The key to it all...

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Originally Posted by asjah8

... freytag's pyramid is fairly well-known and put end-over-end (forming scenes) they create stairs, steps or a "ladder". i recall sarajb put up a great link to a visual for a guru that uses them (most gurus do); the hero's journey which is commonly known as the monomyth, schisms as plot gaps, etc.

imho, it's really no more complicated than that; but as with most things i've seen bdz write it was brilliantly executed. (i'm considering stalker-hood since all my heroes are writers).

I think you're talking about the advanced "Grand Ladder in 3D" method. With GL3D you tie several (or as many as you need) ladders together side-by-side. You can then use the rungs of adjacent ladders to branch your story in different directions, or you can loop down to come up the Grand (Main) Ladder again.

An unforeseen result of the GL3D method - (warning: this should not be attempted by the faint of heart) - is that Rules become Rules again. And it winds up there are more rules than anyone first imagined.

[asjah8]

LOL. Good sense of humor 2Brad. I realized after putting up my post that it sounded a little snarky but figured, meh, he can roll with it.

[dirtroadfilms]

Originally Posted by TwoBrad Bradley

I think what you're missing (maybe you'll expand on it later) is that throughout all this you need (as the writer) to remove yourself from the process.

What makes you successful is how you resonate with thousands, even millions, of people you don't know. It's impossible to even begin to understand what makes these people tick. Write for them.

That is a great point. Profound.

[BattleDolphinZero]

I'm the best screenwriter working today. Mind the ladder!

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Vittorio De Sica said while directing LADRI DI BICICLETTE, "You're nothing without the ladder".

[christopher jon]

The "Forced Schism" - now some lurker has got to claim that as a screen name!

Forget the lurker, that's Schwarzenegger's next big summer action flick.

[Vance]

Originally Posted by BattleDolphinZero

I'm the best screenwriter working today. Mind the ladder!

What, you mean during Hannukah?

[spacefarer]

Originally Posted by BattleDolphinZero

Successful writers all have a few secret techniques they use. I am going to share them with you for the first time. Not that I am successful but I hang out with a lot of A-List writers and have been privy to their secrets. And it's not fair to call them "secrets" as no one is trying to hide them, they are better described as "the stuff pros never talk about because it's too complicated."

The grand ladder-structure is the primary grid used by A-List writers. By using the "incremental escalation method" and refining it with "mythological thrust", you will always be able to deliver a story that feels like a movie regardless of merit...and I mean merit of any kind (talent, content, etc.)

The key to executing the IEM is understanding forced schisms and controlled dramaturlogical manipulation. Without a firm grasp on these two tools your IEM will never be pure and any high level exec will know you are not a pro.

A misplaced forced schism becomes a plot gap. We've seen plot gaps in many movies. Regardless how seasoned a pro, inevitably they will fumble a forced schism at some point in their career. The resulting plot gap is not always a "terminal filmic misfunction." If you look at Ratatoullie you'll find plenty of plot gaps that make it a bumpy ride without degrading to TFM levels. Still, as an up and coming writer, you want to avoid this all together as working pros are allowed grace flaws that unsold writers are not.

Now controlled dramaturlogical manipulation is a bit harder to explain as it really amounts to a sublime grasp of the grand-ladder metric. And it goes hand in hand with mythological thrust. If you are delivering CDM, how can you elevate the interior momentum of your script with mythological thrust?

Hopefully some of the guys will chime in here. If not, I'll break down the rest later on. Time for breakfast.

BDZ -- I think you have said half the truth, and even though I think you're on the right track, I call you on the fact that you are not there yet. Here is why:

If one examines dialectic narrative, one is faced with a choice: either reject neotextual libertarianism or conclude that culture is used to reinforce capitalism. The characteristic theme of the works of Stone is the bridge between society and class.

Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a subdeconstructivist deappropriation that includes sexuality as a reality. Von Junz suggests that the works of Stone are an example of subcapitalist capitalism.

But Marx suggests the use of the dialectic paradigm of discourse to attack class divisions. A number of theories concerning a mythopoetical totality may be discovered.

Thus, the subject is contextualised into a dialectic narrative that includes consciousness as a paradox. The example of the dialectic paradigm of discourse depicted in Stone’s JFK emerges again in Natural Born Killers.

In the works of Tarantino, a predominant concept is the concept of neotextual consciousness. Thus, Lacan uses the term ‘the constructivist paradigm of narrative’ to denote the stasis of capitalist class. The subject is interpolated into a constructivist socialism that includes sexuality as a reality.

“Society is part of the dialectic of reality,” says Lyotard. But the main theme of the works of Tarantino is the role of the reader as writer. Porter implies that we have to choose between constructivism and postcultural nihilism.

In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a patriarchialist deconstruction that includes truth as a paradox. Many discourses concerning the dialectic, and eventually the failure, of subdialectic sexual identity may be revealed.

It could be said that if constructivist socialism holds, the works of Smith are not postmodern. Sontag promotes the use of the constructivist paradigm of narrative to modify society.

In a sense, the primary theme of Dahmus’s model of constructivism is a self-referential whole. Constructivist socialism states that sexual identity, somewhat paradoxically, has significance, but only if the premise of constructivism is invalid; if that is not the case, Foucault’s model of constructivist socialism is one of “neocultural deconstructivism”, and therefore a legal fiction.

I hope that the above clarify things a little. I would love to see others chiming in as BDZ first suggested.

[christopher jon]

And you're giving away all of this great information for free?

Suckers.