I'm tired, depressed, and about to lose hope.

[firefox]

Short Film (Why is my story weak? )

IMPORTANT UPDATE:
The story has been modified and you can find it on page 3 or by clicking this link
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?p=160107


I don't know why every time I come up with an idea, it sounds boring to whoever I send it. I don't know why I can't seem to write the story clearly on papers as it is clear on my mind. I never took a screenwriting class, nor am I doing this for a living. This is a hobby (Making short films), but I love it so much.

Let me tell you guys what I have in mind, hopefully someone here will help me succeed. This is for a short film 3 minutes long.

This is my theme: I'm trying to show how some people waste their time playing video games by going over the limit. The issue here is addiction and poor time management.

- Who is the main character ?
Safaa - Male

- What is this story about ?
This story is about an addictive guy who loves playing video games 24 hours a day. He becomes connected to his favorite game 'Fight Night Round 3' that one day sees himself fighting with his best friend on a boxing ring 'Dreaming' . When he wakes up, he sees blood on his face realizing everything that happened was a dream and that the blood was a result of him punching himself unconsciously.


I added twists to the story 'A dream inside a dream', but I didn't write everything here. This is more like the summary of ACT 1 and 3. I didn't mention anything about ACT 2. I want to make sure the story/idea is good first.

What can I do to make the ending better or the story as a whole?

Thanks!

 

[Cracker Funk]

I disagree entirely. If you take the definition of act to be any event comprising the division of the structure of a story then yes, but I don't. As I see it that's what the word event or "part" is for. A joke often has 3 parts (not always), but I don't see the second act of Hamlet as being equivalent to "who's there?" in a knock-knock joke. An act as it is used in literature and storytelling, which is different from an act in reference to an action, is not simply the labeling of a beginning, middle, and end. This would preclude the existence of more or less than 3-act structure. A one act play still has a beginning, middle, and end as does a five act. We do not refer to the beginning, middle, and end of those works as acts. We reference a structure of setup and resolution that makes up the literary act. By this definition a short film does not have 3 acts. It likely does not have more than one literary scene (a single setup and payoff) if it is well written. Pixar's short films are an excellent example of this (see For the Birds and Lifted for examples). An act is a much larger resolution built up with smaller related resolutions.

Meh, semantics.

I see what you're saying, but really we're just talking semantics. For what it's worth, I agree with directorik's definition of an act, and I think everyone I've discussed screenwriting with would use the word "act" the same way directorik does. To me, an act is more of a function. For example, the first act must set up the conflict.

I've only read one instructional book on screenwriting ("Save the Cat"), but in it, the author suggests that the three-act arc should not just be used for the entire movie, but each individual scene should have it's own little mini-three-act arc. Personally, I agree with this. Like I said, I haven't read much else about screenwriting, but many people have told me that the structure laid out in "Save the Cat" is very similar to what many other instructional writers have laid out, as well.

My first short was a minute long, and in my opinion, it has three acts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAXSYUiezEU

Act 1: Two hungry guys, only one slice of pizza
Act 2: Rock, paper, scissors
Act 3: haw-haw!

 

[directorik]

Act one: “I come into this bar every night”
Act two: “I see that same guy sitting there”
Act three: “Man, he must be an alcoholic.”

Three acts. A set up, a confrontation and a resolution.

Not as elaborate as Hamlet, but three acts. And this simple
structure does not preclude a more elaborate structure. They are
both the same.

However, if the word “acts” makes you uncomfortable than you can
call each part of a joke or a short film whatever works for you.
But the parts can be called acts. I think “Birds” and “Lifted”
show that a good short film can have three acts. Both of those do.

 

[apophispro]

I'm enjoying this discussion as it's forcing me to figure out what the definition of an act actually is.

First, we can easily dismiss the assertion that acts are the beginning, middle, and end because this precludes any structure that uses more or less acts than three. We do not say that a one act story has only a beginning much less that a five act story has three middles.

