Stories "starting on page 1"

[marktapiokines]

In a recent thread here, I noticed a couple people stating, very confidently, that a screenplay's story must begin on page 1. (This was in response to the poor writer whose story began on page 17.)

Frankly, I think this is bad advice. But it did make me curious about how individual writers define a script's "story" and where it begins.

I personally agree with the widely-held belief that a dramatic narrative first needs a little time to establish the main characters going about their daily routines before upsetting said routines. In short, it's the "Once upon a time, there was a kingdom..." bit that comes before the "When suddenly, one day..." bit.

The idea is that you first need to get to know the protagonist(s) when they're at ease, so to speak, so you can better appreciate how they react to major change. This major change is what many call the "inciting incident", or what I call the "Routine Killer", which I think is a less confusing and more all-encompassing term.

And yeah, in most 2-hour movies this moment comes in around page 10. Not page 1.

But what of a movie like "Star Wars"? Our hero, Luke Skywalker, doesn't even show up until a half hour into the film - and when we meet him, he's going about his routine. Yet there's a fair amount of story before that: Princess Leia plugs the Death Star plans into R2D2, she gets kidnapped by Darth Vader, etc. So what is the real "story"? Strictly in terms of dramatic structure, could R2D2 be the actual protagonist of "Star Wars"?

 

[Birdman]

I recently saw "Lone Survivor". The first twenty to thirty minutes of the movie was footage of Navy Seals training sessions and general bullshitting between Nave Seals. Had I drafted this as a Spec Script it would have coffee grinds and crap sitting on top of it in a garbage can.

...Great movie!!

Here's the deal:

According to most everyone who posts here, Spec Script writers are the scum of the Earth. You don't get to write scripts like other "professional" script writers do. We have to succumb to a certain set of rules that don't apply to others in this industry. You have one of two options:

(1) You can write your script EXACTLY how you feel it should be. If it takes longer to reach the pivotal point for a character, but YOU feel it is by design (and necessary) then do so. If a character needs to be hidden, concealed until later ...make it so. If you want to take chances that YOU feel make it a great movie but violate "1st Time Screenplay Writer" rules ...then do so.

However, you run the risk of the people reading your script tossing it in the garbage because you violated some of the rules on a "List of things not to do" Screenplay guide.

(2) Think of it as a challenge. You have to work harder than the other guys who get to do whatever the hell they want. You want to use a certain song, but you yield to the "format gods" and just write "He listens to a Blues song" instead. You find ways to change your ideas into something that fits this strange, pre-determined Spec Script ritualistic dogma that in many ways restrains your creativity.

It may not end up the way that you wanted i9t to read, but you run a greater chance of keeping it in a reader's hands.

=====================================

There are positives and negatives to following (1) and (2). You just have to decide which path you want to travel.

-Birdman

 

[baoliun]

39 Steps had a very defined story structure,I don't remember exact minutes,but you could clearly see the script structure,necessary exposition for setting up the story,a very cool point when main protagonist although is presented with a problem,has no motivation whatsoever to go on a quest and the inciting incident where he has no choice but to go on a quest and so on throughout the movie.

But it all depends,you can start a movie with a flashback or near the ending,than tell the whole story up to the point of a flashback and than show the ending. Brief Encounters among many others use that structure.

And there is allways arthouse who doesn't give a shit

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I recently saw "Lone Survivor". The first twenty to thirty minutes of the movie was footage of Navy Seals training sessions and general bullshitting between Nave Seals. Had I drafted this as a Spec Script it would have coffee grinds and crap sitting on top of it in a garbage can.

I listened to the audiobook while driving across country - that was the first 7-8 hours or so! When I saw it on screen it felt like it just rushed by...

But what of a movie like "Star Wars"? Our hero, Luke Skywalker, doesn't even show up until a half hour into the film - and when we meet him, he's going about his routine. Yet there's a fair amount of story before that: Princess Leia plugs the Death Star plans into R2D2, she gets kidnapped by Darth Vader, etc. So what is the real "story"? Strictly in terms of dramatic structure, could R2D2 be the actual protagonist of "Star Wars"?

No, Luke is still the protagonist - but the story starts on page one, exactly as suggested. It's a way to satisfy both the need to set up the characters, but also to pull the audience (and/or script reader) into the story right away. There's nothing that says the protagonist needs to appear on page one.

