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.
When plotting out and later writing each act, Syd Field suggests giving each act a beginning, middle and end.
He was never specific about the best way to do this, which in someways is probably for the best, but does anyone have any recommendations on how best to do this? For example when writing a 60 page second act in a 120 page screenplay, is it best for me to make the first quarter of act 2, the beginning, the centre half of act 2 the middle and the remaining quarter the end, or is it best to divide the act evenly into three 20 page chunks?
I've been thinking about acts. While it is a good idea to have them loosely in mind for dramatic structure, you're writing a film not a play. In other words, no curtain is going to come down and end an act. So don't be rigid about it and do whatever works dramatically for the story you are writing.
It plots out along a pretty rigid, um... orderly path, and is likely something akin to what Babz Bitela asks for in the form of a beat sheet.
The story and characters, thus audience, should have met certain goals or experienced certain emotional points at a certain pace - which is a reoccurring editing statement you'll hear directors and producers hammer on multiple DVD commentaries. "Pace, pace, pace, pace. We re-shot and edited this and that due to pace".
The only point I am rigidly attached to is my own TV Rule. Typical first commercial break is at about the eighteen to twenty-two minute mark. If the story hasn't made it's big "Golly! This is cool and interesting and I wonder WTH is gonna happen next?!" move by then then I'm turning it off.
Alternatively it's my hor d oeuvre rule: If the first bite tastes like poop odds are so will the next. Put it down, clown. Don't bother trying another, brother. Move on, moron.
I have no story commitment issues.
Around here, many of us will ditch a screenplay before the ten page mark. (See above hor d oeuvre rule).
Once the story gets rolling along the timing to all those other plots and beats can loosely fudge about. I don't care.
No one gives a flying whup if at the eighty-four minute mark Princess Seafoam has or hasn't reunited with the horseshoe crab King to redouble their efforts against the zombie sharks of P.E.A.R.L. Maybe that happens on page eighty-two or page ninety. No one cares just as long as it happens.
But I better be darn impressed with how they recover the Puffin MacGuffin and use it against the zombie shark lord.
The only time I ever stuck to the 3 act structure was for Coffin Canyon. I did it because --
A) It was the 1st feature length script I had ever written, 3rd script ever written. And I didn't know any better -- That was 10 years ago.
B) It was an easy way to make things happen and keep balance in check due to the story being so huge.
Now, fast forward 10 years, over 15 drafts later, it is still the only script I have that uses a 3 act structure. I don't think they are as important as your story is. If your story makes sense, and it's interesting there is no need to hit highs and lows on cue.
And when you deal in shorts, like I have for the 10 years I've been writing screenplays, you can't really use the 3 act structure to any great effect. This makes you change up your writing style a great deal and shift focus away from it all together.
And...please understand what Blake Snyder did as a screenwriter...very, VERY little.
Why he's some kind of God among writers is WAY beyond me.
All he did was make A LOT of money. If your goal is to write screenplays that earn a lot of dough with little artistic integrity, his book is a gem. Whenever he would talk about his screenplays in his book, I would always cringe because they sounded SO awful (but at the end of the day, I guess he got the last laugh, because they sold for millions).
The question is this though: why did he sell 13 screenplays but only have 2 made?
When plotting out and later writing each act, Syd Field suggests giving each act a beginning, middle and end.
Before you guys get too sidetracked with another round of Snyder-bashing -- and tossing the 3-act structure out the window -- I would like to let the OP know that what they have posted is good advice to keep in mind.
And not just for the individual acts, either -- if you can, you should craft every individual scene with this basic structure in mind: set-up (getting in late), build, and conclusion (getting out early).
It is as simple and maddeningly difficult as that. Master it and you're halfway home.
I'm not opposed to the three-act structure. I really just see it as beginning, middle and end. I don't concern myself with anything else it entails.
I am opposed to three acts within each act. I think once you start breaking down structure like that, it facilitates generic, predictable storytelling.
In any case, I'm really getting tired of all these templates and diagrams. At some point, writers just need to have instincts and a sense of how their scripts function, whether or not they write in a conventional manner. Otherwise, their work just gets to be synthetic.
Now that I've contributed to this thread... I just found out Blake Snyder wrote Blank Check. Think he could very well be the Jim Jones of screenwriting.
I'm with James on the beginning middle and end bit (but not necessarily in that order).
Though I wouldn't discount Snyder if you're planning on pimping your script in Hollywood. I do think a lot of people in the Hollywood industry rely on that template to decide if a script is good or bad - not that I very much agree with them.
If you plan to go the independent route then I don't think it matters as much.
Yeah, I've taken a hard look at the 3 acts within an act idea over the last few days since starting the thread and after detailed inspection, it does seem like a series orderly pigeon-holes to slot chunks of story into that may not necessarily fit, which happens to be the case with my story.
I think my philosophy, which I will add is still forming, will probably be to work towards the mid point as that is where a major shift in events happens and then work from there towards the end of the act.
In terms of internal-act structure, which is perhaps what you were originally writing about, try not to feel too hamstrung. Keep the concepts in the back of your mind, but don't let them breathe down your neck, especially in your first draft. General screenplay writing structure is different, though.
There's one underlying principle to all of this, which holds true for any creative process in any medium: "you've got to know the rules before you can break the rules". Picasso couldn't not draw. James Joyce didn't not get punctuation. They did something different, but they did it with a full understanding and consideration of what they were doing. They knew the rules they were breaking, and rebelled not for the sake of rebelling, but to be radical.
Three-act structure, with turning points at end of acts, a catalyst in Act One, possibly a mid-point and a linked 'all is lost' in Act Two, and a showdown in Act Three, is a very good basic point from which to start, PARTICULARLY for new screenwriters. When you add in all the extra stuff, then sure it can start to feel like you're filling out a spreadsheet rather than letting your creative impulses lead you.
But you know what? To say "forget structure, focus on the story" is misguided and misguiding, IMO. Screenplays don't tell a story. They tell a narrative. And narrative = story + structure. Your story can be great, but your screenplay can still seem boring and directionless. Why? Because your narrative sucks. For your narrative to work, you need good structure.
Like the OP says above, my philosophy about good screenwriting is also still forming, and probably always will be (not a bad thing). But here's roughly where I am at the moment: a good screenplay is...
1) a solid hook (not necessarily an innovative, Hollywood high concept, just something that promises to entertain / intrigue, and gives you somewhere to go) 2) a great NARRATIVE (not just a great story; in fact, you can make a good narrative out of quite a dull story, and vice versa) 3) interesting characters that actors will want to play (usually that means some sort of internal conflict, or memorable comic / tragic moments) 4) nuanced, realistic (OR stylised, if that's intentional) dialogue that sounds good when spoken, not just read 5) clean writing that is aware of tone and clarity, and helps the reader visualise the script in their mind
And that's it. In fact, it's almost in that order. Fair enough to those who want to rebel against mainstream accepted conventions, but as Michael said earlier, bear in mind that's what those in power expect. Still, it's great to be bold and different, but only if you can fully and convincingly answer the question: why? Why did you do that? Why do you think that works?
Anyway, this debate has gone on forever on these boards, will continue to go on forever, and until one of us from either camp achieves something substantial that adds weight to our side of the argument, we'll forever be in this theoretical stalemate. So I'll leave it there for now.
Pages: 1
Author
Structure of each act?
Logged
Locked Board