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

  That's funny.

OK, Kev, I am not in disagreement with what you're saying either, but I also find it a bit humorous, as it is or should be very obvious.

In some way or another the entire script should be kickass, right?  Now, we all know, based on all the pure shit movies available, that doesn't happen very often, or maybe more like rarely, if ever.

I have to laugh when I hear people telling others to write a really good script or the like.

For some reason, I always get this picture in my head of an awkward guy who doesn't know how to act around girls, going on a first date with a babe.  Before the date, he's at home reading a "How to Date Successfully for Dummies" book, and follows all the steps, dressing "nice", continually freshening his breath, fixing his hair, etc.  He arrives wearing a suit and tie and his date has jeans and a tight tank top on.  He gives her dorky flowers and even a box of chocolates.  He's polite, courteous, a total gentleman in every respect.  The girl gets up during a awkward dinner, goes to the restroom and calls her friend, saying how poorly the date is going.  At the end of the date, the girl thanks the dweeb, and gets her hot ass inside her place as fast as she can.  The guy goes home, and tells his friend how well the date went, when in reality, it didn't go well at all.

How in the Hell does this relate to the discussion at hand?  Well, advice and guidelines are great and often make perfect sense in the big picture, but each screenplay is a unique situation (hopefully) and worrying about this or that doesn't necessarily make it better, or good.

Does it make sense to start with a bang?  Sure it does.

Does it make every script better?  Definitely not.

I may have been that dorky guy when it comes to woman, who knows. But that is not only not what I am advocating, but I am starting to suspect you are not really reading my posts. There is no other way to explain how you keep misrepresenting them.

I have made it perfectly clear that I don't advocate any paint by the numbers approach. Somehow when I say "I don't advocate the paint by the numbers approach" it keeps coming back as though I do. Very, very strange. Especially considering some of the lengthy posts I've made in the past in other threads against that approach.

Is my advice of have a killer beginning obvious...so obvious that it becomes meaningless? Let me better explain.

One of the things a script normally has to do is introduce the characters, their conflicts, their goals and flaws, etc. If you are Aaron Soronsin the reader will give you a lot of leeway to do this. There is a presumption the story will become interesting.

If you are an unknown, there is little leeway. Your story has to grab the reader quick and not let go. You want to reveal some intricate character trait and make some profound statement on the human condition? Fine, but if you do that in the first "act", and the story is not interesting, good bloody luck getting a producer on board.

Maybe you have a brilliant idea for your story, something that will be revealed on page 60 and will change the world as we know it. Great. But you need time to set it up. And the set up is not going to be the kind of thing that blows people away. Well, if you are Tarantino, ok. Folks will stick around to page 60. But if you are unknown, your great story element that will change the world will never be reached by a producer.

These are decisions you face when writing. If you have not faced them, you will at some point. You have to look at each scene in that first act and ask yourself are the engines that are driving the story really powerful. You might look at a particular scene, for example, around page 12, and determine that is not driving the reader in a powerful way, but that it's necessary to set something up for later that is important. I'm saying no, don't do that. It's too risky. Unless you are established. If that changes your story, so be it.

So this is not generic advice saying "write a good story". To be honest, I hate when people say that myself. It's kind of a joke.

What I am saying is that you have choices in your story. Every scene should be necessary, should feel necessary; but not every scene can be kick as$. What I am suggesting is that if you have a limited number of kick as$, line up that butt smashing stuff near the front. Move that dramatic twist from page 100 to page 55. Make sure every scene in the front 25 pages is knockout. If it's not, start over.

You are in a war. Your foe is a producer. You win, he wants to produce your script. What I am saying is that tide of battle will be largely determined before page 25 or 30. After that, it's almost too late to turn it back. the second half of your story might be the greatest in film history. You got all your heavy artillery lined up then. Well, you wasted them. You should've rolled them up while the fighting mattered. In the first act.

The surgeon's warning applies: I make no claims to special knowledge. I am not a freemason, handed the secrets of screen success. This is my current theory. We'll see what happens.

Kevin, my friend, I am reading your posts and I definitely understand what you're saying.

On the contrary, I think you're not really reading my posts or trying to understand what I'm saying.  You're saying the exact same thing over and over, while I'm trying to make my points by saying different things and throwing out different, maybe wacky things.

So, I'll try again, not to argue or beat this into the ground, but hopefully to bring a different perspective to the table and get my point across.

Of course you don't want to start off "too" slow or dull.  That is understood and agreed on.  But, it's a long race, and isn't won or completely lost, based on the start.

