SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 28th, 2024, 1:54pm
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
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.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Screenwriting Discussion    Screenwriting Class  ›  Jacob Krueger on The 7 Act structure Moderators: George Willson
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 6 Guests

 Pages: 1, 2 : All
Recommend Print
  Author    Jacob Krueger on The 7 Act structure  (currently 13673 views)
danbotha
Posted: April 28th, 2013, 7:20pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
700
Posts Per Day
0.16
I had a listen of this podcast last night and was completely blown away by what Jacob Krueger had to say about the 3 Act Structure. The guy opened my eyes to a completely new way of writing screenplays with his own advice.

Just to be clear, he doesn't say that the three act structure is a method we shouldn't be using, he just thinks that there's an easier and more efficient way of getting there. This is what he likes to call the 7 Act structure, which is essentially his own creation. He starts with the very basics of structure: what an Act is, what a Scene is and all that.

Completely changed the way I look at writing. Definitely worht the listen, if you guys can spare and hour.

Here it is: http://www.networkisa.org/uploads/426_doc_24-Jan_21-45.mp3

Dan


Logged
Private Message
KevinLenihan
Posted: April 28th, 2013, 9:13pm Report to Moderator
Been Around


Posts
528
Posts Per Day
0.13
Thanks for the link Dan. I listened to the whole broadcast. I always absorb any theory, consider it when watching films or writing scripts, and then incorporate into my own approach.

I agree with many of his thoughts. To me, the rules for structure and story are pretty much like the rules for "proper" screenwriting in that it's best to try to master them...but then to move on from them. They are guidelines, models, and if we treat them as hard rules our work will never grow to where it needs to be.

Thanks again!
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 1 - 25
danbotha
Posted: April 28th, 2013, 9:44pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
700
Posts Per Day
0.16
Cheers, Kevin.

I'm currently watching one of his seminars. He spoke about it in the podcast. It's a free seminar available for download from here. He talks about the 7 Act structure and how it can be seen in "Little Miss Sunshine" and how to incorporate it into your own writing.

I think Krueger is one of these tutors that really doesn't get the credit he deserves.

Have a look at the seminar here: http://www.writeyourscreenplay.com/lms/

It's free for download. Two hours long though, so I wouldn't risk it if you dont have that much space.

Dan


Logged
Private Message Reply: 2 - 25
Toby_E
Posted: April 29th, 2013, 4:32am Report to Moderator
Been Around



Location
London, UK
Posts
872
Posts Per Day
0.15
Great post, man. Cheers for sharing.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 3 - 25
KevinLenihan
Posted: April 29th, 2013, 7:42am Report to Moderator
Been Around


Posts
528
Posts Per Day
0.13
At least he takes the position that using rigid model systems creates problems. And he points out that this modeling comes mostly from people who study great films, not from people who really write for a living.

I think another thing that causes problems is the natural appeal of symmetry and system to the human mind when we are dealing with something that is organic and not meant to be too systemized.

Last fall I started working with the 8 sequence method. It's symmetry really has appeal. Two sequences for your first act, 4 for the middle, 2 for the last. There's more to it, but it has a real symmetry.

Each sequence has a turning point in the middle and a clear end point. So that gives your script 16 plot points.

But I quickly found there is a problem with this kind of symmetry. It comes down to this word: momentum. In a way, a film is like a snowball rolling down a mountain. It gathers speed and power. In a film, this means the plot points accelerate in the second half of a script. Often in the last 10 minutes of a film there are multiple plot points...key twists in the story or in the arc of the character.

So to use the 8 sequence method, you find yourself either needing more sequences or you do what many adherents of the method seem to do: you start changing the definition of a plot point so that your system still seems to work. Like Snyder with his STC, you start forcing everything to fit your model.

This guy Krueger says there are 7 acts, or steps, because a film consists of 7 15 minute sequences, and each sequence involves a major step in the arc of the character. Well...I think he knows this is not necessarily true. But he can't really market a system teaching 8 acts, can he? He needs something unique. I mean what if the character arc steps are 12 minutes long? Then you would need 8 to 9 acts.

Even more, he assumes that all the sequences are the same length. Again, this reflects more the human need to symmetry when modeling then the needs of a film. The reality is what he calls acts, which are plot points in the protagonist's arc, will not all be the same length, and there is usually acceleration of these points near the end.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate his insights. If he were in the room with us, I suspect he would wink and say I what I am saying is true. But he needs to have a model and a method to teach.

One last recommendation, Dan. As you decide what model to follow or how to build your own, test these theories against actual film. As you're watching, scribble some notes down on where the plot points are. Netflix is great for this. And then see how close films really fit the model. Thanks for the links!
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 4 - 25
Dreamscale
Posted: April 29th, 2013, 10:20am Report to Moderator
Guest User



Don't get so caught up in structure and character arcs...please.

Write from the heart and inside your brain, and don't think there's a way that things should be done.

The beauty of structure is that even when there's none, structure still finds a way to be structured, if that makes any sense.

The reason that so many scripts and movies feel like clones of each other is because so many think they have to follow some predetermined structure, which just takes all the fun out of almost everything.

