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
Well in the first half is about very different things, and not protecting a woman. She has no reason to be in plot till the second act. The love interest is has nothing to do with the villains, and there is nothing she can do to help the hero. The villains don't even know her and have no reason to go after her. Even though the is a love interest, she is not as main of a character and only serves the last half of the plot when she has a reason to risk her life and help.
I could introduce her in a scene in the first act though, between pages 15-30 about, if she needs it. The scene will have nothing to do with the plot at hand though, and it will just be to introduce her. She can have a lunch scene with the hero or something like that, if it's not risky to break away from the plot for it.
So you say I should flip the two around. The antagonists commits some terrorists acts in the first two scenes, that get things going. So I should move those to page 11-20? However every guide I read says to get to the story quickly. Wouldn't it be more quick to start out with the first terror attacks and the theme, then go from there with protagonist's investigation which would be the challenge? I can introduce the characters from pages 1-10 beforehand, but I got nothing for them to do that is plot related, before the attacks. I was also told by few other writers, that when it comes to action thrillers, I should jump into the action in the first scene, if that's true. But if the Inciting Incident does not cause the opening action scene, what should?
I was also originally planning on having the antagonist disappear after his intro, and does not return until The Big Whammy. When he returns, you also get the Why of what he is doing. He has nothing to do but sit behind a desk, and hide and his thugs do his work for him, up until that point, if that's okay. But the antagonist is not really the main one. There is a main antagonist, for the first half, but it's a twist, and we're lead to believe he is on the protagonist's side the whole time. Is that okay?
I could introduce her in a scene in the first act though, between pages 15-30 about, if she needs it. The scene will have nothing to do with the plot at hand though, and it will just be to introduce her. She can have a lunch scene with the hero or something like that, if it's not risky to break away from the plot for it.
So you say I should flip the two around. The antagonists commits some terrorists acts in the first two scenes, that get things going. So I should move those to page 11-20? However every guide I read says to get to the story quickly. Wouldn't it be more quick to start out with the first terror attacks and the theme, then go from there with protagonist's investigation which would be the challenge? I can introduce the characters from pages 1-10 beforehand, but I got nothing for them to do that is plot related, before the attacks. I was also told by few other writers, that when it comes to action thrillers, I should jump into the action in the first scene, if that's true. But if the Inciting Incident does not cause the opening action scene, what should?
I was also originally planning on having the antagonist disappear after his intro, and does not return until The Big Whammy. When he returns, you also get the Why of what he is doing. He has nothing to do but sit behind a desk, and hide and his thugs do his work for him, up until that point, if that's okay. But the antagonist is not really the main one. There is a main antagonist, for the first half, but it's a twist, and we're lead to believe he is on the protagonist's side the whole time. Is that okay?
Last edited:
There is also this article on the 3 act structure, if any of it is true, I'm not making judgments.
http://www.truby.com/threeact.html
http://www.truby.com/threeact.html
Last edited:
Act One is where you introduce main characters important to the story. Star Wars starts with Leia and then she appears only fleetingly as a hologram message until her rescue in Act 2. By putting in an appearance, the audience is clued in that "this person is important later, watch for them." It doesn't matter if the protagonist and antagonist don't know her at this point. Even if she is only given a brief close up witnessing the crime, you have made her a key element. At a slightly later point you show her trying to contact someone about it then change her mind. Obviously she can't call the police. She is unsure how to help. After two appearances, the audience is clued in. So when she reappears in Act 2, they know she is a critical feature.
If she's a love interest, you also need to invoke a bit more contact. Yes, they can have casual sex. But love interest is usually a bit more involved. She may not know how he can help her or vice versa. In fact when she learns more about him on the date, she may become frightened which is why we don't see her again until Act 2.
"Gee, you seem like a swell guy. What do you do?"
He smiles, "I'm a cop." She freezes.
I've never read your script. GENERALLY you want to start strong to grab attention THEN you go back and lay some groundwork. Think of most of your crime shows. They start with a crime, then flip back to "it's an ordinary day at the station". We get to see some of the key officers react when the call comes in. Now they jump into the preliminary aspects of the investigation. Then they find the one thing--dead kid, dead puppy, etc.--that creates the resolve to solve the crime. Then Act 2.
So start with your terrorist act. But realize it won't immediately impact all of your characters. Your love interest may be enjoying a dinner with the hero when he gets a call to investigate. He apologizes and leaves. Focus on her reaction learning that there's been a bombing. That's the last we see of her until Act 2. She may talk to the hero by phone once or twice putting off meeting with him for various reasons until Act 2.
If it's just an explosion, it may be gas line leak. It will call in the front line police and firefighters. It won't necessarily be viewed as a terrorist act immediately. And you might not want to even clue the audience in immediately that it's a a terrorist act. It's a big boom. Then switch to the police station and have the terrorist threat come in promising more. Now confusion is amplified to chaos in the wake of the explosion.
Dramatic tension is like a rollercoaster. "Classic" rollercoasters climb you up the hill before releasing you. Modern rollercoasters like to start with a series of building adrenaline pumpers. Starting with action gets the audience into the story but then you need to back off and tell them who the key players are so they can make sense of who to follow.
That's fine. Except you want the audience to believe that the guy behind the desk is your supervillain so that the twist hits them hard. To do that, your desk villain needs to have a bit more screen time. You can do this by having him on the phone speaking very generally.
"What the hell happened? You weren't supposed to kill anyone!"
Throwing in occasional lines like that make the audience wonder about his involvement. They may even be sympathetic until the reveal. After the reveal they think okay we know what's happening. Then you last exposure of the 'real villain' is all the more powerful.