 

[directorik]

But what of a movie like "Star Wars"? Our hero, Luke Skywalker, doesn't even show up until a half hour into the film - and when we meet him, he's going about his routine. Yet there's a fair amount of story before that:

Exactly!

The story starts on page one. The protagonist is introduced later than
many stories. So even you agree with the advice that the story start
on page one.

If the advice had been; "You must introduce the protagonist on page
one" I would understand your objection - hell, I would call that poor
advise - but that isn't what the advice was nor what your thread is
about. So what, exactly, do you think is bad advice?

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

In Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho the story starts straight away. The first thing you see is a catalyst for what eventually follows. But the death of the character we all thought was the protagonist happens early in the film, so does the story end with her death? No. Despite the fact she's dead the story continues, but does so still revolving around her character - her sister and love interest with the help of a Private Investigator are looking into what happened.

 

[Will Write For Latte]

Nice Topic

Originally Posted by Birdman

(1) You can write your script EXACTLY how you feel it should be. If it takes longer to reach the pivotal point for a character, but YOU feel it is by design (and necessary) then do so. If a character needs to be hidden, concealed until later ...make it so. If you want to take chances that YOU feel make it a great movie but violate "1st Time Screenplay Writer" rules ...then do so.

@Birdman, I like your style.

I wrote my screenplay picturing a "roller-coaster" ride, starting slow, the climb, then the drop, and twist's and turns with one Final "Huge" drop at the very end. Now on my 1st "Re-write" I ended up with 97 pages. Ouch!

But I followed that same method by Birdman, the #1 in his comment.

Mind you I wrote the backstory in 1995 while in art school, and the finished screenplay in 2012. And Re-write in june 2013. Now Second Re-write, still in progress. All this even before "The Matrix".

 

[Sage Pictures]

It comes down to the definition of 'start'

Momentum should begin on page one. As to the inciting incident -

Consider how we refer to the inciting incident. Perhaps the fundamental quality of movies and shows we most enjoy is that the inciting incident is also defined by an 'opportunity' as opposed to solely an unpleasant pressure that forces action of the hero. This is what imparts the lions share of the story's momentum that will last it until the end (occurs near the beginning of the script as soon as it is ready)

The language used to refer to key structural elements subtlely defines the possibilities that occur to screenwriters as they write them

 

[Flicker Pictures]

Does the "story" need to start by the end of or on Page 1, or will a solid HOOK suffice? I'm thinking of "cold opens" here... maybe the same thing? I think they are two different approaches or perhaps they achieve similar things?

I certainly like the idea of grabbing a reader's attention by Page 1 (or at least by Page 3) although I'm not sure that revealing what the whole story "is" (or will be) by the end of Page 1 is a do or die screenwriting rule.

And I definitely believe that setting the TONE on Page 1 is good practice.

This is my attempt at a "cold open" for something that is still very much a work in progress...

3 PAGES - PDF LINK

I'm open to any feedback, comments or editorial suggestions if you felt like reading.

 

[FantasySciFi]

Technically, if you read Lucas' 4th draft, he introduces Luke on page 4, right after a cut from a scene on the battle on the rebel ship. His evaporator droid gives up the ghost. It then cuts back to the scene with on the rebel ship. For whatever reason, Lucas as DIRECTOR chose not to include it. However Luke does appear within the first 20 minutes. Regardless, comparing produced movies with bad scripts is like comparing apples and poison ivy.

In well written scripts, the viewer's interest is immediately drawn to the story's action. You get a clear sense of the characters and their world. That building of interest happens as soon as the movie starts which is "FADE IN".

In poorly written scripts, there are vignettes or only loosely connected scenes. The characters are usually bland, unlikeable or vary all over the place in tone and behavior. There is no clear sense of why you should be watching (or reading). I read one script which wasn't sure if it was a comedy, a drama or a western. The tone of the characters varied over the first 20 or so pages before it brought in the supernatural element which was the theme alluded to by the title. Then it failed to deliver.

If I'm watching TV, if a movie doesn't catch my interest in the first ten minutes, I flip the channel. Sometimes I watch simply because it's such an absolute train wreck. I'm sure we've all seen movies where we tell ourselves "it's got to get better" and never does. Alot of them appear on MST3K.

