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.
I listened to the majority of this (skipped through most of the introduction). Eh... I don't know, man. Are any of these ideas really all that new? Finding your voice is not. Driving the plot with your protagonist is not. I mean, I appreciate the simplicity and user-friendliness of his language but a lot of this feels like the guy took presently existing concepts and just slapped his own cutesy labels onto them so he could charge people for his seminars. Not to sound cynical -- from the sound of it, Krueger genuinely cares about writers and wants to help them -- but I don't think it's worth it.
In regards to the argument of structure in general, I think the problem is that as much as models and the like get touted as guidelines, a lot of writers don't see them that way. They use them as a crutch and get so hung up on them that they fail to develop any sort of writer's intuition and ultimately lose sight of the fact that they're writing movies and that their work is supposed to make you feel something. I also agree with Jeff that "pros" get put on a pedestal far too often, sometimes unjustifiably. Most of them don't even write films that are any good.
Other than that, I agree that structure's important and something all writers need to have a sense of but I honestly don't worry about it too often. With the exception of maybe one or two, I don't think my scripts have been particularly unconventional in that department.
The 3 act structure is nowhere near as confining as some think. It doesn't really restrict creativity in any way. I find that those who bash it usually just don't understand it.
Let me please rephrase myself.
I know what the technical definition of the 3 act structure is.
The million or so interpretations I’ve seen everyone with a pen give as to their idea of it tells me, it's as vague as every other nuisance of writing.
In that "strict" essence of the term, I gave up a long time ago trying to understand the clinical term.
The road map from A to Z is structure. We just all have different paths.
True, but there are also Pros and gurus out there who will definitely steer both young and experienced writers in the completely wrong direction.
I didn't lump pros and gurus together and I'm not sure why you did. There are a lot of gurus who steer writers the wrong direction. Getting into the damage done by gurus and script consultants is a whole other issue. Pros are speaking from experience doing what most writers want to do. Their knowledge and experience far exceeds yours or mine. With pros, the facts speak for themselves. A script sale is a very clear indicator of what works.
Quoted from Dreamscale
It often makes me laugh when peeps speak of Pros as if they can do no wrong and if a Pro does it, you should too.
Pros are as vulnerable to mistakes as everyone else is, and maybe even more so because they feel that it doesn't matter if they make a mistake or make the same mistake over and over.
No one said pros can do no wrong. You're being a bit extreme here. Certainly they can make mistakes, but they understand professional screenwriting in ways that you or I haven't yet experienced. What you consider a mistake may not be. You may be mistaken due to your own lack of comprehension of the craft of screenwriting or the business of professional writing.
Quoted from Dreamscale
To do things that are downright incorrect and not be concerned because Pros do it, is just downright foolish...don't you think?
That depends on whether or not what you call "downright incorrect" is actually incorrect or just your personal subjective opinion. If your opinion is in disagreement with what a pro does, the greater likelihood is that you are wrong. At the very least, you'd be wise to consider the possibility.
I agree 100% with James and Shawn, and I think Shawn rally sums it up nicely with his last line.
The interesting thing is the "A" and "Z" - that's where scripts and movies live or die, and IMO, mostly die a cruel death.
If you can't start out at an "A" that makes sense and is engaging, and you can't end with a "Z" that is the same, your structure really doesn't matter for shit, does it?
Anyone who thinks it takes a "Pro" to come up with a story in which everything is so nicely put together, is just incorrect, misguided, or has no sense of what story is all about.
Breanne, I agree with what you're saying and I actually appreciate both the tone you used and the words you chose. You and I, in our brief encounters, seem to butt heads, and that's not something I want or purposely try to cause.
There's alot I want to say and lots of examples and analogies I'd like to throw out, but I think it's best if I simply say this...
For me, there are really only 2 ways I can judge a "Pro" script.
The first is obviously the script itself and we all know that there are numerous different drafts floating around, so we really never know exactly if the script we're looking at, is the one that was presented or used for production.
The second, is the finished product, which is the actual movie. Sure, it comes down to a matter of opinion as well as personal likes and dislikes, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the vast majority of Pro scripts do not create a good final product.
For me, I always say and believe, that the main problem (usually) is the source material being flawed in numerous ways...many times, just being a weak, cliched story that literally anyone could conceive.
Movies are about entertainment. Therefor, scripts, which movies are born of, need to be about entertainment as well. Entertainment is an obviously broad term and my interpretation will differ from yours, and vice verse.
But, taking it another step further, IMO, the "structure" that follows a certain predetermined path is rarely going to come across as fresh and new, and that leads to dull experiences that we've all sat through again and again...and again.
Different opinions are good and lead to new ideas and ways of doing things. It always comes down to the individual writer making their own decisions based on everything that they take in.
'It is the story, not he who tells it' Stephen King
... but he who thought it.
