6 ms·

As others have pointed out the concept of a more detailed screenplay structure has been around for a very long time, and typically pretty well understood by wor

by joshuak 13y ago

As others have pointed out the concept of a more detailed screenplay structure has been around for a very long time, and typically pretty well understood by working screenwritters. I remember reading about the 9 act structure in the 90s (can't remember if this is the guy who started it, but I think so): Edit corrected link (thanks to hncommenter13 below): http://web.archive.org/web/19961103105817/http://dsiegel.com http://web.archive.org/web/19961103105817/http://dsiegel.com The problem with modern blockbuster films as described in the article is for the most part not because of a better understanding of structure but because of less understanding. Perhaps poor writers are using tools like Save the Cat to believe they understand writing better then they do. Or perhaps studio executives (who are notoriously near pathologically risk averse to new ideas) reading new screenplays use a poor understanding of Save the Cat to validate perspective scripts. I can say for sure that many modern movies, particularly summer movies, are absolutely not following these structures, good or bad. Mainstream narrative filmmaking always follows the hero's journey, whether your hero is a neurotic writer in new york, a young black girl in New Orleans, or a genetically modified super hero. Summer blockbusters these days are focused on something different. Visceral response. Well structured storytelling (whether you think that's "Save the Cat" or something else), is about stories and human relatable emotions and characters. Recent films have started focusing more on the roller coster ride of the visuals, and will do any distortion of the story necessary to motivate a visceral impact on the audience. Good storytelling takes a second seat to putting the audience into the most intense situations possible. This has been helping get people into the theaters because the trailers for these types of films make them seam very exciting. But I would argue that Hollywood is struggling right now - the visual effects industry in particular - due to the audience getting wise to these ploys. A bad film is still a bad film, formalized story telling structure won't save you. Even less so if you ignore it so that you can have a bigger explosion. Want to be a good screenwriter? First learn how to write a story. And then guess what? You can still have explosions too.