However beyond this it is admittedly more difficult to assert precisely what an act is, but lets make some commonly agreed upon literary assertions. There is such a thing as a beat. There is such a thing as a scene. If we can agree upon the existence of those two then we must also agree that the act must be in some way differentiated from the beat and the scene.

If we are to analyze the structure of plays we see that they are split by labels such as Act 1 Scene 4 or Act 5 Scene 1. To say that an act is any expression of conflict and resolution would mean that these labels are interchangeable with labels such as Act 1 Act 4 or Act 5 Act 1, however this doesn't make much sense. If those labels were genuinely interchangeable then what is to distinguish between the larger act that makes up the smaller acts? Thus we refer to the smaller unit as the scene and the larger unit as an act, and we assert that there must, in fact, be a difference between them.

For continuing analysis I'll quote from Robert Mckee:

Beats, changing patterns of human behavior, build scenes. Ideally, every scene becomes a Turning Point in which the values at stake swing from the positive to the negative or the negative to the positive, creating significant but minor change in their lives. A series of scenes build a sequence that culminates in a scene that has a moderate impact on the characters, turning or changing values for better or worse to a greater degree than any scene. A series of sequences builds an act that climaxes in a scene that creates a major reversal in the characters' lives, greater than any sequence accomplished.

So whether or not we agree on the existence of the "sequence," we can define the other terms as follows:

BEAT: A single change in behavior.
SCENE: A minor reversal of a single value in the life of the character.
ACT: A major reversal in the life of the character as determined by the scenes it is comprised of.

What we see here is that on a logical level we need an act to be determined by the existence of multiple scenes comprising it. This is ascertained by the structure of different amounts of acts (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc) used in varieties of stories all of which must be comprised of scenes. We see plenty of stories made up of 5 or 7 acts as well as varieties of stories that are only 1 act. All of these acts are made up of scenes.

Now looking at the Pixar short films we see in Lifted that the student ultimately fails the "abduction test." This is a minor reversal of a single value in the life of the character thereby comprising a scene. Despite the fact that we could allow the definition of act to become dynamic and use it in this instance to break up Lifted into multiple acts of established conflict, rising action, and resolution, this would undermine our use of the larger act above. By instead referring to Lifted as a short film comprised of a single scene, we retain the validity of the larger act being a major reversal comprised of scenes and thereby retain the integrity of plays using a format title such as Act 1 Scene 5.

 

[polfilmblog]

"People who play video games score considerably higher on IQ tests, on average, than those who don't. Do you watch TV? I'd argue that playing a video game is a much more healthy pass-time."

Sorry, grasshopper. Your fortune cookie wisdom has been laughed off. And, no, I don't waste time with TV. Try again.

To reiterate my original impression of this project: make the protagonist the girlfriend with sledgehammer. I may even watch.

 

[Cracker Funk]

"People who play video games score considerably higher on IQ tests, on average, than those who don't. Do you watch TV? I'd argue that playing a video game is a much more healthy pass-time."

Sorry, grasshopper. Your fortune cookie wisdom has been laughed off. And, no, I don't waste time with TV. Try again.

To reiterate my original impression of this project: make the protagonist the girlfriend with sledgehammer. I may even watch.

I'm not sure what's so fortune-cookie about it. It is verifiably true that gamers score higher on IQ tests. Plus, you're confusing your euphemisms -- "grasshopper" doesn't really apply here. I'm not going to try again, because you haven't really said anything, other than to make vague insults.

That's good that you don't watch TV, I guess, but I don't fault people who do. It's just entertainment; no harm in that (so long as it's not excessive).

 

[NickClapper]

Weighing in on the directorik/apophispro debate:

Coming from a theatrical background (as all films in fact do) I would say that I agree with apophispro. Cracker might dismiss it as semantics, but these are technical definitions that people do tend to get wrong.

On the whole modern plays/films tend to be in three acts, as has been previously stated. I would add that Hamlet, like all of Shakespeare's plays, is actually five acts, even though it was written without the acts in mind. Obviously act length will fluctuate depending on the length of the piece of work (for a feature film or a play you're unlikeley to ever get an act under 10 minutes) but there has to be an element of progression within an act. One simple realisation doesn't consitute an entire act.