We can use a number of different scenarios here, be they sports, strategic games, war, or...how about this?  Sex.  Yes, I'm going to throw out an analogy, dealing with sex.

We've all heard the phrase, "Don't blow your load out of the gate", or something to that effect.  Right?  Why?  What does it really mean?

Well, it means if you do, you're (and/or your partner) going to end up with an unsatisfying situation.

Same can be said in a sporting event.  The team can come out on fire, open up a huge lead, but if you can't finish and close the game out, you're going to lose.

Now, this scenario obviously only holds up in a "timed" situation, meaning, the game isn't over until it's over.

In a boxing or MMA fight, that doesn't hold true - completely.  Sure, you can come out and deliver a knockout or quick sub, and by doing so, you win.  But, if your opponent survives the onslaught, and you've blown your load, so to speak, you're not going to win.

In any war type situation, you can indeed destroy your opponent with your opening strike.  But, if they survive and you've left yourself open for their counter attack, you could be in for some trouble.

A script/movie is a timed event, so to speak.  It's not over until it's over, and that's around 90-110 pages or minutes.  If you come out with a bang and engage or blow your audience away, that's great - and very important.  But remember, when the script/movie is over, the lasting impression isn't what occurred at the beginning, it's what happens at the end, how it all comes together.

And, the more I think about this, the more I wonder if this is exactly what's wrong in the industry as a whole.  Everyone's so fucking worried about getting and keeping a reader/agent/Producer's attention early on, that they're not taking the time and effort to actually craft a real story, that works from beginning to end, and wraps up on a high note, leaving a good taste in everyone's mouth.

If people don't have the time, energy, or gumption to read the entire script and think about what they just read, what does it say about these gate keepers and actual movie makers?  To me, it says they don't really give a fuck, and based on what the finished product of most scripts look like, it's crystal clear there's a huge problem that's very tough to overcome.

So, to surmise once again, I agree that a solid start is important, but you can't and shouldn't fire all your big guns early on.  You can't blow your load too early.  And most importantly, you have to understand that the end is the most important, not the beginning, unless you really don't care about creating a quality product.

It is admirable that your priority is quality movies. But it makes you less likely to be produced. In my simpleminded, un-produced opinion.

Should you decide to change your goal to that of being produced, you might consider a new strategy.

Yes, in an ideal world, studio heads would read every word of each of the thousands of scripts that are sent to their studios. But reality being what it is, they don't have time. They are busy...making movies. So they hire entry level people to read. And these readers have to truck off dozens and dozens of scripts every week. They're probably young, hungover, trying to write, or work some other job related to film. And they don't have time to read every word of these scripts either.

There is nothing wrong with the process. One can always do as they did in the early days of film: make his own! But if we want to utilize someone else's business to do this, we have to run the gauntlet of thousands of scripts.

You want to run that gauntlet, be prepared to win the early rounds. That's what kind of fight it is. If we go with war theory, it's like mechanized warfare: overwhelm with speed and force. All that matters in mechanized warfare is the early days. Ask the French about that.

If you are an unknown writer, this is mechanized war. If you want to win, here's the key: Blitzkreig. Drive fast and hard. Don't let the enemy regroup...or have an excuse to stop reading.

If you want to go with sex...foreplay is for single people, you know that! Not for married people.

Foreplay is the perfect image for what I'm saying. If you are unknown, you're up against the clock. No time for foreplay. You start whispering in her ear kissing her neck, she's going to check her watch, get up and go to work. And you're stuck with Xtube.

Quoted from leitskev It is admirable that your priority is quality movies. But it makes you less likely to be produced. In my simpleminded, un-produced opinion.

That is definitely my aim and priority, and anyone who thinks differently is doing a HUGE disservice to the paying, movie loving audience.

I can't for the life of me see how that would diminish my chances at getting a script produced.  That just does not compute for me at all.

Again, I don't think you're even trying to understand what I'm saying, Kevin.  I didn't mention anything about foreplay or whether or not the couple in my sex analogy was married.

Foreplay has absolutely nothing to do with blowing your load "too early".  I'm referring to finishing on a high note, completing the process, and leaving everyone "satisfied".

In fact, my sex analogy really would have to involve unmarried participants, as the relationship is exactly the same in a unknown Spec writer selling a script, as there is no prior relationship involved.  Neither knows the other.  It's fresh and new.

Your blow your load theory assumes that initial, out of the gate load is a knockout blow, but it doesn't and cannot work that way in script/movie scenario.  It's impossible.