Story's not easy. 3 Act has been around since Aristole. And for good reason. You can built a lot from a good foundation. 5 Act, 6 Act, 8 Act. Whatever. You have to have a beginning, middle, end. That's all structure is - and you can split it up any way you want so long as it works for you.
It doesn't matter how many legs you have on your table - it matters that they hold the thing up.
And commercial success doesn't necssarily equal good story - that's two different things. A lot of movies and production companies have become very good at selling things - are we automatically going to get confused that success equals "that gotta be well written"? Not everyone's that dim.
Time to watch 'Adaptation.' again. (Starring Nicholas Cage ... who's Francis Ford Coppola's nephew, did you know?).
And commercial success doesn't necessarily equal good story - that's two different things. A lot of movies and production companies have become very good at selling things - are we automatically going to get confused that success equals "that gotta be well written"? Not everyone's that dim.
Nor does commercial failure equal poor story, but for any experienced movie watcher, it's rather easy to "see" poor story, or cliched story and characters. It then comes down to personal taste on whether or not, as a whole, it works.
I listened to the majority of this (skipped through most of the introduction). Eh... I don't know, man. Are any of these ideas really all that new? Finding your voice is not. Driving the plot with your protagonist is not. I mean, I appreciate the simplicity and user-friendliness of his language but a lot of this feels like the guy took presently existing concepts and just slapped his own cutesy labels onto them so he could charge people for his seminars. Not to sound cynical -- from the sound of it, Krueger genuinely cares about writers and wants to help them -- but I don't think it's worth it.
Fair enough. I had a feeling some people would like it and other people wouldn't. For me, Krueger describes structure and tackling structure in a way that I understand. Might not do it for some people, but for me, it makes sense. I've heard tutors talk through all the cliches like "write from the heart" and "step into your character's shoes" and all that. It was easy to comprehend what they were saying as well and I understood them all just as much as I understand Krueger. I knew what these guys were saying and I understood it, but I had no idea how to incorporate the methods into my own writing.
It was Krueger's way of describing these aspects of writing that really opened my eyes, simply through his definition of what things were. How many of us can honestly say that we know exactly what an act is? We hear about it all the time. Act 1, Act 2, Act 3, we know that they're there, but if you asked some writers on this board what an act is, I doubt they could give some sort of accurate definition.
Krueger's way of defining what certain elements in structure are helped me understand that while structure is important, it's not as intimidating as what I originally thought.
"An Act is a giant step in a character's change. When you build all those acts up, you have a movie." - So simple! For me, it worked. I was inspired. I can see the importance of structure, but I'm no longer intimidated by it, because it's been defined in a way I understand.
Hope other writers go through the same experience.
Fair enough. I had a feeling some people would like it and other people wouldn't. For me, Krueger describes structure and tackling structure in a way that I understand. Might not do it for some people, but for me, it makes sense. I've heard tutors talk through all the cliches like "write from the heart" and "step into your character's shoes" and all that. It was easy to comprehend what they were saying as well and I understood them all just as much as I understand Krueger. I knew what these guys were saying and I understood it, but I had no idea how to incorporate the methods into my own writing.
It was Krueger's way of describing these aspects of writing that really opened my eyes, simply through his definition of what things were. How many of us can honestly say that we know exactly what an act is? We hear about it all the time. Act 1, Act 2, Act 3, we know that they're there, but if you asked some writers on this board what an act is, I doubt they could give some sort of accurate definition.
Krueger's way of defining what certain elements in structure are helped me understand that while structure is important, it's not as intimidating as what I originally thought.
"An Act is a giant step in a character's change. When you build all those acts up, you have a movie." - So simple! For me, it worked. I was inspired. I can see the importance of structure, but I'm no longer intimidated by it, because it's been defined in a way I understand.
Hope other writers go through the same experience.
Dan
I understand. Like Krueger himself said, this is more of a way of thinking than anything else, which seems way more helpful than trying to pack everything up in a box, so to speak. I'm glad you were able to get something out of it.
For the record, I didn't find much in the podcast that I particularly disagreed with. I tend to focus my writing on character, first and foremost, so I identified with a lot Krueger said. I just don't think it's worth building a seminar around. Everything I know, I found out through practice, which, of course, didn't cost me a dime. Then again, I've never been interested in learning about screenwriting this way. I suspect I might actually be the minority in that regard. To each his own.
Then again, I've never been interested in learning about screenwriting this way. I suspect I might actually be the minority in that regard. To each his own.
You are not alone, my brother!
In a weird way, I think it comes down to both semantics and how different peeps do things, in a way that works best for them.
But, that being said, and as I always say, anything that restricts the creative process is not a good thing. When you come to a fork in the road that has bazillions of possibilities, the beauty can lay in each and every choice.