While I think it's reasonable to follow a three act structure (rather than a more formulaic one).  I do think that this structure is more of a description of what's expected to happen in many stories rather than something you are expected follow verbatim.

Truth told, you could probably apply three acts to pretty much any storytelling, whether the author followed it consciously or not.  It's just the way we are used to stories being told, so we feel we have to tell them that way.  But we don't - especially not in the movies.  There is a movement that says the act structure, while it may have been appropriate for theatre where it was necessary for real reasons like scenery changes, is no longer necessary for movies.

And whether it's necessary or not, the thing to do is just tell your story in your voice.  Either you have the ability innately to tell a story or you don't.  This is evident from the first script you write.  All you really need to do as your learning experience is hone that ability and find your voice.    

Ray, I was giving GroundH Day 5 acts just because I counted 4 critical turning points. I don't know of any model for 5.

I did see recently there is a model for 8, and it calls to mind what Cornetto just said. The reason for 8 was that movies came in 8 reals back in the day, and the real had to be changed. So it made sense to transition then. Some people built 8 act structure on that, made it pretty sophisticated too.

A while ago I say something about a 6 Act structure. In theory that's really just a Three Act with a midpoint even in each act. the thing that was different though, if I remember correctly, was that it emphasized the midpoint as really being the key moment in the film.

I agree completely with Cornetto's post.

Personally, the way I think structure should be plotted is as key points along the development path/journey of the protagonist. I think a lot of times people look at a script, and they see that something critical happens on page 25 and 85, so they feel the structure is there. To me, it should be something that effects the protagonist, sends him in a new direction, begins the process of changing him.

For example, let's say it's an apocalyptic movie and the protagonist has to adjust and survive. Let's say the protag is out camping with his kids, and on page 25 the world starts coming apart. Natural disasters everywhere. But where the protag is, he is unaware of them. He has no TV or radio. The earth does not shake where he is. To me, this is not a turning point, and Act change, because it has not yet effected the protag.

Semantics, yes, I agree. But a lot of pros and semi pros seem to be looking for that big change on page 25.

Let me know how the research on the hero's journey goes. I am extremely interested in that. Maybe I'll find a chance to research myself.

Thanks guys.

Fair enough.

Semantics, yes, I agree. But a lot of pros and semi pros seem to be looking for that big change on page 25.
Yeah, I think any writer, or reader in an official capacity as a director or producer's gatekeeper, that OCD obsesses over what must happen precisely on page XX is a detriment to themselves.

That's just crazy.

Things in a story should happen when they happen for some sensible reason and in some sensible order, otherwise it becomes a 90-110 page soup sandwich.

If "some almighty key-critical element" occurs on page XX-1 or XX+1 or 2 or 3 WHO GIVES A FLYING FIG!
Director, editor, studio, producer, actor, distributor, MPAA is gonna futz it all up anyway!
C'mon folks! Feel the variables ahead of the story - beyond the story!
Use the force, Luke!
Seriously.

Story!
Story!
Story!
Is it good? Yes/No? Pass/Fail?

To some degree I agree with MC's POV: "Either you have the ability innately to tell a story or you don't."

Um... some athletes are naturals, but they still gotta learn the rules to the game and sheer physics of the universe to understand where things can and cannot be "pushed".
On the other hand, there are some athletes that may not naturally be AS naturally talented, but through dedicated discipline they actually do a pretty decent job.

And then there's the difference between armchair scholars that can fart verse but ultimately do nothing - vs. - the cardre of cornballs that make horrendous franken-films that actually get distributed.

I'd rather be the latter than the former, and I can't get that far if I don't know WTH I'm doing.

I'd rather make pure feces than immaculate zephyrs.

I'm going to agree with Mr. Cornetto again, and that makes twice in the last week I've said that.  

I also agree with Ray's last post, but I think that's pretty obvious.

I've got a great friend who I've been close with for over 15 years.  I've watched his son grow up, literally.  The son was never a talented athlete, in fact he was kind of chunky and had little natural talent going for him.  Well, my buddy got him playing baseball at a very young age and the 2 of them literally played and practiced every day for the last 10 years or so...many, MANY dollars spent on camps and the like, and he's now off to college to a D1 school, where he'll start on the baseball team.  He's actually very impressive now and it amazes me how different things were a short 10 years ago.

But he ate, slept, and dreamed nothing but baseball all through middle and high school.  I mean, literally, every single day, he played and practiced for at least 4 hours.

He has friends who didn't work nearly as hard and actually got full scholarships to D 1 schools, as they were just better athletes.

You can practice and learn to be good.  Or, you can just be good, as Cornie says.  Nothing wrong with either, or.

If you know how to tell a story, go for it.  If you don't, follow the words of the supposed masters and structure everything like the designs to  working engine or the like.

Structure is there for those who need to look for it.  Writing and story telling is an art, not a science.

Let me add one thing for you to consider, and I am curious what you may come to think of this down the road, or what I will think, since that will likely change.

Here it is: I think STC structure and Fyld's structure is a great way to build a story, a great starting point...as you said, a template. And some stories work perfect by molding right into that template.

But as with any mold, in some situations it can be inhibiting or even harmful. These is where I was kind of going in the theme thread.

Let me use a feature I am working on right now as an example, without going into the story itself. It's built very much on STC structure. Act One has a very clearly defined turning point. But it comes on page 29, not 25. The other day I read a pro reader that says this alone takes points away from my script. In fact, he says he often goes to page 25 before he reads page 1 to see if the turning point is where it should be. I'm serious.

I can get my turning point to page 25 very easily. I have 2 scenes that introduce key characters that are each about 2 pages. If I get rid of those scenes, I'm all set.

But do you see what's happening? Interesting scenes are getting destroyed so I can get my turn to page 25 if I do that(I'm not). And I think this kind of thing is sweeping Hollywood like a plague.

I think that's why characters in Hollywood are dull. They're being plugged into a formula. Paint by numbers. Tarrantino deliberately avoids this, and creates some of the most memorable characters.

And that was all I was saying before about theme. A thematic movie is one where the director tries to make a larger point. This is reflected in the film as a unifying force. But I think it could inhibit the free development of characters. I think some movies avoid being too thematic for that reason.

Personally, though I like theme, plot, structure, I also like interesting characters. I love great actors with unforgettable dialogue. I don't think we see enough of that, but maybe that's just because it's so hard.

Anyway, I look forward to the hero's journey!

Speaking of Hero's Journey, I still need you guys to cough up something more current than STAR WARS.
Seriously.

But do you see what's happening? Interesting scenes are getting destroyed so I can get my turn to page 25 if I do that(I'm not). And I think this kind of thing is sweeping Hollywood like a plague.
Yeah... I'm not "in the HWood scene" enough to know just how prevalent or transitory this plague is.
Anecdotal evidence aside, I have zero-la context.

However, I have observed a similar "issue" here among our own SS alumni which insists on dummying-down our screenplays so that they can breeze right through them.

Like the aforementioned "natural talent vs. effort" example, perhaps/likely to my own detriment, I don't mind reading a passage a couple of times to understand WTH is happening, but I'll fess-up to having an apparently peculiar non-linear editing brain.
It's not an issue to me.

By simplifying multi-aspected story elements material is being lost.

This is NOT an endorsement of sloppy and confused writing.
It's an overt declaration that some sh!t just ain't as simple to explain as it is to demonstrate.
It'll look cool on screen but like fried corn-shite on paper!
When some of these folks here are reading for finished literary works rather than crude Fiji idols pointing the way to the volcano goddess I get frustrated.

The same frustrating story limiting idea your pro-reader is applying to his "appraisals" (hey, he's got the job and we don't, so... credit due) I see when we're peer pressured into dummying-down our scenario ideas to "fit" into lyrical prose.

Ugh!

But that's cool. I'm either stupid or mean. I'm (almost) over it. Certainly aware of it. And get your point spot-on.


Moooving on...

Yeah, not everything is going to fit or should fit into any particular shoe-box categorization.
Maybe QT understands these story structure things "naturally" faster than I do.
Maybe QT is crazy as sh!t and don't give a sh!t, either.
I dunno.
The guy's banking coin, so... more power to him.

I liken myself to the ASTRONAUT FARMER (Haven't seen the movie, but just guessing the premise): I'm just a guy doin' my thing, trying to figure out some stuff with some practical hands on and no formal education. I might blast my a$$ all over the cornfield. I may just grin at my 8X10 over the mantle of the Great Wall of China.
Don't know how my story ends.
I'm still in the "fun and games" section.  

I'll throw out one of my stupid analogies here and if Pia is reading along, she may like it.

Tim Tebow is a classic example of what I'm talking about, but with a twist, as always.

He doesn't throw the ball like "pro" QB's do.  His release isn't what scouts want to see.  His results are different, though, and I bet he's going to be a solid NFL QB.

He's got that natural talent that doesn't need to be focused in the traditional way.  Or maybe, it just worked for him over the years, and those that looked at his non standard ways, decided to pass on him.  Too bad for them, as Denver has someone that IMO, is going to rock, as he's a proven winner in every way.

The point?  Do it your way, if you can.  Critics can say anything they want about it not being "standard", but if it fucking works, it fucking works, and you all should know, that's what I always say.

If a movie works, it works, and that's what counts.

Quoted from Dreamscale The point?  Do it your way, if you can.  Critics can say anything they want about it not being "standard", but if it fucking works, it fucking works, and you all should know, that's what I always say. If a movie works, it works, and that's what counts.

A-MEN, Brother Jeff!

Okay, I think I'm pretty much done taking apart the three act/Syd Field structures and have modified my original diagram only slightly:



I'm fairly confident that with a little consideration I can drop most any situation into this matrix and develop a fairly marketable story.
(* See below for a few tests)!


I'm moving onto structural analysis of the monomyth, popularly known as The Hero's Journey.
It's complexity is likely indicative of its infrequency.

So far all I got is STAR WARS, MATRIX, LORD OF THE RINGS, and SPIDERMAN. WALL-E was suggested but I dunno.
Any others would be appreciated.

Anywho...
I ran across this PDF if any STAR WARTS fans are out there or anyone wanting to get a better handle on monomyth story construct.
http://maggie.jp/HeroMonomythStarWars.pdf

Here's another nice one: http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~sparks/sffilm/mmswtab.html

Monomyth of THE MATRIX: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=477292
& http://www.webster.edu/medialiteracy/journal/2007/Monomyth_and_the_Matrix.pdf

GL

---

---

SWANN CLEAN
NATE wakes up in a cliche filty apartment. Goes to interview for a job as a janitor. The janitor job involves both vacuuming and cleaning with spray bottle and rag. The boss, MR SWANN, notes Nate does well with the vacuum cleaner but doesn't do so well with spray bottle and rag. Desperate for a new office contract and despite shortcomings Nate is provisionally hired for the janitorial job with a warning to never sniff the cleaning solution.
But the question remains can Nate maintain his job?
Nate and his new co-worker LARRY are assigned to clean both a small and large meeting room before a deadline. Vacuum silliness & spray bottle difficulties ensue demonstrating what an excellent vacuum operator Nate is.
However, he breaks his spray bottle and has misplaced his cleaning rag. Actually, he's starting to flip out and thinks he saw himself steal the cleaning rag! Larry kids him about sniffing the poisons in the cleaning solution. Fortunately, with Larry's help he fixes the bottle and finds the lost cleaning rag. All is well until Larry tricks Nate into locking up his vacuum! Oh, no! The Boss is going to fire Nate for sure!
Using universal paperclip skills, Nate unlocks the door, continues with cleaning the meeting room on time. Despite bottle damage, missing rag and vacuum attachments by Larry, Nate does an excellent job cleaning the meeting room! Supervisor is impressed. Nate dies of cleaning solution poisoning.
(Based upon BLACK SWAN)