I think what it really comes down to in our disagreement is either an oversight or misunderstanding on your part.

If you break a story down to its most simple parts and use the most basic definitions or understandings of those parts, you're going to get structure - and the most simple structure is a 3 part structure - BEGINNING, MIDDLE, and END.

You're repeatedly saying the beginning is the most important and even have said that one should move a big twist ending to the middle, leaving your end flat or an afterthought - as if it doesn't really matter what happens or how things end.  You're saying to alter the entire story to achieve this, and IMO, that's flat out ludicrous and wrong.

The end is what the entire story is about.  The entire reason anyone is sitting through it.  The end is the culmination of the entire story, and if it falls flat, it fails.

It's basically a way of slapping your audience right in the face and saying "Fuck you...too bad.  I got you in and that's all I fucking care about'.  A great example is the recent shitfest called "The Devil Inside".  Yes, it was shockingly successful, but it was also shockingly terrible and 99% of the paying audience, as well as the critics, absolutely hated it and felt completely cheated.

In many ways, this is exactly what you're recommending and I for one, find it appalling.

Interesting discussion with well made points on both sides.

I honestly don't know what to believe when it comes to screenwriting.

I read a little excerpt on the "From Babz" thread...seemed to suggest you have to follow the Synder beat sheet EXACTLY, write in EXACTLY a certain style etc and any deviation would see you in the bin before anyone has even looked at the story.

Seems absurd to me..but there you go.

Then you're told that the Unions won't allow new writers to have their work looked at, so you've got no chance anyway, even if you follow their rules.

Seems like a waste of time to write a screenplay for the studio system.

Seems to me anyone that wanted to get their stuff on screen would be better writing a Graphic Novel, a Novel, a blog...(Juno) or making a stupid Youtube video (the talking dog thing they're making into a film).

Unless you're living in LA and "paying your dues"...it looks nigh on impossible to break in if you believe what you read.

Leaving that aside...there's the weird conflict where writing a certain way in order to break the traditional system then means you're not writing stuff outside the mainstream enough to cause a stir in the underground...which could then give you mainstream credibility.

From an outside perspective, I'm not sure what I'd suggest.

Fastest way in from my way of looking at it would be to write something unique that gets produced to a high level by an up and comer that creates some heat. Or take the AJR approach and just get a project together yourself.

I'd also suggest targetting the scripts you like writing to the kind of Producers who like to MAKE them. There are other film industries out there.

I remember the guy who bought a script called Billy Elliot..a British film about a guy in a run down, traditional coal mining area in the North of England who wanted to be a ballet dancer.

He said eh picked it up, thought "What a load of shit, who wants to watch a film about THAT?". 20 minutes later he said his fingers were bashing the phone to call the writer to make a deal. It was a mega success and has even spawned a Theatre Production.

There's still going to be people out there who are willing to back films they LIKE...as well as companies who just need to keep the tills rolling. The huge companies, let's not forget, are the ones that create niche markets because whilst they are focussing on certain things...the ground is relatively clear for other stuff.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I remember the guy who bought a script called Billy Elliot..a British film about a guy in a run down, traditional coal mining area in the North of England who wanted to be a ballet dancer.

Didn't Joe Eszterhas already write that movie from a woman's perspective back in the 80's?

I'm not sure if I know who Babz is or not, but I know Snyder enough to know I don't follow him... He wrote a book, yeah?  People who write books on screenplays, I tend to avoid.  Adam Levenberg wrote a book, yes, and I'm a hypocrite in the sense I did get his book while he was consulting on my script Frostbite -- but it was to have a better understanding of what kind of things he was going to throw at me when he did the follow up call.  I wanted to be prepared for "his" way of constructing.  Little did I know, 20 bucks later, his book came into play about ZERO times.  He's a cool dude, helped me a great deal.  But I didn't learn much from his book.  His critique and phone follow up -- Yeah, learned a lot.  I'd gladly pay 400 to 600 bucks for my screenplay to be looked over by him than to pay 20 bucks for a book telling me general information in general ways.  His book is by far the most complete, though.  That I can tell you.  He covers a lot of ground that it took other people 5 books to convey.  People say "oh, you have to have Save the Cat on your desk when you write."  No you don't.  I have my copy wedged between a Three Billy Goat's Gruff hardback and a cowboy slang book on a wall shelf somewhere behind me... It's so damn crisp, you have to lick your finger tip just to turn a page.