There are lots of books that are boring to read as well. If I'm going to spend money or time, I have to enjoy it. It comes down to making a script that's interesting to read and watch. You have five minutes to hook me when I watch a program or film. It's not about rules, it's about sorting out the garbage. If that's not something you want to hear as a writer, then make the film yourself and bore your family and friends with it.

Every red-blooded screenwriter has full right to shoot themselves in the foot by being true to their inexperienced instincts. Anyone who blindly advocates writing a script in a slapdash manner is doing a disservice to sincere writers (or sees it as a way to eliminate the competition).

Okay, here's the deal, a spec script is a blueprint. Period. If you compare a spec script to the final movie there are often significant differences. The spec's purpose is to present an engaging story with interesting characters with balanced, well-paced action and dialogue. Its layout should facilitate budgeting, scheduling, and shot planning. Once you option or sell your script, you are largely out of the equation. You can ask to be involved but it's by no means assured. Your main focus is to sell STORY from start to finish. Once it's out of your hands, it's the director's and producer's baby.

If you seriously hope someone else will make it, you need to realize that other writers want the same thing. They take it seriously. Producers and directors want scripts that don't require a lot of overhaul. It gets read by a 'reader' who needs to sort out the garbage from the potentials and gems. Don't whine because your script is boring, trite, and wanders vaguely. Fix it, write the book, or produce it yourself.

 

[marktapiokines]

In Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho the story starts straight away. The first thing you see is a catalyst for what eventually follows. But the death of the character we all thought was the protagonist happens early in the film, so does the story end with her death? No. Despite the fact she's dead the story continues, but does so still revolving around her character - her sister and love interest with the help of a Private Investigator are looking into what happened.

Funny you should mention PSYCHO, as I was thinking of that very movie when considering replying to someone else here. I thought about what you said and watched the first chunk of my DVD of the film.

This is a great example of how different writers interpret "the beginning of the story" as different things. Because in my opinion, the story doesn't actually begin until roughly 6 minutes into the film, when the rich cowboy investor Mr. Cassidy walks into the bank, waving his $40,000 in front of Marion Crane's face. That's what I would call the story's actual catalyst. (Some might even say that only the moment when Marion steals that money is the true catalyst.)

Yes, in the opening scene between Marion and her boyfriend in the hotel, a lot of exposition is established, namely that these people feel that they need money in order to be together and be happy. But in my opinion, that's not the "catalyst" - since one can assume these characters have probably had the same conversation many times before, only to do nothing about it - and thus not when the "story" begins.

Perhaps it comes down to whether a screenwriter feels that establishing the character's status quo (in PSYCHO, that status quo is, "Marion is unhappy because she doesn't have the money to be with her boyfriend") is when the story begins, or that the story only starts after that catalyst - or Routine Killer, call to action, inciting incident, whatever you want to call it - is introduced.

My vote goes to the latter. But it's interesting to get different takes on this.

 

[directorik]

The story catalyst (often called the inciting incident) is what sets the
story in motion - as you point out. That doesn't happen on page one.
But the story needs to start right away. As it does in Stefano's screenplay.

If you are saying the "catalyst"/"inciting incident" doesn't need to start
on page one, I agree with that. If you are saying the story does not start
until the "catalyst"/"inciting incident", I don't agree. Without a story you
can't have the reaction that makes it move more quickly.

 

[marktapiokines]

Exactly!

The story starts on page one. The protagonist is introduced later than
many stories. So even you agree with the advice that the story start
on page one.

If the advice had been; "You must introduce the protagonist on page
one" I would understand your objection - hell, I would call that poor
advise - but that isn't what the advice was nor what your thread is
about. So what, exactly, do you think is bad advice?

To be clear, I think it's bad advice to say that every screenplay's story must begin on page 1 (or, rather, during the first 2 minutes of a movie, after credits).

But as I mentioned in my previous post, about PSYCHO, the concept of "story" seems to be defined differently by various writers, which is why I brought up STAR WARS in the first place.

