Timings to specific page

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Timings to specific page

    Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
    FWIW, I have never heard an exec use some of the terms bandied around here. I know that "break into two" is from "Save The Cat," but that's the extent of my experience with it. The most technical the conversations I'm in ever get is talking about acts.

    And there are plenty of movies where a quarter of the script is way too late to get the second act started, and movies where the third act is basically a coda that lasts a few minutes. I've seen movies where the inciting incident happens on the first page. A lot of movies these days have way more than three acts. They're constantly flipped and turned and folded to keep things moving.

    One of my favorite movies is Unforgiven. The movie opens with the inciting incident, before you've met the protagonist. The protagonist and antagonist don't meet until the middle of the movie, and they spend a tiny amount of time on camera with each other. The third act is basically the one scene of Munny taking revenge on the town. If you'd crammed that movie into any formula, you'd kill it.

    I think the most general ideas are useful for beginners to teach them how screenplays are often structured. Just like when you learn to paint, you learn how to paint a piece of fruit. But past that, there are a million ways to tell a story, and very few of them hew to X happening at Y point in the script, or X character having Y in his background which arcs on page Z.

    In short: computing page numbers and percentages isn't something most professional writers do or even think about.
    Thanks, Jeff. And thanks for all your participation on the site.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Timings to specific page

      Originally posted by Satriales View Post
      Try writing on spec in 2020 and then doing rewrites for, occasionally, little money. You'll have page number conversations. Consider yourself lucky.
      No disrespect, I'm genuinely curious - are you saying that if you're writing a spec, you'll rewrite it so that the different beats all fall on the right page? And that if you don't, you're at a competitive disadvantage?

      Same with rewrites - they'll ask you to make sure certain things fall on a page because it fits a formula?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Timings to specific page

        Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
        No disrespect, I'm genuinely curious - are you saying that if you're writing a spec, you'll rewrite it so that the different beats all fall on the right page? And that if you don't, you're at a competitive disadvantage?

        Same with rewrites - they'll ask you to make sure certain things fall on a page because it fits a formula?
        I'm saying that as someone who isn't selling a bunch of pitches. The conversations I'm having frequently reference what page something happens on and "maybe it happens earlier- or whatever. Nothing about this means adhering to some formula or backing story into a template.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Timings to specific page

          On features, over time, I've become mainly aware of sequence units, i.e., what's happening in the next 12-15 pages of the story. Still feel pretty crap at making them work well as standalone pieces of the whole but I have a general idea of what each sequence needs or is supposed to do to move the story forward.

          The reductio ad absurdum of this is Joel Silver and Larry Gordon's "Wham-O-Chart" (but it's a pretty good rule of thumb for any plot, action or otherwise, imo):

          "CS: Another innovation of yours that changed the action movie landscape was when you developed the "Wham-O Chart.-

          Silver: That didn't really come from me. It came from an Egyptian producer guy who had been on the scene. He worked for AIP, so when I worked for Larry Gordon I learned about this. A reel in those days was ten minutes. That's why back in the teens they'd say two-reelers would be a 20-minute movie. His attitude was you need to have an action beat of some sort every ten minutes, every reel, in order for the audience to enjoy the experience. That's really where it came from. I created the Wham-O Chart to show over the course of the script every ten or twelve pages what that action beat would be."

          https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/fe...talks-non-stop

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Timings to specific page

            Originally posted by Jab2019 View Post
            I hear this a fair bit and imagine it can only be guidelines in a rough idea.

            What it is is the fact that people will say inciting incident should happen on page 10, act 2 should start page 25 and act three should start page 70.

            Now, I know these are rough guidelines so the structure and pacing is correct so does that mean if your script is 120 pages long then you just work out the maths of where each act start should appear on what page.

            I know this isn’t offering great clarity in my question but maybe a simpler way would be to say if act 2 starts at page 25 in a 90 min script then it should start about page 35 in a 120 page script?

            Thanks
            It's a rough idea. But if a spec should be 90-110 in length, you do have to consider it.

            If you have a Midpoint and it's on page 75, that seems very wrong. Should be about halfway through or maybe even earlier like on page 45.

