Midpoint

[WriteByNight]

In detail, what exactly should happen at this point?

[Ronaldinho]

In detail, what exactly should happen at this point?

There is no iron-clad rule, and it sounds like that's what you're asking for.

I will say that there's usually a major setpiece. Often, it is a big reversal in the main tension - eg, if the second act ends on a positive note, you'll have a huge setback here. If the second act ends negatively, you'll have the hero make a major accomplishment.

Often, there's a major ramp-up here. Worth pointing out that in JAWS the shark is clearly seen for the first time almost exactly at the film's midpoint, and in JURASSIC PARK we see the T-Rex for the first time almost exactly at the film's midpoint.

[F.Scott.Frazier]

I am truly horrible to my characters. I usually like to kill the most likable character around the midpoint.

Reversal of action in the plot is always a good way to go.

Reversal of fortune for the protagonist is another way to go.

If the bad guy plot is integral, having them succeed in phase one of their plan can go a long way in pulling us into the second half.

I think these all point back toward a simple premise: at midpoint, you gotta raise the stakes.

[Laura Reyna]

Yeah, what others have said above. ^^

Something big happens that takes the story in a different direction.The fortunes of the MC change. Stakes are raised.

It's hard to be specific b/c the events at the midpoint are linked with the individual story.

Take a look at your favorite movies. Fast forward to roughly the middle. What happens here? Most likely it's something BIG.

I've noticed that in some movies the story direction changes so much it almost feels like a different story.

EX: At the midpoint of FIELD OF DREAMS they leave Iowa and travel... it becomes more of a road movie.

In JAWS, they leave land & go on a boat trip... it becomes more of an all-out action/adv movie.

[zenplato]

I say it's the point of no return. Your protag can't back out and has to go after his goal, which would be raising the stakes--like said above.

[javan]

+1 on others.

Think of it this way, you're on a journey in your script. Following multiple paths to ultimately reach a cliff (Fade Out), but midway through, a giant sign is in front of you saying "POINT OF NO RETURN!" -- you must pass it, and you can not go back...

In simpler terms... ask yourself, "What's the worst that could happen right now?"

[Ronaldinho]

In JAWS, they leave land & go on a boat trip... it becomes more of an all-out action/adv movie.

Actually, that doesn't happen until later.

The movie is 2 hours and 2 minutes long from the opening until the credits come up.

At 1:01, the fake shark attack is revealed to be the kids with the fin, and at 1:02:40 we get our first clear view of the shark as it grabs a victim. (We saw a hazy view of it through the water a moment before as it entered the estuary).

Quint's boat actually motors away from the dock at 1:12.

(I did a minute-by-minute breakdown of this film in research for one of my projects).

I would say that there's a big character change in Brody at the midpoint. Before that scene, he's reactive to the other characters: he lets the mayor browbeat him, he accepts others attempts to tell him how to handle the situation. After this, he no longer does - he starts taking charge of the investigation.

Also worth pointing out is that the midpoint setpiece is when it becomes personal: the shark almost gets Brody's son.

[JoeBanks]

there are plenty of great movies with lots of great midpoints but the one that sticks with me most when i'm trying to think about what should be happening in my script is "Risky Business"

Dad's Porsche goes into ****ing Lake Michigan. There is nothing Joel can do to undo what has happened. He is forced to deal with this issue before the parents get back. Achieving both his external goal and overcoming his internal obstacle now depends on him figuring out a way to fix the situation.

[Bulldog]

I say it's the point of no return. Your protag can't back out and has to go after his goal, which would be raising the stakes--like said above.


^

[Bulldog]

I'd say the mp is where internal and external meet head to head

[JoeBanks]

I would say that there's a big character change in Brody at the midpoint. Before that scene, he's reactive to the other characters: he lets the mayor browbeat him, he accepts others attempts to tell him how to handle the situation. After this, he no longer does - he starts taking charge of the investigation.

Another great midpoint. As Quint has foretold at the first city council meeting, the Mayor, Brody, and town fathers ain't gonna be able to bargain their way out of their shark problem. Up to this point, they've tried everything to avoid having to actually kill the shark. Close the beaches for 24 hours? Nope, Little Kintner Boy gets eaten right the hell up. Put a bounty on the shark? Nope, got Ben Gardner doing that. Pretend that the tiger shark the jokers caught was the real shark and open the island for Fourth of July?? Oh hell naws, gonna eat the dude in the pond. Now Vaughn's the Mayor of Shark Island, the summer's over, and there's still one big effin shark still out there that needs killing.

