Screenwriting Advice

[Jijenji]

Hi everyone, forgive me first for acknowledging that I don't have any achievements that would deem any advice I could give noteworthy; however, I would like to offer this one axiom:

Don't come up with a movie idea and write the plot first, followed by filling in your characters second. Start the process with your characters, and then take them on a journey that ends with your finished story.

Seems simple enough, right? You'd be surprised. Let me explain...Let's say that Star Wars was never written, but that YOU just came up with the idea for it. How would you go about writing this script? You know you want to do the sci-fi genre, so visions of space battles and aliens are already dancing in your head. But would you start out by writing an outline of a hero that gets incited into his space journey, whizzes through space battling the forces of evil with the help of a few friends, and finally overcomes the villain at the end...and THEN go in and fill in the character's details to fit your script? Or would you start off with a mythical hero boy, abandoned by his tragically villainous father. The boy starts off hurtling through space, uses his raw abilities to save the galaxy, but in the end only when he masters his skills and realizes his full potential can he do what really matters: saving his father....then expound on the plot and space battles second?

If you start with a plot, and fill in your characters to fit it, chances are very high your movie will fail. Why? Because the audience, as much as we're told otherwise, doesn't connect with plot....they connect with people and their emotional journey. Plot is a vehicle to express characters, not the other way around. There is a reason why Luke Skywalker is a human and not a Vulcan or some other creature.

I guarantee you that it is MUCH easier and more practical to start off with characters and their story and then build up the plot around them. This is what will make your film successful and will make audiences want to watch it.

As proof, watch the blockbuster rip off movies. Some movie comes along and is wildly successful, to the point that the other studios try to rip it off and make money too. 95% or more of these movies are absolute critical failures. Why? Because they took someone else's successful plot first (with slight changes), and tried to make up new/different characters to fit it second.

Anyways, I hope this helps. I do have one other piece of advice on structure, but I'll post that in a reply.

 

[Jijenji]

Structure. Every screenwriter will have their thoughts on this and every new one will have plenty of questions about it. Here's what I can offer:

Know it and understand it like the back of your hand...and then make a CHOICE whether or not you want to go by the book or bend the rules.

Chances are high that you SHOULD bend the rules to FIT your story. Cookie-cutter movies are boring, nobody wants to watch them. There are also certain things that EVERY story needs to have to make it interesting. That's why you need to know these rules so well, so that you make sure you adhere to the ones you have to have while at the same time you gain an understanding for how you can bend the other rules without breaking them.

To people who give you page limits, word limits, etc....take it into consideration but by no means let it decide your story for you. Your story IS your story already...it's already there, you just have to get it out. Don't change it to fit some mold.

Now all of this being said, structure is important. It's a catalyst to get your butt in gear and get that script written. It can really help you stay on task and to the point. I know Filmy really likes the 4 Act structure, and lots will tell you that 3 Act is the way to go or a certain number of plot points or the Hero's Journey, etc...but guess what?....

YOU can decide your own structure! If you know the rules and why they are there, you can make up your own structure that fits your story. It doesn't have to be something that everyone else does. Structure is important and necessary for a good story, but it isn't there to hamper your creativity. Use your creativity to make your OWN structure if you want. Knowing the rules will help you make a successful structure as opposed to one that is no better than not having any.

Hope this helps!

 

[directorik]

Some interesting opinions, Jijenji. Your guarantee falls a little short, in mine.

I haven't found it much easier or more practical to start off with characters.
I always start with the plot and story. I figure out what will happen to someone
and then decide who that person is. For me, I can then make the character
human and develop them based on how they react to the plot.

I'm not convinced your proof is anything more than your opinion. Having an
opinion is terrific and a great way to start a discussion, but "proof" that your way
is best? You didn't sway me.

"Cookie cutter" movies aren't always boring. Standard structure doesn't always
make cookie cutter movies. And quite frankly, I think it can be shown with
box-office numbers that most people want to watch the same old thing over and
over. If they didn't, remakes wouldn't make money. The standard RomCom
structure wouldn't continue to draw in audiences and the "set-up, set-up, joke"
wouldn't make people laugh.