I agree 100% with what you said, that writing your screenplays for Hollywood is a no win situation... You write your screenplays to be made.  That means by modest means.  Sure, we all have our epics.  I have two now -- Coffin Canyon and Frostbite... but I have a ton of other one's I'd shop around before them two.

I was taught a method for structuring last year called the A2Z method.  It's a slick trick when laying out your movie.  When I get to a computer I'll lay out 2 of the 26 steps that have helped me a great deal in structuring a better than 1st draft 1st draft.  My phone isn't the best means to post.

Jeff, while managing to appall you does provide me a certain guilty pleasure, I must admit, that is not my purpose. And I think the argument I am making in how we should approach it leaves room for this question: how much?

By how much, I mean how much emphasis should be transferred from the end of the script toward the front lines. Because I am certainly not suggesting that a script should be constructed so that it basically ends at the midpoint, and the rest is filler.

No, we want the rest of the script to be decent. And if you can manage another great twist at the end, that is the way to go.

Here's what I am suggesting, for anyone interested. And it is a little outside the box, so again, follow at your own risk(which means I'll be by myself!). When most people set out to write a script, they have the end as their target. Very normal, very understandable. That's how my scripts have been written too.

So what we end up doing is looking for that killer twist at the end, like The Sixth Sense. That dramatic, memorable turn of events that will leave a lasting impression. Like I said, very understandable.

But 98 out of 100 scripts seem to have what's called the "second half of the second act black hole." Or in English, the middle stinks.

Let's look at Fade To White. I'm not sure, I don't remember exactly where things happen, but ironically you might have avoided the black hole by doing exactly what I am here suggesting be done(wouldn't that kick you in the pants!) I could be off on this, but I believe we find out the good couple is actually the killers right at the midpoint! Right when the story needs a shake up.

I think when people plot their scripts(those using 3 act), they have the inciting incident, and then the 2 act turns as their main plot points. There's a midpoint point, maybe, but it tends to be an understated thing. Maybe some little change in the protag's arc or something.

I am recommending you aim your story like a missile right at the midpoint. Something big has to happen there to reboot the story. Use that to recharge things, to fuel the story right into the third act. If you can come up with another twist there, do it. But if you want to sell a spec script, and there is no one way, so this is just a suggestion, focus on the middle of your story. If you have a strong 25 to 30 pages, and then a recharging midpoint at page 45, your script is about to make orbit like a 3 stage rocket.

Rick, I don't know either. But I've read writers who have recently made it, and none of them really mention specific structure, certainly none mention STC. I think when studio developers sit around in a room, they speak STC language, and that ends up being reflected in the film's final state, but I don't think spec scripts need to be written that way.

And the rules are ever shifting. Babz posted recently a link to an article where a studio reader said he opens the script and looks for the turn into two on page 17 to 20, dumps the script if it's not there! But I've never seen the turn that early. It should be page 25 for a 100 page script. But page 17? And every movie I've noted it tends to be about 25 minutes into. So we have to be careful about what we read and what advice we get.

I think one should understand structure. And a script should have structure. But paint by the numbers...I'm not so sure about that. Hollywood wants writers with original ideas who can execute a story that they can make money off.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I read a little excerpt on the "From Babz" thread...seemed to suggest you have to follow the Synder beat sheet EXACTLY, write in EXACTLY a certain style etc and any deviation would see you in the bin before anyone has even looked at the story.

I've seen enough mention of this practice in various articles to believe it to be true - but only whilst selling in "Hollywood".

All bets are off when selling to independents.

I think a lot of the discussion about what you do when writing a script should be wrapped in where you're going to try to sell it.  It makes a huge difference.    

Quoted from mcornetto All bets are off when selling to independents.

On a recent discussion with an indy co:
The ending was flat. My suggestion? Dark Night of the Soul. Blank faces. Snyder? Blank faces. Not a clue.

Snyder's a moron IMO.

14 scripts sold - two filmed. Both c'rap.

STC2 took fifty films (of about 600 per year) so less than 10% - and you're expected to write according to an invented form based on this tiny group.

So he used Saw (among others). Find the inciting incident on p12 exactly, 'cos I can't - I'm happy to be corrected. And isn't it 'roughly' 1 page per minute - and doesn't this change according to if you are writing mainly action vs mainly dialogue?

And doesn't STC depend entirely on what has happened in the past as opposed to interpreting the direction for the future?

The more I read about it, the more I see people checking completed work with BS-BS after they have completed their work. Has anyone here actually written TO a beat sheet?

And really, doesn't BS stand for Bullsh*t?

