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.
Just something that occurred to me as I was reviewing the MHeyman BLACK SWAN screenplay.
Now, before anyone starts beating on me, this is just a visualization of the three act structure, panned as it is, that I thought might be... remotely helpful to someone when constructing their story in outline form before fleshing it out.
Yeah, I always answers questions like these with: Diner. Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Films of that ilk that are classics. Did they have a plot? And did the characters really learn anything or achieve some super-growth? No, but for some reason we loved them. Because of theme (sorry Jeff), not plot. We can identify with them.
Oh and by the way Aristotle invented the three-act structure and Hollywood pseudo-gurus have been getting rich by re-packaging it to screenwriters for decades now...
Thanks for that wiki link. One of my immediate self-educational projects is to apply excruciating analysis to differing screenplay structures.
I think the classic Three Act and Syd Field Paradigm are the two easiest to grasp as a beginning point. From there I'll find samples that adhere to the Hero's Journey which seems just a wee more complex. Spreadsheets to follow, of course.
(BTW, I would appreciate any CURRENT [ten years or less] film titles you guys can share which are specifically built upon the Hero's Journey structure. TIA!)
It seems writers are forever wanting to "creatively introduce" something "new". Yeah, well... I'm a nube+ at this gig myself, and I'm of the opinion you gotta know WTH is standard HWood fare before you start "breaking rules".
Speaking of theme vs. plot, when I was listening to Heretic's rocking cool Jeff Goldsmith podcast interview with Screenwriters Mark Heyman and Andres Heinz I heard one of them speak something about a third factor of TONE which is honestly something I have difficulty nailing down, especially having some humor in a drama without being goofy.
Some stories naturally lend themselves to a tone, while others... could be played different ways. Isolating which tone I want to apply to a story - before I get too far down the road with it - is something I sometimes find difficult, even when being free to giving it much leeway.
I don't think I can say exactly what tone is. I'm horrible at explaining myself, but I know it's important to set the tone from the beginning. The writer knows what the tone is. S/He knows the script, but as a reader I often read a script and I picture it in my head just fine only to find way too late that the tone of the script isn't at all as I had first pictured it. It is then very hard to switch how you see the story in your head if you at first thought you were reading a dark comedy only to find out later it's really a dark drama. Do I even make sense at all?
So yeah, tone is important to establish early on IMHO.
...but I know it's important to set the tone from the beginning. The writer knows what the tone is. S/He knows the script, but as a reader I often read a script and I picture it in my head just fine only to find way too late that the tone of the script isn't at all as I had first pictured it... So yeah, tone is important to establish early on IMHO.
EXACTLY! I don't mind pounding out a blind plot or story (semantics) outline from a premise, but before I start cooking up dialog and action I kinda gotta know if I want O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? or NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN? Juno?!
I'm afraid I've committed myself to some serious research that'll likely take a few months to achieve a satisfactory approximation of a resolution. So, "No", I'm not good for either writing a d@mn thing for myself (of the four+ dozen features I have in the premise hopper) let alone a 7WC.
I just ain't got that kinda honest time available.
I done learnt too much that I don't know enough.
Maybe next year?
I'd really like to get a handle on the bigger picture before investing so much time into a quality, marketable screenplay. My goal is to bang out one of my own by the end of the year, and what month is this... ? Oh, gee. It's already d@mn near the end of July. Only got's five more months to go and I know at least two if not three of those will get chewed up on my educational journey.
As you probably know, Ray, I am early on the learning curve for structure. I try to watch movies now and plot out the structure in my head. I watched an old movie the other night, one that I know has been dissected many times by film people. I've read none of those articles, so the following is just my own dissection, if you're in the mood to play along.
The movie is Groundhog Day. I've read a lot recently on STC and standard 3 Act, and I have a hard time calling this a 3 Act story, even though in so many ways it seems classic Blake on the surface. I can't help thinking that to call this 3 Act is almost forcing that X ray onto the patient, when in fact the skeleton is something different. Maybe you can help me.
Standard 3 Act is Intro, Conflict, and Resolution. There are some other structural guideposts that could be confused as act changes, such as inciting incident and midpoint. So we have to be careful to see the difference between a an act turning point and a different type of structural element.
Groundhog Day(how I divided it as I watched) Act One: Intro main characters, tone, world. We see Bill Murray as a selfish and cynical guy, Rita as caring and curious. Then all of a sudden Bill Murray finds every day is Groundhog day. We'll come back later to discuss whether this is inciting incident or end of an act. Act Two: Murray struggles to understand what has happened. He thinks maybe he's gone crazy. After a while he settles into a funk. It ends in the bowling alley bar when the drunks point out he sees the glass as half empty. This awakens a realization, that this is an opportunity to have some fun. Act Three: Murray takes advantage of his new "power". Blakies will call this Fun and Games, but it seems clear to me this is more than that. It's an important part of his development, of the transformational path he is on that is the theme of the movie. At the end of this act, all turns to despair. He realizes he can't get Rita and doesn't understand why. He has not experienced any growth, remains a selfish person, and no matter how crafty his powers enable him to be, she always sees through it. Act Four: he wallows in despair. He is stuck in purgatory with no way to change anything. His life is empty. He tries to kill himself numerous ways(Blakies will shout 'Hint of death!') At the end of this act, he finally realizes he has abused his power, that he in fact has an opportunity to help people and to better himself. And this leads to the resolution of: Act Five: Murray helps practically everyone in town, and focuses on bettering himself. He learns that he can make everyone's life a better one, learns to love that. He is now a changed person, and with no effort on his part, he is now able to earn the love of Rita.
I've seen it described that the protagonist's world changes at the end of Act One. That's how we know we're at the end of it. So it seems clear to me that Act One ends in this movie when he wakes up again on Groundhog Day. Of course, Murray is unchanged, but he remains unchanged until he reaches despair and comes out of it later in the movie.
I just have a hard time not seeing this as 5 Act. It's so well structured that you feel all four turning points on the protagonist's journey very clearly.
Any thoughts welcome!
Note: not trying to start an argument, just a discussion. I am not anti-Blake, anti-theme, or anti-yogurt. I see Groundhog as highly structured, highly thematic...and Five Act. A great movie too! I wonder if any other actor could have played it?
Well, I'm definitely not going to get into an argument about theme again, but for Anthony, let me just say again, I am not opposed to theme in scripts and films in any way...I just don't think it's as important as everyone else seems to, and especially not in many genres of film.
But unlike theme, tone is something I'm totally into and totally understand. IMO, it's very important and comes into play both positively and negatively in all movies and scripts.
The tone isn't the genre, it's the feel of the way the material is being handled.
