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've been writing a script for the last several months and have nearly completed my first draft.
I know that ideally, ACT 1 should end at around 30 pages. However, ACT 1 in this script ends around page 45. I've gone over and over it, making revisions to the dialogue, weeding out unnecessary scenes and re-organized others. I truely do think the information that remains in ACT 1 is absolutely vital to the progression of the plot. As well I believe the story is intriguing enough for the reader/audience to stick with it, without getting bored.
My question is: Is the 30 page ACT 1 "rule" more of a guideline? As well, is 45 pages too long (110-115 page script) for the catalyst to occur?
I'm a novice writer and would really appreciate some feedback and oppinions from those who have more experience. =)
Check out this link, I've found it quite useful over the years. Obviously, you shouldn't apply it on the exact page-count but more as a guideline: http://www.screenplaymastery.com/structure.htm
A 45-page first act would be considered on the long side but then gain, if it's a kickass first act then you might get away with. You shouldn't get too bogged down by what needs to happen on what page number but do make sure that the three acts are easily recognizable. As they say - Write now, perfect later.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
You have to note that act I is primarily the story setup and while it contains some sort of inciting incident, the story doesn't really kick start into motion until its end. Taking 45 pages to wreck your protagonist's life when you're only looking at a total length of 110 is definitely too long. When is 45 minutes ok for a first act? When it's Fellowship of the Ring. That was fine. Frodo set off with the ring about 45 minutes in. So unless you have a 3 and a half hour part one to an 11 hour epic, 45 pages is too long.
Now, the information contained in this act may well be important to the plot and such, and that's fine. I was faced with a similar problem with an early script of mine. Nothing but setup happened for 25 pages. Sure it was intriguing and maybe even interesting, but really, nothing happened.
My solution? I cut the first 25 pages and started with that incident. I peppered the act one info throughout the rest of the script, created a new act one that ended with something that occurred a little later in the original, but worked just fine to move the story in a new direction.
Look through your first act and figure out if all that information is really needed to get though that part of the story or if the information can be moved to later in the story. After all, Act 2 is a long time to fill, and you need to get us there as soon as possible. Otherwise about the 30 page mark, I know I start wondering when the story is going to begin.
I say read over all the screenwriting books for structure and lengths of scenes and what not and make a note of them in your head, so you know pretty much what's going on and what needs to be done to make a 'regular' script.
Then throw all that information to the wind and work on your own story how you'd like to see it, not worrying about rules, and only letting what information blow back to you when something doesn't feel right that you did in your own story.
If you have act one at 45 pages long and you're happy with it and the story is still appealing and propelling forward... so be it. That's your story and you tell what needs to be told and how it needs to be told. I just hope you didn't already cut out any great ideas that were in the story to begin with just to follow some guidelines.
Just take a look at 'Leaving Las Vegas'. The opening credits don't even come until twenty-some minutes into the film, and Act One is still just getting underway as he hasn't even arrived in Vegas and met the hooker yet. There weren't very many poor reviews on that film because the first act was too long.
Nobody will crucify you or hold anything against you if you tell a good, or great, story.
So, basically, read, understand, and know the rules and guidelines, but tell how your story wants to be told and only refer to those guidelines if something doesn't feel right.
Check out this link, I've found it quite useful over the years. Obviously, you shouldn't apply it on the exact page-count but more as a guideline: http://www.screenplaymastery.com/structure.htm
A 45-page first act would be considered on the long side but then gain, if it's a kickass first act then you might get away with. You shouldn't get too bogged down by what needs to happen on what page number but do make sure that the three acts are easily recognizable. As they say - Write now, perfect later.
Ah, now I remember a question I wanted to throw at you folks.
Why does everyone seem to give advice for story structure as being variations of this, even though not all stories are about a progagonist hunting a goal:
Quoted Text
Act One (first quarter)
-Introduce protagonist and explain the status quo. Tell us what he wants.
-Establish genre.
-Introduce antagonist and explain the problem. What does the antagonist want?
-Explain the stakes and the timelock.
-The protagonist is asked to fight the antagonist, often by a mentor. He declines.
-The antagonist does something very bad.
-The protagonist decides to fight.
Act Two A (second quarter)
-The protagonist severs ties with the status quo. He may leave town.
-Introduce the new world of the adventure. Introduce new allies and opposition. Give the protagonist a sidekick.
-The protagonist may learn of someone who attempted this quest earlier. Someone more qualified than he is. Someone who failed.
-The antagonist threatens the protagonist directly.
-The protagonist and his allies formulate a plan for a major battle against the antagonist.
-The battle is waged and won. The protagonist achieves the thing he wanted at the beginning.
-Celebration.