I don't know, the three act structure makes sense to me, so I tend to write that way.  First 20-30 intro who what why and where and give them a task(s), middle 30- ish our protag jumps through hoops to find out how to solve the task(s) and the last 20-30 we bring it on home.  Most movies do tend to work this way, once you look close enough, and it just feels right to me.  I like it.

The Three Stooges movie made it easy on themselves -- They did it in three distinct titled sections.  Problem solved.

(SS ghost from the past.   )

WRITE STORY --> PRODUCE FILM --> DISTRIBUTE FILM

Yeah, well... Who's producing it?
Who's ponying up the hundreds of thousands or a few million or tens of millions for this film?

A - Studio.
B - Independent Filmmaker.

Studio's definitely believe in the three act structure.
> Screenplay Story Structure Analysis
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdEI1dGU1VUxaVDhCQmVnVFBLeUxSaWc#gid=0
     

Independent filmmakers don't give a rat's @ss about no stinkin' structure.

> 2011 Sundance Feature Film Distribution & Revenue Analysis
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdGlCeDRmWTFCYXJRWjJ3SUphZDNzMGc#gid=0

> 2010 Independent Film Distribution & Revenue Analysis
https://docs.google.com/spread.....E&hl=en_US#gid=0


But here's the rub: roughly 3/4 of indie filmmakers are writer directors, meaning only 1/4 are looking to produce something someone else wrote.

Hollywood studios, on the otherhand, are inundated with product.

Some unpleasant stats:
Independent Film Profit Probability
http://abovethelineproducer.blogspot.com/2010/06/independent-film-profit-probability.html
"According to the Sundance Institute, the total number of U.S. feature films submitted to the festival was:
1,920 for the 2010 festival,
1,905 for the 2009 festival, and
2,021 for 2008.
Taking an average of these three years we arrive at  
1,949.

At any one time, there are about 1,949 U.S. films waiting to be picked up for distribution. This assumes, that all applicants to Sundance have no distribution already in place.

Films with no theatrical distribution in place prior to financing (i.e., most of the films applying to Sundance) end up opening at 1,000 domestic theaters or less, if they open theatrically at all.
The 2011 average was 135 theaters at widest (not total), F 76:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdGlCeDRmWTFCYXJRWjJ3SUphZDNzMGc#gid=0

"Hence, a good a place to turn for some rate of success analysis is this pool of limited opening films (specialty films).

The definition a specialty film is any film that opened theatrically at 1,000 domestic venues or fewer, “domestic” meaning the U.S. and Canada.

There were 286 English-language specialty films released into theaters in 2009 (and about 11% had studio financing). Using this 286 number as an approximation of U.S. specialty films, we can examine how they did and come up with a rough probability for turning a profit.                                                                                                                  


Of the 286 specialty films released in 2009, 52 English-language specialty films appear to be headed for a profit, with the rest not likely to make back their investment.

Films produced 2009 (1949)  
Films distributed in 2009 (286)  
Films returning a profit in 2009 (52)  
Profit probability (2.7%)"

This biz ain't easy.


In my research on how to write and construct a spec screenplay I noted how many films were written by established industry insiders and by those who knew someone already in the biz.
An exclusionary club, a cadre, nepotism, whathaveyou, it shouldn't be surprising - go with what you know, don't waste time looking for "the best".
It's all a crapshoot anyway in this industry.

Furthermore, I went and researched the beginnings of many many many screenwriters.
Most started out with little weenie projects.


Additionally I consistently noted the high frequency of writer directors there were for distributed films.
(If you can't get distribution... what's the point? Art for art's sake? Pfft. Yeah. Grow up).


700 to 800 MPAA rated films annually
+ 500 to 600 non-MPAA rated films annually
Page 13 - http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/93bbeb16-0e4d-4b7e-b085-3f41c459f9ac.pdf

"There are an estimated 4,000 - 5,000 independent films made every single year. Here's the unfortunate truth: Less than 5% of all these movies end up with distribution."
http://www.distribution.la/
Probably not the most reliable source of intel, but it doesn't sound like complete BS.

Maybe this'll be better...
"Only about 40 of the 3,812 finished films that were submitted to Sundance this year will get any kind of distribution at all.  That’s slightly over one percent.  The other 98% you will never get to see – not even on Netflix."
http://www.culturalweekly.com/indie-films-state-of-the-union.html
Looks somewhat more credible.
And considering that not every indie film gets submitted to Sundance (on a lark) their 3,812 number suggests the previous distribution.la numbers were low balling the total number.
I bet it's closer to 8,000, give or take a thousand. Or two.

