Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

    Hey guys,

    My question is in regards to structure and when the hero should accept the main journey. Can my first act break be him passively agreeing to follow a group to a hide out, where he'll learn about the main story?

    More Info:
    So, my story in a nutshell is a high fantasy where the hero enters a new world, where he meets a small group of thieves who bring him to their hideout/base/etc, once there they convince him to help them with his special abilities to rob someone.

    The main portion of the story is the hero using his special abilities to help them rob someone.

    Currently my structure is something like this:
    • Catalyst: Hero is invited to an event that will introduce him to the new world.
    • Hero attends event, meets gang of thieves, gets invited to their hide out
    • First Act Break: Hero accepts journey to follow the group to their hide out
    • At their hide out, hero learns of the mission and after some self doubt he agrees to help them

    Should I compress this structure more? Make the hideout agreement scene the act break and the accepting to follow them just a scene in the first act?

    If this is all too confusing, let me know.

    tl;dr: Can my first act break be the hero passive accepting to follow someone into the new world? Or should I make his agreement to help their mission be the act break?

  • #2
    Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

    IMHO, it's not a math problem. Write it the way you think it works best.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

      I agree with Joe.

      Also, watch the Hobbit movie that Rankin-Bass did. No, I'm not joking.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

        Originally posted by TylerLeisher View Post
        Hey guys,

        My question is in regards to structure and when the hero should accept the main journey. Can my first act break be him passively agreeing to follow a group to a hide out, where he'll learn about the main story?

        More Info:
        So, my story in a nutshell is a high fantasy where the hero enters a new world, where he meets a small group of thieves who bring him to their hideout/base/etc, once there they convince him to help them with his special abilities to rob someone.

        The main portion of the story is the hero using his special abilities to help them rob someone.

        Currently my structure is something like this:
        • Catalyst: Hero is invited to an event that will introduce him to the new world.
        • Hero attends event, meets gang of thieves, gets invited to their hide out
        • First Act Break: Hero accepts journey to follow the group to their hide out
        • At their hide out, hero learns of the mission and after some self doubt he agrees to help them
        Should I compress this structure more? Make the hideout agreement scene the act break and the accepting to follow them just a scene in the first act?

        If this is all too confusing, let me know.

        tl;dr: Can my first act break be the hero passive accepting to follow someone into the new world? Or should I make his agreement to help their mission be the act break?
        Well, Joe's right, it isn't a math problem.

        However, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong about evaluating what you have in the way that you've described it. You're simply trying to locate events in conformance with the hero's journey model. Seems fair enough to me.

        Your timing looks OK but of course it's going to depend on the read and the kinds of things that lead your protag to become fully motivated and eventually accept the challenge and cross the first threshold. He is initially reluctant, which is about fear ... fear of the unknown and the many possible negative outcomes that might occur. Something is needed to get him past this fear, a change in circumstances, a furher offense against the natural order of things, the encouragement of a mentor, your hero's own convictions about right and wrong vis-a-vis the stakes.

        As Christopher Vogler writes "At this point in Star Wars, Luke refuses Obi Wan's call to adventure and returns to his aunt and uncles farmhouse, only to find they have been barbecued by the Emporer's stormtroopers. Suddenly, Luke is no longer reluctant and is eager to undertake the quest. The evil of the Empire has become personal to him. He is motivted."

        So hopefully you have something in there that's the equivalent of this, something that impacts your protag and motivates him to proceed apace.

        If you do and it reads well, then you're probably in good shape. I suspect at this juncture if you're not happy with what you have or are questioning it, this may be because whatever's supposed to motivate your protag to cross the threshold isn't sufficiently powerful to make it a strongly believeable scenario.

        Classically, the hero accepts his fate and crosses the first threshold at the end of the first Act, but it won't work if he or she's not sufficiently motivated to act in this way in a believable manner.

        You said, "Can my first act break be him passively agreeing to follow a group to a hide out, where he'll learn about the main story?" but acceptance probably ought not be "passive," and should, instead, involve a decisive act that springs from your protag's realization ... of now knowing what he has to do. The idea of your main story should have already been established in the catalyst (or, as some prefer, the "inciting incident"), which should probably include some treatment of the stakes. Just what is at stake here?