For this reason a lot of modern playwrights don't bother with acts at all. The use of acts was originally for structural purposes (Exposition, mounting tension, CLIMAX, reduction in tension, resolution) but because it became synonymous with changes in location and/or time people, the meaning and importance has been lost a bit.

Essentially what I am trying to say is that in a traditional sense a one minute film can't have three acts, but really (and I know I'm contradicting myself a little here ) that is semantics, and purely based on definitions. You can still have the exposition, conflict and resolution, but I wouldn't think about it in terms of having a three act story arc.

To quickly address the belligerent ( ) Mr.Polfilmblog: I play video games a little bit, but I don't have the patience for them really (nor the requisite talent). I have the same problem with tennis, in that I feel I could do a lot better. But, at the end of the day, I don't feel that it's necessary to share my interests with the characters on screen. I enjoyed Seven, The Silence of the Lambs and Schindler's List despite the fact I have no interest in Serial killing, Cannibalism or Genocide. Dismissing the entire idea for a film just because you don't enjoy video games is a little ridiculous. It may not appeal to you as a premise, but you've got to be able to look beyond what appeals to you. I think Warhammer (little model things, I don't know if you have them in the US) is a strange pastime, but I would never say 'Change your film!' just because it's about someone who's obcessed with Warhammer. That's not the point of the film...

...which leads back into the three act debate, because essentially the important point which firefox needs to get across is what is wrong with his character, how that deficiency affects him and how he either overcomes or succumbs to it. The video game is a MacGuffin, simply there to spur on the plot much as he could've done with a drug addiction or a terminal disease.

Sorry for the long post/high horse

 

[Cracker Funk]

Coming from a theatrical background (as all films in fact do) I would say that I agree with apophispro. Cracker might dismiss it as semantics, but these are technical definitions that people do tend to get wrong.

Well, later in your post, you admit that perhaps this debate is just semantics, and you kind of allude that that with this line, as well.

The thing is, this isn't a theater forum. directorik is a professional filmmaker. I'm not professional, but I've been doing this indie thing for a while, and everyone I've ever discussed screenwriting with, to any extensive length, has used the same definition that directorik is asserting. If we're talking about getting technical definitions correct, in this case, I'd err on the side of ignoring your theater background, and listening to those who are a tad more experienced in this field.

Cheers!

 

[NickClapper]

Without wanting to make it sound like I think that this is a fruitful debate that is going anywhere, I still disagree with what you're saying.

All screenwriting comes from the stage. The three act structure that people apply to films is a technique developed for stage in the 18th Century and later applied to moving pictures when the technology became available. Whether it's semantics or not is a different argument. I think that understanding technical definitions (and they're the same for both film and theatre) is important, but I don't think it's something that the OP needs to worry about. I do at the end of that post acknowledge that I'm contradicting myself in saying that all that the argument comes down to is a word, but I do think it's important to apply the correct words.

I have nothing but respect for both directorik and your experience as filmmakers (I don't know anything about apophispro but he seems a sensible chap) but on this occasion I think it's just a case of muddled terminology. If you can find me one example of a professional definition of an 'Act' as being as little as one thought, sentence, action...etc, then I'll be willing to eat at least a little bit of my hat

 

[barnaclelapse]

You kids and your big pants, your video games, your "Internet pornography".

I'm afraid I can't offer much beyond backing up what others have said. You've got a nice basic idea to work with. You just need to fill it with a little more substance. If anything you might even have a story from this thread in of itself. The little argument that's sprung up here about video games and IQ tests could be worked into a short film subject and then given a humorous ending of some kind. I have a feeling you can figure those out yourself. Already you've shown me that you're definitely passionate and dedicated about taking an idea and developing it as far as you can go. You're serious about trying to do something here, and that will help you in the long run.