            I think SAVE THE CAT is one of the best screenwriting beat sheets. It's easy to follow. Yes, not every movie can fit this or any paradigm. Just all general guidelines. But at least he wrote specs that sold. That gives him a leg up to me. I miss Blake. I read 100 screenwriting books -- sure many of us did -- I took what works over the years for me. Most of them when you boil it down are saying the same thing in different ways. Movies are stories. We know what to do...

            I would say before you write you want to start with these steps in some way:

            1. Logline
            2. 12 beat Sheet Major Beats
            3. 2-3 page outline
            4. 10-20 page treatment

            If you do that you naturally find the beats and where they should land.

            It's not math or formula to me as much as just good structure. That's what all these steps are about, laying out the story.

            If you are writing a romantic comedy and the 2 leads haven't met in first 10-20 pages, that seems wrong. And yes I know there is Sleepless in Seattle where they don't meet in person until the end. But they "meet before then.

            If you are writing a movie about a guy going to college at age 65, well we better get to that college in the first 10-15 minutes in 2020.

            Movies are moving faster now than they used too. A lot of them feel like TV shows where they have teaser and every 10 minutes something blows up or someone gets killed. Set pieces, yada yada. Movies are just louder these days to me to break through all the distractions. Many of our favorite movies move so much slower than they would if made today.

            So do I time things to specific pages like page 5? NO I DON'T. But after I write something and I notice Act 2 begins on page 35 -- I go back and fix that so Act 2 begins by page 25 because page 35 is too long. And it doesn't matter if movie is 110 pages or 120 pages because that just extends Act 2 in my mind.

            Act 2 is the movie. The concept. So you want to get to it ASAP. Some movies start almost right away these days and waste no time at all.

            So be aware as you prep where things land, but just write freely when you write the spec and hopefully your prep will guide you the right way. But know you can always rewrite it and fix where the beats should land.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Timings to specific page

              When structure books and writing gurus talk about these percentages they are not saying that they are WITHOUT EXCEPTION or that they apply to EVERY SCRIPT.

              No book has ever made that HARD-LINED statement.

              By and large, many traditional, commercial Hollywood films fall into these percentages:

              Inciting Incident (10%)
              Plot Point 1 (25%)
              Mid-point turn/sequence (50%)
              Plot Point 2 (75%)
              Climax (somewhere around 90%)

              Here's a pet peeve for me... If you haven't read the book, and are giving an opinion about it, why should I listen to your opinion?

              What it's really about is getting into the story fast, then keep the story moving. If a plot point turn is delayed too long audiences/readers get bored. If it happens too fast the story feels rushed. It's not rocket science-- it's about striking a balance in your structure. These are generalities. They are not meant to stifle you, but to get you moving on your story.

              How you come to that understanding, whether it's by experience or because you read a book, doesn't matter.

              Reading a book on structure and using it to help write a well structured story has hurt exactly ZERO writers.
              Last edited by finalact4; 08-22-2020, 02:34 PM.
              "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Timings to specific page

                First off, I've read "Save the Cat" and most of the other big screenwriting books. Every time someone claims to have figured it out, I'm curious.

                Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
                Reading a book on structure and using it to help write a well structured story has hurt exactly ZERO writers.
                I've met dozens of writers it's hurt here. Just so many cookie cutter scripts with character beats and reversals timed at the exact same moment. Loglines that aren't good, but they fit the Snyder approved formula: someone (the protagonist) wants something (the story goal) and goes after it against great odds and/or obstacles (the antagonist and the conflict).

                It just blocks out so many good ideas!

                I talked about how you couldn't write "Unforgiven" using that template, but it's not just huge weighty movies. I've used this as an example before, but if you had the idea for "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," and went and bought Save The Cat, you would have a fucking abysmal movie.

                First off, he decides on page two to take the day off. We don't spend 12 pages setting up the status quo, then have an inciting incident that disrupts his life, then debate and finally on page 30, he's ready to break into two and take a day off.

                Second, there's no antagonist. His goal is to have a great day off, and what he's battling against is someone - anyone - ending it. That's it. He has to fool his mother, avoid his father, beat his sister home, bullshit the host at the restaurant, convince his friend Cameron to take the car out... Some people say Principal Rooney, but Ferris and he have what, thirty seconds of screen time together? Ferris takes his girlfriend out of the school in front of Rooney, and then Rooney spends the whole movie chasing him - which Ferris doesn't know about. At the end, it looks like Rooney has him, and his sister saves him.

