Three vs. Five Vs. Nine act structure.

[Meltdown]

I missed the big scrap off in a previous thread that started off as a threee act stucture debate.

Start middle end. Yep that's what I apply. The single biggest item I pulled from all the literature about the three act stucture. The constant beef seemed that the second act was a "wasteland" where the story all too often meandered before heading into the third act and resolution.

I took this and made sure that the "middle" ( second act in traditional terms I guess) and made sure there was no let down. ( As I focus primarly on action genre, this is not so hard to do)


Now, I read about a five act structure and nine act structure ( on the net ithink)

Anyone have the Coles notes on these? And should really care to consider them.


No scrapping while I ain't looking. This canucklehead likes a good knock-down-drag'em-out-to-beat-the-band-knuckle-to- eyebrows-affair once in while.

FYI - Shanghai Noon was filmed here in Calgary. Kind of cool to know someone lurking on this board worked on it. (ain't seen it yet though).

X-men premier tonight!!!

MEltDOwn.

[steeves]

imho
5, 7 and 9 act structures are further definitions of the start/middle/end thing
they can help you to outline - use them for that approach if you like and they could be helpful

[Roxanne Battle]

1,2,3,4 Can I fry my brain some more.
5,6,7,8,9,10 keep it simple now... Do Do Do... Altogether now, Altogether now, Altogether now, Altogether now, Altogether now

[steeves]

<<<<message deleted>>>>

never mind - i'll save the bandwidth

[Steve]

John Truby (one of the Hollywood "writing gurus") is a big debunker of the 3 act structure. Instead he has his "21 steps" which are kind of complicated to follow but quite interesting. I think he has an overview on his website, though the site seems to be down today. www.truby.com

The problem is, if you don't follow the 3 act structure and you're been read by some assistant who took a weekend seminar or read half of Syd Field's book, they'll reject you for not having your turning point in the right place.

[steeves]

a really great script will not be rejected - regardless of structure

readers look for excuses to dump bad ones, no question, but not good ones

the thing we all seem to forget is that they WANT to find a good script - it makes the boss happy, it gives them a chance to see something that they found get picked up and moved on and maybe even produced and better still even released - and works well for them career-wise as well... i suspect the reader who recommended american beauty or being john malkovich has a chance to move up a notch - as opposed to the ones who may have passed on them and ended up moving out

knowing structure is important in the discussion of your story, after the fact, not in the creation, imvho

[Done Deal]

Hey, I guess you have been away too long. Look, I'm sorry... but really all these "cute" little posts aren't helping. If you got something good to say, then great. But please stop posting all this stuff that only seems to flaunt your "cleverness." Thanks.

[ksk2]

Great Point. So, in your opinion, if one has studied the structure, but alters it somewhat for the sake of rhythm and pacing, is that still cool? If the story has a lot of "hook" in the first 3 pages (or even sooner), do you think the readers will be more leniant?

[steeves]

structure is, to me, an analysis tool, used on a completed product, typically by non-writers more than by writers

i know that i am a novice, but what i feel, and what i read from pros that i respect a bunch, is that structure has zero place in creation

the only structure that matters is the hook with the first 10 pages (or so) - if it ain't there the scrip' will likely get turfed: why slog through something that doesn't grab you if you've 21 more stacked up to read that weekend?

i would recommend everyone read "the strange attractor" column at the wordplayer site
www.wordplayer.com/column...actor.html (http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp02.Strange.Attractor.html)
a good educational read, like most of the columns thereabouts

if you want structure education, eschew syd field and read aristotle - the pdf file is available on the net, can't remember the exact site but it is the mag site that has scripts, a hitchc0ck script collection - the bookmark is at work and i'll try to remember to edit it in here tomorrow morning (bed time now folks: 2300hrs over here)

[CRASH]

Meltdown,

Best thing about Calgary: Legal prostitution.

Banff was a beautiful diversion also. Would love to get a house there.

[Meltdown]

I typically just sit down and write with little thought of act structure. With action writing I find this three act stuff goes out the window ( for me). The story flows so well when I'm writing action this breaking into acts doesn't enter the picture.

My new script is far more character driven, so I started to think a lot more about the act breakdown - pointing specifically to my previous post about the snag of the second act being a waffling wasteland that pokes along until the third act kicks in.

Five to nine acts breakdown seems to have more story milestones to drive the story along.

Problemo: Me know diddly bubkus about these structures.

[wcmartell]

(or will that be cartoon swearing?)

