Three Act Structure (Part 2)

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

    Originally posted by sc111 View Post
    One of my writing professors said, "You must understand the rules of grammar before you can break them."
    Exactly! I understand them and I broke them. Some intentionally and some unintentionally.

    I'm shocked, he says sarcastically, that sc111 decided to pile on and scold me with this ridiculous sidetracking of a major topic.

    I wrote six pages, consisting of 2,400 words, 15,000 characters and TigerFang thought it was imperative to point out supposedly 47 grammar errors.

    Some of those 47 errors that TigerFang pointed out was from quoted passages of others that I thought would not be appropriate to change.

    sc111 says, "cannot be written off as creative license."

    Many of the errors that TigerFang pointed out had nothing to do with "creative license." It was about my personal taste and choice -- and if I wanted to use creative license to express something, don't tell me that I can't break a grammar rule.

    "F" RULES!

    TigerFang, you tell me "double cross" needs a hyphen. I am grammatically allowed to use the informal version if I so please to do so. Also, I like to point out that you corrected my supposed error like so: "double cross (couble-cross)." I suggest for those who live in a glass house should not throw stones. I'm just saying, bro.

    "There's no drama unless you create the drama." -- Sam Baron, 2014 Nicholl Fellowship winner.
    Last edited by JoeNYC; 12-23-2019, 05:50 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

      Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
      Also, I like to point out that you corrected my supposed error like so: "double cross (couble-cross)." I suggest for those who live in a glass house should not throw stones. I'm just saying, bro.
      Oops! My mistake. Yes, I make typographical errors now and then just as many others here do (again, I say that I try not to do that!). Even so, there is a vast difference between a typographical error and ignorance of a standard.

      Hyphens go where they ordinarily belong in a word to avoid a misread as well as to avoid obfuscation. Punctuation helps the reader decode and interpret the writing. Take Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” for example. The dialect is superbly represented through proper misspellings and proper punctuation to convey the inflection and style of a character’s speech. The rest of the text, however, is flawlessly written according to accepted standards of English usage. In that way, Twain’s story is not lost upon the reader.

      The upshot of all this talk of usage of basic grammar, spelling, and punctuation rules is that it facilitates clarity, JoeNYC. That’s it in a nutshell. There are enough hurdles to jump over to get a screenplay in the hands of those who can greenlight it without adding complications of your own making to the mix.

      Yes, it’s a given that in a screenplay, there will be sentence fragments for effect. Yes, there are other English usage rule-breaking transgressions, too. Some screenwriters put their sounds in ALL CAPS. Those are conventions of screenplays. They are not considered to be violations of English usage. It goes without saying, usually, but you brought it up, so I have addressed it.

      It will not surprise me in the least if multitudes of queries receive the delete key because the writer could not effectively communicate their script’s story in either the logline or its query. That would be a big clue that the narrative of their screenplay would be muddled as well.

      If you had to wade through hundreds and thousands of queries daily, wouldn’t you eliminate those whose grammar, spelling, and punctuation was not up to the standards of the day? It seems logical to me.

      JoeNYC, you are entitled to ignore rules of English usage all you would like. You may even convince yourself that it’s your right as an “artist with a license to do so.” Far too many people believe that they can write creatively, but far too few of those would-be writers bother to put in the effort to learn to write well.

      Yet, when those who read for a living — and who read well, by the way — receive your pages, do not be surprised when you receive no response from them. In their search for the next great story, it is too much trouble to sift through a script sentence by sentence to divine what the author meant to say rather than the author outright writing what they meant to say in the first place.

      That said, there must be a standard for sentence construction. If, as it appears from your post, you are inclined to write willy-nilly and sometimes use the correct form of words and other times not do so when the mood strikes you, then it is more than likely that you will have a not-so-fine mess on your hands. Few persons will want to untangle it to reveal the story that you hid beneath it all. Choosing a great story premise to please the Hollywood gods is difficult enough without obscuring it with written gibberish.

      Even so, and by all means, write on. It’s the only cure for writing ills and the only way to become a better writer.

      Thank you for the lively repartée, JoeNYC. There’s nothing so invigorating as a holiday brouhaha that involves sparring verbally with a New Yorker in the days preceding Christmas!
      Last edited by Clint Hill; 12-23-2019, 08:04 AM.
      “Nothing is what rocks dream about” ― Aristotle

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

        Originally posted by TigerFang View Post
        there is a vast difference between a typographical error and ignorance of a standard.
        Oh my.

        Don't you dare make excuses. When it comes to the precious and lovely written word put down on a page for others to see, I will not accept any excuses that is short of perfection.

        TigerFang says, "Hyphens go where they ordinarily belong in a word to avoid a misread as well as to avoid obfuscation. Punctuation helps the reader decode and interpret the writing."