Act Two B (third quarter)
-The protagonist experiences an unexpected difficulty. This could be nothing more than ominous weather. The celebration ends.
-The antagonist gains strength.
-The protagonist faces a major reversal. A counter-attack. The mentor may die.
-The antagonist manages to undo everything the protagonist has accomplished thus far.
-The protagonist tries to repeat his mid-point victory and fails. The antagonist uses all the protagonist’s weaknesses against him.
-All subplots end.
Act Three (fourth quarter)
Note: Act Three takes place in continuous time.
-The protagonist plans a final battle. States the lessons he’s learned thus far.
-The protagonist realizes what he needs, versus what he wants. What he has wanted means nothing.
-The sidekick leaves. It has all become too much for him.
-The protagonist attacks and loses again. He has no hope. He contemplates the terrible cost of the journey. He is willing to be utterly destroyed in order to win.
-There is a final battle. The protagonist and antagonist meet face to face. One wins; one loses.
-The protagonist, if he wins, brings some positive element back to society.
I love 'Ordinary People' and it really was about one big event(a man's choice of his child over his wife) and all the contributing factors that led to it. The guy with the dilemma in that story wasn't even the protagonist.
This hard structure and these "rules" are a big contributing factor to why stories feel fake and cliched. Or perhaps this really is about action/adventure and less about drama?
This hard structure and these "rules" are a big contributing factor to why stories feel fake and cliched. Or perhaps this really is about action/adventure and less about drama?
The vast majority of movies will follow this kind of structure, even if you don't realise it at first you could breakdown almost any movie into act's and pinpoint the inciting incidents. When they talk about a hero hunting his goal it could be anything, large or small. Even independent, character driven dramas will follow this kind of structure, but perhaps in a much less obvious way.
It does play a huge part in many movies feeling a bit cliched, but really that is the point. This is what audiences expect to see and one of the key parts of screenwriting is giving what the audience expect but in a different way. Like an episode of CSI for instance, we know that in the opening scene we will see a murder, then we will see 30 minutes of CSI'ing, with a subplot thrown in there to mix things up and then at the end we will find out who did it. The same thing, every week, but people tune in every week in droves.
This three act structure has been around since the very first play was staged and subconsciously audiences expect it, if they do not get it then very often they will get bored and give up. Hence why many of the movies that don't have a three act structure are seen more as arty movies and generally end up with no audiences. Yes it applies more to comedy, action and thriller films than drama, though plot driven drama will very often use this structure to keep things going. Horror is slightly different in that many horror films today seem to have a much longer first act, but they still use the basic structure.
Obviously nobody knows the formula for a great script, not even great screenwriters seem to know that, but starting with a structure like above can certainly put you on the right track and will ensure that even a poor script is not boring.
I used to think this stuff was bollocks, I read a few books and found it really difficult to get my head around the whole thing. Then I read Save the Cat, I recommend that book highly.
My question is: Is the 30 page ACT 1 "rule" more of a guideline? As well, is 45 pages too long (110-115 page script) for the catalyst to occur?
To answer your question, although you see to have already got some great answers anyway. There are some movies that do have long first acts and they still work, horror often will have long first acts. George gave some good advice, that is a ploy often used in horror. Another trick, that while probably overused and can be seen as lazy writing if done wrong, is to have a flash forward to the end of the film, this can tell the audience to stick with it because something big is coming. Horror films also quite often start with some action right of the bat, they show a gruesome death to set up the premise and then slow things down for a while to establish character.
So long first acts are fine as long as you do something that grabs interest early on, otherwise you might lose your audience. I guess you will never know until you write it and get some feedback.
hmmm... my problem isn't the "three act structure" per say. It has more to do with rules telling you "every protagonist has to have a goal" then "he has to have an initial frustration, then a win, then a bigger frustration, face down his antagonist and win(or lose)" not every story fits within that mold.
yeah, I agree that some drama follow that structure successfully. 'Kramer vs Kramer' is one of them but neither 'Ordinary Stangers' nor 'Taxi Driver' is and they worked well.
I'll also disagree with CSI following the 'protagonist with a goal' structure. CSI's is more like a spider. The body is the big incident and the legs are all the different directions in which the clues sends the investigators. There isn't even a clear antagonist.
hmmm... my problem isn't the "three act structure" per say. It has more to do with rules telling you "every protagonist has to have a goal" then "he has to have an initial frustration, then a win, then a bigger frustration, face down his antagonist and win(or lose)" not every story fits within that mold.
yeah, I agree that some drama follow that structure successfully. 'Kramer vs Kramer' is one of them but neither 'Ordinary Stangers' nor 'Taxi Driver' is and they worked well.
