Three Act Structure (Part 2)

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #61
    Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

    You can write short screenplays. I didn't think I was interested in shorts, but then it's a way to direct something you've written yourself. So I entered one of Southern_Land's contest here on these boards last April.

    I found that you can effectively write something good as a short. I'm not sure why I didn't have the confidence prior to then, but I do now. You can write a complete story. A moment in time. I quite enjoyed it and it only took, I think, 3 days.

    I want to direct something myself in the future. At least now I know I can write something in a shorter format. It is a period piece, so there's that. The short was inspired by a song, which, in my case was, The House of the Rising Sun.

    I think that draft is still here... http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...ghlight=THOTRS I think there were 8 submissions. Fun to read what stories writers came up with.

    I would encourage you to try, JoeNYC, it can be rewarding and doesn't take that long. Three act structure. Realized characters. Conflict and most of all it teaches you where to focus, because you have so few pages.

    Southern_Land hasn't had a contest, that I recall, recently, but maybe he will again. The award was very generous-- a read review from Titan Creed, who I have since used two times and have two scripts set up in his queue currently.

    He provided excellent notes. Very generous notes that impacted the direction of my rewrite and ultimately the finished product.
    "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


    • #62
      Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

      Originally posted by finalact4 View Post

      You can write short screenplays.
      No one is saying you can't. And I'm sure for some people, it's fun to write short stories, to enter short stories' contests, etc., but for me I consider that secondary to my goal to write screenplays, so I focus my studies, time and energy on the medium of screenplays.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

        Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
        I agree that any screenwriting class that doesn't work on scene craft is a bad one, and there's nothing wrong with exercises. I guess the question is how long do you follow his method? One course seems like enough. Beyond that, you might as well be writing scripts and working on the scenes within the scripts.

        But again - I've never taken his class. Maybe that's his POV as well and I'm just arguing with myself.
        He is in the business of classes, so I think he recommends three classes.

        But of course -- one class is enough for someone who 'gets' the method.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

          KitchonaSteve posted something about structure and the “Gurus” and “rules” in the “Archetype vs. Sterotype” thread. Why he didn’t post this opinion in this Three Act Structure (Part 2) thread, I don’t know?

          I want to address what he said, but not in the “sterotype” topic thread. So, I’m reposting his comment here in the structure thread.

          KitchonaSteve’s Post:

          ”I enjoy watching the gurus twist and squirm when asked about PULP FICTION, THE ENGLISH PATIENT, BABEL and other non-linear films. Try applying Save The Cat to Slacker. When confronted with non-linear or non-traditional films, gurus and their acolytes will fall back on ‘that’s the exception that proves the rule.’ Except it isn’t. The exception proves there are no rules.”

          This declaration about there being “rules” drives me crazy. Steve is not the only one that promulgates this idea to screenwriters.

          Steve, if you look at my original post, there’s a quote from Christopher Vogler who tries to address this issue about “rules” and “formulas” that’s thrown at him about his 12 stages of The Hero’s Journey. He says it’s just a tool in a story-tell’s toolbox to be used or not used.

          It’s a guideline. Not a commandment. It’s a tool. Not a rule or formula, where if a writer doesn’t follow it his screenplay will fail.

          Syd Fields’ Paradigm. “Paradigm” means pattern. In analyzing scripts, Mr. Fields made an observation that a certain pattern occurred in screenplays. He published a book and made this observation known to the public.

          Some people interpreted them as rules and formulas to be followed or your screenplay will fail. These people got all indignant: How dare he place RULES on creative geniuses!

          Just like Christopher Vogler, Syd Fields tried to address the misconceptions about his paradigm in interviews. Syd Fields says, it’s a form, not a formula, meaning, talking about formula, that there’s a certain formula you have to follow to achieve success, such as, you have to have 30 pages in the beginning, no more, no less. He said he would have a writer tell him “my first act is 32 pages long. What do I do?”