        Dude, you can't "decode and interpret" three act structure without the inclusion of a hyphen? Its meaning is not dark. Its clear and obvious.

        TigerFang says, "The dialect is superbly represented through proper misspellings and proper punctuation to convey the inflection and style of a character’s speech."

        This part I agree with. Yes, certain punctuation is important to convey the inflection and style of a character's speech.

        TigerFang says, "there must be a standard for sentence construction. If, as it appears from your post, you are inclined to write willy-nilly and sometimes use the correct form of words and other times not do so when the mood strikes you, then it is more than likely that you will have a not-so-fine mess on your hands.

        "will-nilly"?

        Dude, have a few drinks and chill. If proper grammar turns you on so much, then turn this energy onto my screenplay in the SCRIPT PAGES forum. I'll love you big time.
        Last edited by JoeNYC; 12-23-2019, 08:17 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

          Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
          Dude, you can't "decode and interpret" three act structure without the inclusion of a hyphen? Its meaning is not dark. Its clear and obvious.
          “...three-act structure...”
          “It’s clear and obvious...”

          No. I’m only stating (the obvious) that writing needs to be an easy read in order to see the three-act structure in the story execution instead of a difficult read that delays or prevents the reader from seeing the execution of the story. Besides that, everyone knows that screenplays use a five-act structure.
          “Nothing is what rocks dream about” ― Aristotle

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

            Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
            When it comes to the precious and lovely written word put down on a page for others to see, I will not accept any excuses that is short of perfection.
            (Verb agreement: “excuses/is” ought to be “excuses/are.”)

            Really? There’s no evidence of that in your posts or your script.

            It isn’t that I'm so concerned with grammar, spelling, and punctuation. It’s that you want to call yourself a writer and that you’re not concerned with them.
            Last edited by Clint Hill; 12-23-2019, 09:28 AM.
            “Nothing is what rocks dream about” ― Aristotle

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

              Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
              If proper grammar turns you on so much, then turn this energy onto my screenplay in the SCRIPT PAGES forum.
              No, thanks. I'm not one to do your heavy lifting for you.
              “Nothing is what rocks dream about” ― Aristotle

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                Exactly! I understand them and I broke them. Some intentionally and some unintentionally.

                I'm shocked, he says sarcastically, that sc111 decided to pile on and scold me with this ridiculous sidetracking of a major topic.
                Pile on? Not even close.
                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


                • #23
                  Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                  Originally posted by TigerFang View Post
                  No, thanks. I'm not one to do your heavy lifting for you.
                  I like that. Good one.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                    Originally posted by TigerFang View Post
                    [I](Verb agreement: "excuses/is- ought to be "excuses/are.-)
                    There you go doing it again. Just when I thought we were having a moment.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                      Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                      "

                      You've missed a very important point of my thread, which I'll repeat:

                      When it comes to creativity, there are no rules.
                      Your two-part piece on structure totals over two-thousand words and concludes with:

                      "ANY method that works for a writer and his story is not wrong."

                      This is correct on a rudimentary level yet, in my limited experience with feedback from industry execs, not one of these gatekeepers mentioned structure, or page numbers for inciting incidents, or any number of points you felt were important to cover in your two-part commentary.

                      IMO, getting overly concerned with 3-act, 4-act, or 5-act structure, minimizes what the industry sets as priorities: Concept and character.

                      Everything else can be/will be tweaked and/or rewritten by hired guns. If the concept is ho-hum-seen-it-a-million-times, it's dead in the water. No one will be reading it.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                        Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                        IMO, getting overly concerned with 3-act, 4-act, or 5-act structure, minimizes what the industry sets as priorities: Concept and character.

                        Everything else can be/will be tweaked and/or rewritten by hired guns.
                        I believe the industry's priority is: Concept, Execution (which includes character) and Market.

                        The idea is for a writer to gain knowledge so a studio doesn't bring in a hired gun (as you say). A writer doesn't have to write their story with the traditional three act structure in mind, but I suggest that the writer gets an understanding because, at some point, the industry people are going to discuss it. I mean, this is what the industry people have told me.

                        Edited to add: I'm not referring to the gurus' structural models. I'm talking about three act structure.
                        Last edited by JoeNYC; 12-23-2019, 11:40 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                          Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                          Your two-part piece on structure totals over two-thousand words
                          Part 2 of a two part piece totals over 2,000 words. Not part 1 and 2 combined. Each line on the page holds up to 30 words each.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                            Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                            I believe the industry's priority is: Concept, Execution (which includes character) and Market.
                            After formatting, structure is probably the easiest element for any writer to learn and master. It makes sense. It is not difficult to understand. The reason to learn structure is to keep the writer focused on a clear vision. This is paramount.