Alot of peeps are going gluten-free in their diets.  I recommend going as structure free in your life (and writing) as you can.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 5 - 25
KevinLenihan
Posted: April 29th, 2013, 10:37am Report to Moderator
Been Around


Posts
528
Posts Per Day
0.13
Some of this might be semantics and how we define things. You might get the impression that Jeff writes from the seat of his pants, but he has told me he meticulously plans his scripts in great detail. Chances are, he is structuring his scripts, and quite consciously.

I think what Jeff is against is modeling(Well, some models he likes! Just not screenplay models).

And Jeff is completely correct that for many people structure is synonymous with following a standard model. And I agree with him that this can and does result in stale films.

What I would humbly suggest is that structuring your story with some kind of plan is essential. Not a model. But a plan that the writer thinks will make the story succeed, however you want to define success.

And I DO think that studying the various models, along with studying successful films, is immensely useful in helping you develop your plan.

Structure is good. Use it to help build, not to constrain creativity.

And I wouldn't want to live without gluten!
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 6 - 25
Dreamscale
Posted: April 29th, 2013, 11:36am Report to Moderator
Guest User



Yeah, for sure, Kevin.  You are correct.  Alot of it is semantics and how each of us defines, looks at, and thinks about things.

I never want anyone to think that I'm so against structure that i prefer completely unstructured scripts, because that's just not true.

What I am against is setting out in the creative process with a prearranged structure that must be upheld.  To me, that's just downright foolish.

Peeps like to plan out their beats, their plot points, their character arc points, etc, and I just don't think that's ever a good idea.

Logged
e-mail Reply: 7 - 25
danbotha
Posted: April 29th, 2013, 5:19pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
700
Posts Per Day
0.16
Some good discussion developing.

Jeff, have you listened to the podcast? If not, I think you'll find that you're agreeing with a lot of what Krueger says.

7 Act structure is not a new formula for writers around the world to follow. Krueger describes it as a method to get people out of that mindset that they have to follow Syd Field's 3 Act structure. He describes it as impractical in the modern age, simply because movies aren't as long as what they used to be.

The only reason he calls it 7 Act structure is because when he researched it, he found that most movies had 7 Acts. He says it doesn't really matter if a story has 12 Acts or 4 Acts. If it works, then leave it as it is.

Kevin, you're spot on with a lot of the issues, you've recognized with 7 Act structure. However, Krueger does touch on all of them in that free seminar he offers. His overall message is essentially this: It doesn't matter how long your Act is. If it's 20 pages or 40, it doesn't matter. If it works, if the pacing is just right and your act has that completion in a character's step towards change, it shouldn't bother you.

Again, 7 Act structure is not a new formula for everyone to follow. It's just a new way of thinking about structure, to make Syd Field's formula a little less intimidating. For some people it will work, whereas others are more likely to shake their heads at the lunacy. For me, this method of writing appears to make sense.

One problem with Netflix, Kevin... It's not available in NZ!! I've been waiting for over a year for it to come out. Don't worry, I will be researching it more. Krueger has definitely put my mind at ease, though.

Is it bad that I don't plan? I have ideas brewing in my head for a while and when I feel like it, I sit down and write. There's something incredibly exciting about learning more about your characters as you write. I know I'm not the only one, but that's the way I like to write. It's what suits me best and is definitely the method that allows me to get as much work done as possible.

Dan


Logged
Private Message Reply: 8 - 25
Dreamscale
Posted: April 29th, 2013, 5:59pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Dan, I did not listen to the podcast and highly doubt I will.  I just don't want these kinds of things even in my brain when I'm writing or planning out a story.

I guess if one "needs" this kind of thing, or if it even helps, that's great.  But, my issue is always how peeps refer back to whatever "structure" they believe in.

IMO, one should use whatever they prefer/need to craft a story, but that's it. No reason to look at scripts/movies with this in mind.

I've seen many writers ask questions about their script in regards to this type of stuff and it just doesn't matter when you get down to brass tacks.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 9 - 25
Ledbetter
Posted: April 29th, 2013, 9:07pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



I don't read anything about anything

I don't follow movies because I don't watch them

The only scripts I read are the ones here by posters, not pro's

I don't read books

In fact, I've never finished a single book in my entire life

I hate structure; I don't and won't succumb to any philosophy that dictates I have to put my creative process in a mold.

You like what I have to say or you don't

If you don't like what I say, tell me why, and I promise I will learn from YOU, the person who read my work.

If anyone doubts this, look back on my work and see how the people here helped me.

I sucked when I first started and I still suck today...only less...

Now, it's confession time-

I don't even know what a three act structure is...

Nor do I want to.

Shawn.....><

Logged
e-mail Reply: 10 - 25
stevie
Posted: April 29th, 2013, 10:24pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Down Under
Posts
3441
Posts Per Day
0.61
Shawn, don't down grade yourself, mate. You have produced some damn good writing!

I'm the same with structure. I don't watch movies, hardly any TV. Last cinema film I saw was the dark knight in 2008 (and loathed it).

