For my last script I didn't follow it, but as a result I felt it had a plot and twists then the average script. I have more like five acts, with two climaxes instead of one for example. Or will following the structure, help to make a more marketable chance of success feature? For my new script which I wanna shoot, I have the whole plot down, scene by scene, but it's not of the more standard structures.
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
Should I follow the three act structure?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Thank you. Well okay for my current script I could. I already have most of the story planned out, and I did not use the 3 act system. It's more like four acts, if that works. But it depends on how I divide them perhaps. A lot of action films around 90 minutes though, don't feel like they have enough plot in them and could be more climatic. So if those use the three act structure, then I would like to add another.
Last edited:
Structure is not the determiner of quality, but gives writer a framework upon which to hang the story. It basically gives you a road map that reminds you when peaks and valleys of a story should occur. But structure is the glass, not the milk. You still have to fill it with your intriguing ideas and scintillating characters.
I think that all beginners should stick to 3- or 4-act structure (I'm talking, or course, about writers of mainstream movies), and that even experienced writers should keep it in the back of their mind. It's extremely useful, and you discard it at your own risk; so know it intimately before you toss it.
I think that all beginners should stick to 3- or 4-act structure (I'm talking, or course, about writers of mainstream movies), and that even experienced writers should keep it in the back of their mind. It's extremely useful, and you discard it at your own risk; so know it intimately before you toss it.
Okay. I'm going by structure I've seen in other movies, when it comes to mind, particularly action movies of the same length. However, a lot of action ones I feel arrive at the climax too conveniently, and another act feels like it should be in place, to get to the climax in a much more complicated way. For my previous script I threw the 3 act structure out the window though, so I hope that's okay, but I think it made the story more originally structured, in a good way.
Last edited:
If you're trying to sell this script.. yes, you're probably best sticking to the structure rayw posted above. If not, do whatever you want.
But it's important to know the rules, and why they exist before you break them.. So you can do so for a specific reason, not just because you didn't bother to learn.
But it's important to know the rules, and why they exist before you break them.. So you can do so for a specific reason, not just because you didn't bother to learn.
Well I wanna either sell or pitch the last one, and shoot me new one myself. For the last script which I did not use the 3 act structure, here's what's different. Most action movies have one climax, however after mine, when you think you are watching the climax, at the end a whole new group of villains that were introduced before, shows up and we get another surprise act, followed by another climax. After that instead of a wrap up that lasts 10 pages though, the wrap up does last about 12-15, depending on when I am done some editing. In a lot of action movies so much happens that a lot in the wrap up is left out. I covered all the consequences that resulted.
Now will this be a problem with most producers, or could that look at it and think, wow this breaks the formulaic structure, but in a good way?
Now will this be a problem with most producers, or could that look at it and think, wow this breaks the formulaic structure, but in a good way?
If it's a good story the producers & director are going to butcher it six ways to Sunday.
I've seen enough writer/director commentary to note that even when they call it a tight script that they held onto for years + the cast says they didn't deviate much from the screenplay - and then - you watch the movie while listening to the commentary you see and hear all the dozens of small and fundamental changes the writer/directer actually did include.
And if you're so lucky, there's what the distributor wants changed.
And the MPAA.
The story fundamentals and premise need to be pretty durable.
I've seen enough writer/director commentary to note that even when they call it a tight script that they held onto for years + the cast says they didn't deviate much from the screenplay - and then - you watch the movie while listening to the commentary you see and hear all the dozens of small and fundamental changes the writer/directer actually did include.
And if you're so lucky, there's what the distributor wants changed.
And the MPAA.
The story fundamentals and premise need to be pretty durable.
I'm most definitely not a writer, nor was I ever a (really good) songwriter or composer. But I have worked with a lot of very talented people in all parts of the entertainment spectrum and in the "real" world as well.