[prescribe22]

I say it's the point of no return. Your protag can't back out and has to go after his goal, which would be raising the stakes--like said above.

That's the way I like to look at it. It's a major plot point where the main character either chooses or is forced to settle on a specific course of action, and in doing so, he/she essentially forfeits all other options.

I always liked the way THE VERDICT and A FEW GOOD MEN handle the midpoint. They have very similar midpoints, but they take two very different approaches.

In both films, the main character is an attorney who has accepted a case at the end of act 1 and is trying to get a quick settlement through the first half of act 2.

Both films have a similar midpoint in that these attorneys ultimately take their respective cases to trial even thought they really didn't want that.

THE VERDICT's approach is almost the perfect midpoint, IMO, because Newman's character inadvertently sets in motion the events that cost him the easy settlement. He literally sticks himself with a trial he didn't want, and leaves himself with only one choice.

A FEW GOOD MEN is less binding. Cruise gets the settlement offer he wants, but his clients refuse to accept. Cruise is then forced to make a choice... either quit or go forward with the trial.

I personally like THE VERDICT's approach because it's plot driven. Newman's choice is literally forced by his own hand. I really dig that a lot. Especially considering the inner demons his character faces.

The sequence where Cruise makes his midpoint decision, however, is more of a character driven beat. Cruise isn't locked into the case -- he can quit and that option is offered to him.

But Demi Moore challenges his father/son issues, Tom goes to a bar to do some soul searching, and then dramatically appears in court to announce their "not guilty" plea -- essentially locking himself into the trial.

I like both a lot. One succeeds on a slick plot reversal. The other gets there on a slick character reversal.

[Ven]

Here's an interesting question:

The midpoint is often referred to as the point of no return. Check.
But, Aristotle offers up a (potentially solvable) paradox.

He says that, in the very best stories, the hero is unknowingly on the verge of doing something terrible,
but they recognize their error and do NOT go over the edge at the end of the story.

So if the midpoint is the "point of no return" how can the hero come back from the edge at the end of the story?
The logical first answer is that such a story would have a weak midpoint.

Thoughts?

[Biohazard]

I say it's the point of no return. Your protag can't back out and has to go after his goal, which would be raising the stakes--like said above.

This is true.

In every good movie, the midpoint is the point of no return (Midpoint of No Return?) - the point where the hero must commit to the goal and literally cannot turn around and walk away.

STAR WARS - Falcon sucked into Death Star. Luke could have said "F-ck this" and left at any point before then. Now he's trapped and must act.

JAWS - Shark attacks Brody's son/Brody sets sail on boat. Internally, he cannot turn back. The shark went after his son, so now it's personal. Physically, he cannot turn back. He's on Quint's boat, and psycho Quint is not turning around.

Midpoint = point of no return.

[roscoegino]

Here's an interesting question:

The midpoint is often referred to as the point of no return. Check.
But, Aristotle offers up a (potentially solvable) paradox.

He says that, in the very best stories, the hero is unknowingly on the verge of doing something terrible,
but they recognize their error and do NOT go over the edge at the end of the story.

So if the midpoint is the "point of no return" how can the hero come back from the edge at the end of the story?
The logical first answer is that such a story would have a weak midpoint.

Thoughts?

No wonder most pros scoff at rules. But why can't point of no return and not going over the edge co-exist?

[Ven]

No wonder most pros scoff at rules. But why can't point of no return and not going over the edge co-exist?

Well at first you would think that if someone can return from the brink at the end, then the midpoint was not a true "point of no return".
By definition, a point of no return means you can't go back.

I'm not saying that's an absolute -- that's why I opened the discussion -- but it would be a logical first conclusion.

[Ronaldinho]

The midpoint is often referred to as the point of no return.


I don't necessarily agree that the midpoint is a point of no return.

In fact, I'd argue that the first act break more normally fits that description.

Let's look at some classic examples:

In Jaws, as mentioned, he can't ignore the shark long before the midpoint.

In Jurassic Park, they're already committed to their tour of the island before the T-Rex shows up at the midpoint.

In Star Wars, Luke can't go back from the moment his parents are killed, which is really no later than the first-act break.

In North by Northwest, the point of no return is really when he decides to get on the train after the assassination at the UN - again, long before the midpoint.

[zenplato]

In Star Wars, Luke can't go back from the moment his parents are killed, which is really no later than the first-act break.