          Syd Fields says, tell your story in terms of form, not formula. There’s a definite Beginning, Middle and End. There’s a place where beginning turns into the middle, a place where middle turns into the end, but not necessarily in that order.

          KitchonaSteve mentioned when it came to non-linear films he enjoys watching the gurus twist and squirm when asked about PULP FICTION ... and other non-linear films.

          An interviewer asked Syd Field about PULP FICTION and the following was his response:

          “People say Tarantino broke the mold, but in fact it’s three stories about one story. It’s just a shift in the point of view. Pulp Fiction doesn’t break the mold of Three Act Structure, what it does is incorporate the Three Act in a new way. All three stories bounce off the key incident: Jules and Vincent retrieving Marcellus Wallace’s briefcase. I did an experiment; I put all three stories in a linear progression. It makes it boring and dull. The genius of Tarantino was that he could see that, so he moved the story around. Each section is a short story, in linear fashion, presented from a different character’s point of view.”

          Steve, Syd Field didn’t “squirm.” He answered the question about PULP FICTION in an articulate and knowledgeable way.

          In order to write great art, a writer needs to become a craftsman. Knowing how to use a variety of tools and techniques. No, craft doesn’t mean you must follow a traditional three act structure, but it doesn’t hurt to get an understanding on how it works.

          For example, Syd Fields’ Paradigm: 25% Act 1, 50% Act 2, 25% Act 3 (guideline, not a rule). I just recently had a problem with a script where I needed to use this guideline to find the problem and fix it.

          For those who are interested, keep on reading. For those who are not, please don’t refer to Gurus’ structural models as “RULES.” It drives me crazy and I’m running out of meds. (Just kidding. I’m not on medication. I’m a very sane person. Can’t you tell?)

          My Paradigm Story:

          Years ago, when I was younger and newer to screenwriting, I completed a teen romantic comedy. The feedback (on a different screenwriting site) at the time said it was a soft, 80s type of romantic comedy which will be a tough sell in the market since at the time Apatow had reinvented the genre with the “R” rated SUPERBAD, and then, they proceeded to tear apart my pages. It was humiliating, but writers need to live by the adage: “No pain, no gain.”

          The “marketing challenge” comment made sense to me, so instead of putting in all the time and energy to get the writing at a professional level, I put the script in the draw and moved on to other screenplays.

          Last year, I noticed how Netflix had a “Summer of Love” platform where they showed soft, traditional romantic stories.

          I thought this was a good fit for my teen romantic comedy, so I pulled it out of the draw and posted a few pages on Done Deal’s “Script Pages” forum to get an idea on how it plays to get some direction on making the pages/script (writing) stronger.

          These DD reviewers also said it was soft, but they suggested to make it edgier and threw out some suggestions. This feedback clicked with me and sparked creativity.

          I’m thinking I don’t have to settle for cable. Making it edgier and having it be able to be made for a price ($10,000,000) might entice a studio to put it out for a theatrical release (if the execution is there).

          I couldn’t begin the rewrite at that time because I was working on my AMERICAN SLAVES script.

          Just recently, with the AMERICAN SLAVES script completed, I took my 102 page teen romantic comedy script out of the draw and proceeded to do a rewrite to make it edgier (some characters, theme, plot, etc. had to be changed).

          I’m breezing through this rewrite because the material is all there. I’m thinking this adaptation sh#t is the bomb.

          I’ve completed the rewrite where after writing FADE OUT I see: page 70. My 102 page script is now 70 pages. I immediately think, “Oh sh#t.” This indicates the new revision is obviously underwritten.

          The industry standard for a feature screenplay is 90 to 120 pages, but typically romantic comedies run between 95 to 105 pages. Not saying there are no 90 or 120 page romantic comedies. Just saying what the majority run.

          Now I have to come up with 25 to 30 pages of original material that’s not filler, but emerge organically from character and story, which is hard as hell.