I don't watch new release DVDs, haven't seen any well known film of the last 5 years and even further back ( tho it doesn't look like I've missed much).

I do read a shitload of books though. Two or three at a time, novels, non fiction, biography. This is where I get ideas for my scripts.

I started out trying to write stories/novels but switched to screenplays when I got a computer back in 2008. It's easier for me to get my stories out there via this medium. I have always had a talent for writing from a young age just never used it.

I have never read Save the Cat or any of those books. I use scene outlines sometimes when planning a new script. I just write from the heart, from the initial idea.

Am nearly finished a new feature, a horror/ western called Fort Hell. Am having trouble filling in bits near the end, a huge battle scene. The rest of the script is done, just needs a run through and quick edit. I may just go with a montage so I can get the fucker done and posted and move on to a new project. Then hopefully, anyone who reads it can give me some good ideas to strengthen the bits that need it.



Logged
Private Message Reply: 11 - 25
Ledbetter
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 10:27am Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from stevie
Shawn, don't down grade yourself, mate. You have produced some damn good writing!

Am nearly finished a new feature, a horror/ western called Fort Hell. Am having trouble filling in bits near the end, a huge battle scene. The rest of the script is done, just needs a run through and quick edit. I may just go with a montage so I can get the fucker done and posted and move on to a new project. Then hopefully, anyone who reads it can give me some good ideas to strengthen the bits that need it.


Thanks for the kind words brother.

Hey, if you want another set of eyes to look at your script, send it on over.

I'll be glad to give it a look and offer what I can.

Shawn.....><
Logged
e-mail Reply: 12 - 25
Breanne Mattson
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 12:25pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1347
Posts Per Day
0.20
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.

Most screenwriting work is on assignment. It often requires writers to push their creativity. And it's done with a contractual deadline. It's tougher than writing your own material at your own leisure. You can't really work professionally without a working knowledge of story structure. You need it to do the writing and to work with others who will be involved with your project.

New writers should be aware that there are amateur writers out there who will steer them the wrong direction, whether they intend to or not. New writers are often given advice that flies in the face of what pros say and do and is counter to what one observes in pro scripts. Pros generally couldn't care less about orphans or ellipses or which side fade in is on, yet structure is an integral part of their work.

I'm surprised at how much discussion is put into formatting issues while virtually none is put into structure. It's like people are scared to death of it or something. There's too much focus on things that don't matter while something as important as structure goes ignored. Even worse, it's ostracized, treated like a creativity killing monster. Its poor reputation is neither earned nor deserved.

Writers who don't understand story structure would be wise to put aside their fear or disdain and tackle structure head on. If you don't want to do this for a living, that's fine, but for those who are serious about writing, a working knowledge of story structure is one of the most powerful tools you can have.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 13 - 25
Dreamscale
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 12:58pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from Breanne Mattson
New writers should be aware that there are amateur writers out there who will steer them the wrong direction, whether they intend to or not. New writers are often given advice that flies in the face of what pros say and do and is counter to what one observes in pro scripts. Pros generally couldn't care less about orphans or ellipses or which side fade in is on, yet structure is an integral part of their work.


True, but there are also Pros and gurus out there who will definitely steer both young and experienced writers in the completely wrong direction.

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.

Obviously an orphan here and an orphan there have literally no impact on a script's success or entertainment value whatsoever.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't be done away with whenever possible.

I guess in an odd way, each individual has to ask themselves a question - am I happy and/or impressed with what these so called Pros continue to spit out in both mainstream and indy movies?

If that answer is "Fuck no, I'm far from happy", then they'll start to understand what really matters and why.

To do things that are downright incorrect and not be concerned because Pros do it, is just downright foolish...don't you think?

Logged
e-mail Reply: 14 - 25
James McClung
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 1:27pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49
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.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 15 - 25
Ledbetter
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 1:30pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from Breanne Mattson
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.

Shawn......><
Logged
e-mail Reply: 16 - 25
Breanne Mattson
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 1:38pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1347
Posts Per Day
0.20

Quoted from Dreamscale
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.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 17 - 25
Dreamscale
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 1:44pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



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.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 18 - 25
Dreamscale
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 2:12pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



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.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 19 - 25
stevie
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 2:31pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Down Under
Posts
3441
Posts Per Day
0.61
'It is the story, not he who tells it'

Stephen King



Logged
Private Message Reply: 20 - 25
Forgive
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 6:20pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Let The Sky Fall

Location
Various, exotic.
Posts
1373
Posts Per Day
0.27

Quoted from stevie
'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?).

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 21 - 25
Dreamscale
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 6:34pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from Forgive

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.

Logged
e-mail Reply: 22 - 25
danbotha
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 6:49pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
700
Posts Per Day
0.16

Quoted from James McClung
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.

Dan


Logged
Private Message Reply: 23 - 25
James McClung
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 7:56pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49

Quoted from danbotha
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.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 24 - 25
Dreamscale
Posted: April 30th, 2013, 8:23pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from James McClung
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.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 25 - 25
 Pages: 1, 2 : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Screenwriting Class  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006