BERT'S BUBBLES
BERT can't blow bubbles with bubble gum and endeavors to learn how. He is introduced to NELL who gives Bert "special" gum. It tastes funny and Bert is reluctant to even try. However, with Nell's "special" gum BERT learns to blow his very first bubble!
He practices blowing bubbles in different places. Delighted with his modicum of success, he shows his nascent bubble blowing skills to his big brother TED, the Bubble King, mired in his own troubles as he considers leaving town for job/college.
Nell tells Bert he could become the new Bubble King! This angers Bert who loves his big brother very much, causing Bert and Nell get into relationship ending argument. Big brother get's job/acepted into college and leaves. Bert is now alone with no one as his friend.
BERT realizes his foolishness, resolves his issues with both Nell and Ted before trying to become the new Bubble King. Devastated by learning Nell's "special" gum isn't special Bert carries on to blow his best bubbles ever with Nell's help.
(Based upon THE KING'S SPEECH)


STOPCOCK
Arguing brothers/friends/couple are cleaning up and winterizing a cabin which includes cutting off the water with the stopcock under/behind the house and draining water from pipes. While fixing the kitchen sink the argument seems to be resolving but then goes very bad, the other party leaves in their vehicle quite angry. Mad, angry and frustrated RON grabs after a dropped screw nut into the sink, getting his hand stuck in the garbage disposal.
Fun & games ensue as he fruitlessly pulls, reaches for nearby objects, and debates cutting off his own arm with the large assortment of knives nearby. No food. No water, though.
Finally his cell phone rings! Unfortunately it's just out of reach and unanswerable. But surely the caller/pissed friend/brother/girlfriend will realize he's not returned and will come looking for him in a day or two. Or three.
Ron understands he's been a jerk and wouldn't be surprised if no one has any intention of coming back looking for him. He resolves to cut off his hand. After a gruesome and miserable process he cuts loose and drives to ER.
(Based upon 127 HOURS)


GOTH DISTRICT
School security guard, VIC, assigned to direct goth students away from the side of the building. Trying to get them to leave he accepts a drink from a cute girl goth but spills the drink on himself. Laughing and cajoling at Vic's predicament it looks like the goths are going to leave until Vic is accidentally sprayed with Mace from the girly goth's key ring. Vic gets sick, vomits, passes out behind the school.
Waking from fainting he finds his nails are painted black and his wet uniform shirt changed for black. His injured head from the fall is bandaged with black scarf. Wondering where he is, Vic's co-worker Kurt goes to find him, find's the girly goth's car keys, sees the goths are still not removed from the side of the school and goes to get help. When they return Kurt and the guards find Vic has become a Goth!
Persecuted by former friends, Vic must get girly goth's car keys from the office to escape before he gets fired!
Vic gets keys, gets to car, gets home to a clean uniform but say's screwwit and doinks the girl goth instead!
(Based upon DISTRICT 9)


HUMILIATION
Three friends bored watching TV, as a gag SAM suggests ROB try to convince BOB through a shared dreaming experience that Bob is a woman. Rob knows he can do it, but is afraid his small joke might become a permanent problem for Bob. Rob accepts the challenge only if Sam assists.
All three are inducted into a shared dream several levels deep culminating in Bob about to put on a dress.
But Bob refuses because he's embarrassed and confesses he wants to become a transvestite, Rob and Sam laugh until Rob breaks down crying inconsolably for ruining Bob's life.
Sam feels bad about hurting Rob's feelings and tries to make him laugh by putting on the dress and makeup. Rob, Sam and Bob all wake up and Sam is actually wearing make up and women's clothes and confesses to investigating transsexual surgery.
(Based upon INCEPTION)


INSERTION
ROB and MARY are hi-tech shared dreaming pimp & prostitute. BOB is a new customer very eager to pay Mary enough to have "D-sex" with her, but balks at Rob attending, which he insists for security purposes. Finally Bob agrees to pay for the D-sex with Mary.
The sexcapades go levels deep as Bob demonstrates that he's really a very nice and wealthy guy. Bob suggests Mary leave Rob and run away with him. Undeterred, Mary knows Rob will always be there for him.
They uncover that Rob is actually a user bastard and Mary falls in love with Bob, will leave Rob, and run away with Bob to get married.
Angry and scared Rob figures a way out, tricks Mary and Rob into an infinite loop, Rob and Mary wake up and drown sleeping Bob in the bathtub.
(Based upon INCEPTION)


