Screenwriting Structure

[David Jimerson]

Just some ideas on the basic structure of a screenplay, which all stories should follow (and I'm well-prepared for boisterous disagreements here):

Whatever you're writing, tend to the three-act structure.

1) Introductions. Creation of whatever the story driver is (the Ghostbusters get thrown out of Columbia and set up their own business).

2) Fun. Things are going well. Characters in top form. Introduction of the major conflict (and yes, even comedies need a "conflict," something for the heroes to overcome or deal with -- they need something to DO, or the story will be pretty much pointless). Heroes do well, but the act ends with a major setback.

3) Resolution of the conflict. The heroes start from behind but come out on top at the end.

Think "Star Wars." The first three movies were pretty much Act 1, Act 2, and Act 3 of a larger story (and were actually LITERALLY so at first). The heroes destroy the Death Star at the end of act one, get seriously set back at the end of Act 2, then achieve "total victory" at the end of Act 3. The conflict was resolved, the Empire was overthrown, and the best-funded rebellion in the history of insurgencies was victorious.

Even if you're writing something for episodic televsion, where an "act" is the space between commercials, a larger, three-act structure to thich those smaller "acts" conform will do you well.

It's "formulaic," to be sure. But it is so because it works. It's been developed over thousands of years.

No rules are set in stone, of course, and there many, many possible variations on a theme. I'm only saying that a coherent story thrives on a conflict, a challenge, a reason for doing something, and getting there too easily is a disappointment.

[David Jimerson]

You might want to check out another old standby, too:

The Elements of Screenwriting, Irwin R. Blacker.

[Neil Rowe]

the three act structure is tried and tested and true.. cant really go wrong. as far as structure at least.

[J.R. Hudson]

Like those movies that seemed to have SHOULD HAVE ended but seem to NEVER DO?

LOTR 3 was like this; it was like "End already!"

[Taylor Moore]

LOTR 3 was like this; it was like "End already!"

Ah yes John but they were TRUE to the book...

[J.R. Hudson]

:D

I'd hate to see The Winds of War made true to the book! :P

[Taylor Moore]

More my point is that Jackson has been true to the structure of the books as much as possible and the final book did close out with them going off to there seperate lives and future jouneys...

Truely some books would not work as films or some films can not work as books...Memento.

[David Jimerson]

I never, ever, want to see a film version of "Stranger in a Strange Land."

I agree with you, John, ROTK had 4 or 5 endings, and only two of them were really necessary. The drama of the story ended when Aragorn said "my friends, you bow to no one" and there was that great pullaway shot from Minas Tirith.

THAT was the dramatic end to the story, the resolution of all of the conflicts, which is where it should have ended.

[J.R. Hudson]

Yeah, me either.

It's like, I liked it but it was

sllllllllloooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

PAcing was way off. Nice idea of telling it backwards though.

[David Jimerson]

Then there are books which aren't books at all, but merely glorified movie treatments . . . Michael Crichton, I'm glancing your way . . .

[Taylor Moore]

Memento
Hey I hear ya, not one of my favs...but certainly different.

[David Jimerson]

Yes, much like "A Prayer for Owen Meany."

[J.R. Hudson]

Then there are books which aren't books at all, but merely glorified movie treatments . . . Michael Crichton, I'm glancing your way . . .



Oh my god! That is so true! :o

[David Jimerson]

I read the first 50 pages of "Timeline" when it first came out. Witihin those pages, I learned two things:

1) The sexual history of every single character in the book.

2) That Crichton fully intended the book to be a movie from the get-go, and didn't even bother to write it as a novel.

At that point, I put it down.

[TylerGred]

I read the first 50 pages of "Timeline" when it first came out. *Witihin those pages, I learned two things:

1) *The sexual history of every single character in the book.

2) *That Crichton fully intended the book to be a movie from the get-go, and didn't even bother to write it as a novel.

At that point, I put it down.


Sad, but so true...

[AndyBloxham]

3) *Resolution of the conflict. *The heroes start from behind but come out on top at the end.


Although that doesn't have to happen everytime. Does anyone else think the villian should win in the end sometimes? Play it up that the hero will win, but in the end, he just can't do it and the villian is victorious... in the realistic ending.

-Andy

[David Jimerson]

It can be done, but only very sparingly. It's not terribly rewarding. Why the hell did we watch these heroes for two hours if all they were going to do was blow it at the end? Would take some SUPERB writing to pull it off and satisfy the audience.

What's true for all, though, is that the conflict must be resolved (even if the bad guy wins now and then), otherwise, you leave the audience hanging.

[J.R. Hudson]

I think the villian can win, like D said; sparingly.

Best if it's a true story and even better if there is a planned sequel :P

I mean honestly, who wants to see the bad guy win?

[BLWolf]

"Chinatown" is one of the only examples I can think of where the bad guy wins and the script is not only completely satisfying but approaches perfection.

[Barry_Green]

Does anyone else think the villian should win in the end sometimes? *Play it up that the hero will win, but in the end, he just can't do it and the villian is victorious... in the realistic ending.

It depends on how a "win" is defined. Look at Travolta in "A Civil Action" -- here's a guy who loses absolutely everything. But we're happy for him, because his story reverses the Biblical "what doth it profit a man, to gain the world but lose his soul?" He loses his wealth and power and business and partners and all, but he gains a soul.