                And also: Ferris's character grows zero percent. He is exactly the same guy he was at the start of the movie. There is no character arc, he learns no lesson, no journey.

                And... he's completely passive at the climax of the movie! The biggest threat he unknowingly faces (Rooney) is ended without his involvement at all: as I said, his sister takes care of Rooney, and not because of anything Ferris said. Partly because she hates Rooney, maybe partly because of what some random guy said at the police station... Ferris is cluelessly saved in a huge deus ex machina.

                There's just so much wrong with that movie according to any guru. And yet - it moves, it's funny and memorable, you have great characters, you're tense at the end when he's racing home... In short, it just works on every level.

                I defy anyone to break a version of that movie according to Snyder. It would be horrible - he'd spend a quarter of the movie at school, then saying to his friends "we're about to graduate and life will never be the same - we should have a ditch day and have one last day of fun!" and then finally going off... He would know Rooney was after him, and it would be a spy vs spy movie with Rooney almost catching him again and again... Finally Rooney would catch him and all would be lost, but Ferris and his allies would use something they learned from earlier in the movie to finally defeat Rooney... Ferris would have discovered that just because high school is ending doesn't mean life will never be the same, or some other horrible lesson... Ugh. It's upsetting to think about.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Timings to specific page

                  Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
                  When structure books and writing gurus talk about these percentages they are not saying that they are WITHOUT EXCEPTION or that they apply to EVERY SCRIPT.

                  No book has ever made that HARD-LINED statement.

                  By and large, many traditional, commercial Hollywood films fall into these percentages:

                  Inciting Incident (10%)
                  Plot Point 1 (25%)
                  Mid-point turn/sequence (50%)
                  Plot Point 2 (75%)
                  Climax (somewhere around 90%)

                  Here's a pet peeve for me... If you haven't read the book, and are giving an opinion about it, why should I listen to your opinion?

                  What it's really about is getting into the story fast, then keep the story moving. If a plot point turn is delayed too long audiences/readers get bored. If it happens too fast the story feels rushed. It's not rocket science-- it's about striking a balance in your structure. These are generalities. They are not meant to stifle you, but to get you moving on your story.

                  How you come to that understanding, whether it's by experience or because you read a book, doesn't matter.

                  Reading a book on structure and using it to help write a well structured story has hurt exactly ZERO writers.
                  As I've shared before, I felt the McKee and Field books I read after I wrote my first script hurt me because I kept doubting my instincts and going back to the books to check if I was doing it "right."

                  The odd thing is -- that first script is structurally sound. How was I able to do that without instruction on structure? I'm of the opinion that if one loves film at some point one internalizes structure among other facets of the craft.

                  I have read Joseph Campbell's book and a book by one of his students: The Mythic Imagination, by Stephen Larson. What they're talking about is the human psychological need for myth and hero journey stories. Dating back to the oral tradition telling tales around the campfire. It's as if we need them for our mental health.

                  In Larsen's book, he talks about how ancient myths influence and arise in our dreams even in test subjects (including children) who had never read a book about myths.

                  In his introduction, Campbell talks about story as a tool for teaching truths about the human condition. Instead of dictating Thou Shalt Not ___. We tell a story that teaches the lesson on a subliminal level.

                  What bugs me about StC is that Campbell's chapter titles and subtitles were essentially lifted and condensed into a beat sheet, with page number goals, without an understanding of Campbell's thesis on myth.

                  BTW, I did pick up a copy of Save the Cat and when I saw the heavy influence of Campbell's book, I skimmed it.

                  Since I'm back to writing my novella, I've been looking at sites for fiction writers. I've found some articles recommending using the StC beat sheet for writing novels. Sigh.
                  Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Timings to specific page

                    Yes Ferris is the classic he doesn't change character, but everyone around him changes. To me Cameron and Jeanie are the ones with the arcs. Ferris doesn't work if he changes.

                    I still like Save the Cat. I did read it long after I was writing scripts, so maybe that's why. I don't like blindly following any formula. I feel that book was one of the least (this fits all / my way or the highway) of them all, but fine. Don't like it. Who cares? You will still write the same stuff. So will I.