The facts seem to be that a writer creating their own structure doesn't work. Both
the three act and four act (and even seven act) are virtually the same. And that
structure has been around for centuries. A writer can be creative within the
storytelling structure without creating their own.

I agree with you that structure is important and necessary for a good story, but
I don't know of any writers who have made up theor own sctucture. Do you
have any examples of a writer who has created their own structure?

 

[Jijenji]

Some interesting opinions, Jijenji. Your guarantee falls a little short, in mine.

I haven't found it much easier or more practical to start off with characters.
I always start with the plot and story. I figure out what will happen to someone
and then decide who that person is. For me, I can then make the character
human and develop them based on how they react to the plot.

I'm not convinced your proof is anything more than your opinion. Having an
opinion is terrific and a great way to start a discussion, but "proof" that your way
is best? You didn't sway me.

"Cookie cutter" movies aren't always boring. Standard structure doesn't always
make cookie cutter movies. And quite frankly, I think it can be shown with
box-office numbers that most people want to watch the same old thing over and
over. If they didn't, remakes wouldn't make money. The standard RomCom
structure wouldn't continue to draw in audiences and the "set-up, set-up, joke"
wouldn't make people laugh.

The facts seem to be that a writer creating their own structure doesn't work. Both
the three act and four act (and even seven act) are virtually the same. And that
structure has been around for centuries. A writer can be creative within the
storytelling structure without creating their own.

I agree with you that structure is important and necessary for a good story, but
I don't know of any writers who have made up theor own sctucture. Do you
have any examples of a writer who has created their own structure?

Hi Rik...I must say that it's perfectly ok to have a differing opinion than mine. If you believe differently than that's your belief. I'll try to rebut what you said, from my point of view anyways.

With regards to box office numbers, that's a complicated topic. At the surface, it's a matter of style. A lot of those films gain the majority of their $$ in the opening weekend, and quickly disappear. The only reason they get that first weekend is because of their add campaign and flimsy attractions. Many bad, BAD movies have made money or at least covered their outlandish budget because they spent weeks beforehand advertising cool special effects, explosions, gun fights, and most of all, their actors. Some movies make money simply because the public loves the actor/actress and will watch almost any movie they are in (they usually don't even have to give a good performance).

At a deeper level, (sorry if this is deeper than people usually discuss, but I felt like bringing it up even though it's just my theory), bad product is going to equal less money for the film industry. Great movies and bad movies have always been around, and there are no more of them now than there were in the past. The difference now is that people have many more entertainment options, and when it comes to films (even more so shorts) they can simply make their own or follow the online markets. It's even MORE important now to give the public something that they can't make themselves or find on YouTube. In x amount of years, people will be able to make their very own animated movies and post them online. They'll be able to make their own CGI effects, put together some bad movie, and put it online. If the serious film people can't give them a better product than that, then they will move on and the film industry is going to even steepen the decline in profits that it's seen the last several years. The only alternative is to make the product even better.

As for standard structure...sorry if I implied that it shouldn't be used. It should be...there are lots of great, great stories that use the same tried and true structure. I was just offering an alternative solution for those who didn't want to use it either for a certain project or maybe for all of their work. It is my belief as a writer that I don't create my stories...they are already there and it is simply my task to figure them out and get them onto paper. As such, listen to your story! It just might tell you how it wants to be presented! More times than not it will work perfectly to put into 3 Act structure, or 4 Act structure, etc. I'm not saying don't use them, but if your story FITS a different structure, don't be afraid to see what you can do as long as you know the rules. ALL stories need structure, it's just a matter of figuring out what exactly you want to do.

Yes, I also have examples of other structures. I'll post them on here at some point in the future, and will even offer the structure that I've been using for the screenplay I've been working on. Sure, it has a lot of the same elements as others, but there can always be variations. More than likely I'll remember and I'll get back to you on this, but if I forget please remind me and I will post again on it later.

Finally, as for my "proof", well it's just a matter of point of view. For me, I see examples that lead me to one conclusion, and you see them differently so you don't agree with me. That's why you don't think they are proof and I do. I'll just go back to what I said with the Star Wars example....

