Trying to apply the three act structure to the thriller genre.

[harmonica44]

I was watching this tutorial on the three act structure and they talk about what is sometimes called the "ALL IS LOST" moment. It's described in 6:10 into the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6QD5Pbc50I

Basically in the 3 act structure at the end of the second act, especially in a thriller, the MC comes close to beating the villain but then everything goes wrong. The MC then has to come up with a much newer, much more desperate plan. It's been done a lot in movies of the thriller genre.

However, when my MC tricks the villain into making a mistake and tricks him into his own downfall, the trick is to write it so that the villain does not come off to the audience as been too stupid. But since the MC's new idea, has only come about just before the third act, he doesn't have a lot of time to trick the villain, but he has to do it quickly before the climax, compared to before, where the villain wasn't willing to fall for any tricks.

In a lot of thrillers, they use the All Is Lost moment, and then have to come up with something else to get the villain. But the trick is, how does the MC come up with a plan to trick the villain, but at the same time not make the villain look too stupid, and make logical sense that the villain would fall for it so quickly in the process, compared to all the much longer efforts that failed before? What is the trick to bringing the villain down in the third act, with a new fast idea, compared to all the longer ideas, that wouldn't work before?

 

[mlesemann]

You've got it backwards. The "all is lost" moment is when everything goes terribly wrong for the hero, not when he almost but not quite beats the bad guy.

 

[WalterB]

Isn't the all is lost moment often accompagnied by a revelation/epiphany/mentor or friend showing up unexpectedly? In other words: all seems lost and then a new element shows up to turn the tables.
And the new plan is the one that seems to work, but fails as well.

As long as you see it as trickery, it will probably read as trickery

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. So it's not all is lost, but all SEEMS to be lost. However, if it's just an illusion, then it kind of cheapens the plot turn if all is not really lost almost then. I am thinking of different ways to end my script. Having another character show up unexpectedly to turn the table was one of my ideas, but some people said they didn't like it, because it comes off as a deux ex machina, as oppose to the hero having to catch the villain with his own plan entirely. Do you think that's true most of the time?

 

[WalterB]

ofcourse it just SEEMS* lost.
Otherwise the movie would end there and have an unhappy ending where evil wins.

Deus ex machina means you bring in something totally new and yes, that feels like cheating.
But bringing in someone familiar can work.
Like Han Solo in A New Hope.
Such a moment evokes a 'Hell, Yeah!' instead of 'WTF'.

An idea can be new and just inspired by somthing the hero suddenly notices or someone says something that triggers an idea.

Your question: 'do you think it is true most of the time?' is a b*llsh!t question and you can't make a rule about this.
It depends.
In good movies it is not.
In your script it appearantly is, probably because you are really trying to trick everyone while sticking to a structure instead of trying to tell a great story and using the structure to serve the story instead of vice versa.


* Actually, the whole movie is an illusion.

 

[mlesemann]

Walter B:

In good movies it is not.

This! Yes

 

[HU_Nathan7]

Personally, I'm getting bored with the 3 act structure (not to turn this into a debate or anything). It's so easy to watch a movie and say "we've just entered act 3." It's a great structure to follow when first starting out, but I think could also be very healthy to find ways to deviate from it. And I think would be good for the film world as a whole. /EndRant.

As far as making the villain not look stupid. I think you can possibly do it in a way where the villain isn't tricked because of stupidity. The hero tricks and wins because he's clever. If that makes sense. It's basically is the glass half empty or half full kind of thing; and all how you present it in the script.

 

[directorik]

Personally, I'm getting bored with the 3 act structure (not to turn this into a debate or anything). It's so easy to watch a movie and say "we've just entered act 3." It's a great structure to follow when first starting out, but I think could also be very healthy to find ways to deviate from it. And I think would be good for the film world as a whole. /EndRant.

Any examples of stories that deviated from the 3 act structure?

Yes, I'm aware of non-liniar storytelling so I'm not looking for "Pulp Fiction"
as an example.

To me the 3 act structure is:
Act 1: the story starts. Even if it starts in the middle of something bigger.
Act 2: the story builds.
Act 3: the story ends.

(and "Pulp Fiction" follows that almost to the page)

To me that isn't boring. That's telling a story.