That's more of the inciting incident. Luke can still walk away, he just can't go home. But, it's until he is sucked up by the empire (like bio said) that he has no choice. Not only are the stakes raised, but there's no turning back; hence, midpoint.

But...this is just my opinion.

[prescribe22]

Here's an interesting question:

The midpoint is often referred to as the point of no return. Check.
But, Aristotle offers up a (potentially solvable) paradox.

He says that, in the very best stories, the hero is unknowingly on the verge of doing something terrible,
but they recognize their error and do NOT go over the edge at the end of the story.

So if the midpoint is the "point of no return" how can the hero come back from the edge at the end of the story?
The logical first answer is that such a story would have a weak midpoint.

Thoughts?

Actually it coincides with Aristotle

"Point of no return" refers to the direction the hero takes at the midpoint. Not the end resolution of that direction.

So, in A FEW GOOD MEN Caffey decides to take the case to trial at the midpoint. It leaves him with no other options. He's either made a GREAT choice or he's made a TERRIBLE choice. Only time will tell.

As the story unwinds in the latter half of Act 2, successes ebb into failures as it increasingly appears he made a major mistake in taking on the trial.

This leads into to the low point at the end of Act 2. At this point, Caffey has screwed himself and his clients. He's defeated...

Except something clicks... a new plan. He toed the line, but ultimately wins the the case in Act 3.

[_M_]

I'd say the mp is where internal and external meet head to head

For me, what Bulldog said.

What I've realized so far is that in many movies the midpoint is usually a place for confrontation. And the confrontation is often twofold. It's on a main-plot level and on a sub-plot level. It's both internal and external:

In POTC the midpoint is where Barbossa explains Elizabeth about the Aztec gold and about the curse (main story.) But -- right away -- it's also the place where Will and Jack deal with the fact that Will could be a pirate and a good man, since his father was (internal story.)

So, the midpoint is one master pivot upon which both the main plot and the subplot swivel, balancing each other. A major point where the last bits of the basic information about character and story are laid out.

If possible, the two moments are lowered down in a pregnant setting. So Barbossa's story about the cursed gold is told aboard the ghost ship, in Barbossa's cabin, around midnight. But as the story of the curse unfolds, it veers toward a spooky ghost / skeleton story and Elizabeth takes part in it fully. She runs from Barbossa straight into a pirates' "macabre dance." She "joins" in a horrible dance of changing partners -- a set piece worthy of one of Poe's awful nightmares.

On the other hand, the "internal" bit, the one regarding Will's "feelings" about being a pirate, is set aboard the just-lifted Interceptor, and turns around the fact that being a pirate has to do with comradery as well, or else a vessel can't be handled properly. Here's the image of the tiller being swung by Jack, sweeping Bill off the stern deck, to have him returned in the same place, unarmed now.

Not all movies have this kind of approach, but one can start from here.

M.

[Archduke]

How bout the Matrix? The point of no return is clearly when he takes the red pill which is plot point one in the story.

I'm sure if I took the time I could think of some more examples where the midpoint is not "the point of no return" which I think goes to show there are no absolutes when it comes to storytelling.

[crazrick]

I don't necessarily agree that the midpoint is a point of no return.

In fact, I'd argue that the first act break more normally fits that description.

Let's look at some classic examples:

In Jaws, as mentioned, he can't ignore the shark long before the midpoint.

In Jurassic Park, they're already committed to their tour of the island before the T-Rex shows up at the midpoint.

In Star Wars, Luke can't go back from the moment his parents are killed, which is really no later than the first-act break.

How bout the Matrix? The point of no return is clearly when he takes the red pill which is plot point one in the story.

I'm sure if I took the time I could think of some more examples where the midpoint is not "the point of no return" which I think goes to show there are no absolutes when it comes to storytelling.

every turning point is a shift in the trajectory of the story, of course; but to say that there's no turning back because of the Break Into Act II is a stretch... technically, there's no turning back every minute of every day, even in movie terms (unless it's a time-travel story, but even then those stories document certain changes, different choices, twists and turns, leading to an inevitable point of no return)

