Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

    Let me use an example to illustrate my two questions re: midpoints:

    A pair of private investigators are hired to find out who's been stealing top secrets from a high-tech company.

    Even with them on the case, the stealing goes on. Finally they think they might be on the right trail but they are fired because of the lack of success up to this point.

    The hero has a lack of confidence problem and is a former alcoholic. The firing just confirms his lack of confidence problem and he starts drinking again because the firing bothers him more than he realizes.

    This is his low point in the story.

    But then his partner is killed, probably by the thieves, for maybe knowing too much.

    He gets mad, gets back on the case (on his own since he was fired), and finds the bad guys, etc. etc.

    Question 1 - the stuff that I've read all these years is that the midpoint changes the story dramatically and where the hero is at his lowest point. But it doesn't change the goal, right? In this case, it just puts the goal on hold for a little while until the hero jumps back into the case - is this still considered the midpoint?

    Question 2 - the midpoint is supposed to wake the audience up. In this case, I don't think so. To me, this is just a continuation of trying to find the thieves, there's no abrupt "detour" as some would suggest the midpoint to be. Do you agree?

    Any ideas on how to make this more interesting? This is part of an actual script that I'm reading that I'm supposed to give notes on (we swap scripts within our group for feedback). Thanks.

  • #2
    Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

    Originally posted by socalwriter1 View Post
    Let me use an example to illustrate my two questions re: midpoints:

    A pair of private investigators are hired to find out who's been stealing top secrets from a high-tech company.

    Even with them on the case, the stealing goes on. Finally they think they might be on the right trail but they are fired because of the lack of success up to this point.

    The hero has a lack of confidence problem and is a former alcoholic. The firing just confirms his lack of confidence problem and he starts drinking again because the firing bothers him more than he realizes.

    This is his low point in the story.

    But then his partner is killed, probably by the thieves, for maybe knowing too much.

    He gets mad, gets back on the case (on his own since he was fired), and finds the bad guys, etc. etc.

    Question 1 - the stuff that I've read all these years is that the midpoint changes the story dramatically and where the hero is at his lowest point. But it doesn't change the goal, right? In this case, it just puts the goal on hold for a little while until the hero jumps back into the case - is this still considered the midpoint?

    Question 2 - the midpoint is supposed to wake the audience up. In this case, I don't think so. To me, this is just a continuation of trying to find the thieves, there's no abrupt "detour" as some would suggest the midpoint to be. Do you agree?

    Any ideas on how to make this more interesting? This is part of an actual script that I'm reading that I'm supposed to give notes on (we swap scripts within our group for feedback). Thanks.
    The midpoint doesn't have to be a low point. It could be a high point, or even a point when the protagonists think all is well while the rest of the second act is everything going down hill.
    what the head makes cloudy the heart makes very clear

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

      Originally posted by socalwriter1 View Post
      the stuff that I've read all these years is that the midpoint changes the story dramatically and where the hero is at his lowest point. But it doesn't change the goal, right?
      The primary goal does not change until it is completed. When that happens, your story ends. So, no, the midpoint does not change the goal.

      It can, however, create a mini-goal that must be overcome before the hero(es) can proceed on with the primary goal.

      Star Wars is a fantastic example of this - Luke and company getting sucked into the Death Star. Clearly, the lowest point for the hero thus far. It also introduces the mini-goals of finding Leia and escaping.

      The midpoint is also typically the point where the hero is unable to turn back, and must push forward. Luke could have stood up and said "f_ck this" at any point before then and headed home. Once he's trapped on the Death Star, he must push forward.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

        my favorite midpoint example continues to be "Risky Business" Dad's Porsche goes into Lake Michigan. There is nothing Joel can do now to undo that. He must deal with that situation somehow. He is locked in, across the point of no return.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

          What's that phrase I see a lot around here?

          "Calculate less".


          Just tell your story, man. Write the crap out of it. Don't write to formula - just make it snappy, full of twists, great action, killer dialogue and arcs. Make it hotter than the sun (and that thing is hot!).
          M.A.G.A.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

            My study of midpoints supports what I learned when I first started writing scripts (back in the dark ages) - the mid-point is a revelation, meaning the hero discovers some piece of information that makes them realize they're on the right track/enables them to pursue their goal, and spurs them on toward that goal or....