CONCEPTION
MARY and ROB are hi-tech dream family surrogate and her broker. BOB is a new customer very eager to pay Mary enough to have a shared dream-family with her, but balks at Rob attending, which he insists for security purposes. Finally Bob agrees to pay for family surrogacy with Mary.
The family life goes levels deep where Bob demonstrates that he's really a very nice and wealthy guy. Bob suggests Mary leave Rob and run away with him. Undeterred, Mary knows Rob will always be there for him.
They uncover that Rob is actually a user bastard and Mary falls in love with Bob, will leave Rob, and run away with Bob to get married.
Angry and scared Rob figures a way out, tricks Mary and Rob into an infinite loop, Rob and Mary wake up and drown sleeping Bob in the bathtub.
(Based upon INCEPTION)

Some examples:

MONSTER HOUSE (you wouldn't believe how closely it follows it...I annoyed my girlfriend by being able to predict what was going to happen to the second).

LION KING

NACHO LIBRE.

There's a lot to be honest. Here's a discussion I was involved in where Vogler himself turned up to talk about it:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?215320-Hero-s-journey-It-ain-t-for-everyone/page5

Fitting pretty much any movie into a 3 act structure is saying that the movie exists as a story. Seriously. Now, whether it follows the prescribed Hollywood story model (that being act 1 ends at approx. 20 minutes and act 3 begins approx 20 minutes from the end) is another matter entirely.

What is the most basic 3 act story? Beginning, Middle, End. And that's what we learned in 1st grade, children.

Every story should have a beginning, middle, and end. That's the three act structure "invented" by Aristotle. And yet, he didn't really "invent" it, did he? People have been telling stories for millennia before he finally wrote something down, and you can't exactly say it's profound. Every story has to star somewhere, and if you want to assign act numbers, that would be act 1 because one comes first. For a story to be decent, there must be some kind of conflict and when that conflict impacts the character's life, you hit a turning point which we can call act 2. At some point later, the character realizes what he has to do to find some semblance of a life (new or old) and does it. That would be in act 3 or the end.

The Hollywood version of this prescribes time frames to where these turning points occur, and that's your 3 act structure for screenplays. Groundhog Day is 101 minutes long, according to IMDB. I'll bet in the Groundhog Day example, Bill's 2nd alarm goes off about 20 minutes into the film. And to allow 5 minutes for credits, I would put Bill's lowest point at about 1:15-1:20 or so. Been forever since I've seen it.

The three act structure you all fret about isn't about storytelling. You'll have a 3 act story by default if you have a beginning, middle, and end. The Hollywood 3 act "structure" is about time.

Oh, and five acts is just the same 3 act structure broken out into 2 more plot points, which do exist in the quintessential Hollywood story structure. Typically speaking, these are a minor point in the middle of the first act before life really changes, and a larger one in the middle of the second act. The 4th act of Groundhog day listed really only exists in that netherworld between the 2nd and 3rd acts where Bill figures out what he needs to do.

I rattle on too much. Just saying though.

Hey George. Thanks for joining in, and for looking at the Groundhog example. Your points are well made and appreciated.

I would not necessarily consider these discussions fretting. I think for some of us, it's something to do while we're writing, and it breaks it up a little. As long as we don't let it get in the way of writing!

I think the second alarm in Groundhog actually comes early, about 10 or 12 minutes, 15 at most. Not sure. I think the larger point is what constitutes an act, or put differently, what is a turning point where one act ends and another begins.

You are spot on about a story having three natural components, beginning, middle, end. I think where the conversation about structure can get frustrating is when we try to discern the difference between a plot point and the end of an act. Fort example, the first plot point in Groundhog, and I'm pretty sure it comes early, would be the "minor point in the middle of the first act before life really changes". So to me, we're still forcing three act on this story when it doesn't fit.

Is it a big deal? I don't know. Probably not. But in script reviews here at SS, and in industry reviews published online, structure seems to be a big deal, and I'm not sure if many of those reviewers have really thought out some of these things.

Interesting discussion, anyway, thanks!

Rick -
Wow.
Thank you very much for all of that material.
Can't wait to go digging through all of it to see what gells.

Mucho gracias!