Choice A: You start writing your script about a wannabe space pilot who is stuck on a remote planet, suddenly he goes through a to be determined inciting incident and his ally gets him off the planet so he can go join the rebel forces and battle on the side of good vs. the evil galactic empire. The hero gets sucked into the "Death Star" and has to rely on his wits, laser blaster, and light saber to fight through imperial goons with bad aim so he can rescue the princess and get his friends out of harms way. You're not sure in what context yet but you have these cool visions of space dogfights, you're brainstorming about this thing you've thought up called "the force", which is inherently strong in the hero and he uses it to overcome the villain and save the galaxy at the end.

Sure, there is a lot of stuff there. But, again, there now that you have written all of that down and in your mind decided to go with that and much more, as a writer you are continually boxing yourself in. Most writers (I believe) would agree with me that it's harder to make believable characters once you box yourself in than it is to make believable plot points after you have your characters down.

Star Wars, as written by George Lucas (and the new ones he REALLY had a hand in writing the final script) were inferior stories to the the Empire and the non-fuzzie $$ oriented aspects of Jedi in my opinion. The characters all had much, MUCH more depth in Empire and Jedi and the hired screenwriters were the reason as that is not a strong suit of Lucas's (not knocking him, big Star Wars fan here). The reason why the first Star Wars movie worked despite it's cheesy and care-free approach was because it was MORE REAL than anything moviegoers had seen to that point. My dad was a teen then and told me how when he went to see it, before Star Wars all sci-fi stuff looked like Godzilla pretty much...in other words pretty crappy. The "realness" of the effects was what made it work.

I'm a huge Matrix fan too...but Neo's character is beyond boring and horribly written. There just isn't much depth there, and Keanu Reeve's plays the part best by simply not acting. Anyways, the reason the movie worked so well wasn't because of the characters (although the other characters were GREAT), and not because of the plot despite what many people here would say (if you don't believe me, read Roger Ebert's review of the Matrix and he cites a previous movie with a similar plot that obviously wasn't as successful), but the movie was so successful because of the cool Matrix effects that everyone loved.

So if you are a professional screenwriter who already has a name for himself and you want to write a standard Hollywood script, then by all means go for it. Or if you are the next George Lucas or Wachowski brothers and have not just a good/decent story but a way to revolutionize cinema in general, then that would help too. Most of us (ok, most likely all of us) don't fall into that category. That's why the characters are so important.

So Choice B goes: You start off with a boy who was orphaned by his evil father and forced to grow up in near isolation on a remote planet. He's desperate to get out and see, not the world, but the galaxy (sci-fi and all) and he's thrust into an intergalactic war that would seem to be far beyond his abilities. Unknown to him, he is destined to become a greater warrior than he could ever imagine, and the man who taught his father will help him realize his true potential. After the hero is thrust into the war, he winds up in the belly of the whale when he is captured by the Empire and there he meets the princess who he then saves. All along, he has been relying on his mentor, but at the climax of the movie his teacher is murdered by the villainous Vader, who unknown to the hero is his own father. Thanks to the sacrifice of his martyred mentor, the hero and his friends are able to escape the Death Star and return back to the rebel's main base. For the final conflict, the Empire launches an attack to destory the rebels once and for all. The hero, now on his own, must find his own inner strength to overcome Vader, destroy the Death Star, and save the Galaxy. Then later in the trilogy, after he has realized his full potential throughout the series and become a truly great warrior, he abandons trying to save the galaxy, leaves that to his sister, because there is something more important than saving the galaxy...saving his father!

 

[Jijenji]

Anyways, people can relate to that stuff. You could take that paragraph I just wrote, change a lot of the elements, and make a movie just like it in a completely different genre (trust me, Harry Potter is remarkably similar to Star Wars).

Unless you are reinventing cinema, characters are the reason audiences will like your story. Not the plot. Plot is a means to show off your characters. Characters are not their to show off plot. And unfortunately, especially for beginning writers, the reason they want to start writing in the first place is because they think they have a great idea for a script/book and they go from there. But characters are more important.

Of course, If you have Brad Pitt or Miss Jolie starring in your movie, disregard everything I just said because people will come and watch the movie anyways.