There are established "rules" and "processes" that are used almost universally, like the three act structure for play and film scripts, the three movement format for classical symphonies, the three minute pop single, etc., etc., etc. The reason they are used is that they work. When learning something new you should (almost) always follow established procedures, especially if you want to be taken seriously by your peers. Later on when you break the rules it is a conscious artistic choice respected as such by your peers, not an error made by an ignorant beginner; believe it or not that perception makes a big difference.
Only the Beatles could have gotten away with a single over 3 1/2 minutes in 1968 (Hey Jude); they broke the ground for other artists, but this breaking with tradition was allowed because of the esteem with which the Beatles were held by their peers and their business "power" because of their extreme success.
So stick with the tried and true, and don't fight every suggestion given to you.
There are established "rules" and "processes" that are used almost universally, like the three act structure for play and film scripts, the three movement format for classical symphonies, the three minute pop single, etc., etc., etc. The reason they are used is that they work. When learning something new you should (almost) always follow established procedures, especially if you want to be taken seriously by your peers. Later on when you break the rules it is a conscious artistic choice respected as such by your peers, not an error made by an ignorant beginner; believe it or not that perception makes a big difference.
Only the Beatles could have gotten away with a single over 3 1/2 minutes in 1968 (Hey Jude); they broke the ground for other artists, but this breaking with tradition was allowed because of the esteem with which the Beatles were held by their peers and their business "power" because of their extreme success.
So stick with the tried and true, and don't fight every suggestion given to you.
Okay thanks. Some indie film companies that buy scripts don't seem to worry about what is the most durable and don't seem to care what the MPAA think. At least according to what some movies have gotten away with. I'm just going by based on what I've seen, and who bought the script though. The movie Blood Diamond for example, I remember having a bigger resolution in the end, far after the last action sequence was over, as well as another but cannot recall which...
Okay I won't fight the suggestions for my current script and take them. However I want to understand, why is it that most action movies prefer the quick convenient arrive at a climax though? I mean if say The Dark Knight followed the 3 act structure, it would have ended right at the car chase, and Joker would be captured or killed, and that would be the end, compared to most movie climaxes. Now would most of you say the movie would have been as good if it had ended there? Well I guess they can get away with breaking structure, compared to a newcomer of course.
I will follow the trend. I'm not sure if I have 3 acts or not though. It's hard to tell with the way the plot progresses in some parts. On that diagram, why does it take till page 5 for the THEME STATED? If it's not in the opening, then what is OPENING IMAGE for five pages?
I will follow the trend. I'm not sure if I have 3 acts or not though. It's hard to tell with the way the plot progresses in some parts. On that diagram, why does it take till page 5 for the THEME STATED? If it's not in the opening, then what is OPENING IMAGE for five pages?
Last edited:
The "Dark Knight" follows the three act structure, it just does not follow the classic Hero's Journey story. In it's basic form, Act One is set-up, Act Two is driving action, and Act Three is the resolution.
In Act One, you are introduced to the main characters--Batman/Wayne, Dent, Rachel, Gordon, and the Joker. The situation is presented--the accountant is going to expose the crime network and the Joker is being hunted. Somehow the situation needs to resolve. Using RayW's template, everything seems 'normal' up to this point.
Act Two, the situation is amplified. Suddenly the Joker takes over as crime lord. Dent claims to be batman. And the challenge is made to rescue Rachel or Dent. Unfortunately, in rescuing Dent, Rachel dies and Dent is deformed--physically and mentally. Batman is defeated and must gather his resources. Suddenly the world turns upside-down (RayW's "bizarro land"). The conflict escalates to crisis at the end of the act.
Act Three, Two-Face (Dent) and the Joker provide final complications. And in the end, Batman is blamed for the death at his request to keep Gotham City from learning the truth that would plunge it into chaos. The threads are resolved, though not all in a positive way.