Do you have any examples of movies where you didn't say, "we've just
entered act 3."?

 

[maz]

Any examples of stories that deviated from the 3 act structure?

Yes, I'm aware of non-liniar storytelling so I'm not looking for "Pulp Fiction"
as an example.

To me the 3 act structure is:
Act 1: the story starts. Even if it starts in the middle of something bigger.
Act 2: the story builds.
Act 3: the story ends.

(and "Pulp Fiction" follows that almost to the page)

To me that isn't boring. That's telling a story.

Do you have any examples of movies where you didn't say, "we've just
entered act 3."?

Simplified to that level, then yes, all stories (and movies) stick to the 3-act structure. But the issue with it is more the rigid takes on specific story beats (like the "All is lost" moment in this thread) that some people take as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Hollywood increasingly churns out these cookie-cutter movies where it is almost possible to tell which guru's book the writer has based his structure on.

Ultimately, as long as the story starts, builds, and ends, that's a valid story - just as it has been for thousands of years before McKee, Snyder et al....

 

[FantasySciFi]

Personally, I'm getting bored with the 3 act structure (not to turn this into a debate or anything). It's so easy to watch a movie and say "we've just entered act 3." It's a great structure to follow when first starting out, but I think could also be very healthy to find ways to deviate from it. And I think would be good for the film world as a whole.

I appreciate your sentiment but the reality is that almost 75% of the population likes that level of predictability. As Directorik mentioned, even non-linear films have segments that follow a similar structure. That doesn't mean that people don't appreciate being shaken up, but there is always a risk of disenfranchising your audience. The larger the studio budget, the more conservative script they want. A screenwriter who wants to break conventions needs to prepare to be their own producer and/or director. And in that case, not expect to make a blockbuster but something with a more modest market.

Any examples of stories that deviated from the 3 act structure? ...
Do you have any examples of movies where you didn't say, "we've just entered act 3."?

Well, there are examples though they probably would be described more as art or experimental films. One which I analyzed in another thread is "Valhalla Rising". It's broken into segments which follow the runic interpretations. I agree that there is an important "introduction, action, resolution" that is implicit in all story telling. However the sheer "WTF is this all about?" disrupts the storytelling aspect that neatly packages the film. "Blair Witch Project" in its pseudoreality style interrupts the narrative flow. Or "Paranormal Activity" which is more pseudodocumentary than storytelling. Is it possible to say, "Okay, here's when the filmmakers decided that events need to wrap up."? Of course. It doesn't map cleanly to what most writing instructors would classify as a "transition point" or "crisis point" for the main character. Trying to analyze Jodorowky's films using the three act structure can prove challenging as often there is no resolution just a profound circle. "Tree of Life" and "2001 Space Odyssey" are hard to characterize as having discernible transitions as the linear narrative is interrupted.

Simplified to that level, then yes, all stories (and movies) stick to the 3-act structure. But the issue with it is more the rigid takes on specific story beats (like the "All is lost" moment in this thread) that some people take as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Hollywood increasingly churns out these cookie-cutter movies where it is almost possible to tell which guru's book the writer has based his structure on.

Ultimately, as long as the story starts, builds, and ends, that's a valid story - just as it has been for thousands of years before McKee, Snyder et al....

Again, from basic marketing profiles, studios are willing to put big bucks into formulas that work and capture the lion's share of the profit. Are Disney films formulaic? Of course, because it works. If one film does exceptionally well, its sequel and spin-offs are likely to have a built-in market share. Big studios are about profitability, not art. That's a complaint that many insiders--Spielberg, Lucas, and others--make. It's why smaller studios try to imitate larger successes with their own spin.

Most of these gurus have simply recorded the formulas that have been used for years. But it's important to distinguish STORY from STRUCTURE. The "Hero's Journey" is a type of story which is different from "Loner's Travels" or the "Anti-Hero's Journey". Structure is about pacing and presentation of the story. The enshrinement of the Hero's Journey as being identical to screenplay structure is the chief mistake that many writers make. It is the easiest to teach new writers. Most writing 'gurus' are simply trying to teach a style that works well for beginners. Culturally since being a child we've learned "Once upon a time, there was X. Now X did Y until one day ...." Act one has begun. We know and are comfortable with that pattern as is our audience. It's certainly not the only way when looking at world mythology and folktales.