Lettuce move onto spec screenplays...

"I often see the figure that 40,000 (or more) scripts are written each year... " (2004 figure)
http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/archive/index.php/t-7081.html

"According to the Writer's Guild of America, 55,000 pieces of literary material are registered annually, 30,00 of which are screenplays."
http://www.screenwritingtostandard.com/

"An old adage in Hollywood is that in spite of the hundreds of thousands of rejected scripts every year, a good script will find an audience. Format properly, be professional, and write a killer script, and your chances are maximized for success."
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-spec-script.htm
Perhaps a little melodramatic, but point made - it's more than a few thousand.
Certainly more than the number of never-to-be-seen feature films made.
A LOT more.



So...

Who are you writing for?
Exactly.

Hey Ray! Welcome back, buddy. The SS stat man.

Couple of points. First, on the 50k registered scripts per year. I recently read that this number is a distortion, because it does not distinguish what people are really registering. Many writers register treatments, shorts, and multiple drafts of the same script. So no one knows for sure what the number is, but it's probably much less than 50k. The writer who wrote that article speculated it was probably around 20k features.

Only 50 to 100 spec scripts get picked up a year, however. And I think it's about 400 major films produced a year. So it's still a daunting task.

A thing to keep in mind, though, is the paid writing that goes on behind the scenes, stuff we have no way of tracking. I recently watched a discussion with the Coen brothers, and most of their work is writing gigs for things that never get made. I'm not talking in the past, but now, even with their prestige and success.

This is where is gets tricky. I suspect it works this way,maybe someone with more knowledge can confirm or shoot down: if a writer can create a truly original spec script, while it's unlikely for it to get filmed, it may draw him enough attention to get him paid assignments. So for example our esteemed Ray writes a 400 million dollar script that's filled with deep characters that we care about. It really draws attention. Maybe he wins the Bluecat or something. He gets hired to work assignments. For 10 years, he never appears in credits. And his 400million dollar script does not get filmed. But he's working, old Ray is!

He's writing on assignment, making nice money, and developing connections in the industry. His work always gets rewritten by writers higher up the food chain, so he doesn't get the film credits. To us, it looks like he fell off the world, or is writing in a cave somewhere. But he's on the inside, thriving.

And eventually, he gets to a point where he either sells a big spec, or gets the credit for a major film. Then HE becomes the studio writer who is higher up the food chain.

As far as structure, I still believe things are a bit more flexible than it seems. I'm not arguing against 3 act. I just don't think most producers, agents, etc. look at a script and say, "jeez, I think we got a winning concept here, something we can really make money off...but there's no 3 act structure, so we have to pass." I just don't think they think like that.

Three act is something that is considered when teams of pros are developing an existing concept.

Again, I am not saying people should not try to seek the more classic turns into two and three. Use it where it's useful. But I don't think forcing stories is likely to get you work in the industry.

As I said in a post further up, I read an interview with a pro writer who explained that most films are developed by teams in the studio. They all speak a language similar to Save The Cat, so films always develop along those lines. But, he says, it's different when it comes to spec scripts. There are really 2 purposes to a spec script.

One is to get optioned. A producer will option a script if he thinks he can make money off the concept. It's that simple. And when it comes to any decent size studio, after the script is optioned, it will go their development team for a rewrite. But the key question is whether the concept can make money. Does it have a high concept pitch? Is there a hook? Will the characters appeal to actors who can put asses in the seats? Are there trailer moments? Those are the questions.

The second purpose of these spec scripts is that they serve as your portfolio, your writing resume, and hopefully lead to paid work.

When we watch most major films, the 3 act structure is usually evident. In fact, if you turn off the picture and the dialogue, and just listen to the rest of the soundtrack you'll hear the music change at the key turning points, like clockwork, right on cue. So that means we should write that way, right?

I'm not so sure, for the reasons I tried to argue above. Most of those big films were not spec scripts. And even the ones that were, the story was bought and then the studio developed it with its team. So I think as long as a script is not stagnant, and has some kind of structure, has a pacing with twists and turns every 10 pages, it should be fine.

Good to see you, Ray!

Hmmm, three act structure can be helpful and/or limiting. It's really just a guide and has nothing to do with content or how you choose to have the story unfold that comes from practice (read and write).

What ever format you feel helps you write a good story three act structure or some variant, use it if it gets you writing. You'll grow and develop as you go.

BLB