        Your protag should be aware of what's at stake as he proceeds through his reluctance to his acceptance. It's what helps propel him past his fears, it measures how much courage he has to muster. The bigger the stakes, the more risk, the more courage he needs to act, and the more "help" he'll probably need to come up with it. The turning point should be decisive, though, as it was with Luke in Star Wars.

        Realization is what's crucial in this. Your protag has to realize the implications of not acting, which should propel him to act and to do so decisively, essentially throwing caution to the wind.

        So if I were in your shoes i'd be taking a close look at motivation. And if its sufficiently powerful, there's nothing wrong about ending your first Act with your protag deciding he has to act and being accepting of whatever fate may befall him, win, lose, or draw.

        HTH!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

          Originally posted by TylerLeisher View Post
          The main portion of the story is the hero using his special abilities to help them rob someone.

          Currently my structure is something like this:
          • Catalyst: Hero is invited to an event that will introduce him to the new world.
          • Hero attends event, meets gang of thieves, gets invited to their hide out
          • First Act Break: Hero accepts journey to follow the group to their hide out
          • At their hide out, hero learns of the mission and after some self doubt he agrees to help them

          Should I compress this structure more? Make the hideout agreement scene the act break and the accepting to follow them just a scene in the first act?
          I can't tell you what's best for your story. But I can tell you how I'd approach this.

          I'd start by trying to define by second act.

          Eg, is the second act about pulling off the robbery, and the third act the consequences of the robbery?

          Or is the second act about setting up the robbery, and the third act the robbery itself?

          (BOth are common heist-film structures).

          I try to define my first act in relationship to my second act. The first act ends at the moment of decision that crates the second act. My first act is suppose to contain the status quo - where are we now? - and an inciting incident which drives the character to a point of decision - the second act.

          It sounds to me like your end-of-act-1 is the moment he decides to join up with them - NOT the decision to go with them to their hideout. (Unless the trip to the hideout is the second act). Could be wrong here - again, not knowing your story, it's hard to tell. But it sounds like his big decision is to say, "Yes, I want to do this job with you," rather than "Yes, I'll go listen to your job offer." Usually you want that to be your act break.

          My feeling is that if he doesn't learn the main story until 10-15 pages after you act break, you're probably (usual caveats apply) starting your story too late. Take with grain of salt. YMMV.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

            Since Acts are not identified in a spec screenplay it doesn't really matter.

            Some readers are going to put the end of Act 1 at the point where the hero accepts the journey to follow the group to their hide out.

            Other readers are going to put the end of Act 1 at the point where he agrees to help them.

            There are no rules that say how long Act 1 has to be and what it MUST and MUST NOT include. Just make the story entertaining and engaging.
            "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
            - Clive Barker, Galilee

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

              Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
              There are no rules that say how long Act 1 has to be and what it MUST and MUST NOT include. Just make the story entertaining and engaging.
              This is true ...

              ... but scripts have a tendency to feel directionless when their main dramatic thrust doesn't show up until page 40 or later.

              Not saying it can't be overcome. Just, rather, that it's something to look out for, that looks like it might be an issue given what he's told us about his story.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

                A few random comments, don't mind me, obviously I don't know your story, or what the hell I'm talking about, but...

                OP -
                If you have it where the first act break is just him going to meet with the gang, then it makes me wonder what else is happening during your entire first act. Maybe you're taking too much time to set it up and not showing where this is headed soon enough? It sounds like the first act break should naturally be his decision to join up with them. No?

                In regards to TwoBrads post -
                As we've learned from the pros on this site - there are no rules. But are you saying screw the three act structure? If you're an amazing, trailblazing writer - do whatever you want, and of course there are many good scripts that are exceptions to the rule. If you're not, although it's not a rule, it may be a good idea to try to have your first act break happen, loosely speaking, give or take, and depending on the total length of the script, somewhere between page 25 and 30ish. (Wow, look at all those qualifiers I used for fear of repercussions.) Or is that wrong now, too? Page 40 or more seems long to get to the first act turn, especially if the script were only 110 pages or less.

                I was surprised when, on a script of mine, where the first act break happens on page 31 or 32, I actually had a couple pro readers tell me it must happen by page 30. I guess they were Blake Snyder fans.
                "The Hollywood film business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Hunter S Thompson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

                  I don't know guys.

                  I think in a spec, that's where structure is very important, or course, behind concept.

