Quoted from Grandma Bear I sent my 7WC script out for comments today. I don't know if it follows a 3 act structure or not. Nor do I know if it has any of the other points at the right pages. We'll see what the feedback will be. All I can say is I know the first kill ended up much later than I wanted it, but I couldn't really figure out a way to change that without making everything happen too fast. I have STC btw, but I usually don't use it because a lot of what he's talking about I don't understand.

I haven't got time to read a full script at the moment, but if you want me to have a quick look and give you some suggestions of how to get to the killing a bit quicker without speeding the whole thing up, I can do.

Rick.

Very generous of you! I sent it on....however, since the first kill is on page 60 now...you still need to do a lot of reading.  

I really try to come to a beginning, middle and an ending to a script in my head before I ever put it to paper. I really don’t visualize three acts in my head. That seems too linear. Instead I visualize a bell curve for my writing.

For those who might not know what this is, a bell curve starts from zero and begins it's accent upwards to a peak. From the peak, it begins its dissension back to zero. Like a hill.

If this is what a three act structure is, then so be it. That’s not to say that right in the middle is where the climax should be.

I wish my simple mind to get around all of the structure aspects many of you speak of, but it can't. I'm okay with that.

Besides, I'm going to be the guy who gets a script produced despite his lack of structure. Mine have no choice but to be produced on story alone because if you've ever read one of my scripts, you either enjoy it due to the story of discard it because of the errors.

I will say this-

I came to simply scripts pretty much not knowing how to write. I have a very bad deficit when it comes to my ability to read and write.

Being a member of this site has helped me quite a bit. In fact, because of the advancements over the last few years with the help of my friends here, I am light years from where I was.

Shawn…..><

I actually appreciate the reverse bell curve.

Start big, lull the middle purposely, and then go back to even bigger for the finale.

Start big, end big, winning formula every time.  Love me, hate me...listen to me, damnit.



And always use Emoticons whenever possible!!

It is amazing to watch how the big studio movies not only stick to 3 act structure, but it's eery how close they stick to it. The inciting incident usually actually comes at minute 12(yes, I have been trying to note in films), but NEVER later than that. The end of act one is clear when it comes. In fact, it's so clear, you can tell just from the soundtrack. The music changes right as the turn is made into two. And this always seems to come right at 25 minutes.

The midpoint is similar. It's almost annoying how it literally comes right at the midpoint. I mean literally within a minute.

The turn into three is a little more variable, but from what I've seen, tends to come exactly 25 minutes before the end. And as with the other turn, you can tell the turn from the soundtrack, which changes right on cue.

However, I did read an interview with a pro writer who said spec script writers do not need to concern themselves with this. This exacting structure, he said, is due to big studios making films, where there is a committee of people...writers, directors, producers...designing the story. Standard three act is just a common language between them.

Also, things like FF films clearly do not follow 3 act structure, at least as we normally think of it.

I don't discount Jeff's view, and I once held it, may yet hold it again. But at the moment, I take a different approach, one which emphasizes the midpoint.

My reasoning is this: we are unknown, unproduced spec script writers. The reader has made up his mind on your script LONG before the end. So you could have the ending to end all endings, and it won't matter. If you've lost the reader, you won't recapture him. If you've already captured him, you've already won the battle. A great ending is mere icing on the cake.

Are the times that a reader is on the fence, and the ending can make a critical difference? No doubt. But I think the overwhelming majority of the time, the reader has made up his mind. Can anyone think of any scripts they've read where that happened, where they really were not thrilled, but the ending turned things around?

I've had two people contact me about producing features. They were both smaller than small. Perhaps something could still be learned from the experience. Both of them fell in love with the script(different scripts, too)...but never finished it! Now maybe they are not indicative of a more serious producer. But I suspect, and there is evidence to suggest, that even major producers don't read the whole script before they decide. They are either excited about a script, or they are not. If they are not, you have no chance. If they are, they almost don't need to finish the script. They are gonna change things anyway.

So my current theory is that we need a killer first act. The first 25 to 30 pages. This act has to blow someone away. It has to literally get a producer excited. If you don't get a "wow!", you're cooked. If you get the wow, he'll keep reading, just to make sure things don't fall apart. If you can hit him with another "wow!" at the midpoint, that means there were only 10 or 15 pages between wows. You do that, and you sold your script. Just try not to blow it with the second half.

That's my theory. God knows I'll probably change my mind.

That's impressive Kevin!

I have one thought though. I wonder if studying "too hard" can be a hindrance. Not saying that you are, just wondering in general. There are lots of people that are experts on screenplay writing. They study it endlessly, but I wonder if it makes them better writers.

IMHO, and I emphezise HUMBLE, I've seen some writers get "worse" the more they "know". I personally prefer organic, from the gut writing, even if rough around the edges...I'm weird though. I've been told many times.  

Quoted from leitskev The reader has made up his mind on your script LONG before the end. So you could have the ending to end all endings, and it won't matter. If you've lost the reader, you won't recapture him  ...  Can anyone think of any scripts they've read where that happened, where they really were not thrilled, but the ending turned things around?

I do agree with what you're saying here.  It is hard to win somebody back, but there were a couple films that came to mind that I was bored by, but ended up thinking they're great films because the ending was so awesome.

'Se7en' I thought was horribly slow.  There were some cool killings along the way, yes, but for the most part, I think it's really slow.  But the ending made it an incredible movie in my eyes, and is the reason why I will sit down and watch it again.

The same with 'The Sixth Sense'.  Very very very slow.  Yes, some interesting stuff happens along the way, but it's a very very slow movie nonetheless.  The ending though, I was so impressed with.  It made me go back and watch it again (and again) and it actually made the beginning and middle entertaining for me, seeing everything that I missed.