Edit: 2046 is an example of a critically successful film with a completely different plot structure than normal. It can be found on wikipedia.

 

[clive]

The problem with trying to debate which is most important plot or character is it's like trying have an argument over which is most important on a car, the engine or the wheels.

The truth is, it doesn't matter which order you develop a screenplay in... plot first or character first, because it's not actually possible to separate them.

A person who develops a character first, can't develop that character in isolation from a story, because the story defines who that character is... by the same token a writer can't develop a plot without developing the characters at the same time, because a plot is just what reactions the characters have to the circumstances in which they are placed.

I also can't see the point in debating structure... structure exists as a concept, you either find it useful or you don't. If you do, then use it... if you don't then beyond saying "I'm not a believer in rigid structure, because it doesn't work for me" there isn't a lot to say.

The other thing that bores the living daylights out of me is the whole "structure = formula = cookie cutter movies" idea. It's a concept that's only ever used as a device by one writer to belittle another.

The problem with the "structure/formula/cookie cutter" argument is it doesn't hold water.... Rom Coms as Rik so rightly pointed out follow an incredibly predictable story arc. However, does that mean that every Rom Com is going to be a massive success, or that anyone can right one... well, no. If you look at the most successful Rom Coms of recent years almost all of them were written by ONE GUY... Richard Curtis. Surely if you could knock off a successful Rom Com based on the cookie cutter formula there would be hundreds of writers turning out blockbuster Rom Coms. But there aren't.

And the reason why... screenwriting to Hollywood levels is very, very hard indeed. Very, very few people have the writing skills and filmic understanding to do it competently, let alone well.

The one thing that is always missing from all these debates is a discussion on what the basic tools are for entertaining people... despite the fact that most screenwriters want to believe they are creating "art," in real terms the job is to entertain your average punter for ninety minutes and NOTHING else. It doesn't matter if you do that with special effects, fancy camera work, highly attractive people or with clever incisive character driven dialogue. Writers who forget that, who forget their place in the scheme of things write terrible screenplays... Star Wars was great because it was entertaining. I believe it was entertaining because it was made by someone who made the kind of film he really wanted to see himself... and who was honest enough to admit what he really wanted was lasers and spaceships full gay robots, rather than a B&W art house flick about Cowboys eating pudding and debating Proust.

 

[Jijenji]

The problem with trying to debate which is most important plot or character is it's like trying have an argument over which is most important on a car, the engine or the wheels.

The truth is, it doesn't matter which order you develop a screenplay in... plot first or character first, because it's not actually possible to separate them.

A person who develops a character first, can't develop that character in isolation from a story, because the story defines who that character is... by the same token a writer can't develop a plot without developing the characters at the same time, because a plot is just what reactions the characters have to the circumstances in which they are placed.

I also can't see the point in debating structure... structure exists as a concept, you either find it useful or you don't. If you do, then use it... if you don't then beyond saying "I'm not a believer in rigid structure, because it doesn't work for me" there isn't a lot to say.

The other thing that bores the living daylights out of me is the whole "structure = formula = cookie cutter movies" idea. It's a concept that's only ever used as a device by one writer to belittle another.

The problem with the "structure/formula/cookie cutter" argument is it doesn't hold water.... Rom Coms as Rik so rightly pointed out follow an incredibly predictable story arc. However, does that mean that every Rom Com is going to be a massive success, or that anyone can right one... well, no. If you look at the most successful Rom Coms of recent years almost all of them were written by ONE GUY... Richard Curtis. Surely if you could knock off a successful Rom Com based on the cookie cutter formula there would be hundreds of writers turning out blockbuster Rom Coms. But there aren't.

And the reason why... screenwriting to Hollywood levels is very, very hard indeed. Very, very few people have the writing skills and filmic understanding to do it competently, let alone well.

Initially wasn't trying to debate, just trying to help people out. Wasn't going for the belittling either.

 

[clive]

Initially wasn't trying to debate, just trying to help people out. Wasn't going for the belittling either.

So, if it's not a debate... what's this?

I'll try to rebut what you said, from my point of view anyways.

The second you attempted to rebut Rik's response, that's exactly what you made this.