                  If I could sit and watch a 100 minute high concept film with people, I'm confident I could point out the inciting incident, the goal by 10, the new element by 15, plot point one around 30, plot point two around 60, climax around 90, and then the resolution.

                  Watch a movie and keep those numbers in mind.

                  It's there, right in front of you, and obvious... if you can see it.

                  Jeff Shurtleff
                  "Some men see things the way they are and say why? I see things that never were and say, why not?"

                  http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...4669871&v=info

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

                    To add, I remember watching 50 FIRST DATES with a writer friend.

                    At one point I told him "See how they told you that plot point that Lucy lives the same day over and over? They hit you over the head with it and said it three times."

                    Jeff Shurtleff
                    Last edited by Jeff_Shurtleff; 05-14-2011, 11:46 AM.
                    "Some men see things the way they are and say why? I see things that never were and say, why not?"

                    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...4669871&v=info

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

                      Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                      Since Acts are not identified in a spec screenplay it doesn't really matter.
                      They're identified emotionally.

                      Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                      Some readers are going to put the end of Act 1 at the point where the hero accepts the journey to follow the group to their hide out.

                      Other readers are going to put the end of Act 1 at the point where he agrees to help them.

                      There are no rules that say how long Act 1 has to be and what it MUST and MUST NOT include. Just make the story entertaining and engaging.
                      There are no rules but there are principles.

                      The things the OP writer is grappling with are involved in "making it entertaining and engaging," that's what he's trying to achieve. If those emotional beats don't occur within the general and long established critical path for three-act plays, the efficasy of his entertainment value will be degraded, and it won't be as engaging as it might otherwise be.

                      Vogler goes to the trouble in "Writer's Journey" to break down a half dozen big box office pictures and show how these beats occur in them as per the hero story paradigm, "Titanic," "The Lion King," "Pulp Fiction," "The Full Monty," and the "Star Wars" saga.

                      He says, "I hope these will demonstrate some of the ways that the mythic principles continue to be explored in modern entertainment."

                      Mythic principles.

                      It's one thing to say "Just make it entertaining and engaging," it's another to discuss how that lofty goal is achieved, which is bound up with those mythic principles.

                      Cheers!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

                        Originally posted by FADE IN View Post

                        It's one thing to say "Just make it entertaining and engaging," it's another to discuss how that lofty goal is achieved, which is bound up with those mythic principles.
                        I'm really not a fan of Vogler, but -

                        At some point, the light bulb clicks and you just start to see how all these pieces fit together.

                        I totally get the "there are no rules" attitude - but I have to balance that with the fact that every movie I see, and every good script I write, has a story that's clearly moving in a certain direction by a certain time.

                        I suspect that most successful working pros are capable of seeing those beats, and feeling the act shift. Now, some of them are going to be like Blake Snyder: "It has to happen on page 25" and some of them aren't, but you consistently have a clear dramatic turn.

                        And when somebody says there are no rules, I want to agree with them - but at the same time, I see this pattern that keeps showing up. It may not be the only pattern. The pattern may be an artifact of the intersection of how movies work with how my mind approaches them. But wow, I can't think of a 2-hour-ish movie where the main story doesn't get going until page 40 or so.

                        I think part of the problem is, however, that as a writer who "sees the Matrix" and gets how stories work, you're often dealing with people who don't, who approach it more like a checklist. And that can be frustrating, although it's not wrong - (eg, I felt like American Pie had a hugely clunky, checklisty act break, but it clearly worked, no?) In fact, I think a lot of writers (self included) get into trouble because we're sensitive enough to the underlying fabric of the story that we don't give clear enough markers to the people who are just enjoying the nice embroidery.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

                          Originally posted by Ronaldinho View Post
                          I'm really not a fan of Vogler, but -

                          At some point, the light bulb clicks and you just start to see how all these pieces fit together.

                          I totally get the "there are no rules" attitude - but I have to balance that with the fact that every movie I see, and every good script I write, has a story that's clearly moving in a certain direction by a certain time.

                          I suspect that most successful working pros are capable of seeing those beats, and feeling the act shift. Now, some of them are going to be like Blake Snyder: "It has to happen on page 25" and some of them aren't, but you consistently have a clear dramatic turn.