          William Goldman once said that he looked for adaptations to do because writing originals was so damn hard.

          Using the Paradigm guideline, I had to break the script down to see where it was underwritten. Act 1 was 24 pages. That’s good to go. The first half of Act 2 was 29 pages. That’s good to go. The second half of Act 2 was 7 pages. This is definitely a problem. Act 3 was 10 pages.

          Because of the Paradigm, I immediately zeroed in on the problem.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

            Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
            William Goldman once said that he looked for adaptations to do because writing originals was so damn hard.
            This is true for me; I agree with William Goldman about this. Plus, I enjoy doing adaptations (all in the Public Domain, so far), which makes the work enjoyable. My dream job is to be one in a studio’s army of adaptation writers. Even so, I have several original screenplay projects as specs used as “calling card scripts” (and for other obvious reasons). Syd Field’s VHS set and guide was the first guru material I bought way back in 1996 from his late-night TV commercial. Ha! I think I still have that guidebook (somewhere around here).
            “Nothing is what rocks dream about” ― Aristotle

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

              I've come to the conclusion that a lot of what's needed for executing structure well can be intuitive and possibly internalized after watching so many films all of our lives.

              My first attempt at writing a script was adapting my own unfinished novel. At the time, I was challenged to give it a shot by my friend who was exploring screenwriting. My only attempt at "study" was reading a few pages of one produced screenplay she sent me to figure out basic format, sluglines, etc. I didn't read to the end because I'd seen the movie many years prior. I wrote this script before reading any of the guru books or discovering this site or any other online instruction.

              The process of adapting my own first-person novel was -- at least for me -- an enlightening experience on the discipline of screenwriting. Recognizing the need for visually dramatizing internal dialogue, streamlining the storyline, condensing characters, etc.

              I essentially dismantled the story and wrote entirely new scenes though the theme, plot points and main characters remained. I ended up with a 108- page rom com.

              When Save The Cat was published and the StC beat sheet was available online, I compared it against my first script. Weirdly enough, it matched up perfectly -- even the darn "this happens on page X" rules. Hmmm. How did I do that?

              Now, I did major in writing in college. And I did take a number of prose fiction and novel-writing courses in which we discussed character development and plots and theme. This may have given me a bit of a head start but it in no way gave me any training in the 3-act structure of film. I'm convinced I internalized what was required from watching films.

              In my opinion, discussions of 3-act structure don't come close to cracking the code of what makes one script great, memorable and another script "eh." Many "eh" scripts are perfectly structured but are missing [for lack of a better term] a soul or perhaps we can call it the ghost in the machine.

              I'd say, when it comes to structure, learning the basics is fine and doesn't take much time because, if you've been watching films all of your life, you've likely internalized it anyway.

              I'd put more focus on discovering the soul of your story and build on that.
              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


              • #67
                Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                We can all learn the chords and how to play the guitar, but they can't teach us how to write a hit song.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                  Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                  I've come to the conclusion that a lot of what's needed for executing structure well can be intuitive and possibly internalized after watching so many films all of our lives.

                  In my opinion, discussions of 3-act structure don't come close to cracking the code of what makes one script great, memorable and another script "eh." Many "eh" scripts are perfectly structured but are missing [for lack of a better term] a soul or perhaps we can call it the ghost in the machine.

                  I'd say, when it comes to structure, learning the basics is fine and doesn't take much time because, if you've been watching films all of your life, you've likely internalized it anyway.

                  I'd put more focus on discovering the soul of your story and build on that.
                  This, to me, says it all. Well said, sc111.
                  “Nothing is what rocks dream about” ― Aristotle

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                    Originally posted by sc111 View Post

                    I'd put more focus on discovering the soul of your story and build on that.
                    sc111, you can have the richest characters and story, but if the pieces are not constructed/structured properly, the whole story collapses.

