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.
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.
yeah, but where was Travis Bickle's tree? Where were his rocks and who threw them to begin with?
My point is, Taxi Driver isn't structured in that 'inciting incident- lose win lose - ultimate win' structure, yet it worked. He drove the goals because of his choices (without provocation or do or die ultimatum-- no up in a tree) and there was no one through line except that it was really a man battling his psychosis and losing.
I'm saying, the rule nazis need to stop pushing this one idea of what a 'story' is. There are hunter-goal stories but there are also 'reason this happen' stories. Every whodonit story is a 'reason this happen' one.
yeah, but where was Travis Bickle's tree? Where were his rocks and who threw them to begin with?
My point is, Taxi Driver isn't structured in that 'inciting incident- lose win lose - ultimate win' structure, yet it worked. He drove the goals because of his choices (without provocation or do or die ultimatum-- no up in a tree) and there was no one through line except that it was really a man battling his psychosis and losing.
I'm saying, the rule nazis need to stop pushing this one idea of what a 'story' is. There are hunter-goal stories but there are also 'reason this happen' stories. Every whodonit story is a 'reason this happen' one.
There are no "rule-nazi's" pushing their own idea of what a story is, this is just basic screenwriting stuff, hell not even screewriting, this is basic storytelling stuff, used in novels, plays and films forever.
You are totally right on Travis, he does make the choices that drive his goals, a good character should always be the one making change, not being passive and allowing change to effect him. But you are reading far to much into this idea of hunting and goals, nobody is saying that your script has to be about a character's goal. What they say is that your character must have goals and he should try and achieve those goals during the course of the film. Travis Bickle wanted to be with Cybil Shephard, he wanted to rescue Jodie Foster, he wanted to kill the senator. These were his characters goals throughout the movie and the script created tension by having something or somebody stand in the way of those goals. You could say that Taxi Driver was a film about a man who just wanted to be taken seriously, that was his overall goal and that is essentially the theme of the movie. The little goals, i.e. the plot points along the way are just ways in which his overall goal can be achieved. His antagonist is probably himself, or at least the crazy world in which he lives that does not allow him to be the person he wants.
We are talking about characters here and not story/plot/themes. Whodunits will also have characters who have goals in exactly the same way. The cop who wants to catch the bad guy, the killer who does not want to be unmasked. This is where tension and drama is created in a whodunit, not simply by withholding the secret until the end, what a dull film that would be.
I think you are reading far too much into this, inciting incidents are simply just things that happen in a script that propel the story line forward or spin it in a different direction. All movies have inciting incidents, otherwise they would not be movies.
On page 25 of Taxi Driver Travis walks into the Palentine headquarters to ask Betty out, this is an inciting incident because this is the moment that Travis Bickle has made the decision to take control of his life, it is also the moment that we jump into Act 2 because this is where the main plot kicks in.
Nobody is saying that a movie has to be about people hunting goals, movies can be about whatever you want them to be. But without a shadow of a doubt the most succesful movies ever made will follow some kind of story structure and will have inciting incidents and character conflicts. But that is not the same as suggesting that all movies must have a protag who is a person climbing a tree with another person throwing rocks, protags usually are characters but antag's could be anything. It is also important to note that your protag does not have to be the same character that your movie is about, your hero is not necessarily your protag, but usually is.
The best advice I can give is to be aware of this structure, learn it and understand it, but not take it so literally. I read book, after book and could not get my head around it at all. I thought it was stupid, I thought it was making screenwriting seem too difficult and formulaic. As soon as I stopped taking it so literally though it all made complete sense. It is a no-brainer to be honest, If you watch movies and think about what you are watching then you already know this, everybody who goes to the movies knows this but just don't know they know it. As screenwriters it is our job to understand how structure affects a movie. Story is always king but you can have the best story in the world and if it is not structured properly it will no doubt be a shit film.
I promise you that once to learn to love structure you will see screenwriting in a whole new light, it really does make plotting out a script that much easier. If you know that you have to get these kids into the woods by page 25 you can write your script with that aim in mind. Like I said, no-brainer, if you have not started your main plot by the 25min mark you will have a bored audience. That 25min mark becomes your inciting incident then because it is that moment your kids enter the woods and the real movie begins. I have read so many scripts here that lack any proper structure and this is the main reason why they will never get made. Professionals do this so effortlessly that you do not even notice it most of the time.
I would recommend Save The Cat, I think it would be really worth reading.
But also, understand, as a "movie watcher" what works, and what doesn't work...and why. It's personal opinion, and it's not just regulated to the actual "watchers"...every single movie that I am aware of, has both positive and negative reviews. It's a fine line, at times, and we as potential "movie makers" have to go with our gut instincts, and put together what we feel will work.