hncommenter13 13y ago
It was actually David Siegel, one of the first well-known web designers, who wrote about the Nine Act structure. I remember reading this sometime in the late 90s. Here is the archived version from 1996: http://web.archive.org/web/19961103105817/http://dsiegel.com/film/Film_home.html http://web.archive.org/web/19961103105817/http://dsiegel.com...
- joshuak 13y ago
  Ah, yes. That's the one.
fsck--off 13y ago
> Recent films have started focusing more on the roller coster ride of the visuals, and will do any distortion of the story necessary to motivate a visceral impact on the audience. Good storytelling takes a second seat to putting the audience into the most intense situations possible. I thought that all of the movies listed (Star Trek Into Darkness, Battleship, The Dark Knight, The Avengers, Skyfall, Star Trek Into Darkness, Olympus Has Fallen, Oblivion, 21 Jump Street, Fast & Furious 6) had awful plots, but for some of those movies the visual spectacle made them tolerable. None of the movies listed (well, I haven't seen 21 Jump Street) obeyed the rules of physics, which is a huge turn-off for me because it breaks the suspense. The best suspenseful movies they tease you into thinking that you can predict what is going to happen next, as if they were a puzzle. I'm not saying that I don't enjoy every movie that can't be taken literally; I just don't like movies that are logically inconsistent. Star Wars doesn't follow the rules of physics, but at least it does so consistently; you understand the capabilities of the technologies that they use and can reason about how the characters might use them. I find movies that violate the rules of physics inconsistently to be intolerable; if you don't know what behavior characters are capable of, you lose your sense of immersion because you can't relate to the characters, and can't predict what they are going to do at all. That's just my opinion, though, and obviously enough people don't agree with me because those movies (listed in article) made lots of money.
- joshuak 13y ago
  Me and most people I talk to agree with you, although not just for physics but more generally "follow your own rules." I'm put off when I'm watching a movie and something that has been established IN THE FILM is then intentionally disregarded later in the plot. Suddenly Scotty can transport to a moving starship lightyears away, or the Hulk can suddenly control his anger. You can create any universe of rules you like, but once you do, you must stick with them. And you're right it also lessens the tension of falling off a building when you break physics and established that an otherwise normal character can safely land a 20 story fall. This issue reminds me of Misery: "...my favourite was Rocketman, and once it was a no breaks chapter. The bad guy stuck him in a car on a mountain road and knocked him out and welded the door shut and tore out the brakes and started him to his death, and he woke up and tried to steer and tried to get out but the car went off a cliff before he could escape! And it crashed and burned and I was so upset and excited, and the next week, you better believe I was first in line. And they always start with the end of the last week. And there was Rocketman, trying to get out, and here comes the cliff, and just before the car went off the cliff, he jumped free! And all the kids cheered! But I didn’t cheer. I stood right up and started shouting. This isn’t what happened last week! Have you all got amnesia? They just cheated us! This isn’t fair! HE DID’NT GET OUT OF THE COCK – A – DOODIE CAR!"
olalonde 13y ago
> the trailers for these types of films make them seam very exciting. The sad truth is that it's what people like (at least, if my friends are a representative sample). I personally wish there were more "12 angry men" type of movies. I'd even be willing to pay a premium to compensate for the fact that there is a smaller market for such movies. Which makes me wonder why price discrimination hasn't been tried on movies (not sure this is the right term). What if every movie was priced differently?
- joshuak 13y ago
  http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predi... From the article: "...half dozen or so $250 million movies flop at the box office and alter the industry forever. What comes next -- or even before then -- will be price variances at movie theaters, where "you're gonna have to pay $25 for the next Iron Man, you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln."
- Retric 13y ago
  Movies have a lot of price discrimination not just theater vs blueray vs Netflix vs video on demand vs HBO vs CBS but also how soon after a movie comes out changes the cut that theaters get. More importantly while studios are hit driven they break even well before that 250 million sticker price gets hit. Think pricing out studio time at above market rates. Which can come back and bite them as they need to keep making 250 million dollar films even if they don't have any worthwhile scripts this year. Losing 40 million on a film can be far better than not making one this year.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  That article from the other comment about Spielberg's views is well worth reading. Crowdsourcing is another thing that's likely to impact that field -I would way rather pitch the script to film buffs like yourself that are willing to throw a small sum n without an expectation of profit, such that it's OK not to make money as long as stays within budget and everyone who works on it gets paid a reasonable wage. That said, this does put major constraints on the sort of film one can make. This isn't necessarily a bad thing artistically, but it excludes worthwhile films that can't be realized on a shoestring, or those films that could but that can't attract a sufficiently talented actor willing to work cheap - fortunately that's less problematic than the logistics of an action or epic sci-fi movie. With time, I imagine CG will break down some of those barriers too.
seertaak 13y ago
Actually, I read "Save the Cat!" last night, just for fun. And while the rockstar geniuses here on HN were enlightening us on "pathologically risk averse" studio execs, "perspective scripts", "Hollywood's struggles", and "roller coaster rides of the visuals", I actually decided to give Mr. Snyder's beat sheet a spin, on the admittedly pedestrian "Jack Reaper". And so, with my stop-watch and kindle at hand, I ticked off, one-by-one, every single major element predicted by his beat sheet -- a dozen or so --, and they were all within a minute or two (that's a page or two) from where they were supposed to be. Theme stated at 5. The debate from 12-25 (IIRC), "fun and games" from 30-55, "whiff of death" at 85,... you get the picture. Now, before all of you monad-wielding virtuosos retort -- "well, that's a crap blockbuster movie anyway -- his silly beat sheet that would never work on truly original films like Pulp Fiction": he specifically mentions Tarantino films. Ditto Scorcese. So, maybe a guy who regularly writes spec screeplays at $1MM a pop, who's worked with Steven Spielberg (as he humbly mentions twice -- whadya know, looks like the hacker community and "Hollywood" might have something in common after all), and who's had at least one movie grossing $100MM domestically, is a total idiot and doesn't know as much about "how to write a story" as you. Alternatively, is it perhaps possible that your towering authority on the matter of how "to be a good screenwriter" is just a tad oversold? In all seriousness though (no, really!), I can definitely recommend the book; it's a light, entertaining read. (It is movies we're talking about, after all!) And having read what he writes about the preferences of nerds, I'm having a blast reading this entire thread. Thank you, HN!
- joshuak 13y ago
  You may have missed my point if you think I was criticizing Save the Cat.
- runevault 13y ago
  The thing that people who don't understand storytelling don't get is that formula are there with good reason. The important part is using the art side of telling a story to make it not FEEL formulaic, even as you use the formulas to ensure an experience that satisfies readers. There's a great book on how people's brains react to story that I loved, and you might find interesting if the concepts in save the cat! were interesting to you, called Wired for Story by Lisa Cron.