                    More than one top, award winning professional screenwriter have said this. William Goldman being one of them.

                    You say structure is intuitive -- for you. That's great, but because you find it easy you're suggesting, or implying for others not to put as much focus on their structure and just write with: "Put more focus on discovering the soul of your story."

                    Even if a writer writes his story intuitively, just lets the art flow, why does a writer MUST put more focus on "the soul of the story"? Why not equal focus between soul and structure?

                    Sure, a writer putting his mind, heart and soul into his story will connect emotionally with a reader/moviegoer, but I'll tell you this: if the structure is not there, where the story is confusing, doesn't make sense, doesn't hang together -- all the "soul" in the world is not gonna make that script great.

                    But, a writer can write soulless tripe, where it's a good screenplay, but not a great screenplay that has perfect structure and sell it. If you don't believe this is true, then ask members if they can think of soulless tripe that got made and was a commercial success?

                    I'll bet there will be a list. I can name some myself.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                      Originally posted by TigerFang View Post
                      This, to me, says it all. Well said, sc111.
                      Why you...

                      In my opinion, I wouldn't call a well structured screenplay "basic" work.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                        It's easy to cook an egg, hard to master. That's how I feel about structure. You can not just throw your story in a pan and cook it perfectly every time. Every egg and script is different.

                        Structure is always important. But it's not something most can eyeball.

                        I've been told I'm great at structure. But guess what -- that's not the only thing. Because if it was, I would be a sold writer by now.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                          Originally posted by Bono View Post

                          I've been told I'm great at structure. But guess what -- that's not the only thing.
                          Who in this thread have said that structure is the most important element in writing a great screenplay? If anything, there have been members who have posted and downplayed the importance of structure.

                          Bono, I think you missed my point about my previous post about selling a screenplay with soulless tripe if it's structured properly. I'm just suggesting to give structure equal importance as the other elements that go into writing a great screenplay.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                            Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                            Who in this thread have said that structure is the most important element in writing a great screenplay? If anything, there have been members who have posted and downplayed the importance of structure.

                            Bono, I think you missed my point about my previous post about selling a screenplay with soulless tripe if it's structured properly. I'm just suggesting to give structure equal importance as the other elements that go into writing a great screenplay.
                            You're more than suggesting, Joe. You're insisting and taking issue with my opinion that other elements may be of more importance.
                            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


                            • #74
                              Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                              Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                              Who in this thread have said that structure is the most important element in writing a great screenplay? If anything, there have been members who have posted and downplayed the importance of structure.

                              Bono, I think you missed my point about my previous post about selling a screenplay with soulless tripe if it's structured properly. I'm just suggesting to give structure equal importance as the other elements that go into writing a great screenplay.
                              I thought the whole point of this thread is that structure is the most important thing. We are even on Part 2 of the thread now. I didn't go back and read it. Also was anyone unsure before this thread that structure was important?

                              I'm pretty sure a few posts ago you wrote something like this -- a well structured screenplay -- even if it's only good not great writing -- will still sell. At least that's how it read to me. I don't get what you think I missed? I think we are agreeing.

                              And for the record, I think structure is the number one most important thing to a great screenplay. So now, I've said it. It's not the only thing, but it's the thing that makes it work. If you have all the same scenes, but in the wrong order, it's not the same. Because basically structure is story.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Three Act Structure (Part 2)

                                Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post
                                KitchonaSteve posted something about structure and the "Gurus- and "rules- in the "Archetype vs. Sterotype- thread. Why he didn't post this opinion in this Three Act Structure (Part 2) thread, I don't know?

                                I want to address what he said, but not in the "sterotype- topic thread. So, I'm reposting his comment here in the structure thread.
                                He told you why he didn't post anything further here.

                                http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...t=85603&page=2

                                If the original author does not wish to contribute to your thread, I think you should respect their wishes and refrain from reposting their words from another thread.
                                "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

                                Working...
                                X