Too d@mn funny:

Quoted from George Willson Fitting pretty much any movie into a 3 act structure is saying that the movie exists as a story. Seriously. Now, whether it follows the prescribed Hollywood story model (that being act 1 ends at approx. 20 minutes and act 3 begins approx 20 minutes from the end) is another matter entirely. What is the most basic 3 act story? Beginning, Middle, End. And that's what we learned in 1st grade, children. The three act structure you all fret about isn't about storytelling. You'll have a 3 act story by default if you have a beginning, middle, and end. The Hollywood 3 act "structure" is about time.

I'm unclear as to what an appropriate response is to this other than "Thank you!" for defining the Hollywood three act model is timing focused/oriented which paradoxically contradicts the previously position of all stories have a beginning-middle-end.

Sandwichs each have beginning middle and end, but they're not all the same.
Cars have beginning middle and end, but they're not all the same.

Maybe I failed to clarify that these particular stories have a cliche Martin Lawrence from BAD BOYS "This sh!t just got serious" point at midpoint when significant new information stops being introduced and the story largely begins working with existing information - combined with - there is always a "All is lost. The story is over. Done!" at the end of act two.

??

Good?

Mystery movies keep introducing more and more new material, plot elements, and characters. These really don't fit too well with the three act/sid field template.

Many slow burn, developmental stories completely ignore the three act structure as multiple elements all culminate into a bizarre and hopefully satisfying ending.

There are movies which are really just a collection of fruity sub-stories like PULP FICTION or PARIS Je T'AIME. These don't fit the three act/sid field structure.

I don't have the slightest idea how to classify a film like THERE WILL BE BLOOD.
Is that a slow burn? I dunno.

Although the monomyth may share several or many elements with it, it has a few specifics like refusal of call and boons to debate sharing or not which are not fundamental to the three act/sid field structure.
I'm pretty sure GLADIATOR, which is largely attributed as being a monomyth, also shares many characteristics of a three act/syd field structure.

The Hollywood structure provides yet another template if even just a derivation or specialization of the three act. The former declares "A must be achieved at minute X. Not X-1 or X+1. At X. B must be achieved at... " whereas the latter is a little, if not considerably, more flexible.

That last point is where I think the primary value is in having a pretty good handle on this format.
Unlike the slow burn, you can't allow your story to get thirty pages into it, or even twenty, before act two begins of learning fun and games.
You cannot NOT have an "All is lost. The story is over. Unless... !" moment (which actually lasts for a minute or two or four in the films).
Some stories are just a series of f#cked up events that seem to never end. There is no "All is lost. The story's over." moment.
Steven Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS comes to mind.
Did CLOVERFIELD or REC/QUARANTINE have an "All is lost. The Story is over." moment?
Maybe "constant peril" stories don't fit. Maybe some do but the majority don't. I dunno.

I think for children's films/stories and comedies these are easiest/best.
They're simple.
Simple people like to be fed simple things that they can look at their plate and identify as being positive or negative.
Sophisticated people tend to fixate on being served exotic blends of sensations in intriguing presentations.
Not so good for blue collar Billy, age non-specific.

I dunno.

A - I just started investigating.
B - I haven't written or filmed something that sold
... so take all of this as a curious side show, buffet style culling whatever you find useful, disregarding all else as the babblings of a madman.

Update: Groundhog Day

Was on last night, I had time to watch first half and take notes. The second alarm going off, so the point where the day begins repeating, comes 18 min after the first opening credit. So pretty close to the 20 min mark you guessed, Shelton.

Interestingly, in a script, it would not come anywhere near page 20. The credits run about 2 min. Then we have Phil in the newsroom doing the weather. Then we have a very long, stretched out scene where the van travels to Puxawtawney. They play a song and continue to roll credits. So they really had to use a lot of filler time to get this turning point close to the 20 minute mark.

Another interesting observation: the next turning point, in my opinion, is the scene in the bowling alley when they discuss the "glass half empty", which leads Phil to realize he's been looking at this the wrong way, missing the opportunity. This comes about 17 minutes after the second alarm, so pretty carefully balanced I would say. My guess is the next turning point, when Phil realizes the futility of his position, when he realizes he can't win the girl and sinks to suicide, will be 17/18 min from the bowling alley. I'll check next time it's on.