If you know the tone right off the bat, you should be able to accept the movie for what it is, and therefor, not expect more than you'll get, and bring up issues that the project wasn't concerned with.
For me, tone is much more important than theme...every time!
I think one thing about tone is after you set it, you have to be consistent and maintain it. It's easy to stray off on a certain scene, for example from dark to comedic or lighthearted.
And once you establish tone, the key is to keep your dialogue matched to it.
And I do love the diagrams above. Definitely useful for focusing a story.
Ok. To me this break down left out a really, really big thing, a critical turning point.
The bowling lanes bar, when the drunk looks at his half filled glass and says to Phil, "I see you as a guy who would say this glass is half empty rather than half full." This causes an awakening in Phil, a renewed hope, and he spends the next 15 or 20 minutes taking advantage of his power. This is critical in his development, as it leads him eventually to realize that it's not enough to make superficial changes to win Rita over.
That moment in the bar, with the half full beer glass, is to me a key structural component to the story.
Takes about three minutes to read and understand your or anyone's posts. Another five to ten minutes of simple homework. Open MSPaint, open the picture file, "Save As" something else. Make the picture bigger to fit in more blabbin' (by now I've already largely figured out a solution to the question posed). Box-select items and text to move 'em outta the way Figure out what stuff to delete, box-select and delete, fine details I gotta paint out white, re-paint in some details. Write the text I wanna add, box-select lines and re-stack for space conservation. Move new text blocks to appropriate existing text. Re-create the ACT II and ACT III wiggly lines, re-position the "2C". Move all text blocks to some semblance of appropriate proximity. Draw lines from text blocks to appropriate wiggly line points. Make the page bigger, again, select all, re-position lower to add in the blabbin' at the top. Save as JPEG Open photobucket account, upload, copy link, post here.
I dunno. Maybe 3/4 hour?
Half-empty bit or not, the story still fits the Three Act/Syd Field template just fine. I thought the turning point was Rita's bit, but it's been a while for me and the wiki synop is less than exhaustive.
From a story building perspective, the important part is to consider how the story progresses from a depressed, p!ssed off Phil if he doesn't get it through his thick head "something's gotta change" cause the situation sure ain't.
Where would the story go then?
Whatever the kick-off or inciting reason is is irrelevant. THAT it happens is very relevant.
1. Retail salespeople: Worst salesman ever wants promotion to team leader - and bang the dept manager - gets to relive Black Friday until he "gets it".
2. Cashiers: Cr@ppiest cashier ever wants to stop being so timid around customers - and bang the Budweiser vendor - gets to relive local boating event until she "gets it".
3. Office clerks: All left thumbs clerk wants to convince the boss to get a better GD photocopier and fax - and bang that same boss! - gets to relive the day the computers all crashed until he "gets it".
4. Combined food preparation and service workers: The head chef wants to group-bang all the waitresses in a single evening - while on duty! - gets to relive a very unsatisfied Mother's Day until he "gets it".
5. Registered nurses: The ER charge nurse wants a promotion to nurse manager - and bang the new xray tech - gets to relive a plane/train disaster until she "gets it".
6. Waiters and waitresses: see above food services, reverse rolls, er... roles.
7. Customer service representatives: Prostitute wants just one john to have "normal" sex with her - and get to bed before dawn - butt relives The Great Cleveland Steamer Event until she "gets it", (and boy oh boy is she getting it)!
8. Material movers: Truck loader wants to binge eat before - attending The Great Cleveland Steamer Event - butt must relive the most f3cked up delivery day ever until he "gets it".
I can keep doing this all day, butt surely you get the idea by now.
It's a template that can be applied to any situation. All the niggling details that support the premise can be worked out once the setting and scenario are determined.
I'll probably make this my last post in the thread since I have a tendency to piss people off who think I am just trying to be difficult. I'm actually just trying to learn and understand, but I'll leave it alone after this one.
And I love your approach, Ray, trying to master all aspects of the game. Certainly it makes sense to master something so commonly accepted as gospel like Three Act is, and STC beats. I am digesting your posts with great interest!
The problem I have is that it seems forcing GroundHog Day into Three Act is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. I don't mind being proven wrong on this, in fact I'm ready for it! But the above chart did the opposite. It reinforced my belief that this is not Three Act.
I can't make a chart, but let me relist the Acts as I did above, more succinctly.
Act One: intro chars, world, protags flaws and wants. Ends on first Sonny & Cher repeat. Act Two: Phil struggles to adjust to new reality, make sense of it. State of frustration but not despair. Ends when it's pointed out he's seeing glass half empty. Act Three: Phil takes advantages of his new powers, tries to use to bang bang Rita. Act Four: Despair, as he cannot win Rita. Tries suicide. Act Five: Realizes he is not using his power to help people, like he could. He now helps people, betters himself. He changes, this transformation results in his winning Rita, and finally ending the day.
All of those are turning points, four of them, are very explicit and equally powerful.
Each turning point is the end of an act, which means five acts.
The basic story is a guy wants something, obstacles are in the way, he must change himself to overcome the obstacles and get what he wants. Those are 3 basic elements, so we can call it 3 Act in that way. But that notion is so elemental that I have a hard time crediting Aristotle or anyone for inventing it. I'm hungry, I find food, I eat. You're horny, you find a girl, get laid.
To repeat: I think the Three Act model is cooler than sliced bread. Very useful. I'm not against it. So these were just points for consideration! Thank you for the thread and all your work. Your responses take time, I understand if you choose to move on or let someone else jump in.
Thank you Ray, Kevin, Pia and everyone supporting this thread.
I really do believe that this is the correct approach. There is no other way than to analyze structure and cross reference in different movies and formats.
Ray, you've done so much work here and we all really appreciate it. I also appreciate your deconstruction. You know, they say that brilliance is the ability to reduce something down to its simplest forms. You indeed show this and it's respected by us here.
Thanks again. Going to see Harry Potter tonight. Loved the books. The movies have worked hard to capture (as we talked about tone earlier in this thread) the tone of the series. And all of us know (who read the books) that the tone became increasingly dark as the series manifested itself through time.
Nah, we're cool. I don't in the least think you're being difficult. (Either I'm stupid or meaner than h#ll, pick one). I ain't nowhere near frustrated, let alone committing suicide. Ha!
Three Act vs Five Act looks largely like semantics to me. Whoopie-shiddoodledoos. Six of one half-dozen of the other - whatsit really matter, frankly? As long as the money is green I don't care.
Are all the story/plot bits and parts there? Yes? Great! You got yourself your very own Frankenstein's monster. No? Bummer. Gotta think of the missing ingredient to make that b!tch walk.
No biggie. Seriously.