by joshuak 13y ago

hncommenter13 13y ago

It was actually David Siegel, one of the first well-known web designers, who wrote about the Nine Act structure. I remember reading this sometime in the late 90s. Here is the archived version from 1996: http://web.archive.org/web/19961103105817/http://dsiegel.com/film/Film_home.html http://web.archive.org/web/19961103105817/http://dsiegel.com...

joshuak 13y ago
Ah, yes. That's the one.

fsck--off 13y ago

> Recent films have started focusing more on the roller coster ride of the visuals, and will do any distortion of the story necessary to motivate a visceral impact on the audience. Good storytelling takes a second seat to putting the audience into the most intense situations possible. I thought that all of the movies listed (Star Trek Into Darkness, Battleship, The Dark Knight, The Avengers, Skyfall, Star Trek Into Darkness, Olympus Has Fallen, Oblivion, 21 Jump Street, Fast & Furious 6) had awful plots, but for some of those movies the visual spectacle made them tolerable. None of the movies listed (well, I haven't seen 21 Jump Street) obeyed the rules of physics, which is a huge turn-off for me because it breaks the suspense. The best suspenseful movies they tease you into thinking that you can predict what is going to happen next, as if they were a puzzle. I'm not saying that I don't enjoy every movie that can't be taken literally; I just don't like movies that are logically inconsistent. Star Wars doesn't follow the rules of physics, but at least it does so consistently; you understand the capabilities of the technologies that they use and can reason about how the characters might use them. I find movies that violate the rules of physics inconsistently to be intolerable; if you don't know what behavior characters are capable of, you lose your sense of immersion because you can't relate to the characters, and can't predict what they are going to do at all. That's just my opinion, though, and obviously enough people don't agree with me because those movies (listed in article) made lots of money.

joshuak 13y ago
Me and most people I talk to agree with you, although not just for physics but more generally "follow your own rules." I'm put off when I'm watching a movie and something that has been established IN THE FILM is then intentionally disregarded later in the plot. Suddenly Scotty can transport to a moving starship lightyears away, or the Hulk can suddenly control his anger. You can create any universe of rules you like, but once you do, you must stick with them. And you're right it also lessens the tension of falling off a building when you break physics and established that an otherwise normal character can safely land a 20 story fall. This issue reminds me of Misery: "...my favourite was Rocketman, and once it was a no breaks chapter. The bad guy stuck him in a car on a mountain road and knocked him out and welded the door shut and tore out the brakes and started him to his death, and he woke up and tried to steer and tried to get out but the car went off a cliff before he could escape! And it crashed and burned and I was so upset and excited, and the next week, you better believe I was first in line. And they always start with the end of the last week. And there was Rocketman, trying to get out, and here comes the cliff, and just before the car went off the cliff, he jumped free! And all the kids cheered! But I didn’t cheer. I stood right up and started shouting. This isn’t what happened last week! Have you all got amnesia? They just cheated us! This isn’t fair! HE DID’NT GET OUT OF THE COCK – A – DOODIE CAR!"