As for structure, that is part of the craft. When you need to keep length to 90-120 pages, it's helpful to organize your work. Statistically, I know I should have introduced all my main characters and the major story issues by page 20. The bulk of the story action needs to build up to page 80 and the resolution needs to occur in the last 20 pages. If I have a secondary story, then it's layered in there. A 1-3-1 pattern is common for a linear script statistically. Telling someone to write to a page count would be ludicrous. But as an instructor or studio reader, if I don't have a good sense of who and what your movie is about in 20 pages (20 minutes of screen time), the script has major flaws. So when an instructor says "Act one is to introduce your character and story premise and shouldn't be longer than 20 pages" that's not meant as "Screenwriting Rule #1", it's a guiding principle that will enhance your chance of creating a successful screenplay. If I'm just getting into the action on page 75, my pacing is much too slow unless I can quickly build up to a point of resolution in ten pages. Again, it helps me as a writer to help gauge if I'm where I need to be.

In television a minor conflict is expected every 5 or so pages and a major conflict every 10 or so. Television has a much more focused writing style. So translating that to a film script of 100 pages, I'd expect 10 major dramatic events. Though in practice, I find it's every 10-12 pages. Should it then be a coincidence that the transition from introductions at page 20 happens to fall on or close to a major dramatic event? Similarly that the "crisis" marks a transition? The average attention span of most adults in our society is about 5 minutes and 20 minutes for sustained attention for something that interests them. Remember 1 screen minute is roughly 1 page of properly formatted script. The goal is to hold your audience's attention. Some of this writers have learned from experience. The tag and the hook both serve a purpose.

New writers need to start with something they recognize. When you use a pattern that is familiar, it makes it easier for the audience to process. The "three act structure" more resembles a multiple act structure when detailed. There are nuances of a multithreaded story and using breadcrumbs. The craft of screenwriting can be complex but you can't tackle it without a thorough grasp of the basics. Too often new writers want to be unique or different without taking the trouble to master the fundamentals. Looking at Picasso's early training, it was classical. After mastering the basics, he went on to evolve his own style.

 

[directorik]

Trying to analyze Jodorowky's films using the three act structure can prove challenging as often there is no resolution just a profound circle. "Tree of Life" and "2001 Space Odyssey" are hard to characterize as having discernible transitions as the linear narrative is interrupted.

Excellent examples. I was really hoping to hear from HU_Nathan7.

I'm a fan of Jodorowsky and while his stories are open for interpretation
I see not only the traditional beginning, middle, end three acts I think
an argument can be made regarding character "turning (transition/crisis)
points" in his three most famous films. I see them and they come in
the very traditional place in a story.

"Tree of Life" is an excellent example. "2001:" seems pretty straight
forward in the 3 act structure after the prologue even thought the
linear narrative is interrupted.

But this is what discussion is all about. Which is why I hope HU_Nathan7
joins in with movies he sees that deviate from the 3 act structure.

 

[maz]

Again, from basic marketing profiles, studios are willing to put big bucks into formulas that work and capture the lion's share of the profit. Are Disney films formulaic? Of course, because it works. If one film does exceptionally well, its sequel and spin-offs are likely to have a built-in market share. Big studios are about profitability, not art. That's a complaint that many insiders--Spielberg, Lucas, and others--make. It's why smaller studios try to imitate larger successes with their own spin.

Most of these gurus have simply recorded the formulas that have been used for years. But it's important to distinguish STORY from STRUCTURE. The "Hero's Journey" is a type of story which is different from "Loner's Travels" or the "Anti-Hero's Journey". Structure is about pacing and presentation of the story. The enshrinement of the Hero's Journey as being identical to screenplay structure is the chief mistake that many writers make. It is the easiest to teach new writers. Most writing 'gurus' are simply trying to teach a style that works well for beginners. Culturally since being a child we've learned "Once upon a time, there was X. Now X did Y until one day ...." Act one has begun. We know and are comfortable with that pattern as is our audience. It's certainly not the only way when looking at world mythology and folktales.