People need to understand that Structure is different from Story. The structure does not tell you how to write your story. Nor does every story have the same structure. The storyline of the Hero's Journey and its structure have been used as a template that has become adopted--indeed canonized--as the basis for most movies. As a result, most movie analysts try to cookie cutter all movies into the story structure of the Hero's Journey and make every plot element fit the Hero's Journey storyline.
For beginning screenwriters, it is a good template to follow. They see it all around them. They learned it as kids-"Once upon a time, there was a young fellow named Jack. And he ran into a frog. The frog said 'would you like to go on a trip with me?' Jack said, 'If it isn't far. I have to be back by lunch.' And the two set out. (Act 1)" and so forth. For many writers, it is the only tool in their toolbox. But with practice and research you realize you need more than a hammer to build a house. So you get screwdrivers, saws, a few powertools and look at different blueprints, learn about plumbing and wiring. Eventually you build a house. Most of us build treehouses first with scrap lumber, a standard blueprint, a hammer and some nails.
If you're starting out master the Hero's Journey template. When it's second nature, then you begin experimenting.
The movie industry likes selling houses with amenities, not treehouses. It's not the structure that's flawed but the perceptions. I guarantee that 99.9% of all houses have the floor (Act 1), the walls (Act 2) and the roof (Act 3). Some have basements, staircases, sunrooms, etc. The best have sinks, toilets, central air, power, lights, etc. As well as sweet locations.
Okay thanks. I don't want them to have casual sex for the first scene, cause like you said, she should be a bit more involved and the casual sex thing to introduce a love interest is kind of a cliche. In Star Wars Leia planted the thing in R2 D2 which was important for later. So she still had something to do with the plot. In my case my love interest will have nothing to do with the plot and she and the hero will only be able to have a casual conversation or something, if that's okay. And no, they don't even know that she is in a position to help him until later. They don't meet for the first time but have already known each other.
The script does start out the way you said. A series of attacks followed by ransom messages. Since the plot starts out air tight, the best place to take a break and introduce the love interest would be in between scenes 3 and 4, or in between 4 and 5. Would the reader maybe have more attention if I took a break two scenes later?
The supervillain behind the desk is in the first scene, and we see him cause the first attack. After that he does not come back till act 2, unless I can think of a good scene for him, before, but I want him kept a mystery until then, if that's a good way to go. But he is often talked about by the investigators in the first act, so the audience has a good idea that he is the supervillain, even though the cops can't prove it at this point. So the character is developed a little through the cops investigation and their point of view, rather than him on screen, if that's okay.
Once The Big Whammy comes though, the audience gets inside his head and past, and feels sympathy for him, and everything is revealed. Even though we know he's not the main villain, he is still the second main, and the audience feels sympathy. Does it work to save more of it till after the twist?
Thanks people for the input.
While many of Truby's ideas are great (I'm using the character web right now) but I think his talk about the three act structure is just an ad for his book, software, and seminars. The three act structure is more organic and widely used than his 22 steps.
I plot five points before I write a script. I'll obviously do a lot more afterwards like use "the board," but these are the points I use as a map:
Inciting Incident
End of Act One
Midpoint
End of Act Two
Climax
That's it. A great exercise is to find movies that seem unconventional (500 Days of Summer, Garden State) and find these points. It's especially good if you're watching or reading the script to a movie in the same genre you're writing.
Well yeah, but all movies can have those five, and that is too basic of a guideline I think. I think a really great movie should have at least maybe 15 plot points. The more plot the better sometimes.
H44, place your love interest somewhere 'early' to be paid off later, whichever way you choose BUT if you can add some irony in doing, which relates directly with your theme - fantastic!
Adhere to a basic 3 / 4 act structure until you have a greater understanding of the craft - which only comes from writing (re-writing) several sp's.
Once you are happy with what you have and it's been copyrighted, join a site like Trigger Street for feedback and suggestions from fellow writers.
All the best, Jim.
Adhere to a basic 3 / 4 act structure until you have a greater understanding of the craft - which only comes from writing (re-writing) several sp's.
Once you are happy with what you have and it's been copyrighted, join a site like Trigger Street for feedback and suggestions from fellow writers.
All the best, Jim.
Well I already wrote practice scripts before. None that are good enough to use, accept for hopefully my previous one. My current one I think is pretty much the three act structure, already, and I am writing it based off structures of other movies. However my script has more plot than a lot of the structures that are suggested to me. It still has a similar structure, but with more plot points then that diagram showed. I will follow it as close as I can and take the advice given, but can't follow it exact cause my my story has more plot shifts in it then the chart suggests.
Last edited:
Your movie will have MANY plot points, but you want to start with the basic and then get more and more detailed.
True. On my previous script, if you go by the structure and after 'The Big Whammy', my third act starts on page 76 and goes till 117. It is a long third act but one of the reasons why I tried to make it more thrilling, is that the villains make it very hard to be brought down, which is what makes for a longer and harder race against time/climax. But there is another big whammy about 10 pages after 76 so I guess it depends on which one you count.
Last edited:
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/pruter/film/threeact.htm
In that diagram though, of the three act structure, only two plot points are listed, one where the second act begins, and one at the third. A movie has to have more than that though, probably at least 3 per act, in a good thriller, I'd say.
In that diagram though, of the three act structure, only two plot points are listed, one where the second act begins, and one at the third. A movie has to have more than that though, probably at least 3 per act, in a good thriller, I'd say.
Last edited: