• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Hulk say 3 Act Structure Dumb

Sort by date Sort by votes
Honestly, I despise the "3-act" paradigm, both as a writer and a viewer.

But, I gotta tell you, as my manager constantly pummels into my head: That's What They Want (actually, it's what They think They want -- for the most part They don't know shit from shinola, but They know what's worked in the past). :D

When you reach the A-list, you can do as you please. In the meantime, hedging your bets is usually a good idea.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
2001 Productions said:
When you reach the A-list, you can do as you please. In the meantime, hedging your bets is usually a good idea.
Click to expand...
+10


Hedge your bet. Aim for center mass.
center+mass+.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's a long article, and the ADD kicked in, but just looking at the charts he's posted, 3 act structure looks easier. 5 acts sounds exhausting and almost academic. I'm tired.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's all rather inane since they all still follow the UCLA Analytical model. Whether you consider the traditional 3 Act model, his proposed 5 act model or Hauge's 6 act model, it's just a tool for organizing thoughts. I'd been more impressed if he'd talked about non-linear screenwriting which truly does bypass the act structure as normally perceived. But any linear story can be arbitrarily cut into pieces.

Below is a quick synoposis of the systems:
Code: 
  Act Structure
   [U][B]3  5  6[/B][/U] 
   1  1  1    INTRO + STATE OF PRE-EXISTING CONFLICT 
   1  2  2    PUT AT ODDS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONFLICT 
   2  3  3    TURNING POINT 
   2  4  4    SPIRAL/ESCALATION OF CONFLICT
   3  5  5    CLIMAX
   3  5  6    CONCLUSION/RESOLUTION
The top is the number of acts. The numbers in the columns are the assigned "act numbers". Carve it up how you will, the movie is still the movie. Some would count "act transitions" as separate acts. I've read about 9 and 11 act structures with over 20 "key" points. Let's be real.

From my perspective, the value of the "act structure" is for teaching and learning. Once it becomes second nature, it becomes possible to create variations. But as a tool, you can use it to create new orderings.

4 SPIRAL/ESCALATION OF CONFLICT
3 TURNING POINT
1 INTRO + PRE-EXISTING CONFLICT
2 PUT AT ODDS
5 CLIMAX
6 CONCLUSION

This 're-ordering' provides for a novel approach. Others are possible. Leaping into the hottest point, then reflecting back, then zipping forward to the conclusion. For a movie to have any merit, there must be character change and conflict(s) to be resolved. How, when and where is up to the writer. To make blanket statements that X must happen by page Y or before Z can happen is ludicrous. Equally silly, IMO, is to say there are N acts. If it helps the writer organize their thoughts for writing, fine. But it is just a tool. Honestly, I don't plan my transition from "Act 1" to "Act 2". It just happens as a consequence of the dynamics of the actors and events.

But as with any art, you need to master the basics ("rules") before you can break them. And as was pointed out, you break the rules only when you've shown you've mastered the medium (A-list). Just like the "180 degree Rule" or "Rule of Thirds", these are aesthetic guidelines. The "Act Structures" help guide aesthetic story development. Not all stories fit this structure, and not all stories are adaptable to the screen.

I had a writer friend who raled against the 3 Act structure, but I swear nearly every script he wrote followed the same 3 Act structure. He denied it because "he didn't write it that way intentionally". And I agree. It's not about how you write, it's just a natural form that good stories often take, whatever way you choose to parcel it up.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There are as many different story structures as there are kinds of birds in the sky and fish in the ocean.
The author is being obtuse to pander to his audience.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FantasySciFi said:
It's all rather inane since they all still follow the UCLA Analytical model. Whether you consider the traditional 3 Act model, his proposed 5 act model or Hauge's 6 act model, it's just a tool for organizing thoughts. I'd been more impressed if he'd talked about non-linear screenwriting which truly does bypass the act structure as normally perceived. But any linear story can be arbitrarily cut into pieces.
Click to expand...

Excellent! I learned something today. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FantasySciFi said:
It's all rather inane since they all still follow the UCLA Analytical model. Whether you consider the traditional 3 Act model, his proposed 5 act model or Hauge's 6 act model, it's just a tool for organizing thoughts. I'd been more impressed if he'd talked about non-linear screenwriting which truly does bypass the act structure as normally perceived. But any linear story can be arbitrarily cut into pieces.

Below is a quick synoposis of the systems:
Code: 
  Act Structure
   [U][B]3  5  6[/B][/U] 
   1  1  1    INTRO + STATE OF PRE-EXISTING CONFLICT 
   1  2  2    PUT AT ODDS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONFLICT 
   2  3  3    TURNING POINT 
   2  4  4    SPIRAL/ESCALATION OF CONFLICT
   3  5  5    CLIMAX
   3  5  6    CONCLUSION/RESOLUTION
The top is the number of acts. The numbers in the columns are the assigned "act numbers". Carve it up how you will, the movie is still the movie. Some would count "act transitions" as separate acts. I've read about 9 and 11 act structures with over 20 "key" points. Let's be real.

From my perspective, the value of the "act structure" is for teaching and learning. Once it becomes second nature, it becomes possible to create variations. But as a tool, you can use it to create new orderings.