Sure, one can say that Star Wars' story begins on page 1, if you decide the story begins with the Empire invading Princess Leia's ship. Or maybe it begins a page or two later, when Princess Leia plugs the Death Star plans into R2D2 and tells him to escape her ship and find Obi Wan Kenobi. (Not explicitly shown, obviously, but inferred.) So yep, that's pretty early. But let's look at some other examples:

1. BACK TO THE FUTURE: The first 20+ minutes of the film are devoted to exposition, giving us the details of Marty McFly's routine existence. It innocently delivers a lot of information that will be important later - the significance of the Enchantment Under the Sea dance, lightning hitting the clock tower, etc. But does that exposition count as story? Or does the story only really begin when Marty is accidentally sent back to 1955?

2. ALL IS LOST: Now this one's clear. First thing we see in the film is Robert Redford waking up in his boat to realize it has a huge hole in it, with water pouring in. This story begins right off the bat. But I think this, like Star Wars, is actually a rare example of that.

3. THE LEGO MOVIE: When the film starts, we spend about 7-8 minutes with our hero Emmet going about his regular life. Unlike All Is Lost, this is obviously a highly commercial film and its script is extremely formulaic (if entertaining). Yet there is absolutely zero narrative going on in these first few minutes; it's purely status quo, introducing the protagonist and his environment.

Obviously I have no problems with stories starting on page 1, like All Is Lost, and I have no problem with protagonists being introduced until the end of the first act, like Star Wars (though as another commenter pointed out, Lucas did write, and film, Luke Skywalker looking through his binoculars at the Rebel ship being captured, then hanging out with his buddies, so as a writer he was intent on introducing his protagonist during the first 10 minutes; as a director during post, he decided those scenes weren't necessary).

The world of screenwriting is filled with dogmatic ideas. And hey, I teach this Lynda course, so I'm part of all that too. But I do think there's room for flexibility, and that giving screenwriters the dictum that all good stories must begin on page 1, without telling them what you actually mean by "story" (and I don't mean to pick on you, I am referring to anybody), is misleading.

 

[marktapiokines]

The story catalyst (often called the inciting incident) is what sets the
story in motion - as you point out. That doesn't happen on page one.
But the story needs to start right away. As it does in Stefano's screenplay.

If you are saying the "catalyst"/"inciting incident" doesn't need to start
on page one, I agree with that. If you are saying the story does not start
until the "catalyst"/"inciting incident", I don't agree. Without a story you
can't have the reaction that makes it move more quickly.

I must have started my last message when you did. Anyway, thanks for the clarity. Again, this whole thing comes down to semantics, perhaps.

But if exposition, as in the opening minutes of PSYCHO or BACK TO THE FUTURE, counts as story, then by this definition, doesn't pretty much every movie's story start on page 1? I'm curious to know your thoughts on this. Like, if you could name some movies where you don't think the story starts until several minutes in.

 

[directorik]

But if exposition, as in the opening minutes of PSYCHO or BACK TO THE FUTURE, counts as story, then by this definition, doesn't pretty much every movie's story start on page 1? I'm curious to know your thoughts on this. Like, if you could name some movies where you don't think the story starts until several minutes in.

It is my understanding that the advice you think is bad advice is
regarding the screenplay - not the finished film. I have never seen
a distributed film where the story starts several minutes in. The
films you mention all start the story right away. What you call
exposition is the story.

I have read many scripts where the story doesn't start on page one.
That always pushes the catalyst/inciting incident too far back so the
read is bogged down. It's boring until the story starts and then it gets
going with the first inciting incident. Cut out the non-story and the
screenplay works.

giving screenwriters the dictum that all good stories must begin on page 1, without telling them what you actually mean by "story" (and I don't mean to pick on you, I am referring to anybody), is misleading.

The story of "Star Wars" is in the title - the story is the war. So the
beginning of the movie sets up the story. The catalyst is the protagonist
who accepts the call to battle to stop the war.

The story of "Back the the Future" is Marty's story - his mundane life.
So the story shows us that. The catalyst is him being dragged into an
adventure.

 

[Beatlesfan1225]

In Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho the story starts straight away. The first thing you see is a catalyst for what eventually follows. But the death of the character we all thought was the protagonist happens early in the film, so does the story end with her death? No. Despite the fact she's dead the story continues, but does so still revolving around her character - her sister and love interest with the help of a Private Investigator are looking into what happened.

Mhm, Hitchcock stories. They're the best. Phantom is absolutely right, in 'Psycho' especially, Hitchcock does a masterful job of establishing story early on, despite killing the character it's centered around very early. In fact, I think audiences were a bit taken aback when Leigh's character died so early, since many of them went to the movie to see her.