Sorry I can't be of more help than that.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Rule 1 of screenwriting (OK, maybe 1A, or 1B, or even 1C). It's not about what happens. It's about who it happens to. The turnarounds, and climaxes, and plot points, etc... are just devices to allow the character to express who they are by reacting to them.

 

[directorik]

I, too, come from a theater background. I currently make a nice
portion of my living writing and sometimes directing theater
productions for Walt Disney Imagineering. Typically a musical (and
many plays) have two acts - act two coming after the intermission.
But they are still written with three acts. Even the five and
seven act structure is still (at its core) three acts.

But this is where you all lose me. I so hated academics that I
dropped out of high school. My learning came at the feet of
writers (Harlen Ellison, Lawrence Kasdan, Joe Landsdale, Tim
Powers) so I just can’t argue well on the academics points. What
most of you have studied in books and school I have never read.

First, we can easily dismiss the assertion that acts are the beginning, middle, and end because this precludes any structure that uses more or less acts than three. We do not say that a one act story has only a beginning much less that a five act story has three middles.

I don’t believe we can do that. A five act structure simply breaks
the first and second act in two parts. Act one is still one act
ending with the major “plot point” or reversal that finished the
set up. But many people break it at the “call”. Act two is still
one part, but broken up by major reversals in the confrontation.
That’s fine and to me it’s semantics. The seven act structure
(used in TV because of the commercial breaks) is broken into 2-3-2
but the three acts are still the set up, confrontation and
resolution.

So a short film can have three acts. A three line joke can have
three acts as I pointed out. However if you prefer to call these
acts “beats” or scenes I have no issue with it at all.
apophispro’s list of beats, scenes and acts is very good.

My only issue was with your statement, apophispro, that is no such
thing in a short film.

Excellent discussion and apologies to firefox for totally
derailing his thread. Glad to have you aboard, apophispro. One of
these days I gotta read McKee. My dad (a TV writer) gave me that
book years ago.

===================================================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress. -Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

 

[wheatgrinder]

totally ignoramus here.. but I just pretend "Act" is short for "Action!"

As in:
this action...
then that action...
then the other action...

why three actions? everything is better in threes.

graphic arts 101, when drawing groups of objects, like trees, groups of three look better....

when "ye throw the Holly Hand Grenade, ye shall count to three, not two, not four but..."
Nobody says "OK, on the count of 4 less go!.."

the rule of thirds in composition..

The holly trinity ...

Sneezes..

It seems that "three" is a deep shared consciousness thing, transcending all experience..

three is just plain cool, do everything in threes and you will have balance in your film.

(I just made that all up, hope you enjoyed it!)

 

[Cracker Funk]

wheat, you forgot about trilogies.

And menage a trois.

And when you eat a full meal at a restaurant, you typically have three courses.

Anyway, if we can't all agree on the definition of an "act", I'm pretty sure we can all agree that every movie, no matter how long, needs a beginning, a middle, and an end, no? That's really all that matters. Who cares what we call it?

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

Do yourself a favor and script your idea and make your short.

Growing up, I was in a VERY negative house. I was always told I can't do this and I can't do that. My own Mom told me when I grow up, I'll "never even have a pot to piss in." I wish my Mom's health was better to see I grew up to hold a job and pay my rent every month for my own studio apartment with a fully equiped bathroom.

One of my cousins reminded me she used to ask my folks don't they think I have any talent or skills to do anything? She asked me how did I overcome my parents negative environment. I developed deaf ears to critics and focussed on my positive accomplishments.

So, I say to you don't worry if your script is not good enough for anyone else but you. Follow your dream.

 

[polfilmblog]

RE: VIDEO GAMES

The arguments I've received are silly.

The boy's premise is that there's a character sitting around 24 hours a day wasting his life playing a video game. That's square one.

It has some relation to reality. Millions of people sit around playing video games nightly (I know several), and other massive time wasters instead of getting an education about the world and taking a stand out there in reality land.

I've seen responses such as video games are good for you, and will improve your IQ. Are you fucking kidding me?

No. Apparently they are not.