This is not a typical hero's journey--normalcy, challenge, defeat, mentored, climax, conclusion. It is a very dark, gothic storyline that I mentioned as following the "anti-hero's journey"--normalcy, obsession, crushed ambition, the sacrifice, the final sin, the birth. And I wish I could claim originality for the phrase, but I actually used it from other sources (http://ezinearticles.com/?Anti-Heros-Journey-and-the-Heros-Journey&id=79376 or http://www.writersstore.com/exploring-the-dark-side-the-anti-heros-journey). The "Dark Knight" is not a script for beginners even if the subject is Batman.
If you want to understand act structure look at more typical movies like Avatar, Star Wars IV,V,VI, most recent Hollywood hero movies--Hulk, Thor, etc. The structure is so obvious, it is easier to see. Then you can move to more difficult movies.
Newcomers especially need to follow the rules to learn how to write well. People who think screenwriting can be done without practice or a framework, delude themselves. If you're shooting your own movie, go for it. If you expect somebody else to shoot it, you need to be solidly grounded. You don't learn algebra without first learning basic addition and division. Really, it's best to stick to the basics in the beginning--a 3 Act Structure, the common Hero's Journey, and solid character development and dialogue. Initially, imagination outstrips technical skill. With practice and study, the skill catches up and one can do justice to ideas.
Here is a quick and dirty breakout of a "100 page script":
Act 1 - Set Up of Characters and Set Up
pp. 1-10 Who are the 3 main characters - protagonist, protagonist's confidant, and antagonist
pp. 11-20 What is the main challenge facing the protagonist? - story's main premise stated by this point
Act 2 - The Protagonist must take some action to realize the goal
pp. 20-40 What obstacle(s) does the antagonist present? How does he commit to an action?
pp. 40-50 How does the protagonist meet that obstacle? - meet mentor or support character
pp. 50-65 Oops, how did the protagonist screw up?
pp. 65-80 The Big Whammy! Surprise & Calamity Await our Hero
Act 3 - The Protagonist must Recover and Save the day
pp. 80-95 Hero manages to save the day
pp. 95-100 Hero has "happily ever after"
The page numbers should be viewed as guidelines. A dramatic situation should happen roughly every 10 pages. This roughly outlines a movie of the the week (MOTW) format allowing for commercial breaks. If you can match up parts of your story to this outline, it will help you gauge where the acts are in your own story.
Okay thanks. It feels like the Dark Knight has two third acts by comparison to most. But yes I do see the structure.
"Here is a quick and dirty breakout of a "100 page script":
Act 1 - Set Up of Characters and Set Up
pp. 1-10 Who are the 3 main characters - protagonist, protagonist's confidant, and antagonist
pp. 11-20 What is the main challenge facing the protagonist? - story's main premise stated by this point
Act 2 - The Protagonist must take some action to realize the goal
pp. 20-40 What obstacle(s) does the antagonist present? How does he commit to an action?
pp. 40-50 How does the protagonist meet that obstacle? - meet mentor or support character
pp. 50-65 Oops, how did the protagonist screw up?
pp. 65-80 The Big Whammy! Surprise & Calamity Await our Hero
Act 3 - The Protagonist must Recover and Save the day
pp. 80-95 Hero manages to save the day
pp. 95-100 Hero has "happily ever after""
Okay thanks. Act 3 for my script I think might be a bit longer if that's okay. Also the protagonist's confidant does not come into the story, till about half way. I could introduce her beforehand, but it would have to be a scene that doesn't fit into the plot at stake, and is just there to introduce her. Or should I just wait till halfway then?