4 SPIRAL/ESCALATION OF CONFLICT
3 TURNING POINT
1 INTRO + PRE-EXISTING CONFLICT
2 PUT AT ODDS
5 CLIMAX
6 CONCLUSION

This 're-ordering' provides for a novel approach. Others are possible. Leaping into the hottest point, then reflecting back, then zipping forward to the conclusion. For a movie to have any merit, there must be character change and conflict(s) to be resolved. How, when and where is up to the writer. To make blanket statements that X must happen by page Y or before Z can happen is ludicrous. Equally silly, IMO, is to say there are N acts. If it helps the writer organize their thoughts for writing, fine. But it is just a tool. Honestly, I don't plan my transition from "Act 1" to "Act 2". It just happens as a consequence of the dynamics of the actors and events.

But as with any art, you need to master the basics ("rules") before you can break them. And as was pointed out, you break the rules only when you've shown you've mastered the medium (A-list). Just like the "180 degree Rule" or "Rule of Thirds", these are aesthetic guidelines. The "Act Structures" help guide aesthetic story development. Not all stories fit this structure, and not all stories are adaptable to the screen.

I had a writer friend who raled against the 3 Act structure, but I swear nearly every script he wrote followed the same 3 Act structure. He denied it because "he didn't write it that way intentionally". And I agree. It's not about how you write, it's just a natural form that good stories often take, whatever way you choose to parcel it up.
Click to expand...

This. I agree with all of this.

I've so far only perused the article posted, but I do see some interesting points, enough that I plan to read it when I'm less busy. However, I think the entire argument is kinda silly, because at the end of the day we're kind of just talking semantics. I almost feel like this is a debate over how you define an "act".

I'm a fan of the three act structure, but I think that's sort of a generic word, and like the author points out, it doesn't mean much. Within those three acts, there's a much more intricate structure, and I'm sure there are a million ways to break it down into meaningful, digestible elements.

Although I talk about three acts, I really only do so because that's the wording that is best recognized to convey the arc that almost all movies take. In my head, though, I actually kind of view it as four acts (with the traditional 2nd act being broken in two). If somebody else wants to think of it as five acts, or nine, fine. I'll bet in the end we travel a very similar type of path.

AND NO, JOSEPH NOT TYPE ARTICLE. JOSEPH SMASH!!! :lol:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Below is a quick synoposis of the systems:
Code: 
  Act Structure
   [U][B]3  5  6[/B][/U] 
   1  1  1    INTRO + STATE OF PRE-EXISTING CONFLICT 
   1  2  2    PUT AT ODDS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONFLICT 
   2  3  3    TURNING POINT 
   2  4  4    SPIRAL/ESCALATION OF CONFLICT
   3  5  5    CLIMAX
   3  5  6    CONCLUSION/RESOLUTION


Personally I think that there has to be turning points throughout to be real good. I don't see who decided that the turning point has to be in the middle only. Don't go by the three act structure. Just shove as much plot as you can into your script. As much as possible. You can even have two climaxes if you want and still make it fit maybe.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rayw said:
There are as many different story structures as there are kinds of birds in the sky and fish in the ocean.
The author is being obtuse to pander to his audience.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's being obtuse so much as making a valid point. If someone is a professional writer, or even just an experienced writer, they're already going to have a good foundation of writing skills and won't be going to go to the Hulk for tips. However, someone that is just starting out may find the points being made in the article helpful.

I personally agree that the 5-Act structure lends itself to better writing than 3-Act, in as much as it allows for a better organization of thoughts during the initial writing process.

In fact, whenever I start writing something new the first thing I write down is Act 1, Act 2, etc... Then I can structure my story around those anchors. Only after I've got the plot basically worked out will I stray from the format and better flesh out the characters.

I'm sure there are people out there that can just write a story in free form and have it turn out great, but some of us use structures to help map things out...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
at the end of the day we're kind of just talking semantics. I almost feel like this is a debate over how you define an "act".
Click to expand...
Exactly right. Having not read through the entire article (tbh, the 'hulkspeak' started doing my head in pretty quickly) it seems to be less of a 'the three act structure doesn't exist' rant, and more of a 'i think that the three act structure should be defined in more acts than just three, but i'll say that the three act structure doesn't exist to be controversial'.

FantasySciFi said:
Act Structure
3 5 6
1 1 1 INTRO + STATE OF PRE-EXISTING CONFLICT
1 2 2 PUT AT ODDS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONFLICT
2 3 3 TURNING POINT
2 4 4 SPIRAL/ESCALATION OF CONFLICT
3 5 5 CLIMAX
3 5 6 CONCLUSION/RESOLUTION
Click to expand...

This is exactly right. You could define these points with as many 'acts' as you like, but the essential story basis is the same. The only majorly different way of structuring a story is the Hero's Journey structure, but again there are many examples of movies that can be seen as either a Hero's Journey or a Three-act.
No matter how you put it though, you can always come back to three acts as a simplified version. There are somewhat variants on the three acts (ie number of turning points, what the turning points do to the story etc.) but three-act structure is just the simplified version really.

I had three-act structure taught to me with the inclusion of an inciting incident, mid point and climax which essentially turns it into a six-act structure, but I just find it easier to associate as a three-act structure in which the first act contains your setup of what is normality, and then the 'inciting incident'. the second act turning point signals the start of the second act and throws the story off in a different direction - often metaphorically posed as a question. The mid point is a change in time or location, then there's a later second act 'point of no return'. The third act turning point acts as the answer to the second act turning point, then you have your climax contained in your third act and your 'new normality'.

You can find as many films that fit this structure as you can find films that don't, and there are films that fit this broader structure, even though they may have smaller turning points etc inside the broader three acts. I suppose it really comes down to how do you personally prefer to write.

I'm personally intrigued to writing a story based on the Campbell's Hero's Journey structure... I'm not sure if it would make a story somewhat more Hollywood cliched.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top