in JAWS sure Brody is worried about the shark since the young woman's body washes up early in Act I. But, Brody is afraid of the water, and the Mayor and businessmen and women ignore Brody's warnings, so he is reduced to passive-aggressive hero stuff, waiting in the wings. Brody could be coerced into being passive the whole summer long, if not for the continued presence of the shark, and the continued ignorance of the townsfolk who offer themselves up as snacks to the big shark... Until the stakes are raised, a bounty is placed on the shark, incites all fishermen to swarm to the beach, to the ocean, to Amity Island, a shark smorgasbord. Brody absoultely cannot stand by any longer, and luckliy for Brody, Quint and Hooper come along and 'force' Brody to take a stand on board a boat, to catch and kill the shark. Once they're on the water, they're in Quint and shark territory, no turning back. On land, Brody is free to turn back and do nothing about the shark all summer long... on the water, he's at the mercy of Quint and the shark. And then, once Quint is killed, the boat is dead, so still, no turning back. Not until the shark and Brody have a face to face confrontation, up close and personal

in Jurassic Park, it is 'just a tour' for the first 30 minutes or so; Allan and Ellie are free to leave at any time before the storm hits. But they are so fascinated, and it seems safe enough, even the kids are enjoying themselves... there's even a pregnant triceratops!! But they could leave any time... until the storm hits, Nedry shuts down the power to make his escape, which releases the dinosaurs, which threatens the kids, leaving Allan and Ellie no choice but to stay and help everyone survive-- even chaotician Ian (sadly tho, not the poor little rich lawyer). The last ferry is gone, the helicopter is gone. No turning back, they are trapped on the island until the storm passes. T-Rex showing up in the middle of the storm just reinforces what they're up against, tho the velociraptors become a 'bigger' threat...

In Star Wars, true, Luke's life will never be the same once his home and family are destroyed by the Imperial Stromtroopers. But, he could still stay on, continue to vaporate moisture for the rest of the season or 3 like his uncle had asked. Ben goads him into tagging along with his wild stories about magic and power and light saber battles vs evil forces, at least as far as Mos Eisley space port.. sadly, stormtroopers and their blasters don't differentiate farm-boys from rebel scum and Jedi, so Luke tags along into space, vowing to never come back to that rock again... but the possibility still exists that he may, one day, return. But, once the Falcon is swallowed up by the Death Star, the same Death Star that destroyed Alderaan, there truly is no turning back; they are doomed, trapped, certain to be destroyed. Simple smuggler tricks spares them some time, Ben's sacrifice seals Luke's fate, ties Luke to the cause of the rebels, very similar to the way Morpheus' sacrifice ties Neo the the human resistance in the Matrix... but, still, the door is left open for Luke to one day return to Tatooine, even tho he can never truly go home again, once he's put upon the path of the Jedi and his destiny is tied to Vader's.

(Sorry, I haven't seen North by Northwest in forever, so I couldn't do justice to any story breakdown (whether or not you think I've done any of the stories justice so far...)

The Matrix, as suggested, is similar to Star Wars in that the red pill turns the story, but Neo still has options, he can still choose to be No One in the real world as he was No One in the Matrix; he can return to Zion to some cubicle and desk job, party all night until the machines find and destroy them all. Neo chooses to remain passive, similar to Luke Skywalker, just along for the ride. Sure, he entertains a few wild thoughts when subjected to the magic of the new world, but he's no hero, and he just doesn't believe. It's even hinted at, thru the discussion between Smith and Cypher, that Neo could be reinserted into the Matrix, even tho Morpheus claims such a thing is not possible. It's never determined who is right; maybe the Agents were lying to Cypher, or maybe they don't just kill everyone all the time, maybe they do plug them back in... still, Neo has choices, to continue to be No One, or to fight to become The One. Near the Midpoint, Neo meets the Oracle, and together, they determine that Neo is not ready to be the One; which Neo takes to mean he IS NOT The One... waiting for the next life, perhaps? So, he's blue, but not allowed to talk about it to he new friends, friends who believe he IS the One. Neo remains passive, reactive, non-commital, but keeps his options open.

Not until Morpheus sacrifices himself based upon what Neo believes is a lie-- the prophecy-- does Neo become committed to an action, to rescue Morpheus, most likely suiciding himself, sacrificing his life in an effort to right the wrong caused by his inaction so far.