As for structure, that is part of the craft. When you need to keep length to 90-120 pages, it's helpful to organize your work. Statistically, I know I should have introduced all my main characters and the major story issues by page 20. The bulk of the story action needs to build up to page 80 and the resolution needs to occur in the last 20 pages. If I have a secondary story, then it's layered in there. A 1-3-1 pattern is common for a linear script statistically. Telling someone to write to a page count would be ludicrous. But as an instructor or studio reader, if I don't have a good sense of who and what your movie is about in 20 pages (20 minutes of screen time), the script has major flaws. So when an instructor says "Act one is to introduce your character and story premise and shouldn't be longer than 20 pages" that's not meant as "Screenwriting Rule #1", it's a guiding principle that will enhance your chance of creating a successful screenplay. If I'm just getting into the action on page 75, my pacing is much too slow unless I can quickly build up to a point of resolution in ten pages. Again, it helps me as a writer to help gauge if I'm where I need to be.

In television a minor conflict is expected every 5 or so pages and a major conflict every 10 or so. Television has a much more focused writing style. So translating that to a film script of 100 pages, I'd expect 10 major dramatic events. Though in practice, I find it's every 10-12 pages. Should it then be a coincidence that the transition from introductions at page 20 happens to fall on or close to a major dramatic event? Similarly that the "crisis" marks a transition? The average attention span of most adults in our society is about 5 minutes and 20 minutes for sustained attention for something that interests them. Remember 1 screen minute is roughly 1 page of properly formatted script. The goal is to hold your audience's attention. Some of this writers have learned from experience. The tag and the hook both serve a purpose.

New writers need to start with something they recognize. When you use a pattern that is familiar, it makes it easier for the audience to process. The "three act structure" more resembles a multiple act structure when detailed. There are nuances of a multithreaded story and using breadcrumbs. The craft of screenwriting can be complex but you can't tackle it without a thorough grasp of the basics. Too often new writers want to be unique or different without taking the trouble to master the fundamentals. Looking at Picasso's early training, it was classical. After mastering the basics, he went on to evolve his own style.

Eloquent and thorough as usual, but I have no idea whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me I agree that you have to know the rules to be able to successfully riff around them, and following a roadmap makes sense until you can find your own way.

What annoys me is when a perfectly good story is criticised for not matching a guru's example of a structure (as you say, taking one suggested structure as the only one). I would say most storytellers (in any medium, right the way back to oral traditions etc) have an instinctual grasp of story structure, pacing etc, and everything else is at best a helpful guideline.

For me, story is more important than structure, and I don't like a structure adhered to so tightly that I can see the bones Good writers don't do that of course, but there seem to be a lot of cookie-cutter writers in Hollywood these days. And yeah, I know: it sells, and film isn't art, just a commodity. I get that. Doesn't mean I have to like it though

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Well when it comes to using this structure I have trouble with my endings. I keep reading what gurus and other writers have to say and they all say to come your ending first and then build into that. And I often feel my biggest problem is, is that it's tough building into an ending logically, while using a structure. I was told before by writers that the felt that in order to get to my ending, that characters have to make illogical decisions to get there, or the plot has to take illogical turns to get there.

One of my weaknesses in writing is that the characters eventually end up making decisions that go against their character, just so a certain plot turn or plot point can happen.

The reason why is, that after reading books about writing, they all say the same thing. They say to come up with your ending first, so you can build into that ending. But in order to build into my endings, the characters have to make illogical decisions just to get there.

I decided to take a whole new approach to writing and come up with a premise, and then have the characters in it, make decisions where they are the smartest, most logical decisions they would make without seeming forced or breaking character at all. Then I let their decisions decide outcome of the plot, rather than the other way around and deciding on my ending first.

However, I have come up with some outlines for the story with endings based on the characters' decisions. I am not satisfied with any of them. They all come off as anticlimatic or underwhelming. It makes sense that they would since it was the character's decisions that came to the ending, rather than me coming up with the most climatic and dramatic ending I could.

So should I go with an ending my instincts say to NO too, because it's anticlimatic? ...But on the plus side, the story didn't have to break logic to get there, and whatever ending happened, although anticlimatic, was a result of logic being followed up until then. What do you think?