Don't get caught up in what scripts, or movies have to be like. They dont't have to be like anything. Write what you feel, write what you like...what you'd like to see onscreen.
You never know. Stranger things always seem to happen.
So the inciting incident of Taxi Drive happened twentyfive minutes into the story? And it's him causing the incident instead of reacting to one?
I think u got the concept of what a whodonit is wrong.(bad phrasing, sorry). whodonits have multiple antagonists/clues leading the cop in various directions until he figures out the real culprit. kinda like a spider structure or who wants to be a millionair structure...
I don't agree that this is basic story telling stuff. I think this structure is one among others that's being touted as the only way to tell a story.
I notice a couple of double posts here. Please avoid double posting. If you want to add to your post click the modify button located in the top right hand corner of your post.
Jammin', you're a breath of fresh air, for sure. I like your tude, and please don't lose it. Nothing has to be any certain way...nothing...we're talking about art here, and any form of art doesn't have bounds that need to be striclty adhered to.
So the inciting incident of Taxi Drive happened twentyfive minutes into the story? And it's him causing the incident instead of reacting to one?
Definitely, A good script moves from one act to another with clear purpose. Usually a character who make a decision to move something in a different direction. Good characters make decisions, weak characters react to other forces. The catalyst might be something external, say the aliens invade New York, but the spin to Act 2 should be your hero deciding he is going to stay and fight.
This works just the same on a smaller scale, your low budget character driven indie for instance. It could be a simple decision on whether to buy an airline ticket for instance, this is an inciting incident because your character is making a choice that will effect what actually happens in Act 2. Does he go to see his sick mother in Ohio, or does he stay in New York and feed the birds? It should always be your character who makes these decisions, inciting incidents are simply just purposeful actions that you as a writer put in your script to move the plot along.
It's fine to disagree, quite often I talk a lot of bollocks anyway. I do not pretend to be an expert, I have no IMDB page and have not finished a feature yet (although have plotted a few). I do love and watch a lot of movies though and while am just learning how to write them I am spending lots of time trying to understand what exactly makes a movie work, this really is the key, especially if you want to write movies that have a broad appeal and thus make lots of money.
I'm not looking for broad appeal as my goal. I enjoy good films. I'm burning up to tell stories that haven't been told. And yes, it wouldn't hurt to make lotsa money in the process.
So you've plotted a few features, what does that mean? You drew up what-happens-next outlines? Were they character driven or were they exciting situations and occurances you'd like to see onscreen?
dreamscale, I jam cuz (good)music is food for the soul.
Haha, I will watch later. I just wanted to say that I watched this movie the other day and I thought it was awful. And I am a huge fan of his previous work, which do have traditional structures btw, hidden amongst the original ideas. Synecdoche, New York to me was a complete mess of a film that made no sense whatsoever, I was very disappointed. Not a great advert for breaking the rules in my own humble opinion.
Anyway, Kaufman directed this movie himself, spec's as we should all know are completely different beasts. There is not a chance in hell that an unknown writer would have sold Synecdoche, New York to anybody.
oh do watch. btw, are u a night owl like me? It's pretty late... anyways I think all his films are pretty much along the same vain. He's being true to himself and trying to use real life experiences instead of regurgitating from past films.
The thing I didn't like with 'Adaptation' was that it was basically self indulgent and became about him. The third act pissed me off too. It made absolutely no sence. He's a smart guy who wants to bring realness to films though. In that he has my respect. This will further let u understand my point because I think we(he and I) are thinking along the same lines in regards to writing films. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy14g1jtW9M&feature=related
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.
Or, if you're like me, you wait at the red light, and when you get home, you write a screenplay on why it pays to wait.
I love his stuff, I thought Adaptation was a great film. I actually liked the 3rd act, I saw the two brothers as being the same person and the ending made sense for me thinking like that. I know many people disagree with me on this, I have had debates with people who are adamant they really are two different characters, but I am sure that they represented the two different sides of Kaufman. The one who wants to write his own way and the one who wants to write a "proper' movie. In the end it was the "proper" movie that won.
Eternal Sunshine and Being JM, in my opinion, are two of the greatest movies of this decade. And do think both do follow a traditional structure in many ways, but do admit he plays hard and fast with the "rules" and does produce something special. I think when you are as talented as that you can do your own thing and very rarely someone will come along and make it work.
It has to be noted that based on his directorial debut in Synecdoche I have to assume that he has been lucky in having directors that have taken his originality and yet still made a film that works as a movie with wider appeal. Doing it himself just does not seemed to have worked for me. But I will admit that it has had some good reviews, for whatever reason I just did not get it. It was boring. I mean it was Philip Seymour Hofman and it was still boring. I hope next time he does not direct himself.
Pages: 
Author
Writing Question: Length of ACT 1
Where were his rocks and who threw them to begin with?
Logged
Locked Board