                          And when somebody says there are no rules, I want to agree with them - but at the same time, I see this pattern that keeps showing up. It may not be the only pattern. The pattern may be an artifact of the intersection of how movies work with how my mind approaches them. But wow, I can't think of a 2-hour-ish movie where the main story doesn't get going until page 40 or so.

                          I think part of the problem is, however, that as a writer who "sees the Matrix" and gets how stories work, you're often dealing with people who don't, who approach it more like a checklist. And that can be frustrating, although it's not wrong - (eg, I felt like American Pie had a hugely clunky, checklisty act break, but it clearly worked, no?) In fact, I think a lot of writers (self included) get into trouble because we're sensitive enough to the underlying fabric of the story that we don't give clear enough markers to the people who are just enjoying the nice embroidery.
                          Yep, yep, and yep.

                          When I launch into a first draft my mind goes blank on everything in the world ... except my story, and I charge to the end using intuition and the story crafting I've done to that point (which can be a rather significant chunk of work or mind time). I don't think about anything except what my characters are doing and making sure that things keep moving toward the ending.

                          It's only after that first draft is done that I go cerebral and look at things analytically and evaluate things intellectually as per the three-act paradigm and what we know about it from having studied it for years and the myriad aspects of drama that we've learned from guys like Egri or even Linda Seger for that matter or Vogler or all the stuff that Terry Rossio has provided in his columns over at Wordplayer, not to mention every screenplay we've ever read.

                          And even then I don't beat my script to death over this stuff. I always read as though I'm sitting in a theater watching the movie, and if someting doesn't work from that headpace, it's going to get attention and probably be revised.

                          I wrote a War II epic once (I advise people to only do this once!) and its first draft was 146 pages and the story hadn't gotten underway until page 45. I almost gave up at that point. But I was so into this particular story, which is one that's never been told in film or in book form, I found myself unable to just walk away from it and so set about to get it pared down and speeded up, a chore that at first I didn't think was even possible.

                          But six months later I had it in 113 pages with a definitive start to Act 2 on page 36, still not coming as quickly as I'd have preferred but it seemed to work without dragging so I left it that way (and couldn't find a way to move it up anyway).

                          I like to think there's a keen admixture of cognitive analysis and intutive jamming that goes into this stuff. In the beginning it was almost exclusively intuitive for me, but over time and with ongoing reading and studying, the cognitive side has made gains ... until today my process involves an admixture of both, but each in its own time and place.

                          I've always hated painting by numbers and I've never been into writing by formula or precise models of timelines, but I do respect the fact that storytelling is an ancient human enterprise that demands a certain order of things, even including the idea that we start at the beginning and end at the ending.

                          We can't tell a guy like our OP writer exactly what he needs to do, he has to figure that out himself. But I do think a discussion of his issues can help him find his way to the solutions he seeks. And that discussion will by its nature involve the mythic principles that are relevant to his concerns.

                          Cheers!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

                            anything can work.

                            structure will always be there and when the script doesn't work - that would be the first place I would look at - what's missing in the structure.

                            But, I think the real answer you're looking for isn't that...

                            you need to find the real core of your character, internal needs and desires.

                            if his needs are to be accepted, then place him in a situation where the world doesn't accept him, e.g. Wanted, Disturbia... etc

                            then it becomes, what should be the Inciting Incident?

                            Wanted(screenplay), it's Wesley choice to believe that Cross killed his father.

                            Inception, it's when he make's a choice not to tell his children that their mother is dead(, and probably why she died). {to the inner need or flaw, his inability to face reality, mirrored in her}
                            But this wily god never discloses even to the skillful questioner the whole content of his wisdom.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Passively Accepting the Journey? (Structure)

                              Originally posted by FADE IN View Post
                              ... It's one thing to say "Just make it entertaining and engaging," it's another to discuss how that lofty goal is achieved, which is bound up with those mythic principles.
                              Remove everything that is not entertaining and not engaging.

                              In those successful movies you listed, it's not that those elements happened at a specific place or in a specific order. It's that they happened at all and they were entertaining and engaging. And all the stuff in-between was entertaining and engaging (that probably can be debated on a case-by-case basis).

                              I refer back to the "principles" when I'm trying to figure out why something is not working.

                              Who's to say that if something is working that you can't do that?
                              "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
                              - Clive Barker, Galilee

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X