As I identified earlier, my intentions are to begin with the Three Act and Syd field Paradigm and move onto the Hero's Journey structure. Do you have a link or two to some good discussions, explanations, or outlines of what constitutes a formal Five Act structure? Thank you!
I'm game for anything.
If I can learn to differentiate between insects and arachnids surely learning about chilopoda and diplopoda can't be far behind. Juno?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL! In researching THE MATRIX as monomyth, nominated for AFI's top 10 SciFi list, I also ran across GROUNDHOG DAY on their top 10 "Fantasy" list, #8. http://www.afi.com/10top10/category.aspx?cat=6
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.
I think this guy is calling you out for saying all stories are the same, although certainly not monomyths which I agree - they ain't! http://storyfanatic.com/articles/story-theory/not-everything-is-a-heros-journey "From error-ridden snarky videos to lightweight analysis of plot elements, the Internet teems with those who think every story is the same and that this similarity can be attributed to man's need for mythic transformation."
BTW, I find it simply amazing that in my quest to create proper stories to watch in <2hrs to avoid reading the same stories in >5hr books (laugh at me, I read slow) that I'm ending up reading a sh!tload of cr@p from all over the planet by babbling foo... folks. Just sayin'.)
After some (quite a bit, actually) more reading it has occurred to me that there are at least two primary story writer approaches: 1. Goal Oriented Writers fabricate story, plot, theme, tone, structure, characters, MacGuffins and whatnot to specifically arrive at some point. They are destination or goal oriented. 2. Journey Oriented Writers begin with a kernel concept, work it backwards, if need be, and forwards to a non-predetermined ending along a course they feel is natural or organic, free of conventional constraints. The outcome is there, you just have to find it. The creative journey process is key.
The two vantage points seem to be at barely respective odds at one another. - The Goal Oriented Writers largely dismiss the Journey Oriented Writers as being chaotic (to be polite, and "immature" to be blunt). - The Journey Oriented Writers routinely decry the unwholesomeness of the Goal Oriented Writers pounding stories into neat/ugly little boxes.
Philosophies: - Goal Oriented Writers (Engineers) - Without structure there is no order. - Journey Oriented Writers (Artists) - Beauty is in seeing the story as it occurs naturally.
Groundhog Day deserves to be analyzed, because it all but ignores the three act structure in favor of a structure more akin (though not identical to) the five steps of grieving, documenting the journey of Phil Connor's from a self-centered, insensitive egotist to a good, caring, selfless man.
Step 1: Phil's denial and confusion over what's happening to him.
Step 2: Phil's anger (when he purposely sabotages his segment, shoves Ned away, etc.)
Step 3: This isn't so much the "bargaining" phase as it is the "hey, I can get away with murder" stage. He doesn't bargain, here; he goes about his days acting on every impulse, knowing nothing negative will happen to him.
Step 4: Depression. He keeps trying to bed Andie McDowell and repeatedly meets with failure. As such, he grows despondent and repeatedly attempts at suicide.
Step 5: Finally, Phil accepts that this is his life now, and he may as well make the best of it. In doing so, he becomes the person fate/destiny/karma/what-have-you wants him to be, and his reward is two-fold: he no longer has to live the same day over and over, and he wins the love of a good woman.
Groundhog Day is a great movie, with more going on than its comedic surface would have you think. That's why it's still being analyzed almost twenty years later.
When I was in the fifth grade, the public school I attended burned down, and as the next option was across the city, my parents sent me to a parochial school, which was closer. There was a whole lotta talking about God. And I had a whole lotta questions. Drove the poor nuns crazy. Just how I am.
Now I attend Simply Scripts University. And my questions drive folks here crazy! But it's just how I learn.
As I continue to listen and learn, these are my current thoughts on structure:
1) Every story has a beginning, an intro period. This is when tone is established, the basic world laid out, and the characters introduced. It's part of every tale in every form. And it has to have a clear, distinct end, a transition into the body of the story.
Also, you only have a limited amount of time to accomplish this. If you're telling a story to guys in a bar, you better get to the point quick. If you're telling camp fire stories out in the woods, you get a little more time to lay the ground work.
In film, you might get a little more time if it's sci fi. Sci fi fans will be a lot more patient in letting you establish the world you've created. Also, if you there are things happening in your intro that are particularly attention grabbing, like in Stars Wars, you might have the luxury of a longer intro.
An ensemble is another interesting case. There may be more than one protag you are introducing, so you might have a little more grace. Again, there should be attention grabbing stuff going on.
But the intro definitely should have a well defined end, generally. As an audience, we expect this even if we don't think about it. If it's missing, our attention wonders, and we feel something's wrong, that the story lacks a trajectory.
2) Fields and Blake provide great models for building a story. But the models should be just that...models. They should guide a story, not force it. Groundhog Day is a finely structured movie, as structured as a movie can be. And it's clearly 5 act. There are 5 key sections, all the same length, none more important than the other.
3) unfortunately there seems to be a language of Hollywood now where everyone needs to be able to explain their story in terms of 3 act, and even more specifically in terms of STC. So even though Groundhog is 5 act, to market it, one would have to be able to describe it in 3 Act. So we need to be able to do that with our work.
4) pacing: I think, using Groundhog once again, the key is to have critical plot points come at balanced intervals. In Ground that seems to be every 17 minutes. Not sure if this is reflected in the script, however. They certainly seemed aware of it in the film. They use filler stuff when needed.
5) I like Ray's distinction between Journey orientated writers vs Goal. I think maybe the best result is mixing chocolate with peanut butter. If you are naturally a journey writer, try to be more structured. If you love to engineer films with precision, maybe try to write a little more freestyle, see if your work becomes more imaginative.
6) I like Lon's stages of grief comparison. The idea is that a character develops in stages which are more emotional than intellectual, though the intellect plays a role. And there doesn't need to be 5 stages. There could be less, or more. Depends on the situation. As long as your character is changing, positive or negative.
Exactly. Every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. If that's what this 3 act structure is all about, it's basically the same as "theme"...it's in there, as long as you know how to tell a frickin' story.
No reason to get all caught up about where breaks need to be or worry about character arc, blah, blah, blah. Doesn't matter. A good story is a god story. A good ride is a god ride, adn a good movie is a good fucking movie...Period.
I mean, seriously guys and gals. It ain't rocket science, but the more you worry about it, the more forced and show horned it becomes.
And you know what? The really funny thing is this...
A film's Box Office and financial success is not based in how well it matches any structure, plot points, or Guru's way. It doesn't even come down to whether or not it's a well made, good film.
It's how many buts sit down and plop down their $7-$15. It's how well the trailer is put together. It's about marketing and word of mouth. It's about star power, both onscreen and behind the scenes.
At some point, this is going to become clear to those with the power and those in control. Well, hopefully, at least. We'll see.