olalonde 13y ago

> the trailers for these types of films make them seam very exciting. The sad truth is that it's what people like (at least, if my friends are a representative sample). I personally wish there were more "12 angry men" type of movies. I'd even be willing to pay a premium to compensate for the fact that there is a smaller market for such movies. Which makes me wonder why price discrimination hasn't been tried on movies (not sure this is the right term). What if every movie was priced differently?

joshuak 13y ago
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predi... From the article: "...half dozen or so $250 million movies flop at the box office and alter the industry forever. What comes next -- or even before then -- will be price variances at movie theaters, where "you're gonna have to pay $25 for the next Iron Man, you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln."
Retric 13y ago
Movies have a lot of price discrimination not just theater vs blueray vs Netflix vs video on demand vs HBO vs CBS but also how soon after a movie comes out changes the cut that theaters get. More importantly while studios are hit driven they break even well before that 250 million sticker price gets hit. Think pricing out studio time at above market rates. Which can come back and bite them as they need to keep making 250 million dollar films even if they don't have any worthwhile scripts this year. Losing 40 million on a film can be far better than not making one this year.
anigbrowl 13y ago
That article from the other comment about Spielberg's views is well worth reading. Crowdsourcing is another thing that's likely to impact that field -I would way rather pitch the script to film buffs like yourself that are willing to throw a small sum n without an expectation of profit, such that it's OK not to make money as long as stays within budget and everyone who works on it gets paid a reasonable wage. That said, this does put major constraints on the sort of film one can make. This isn't necessarily a bad thing artistically, but it excludes worthwhile films that can't be realized on a shoestring, or those films that could but that can't attract a sufficiently talented actor willing to work cheap - fortunately that's less problematic than the logistics of an action or epic sci-fi movie. With time, I imagine CG will break down some of those barriers too.

seertaak 13y ago

Actually, I read "Save the Cat!" last night, just for fun. And while the rockstar geniuses here on HN were enlightening us on "pathologically risk averse" studio execs, "perspective scripts", "Hollywood's struggles", and "roller coaster rides of the visuals", I actually decided to give Mr. Snyder's beat sheet a spin, on the admittedly pedestrian "Jack Reaper". And so, with my stop-watch and kindle at hand, I ticked off, one-by-one, every single major element predicted by his beat sheet -- a dozen or so --, and they were all within a minute or two (that's a page or two) from where they were supposed to be. Theme stated at 5. The debate from 12-25 (IIRC), "fun and games" from 30-55, "whiff of death" at 85,... you get the picture. Now, before all of you monad-wielding virtuosos retort -- "well, that's a crap blockbuster movie anyway -- his silly beat sheet that would never work on truly original films like Pulp Fiction": he specifically mentions Tarantino films. Ditto Scorcese. So, maybe a guy who regularly writes spec screeplays at $1MM a pop, who's worked with Steven Spielberg (as he humbly mentions twice -- whadya know, looks like the hacker community and "Hollywood" might have something in common after all), and who's had at least one movie grossing $100MM domestically, is a total idiot and doesn't know as much about "how to write a story" as you. Alternatively, is it perhaps possible that your towering authority on the matter of how "to be a good screenwriter" is just a tad oversold? In all seriousness though (no, really!), I can definitely recommend the book; it's a light, entertaining read. (It is movies we're talking about, after all!) And having read what he writes about the preferences of nerds, I'm having a blast reading this entire thread. Thank you, HN!

joshuak 13y ago
You may have missed my point if you think I was criticizing Save the Cat.
runevault 13y ago
The thing that people who don't understand storytelling don't get is that formula are there with good reason. The important part is using the art side of telling a story to make it not FEEL formulaic, even as you use the formulas to ensure an experience that satisfies readers. There's a great book on how people's brains react to story that I loved, and you might find interesting if the concepts in save the cat! were interesting to you, called Wired for Story by Lisa Cron.