 

[WalterB]

I think you need different characters.

 

[harmonica44]

Well, I have always been a fan of thrillers where the hero would use the villain's theme against him to bring him down, rather than just simply finding evidence to arrest him, which can be underwhelming or anticlimatic in a lot of cases.

But I've been told that using the villain's theme against him is unrealistic, and that people do not do that in real life. Other movies do it though, so how do you make it believable?

For example, in the movie Red Dragon, the main FBI character uses the personal adds, the villain was using in order to trick him and appeal to his ego to draw him out.

In the movie Confession of Murder, a serial killer gets away with all his murders, because his statute of limitations has expired. In the movie, set in South Korea, it's established that in that country they have a statute of limitations, where if you are not caught for your murder within 15 years, you cannot be charged after. The main character is bent on finding out who the serial killer is and getting revenge, since the serial killer killed his mother.

So the MC creates a whole new fake identity and gets plastic surgery to become a new person with a different look. He also creates a false birth certificate and the works to become a made up identity. He then pretends to be the serial killer and writes a book on all his murders, and how he got away with it because of the statute of limitations expiring. He then sells the book with great success and becomes a nation wide celebrity and millionaire. This causes the real serial killer to become enraged with jealousy over the MC taking credit for his work, and getting a lot of national publicity over it.

So the villain then comes forth and tells the media and the world, that the MC is a fraud taking credit for his work and that he is the real killer. He also offers the public proof, so they will believe him. This is what the MC's plan was. To get the real killer jealous to get him to come forth and flush him out, so he can find out who he is, and can then get his revenge on him.

Now the MC's plan was a long shot. I mean if you go through all that trouble of getting plastic surgery, coming up with a new identity, writing a book and becoming a millionaire celebrity by selling it, on the hopes of making the killer jealous enough to reveal himself, is a huge long shot.

I came up with some ideas on how the MC can use the villains weakness against him to bring him down, but they all feel like they wouldn't work. I mean when cops bring down criminals, they use evidence or they set a trap for the villain to incriminate himself, but to me that just feels underwhelming, which I think why most of my favorite movies and stories, have been ones, where the MC uses the villains own theme against him. It just makes it a much more dramatic downfall for the villain, cause the hero had to get down to his level and psyche to do it.

But how do you write it that way, and still have it be just as logical of a method as using evidence or something like that?

 

[WalterB]

Well, I have always been a fan of thrillers where the hero would use the villain's theme against him to bring him down, rather than just simply finding evidence to arrest him, which can be underwhelming or anticlimatic in a lot of cases.

But I've been told that using the villain's theme against him is unrealistic, and that people do not do that in real life. Other movies do it though, so how do you make it believable?....................

Well, I have said it jokingly, but it is also logical:
if you write action that seem illogical for your characters, either the action or character or even both need to change.
By changing a character I mean changing his/her personality and development so it makes sense.
Just like the writer in Saving Private Ryan first saving a German and later executing him while he is defenseless. It makes sense because of everything that happened, but it is still shocking.

Having said that: you always seem to have problems according to people who read your script and then you people who didn't read it for some advice, as if there is a rule to fix it all...

 

[maz]

H44: Why not just post your script up here? Or post your collection of ideas and endings etc up? It's impossible to make suggestions on a piece of writing whilst being so removed from the actual writing itself. You've done it before, so instead of asking weird abstract questions, why not put something up somewhere and ask for feedback and suggestions on something concrete? Anything else is wasting everybody's time, to be honest.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. It's the same script as before, but I would like a different ending, and am willing to rewrite a lot of it to fit a new ending. I can come up with a new ending and then post it, but I am not sure which approach to take for a new ending. I will keep thinking.

 

[WalterB]

Okay thanks. It's the same script as before, but I would like a different ending, and am willing to rewrite a lot of it to fit a new ending. I can come up with a new ending and then post it, but I am not sure which approach to take for a new ending. I will keep thinking.

Then maybe, the ending isn't the problem, but the script itself...

 

[harmonica44]

But if I change the ending, then that means the entire script will be changed in order to suit a new ending. So the script cannot be the problem since I have not come up with an ending yet, to write the script to fit. The ending will determine the rest of the script, so it's open to change.