            .... (what I prefer) is that what is revealed makes them realize they've been on the wrong tract, and now that something has been revealed at the mid point, they can get on the right track toward their goal.
            "Do just once what others say you can't do, and you will never pay attention to their limitations again." -[/SIZE] James R. Cook

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

              Midpoint of Titanic is the iceberg hitting. Not quite a revelation the protags are on the right track.

              I agree with what was said before - a midpoint can be any type of plot point though in my experience it's usually a point of no return. Like Titanic.

              In my latest script it was a major twist that spun everything 180.
              M.A.G.A.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

                You are thinking of an artificial structure instead of focusing on your story.

                The whole idea behind the notion of the midpoint is to make sense -structurally- of the second act. It shouldn't be that difficult.

                The reason why the second act is so difficult to understand structurally is... because it isn't an act. Beginning, Middle and End doesn't mean Act 1, Act 2 and Act 3, no matter what some screenwriting scholars have made us believe.

                If it helps you, structurally, to think in acts, you need to define your acts differently.

                Scenes. Scenes are about something.

                Sequences. Sequences are about something of bigger significance, and are built of a series of scenes.

                Acts. Acts are about something of even bigger significance, and are built of a series of sequences.

                It's just a hyerarchical structure, there's no magic to it and it certainly doesn't answer the important questions you face when writing.

                When you tell a story, you organize it around a number of major events: revelations, twists, cliffhangers... That's where your structure comes from, not some template by some guy.

                Depending on the number of major events you choose to tell your story, and how they're organized hyerarchically, you'll have a story in 3 acts, in 4 acts, in 5 acts...

                Think less. That's the natural way to tell a story, that's how you tell stories to your buddies: you don't think of acts and you certainly don't think of "midpoints"; you just know what the key points of the story are and tell your story around them, instinctively. Writing movies shouldn't be too different from that.

                If you follow the template with a "second act" midpoint (Field's updated paradigm), you're just giving away control on your story, letting someone else dictate what some of your key points are supposed to be. And even if you are happy giving up control, the paradigm doesn't give you any answers, doesn't help you write the story: it's just an artificial constraint.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

                  Originally posted by Dr. Vergerus View Post
                  You are thinking of an artificial structure instead of focusing on your story.

                  The reason why the second act is so difficult to understand structurally is... because it isn't an act. Beginning, Middle and End doesn't mean Act 1, Act 2 and Act 3, no matter what some screenwriting scholars have made us believe.
                  I disagree -- most people do think in term of acts. Listen to the latest podcast by Mazin and August -- they explain that they never talk to execs in gobbly-gook terms but August says he does say, "In Act one... and then, in Act two..."

                  Writing in three acts isn't artificial struture. It's expected structure.

                  And sure, Sundown, there is "calculate less," but that doesn't mean don't calculate at all. Usually films do have something happening somewhere in the middle that jolts the rest of the piece. There is a revelation or a discovery -- hey I've been on the wrong track this whole time! Or, hey, I'm in a rom-com, I should probably sleep with the object of my desire at some point, otherwise where's the rom... so hey, smack dab in the middle of the script may be a good place.

                  Writing in three acts or with a midpoint doesn't mean you are writing a formulaic script. Writing a crappy, cliche, been-there-done-that script means you're writing a formulaic script.

                  Does that mean you should cram stuff in where it doesn't belong? No. But surely, as you are forming the beats of your script, it's nice to have the knowledge, that hey, something should probably happen around the middle, to propell the script forward in some meaningful way. Otherwise you are meandering all through the second act.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

                    Originally posted by figment View Post
                    I disagree -- most people do think in term of acts. Listen to the latest podcast by Mazin and August -- they explain that they never talk to execs in gobbly-gook terms but August says he does say, "In Act one... and then, in Act two..."

                    Writing in three acts isn't artificial struture. It's expected structure.
                    I agree. The other way would screw me up. Horses for courses, I guess.



                    And sure, Sundown, there is "calculate less," but that doesn't mean don't calculate at all. Usually films do have something happening somewhere in the middle that jolts the rest of the piece. There is a revelation or a discovery -- hey I've been on the wrong track this whole time! Or, hey, I'm in a rom-com, I should probably sleep with the object of my desire at some point, otherwise where's the rom... so hey, smack dab in the middle of the script may be a good place.