                            You do not want your story meandering into "unknown" territory. A structure outline keeps you on task-- it focuses your efforts and reminds the writer to avoid the distraction of "shiny things," as I call them, that can derail your story if you're not careful.

                            The idea is for a writer to gain knowledge so a studio doesn't bring in a hired gun (as you say). A writer doesn't have to write their story with the traditional three act structure in mind, but I suggest that the writer gets an understanding because, at some point, the industry people are going to discuss it. I mean, this is what the industry people have told me.
                            Unfortunately, I believe this is naive, because the studio will replace you no matter what, at some point. They will want to work with a writer that is established and can consistently execute their "brand" of entertainment in short order and with little direction on their part. Trust is a huge factor.

                            In most cases, I would say that a new writer should stick to a traditional story structure and focus on STORY.

                            The story execution is vital, to be sure. But until a writer has built their reputation showing their ability to consistently execute strong stories and characters, the chances are very slim that a studio or moderate sized prodco will not replace you.

                            The idea is to try to stay in the process for as long as possible.

                            Once you learn structure it's not something you have to worry about ,because it's simple. The audience's/reader's attention will begin to wander at about the 10-15 minute mark, so you have to have something happen that will change the story-- those are big plot points. (Inciting Incident, PP1, MPT, PP2, Climax and resolution)

                            Sc111: My experience has been the same as yours with executives at all levels. No one has ever commented on the structure. Unless they are talking about action plotting. They comment on how well it's written (voice) and how they felt when reading the script. In action driven plots, keeping the plot exciting and not repetitive keeps them turning the pages.

                            It is literally this easy...

                            Set up - show the hero in his life today, before anything happens to him. This is his state of existence and it's about to get shaken up.

                            II - something happens to the hero that makes this day different from any other previous day. They are given an opportunity. A challenge. A task. But it is something that has never happened before and it is something where the hero must choose a new path that he's never explored. Otherwise, the story ends here people.

                            PP1 - after some debate with himself, the hero chooses the path that will irrevocably change his life. Something will happen at the end of Act1 that will turn it into a new and unexpected direction that at this point will establish the hero's goal-- he sets out after what he WANTS.

                            MPT - things are going along seemingly well. His plan to pursue his goal seems to be working for the most part, until something happens in the middle of the story that changes the direction again and now the hero's initial efforts that were going well, begin to fail. He will try and try again, but he will continue to fail as the stakes grow and conflict escalates to high point when...

                            PP2 - the hero hits rock bottom. Everything that could go wrong, does go wrong and at this point there is a terrible cost. A cost so great to the hero that they cannot bring them selves to continue-- until some deep desire rises up in the hero and he finds the will to overcome everything at any cost. At this point a hero can be saved by someone else, but the hero must choose to go on.

                            Climax - the obligatory conflict with the antagonist and at this point if MUST be the hero's actions that directly defeat the antagonist and achieving their goal and during this journey finding something in himself that causes him to grow and become a better example of himself.

                            Resolution -- we see him living his new better life.

                            This is the general idea. Yes, there are anti-heroes. Yes, there are stories that don't end well for the character, but by and large, this is the structure of most Hollywood films.

                            You don't have to hit the numbers. All you have to do it tell a great story, and not be boring.

                            The End.
                            FA4
                            "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


                            • #29
                              Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                              The problem is even if you can hit all the points the story can still be boring. You need a good sense of what is interesting. You need to be comfortable writing within tension. To me structure is synonymous with progression. It doesn't matter how or in how many acts that happens. But as long as the progression is happening that's structure. There are so many intricacies to a sound progression as well. The pace of it. The presentation of it. Sometimes it's about setting up a road map but go the opposite way the reader thinks when you get to the fork in the road. That's why loglines can't tell you anything about execution. All you have to do in a logline is pit two opposites against each other in an interesting way.

                              An FBI Agent, with the fear of flying, travels the country investigating cold cases looking for the MO of a thrill killer who is murdering for fun.

                              An Isis Fighter sneaks into the USA to meet up with a sleeper cell looking to set off a multi location terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, but during the three months he is to blend in and lay low he falls in love with American culture and has second thoughts.

                              How about a rom-com about a wealthy, blind man who is very superficial about looks?

                              The question is can you execute? Execution can't be taught I don't think. Writers need to put in the 10,000+ hours of writing.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                                Originally posted by Cyfress View Post

                                Execution can't be taught I don't think.
                                Craft is an aspect of executing a screenplay, which can be taught. Art is also an aspect of writing a screenplay, which can not be taught.

                                For example, I can teach someone how to structure the story they have in mind, but I can't teach them the art, their unique voice, that they want to put down on paper for the world to see, such as, "Star Wars," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," etc.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X