So, the Oracle telling Neo he is not The One settles the argument (for Neo)-- he resigns himself to a real life of Nothingness as No One, until Morpheus gets captured, which inspires Neo to rescue him to purge himself of the guilt of not telling Morpheus the prophecy was a lie. Neo says he believes he can save Morpheus, but it is just as likely Neo is suiciding himself, but in a super-heroic way... either way, Morpheus being captured forces Neo to make the turning point decision to play at being hero, to sacrifice himself trying to save Morpheus, because everyone else believes in the lie of the prophecy... most likely, Neo just wants out, thru death or maybe meeting with Smith to discuss reinsertion... it's likely that, after rescuing Morpheus and then Trinity, and after the subway fight with Smith, when Neo runs, he's planning on saying F--- This! I'm going to Zion to party with my peeps until Doomsday! we don't know... but its possible, if Neo had made it to the phone in that crappy motel room, he would have begged Morpheus to take him home to Zion to die in peace... just as possible he could have asked Smith to reinsert him, once Smith jumped out from the apartment... Smith took all choices away from Neo, similar to how Morpheus and Trinity took the choices away when Morpheus sacrificed himself so Trinity could get Neo to safety...

Turning Point: Neo chooses the one red pill, but he is still lingering near the stasis=death passive, reactive non-commital loser stage...
Midpoint: Neo chooses to believe he is not The One; point of no return, he is the big loser in reality that he was in the Matrix-- stasis = spiritual death; Oracle allows his choice, Morpheus refuses to believe, essentilly disallowing Neo's right to make his own choice... leads to
Turning Point: Neo believes he caused Morpheus' sacrifice, based on the lie of the prophecy; Neo chooses to save Morpheus and Trinity, and to fight Smith rather than run, leads to Neo's physical death when Smith doesn't allow Neo the choice to be reinserted into Nobody Life as Tom Anderson in the Matrix...
End Point: Neo reborn as The One, chooses to fight for the resistance, defeats the agents, rules the world

I forget if meeting the Oracle is the Midpoint or if Morpheus sacrifice is the Midpoint.... but, I hope it still makes some sense and explains at least a little bit of my interpretation of the difference between Plot Point/Turning Point 1 and the Midpoint Point of No Return

I do agree that the break into Act II is a decisive turn, and there should be no escaping the Upside Down New world of Act II, so technically, there is a degree of 'point-of-no-return' to the Act Break, but there is also usually at least a hint of possibility that the hero might want to return to normalcy, whereas after the Midpoint, the hero is committed to some goal beyond returning to the normal world he'd left behind, so, return to that world is not simply no longer an option, it's no longer a desire of the hero, who has other plans... which ties back into the A story / B story cross-over, which may not be present in the Act II Break

generally, Act II breaks, the hero ponders a return to normalcy, then he meets his love interest, which inspires new adventures and lets him forget the old normal world he'd left behind, which leads to the Midpoint commitment turn, point of no return, ties the hero to the love interest through the conclusion of their time in the upside down world of Act II, and they will never be the same again...

wow! this is long... probably incoherent and ham-fisted too... but I tried to cut way back on the sledgehammer symbolism this time

write on!
:cool:

[roscoegino]

Cool thread. I think we've established that mid point doesn't have to express one type of story moment.

It can be the point of no return, but it can also be where external and internal goals meet up for the first time, or even collide. Maybe it's a startling revelation. Whatever it is, it sure as hell can't be an arbitrary scene. It has to be powerful enough to sweep us into the third act and beyond. It's got to reinforce theme somehow and thrust our protag into a whole new direction.

[zenplato]

It can be the point of no return, but it can also be where external and internal goals meet up for the first time, or even collide.
I'd argue that this statement is redundant at best.

[Archduke]

Midpoint: Neo chooses to believe he is not The One; point of no return, he is the big loser in reality that he was in the Matrix-- stasis = spiritual death; Oracle allows his choice, Morpheus refuses to believe, essentilly disallowing Neo's right to make his own choice... leads to

So if he possibly could return to his normal boring life what possible better time could there be then right after the oracle tells him he's not the one?

[Ronaldinho]

That's more of the inciting incident. Luke can still walk away, he just can't go home. But, it's until he is sucked up by the empire (like bio said) that he has no choice. Not only are the stakes raised, but there's no turning back; hence, midpoint.


Well, I disagree:

The inciting incident is the purchase of the droids by his uncle. From that moment on, the story is going to happen. (Notice how, even if Luke does nothing from then on, his world will have changed: the empire will find him and kill him merely for having the droids.)

The tractor beamming of the Falcon happens WAY before the chronological midpoint of the film.

The midpoint is - I'd probably have to check the timing on it, but I'd wager a reasonable sum - when they actually rescue Leia from her cell. The whole second act is about rescuing Leia, but in the first half of the second act they're trying to get TO Leia (get off Tatooine, avoid bad guys, get into the cell block) and in the second half of the second act they're trying to get away with Leia (get out of the trash compactor, get back to the Falcon, get away from the Death Star).