                    I am not a big believer in that Save the Cat or any book is the reason people are writing bad scripts. They would be writing bad scripts w/o that book too.

                    Most of my film knowledge on how to structure movies comes from watching them my entire life and copying the structure of great movies. A lot of it is in my head. I think many of us are like that by this point from watching and writing movies. But I often go we need to "ALIENS" this **** structure wise. Whatever the great movie, use it as a template to guide me through the current spec I'm writing.

                    I always keep in mind that great screenwriters like Billy Wilder didn't use any books to write, instead they helped invent the whole movie language. So if they can do that, certainly we can learn how to do it with all the movie language knowledge in front of us.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Timings to specific page

                      Originally posted by Bono View Post
                      Yes Ferris is the classic he doesn't change character, but everyone around him changes. To me Cameron and Jeanie are the ones with the arcs. Ferris doesn't work if he changes.
                      So many movies have a main character that doesn't change! Forrest Gump is an obvious one. And the vast majority of action movies... James Bond never changes. John McClane never changes in Die Hard. Did Eastwood's character change in The Good, The Bad & The Ugly? Taken - does he have a character arc? Same thing with a lot of genre movies - does Sidney ever change in Scream?

                      And this is a core of these books - protagonist arc is a must, and here are the points where you do it.

                      I am not a big believer in that Save the Cat or any book is the reason people are writing bad scripts. They would be writing bad scripts w/o that book too.
                      No, there are a million reasons people write bad scripts. And like I said - I read them all, too, and if there's something useful, I'll take it. But I think there are people who hew to these books too closely - I'm not saying it's someone in this thread, but you have to admit they're everywhere.

                      The pernicious thing about following those roadmaps too closely is that I actually think they can fuck up a good writer.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Timings to specific page

                        Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                        First off, I've read "Save the Cat" and most of the other big screenwriting books. Every time someone claims to have figured it out, I'm curious.
                        I'm curious, too. But I can't think of a single story structure author who claims that their paradigms apply to EVERY film. If an author does, they would be wrong.

                        I've met dozens of writers it's hurt here. Just so many cookie cutter scripts with character beats and reversals timed at the exact same moment. Loglines that aren't good, but they fit the Snyder approved formula: someone (the protagonist) wants something (the story goal) and goes after it against great odds and/or obstacles (the antagonist and the conflict).
                        Cookie cutter scripts are a result of trying to copy previous STORIES/MOVIE beats that have already been made into films. Structure is about considering when big events should happen, it's not about WHAT those events are. I wasn't referring to any ONE book. MOST movies show the hero's world as it exists today. I didn't say ALL movies, just most. Then something happens that makes this day different, right? Then, sometime soon another thing happens to change the direction of the story in some unexpected way... and so on and so on... call me naive, which I am. Perhaps my views will change down the road.

                        It just blocks out so many good ideas!
                        I'm a flexible writer. I can't image how having a big event, or even a small, quiet, meaningful moment, jumpstart your story be a block to your creativity. To me, it's a freeing moment when you can challenge your story to be different from what's been done. To learn and aim higher. It's like, I need something BIG here... what could I choose to have happen? What would be the most unexpected? What would be the most extreme? What would be the most shocking? What would be the opposite of what the character wants to have happen? For me, it raises all sorts of questions. Big and small.

                        I honestly don't believe that considering structure blocks ideas, at least not for me. It challenges you. If anything it tells you, "come up with a shift WITHIN the first 10 minutes." How is that bad advice? Get the story moving!

                        I feel that telling someone to just ignore books on structure all together is as dangerous as telling them to use them verbatim. I'm not advocating either. Those are the extremes. Structure is important, and if you don't have a mentor, you need to learn it somewhere.

                        I appreciate that you advocate for writers and that you don't want anyone to take advantage of them/us, but the books aren't all bad. Perhaps a message of caution and careful consideration is more appropriate?

                        Even Christopher Vogler admits The Writer's Journey is a guide, not meant to be a literal expression of the paradigm. That some archetypes do not show up in all stories. It's about reminding you to consider them as a way to heighten or elevate your story.