Jeff, I'm not sure we have the same position. I think learning structure is hugely helpful. Are there people that are natural story tellers and do it without really being conscious of it? Probably. But I think most people will benefit from learning structure. I think Ray's analysis and his graph is very helpful in that effort.
My only problem, and no one in this thread has done this, is when people take the STC approach, and treat it like a mathematical formula, as Snyder himself does. I mean, he tells you what your plot points should be and on exactly what page. And it seems that notion has eaten Hollywood alive. And it becomes even comical sometimes. A script like Groundhog Day, if an industry type looked at it, would throw it out because it does not conform to STC structure. But what's even funnier is this: now that the movie is made and is successful, all these Snyder people will find creative ways to say it was really STC structure after all!
And just look at Blake Snyder's resume of scripts to film and I think my point becomes a bit clearer...
You're listening to a guy who as far as I can see, never had a remotely successful script turned into a movie. In fact, critically, it's a fucking joke.
As I say again and again, if you feel you need to adhere to such a rigid structure and it actually helps you in the writing process, go for it...by all means go for it. But when it's all said and done, it does not come into play in terms of what's god or what works.
It's basically Screenwriting 101, and that ain't gonna get you too far, IMO.
Your Structure should essentially reflect your story.
If you're telling an Epic tale with supernatural elements...the Heroes Journey is a great model. You can deviate from it, but knowing why it's been universally popular can only help.
If you're telling a meandering tale about someone trying to find themselves and they go on a long journey, it makes sense if the structure is looser.
It's also thematic...if you're telling a story about memory loss (Memento) it makes sense that the story is non-linear/fragmented like memory itself.
Same with Usual Suspetcs. It's a Post-Modern story (turns out everything you see is a lie), so it makes sense that the structure is more Post-Modern.
The Snyder model is useful for "movies"....low brow comedies for instance. I think sticking to a formula model for those type of things can have its benefits IF it allows you to concentrate on more important matters like the comedic situations, jokes and characters.
I'm curious what you think about Inglorious Bastards? Obviously he likes to chuck the bird at Hollywood structure people. But it tends to support Jeff's theory of just make it interesting.
The opening scene is almost comparable to a prologue in a novel. Then the next scene, with the Bastards being formed, is like the intro. Except even that doesn't quite work as a comparison, because the prologue ends up being 20 minutes, a huge chunk of the movie.
The bottom line is kept people entertained.
Which leads me to another consideration I am interested to here people's thoughts on. It seems to me that the intro part of a movie is ripe with potential, and great movies exploit that. And how you exploit that can affect what you do with structure.
With a good film or novel, often the most interesting part is the intro, when the characters and the premise are first revealed. That's what grabs us. In fact, sometimes stories have a hard time living up to the potential created by the intro.
The reason I say this that it seems if you have really interesting scenes to introduce your characters, and the world or premise, you will need to push back the end of "act one". I suspect that the notion that act one has to end at a certain prescribed point might be inhibiting films, because it limits the intro period.
Of course, a film that has an intro that drags on can lose its audience, so one should be aware of that. I'm just saying that if the industry is too adamant about things, the intro, which is filled with potential, might be suffering.
Rick - That's EXACTLY what my thesis for this project was to question: to explore for suspected patterns, apply them appropriately if confirmed, once more than comfortable with them consider deviating from them with purpose from experience.
Monomyth/Hero's Journey for epics and high brow. Sid Field/Blake Syder for mostly comedies and blue collar diet.
To me these structures are just tools.
Sometimes the best tool to use is a crescent wrench. Sometimes it's the loop-end of a monkey wrench. Sometimes it's an adjustable wrench. Sometimes it's a ratchet. Sometimes it's even pliers.
Structures are just tools.
Knowing when to use what's best, that they all even exist, to be comfortable utilizing any one of them, and become adaptable to interchangeably utilize any of them seems a sensible goal way beyond some laughable "just do it" approach.
Good morning, Kevin! - Ah, well.... It's QT after all. Ain't no telling what bunny ran up his squirrely arse. I think he's a fan of making a non-linear, mish-mash of incomplete short stories. Frankly, I don't see any wide release director or film product that does model off of him, so it's not worth the the brain power to emulate... whatever the h3ll the man does.
I always note when studios, distributors, editors or directors open with a scene XX minutes into a linear story just because the actual beginning is so lame the crack addicted audience won't sit long enough to endure it. I don't care for it, but I understand it. I'm divided between calling it pragmatic editing by recognizing the audience's limitations (likely as a result of pre-release focus group reviews) or just plain lame story creation. I think the former is probably MORE valid and audience acceptance seems to confirm an exciting non-linear intro as a preference to a boring linear intro.
Businesses make products to serve the customers. The customers dictate the product they want, not the other way around.
3) unfortunately there seems to be a language of Hollywood now where everyone needs to be able to explain their story in terms of 3 act, and even more specifically in terms of STC. So even though Groundhog is 5 act, to market it, one would have to be able to describe it in 3 Act. So we need to be able to do that with our work.
I think this is going to be one of my key take-aways from this project.
Whatever the h3ll is going on in our minds is one thing, but what distributor purchasing agents and producers want to hear may very well be something different, and as a good businessperson we, as writers, need to be able to cakewalk dance/communicate on command between both demands.
I've noticed the structural fabric of some films can be draped over both a three act and monomyth simultaneously, successfully fulfilling both requirements in some if not most capacities.
I'd like to take minor issue with the statement that theme organically appears if you have a story with a beginning, middle and end. Stories with a beginning, middle and end have a plot but don't always have themes. Unless you count "good vs. evil" or "greed" as themes in your run-of-the-mill bad guy steals money and good guy tracks him down films...
Here's the difference, for me, between writing with a theme in mind vs. writing with a plot in mind: if you say to yourself "I have an idea for a movie", chances are you have a story you want to tell and therefore you have a plot, and you then add characters, dialogue, etc.
Conversely, if you say to yourself "what do I want to say in this piece as an artist?" then you have theme, and you construct a plot around it that illustrates your theme.
I will always write for theme, which is why I only have one feature and a few short scripts done. Each of them say something that I want to say as an artist and do not merely exist for plot constructs.
It takes a special talent to be able to develop a story around a theme, starting with the theme and then building plot and characters. I respect those that can do it.
I've researched it quite a bit recently, and watched many clips if interviews with directors. One thing that is absolutely clear to me is that the way Anthony is suggesting is the exception, not the rule. Even with great directors, or novel writers for that matter. In fact, in all the interviews I watched or read, theme was never mentioned. Tarantino discusses it without using that word when considering Pulp Fiction, in which redemption is the theme, and also the theme of "choices" between right and wrong. But even these were not his prime motivating factors in creating the story. He wanted to take a closer look at stereotypical characters like hitmen, and follow them throughout their day.