The reason the "structure = formula = cookie cutter" argument is essentially belittling to other writers, is because it's always used to imply that writers who use traditional structure are hacks and not "real" writers, because "real" writers break the rules. It's not a point that helps developing screenwriters, because most developing screenwriters have too little understanding of structure, not too much.

The only problem is, it's not true. Structure isn't the same as formula... and breaking the rules isn't the benchmark for creativity.

 

[VPTurner]

You do realize that by saying, "I don't have any achievements that would deem any advice I could give noteworthy", you already set yourself up for failure with your advice execution, right?

9 out of 10 stories fail at the premise. Sage advice from John Truby. In his opening paragraphs of Chapter 2 in his book, "The Anatomy of Story", he lays it out well:

Michael Crichton doesn't have the deep human characters of a Chekhov or the brilliant plots of a Dickens. He just happens to be the best premise writer in Hollywood. Take Jurassic Park for example. Crichton's story might have come from this designing principal: "What if you took two of the greatest heavy-weights of evolution - dinosaurs and humans - and forced them to fight to the death in the same ring?" Now that's a story I want to see.

There are many ways to start the writing process. Some writers prefer to begin by breaking the story into its seven primary steps, which we will explore in the next chapter. But most begin with the shortest expression of the story as a whole, the premise line.

To expand on your example, Truby also uses Star Wars:

Premise: When a princess falls into mortal danger, a young man uses his skills as a fighter to save her and defeat the evil forces of a galactic empire.

Everyone who aspires to write should have this book and know it well. It's a very different approach to storytelling from the classic Syd Field three act structure, which Truby effectively trashes in Chapter 1.

EDIT: You may also want to read, "A Hero With a Thousand Faces" to understand why so many stories appear similar in design and characterization.

And good story does not automatically equal big profits. Independence Day ($817 million worldwide) and Transformers ($707 million worldwide) versus No Country for Old Men ($157 million worldwide) or There Will Be Blood ($74 million worldwide) are good examples. And your "critically acclaimed" example of 2046 earned just under $20 million worldwide.

 

[clive]

It's a very different approach to storytelling from the classic Syd Field three act structure, which Truby effectively trashes in Chapter 1.

To be fair even Syd Field has moved on from his basic three act structural approach... as demonstrated by this quote from Elliot Grove of the Raindance Festival

The irony is when Syd Field was at Raindance in 1995 he told me his three act paradigm was outdated.... Field told me he preferred a much more fluid, more advanced story telling structure, and in that year was studying Mexican cinema which made the most of advanced story structure

The problem with most discussion about screenplay structure is they get bogged down in the tiresome "formula/no formula" debate... which is a complete and utter waste of everyone's time.

Personally, I think there is far too much "Area 51" discussion of screenplays; where a screenplay gets pseudo reverse engineered in order for someone to grind out/sell their pet theory of how to create a hit screenplay. At the same time I also believe it's important for anyone interested in screenwriting to read about structural theory.

But having invested four years into structure and theory, what interest me more is hearing from screenwriters who have a passion for their projects and have useful experience to share... I'm not so much interested in their opinions, only stuff that comes from their personal experience. Bottom line is I'd rather read Joe Eszterhas than Bob McKee... Joe is more entertaining.

 

[directorik]

Yes, I also have examples of other structures. I'll post them on here at some point in the future, and will even offer the structure that I've been using for the screenplay I've been working on. Sure, it has a lot of the same elements as others, but there can always be variations. More than likely I'll remember and I'll get back to you on this, but if I forget please remind me and I will post again on it later.

I look forward to your examples.

Finally, as for my "proof", well it's just a matter of point of view. For me, I see examples that lead me to one conclusion, and you see them differently so you don't agree with me. That's why you don't think they are proof and I do. I'll just go back to what I said with the Star Wars example....

This seem to be proof to you that you prefer to write this way. But not proof that
this is the best way to write. As you say, it's your point of view. The way a writer
comes to their script is very personal. If your method works for you that doesn't
prove anything to a writer who approaches writing the other way.

I have no argument with you regarding your method - my argument was with your guarantee that it is MUCH easier and more practical to start off with characters and their story and then build up the plot around them, and using "blockbuster rip off movies" as proof.