                        I talked about how you couldn't write "Unforgiven" using that template, but it's not just huge weighty movies. I've used this as an example before, but if you had the idea for "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," and went and bought Save The Cat, you would have a fucking abysmal movie.
                        As I stated. No book that I've read has said that their paradigm is the ONLY way to write a film. And that you MUST do it their way. That ALL films fit their paradigm, only that MOST do. No one says they are not WITHOUT exception or that it applies to EVERY script. We're talking about mainstream, commercial films.

                        STC actually can give a writer a new way to explore story. It was definitely NOT something I had considered, but it really isn't that different than any other mainstream story structure concepts.

                        First off, he decides on page two to take the day off. We don't spend 12 pages setting up the status quo, then have an inciting incident that disrupts his life, then debate and finally on page 30, he's ready to break into two and take a day off.
                        No one says that FBDO should be formatted with a different structure. Save the Cat doesn't claim (as far as I recall) that FBDO would be better if it utilized STC structure. They argue MOST NOT ALL.

                        Ferris Bueller's Day is a unique high concept story. It was original for the time, was it not?

                        I'm not saying you're wrong about FBDO or Unforgiven. You're not. But, to be fair, the gurus aren't equating their paradigms to those films either. Would an unknown writer break in with Unforgiven? I don't think so. Unless he knows Clint.

                        Second, there's no antagonist. His goal is to have a great day off, and what he's battling against is someone - anyone - ending it. That's it. He has to fool his mother, avoid his father, beat his sister home, bullshit the host at the restaurant, convince his friend Cameron to take the car out... Some people say Principal Rooney, but Ferris and he have what, thirty seconds of screen time together? Ferris takes his girlfriend out of the school in front of Rooney, and then Rooney spends the whole movie chasing him - which Ferris doesn't know about. At the end, it looks like Rooney has him, and his sister saves him.

                        And also: Ferris's character grows zero percent. He is exactly the same guy he was at the start of the movie. There is no character arc, he learns no lesson, no journey.

                        And... he's completely passive at the climax of the movie! The biggest threat he unknowingly faces (Rooney) is ended without his involvement at all: as I said, his sister takes care of Rooney, and not because of anything Ferris said. Partly because she hates Rooney, maybe partly because of what some random guy said at the police station... Ferris is cluelessly saved in a huge deus ex machina.
                        You are focused on a story that Blake Snyder never claimed fell into his type of story paradigm. I get that Ferris Bueller subverted expectations and broke unsaid rules, no one is saying it doesn't or shouldn't. But how many writers can write THAT movie?

                        See that's the problem, trying to dispute these rather basic story structure concepts that do apply to a large segment of films. They give plenty of examples of how they fit. You want to write Ferris Bueller? I'm betting you already understand basic structure, story concepts and you want to challenge those expectations.

                        I don't agree with everything in STC, but I use its structure as a hybrid to write my stories. I'm not Jeff Lowell right now, but maybe, one day I will be.

                        There's just so much wrong with that movie according to any guru. And yet - it moves, it's funny and memorable, you have great characters, you're tense at the end when he's racing home... In short, it just works on every level.
                        Where have you ever seen/read that a "guru" has said Ferris Bueller's Day Off is wrong? I actually don't recall an example of any of the "how to" books I've ever read stating that any other way is WRONG. Guru's don't talk about the films that don't reflect their paradigms, they specifically talk about the ones that DO. They are specifically talking about, by and large, mainstream, commercial Hollywood films. They are not talking about the exceptions. They are trying to help writers write mainstream, commercial films because those are the films they have the best chance of breaking in.

                        I defy anyone to break a version of that movie according to Snyder. It would be horrible - he'd spend a quarter of the movie at school, then saying to his friends "we're about to graduate and life will never be the same - we should have a ditch day and have one last day of fun!" and then finally going off... He would know Rooney was after him, and it would be a spy vs spy movie with Rooney almost catching him again and again... Finally Rooney would catch him and all would be lost, but Ferris and his allies would use something they learned from earlier in the movie to finally defeat Rooney... Ferris would have discovered that just because high school is ending doesn't mean life will never be the same, or some other horrible lesson... Ugh. It's upsetting to think about.
                        And that is my point. No one is saying that FBDO falls into THEIR paradigms. But they give plenty of other examples of films that do. Perhaps THAT would be a better argument-- to dispute a film that STC claims fits his model? Instead of one he does not claim? That might be an interested conversation, no?