Many famous writers, some quoted in the thread here on theme, have said that theme emerges after the writing process has begun, often after the first draft is complete. So at best, it seems to be subconscious at the start of the process, for most writers anyway.
But I think it's possible for really skilled writers, like Anthony, to start with theme. I just doesn't seem to be the usual way in film.
Hey Ray
You are no doubt correct that no one should model after QT. I think it might help to look at the reason behind what he does, though. I don't think he's just randomly writing scenes. He's establishing the key components to his story, and he's doing it in a way that keeps our attention. This was the case in Pulp too. One the one hand, we can analyze it to say he's telling that story in non linear for a reason that serves the story. And while that is true, it's important to keep in mind the simple idea of wanting to start with things that grab the audience's attention. Sometimes you have to break the natural story chronology to do that.
I think you're definitely on the right track exploring these patterns, Ray, thanks for sharing.
I'll comfortably support your issue with essentially "just do it/build it and the theme will emerge... " approach.
I don't really comprehend the derisiveness toward working with purposefulness. No one's dictating any "Thou shalt have archetype character A engage in X activity at point T" and so forth.
Um... we're all pretty cool with being rather fluid with our approaches. So...
For me, it's tone I like to hammer out before beginning, as that dictates a lot of humor which is about impossible to overwrite into thought process of a pre-written story.
Maybe I'm just aware of the thematic flavor that runs through the story and I'll naturally adhere to it during the writing.
It can hardly be said that I said every story is the same. I simply said they all have a beginning, middle, and end. In my opinion, a story should tell itself, and though you, as the author, guide the plot and theme, you allow the characters the freedom to do whatever it is they do as they step through the story. Basically, it's a matter of watching your people react to the hell you put them through.
I've talked about this one before, but it's worthwhile here. Of my first 2 Fempiror stories, they were written in vastly different ways. The first was meticulously laid out bit by bit doing outlines and characters and everything else over a course of probably six years before I finally wrote it. It turned out well.
The second was written in two weeks. In that one, I had a basic idea of what the plot needed to do, but I needed a big story to carry that essential plot element. For the most part, I just sat down and started writing letting the characters carry the story to wherever it would end up next. I just kept asking myself what I would do next without any idea of where it would end up if I did that, just like you would be in life. You take the best option at the moment and deal with the consequences. As a result, that story feels extremely spontaneous, but it works really well. Strangely, it also conforms to a basic structure with solid turning points. Only one of those turning points was planned beforehand.
If you can tell a good story, you don't need to do much beforehand. Sure some planning will help, but if you try to pigeonhole the story into a firm frame, then you'll only stifle the real story since you're likely to rush one element and drag out the next in that effort to make the story fit the frame.
All stories are different. They don't need to follow the same structure or anything. Sure, there are elements that audiences expect in certain types of stories, but let the stories tell themselves. You don't have to always be in control. If you write yourself into a corner, figure a way to get out of it. There's always some creative solution to every problem.
When faced with the departure of their lead actor, William Hartnell, from their very popular Doctor Who series in 1966, the producers needed to find a way to keep the series going without him. Talk about a major problem. Then someone had a genius revelation: regeneration. Worked so well, it's now the longest running sci-fi tv series in history.
Be creative. Live in your world. Let your characters guide your story while you guide the plot. It works well.
George - Well put. I agree with you for the most part about letting your characters live, act, and react in the world/story/plot you created. I think that's the best way to get a reality based feeling for both action and character.
I'm curious what you think about Inglorious Bastards? Obviously he likes to chuck the bird at Hollywood structure people. But it tends to support Jeff's theory of just make it interesting.
The opening scene is almost comparable to a prologue in a novel. Then the next scene, with the Bastards being formed, is like the intro. Except even that doesn't quite work as a comparison, because the prologue ends up being 20 minutes, a huge chunk of the movie.
The bottom line is kept people entertained.
Which leads me to another consideration I am interested to here people's thoughts on. It seems to me that the intro part of a movie is ripe with potential, and great movies exploit that. And how you exploit that can affect what you do with structure.
With a good film or novel, often the most interesting part is the intro, when the characters and the premise are first revealed. That's what grabs us. In fact, sometimes stories have a hard time living up to the potential created by the intro.
The reason I say this that it seems if you have really interesting scenes to introduce your characters, and the world or premise, you will need to push back the end of "act one". I suspect that the notion that act one has to end at a certain prescribed point might be inhibiting films, because it limits the intro period.
Of course, a film that has an intro that drags on can lose its audience, so one should be aware of that. I'm just saying that if the industry is too adamant about things, the intro, which is filled with potential, might be suffering.
Jeff's right in that if it works, it works.
You can break any "rule" you want, as long as it works in the confines of that particular story.
Structure will rarely be the reason something is good. Two films can be structured in the same way, and one is great with interesting characters, action etc and the other is drab and boring.
However, it seems commonly to be the case that when something is clearly NOT working...it's down to the structure, to a lesser or greater extent. Too long spent in certain points where it's not needed, something missing here, not cohesive enough or coherent enough there.
You can often see where it's lacking compared to traditional strcuture.
It all comes down to what you're trying to accomplish.
The three act structure is designed to provide the greatest possible EMOTIONAL response in an audience. Emotion is something Hollywood does well. Positive emotion particularly...it sells. As simple as that. Films that end happily do much better in BO terms than ones that end on a downer. (I know that's not a specific structural concern, but I think it's a critical point).
If you look at how popular Shawshank Redemption is you see this point. Imagine if instead of the theme of Hope, and getting on with living that Andy instead eventually succumbs to his mistreatment and kills himself. Artistically there's nothing wrong with it. Maybe it's more realisitc. But the film would have died at the BO (as it did) and stayed dead in monetary terms, instead of having that incredible word of mouth resurgence.
The traditional Hollywood story is an underdog story (little guy vs big guy) told in a linear way, with a happy ending. That's the standard model of story and it works in the way it was intended to.
The problem with those structures is from an artistic (and political) point of view...they are more predictable and tend to be less useful if your message is more philosophical/political/intellectual. The three act structure tends to introduce a problem that is then solved and neatly wrapped up and requires no action from the audience.
The real world is often more complicated, which is why many independent and European/ROW films tend to deviate from that structure. They may be more interested in other things than just escapist entertainment.
It's possible to create as much emotion, but it takes more and more skill to do so. It's possible to keep the story moving at a similar pace, but again it's more difficult to do so...you've got to find novel ways of keeping the audience interested and the energy moving and often this doesn't happen.