Another great Hitchcock example is 'Rear Window' - the entire film is back story unfolding by watching people out of a window, and most of the story is speculative until the end of the film. But, the story starts on page one, immediately setting the stage with Stewart's character peeping on his neighbors while inhibited from doing much else.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I'm wondering if we might just be mincing words. What, exactly, does it mean to "start" your "story". I'm not sure that we're all working with the same definitions.

Star Wars has been made example of, and I would say that the story most definitely starts on page 1, regardless of who our protagonist is (it's Luke).

But what about Raiders of the Lost Ark? The lengthy prologue has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie, except for introducing our hero.

Viewed strictly from the perspective of plot, the story in Raiders doesn't start until many pages in. But if you consider character to be an integral component of story, then it starts on page 1. Would anyone in their right mind try to argue that the prologue should've been left out? Of course not. By throwing the audience into the climax of a previous adventure, the prologue makes it clear that this is who our hero is -- going on adventures is a regular part of his life, and that knowledge influences how we view the rest of the movie.

So yes, I absolutely think you should start story on page one. What exactly that means is open to interpretation, and any rule that's made can be broken.

 

[Beatlesfan1225]

I'm wondering if we might just be mincing words. What, exactly, does it mean to "start" your "story". I'm not sure that we're all working with the same definitions.

Star Wars has been made example of, and I would say that the story most definitely starts on page 1, regardless of who our protagonist is (it's Luke).

But what about Raiders of the Lost Ark? The lengthy prologue has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie, except for introducing our hero.

Viewed strictly from the perspective of plot, the story in Raiders doesn't start until many pages in. But if you consider character to be an integral component of story, then it starts on page 1. Would anyone in their right mind try to argue that the prologue should've been left out? Of course not. By throwing the audience into the climax of a previous adventure, the prologue makes it clear that this is who our hero is -- going on adventures is a regular part of his life, and that knowledge influences how we view the rest of the movie.

So yes, I absolutely think you should start story on page one. What exactly that means is open to interpretation, and any rule that's made can be broken.

I think Cracker Funk hits the core of what this debate really is about: what is the start of your story? Personally, I'd say that the start of your story is what sets the stage for the plot. The introduction of Raiders introduces Indiana Jones' personality, quips, and gives us an understanding of the kind of adventures he's getting into. Also, the end of the prologue introduces a villain, which I think is pivotal to that introduction. "It seems there is nothing you have, that I cannot take away Mr. Jones!!"

 

[maz]

Does the "story" need to start by the end of or on Page 1, or will a solid HOOK suffice? I'm thinking of "cold opens" here... maybe the same thing? I think they are two different approaches or perhaps they achieve similar things?

I certainly like the idea of grabbing a reader's attention by Page 1 (or at least by Page 3) although I'm not sure that revealing what the whole story "is" (or will be) by the end of Page 1 is a do or die screenwriting rule.

And I definitely believe that setting the TONE on Page 1 is good practice.

This is my attempt at a "cold open" for something that is still very much a work in progress...

3 PAGES - PDF LINK

I'm open to any feedback, comments or editorial suggestions if you felt like reading.

I quite like this, and I can see it working as a cold open. Are the characters etc. related to the rest of the story, or is the artifact the only thing that's important to the rest of it?

 

[marktapiokines]

What you call exposition is the story.

I have read many scripts where the story doesn't start on page one.

What, then, is "non-story", since you're counting exposition as story? What's going on in those scripts on page 1 that couldn't count as either exposition or action?

Anyway, there is something more to this conversation than semantics.

For the record, here's why I don't count exposition as story: Because far too many screenwriters get bogged down in exposition. I think a lot of writers get caught up in their characters' backstories, and as a result, they try to squeeze every detail of those backstories into their scripts, which makes for a lot of exposition. This makes their narratives slump, and it's the #1 problem that I've found in people's screenplays. Stories go nowhere while the characters talk about themselves.

So if it's a matter of saying, "This here is story, and this here is exposition," then I think that will help screenwriters better discern between what propels their narratives forward and what doesn't. But by letting them say, "My character talking about himself for two pages is just as valid as him actually doing something, because exposition is story," that's just giving them more rope to hang themselves with!