                        What they're saying is that a lot of films do. That's all. They are not trying to discount the exceptions. They deliberately talk about films that DO FIT into their paradigms.

                        Yes, I can see your frustration, but it's not the book's fault if the reader misinterprets the author's intention. Maybe there are books out there that are very rigid and literal, but I haven't read one yet. Admittedly, I am not a trusting soul, I question everything and advocate. I don't take anything as gospel, not even the gospel. Perhaps I am the outlier.

                        Sorry for rambling on for so long. If you didn't make it to this point, I completely understand. I'm not saying I'm right. Just saying it's my opinion.
                        Be well.
                        "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Timings to specific page

                          I get it - no guru looks at a hit successful movie and says it's "wrong." My point is that if you sat down with the idea for FBDO and a STC beat sheet, you couldn't write that great movie.

                          If you sent FBDO - before it was made - to some script consultants, they'd ask you to change things that make it great.

                          It sounds like you pick and choose and have a theory that works for you. I think that's how all smart people approach it.

                          The first question in this thread was about what page to put what element on. When I'm trying to come up with a script, that just isn't a question I worry about - I don't think most professional writers do, either. What does you main character want? What's in his way? What does he do to solve it? What big moments does the story support? What surprises can you have along the way? (And for some of us: what's the theme?)

                          I pulled up the STC beat sheet when I was writing my last post. I look at it and see a prescription for a really formulaic approach to movies. My characters should talk about the theme with their love interest on page 31? Ugh.

                          This reminded me of a discussion I was involved in years ago on this board. At the time, I polled a group of professional screenwriters on a private board I'm on. My question was:

                          Quick question - when you set out to write a screenplay, do you use a template? I.e., a beat by beat formula that you fill in to show you what beats go where, what kind of characters you should have, etc?
                          And here are the results:

                          Yes, someone else's, like Save The Cat, Truby, etc... 1 vote(s) 2.7%
                          Yes, my own that I've created. 8 vote(s) 21.6%
                          No. 28 vote(s) 75.7%
                          These are all currently working, successful writers with long careers.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Timings to specific page

                            To me screenwriting books are just like using GPS to tell you how to get somewhere. Knowing take a left on main street in five miles isn't the same thing as being as good driver.

                            There is Ferris Bueller -- made be a hot writer/director -- so that's always different animal to me. Unforgiven not one word was changed because of Clint Eastwood. So those are unique instances to me of things that really worked out for the story. Also I think Westerns are a hard genre to fit into STC paradigm for sure.

                            For your poll -- the results make sense. First, I'm assuming a lot of these people might have been established before STC even came out. And "following template" is easy to say "of course not" but to me -- I feel like we all are following something aren't we? In some way? Either to hit the beats we always want and see in films or to know what beats exist and go the other way with them.

                            To me all writers have to at least think in terms of Act I, Act 2 and Act 3? Is that not a template? It may not be "state your theme on page 5" but it's something.

                            I feel all writers -- are using something to guide them and maybe they aren't even aware they are doing it, especially after 20 plus years of having a long career.

                            Now, if I can blame STC for me being a good writer who hasn't made it because of it -- that would be great! Better than me blaming bad luck or my ex writing partner or the spec market dying right?

                            Also -- of the friends you polled are they writing movies like Ferris and Unforgiven or could you take them and easily fill their movies into the STC beat sheet which I think just gave better names to the things I see in most movies. I'm a comedy guy so I feel most comedies easily fit. So they may not use it when they write, but do their scripts not reflect something close to the beat sheet when all is said and done?

                            And I'm just laughing thinking of people that trash any screenwriting book, but maybe have a copy of The Secret on their shelf becuase everyone is a hypocrite that way.

                            I never follow formulas when I write, but did you hear drinking your own urine cures cancer? No way!

                            I'm a skeptic at heart. I never believe anything when it's first told to me. I'm often alone in my views even around friends. But breaking down movies in screenwriting books seems like just pointing out the obvious. Reflecting back what is. So I do not see the harm in that myself.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Timings to specific page

                              Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                              So many movies have a main character that doesn't change! Forrest Gump is an obvious one. And the vast majority of action movies... James Bond never changes. John McClane never changes in Die Hard. Did Eastwood's character change in The Good, The Bad & The Ugly? Taken - does he have a character arc? Same thing with a lot of genre movies - does Sidney ever change in Scream?