Essentiallly what I'm saying is that you just need to make sure that the structure you're using helps you achieve your goal. Whatever that goal is is the concern of the individual author.
Mistakes are made when people adopt a structure that's succesful for another film, and use it for a different kind of film that doesn't really need or suit it.
The "slow" start to Rocky really works because the film is about a guy who is trying to gain self-respect and respect from his peers...he wants to be a somebody...it makes sense that we see his life, see his morality and his circumstances...it all adds to the story.
Take that same structure and stick it on Star Wars, and it's a mistake. Look at how quickly the characters are established in that film: Darth Vader storms into the Rebel Vessel, kills someone with immense strength. We understand straight away his power and his nature. Princess Lea is brought before fim and is defiant and courageous...clearly living for an ideal that's bigger than her own life.
Imagine another writer spending twenty/thirty minutes getting all that info. across with Stormtroopers discussing things in the canteen, and whole scenes showing Lea on her home planet...
There's also the danger of imitation...Tarantino is the perfect example of that. There was a time it seemed everyone was trying to imitate his style...long meandering passages of dialogue etc. Unfortunately they all seemed to miss what made his dialogue so involving.
It's the difference between being an artist or an artisan, I suppose.
Great post, Rick. Rocky really is a great script, too, and I wonder if it's pace would work today. I suspect not. But the script has enough to it that it could be successful in today's market with some very noticeable adjustments. The slow pace wouldn't work on the modern audience, I don't think.
Ray, are you out there? Hopefully you're lurking and check in. I got something for you. This is copied from a post on another website. It's a pretty neat breakdown of various structure theories.
I might post some new thoughts of my own soon on this too. Been reading a lot of Carson Reeves at Scriptshadow. I think his GSU emphasis is very useful, and sometimes runs counter to STC 3 Act. I think we have to be careful with all of these theories, which are helpful to the degree they serve story, but can be counterproductive when they don't. Anyway, here's the post:
Originally Posted by Scrivener The Inciting Incident
Ok, let’s pose the question, ‘Where do you place the inciting incident?’ and find a path to an answer.
What does everyone agree on? The inciting incident occurs somewhere in Act One.
At some point in Act One, your Protagonist has got to be propelled into the story and the world of the story.
Act Two sees the protagonist in the world of the story and he or she had to move out of their normal world to get into the story world proper. So a believable rift in the protagonist’s universe is needed to kick start the process - something the protagonist HAS to react to.
The problem I see time and again is a weak inciting incident and an implausible reaction to it. The writer’s reaction is usually that it worked in such and such a movie so that is where it had to go in the writer’s script. This is the place that new writers kill someone of such importance to the protagonist that the protagonist is effectively physically or emotionally orphaned.
That may work, of course, but what should happen is that whatever the inciting incident it must be something he or she is not expecting. Something completely out of left field - BUT perfectly congruent with the story.
So where should it go to fire up the interest of a modern movie audience (and a reader)? Probably page 15 is too late. However, that is not a rule.
It will come AFTER you have * Set up the tone of your story i.e., romantic comedy, detective, horror, sci-fi, thriller - whatever. * Introduced the protagonist or the Antagonist or Stakes character (a victim of the Antagonist). * Set up enough of the protagonist's Ordinary World for us to ‘get it’. * Established enough of the protagonist's character to intimate the 'fatal flaw'.
Then you can spring your Inciting Incident - somewhere between page 8 and page 15 in your first draft. You can always rewrite it later (in the second draft or rewrite of the first draft) and spring the whole lot in a killer opening scene on page one. But only when you have a finished first draft and know from the story that your rewrite will allow that.
Only break the rules when you know the rules.
The way it works is that the inciting incident must be a ‘signifier’ of sufficient and plausible gravity that it will result in the protagonist eventually making the decision to leave the safety of their ordinary world. That decision is NOT the Inciting Incident. The Inciting Incident comes before and results in the decision - usually after considerable and plausible reluctance (both considerable and plausible). The protagonist will try to find every excuse possible in the context of the story not to leave that ordinary world. So the inciting incident has a very big job to do - but it can be as simple as a phone call or as major as coming back home or to the office to find everyone is dead - provided that you have set it up in the first 8 to 12 pages. Think Little Miss Sunshine, Three Days of the Condor. There might even be a perpetrator still in the building (No, Not Elvis!). But eventually, the protagonist makes the decision to take the journey to resolve whatever conflict the inciting incident just caused. That last sentence is critical - it means that the inciting incident is connected directly to rest of the story.
What comes before the Inciting Incident in the ordinary ‘safe’ world and what comes after in the journey ‘new rules of operating’ world are connected.
You will often see a claim that the inciting incident should be an unexpected banana peel your protagonist slips on. He didn't see it coming and neither did we. It's that drive-by that happens for no reason. It's an event that makes no sense. Be wary of that execution of the Inciting Incident. It has to fit the story world and the story and make sense. However it really has to be something plausible that will eventually succeed in getting the protagonist well and truly on the journey of the story.
Different screenwriting paradigms use the term Inciting Incident - or its equivalent, in different ways. (I am almost certain that the Stephen Greenfield is the original source of the following paradigm comparisons I have added the odd note here and there - Syd Field, Robert McKee, John Truby, Christopher Vogler and Dramatica).
The Syd Field Paradigm. Field's Paradigm is a four-act structure masquerading as a three-act structure. It starts with a set-up and inciting incident, has regular turning points in the plot called “plot points” and “pinches” in the middles, and ends with a climax and resolution. His paradigm describes both the external journey involving the attempt to achieve the story goal and the internal journey of the Main Character. Syd Field is adamant that dramatic structure is a series of related incidents leading to a dramatic resolution. The inciting incident is only one of these related series of incidents. He suggests that you have 30 pages to set up the story. He puts a 'plot point' hook at about page 25 to 27 which seems to be his Inciting Incident.
Robert McKee's Central Plot and The Quest McKee describes plot in two ways. The first is a simple linear timeline called the Central Plot. McKee's Central Plot is a modified three-act structure. It begins with an inciting incident, proceeds with progressive complications, and ends with a crisis, climax, and resolution. McKee's system uses beats to build scenes, scenes to build sequences, and sequences to build acts. His third act is slightly shorter than the last act in the four-act structure examples. The McKee second act picks up the extra time and is slightly longer than the combined middle acts of a four-act structure.
The second approach McKee uses is called The Quest. The Quest describes the flow of conflict in a story. The + and — represent the positive and negative tug-of-war of conflict in the backstory before the inciting incident. The “spine” represents the “through-line” / timeline in the story. The conscious and unconscious desires describe the drive behind the external and internal journeys. The inner, personal, and extra-personal conflicts represent the types of pressure put to bear on the protagonist/main character as the story progresses. The conscious and unconscious objects of desire represent the journeys' goals.