Act 1 - Set Up of Characters and Set Up
pp. 1-10 Who are the 3 main characters - protagonist, protagonist's confidant, and antagonist
pp. 11-20 What is the main challenge facing the protagonist? - story's main premise stated by this point
Act 2 - The Protagonist must take some action to realize the goal
pp. 20-40 What obstacle(s) does the antagonist present? How does he commit to an action?
pp. 40-50 How does the protagonist meet that obstacle? - meet mentor or support character
pp. 50-65 Oops, how did the protagonist screw up?
pp. 65-80 The Big Whammy! Surprise & Calamity Await our Hero
Act 3 - The Protagonist must Recover and Save the day
pp. 80-95 Hero manages to save the day
pp. 95-100 Hero has "happily ever after""
Okay thanks. Act 3 for my script I think might be a bit longer if that's okay. Also the protagonist's confidant does not come into the story, till about half way. I could introduce her beforehand, but it would have to be a scene that doesn't fit into the plot at stake, and is just there to introduce her. Or should I just wait till halfway then?
Last edited:
Remember that it's just a guide. The 'confidant' is usually a love interest. Though on the initial introduction, usually they have little or no interest in each other. In your story, the confidant may be more like the mentor who provides key information or support to the protagonist. This is usually in the middle of the story. Only you know your story, so you need to figure out what is appropriate.
You can have Act Three be longer, just remember it is the final wrap-up. This act starts the final descent of the action rollercoaster. It is the ultimate payoff for all the work in act two. In most movies, act three is no more than 25% of the whole movie. If it exceeds that, you really need to review the storyline for excessive detail, excessive dialogue, or poor plot/pacing.
Act 3 sounds about right for 25% of my story. It takes a while for the hero to get from here to there, when it comes to his race against time. The confidant is not exactly a mentor persay, but she is the love interest and she does help. They have already met though, when she comes half way in, willing to risk her life, cause she becomes in a position to help the hero. If this is bad though, I could put in a scene to introduce her in the first act, but then she will have to be delayed till the second act, cause of the story.
pp. 11-20 What is the main challenge facing the protagonist? - story's main premise stated by this point
Act 2 - The Protagonist must take some action to realize the goal
pp. 20-40 What obstacle(s) does the antagonist present? How does he commit to an action?
In my script these two are flipped around. Also we are only introduced to the how, and the what of the antagonists plan. We don't get the Why until in between these two:
pp. 50-65 Oops, how did the protagonist screw up?
pp. 65-80 The Big Whammy! Surprise & Calamity Await our Hero
Also the love interest does not come into the plot until in between these two as well. After the hero screws up, she finds herself in a position to help. Is that okay?
pp. 11-20 What is the main challenge facing the protagonist? - story's main premise stated by this point
Act 2 - The Protagonist must take some action to realize the goal
pp. 20-40 What obstacle(s) does the antagonist present? How does he commit to an action?
In my script these two are flipped around. Also we are only introduced to the how, and the what of the antagonists plan. We don't get the Why until in between these two:
pp. 50-65 Oops, how did the protagonist screw up?
pp. 65-80 The Big Whammy! Surprise & Calamity Await our Hero
Also the love interest does not come into the plot until in between these two as well. After the hero screws up, she finds herself in a position to help. Is that okay?
Last edited:
What I'm going to tell you applies specifically to "formula stories". It is good to keep to the formula while you learn. Not knowing your story's specifics, my comments are general.
If she is a central character, she should appear briefly in the first act, especially if she is to be a love interest.
My suggestion would be to re-assess and flip it back. Let's suppose your hero starts by trying to help protect this woman and not sure who's after her. That's the main premise--protect her and solve the crime.
Then at the end of act one she disappears or something else happens making it intriguing for him to take up the cause--commit to action.
Second act now he springs into action. The antagonists do something to threaten him, throw him off the track, etc. It only increases his resolve.
That's okay for that placement.
If she is a central character, she should appear briefly in the first act, especially if she is to be a love interest.
My suggestion would be to re-assess and flip it back. Let's suppose your hero starts by trying to help protect this woman and not sure who's after her. That's the main premise--protect her and solve the crime.
Then at the end of act one she disappears or something else happens making it intriguing for him to take up the cause--commit to action.
Second act now he springs into action. The antagonists do something to threaten him, throw him off the track, etc. It only increases his resolve.
That's okay for that placement.