Steeves,

I don't think structure is an analysis tool, I think it's the skeleton you build your script on... the foundation. And I began writing scripts BEFORE Syd Field's book came out.

I want to make sure that my skeleton is strong enough to hold up the story I'm going to write. I want to make sure that the foot bone is connected to the ankle bone, and the ankle bone is connected to the leg bone, and the... Before I start putting on the muscle and flesh. If part of the structure is weak, the thing may look human, but when it tries to stand up, it's legs turn to jelly.

To me structure is one of the first (and most important) creative steps in writing my script. If I try to "add structure" later, I end up throwing away most of what I've written because it wasn't integral to the story I was trying to tell - it had no skeleton beneath the flesh.

It was a slug.

- Bill

[Roxanne Battle]

Point taken, I think I watch to much M.A.S.H. Larry G. would probably agree with you though... Lo siento.

Roxanne battle

[Steve]

I mostly agree with you, Bill. I think structure is very important and I study it every chance I get. But I still find that sometimes I need to not worry about it and just write. I find I often need to start writing and explore my characters and see where they want to go. Yes, I have an overall sense of the story but some of my most well structured writing has been more of a discovery than a plan. Yes, it's a too common mistake of new writers to write a script (usually based on their not very interesting lives, and they then cry "but it *really* happened") and just "get it down on paper" w/o regard to structure. Usually the result is poor. But often no worse than the stillborn work of someone who obsessed about structure.

I believe that during a first draft at least, structure is something one should be aware of but not thinking about. Like a skilled craftman using a tool. It's second nature so that he doesn't think about how to use the tool, but about the thing he's making with it.

[steeves]

love the subject, bill!

to clarify, i meant to say that 'strict adherence to formal structure' is no way to start a story

yes, my stuff starts from a *very* broad-stroke outline level - amazingly enough that broad-stroke outline always (hate to say always considering how few i've worked on so far compared to you, but howzabout always-so-far) follows a 'beginning-middle-end' structure - and the beginning includes a hook and a conflict and some character definition and so on for the middle and end

from there i write - and by write i mean i tell a story. and yes it ends up with all those things that people say they do up front. for me it works better my way for others, well, some successfully have a 20page outline, character biographies and so on - and for them that works

all i keep espousing is that an inexperienced story-teller who tries to adhere tightly to a formal structure is working within far too tight a loop and may stifle themself with that loop

[Done Deal]

Okay. Being a big M*A*S*H lover myself, we'll move on from here then. Thanks.

[steeves]

go to www.screentalk.org and slide on down the page - the big ari-bowski's stuff in a pdf file is listed there

[Couchguy]

The Wizard of Oz
Star Wars
Rocky
Goodfellas
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Chinatown
On the Waterfront
Body Heat
Independence Day


They (and hundreds of other dissimilar films) are all structured similarly...is that too tight a loop?

If you're building a car, sure, you COULD build one with 3 wheels, or 5, but if you want to sell it, slap 4 wheels on that sucker. In the U.S., make the steering wheel on the left side, and get some seat belts in there. Within those restrictions, you have a LOT of latitude. Color, size, wheelbase, engine size and location, hardtop/convertible, minivan/luxury car, and so on. But the STRUCTURE is basically the same.

So despite everyone's advice...learn structure. Know it. Work brilliantly within it. You can still produce screenplays unlike anyone else. F Aristotle, and learn Syd Field. At least he speaks English.

Your pal,
Couchguy

[steeves]

if painters did things the same way for all the years, we never would have had monet... and especially not picasso
and the world, imo, would be less for that

if aristotle is a waste of time, why did syd base his stuff on him?
why do many great writers talk about Poetics (which has been available in english for about 2000 years?
why would screentalk transpose and post Poetics?
why has Poetics survived, and been taught, since, oh, i dunno, 350 BC?
ari-baby told us enter the story as late as possible and leave when there is no more that should be told... and ditto for each scene - did syd invent this? <------ rhetorical question

tell me, honestly, and i am in no way trying to get into a p'ing match with you, but do you REALLY think that certain things MUST happen on a specific page or the story won't work?

do you really think that beginning, middle, end is not a structure from which to commence writing?

do you really think that robert towne or bill goldman or shane black read and follow his book? (i know for a fact that goldman says he has never read a single screenwriting book - goldman and even black say character is what counts, that the rest just happens)

do you really think that you should learn screenwriting from one who has never successfully written a screenplay? how about learning tennis from stevie wonder or driving from the kid in sixth sense?