Your attempt to help people out got lost in your claim that your method has a
guarantee attached to it. That suggests that a writer who doesn't follow your advice
is in for a MUCH more difficult and less practical way to write a script. I don't see
any proof that this is the case. But I'm glad it works for you.

 

[Jijenji]

So, if it's not a debate... what's this?



The second you attempted to rebut Rik's response, that's exactly what you made this.

The reason the "structure = formula = cookie cutter" argument is essentially belittling to other writers, is because it's always used to imply that writers who use traditional structure are hacks and not "real" writers, because "real" writers break the rules. It's not a point that helps developing screenwriters, because most developing screenwriters have too little understanding of structure, not too much.

The only problem is, it's not true. Structure isn't the same as formula... and breaking the rules isn't the benchmark for creativity.

I said I wasn't INITIALLY trying to debate.

Hey if you guys know how to reply to multiple posts all in one thread then please share because I don't know. I'll have to reply in several posts unfortunately.

 

[Jijenji]

I look forward to your examples.

I posted one already...the movie 2046 was critically acclaimed (won lots of awards) and received glowing praise for its unique approach. Here is one review:

"Routinely criticized for his weak narratives, Mr. Wong is one of the few filmmakers working in commercial cinema who refuse to be enslaved by traditional storytelling. He isn't the first and certainly not the only one to pry cinema from the grip of classical narrative, to take a pickax to the usual three-act architecture (or at least shake the foundation), while also dispatching with the art-deadening requirements (redemption, closure, ad nauseam) that have turned much of Big Hollywood into a creative dead zone. Like some avant-garde filmmakers and like his contemporary, Hou Hsiao-hsien of Taiwan, among precious few others these days, Mr. Wong makes movies, still a young art, that create meaning through visual images, not just words."
-Manohla Dargis, New York Times

Anyways, just trying to say there ARE other ways to do movies. Often times, the tried and true approach is the perfect way to go.

 

[Jijenji]

You do realize that by saying, "I don't have any achievements that would deem any advice I could give noteworthy", you already set yourself up for failure with your advice execution, right?
And your "critically acclaimed" example of 2046 earned just under $20 million worldwide.

Well I was just trying to be honest.

On the other point, I guess it's just personal preference. There are some big time directors who don't really care what the critics think, they are all about making the $$ and measure their work by catering to the general audience. Whether in the Circus Maximus of ancient Rome, or in our modern time the truth is that if have no real great story but wanted to show live executions, torture of people, mutilation (not acted, I mean real stuff) the general population would LOVE to see it and would pay big $$ for it (as sad as that is).

But like I said, it's just personal preference and what one wants. Some people want to be the next Sir Edmund Hillary and stake everything on trying to climb Everest at whatever cost. Others would rather take people on tours up and down Pike's Peak a few times a year and rake in the dollars doing that. Hey, both are hard work. Just different goals really.

 

[directorik]

But like I said, it's just personal preference and what one wants.

You realize you didn't say that in your first two posts. You said could
guarantee that it is MUCH easier and more practical to start off with
characters and their story and then build up the plot around them.

Have you seen 2046? I’d be more interested in your take on it than
Ms. Dargis’. Since the point of your post is to help writers
maybe you could define what you mean by structure.

I define it as the beginning, middle and end of the arc of
characters and the story.

I really like 2046. While Wong Kar-wai takes the structure out of
chronological order, the four story arcs follow the classic
storytelling structure. He doesn’t decide on his own structure -
he uses the existing structure in a unique way.

I look forward to more than one example.

 

[Jijenji]

You realize you didn't say that in your first two posts. You said could
guarantee that it is MUCH easier and more practical to start off with
characters and their story and then build up the plot around them.

Have you seen 2046? I’d be more interested in your take on it than
Ms. Dargis’. Since the point of your post is to help writers
maybe you could define what you mean by structure.

I define it as the beginning, middle and end of the arc of
characters and the story.

I really like 2046. While Wong Kar-wai takes the structure out of
chronological order, the four story arcs follow the classic
storytelling structure. He doesn’t decide on his own structure -
he uses the existing structure in a unique way.