True, I did WATCH those films and didn't READ them, but I don't think I'd feel any differently if I had read them first.

Like I said, I do agree with what you said, but those came to my mind right away.

It's possible, Pia. I won't be a good test subject for that hypothesis, though. I have barely studied film theory. I have never taken a film class, and have probably seen less movies than anyone on this board. The above is a simple analysis based on limited experience. I've read Story by McKee, though not recently; and an online PDF of STC. That's pretty much the extent of my knowledge of film theory. So studying theory has not been a part of my approach.

I do absolutely think it's worth thinking about these things in terms of what works best. Look, nothing beats talent. A dose of talent is worth ten doses of analysis. But you're born with what talent you have. Work is something you can control. I can't make myself more talented. But I can work at learning.

I've had plenty of people tell me my work stinks. But no one yet has said it's getting worse!

I've read a lot of scripts, but not that many books on screenwriting. I just feel it's stifling when trying to write something if I try to follow what those people teach. I will admit that most of my feature attempts suck, but I just don't think I can write if I have to follow rules and structures. Most of the time I know the beginning and the end then my characters take the story where it wants to go. Maybe that's a hindrance for me, but it's the only way I can write.  Fuck! Did I mention that's why I love shorts?  

Hey, Mark. I agree. And even a few months ago, I wrote year that a movie is like a book: you need a hook(great cover), a strong beginning, and a strong ending.

It's not that I no longer think that. But selling a script when you're a nobody is very different from what makes a great movie. I think to sell a script, you better win the early battles. The war is long over by the time you reach the end of the script. You've either won or lost.

Pia, I was not suggesting anyone follow any formula. I don't. What I am saying is very simple: have a killer beginning(first 25 pages) where you really knock the reader out. And have something really unexpected near the middle that churns things up again, excites the reader. If you have a big twist, consider using it in the middle instead of the end. And that part's a little unorthodox, I know.

In war, you have to fire your big guns early. If you wait too long, they might do tremendous damage, but the tide of battle might already have turned. That's not film theory. That's Kev theory.

I do know there is some kind of film theory out there that revolves around the midpoint. I've never read it. I think maybe Rick mentioned it once. Someone did. Actually, I would read it, if I could find it online. I am curious now. i want to study! JK.

Quoted from leitskev If you don't get a "wow!", you're cooked. If you get the wow, he'll keep reading, just to make sure things don't fall apart. If you can hit him with another "wow!" at the midpoint, that means there were only 10 or 15 pages between wows.

I'm cooked

If you actually watch alot of movies, you'll see that many, MANY of them do not start with a bang.  Actually, more like a whimper.

I'm talking mostly about lower budget, non theatrical releases, which is what most here seem to aspire to.

Again, to tie this into another thread, watch movies and see what's actually making it onto the screen, and how it works and doesn't work.

Jeff, there are no doubt different access points. But please keep in mind what I've been saying this theory of mine applies to:

Non-produced, unknown screenwriters.

Once you are inside the gates: have a track record, have connections, etc., the options are much wider. Most of the films you see have not been written by unknown writers. So there is more leeway to do things different.

If you are an unknown writer trying to separate from the pack, unless your idea is so high concept that the premise almost sells itself, then every page at the beginning of your script that does not blow away the reader leaves you on the precipice. You can't risk it. There's no time to build. Something better be wowing the reader.

Kevin, I don't want to argue with you, nor am I trying to.

As I've said, I am in complete agreement that a script and a movie should start with some excitement, intrigue, terror, horror, or whatever the theme and genre dictate.

But my point here is twofold.

1)  First of all, actual movies do not ALWAYS follow this pattern.  There are actual movies written by complete no-names, as I am referring to low budget, non theatrical release fare.  In no way does a script have to do this, and when you...

2)...sacrifice story to make this happen, it's obvious to any astute reader or movie watcher.  The script and movie will suffer greatly because of it.

If you can do this naturally, that's great - you should.  But if your idea does not follow this, you shouldn't be too concerned.

If something works, it works, period.  If something doesn't work, it doesn't work, period.

You can trace along all the STC BS or any other guideline/spreadsheet all you want and cram square shaped pegs into round holes, all in the name of structure.

Or, you can write a compelling, well thought out script with a unique twist or vibe, and make it your own.  Eventually, the cream rises to the top.

Jeff, I don't have a problem with any of what you are saying. I just want to be clear on what I am and I am not advocating.

At no point have I suggested following STC. I have been consistently clear that I am opposed to paint by the number writing. I think it's wise to be familiar with these concepts if you are a writer, but I have always been adamantly opposed to following them like a bible. Which I think you know. I am opposed to any hard and absolute rules, whether it's paint by the number story building or rules of what's "right" in screenwriting. It's all about what works, and that goes for everything...writing styles, "rules" of writing, or STC structure guidelines.

What I am advocating is very simple: make the "beginning" kick a$s.

That doesn't mean a car chase, or ten bloody murders, or a meteor shower. It just means something must impress the reader, really impress. Tarrantino impressed people with the breakfast dialogue scene in Reservoir. If a writer can do that, great. Or if it takes a meteor shower, fine. As long as the beginning kicks ass, grabs the reader and doesn't let go. TTP. Turn the page. That beginning needs to be a page turner. It needs to be powerful enough that the reader can't stop reading.

I threw in a second part of my theory, which as I said, may change, and I am not telling anyone how to write: a kick a$s midpoint.

So real simple: kicka$s beginning, kicka$s middle. That's all I am arguing for.

the surgeon general has warned: this writer is un-produced. Any theory advocated is untested and should be tried at the writers risk.