The cell-block shootout is the biggest setpiece in the film up to that point, which is also common with midpoints. You usually get big setpieces at the midpoint, the end of the second act (in SW case, the flight from the Death Star) and, of course, at the end of the third act (the attack on the Death Star).

Of course, this is just one set of tools - but I strongly suspect the Falcon getting sucked up into the Death Star happens so far before the chronological midpoint of the film that you can't realistically call it a midpoint.

[roscoegino]

I'd argue that this statement is redundant at best.

Ha! Ask those who haven't had this sink in yet.

[zenplato]

Well, I disagree:

The inciting incident is the purchase of the droids by his uncle. From that moment on, the story is going to happen. (Notice how, even if Luke does nothing from then on, his world will have changed: the empire will find him and kill him merely for having the droids.)

The tractor beamming of the Falcon happens WAY before the chronological midpoint of the film.

The midpoint is - I'd probably have to check the timing on it, but I'd wager a reasonable sum - when they actually rescue Leia from her cell. The whole second act is about rescuing Leia, but in the first half of the second act they're trying to get TO Leia (get off Tatooine, avoid bad guys, get into the cell block) and in the second half of the second act they're trying to get away with Leia (get out of the trash compactor, get back to the Falcon, get away from the Death Star).

The cell-block shootout is the biggest setpiece in the film up to that point, which is also common with midpoints. You usually get big setpieces at the midpoint, the end of the second act (in SW case, the flight from the Death Star) and, of course, at the end of the third act (the attack on the Death Star).

Of course, this is just one set of tools - but I strongly suspect the Falcon getting sucked up into the Death Star happens so far before the chronological midpoint of the film that you can't realistically call it a midpoint.

Obviously, at least in my book, you are far wiser than I am...so, if you say so, than so be it.

But,

In my head though, I would consider that the MacGuffin. I know you might counter with the Death Star blueprints as the MacGuffin, but in my head...it's C3PO and R2D2 because they are the ones coupled with the death star plans. They are the ones driving the story at this point, which leads Luke to Ben.

But all that is light and fluffy until his uncle and aunt are slaughtered. Now he has something invested.

Again, this is my perspective so I appreciate your opinion.

[zenplato]

Ha! Ask those who haven't had this sink in yet.

My point is that the confluence of the external and internal goal is the same thing of the point of no return. They are tied to each other...no turning back now.

[Ven]

Actually it coincides with Aristotle

"Point of no return" refers to the direction the hero takes at the midpoint. Not the end resolution of that direction.

So, in A FEW GOOD MEN Caffey decides to take the case to trial at the midpoint. It leaves him with no other options. He's either made a GREAT choice or he's made a TERRIBLE choice. Only time will tell.

As the story unwinds in the latter half of Act 2, successes ebb into failures as it increasingly appears he made a major mistake in taking on the trial.

This leads into to the low point at the end of Act 2. At this point, Caffey has screwed himself and his clients. He's defeated...

Except something clicks... a new plan. He toed the line, but ultimately wins the the case in Act 3.

Heh, A FEW GOOD MEN was the first film that popped into my mind as I thought about my question.

[Ronaldinho]

In my head though, I would consider that the MacGuffin. I know you might counter with the Death Star blueprints as the MacGuffin, but in my head...it's C3PO and R2D2 because they are the ones coupled with the death star plans. They are the ones driving the story at this point, which leads Luke to Ben.


Eh. A McGuffin is something that drives the plot, the specifics of which don't matter. In a way, the plans are the McGuffin - more on that in a second - but it kind of doesn't matter.

I tend to think about it in terms of character's wants. What is Luke trying to do?

From the moment his parents are killed, "There's nothing for me here now," he is consciously trying to return the stolen plans to the rebellion. Luke's efforts to do that define the second act - which ends once they've rescued Leia.

But Luke isn't committed to that from the moment the droids show up. Discovering the message is an "inciting incident" in that it actually pushes Luke to start asking questions - but note how long it takes for him to get to the point of decision, "I need to help get these plans to Alderran!" Originally, he just wants to get them to Kenobi, and when offered the chance to do more, he declines.

I think of first-acts as needing to contain three things: 1) a status quo (Luke as Dirt Farmer) 2) an inciting incident (droids show up w/ recording) 3) that pushes the hero to a point of decision (I'm going to go to Adleran with Ben and learn the ways of the force!) which defines the second act.