I look forward to more than one example.

I stand by the fact that anecdotally it's easier to go about it the way I said, and it was initially intended for people who really were searching as opposed to someone who already has their own way. If I sound unclear, I apologize because it was the middle of the night and I was staying up all night and writing and studying, etc. and then we had an earthquake and was sidetracked and not around to clear things up for quite awhile.

As for 2046, I haven't seen it but I intend to next month when the semester is over and I have time off. Any movie with Zhang Ziyi is a must-see movie for me, and I have to say that I will probably also see In the Mood for Love as both of them sound appealing.

As for other movies, to say they have a beginning, a middle, and an end is well...that's just inherent. You could write a script for a 900 act movie that nobody would ever read and it would have a beginning a middle, and an end. Or you could write a 2 minute short, and it would also have those three things. Structure is how you tell the characters arc and it can be done in any number of ways. Most of the usual methods work very well and thats why they are used so much. Many alternative methods would be failures and not work. Sometimes, it works. Here are a couple:

Donnie Darko
Mulholland Drive

Edit: Sorry Rik, first time around missed the point where you said, "Since the point of your post is to help writers maybe you could define what you mean by structure."

First, let me say I'm just offering what I can. That's the kind of person I am, by no means am I saying, "hey everyone, listen up cause I know what I'm doing and if you want to be a better writer do what I do."

That's just not me. Its in my nature to say, "hey, here's what I do, if it helps you out great!...if not, sorry I couldn't help you out."

My view on structure is this...if you wrote down a list of storytelling devices and ideas from throughout the ages, there would be thousands. No film is going to use all of these obviously. But some are going to be present in all films, and structure is about how you use a select number of these devices (either in their typical form, or via a unique alteration you give to a particular device) to create a story that meets your objectives.

I enjoy experimenting with new ways to tell stories. Personally, I prefer not to overdo it, as I prefer a classical style of storytelling, but with radical concepts mixed in here and there. Sometimes, it's just as interesting to start out with an alternative approach, and mix in the classical here and there.

For the feature spec I've been working on (doing a half and half right now) I found that structure helped me finish the various arcs of the story. My first visions of the film started out with two characters, the opening scene, then the ending, the a couple of other characters, then important plot points throughout the movie, then the desire to write and write and write...and then the horrible question that couldn't be answered of "what next?"

So I learned structure. And then I didn't use it verbatim, I decided to use aspects of the commonly used structures, and interwove them into a more elaborate structure that I created for this story. And that leads me to my belief on structure, this one fits this one story only! I probably wouldn't use it again on another script. The next one I write (I hope I write another one at least) could easily be a 3 Act deal. My belief is that structure is absolutely necessary, it guides your story, but it's ok to play around so long as it fits your story and you understand what the implications of the alterations are.

 

[knightly]

My $.02...I like format/cookie cutter movies...I pay to see them on a big screen. I like escapist entertainment that doesn't try to be too witty or bright. I like explosions and big FX. I eat popcorn while watching them...these are the things that made me want to make films in the first place. I'm not a writer, I'm the audience. I make films because I love watching them.

I'm going to horribly paraphrase the adage: If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it... then it failed to attract an audience. If the point of telling your story is to get people to see an exploration of a character or a situation or a specific event or moral sticking point... if you don't get seen, you've failed. That's sad because there are so many talented creative people out there with interesting things to say that never get to say them because they're busy pounding on the doors to the kingdom rather than using the keys hanging on the hook beside the door.

 

[Jijenji]

My $.02...I like format/cookie cutter movies...I pay to see them on a big screen. I like escapist entertainment that doesn't try to be too witty or bright. I like explosions and big FX. I eat popcorn while watching them...these are the things that made me want to make films in the first place. I'm not a writer, I'm the audience. I make films because I love watching them.

I'm going to horribly paraphrase the adage: If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it... then it failed to attract an audience. If the point of telling your story is to get people to see an exploration of a character or a situation or a specific event or moral sticking point... if you don't get seen, you've failed. That's sad because there are so many talented creative people out there with interesting things to say that never get to say them because they're busy pounding on the doors to the kingdom rather than using the keys hanging on the hook beside the door.