                              And this is a core of these books - protagonist arc is a must, and here are the points where you do it.



                              No, there are a million reasons people write bad scripts. And like I said - I read them all, too, and if there's something useful, I'll take it. But I think there are people who hew to these books too closely - I'm not saying it's someone in this thread, but you have to admit they're everywhere.

                              The pernicious thing about following those roadmaps too closely is that I actually think they can fuck up a good writer.
                              I hear you. But to me it's not about the lead character changing, but it's about the journey changing the lives of all the people the hero comes in contact with.

                              I mean that's is something I never quite got either. To me it's more a goal like Pee Wee needs to find his bike.

                              In Die Hard to me John McClane was the same guy -- but everything he did he never did before and of course he ends up saving the hostages, his marriage and gives his parter Al a redemption.

                              I never bought into the hero/protagonist must change -- as to me that's not real life. Real life is you are you and then a monster comes into your home and you kill the monster to protect your family and you are still you but of course "changed" by the experience, but you haven't truly become a different person. Isn't that what movies and stories are about?

                              Like any comedy -- I don't really see huge change other than fall in love, find your lost bike, save the gym... and to me that's enough.

                              So that's where I always bumped against those books too.

                              Ghostbusters -- did they change? Caddyshack? Animal House? Old School? The Hangover? Vacation? Back To School? I think of all the top comdies and not really... they can learn lessons and yada yada, but most of the time it's about completing a goal but what makes comedy work is often the leads don't change. Same with action.

                              Drama you can change. That's why I always got annoyed when Star Wars/The Godfather was the only example in most of the Syd Field early books. I'm like yes those are classics and hit the beats you are pushing -- but what about this hit movie I just watched? Why I liked Save the Cat is they talked about many movies I loved and I liked seeing it broken out that way. First time I saw a movie like 40 year old virgin in a screenwriting book. You know? It seemed much more relatable and again him actually being a writer i think means something.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Timings to specific page

                                Originally posted by Bono View Post
                                For your poll -- the results make sense. First, I'm assuming a lot of these people might have been established before STC even came out.
                                But there was How To Write A Script in 21 days, and Linda Segar's books, and McKee, and Syd Field, and a dozen others that all had the answers.

                                And "following template" is easy to say "of course not" but to me -- I feel like we all are following something aren't we? In some way? Either to hit the beats we always want and see in films or to know what beats exist and go the other way with them.

                                To me all writers have to at least think in terms of Act I, Act 2 and Act 3? Is that not a template? It may not be "state your theme on page 5" but it's something.
                                But all three acts really means is beginning, middle and end. If we're going to say a writer who thinks in terms of a beginning, middle and end is using a formula, then the word doesn't mean much.

                                Also -- of the friends you polled are they writing movies like Ferris and Unforgiven or could you take them and easily fill their movies into the STC beat sheet which I think just gave better names to the things I see in most movies. I'm a comedy guy so I feel most comedies easily fit. So they may not use it when they write, but do their scripts not reflect something close to the beat sheet when all is said and done?
                                It's the whole range. Shitty writers like me up to Oscar winners.

                                I just think getting the books and rules out of my mind is good because it lets me do things I might not otherwise. My most successful spec opened with voice over, which I've been assured here is suicide. If I have a scene that goes fifteen pages of two people talking and it stays interesting through the whole thing... I don't worry about it.

                                The reason I shy away from the standard page 30/page 60/page 90 big plot points is because that is way too few for how I write. It's not just Ferris Bueller - I would get really really nervous waiting to start my "fun and games" until page 30. That's an eternity. I want to deliver on the promise of the premise (see how many terms I know!) almost immediately. I want a set piece in the first ten pages, not wait until I "break into two."

                                Looking at STC now, I think how slow and old fashioned it is. I think the first and third acts are much shorter than they were when that book came out.

                                I'm a skeptic at heart. I never believe anything when it's first told to me. I'm often alone in my views even around friends. But breaking down movies in screenwriting books seems like just pointing out the obvious. Reflecting back what is. So I do not see the harm in that myself.
                                I'm not arguing with your method. You've never seemed dogmatic. But there are a lot of dogmatic people doling advice out, and that's really what I'm speaking to.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X