                    Writing in three acts or with a midpoint doesn't mean you are writing a formulaic script. Writing a crappy, cliche, been-there-done-that script means you're writing a formulaic script.

                    Does that mean you should cram stuff in where it doesn't belong? No. But surely, as you are forming the beats of your script, it's nice to have the knowledge, that hey, something should probably happen around the middle, to propell the script forward in some meaningful way. Otherwise you are meandering all through the second act.
                    I agree 100%. I tend to start mine with an outline of the act breaks and the midpoint. But at the same time they come organically, out of the story. And pacing/beats is a given. OP soudned like he was painting by numbers, working to a strategem and making the script to fit rather than spawn from a tiny seed into an unstoppable behemoth that is the Killer Script.
                    M.A.G.A.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

                      Anyone who downplays the importance of the midpoint is doing a diservice to their writing and spec. It is the point of no return. When the character can say NO and the story ends, but they say YES and cross a magical line where they basically commit to their plan of action.

                      The midpoint is just as critical getting right as the act one end turn and end of two turn.

                      EJ

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

                        Screenplays are storytelling, and storytelling has long been an integral part of the human condition. As was mentioned, writing in three acts is not by default formulaic. It is how we process information, so it is the most successful and engaging way to tell a story. In the middle, things can begin to drag a little - or even a lot - so it is by logic the place you want something important to happen, and keep the audience from wanting to be somewhere else. Whether that event is good or bad isn't the issue, but most certainly the antagonist needs to be involved and driving the conflict, even if that antagonist is alcohol.

                        And it does not have to be a singular event. In 'Sleeping with the Enemy', the husband, Martin, discovers the ring in the toilet, which then leads him to discover his wife had taken swimming lessons. This mid-point was certainly driven by the antagonist to really up the ante on the protag, Laura, and what made this so successful was that Laura had no idea this was happpening, but we the audience did. And we could feel it. We were fully engaged in the story's mid-point.

                        aw

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

                          I'm in for two cents.

                          For al the talk of structure and differing means of diagramming a script, there seem to be two camps on DD.

                          1. There are structuralists - it has to have an inciting incident, midpoint, delineated plot liness and subplots and adhere to some form of skeletal parameters. At a minimum three acts.

                          2. There are the "Just write the story, dammit!" guys.

                          If you are trying to get to a structure with someone else's work, I'd confirm what they are trying to do - is their goal to write to that structure? Or tell a good story?

                          Typically, a good story has a low point or a twist somewhere in Act Two but it does't necessarily have to be a twist - just something to reinforce the protag's main motivation. A twist is nice because it adds interest, but if your writer has killed off the protag's partner, that would add to the motivation.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

                            Originally posted by figment View Post
                            I disagree -- most people do think in term of acts. Listen to the latest podcast by Mazin and August -- they explain that they never talk to execs in gobbly-gook terms but August says he does say, "In Act one... and then, in Act two..."

                            Writing in three acts isn't artificial struture. It's expected structure.
                            There's a previous episode -the one that deals with screenwriting books, I think- in which they explained that it is the vocabulary you're expected to use, but it doesn't mean it's the way you're supposed to approach writing.

                            I'm not saying a story shouldn't have a beginning, a middle and an end; what I'm saying is that calling those three things "acts" isn't helpful, especially with regards to the middle of the story. Using the word "act" to name not only something that isn't necessarily an act, but also to name portions of a film that are very different in nature, doesn't help anyone.

                            Personally, I think that transitions between scenes and the series of set ups and pay offs are more important structurally to a film than the "grand structure" of acts-sequences-scenes. You never get to take in the whole at a glance, like you do with a photograph or a painting; you "read" movies sequentially, in a fixed order and bit by bit.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Midpoint. Valid? Interesting?

                              Originally posted by Colin Holmes View Post

                              1. There are structuralists - it has to have an inciting incident, midpoint, delineated plot liness and subplots and adhere to some form of skeletal parameters. At a minimum three acts.

                              2. There are the "Just write the story, dammit!" guys.

                              Who do you suppose came first?

                              The one who said, "Let me tell you a story" or the one who said "Here's how s/he told the story"?

                              I guess I phrased that as a loaded question. Edited to change that should read...

                              The one who said, "Let me tell you a story" or the one who said "Here's how to tell a story"?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X