Ignorant, know nothing imbeciles with good hand-eye coordination are the ideal here I suppose.

I don't find that ideal. Sorry.

Cracker's dig that I only offer vague insults isn't factually true, and is easily disproved. I offered an alternative protagonist for the film in question, and a relationship to form its central core (the girlfriend). This would elevate it above the hundreds of similar boys on a couch playing a video game projects out there. I probably shouldn't have offered this possibility at all and merely kept it for my own use.

People see what they want to see, especially on message boards. That's why I take the message to extremes at times, so simply it will get through, being in such blunt aggressive verbiage.

Now, I've spent a few semesters at the local college where these allegedly high IQ, hand eye coordinated youth exhibit very little intelligence or knowledge. They love their video games, their little tappy devices, and other distractions. How society works and is controlled, and structured, politics, economics, etc., it's all alien to them. They couldn't tell you the last few year's modern history THAT THEY JUST LIVED THROUGH.

Distraction is not education. If one accepts there are some aspects of Democracy here then an informed and educated citizenry is the foundation, and a crucial component to prevent the total slide into despotism, fascism, and other malignant constructs.

A population obsessed with its distractions is headed into the dustbin of history. Video games, as a relevant piece of this puzzle, can't be dismissed as good for one's IQ and hand-eye coordination, in such a vapid ignorant manner. There are larger issues here.

 

[NickClapper]

RE: VIDEO GAMES

The arguments I've received are silly.

The boy's premise is that there's a character sitting around 24 hours a day wasting his life playing a video game. That's square one.

It has some relation to reality. Millions of people sit around playing video games nightly (I know several), and other massive time wasters instead of getting an education about the world and taking a stand out there in reality land.

I've seen responses such as video games are good for you, and will improve your IQ. Are you fucking kidding me?

No. Apparently they are not.

Ignorant, know nothing imbeciles with good hand-eye coordination are the ideal here I suppose.

I don't find that ideal. Sorry.

Cracker's dig that I only offer vague insults isn't factually true, and is easily disproved. I offered an alternative protagonist for the film in question, and a relationship to form its central core (the girlfriend). This would elevate it above the hundreds of similar boys on a couch playing a video game projects out there. I probably shouldn't have offered this possibility at all and merely kept it for my own use.

People see what they want to see, especially on message boards. That's why I take the message to extremes at times, so simply it will get through, being in such blunt aggressive verbiage.

Now, I've spent a few semesters at the local college where these allegedly high IQ, hand eye coordinated youth exhibit very little intelligence or knowledge. They love their video games, their little tappy devices, and other distractions. How society works and is controlled, and structured, politics, economics, etc., it's all alien to them. They couldn't tell you the last few year's modern history THAT THEY JUST LIVED THROUGH.

Distraction is not education. If one accepts there are some aspects of Democracy here then an informed and educated citizenry is the foundation, and a crucial component to prevent the total slide into despotism, fascism, and other malignant constructs.

A population obsessed with its distractions is headed into the dustbin of history. Video games, as a relevant piece of this puzzle, can't be dismissed as good for one's IQ and hand-eye coordination, in such a vapid ignorant manner. There are larger issues here.

Some parts of this I agree with (a lot of it I don't), for example I think, on the whole, video games probably don't help your IQ (certainly not as much as reading a book) or your hand eye coordination (certainly not as much as playing tennis)...

...but what I can't understand is why you are so averse to the idea of the film.

A Film about Video Games is not a Video Game.

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

I know an eye doctor who uses a video game type machine to test hand to eye coordination because video games can strengthen eye muscles and improve hand to eye coordination.



Two of the most popular sources of Hollywood movie material are video games and comic books. A generation ago, Martial Arts was the genre of choice.