That want then holds (in some form) through the second act. (In Star Wars, the goal is to get the plans to Alderran to help the rebellion - of course, Alderran no longer exists - and they end up rescuing Leia on the way). Then you get a new want ("we want to blow up the death star!")

The reason why I wouldn't call the plans a McGuffin is because they actually matter to the story. It isn't until the plans reach the rebellion that the third act goal comes into life. Whereas a real McGuffin is something like the stolen secrets in "north by northwest." Do we ever learn a thing about what they are? No. They don't matter. All that matters is that they're secret and important.

I should emphasize that this is just one way of breaking down a story. I find it incredibly useful, but YMMV.

[zenplato]

Wiki calls it MacGuffin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

Anyway, I'm not much of an analysts...I'm a writer, but as a writer, this is how I think.

I sorta see what you are saying, but at the end of the day, that's too rigid and I prefer the looseness of my interpretation...

Anyway, here's what George says,

"George Lucas
On the commentary soundtrack to the 2004 DVD release of Star Wars, writer and director George Lucas describes R2-D2 as "the main driving force of the movie ... what you say in the movie business is the MacGuffin ... the object of everybody's search".[8] In TV interviews, Hitchcock defined a MacGuffin as the object around which the plot revolves, but, as to what that object specifically is, he declared, "the audience don't care".[9] Lucas, on the other hand, believes that the MacGuffin should be powerful and that "the audience should care about it almost as much as the dueling heroes and villains on-screen".[10]"

[Bunker]

Instead of "point of no return" I view the midpoint as "the end of the originally-stated mission." Whether ending in victory or defeat, whatever the hero set out to accomplish at the Act I turning point has been accomplished.

But then they realize their mission was much bigger than they ever expected.

Not to get political, but think of President Bush standing on the aircraft carrier with the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner. Job done! We toppled Saddam!... oh sh**... Now the war's really starting!

That momentum carries stories through the 2nd half. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED... oh sh**!"

RAIDERS: Indy's mission - Find the Ark.
He finds it at the mid-point (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!), but the Nazis take it (oh sh**!)

JAWS: Brody's mission - Try to protect the beaches.
At the midpoint, the mayor closes the beaches! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! But now Brody actually has to go hunt the shark... oh sh**.

BACK TO THE FUTURE: Marty's mission - Find Doc and figure out how to get back to the future.
He finds Doc at the midpoint and they come up with a plan to use lightning to send him back - MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! He also finds out that he's jeopardized his own existence... oh sh**.

ALIENS: Ripley's mission - Rescue the colonists
At the midpoint, they find all the colonists dead. No one left to save. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! But they're stranded on the planet with aliens trying to kill them... oh sh**.

[richardonthego]

Instead of "point of no return" I view the midpoint as "the end of the originally-stated mission." Whether ending in victory or defeat, whatever the hero set out to accomplish at the Act I turning point has been accomplished.

I agree. I also like to think of the midpoint is an "oh sh**!!!" moment that drives the rest of the film.

[Ronaldinho]

Wiki calls it MacGuffin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

Anyway, I'm not much of an analysts...I'm a writer, but as a writer, this is how I think.

I sorta see what you are saying, but at the end of the day, that's too rigid and I prefer the looseness of my interpretation...


A) I don't really care what Wikipedia says. It's not a source that carries a lot of weight on stuff like this for me, simply because what wikipedia says may well be nothing more than the opinion of the last person who updated the page, and I don't know who that is.

But more importantly:

B) Ultimately, whether we want to call the plans a McGuffin or not is a semantic issue that has very little to do with story construction. That's, ultimately, why I don't care that much. I don't look at the stories I'm creating and say, "Where's the McGuffin?" It's a device that shows up in some films, rather than a necessary building block of a story.

eg, much of Star Wars would function very similarly if there were no plans. What if the message Luke got was just "Help, I'm trapped, save me!" and he goes to save her, and then the result of saving her is that the death star is closing in on the rebellion and so on and so on ...

I don't think the story is that different. I think it basically, on a structural level, is almost exactly the same. You're just coloring around the margins.

Therefore labeling the plans the McGuffin doesn't actually help me understand the story at all. (And I don't see a separation between analyzing stories like this and creating them - I use these same tools when putting my own stories together) - whereas for me, recognizing the central tension of a story helps me put it together.

[zenplato]

Ronaldinho,

I appreciate you providing your insight. Thank you.

[Joe Unidos]

For what it's worth...