John Truby's Twenty-Two Building Blocks A combination of Joseph Campbell's mythic structure and original work, Truby's Twenty-Two Building Blocks plot structure loosely conforms to a three-act structure. Truby is a proponent of the idea that Plot is what Character does, and Character is defined by actions. As such, his plotline is a combination of a Hero's actions motivated by his internal Need and an external Desire (goal). The actions of various Opponents and Allies counterpoint the Hero's efforts. The plot has an inciting incident, ends with a new equilibrium, and has several revelations and reversals along the way.
Let’s give the next to last word to John Truby. He says there are Four Necessities that are key tools early in the writing process. They are, briefly: The NEED, the INCITING INCIDENT, the DESIRE, and the OPPONENT – and each of these four elements must be intimately and necessarily connected to the others for your story to work as well as it can.
NEED: what the character needs to fulfil them and create a good life. They will not fulfil this need until the end of the story. It is usually unconscious, and until they fix this aspect of themselves they’re acting immorally / hurting someone / hurting society by their actions.
The necessary DESIRE LINE is the one that will eventually cause your hero to address his NEED when he realises he cannot get what he wants by remaining who he was. It also guarantees your hero runs smack into his OPPONENT.
The INCITING INCIDENT is the thing early in the story that upsets your hero’s world and causes them to come up with a goal. Again, you have to find the necessary Inciting Incident. This is the singular event that creates the conditions for the hero to create their DESIRE LINE towards the goal (which eventually causes your hero to confront his NEED if he is to succeed).
The necessary OPPONENT is the one person in the whole world who is best able to attack the hero’s main weaknesses (and ultimately confront his NEED). He is also competing for the same goal (otherwise everyone could get what they want and the story would be over). Tying the Opponent tightly together with the INCITING INCIDENT often (but not always) results in stories in which the Opponent is subsequently discovered to be the cause of the Inciting Incident.
Christopher Vogler's Hero's Journey Christopher Vogler's description of the Hero's Journey plot is usually presented as a circle. Like Syd Field's Paradigm, Vogler's Hero's Journey is a four-act structure camouflaged as a three-act structure. That's where the similarity ends. Based on Joseph Campbell's work on mythic story structure, Vogler has relabeled the plot points to describe the external journey of the Hero, and the internal journey of the main character (The Character Arc). Vogler's setup and inciting event take the form of Ordinary World and Call to Adventure. Like Field and other paradigms to come, major events function as turning points for the acts, such as Crossing the Threshold into the Special World, Ordeal, and The Road Back to the Ordinary World. Crisis and climax show up as Resurrection and Final Attempt. Return with the Elixir and Mastery approximate the story's resolution.
Michael Hauge's Six Stage Plot Structure Despite its name, Hauge's Six Stage Plot Structure has its roots in a four-act structure. It starts with a setup followed by an inciting incident called Turning Point #1: Opportunity. It has regular turning points in the plot to indicate act breaks (Turning Points #2, #3, & #4), and ends with a climax (Turning Point #5) and resolution (Aftermath). Hauge's paradigm describes the Outer Journey as the attempt to achieve the story goal. The Inner Journey describes how the Hero (Main Character) goes from living fully within his Identity (a mask that hides his inner trauma and desires) to a life free of the Identity and fulfilling his Destiny.
Dramatica's “Act Structure” Dramatica clearly uses a four-act structure. It starts with a setup of plot points and story dynamics and an inciting incident. It has regular turning points in the plot to indicate act breaks driven by the Story Driver, and ends with a crisis, climax, and resolution of plot points and story dynamics. It also explores four throughlines; two more than the other story paradigms. The Overall Story throughline is the rough equivalent of the outer journey found in other paradigms. The Main Character throughline is the counterpart to the inner journey. Dramatica counterpoints the Main Character throughline with the Impact Character throughline. Exploring the relationship between the Main and Impact Characters is done in the MC/IC Relationship throughline.
and the one I really like:
Phil Gladwin - In the course of a normal day for them they take their usual steps to tackle their familiar problem when something unusual happens, and creates a new need for them to solve this Unusual Problem. (This need usually takes the shape of a question in their head.) They should pretty well drop else everything they are doing at this point, and work on answering this question. After a bit of a struggle they get to a point where they get their answers, or they get their need satisfied, only to find out that in accomplishing this they have opened up a whole new, and much, much bigger problem. This is the end of Act 1.
Let’s break that down into what’s needed. You have to: 1. Show us your Hero, show us what kind of a person they are, and their normal everyday life. 2. Show us how they have a Familiar Problem. 3. Show them taking steps to solve their Familiar Problem. 4. Show how, somewhere along the line, they will encounter an unusual event which produces their Unusual Problem. 5. This unusual event is called the Inciting Incident. It can be the tiniest thing, but it should have the potential to turn the Protagonist’s life upside down, and to create a situation that will last till the end of the screenplay. When you are looking for this incident, you need to find the event that will eventually lead your hero into the most difficult struggle of their life.
Contour - Jeffrey Schechter ACT I / Plot Points 4 - 5 In these two plot points of Act One, several landmarks occur:
The inciting incident will occur. This is the event that will rock the hero's world and change things forever. The hero has an increased awareness of his or her inner needs. The stakes are made clear. This is what the hero stands to lose. The proverbial call to adventure occurs or is alluded to. The hero is summoned or made aware that he or she may need to leave the ordinary world but either doesn't acknowledge or refuses to answer the call. Yet!
Finally, Ronald Tobias sets out his argument in approximately the following steps: Based on the book "20 Master Plots (And How to Build Them)" by Ronald B. Tobias. ISBN 0-89879-595-8.
Sort of reworked to show the three act structure. Act 1 (or Phase 1) – Setup
The protagonist is shown before the change.
The incident that prompts a crisis, and thus the change, is presented. This is called the initial transforming incident, or inciting incident.
The first effects on the protagonist of the incident unfold. Tobias cautions the author to keep to action and reaction, and cause and effect.
(It is also important to foreshadow the transformation, showing there are lessons to be learned or insights to be made, etc.)
Act 2 (or Phase 2) – Complications
This act shows the “full effects of the transforming incident.” As this is a process plot, the process of transformation is developed by degrees.
Being a character plot, self-examination is used greatly. From the book: “Whatever actions the character takes are a direct expression of what the character thinks. The character’s nature determines the action…”
Act 3 (or Phase 3) – Climax and resolution
This act shows the incident that defines the outcome of the change (final transforming incident or clarifying incident).
Tobias mentions that in this act, it is common for the protagonist to have learned a lesson, or learned a lesson other than what he thought he would learn (where illusion is replaced by reality).