do you really think that noel langley wrote the wizard of oz (1939) following syd's book which ws first published in, what, 1982? or george lucas for star wars (1977) or lucas/kaufman for raiders (1981) or malcolm johnson for on the waterfront (1954) and so on, ad nauseum? (and don't forget ol wcm - how did he ever write a word before syd?)

and most of all, do you really think stallone can read well enough to understand syd's book(s)? :-)

..........
i do not think i ever said NOT to LEARN structure. i simply said do NOT allow yourself to be restricted by it OR lulled into thinking that because you have a structured story that you have a good story. and that specific pages for plot points, act breaks etc. is a ludicrous concept.

it is a methodology - use it as a vague route to know what needs to be filled in between those three magical points of beginning, middle and end, not to hang yourself or else you may wind up wanting to do just that

[CRASH]

It's not a choice between Aristotle and Syd Field. It's about learning from both and everybody else in between. We approach writing differently. We will learn about writing in our own ways also. If you need structure, outlines, and plot points on certain pages...then go with it. But use it well. If you're the Joyce of screenwriters and your words are stream of conscious, then take that route, but travel wisely.

For me, it seems as if every new script is writen in a different way, with a different mindset. One script would need to be mapped out completely before I start writing, but then the next all I need is a title and I'd be comfortable taking it from there.

Read and watch everything. Absorb as much as you can, and only take what's best for you. You can learn just as much from reading a bad script as you would a good one.

[Roxanne Battle]

I like couchdude's analogy to a car, maybe take a step further. Lets say you want to build an original bad ass drag car, but you know nothing about motors or even cars for that matter. Well you got to start with the basics of the combustable engine, once you know it inside and out then you can start to change it's design to get what performance responses you want, but you gotta know what makes the damn thing go forward. Personally I find pinto's with huge shiny engines sticking from the hood cool ass hell. And I'm glad that some gear head spent months if not years building the design defying monster.

Roxanne Battle (Ratfink)

[ksk2]

Wasn't he one of Martha Rae's hoodlums in the Buggaloos?

[Roxanne Battle]

You've seen him on retro T-shirts. He represented a line of hotrod plastic models from the seventies, a crazy lookin' dude driving wild drag cars, kids stuff.

[Steve]

People felt depressed for thousands of years before Freud came along and wrote about it. And stories had structure for thousands of years before Syd Field. I'm a big believer in structure and I read all the book on t I can. But these guys are all just analyzing stories that have already been told and putting forth their theory of what made them work. They aren't inventing anything. No one invented story structure. Not Field, not Aristotle. The important thing is to write. If trying to do it the way Field says helps you, great. If it blocks you, throw it away and just write, then read a structure book when you're done.

[lilybet]

And Freud (whoops, never mind), that might be more dangerous to get into than religion.

Writers work differently. Some may instinctively do something well - structure, dialogue, action, subtext. Why mess it up with too much analysis.

Now, if someone has a problem in a certain area, that's the time for heavy duty research. And I'm not talking about learning the basics. I'm talking about after you know the basics.

Anything that can help you is great but not everyone has to absolutely follow this or that theory or formula.

lilybet

[Roxanne Battle]

I think it was Blacker felt if one could look at a film literally as a film, I mean literally picture the entire film as a celluloid strip. Once you stretch it out to it's complete length look at the clusters of frames representing each scene, and how it all builds to the end.



Celluliod Film Strip
__________________________________________________ ________
>________________]_______________________________]_________>

ACT ONE ACT TWO ACT THREE


Something like that, Roxxanne

[ksk2]

I love the graphic; simple yet effective.

But whre in the graphic do we see the "lag/yawn" in the later part of act 2 that always seems to come up (generally via some expositive echange between characters)? I'm not poking fun; it's something that seems to plague many stories, and even novels.

[Roxanne Battle]

INT. STUDIO OFFICE - day

Two STUDIO HEADS developing idea.

STUDIO H. #1
Got a great idea, great first act, great freakin ending, really good, unbelievable.

STUDIO H. #2
What about the middle, the the second act?

STUDIO H. #1
(skat eating grin)
That's what writers are for!

Together they laugh loudly at their crapulance.

[ksk2]

:rollin

And I'm suddenly having a flashback to 2 classics:

Metropolis and a classic, early 30's fururama that dealt with class stuggle after a cataclysmic world War (World Withoiut End? Can't recall). The one that was remade badly, featuring Jack Palance.