I always block my midpoint to serve as a catalyst of some kind that drives the remainder of the story in one single ever-escalating, snowballing direction. The act break into three (again, the way I write) either clarifies or reverses the building momentum that has already been steamrolling.

In trying to do it this way, I tend to have fewer problems with dead or directionless Second Acts because threads are coming together earlier but can then diverge and/or be open to new interpretations, new motivations or new meanings without having to tread Act Two water waiting.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

I would bet that whatever "change" happens around the midpoint relates somehow to the theme.

Example: In Midnight Run, DeNiro opens the car door, for the first time, for Grodin. (How's that for subtle?)

[roscoegino]

I would bet that whatever "change" happens around the midpoint relates somehow to the theme.



yeah. that's usually the case in most of the above average films/screenplays. it kind of anchors theme and raises the stakes higher than they've ever been raised.

Like in CHINATOWN, where the midpoint is when Gittes meets Noah Cross. Noah tells Gittes "You may think you know what you're dealing with, but believe me, you don't". He's really telling us, the audience. Then he wants to hire Jake to find the girl, trying to make him think that Evelyn is the one who's suspect.

[sc111]

Instead of "point of no return" I view the midpoint as "the end of the originally-stated mission." Whether ending in victory or defeat, whatever the hero set out to accomplish at the Act I turning point has been accomplished.

But then they realize their mission was much bigger than they ever expected.

Not to get political, but think of President Bush standing on the aircraft carrier with the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner. Job done! We toppled Saddam!... oh sh**... Now the war's really starting!

That momentum carries stories through the 2nd half. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED... oh sh**!"

RAIDERS: Indy's mission - Find the Ark.
He finds it at the mid-point (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!), but the Nazis take it (oh sh**!)

JAWS: Brody's mission - Try to protect the beaches.
At the midpoint, the mayor closes the beaches! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! But now Brody actually has to go hunt the shark... oh sh**.

BACK TO THE FUTURE: Marty's mission - Find Doc and figure out how to get back to the future.
He finds Doc at the midpoint and they come up with a plan to use lightning to send him back - MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! He also finds out that he's jeopardized his own existence... oh sh**.

ALIENS: Ripley's mission - Rescue the colonists
At the midpoint, they find all the colonists dead. No one left to save. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! But they're stranded on the planet with aliens trying to kill them... oh sh**.


This. Exactly. And I think this is where most newbie scripts (including mine) can go wrong. They drop off a cliff after midpoint and the story wheels spin until getting traction in act 3.

When I rough out an idea in my awfully odd way of outlining, I jot down the midpoint and work outwards from there. But I notice some folks have a clear idea of their act 1 and act 3, with the middle being a bit foggy in their minds.

(Also notice the best loglines include the midpoint).

[polfilmblog]

Despite the wisdom of Wikipedia, the plans in Star Wars actually do matter, quite a lot.

Luke wouldn't be flying down a trench trying to bomb a small vent with a photon torpedo if they hadn't revealed the Empire's weakness. It wouldn't have led to his using the force, or for Han Solo to return and give aid. It is a crucial part of the story that makes the world seem more complete, more real, and justifies the whole thing to people.

I doubt Star Wars would have been such a monstrous hit if things like what the droids were doing didn't actually matter. It mattered quite a bit. It mattered to the audience quite a bit.

[Ronaldinho]

Despite the wisdom of Wikipedia, the plans in Star Wars actually do matter, quite a lot.

Luke wouldn't be flying down a trench trying to bomb a small vent with a photon torpedo if they hadn't revealed the Empire's weakness. It wouldn't have led to his using the force, or for Han Solo to return and give aid. It is a crucial part of the story that makes the world seem more complete, more real, and justifies the whole thing to people. .

I'm not suggesting they should be removed, or that the film would be better without them.

I'm trying to make a much subtler point than that.

But what if the plans were something that they acquired while on the death star, rather than something they had with them the whole movie. The third act is still the same. The first act is mostly the same.

The overall structure of the film barely changes. Right now, rescuing leia is a function of their attempt to deliver the plans, but you could change it so that getting the plans became a side effect of rescuing leia and the shape of the film would barely change.

So don't get hung up on them. It feels like you're having a hard time seeing the forrest for the trees: he wouldn't have learned the force? Huh? I don't see how you get there.

Nor am I suggesting that the droids "don't actually matter" - remember what I posited: that the droids were, instead of carrying the plans, merely carrying a "help me" message from Leia.