He also is usually a bit sadder but wiser.
Growth and understanding occur.
Tobias comments that a character should be “primed” for an event to affect him (the inciting incident). Tobias was discussing the disproportionate impact of a mistaken kiss on a Chekhov character. Had he not been “primed” (given proper description of his psychology and actions illustrating it), then the extreme impact would have fallen flat. Tobias identifies an incident that starts a change in the protagonist's life. Be sure the reader knows who the protagonist is before the change! Now let the ripples of the incident begin to stretch out..."There are lessons to be learned, judgments to be made, insights to be seen." Then show us the full effects of the transforming inciting incident. What hidden parts of the main character are stirred up in the wake of the storm? Then show us (often via another incident) the results of the transformation. What does the protagonist (and the reader) learn? "It's common for a protagonist to learn lessons other than what he expected to learn. The real lessons are often the hidden or unexpected ones. Expectations are baffled; illusions are destroyed. Reality overtakes fantasy," says Tobias. Now the task of suggesting page numbers. Remember that the Inciting Incident CAN occur on page 1 or page 21 or anywhere in Act One. But the usual rule of thumb is that an inciting incident is not just a single banana peel event. There are five connected Inciting Incident related plot points throughout the movie (Truby - if I remember rightly).
I've added examples from Little Miss Sunshine
INCITING INCIDENT The first critical dynamic in the script is the "Inciting Incident". This is the point in which the “hero” encounters some thing, force or person that shakes his everyday/normal world up and sets him on the path to adventure. This point usually comes around 10-15 minutes into the movie. Inciting Incident (Aunt Cindy calls) END OF ACT ONE The next structural point in the movie comes when the hero is fully thrust into the "special world". This is considered to be the end of Act One. Often, the hero will attempt to refuse this "call to adventure" before fully accepting the task before him. This point usually comes around 25-30 minutes into the movie. First Act Break (Olive promises Richard she will win the contest then Richard hits the table and says "We're going to Florida") MIDPOINT/CONFRONTATION The next structural point is considered to be the major point of confrontation. This is when the hero fully confronts the forces that are against him. Here the battle is on and the two opposing forces go at each other and the hero usually comes out the loser. This point usually comes around 55 - 65 minutes into the movie. Mid Point Setback (Grandpa dies - but his values win through at the end through the hero's decision) Second Act Reversal - reveal a much bigger problem than the getting to Florida (They discover that all the other contestants are more polished and more talented than Olive - big insight - there is no way Olive can win this contest) END OF ACT TWO This structural point will often be the lowest point in the movie. It is the point where all looks lost and in some case the hero will actually appear to die physically. This point usually comes around 70- 80 minutes into the movie. Second Act Break (They get to Florida - fulfils the second act goal - which was to get to Florida and register Olive - they get to Florida and register Olive) END OF ACT THREE / DENOUEMENT This structural point takes place at the conclusion of the movie. It is here that the hero finally triumphs or accepts his losses (in a tragedy). Any loose ends still left will be tied up here. This point usually comes in the last 15 minutes of the movie. Now the big question - can the hero go back to things as they were in the hero's ordinary world BEFORE the Inciting Incident occurred? This is where you write your magic moment insight and audience satisfaction. Aahhhhh!
So, to return to the initial question, Where does the Inciting Incident go?
The best way I can state it is that readers and producers often leaf through pages 8 to 15 looking for the Inciting Incident - even before they have read the opening.
Probably a good place to put it.
Hope this helps.
But there is more. Is the Inciting Incident in Starwars when Luke Skywalker sees the hologram of the Princess, when he and Ben discover the dead Sandpeople, when Luke discovers his nuked aunt and uncle, or when Peter Cushing zaps the Princess' planet? Care to vote? Or better, argue?
Oh, wow. That's a nice find, Kevin. I appreciate you thinking of this thread then digging it up and posting this. Very thoughtful of you.
It's funny that you should post this analyzed list of different approaches. As I progressed from the simplistic pattern I began with onto the monomyth/hero's journey I ran across a similar analyzed synoptic list and discovered that the cumulative whole of them were semantic arguments over relatively trivial issues. Physicists may enjoy a good argument over up and down quarks and their flavors, but that's getting way beyond my threshold of practicality.
There's being thorough, and then there's just wasting time. So, my research pretty much evaporated with that realization of nonsense.
I think for my stories I'll stick to the three act/dual constraint+challenge for comedies and non-epic stories and monomyths for any epic stories I may conjure up.
I've also become a fan of Carson Reeves script reviews. His emphasis seems to be less on structure and more on the engines which drive a story. I personally am starting to lean towards the simple notion that it's the engines that matter, and structure is good as long as it fuels those engines, but a hindrance when it does not.
Carson's emphasis breaks things down to GSU: goals, stakes, urgency. A story usually requires a likable protag, actively pursuing goals, with clear stakes, and something creating urgency.
But this approach is not perfect either. It's not hard to think of great movies where the GSU is weak. In A Few Good Men, the protag is unlikable, has no real character goal until late in the story, and the stakes and urgency are weak until the latter part of the movie when he risks his career by questioning Col. Jessup.
It occurred to me(I happened to be thinking about this right before the OWC) that another simple human need drives story: curiosity. And it seems to be neglected in all of this structural analysis. Simple curiosity. We want to know what's behind the locked door; who is that masked man; what's in the basement; how will they get out of that trap. These things are more effective when we care about the characters, so I'm not saying the other stuff doesn't matter, but curiosity is an engine all by itself. And many experts will dismiss scenes that create curiosity as expository if the main character's arc is not being moved, but that's a mistake. Sci fi is built around curiosity. Many times horror is as well.
So GSU for me has become GSUQ. The Q is for question, and it reminds me to create questions the audience wants answered. My recent OWC was ALL Q. I wanted to see if that alone could drive a story. It seems to be somewhat effective, perhaps even more effective in more capable hands.
The bottom line, though, is really PTP.
When you get folks into a theater to watch your film, don't let them get up for popcorn. If they gotta piss too bad. Always have stuff going on in the story that people are afraid to miss what happens next. Think of a movie as a book. There should always be a reason to turn the page.
Someone has to piss, make 'em piss their pants. PTP.
Someone has to piss, make 'em piss their pants. PTP.
Which hopefully this post did not do to you!
good to see ya, Ray. Will be a fun OWC coming up.
A - Cheers! B - Amen! Seconded! C - No, sir. Not at all. I thoroughly appreciate both supportive and dissenting POVs. D - Thank you. It's good to see your good company around here, as well. And I hope Don crafts up something really evocative for this one.
Pages: 
Author
> Story Constraints: Building a Three Act Story 
Logged
Locked Board