I'll also disagree with CSI following the 'protagonist with a goal' structure. CSI's is more like a spider. The body is the big incident and the legs are all the different directions in which the clues sends the investigators. There isn't even a clear antagonist.
I can't really agree here, CSI has some of the most obvious protags of anything, essentially the whole team is our protag and their goal is always the same - to catch the killer.
Travis Bickle was clearly a man on a mission and I think there is a clear three act structure evident in the movie. He has smaller battles to fight in every scene and while it is not as obvious as some films I think it is still there. Sometimes it is not so clear, sometimes these wins and losses that our protag experiences are really quite small things in the grand scheme of things, but if you look for them they are there.
Something I do often is to breakdown a movie while I am watching it, I will have a little notepad and keep a note on the timings of act breaks etc.. It is a good exercise to do.
CSI episodes might have protagonists but most of their episodes have no clear antagonists. Travis Bickle was simply a mental case, bummed out by his life of solitude among what he considers to be bottom dwellers. He was simply going through the motions, saw a girl, got rejected and decided to take out her politician boss. That failed and by everyday happenings, a real girl was in need of his aid(atleast in his mind). He had no 'single mission'.
In fact, had he a mission the story might've started when he saw the underage girl get in his car. It didn't. Taxi Driver is really about one big incident. The crazy taxi driver who rescued an underaged girl from pimps through murder.
in terms of note taking, since i can't get the actual outlines of the film, I write down what happens in each scene. This might mean 4 or five pages of single, numbered lines but I sometimes do that...
CSI episodes might have protagonists but most of their episodes have no clear antagonists.
mmmm... CSI usually has a killer in every episode and the whole point of the show is for the team to find out who it is. The killers leave clues for the team to unravel and they are often working against the clock to solve the puzzle before the killer strikes again.
I would say that the killer is the antagonist, In fact I would think that was quite clear,no?
A good antagonist is just someone or something that gets in the way of our protag's goals.
Travis Bickle was simply a mental case, bummed out by his life of solitude among what he considers to be bottom dwellers. He was simply going through the motions, saw a girl, got rejected and decided to take out her politician boss. That failed and by everyday happenings, a real girl was in need of his aid(atleast in his mind). He had no 'single mission'.
In fact, had he a mission the story might've started when he saw the underage girl get in his car. It didn't. Taxi Driver is really about one big incident. The crazy taxi driver who rescued an underaged girl from pimps through murder.
He had goals throughout this film, rescuing the girl was one of his goals, getting it on with Cybil Shepherd was one of his goals. Ridding the world of scum was another one of his goals.
Goals are what drive characters forward, it is the things they want that decide what direction a sold character takes and thus drives the plot forward. Don't get hung up on the wording, it is not really about a character going on some big important journey and facing huge obstacles along the way all the time. It could be something as simple as a character wanting to buy a new car and the fun and games he has while trying to do it.
Not sure who said it first but there is a famous saying about screenwriting and it is so true..
Act one - Put your character up a tree. Act two - Throw rocks at him. Act three - Get him down.
In this scenario our character's goal is to get up the tree, his goals reached in the 2nd act he now has a new goal and that is to get back down from the tree. Simple really.
Anyway, this is obviously just my opinion, there are plenty of others out there.
People, people, please... We're getting a little off topic here. Let's not forget that this is all about me!
lol JK! =D
Thanks to everyone for all the great input, alot of different oppinions and views. I will definitely take something from each one.
Thanks Sniper for the link, this page is great! Just reading it already has my gears spinning on how to tackle the changes. Thanks George Wilson. I'm going to follow your advice and try your method of approaching the re-write. I agree with you that the ACT is too long and that one way or another, the changes can be made and will only better the script. I already have ideas racing. =)
I almost hate to say it, but Giles has some good points here. He's dead on, in that different genres, like horror, for instance, work by different "rules". Act length, and structure, for sure.
Most will know that I am very apposed to these "rules" that we continually hear about. As far as I'm concerned, rules and guidelines are fine to understand and think about, but they don't have to be adhered to in every situation.
I'd say its more the powers that be that mandate how movies are plotted, not the audiences expecting or wanting them to be that way. That's why most of today's movies are weak, predictable, and rehashes for the most part.
If you're on a rural road, late at night, with no one around you for miles, do you sit at a red light and wait for it to turn green? I sure don't. I'll look left, and I'll look right, and if no one's around, I go. Maybe that's just me though.
Bottom line, write your script the way you see it. Finish your script. Go back and make corrections, and don't get caught up worrying about how long Act 1 runs.
Pages: 1, 
Author
Writing Question: Length of ACT 1
Logged
Locked Board