That's a good point Knightly, I would just say though that I think it all depends on the writer's intentions. Really, that's what success boils down to. If a writer WANTS to write a farce of a script and anger the audience, and people hate the movie and hate the writer/director, then hey, by the definition of the intent, that movie was a success.

One person might view success differently than another. To some, pushing the boundaries, or exploring the deeper issues of society, getting the audience to question reality, overstepping sexual barriers, any number of things might be more important to the writer or director than box office numbers. Of course, that's what the gatekeepers are interested in, but independent films are a perfect opportunity for those other issues to be explored.

Films that are for lack of a better word "typical" are ok too. I really don't have a problem with them at all and like many of them. I just think it's fun to try different things and see if they can't work out.

 

[knightly]

would the intent there be to simply explore the topic...or to present it to the public for consideration... to simply explore the subject, the script never has to be looked at by any other humans. To present it for consideration needs to hold an audience long enough to get the statement made.

 

[clive]

The first thing I want to say is I agree that independent filmmaking offers the opportunity for film makers to create films that the major studios wouldn't consider.

But, there are more than one set of gate keepers in the industry and distributors are even more conservative, even more concerned about box office than producers and studios.

What this means is, if you write a spec script that doesn't have an obvious place in the market you may be able to find a producer to make it... but, the film may NEVER be seen by an audience. Both Rik and I have both had the experience of each making a critically acclaimed movie, only to have it rejected by distributors because they can't see a natural place for it in the market.

You're also working under a couple of common assumptions that just aren't true.

Firstly, it's really common for un-produced screenwriters to work under the assumption that Hollywood turns out formula movies because they slavishly stick to a Syd Field version of the three act structure. But, actually, that isn't true. The industry turns out a huge variety of movies, some of which are written to a three act structure, some of which are written without any reference to it, or Bob McKee. It's simply lazy to lump all of the industry's output under the banner "cookie cutter movies." It's also lazy to write as though the industry doesn't make successful films that explore "the issues"... it does.

I had three scripts out to pitch at the Cannes Film Festival last year, a low budget Thriller, a big budget action movie and a weird art-house about the Angel of Death... have a guess at which one got the most interest?

It was the weird art-house movie, with the action movie a very close second... and, ironically the only cookie cutter movie in the batch was the Thriller, which NO ONE was interested in.

Your second assumption is another common one amongst inexperienced screenwriters --

It's really common for baby screenwriters to pick on story structure as the thing that makes movies "cookie cutter"... but it's not the structure that makes movies predictable, it's when you have a writer who has nothing to say and therefore they reheat stuff they've seen in other movies. This isn't that surprising when many specs are written by people whose primary life experiences have been gained second hand... by that I mean by watching popular movies and the TV. Great writers tend to have had fairly rich lives, in terms of life experience.

Now, the little arthouse movie about the Angel of Death is completely original... it's entertaining... it's got great roles for actors... and, it is written slavishly to a hyper-traditional four act structure... which as Rik pointed out is just three act structure for smart people.

Basically... yes write whatever structure you like, but don't assume that by breaking structural rules you are automatically being original... chances are you're not, just writing something that won't work filmically.... And, if you write outside of the box, be prepared to never have an audience for your opus outside of Youtube

Finally, for some reason quite a lot of screenwriters feel that in order to be entertaining you have to write crap. Therefore all entertaining movies are somehow hack pieces with no substance. My experience is that the opposite is true... great films pretty much always have high entertainment values. One of the things that makes them great is their ability to take difficult issues and present them to a "regular joe" audience.

So, for instance, a film like "Lords of War" is a star vehicle for Nick Cage, it's an action filled Hollywood blockbuster... and it's a very cool examination of the international arms trade. Hollywood pulls this stunt out of the bag more often than we care to admit. Then there is "Hotel Rwanda," or "The Last King of Scotland."

It's not a crime to entertain people, it's not a sell-out, it doesn't prevent a great writer from addressing the issues, it's not a sell out to make money at the box office, it doesn't take less skill to do all that and still make a film that everyone wants to watch... in fact it takes more.