Who knows what will be popular with the next generation? I persoonally know educators and electrical engineers who believe we will have computers and robots as smart as humans by the year 2020. More on that discussion is called Technical Singularity. Dr. Kaku of City College of New York believes Moore's Law will max out before today's computer technology can achieve that and Quantum Computers will carry the torch to reach Technical Singularity. Back in the 1980s, OMNI Magazine interview scientists from MIT, CalTech, and Prinston about AI. Back then, the scientists talked about changing the designs of silicon chips from microscopic transistors to etch carbon based human brain cells as silicon based machines that reseblem human brain cells that can carry out the same function as human brain cells. That was said to be the big breakthrough of the future.



But, for now, video games is the big cash cow. Movie makers, game manufacturers, and recreation centers such as video arcades, bowling allies, bars, and clubs will follow the money.

This is art and every artist has a right to tell the story in their hearts.

 

[firefox]

Thank you guys for all the wonderful replies , when I'm done with the film I will post it here. I'm still working on the script, but I feel like I have a Writer's Block. Should I just relax and come back to this some other time, or force myself write anyway ? ​

 

[Cracker Funk]

RE: VIDEO GAMES

The arguments I've received are silly.

The boy's premise is that there's a character sitting around 24 hours a day wasting his life playing a video game. That's square one.

It has some relation to reality. Millions of people sit around playing video games nightly (I know several), and other massive time wasters instead of getting an education about the world and taking a stand out there in reality land.

I've seen responses such as video games are good for you, and will improve your IQ. Are you fucking kidding me?

No. Apparently they are not.

Ignorant, know nothing imbeciles with good hand-eye coordination are the ideal here I suppose.

I don't find that ideal. Sorry.

Cracker's dig that I only offer vague insults isn't factually true, and is easily disproved. I offered an alternative protagonist for the film in question, and a relationship to form its central core (the girlfriend). This would elevate it above the hundreds of similar boys on a couch playing a video game projects out there. I probably shouldn't have offered this possibility at all and merely kept it for my own use.

People see what they want to see, especially on message boards. That's why I take the message to extremes at times, so simply it will get through, being in such blunt aggressive verbiage.

Now, I've spent a few semesters at the local college where these allegedly high IQ, hand eye coordinated youth exhibit very little intelligence or knowledge. They love their video games, their little tappy devices, and other distractions. How society works and is controlled, and structured, politics, economics, etc., it's all alien to them. They couldn't tell you the last few year's modern history THAT THEY JUST LIVED THROUGH.

Distraction is not education. If one accepts there are some aspects of Democracy here then an informed and educated citizenry is the foundation, and a crucial component to prevent the total slide into despotism, fascism, and other malignant constructs.

A population obsessed with its distractions is headed into the dustbin of history. Video games, as a relevant piece of this puzzle, can't be dismissed as good for one's IQ and hand-eye coordination, in such a vapid ignorant manner. There are larger issues here.

Well, at least you're passionate in your hatred of video games, I'll give you that.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/20/132077565/video-games-boost-brain-power-multitasking-skills&sc=nl&cc=es-20101226

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990921,00.html

Maybe next time, instead of calling me "grasshopper", while telling me that you're laughing off my "fortune-cookie wisdom", you might try listening to my ideas. That's how mature and educated adults communicate with each other.

Anything, in excess, is bad. I know people who eat obsessively. Their live's are ruined for it. According to your logic, food is bad for you. You should stop eating food. It is ruining our once-great society.

And that's what the OP's story should be about -- excess. That's the protagonist's dilemma.












In about twenty years, you'll finally understand the addage, "the more you learn, the less you know". It seems like right now, you just know everything.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Maybe next time, instead of calling me "grasshopper", while telling me that you're laughing off my "fortune-cookie wisdom", you might try listening to my ideas. That's how mature and educated adults communicate with each other.

Oh it is not.

And I agree with the excess opinion completely. I know a good deal of people who are intelligent, informed and strive as best they can to create a better world for themselves, others and even future generations. These kind of people have a lot of different ways of blowing off steam when they relax for a couple of hours. One of them is to play video games. It doesn't magically make them ignorant or contributors to some sort of wretched decline.

The only issue is I've taken so far in this thread is with the idea of generalizing. That's a dangerous, somewhat ignorant road to go down.