a structure. You can break anything up in three pieces and call it beginning, middle and end.
I was referring to intro, complications, rising action, denouement thing you posted.
Beginning, middle and end is not a structure. You can break anything up in three pieces and call it beginning, middle and end.
I was referring to intro, complications, rising action, denouement thing you posted.
But that is exactly what people mean when they talk about a 3 act structure, it is simply a way of describing the structure that most stories have. Beginning, middle and end. The simple fact is that if you write a movie that has no intro, complications and rising action then it is more than likely going to be a pretty boring affair and not many people will go to see it.
i.e. if you want to be a successful screenwriter then you have a far better chance if you write movies that are structured they way people expect their movies to be structured, consciously or not. You of course do not have to, but if you choose not to then be prepared for harsh criticism from the majority and enjoy the praise from the art crowd, but also accept their donations of bread so that you can eat.
Nobody is saying you have to, so I do not really see the point in arguing this topic (the second thread you have done this btw). But it is an absolute fact that the vast majority of successful movies since the birth of Cinema follow some sort of basic storytelling structure, i.e. they engage their audience and keep their attention until the very end (or at least try to). So if you want to become a successful screenwriter it should be seen as an important part of your toolbox. No-one is saying you need to be a slave to structure, it is not rocket science, if you watch movies you know this anyway.
Someone posted a quote by Scott Frank on how he does not follow structure when writing. Are you kidding me? This is the man who wrote..
Get Shorty, Minority Report, Marley and Me and The Interpreter amongst others.
You really believe that Minority Report is not structured like a traditional Hollywood action movie? Do you really think that Stephen Speilberg would direct an action script that was not structured properly? Do you think that the Studio would give him enough cash (even him) to not only make this movie but pay Tom Cruise if they were not 100% happy that the script would work.
Minority report is a perfect example of the 3 act structure at work, the set-up, the inciting incident (the ball coming out with his name on it) the fun and games in the 2nd act, the 3 act finale with the false defeat etc... etc..
It is worth noting that of these movies mentioned Scott Frank only has sole credit for one of them (Get Shorty) and that was adapted from a book by a writer who knows how to tell a good story and thus was already written with some structure in place.
Could it be that others were drafted in to help structure the movies because Scott Frank does not care for it? Or is he just full of shit? It may be that he means he does not think about structure but that could just mean he is, like many of us, subconsciously aware of it and uses it almost without thinking about it. But the facts are that these movies do follow a formula to some degree whether he admits it or not.
"THREE ACTS" is arbitrary. Have you read Ibsen's "a doll's house"? Even that three act play wasn't broken down in the way you advocate and I can tell you that it is far from boring and is still either perform or reference in works today. You think that the absence of that template equals boring. Open your mind. This "rising action-climax-denouement" is based on the hero's journey template. I hate to keep referring to films like Taxi Driver, but I will, it doesn't follow that structure and it was far from boring. The same can be said of "Ordinary people".
Anyways, I'm sure someone will come here and interpret those films differently.
The gist of my argument is that YOU CAN DESIGN YOUR OWN STRUCTURE and make it exciting. Use literary tools that include suspence, begin in medias res, Use set pieces, and lay your grownd work knowing what's ahead, Use parallels, use contrasts to make things much better or much worse, make room for the after math, use melodrama wisely, Fake out your audience(trick them with some false alarms), do a bait and switch on them example, in a scene everything seems to be about one blatant thing, while another thing occurs almost unnoticed until later something is revealed... etc Once you know these tools, you can structure your film anyway and it will absolutely work.
... YOU CAN DESIGN YOUR OWN STRUCTURE and make it exciting...
I'll have to try this. Design my own structure. Hmmm, this has got me thinking. Quite inspirational really. I'm going to try a jigsaw structure for my next script.
Honestly, I feel like "structure" can feel like an imposition on a story. Not all storys are about "the hero's journey" yet all the gurus seem offer that specific thriller genre structure as a blueprint for all stories.
And this was fine and logical. I agreed with this since there is no one structure that a story can have. They're all different, and as long as it remains interesting, following some arbitrary page breaks is too restrictive. Where I personally turn to "classic" structure is when it gets boring. Then I make a suggestion that something "should" happen around this point, though it is by no means set in stone.
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.
And while I think it says essentially the same thing, the discussion that fell between this and your first post sent the discussion into a condemnation of a three act structure, which is where I threw out that three acts only means a beginning, middle, and end. It's just as arbitrary and defines no page counts.
When the discussion descended from there, I opted to point out the beginning, middle, end thing applies to stories in general, not just screenwriting by using some innocent English teacher's website. You then accused the English teacher of teaching her 11th graders screenwriting instead of short stories. (I still laugh about that.)
Beginning, middle and end is not a structure. You can break anything up in three pieces and call it beginning, middle and end.
I was referring to intro, complications, rising action, denouement thing you posted.
Ah... You understood me. Three acts is arbitrary, and yeah, anything can be divided into those three pieces, and when something is long enough, we can (if we desire to) call those pieces "acts." Sort of an industry jargon thing like a Navy guy would call a door a "hatch" or a movie producer would call his electrician a "gaffer."
The other pieces are just incidental when you write a story. You don't follow them consciously, but in all likelihood, someone could come behind you and find those things in what you write whether you did it on purpose or not. Those are simply analytical terms. Writers don't often think about them. We just write the story however it sounds best.
"THREE ACTS" is arbitrary. Have you read Ibsen's "a doll's house"? Even that three act play wasn't broken down in the way you advocate and I can tell you that it is far from boring and is still either perform or reference in works today. You think that the absence of that template equals boring. Open your mind. This "rising action-climax-denouement" is based on the hero's journey template. I hate to keep referring to films like Taxi Driver, but I will, it doesn't follow that structure and it was far from boring. The same can be said of "Ordinary people".
Anyways, I'm sure someone will come here and interpret those films differently.
The gist of my argument is that YOU CAN DESIGN YOUR OWN STRUCTURE and make it exciting. Use literary tools that include suspence, begin in medias res, Use set pieces, and lay your grownd work knowing what's ahead, Use parallels, use contrasts to make things much better or much worse, make room for the after math, use melodrama wisely, Fake out your audience(trick them with some false alarms), do a bait and switch on them example, in a scene everything seems to be about one blatant thing, while another thing occurs almost unnoticed until later something is revealed... etc Once you know these tools, you can structure your film anyway and it will absolutely work.
Which is pretty close to what I've been saying all along. Who cares about the rules? Just write what feels good, and if it totally sucks and you don't know what to do next, then check into what other people have done. But your first draft should be from the heart, and if it works, it works.
Pages: 
Author
That's not how you Structure a script!
Logged
I just couldn't watch a movie about a dog) but I'll check them out.
which gives tips on query letters, info on literary agents, publishers, production companies and theartres on a yearly basis. 
Locked Board