Or, look at "Thelma And Louise" -- them gals plunge off a cliff at the end. But it's a satisfying end, because in the end, they got what they set out to get: they declared they never wanted to go back to their old lives, and they didn't.

Or Rocky -- in Rocky 1, remember, Rocky loses. But it's a major triumph for him because earlier in the film he changes the terms of what a "win" would be. He knows he can't possibly beat the champ, Apollo Creed, but he tells Adrian "If I can just go the distance... nobody's ever gone the distance against Apollo. If I can just last all 12 rounds..." and that's what he does. And even though he loses the fight, he wins, because he wins the respect of the world and Adrian's love, etc...

Or "The Professional"... Jean Reno dies in the end. But he also "wins" -- Mathilda "saves" him and he gets to live before he dies.

In all these cases the hero doesn't "win", but the audience is still satisfied. If you want to experience films where the bad guys truly win, check out European cinema. There's a major philosophical disconnect between American and European films, because (according to Bob McKee) there's a major historical and cultural difference. Americans are new, young, hopeful, optimistic, and so we like our films to end in triumph and happiness. But we're only 200 years old. Europe, on the other hand, has been around far longer, and in the European view, life ain't that happy "american dream" ride. Just when things start going okay, you get a Black Plague, or Hitler invades, or some other tragedy comes along. European cinema is darker perhaps because Europe's collective history has included so many darker chapters. But Americans don't like that, we like to triumph and have happy endings. Give us a film where the villain truly wins, and we won't like it very much.

[AndyBloxham]

True, true. *Maybe I'm just intrigued by the European style. *Don't get me wrong, I do like stories that end happily. *But sometimes, the story is more important "how" the character got to the end, rather than what happened when he or she got there. *Before trying my hand at moviemaking, I wrote short stories for ump-teen years. *The one character I wrote that seemed to garner the most attention was, actually, someone who lost in the end. *But the struggles to even get to that point is where the main story was. *The fact that he couldn't overcome the end, or something out of his power prevented him, seemed to almost garner sympathy for the character rather than disdain for a non-happy ending.

I also like the idea of a "starting over" end. *Two movies come to mind... Moulin Rouge and Chasing Amy. *With both movies, the ending was not happy or how it was "meant to be." *But you gathered a sense that a whole new story was about to begin due to the sad endings. *

-Andy

[David Jimerson]

Barry -- "Thelma and Louise" is one of your favorite flicks, isn't it? * ;)

I agree that it does depend on what a "win" is . . . I was speaking more in terms of a situation where the villain *truly* wins, as in, all of the hero's effort comes to nothing. *Apollo pummels Rocky in the first round. *A deputy blocks T&L from going off the cliff and they're sent to prison for life. * Mathilda ends up a ward of the state. *As in, everything the hero does means nothing.

That would be very unsatisfying. *

I think what you're describing above are situations where the heroes "snatch victory from the jaws of defeat" -- where the HERO defines "victory" and achieves it -- rather than just plain ol' defeat.

[Barry_Green]

Well, yeah, that's the point -- if the villain wins everything, basically the audience won't like it. *Historically audiences (at least American audiences) don't like investing hours of their life into someone's plight only to see them lose.

So I was pointing out situations where apparently they lose the physical confrontation, but emotionally they still get to "win".

And no, Thelma & Louise isn't too high on my list, but it's a good teaching example. *"Prince of Egypt" is actually one of the clearest teaching examples for plot points and structure, T&L is an example of showing what someone wants ("to get to Mexico") vs. what they "really want" (to never go back to their old lives), and there are a few others that I use when I'm trying to illustrate a point.

A good example of European vs. American film styles might be "The Vanishing", or "Spoorloos". *Spoorloos is the original version, I think it was Dutch, and then it was remade in America as "The Vanishing" and starred Kiefer Sutherland. *Very different endings, illustrates the differences in audience acceptability by continent. *If you want to see a "down" ending, try "Spoorloos" and see what you think...

[rhino5]

Sometimes the best stories are those in which the hero gives up things important to him for the good of others. For example, imagine what Braveheart would be like if it ended as William Wallace is killed. Powerful film? Definitely. Satisfying? Not really. The last scene, where we find out that the movement Wallace started resulted in the freedom of the Scottish people, gives his death meaning.

Another example would be Gladiator. He dies, but not before he takes his revenge, and frees the empire from bondage.

Just my opinion, but sometimes the best heroes are those that are willing to give their dreams, hopes, and lives for the good of others, and sometimes the best films are those in which they do.

Just my 2 cents :)

R.L. Waggoner

[J.R. Hudson]

And well put at that.

[Barry_Green]

"Gladiator" is another good example of someone getting what they want, just not in the way they expected.

Maximus says from the opening moments: "all I want to do is go home." And in the final scenes, he does indeed get to go home. He had to die to do it, but in the end he gets what he wants...

[Philip]

Braveheart is an okay example, but The Bruce was such a weasel that I hated to see anybody follow him. In the movie, the Scottish people would've had their freedom sooner if The Bruce hadn't betrayed Wallace.

Body Heat is another good example where the villian wins.

Somersby has a downer of an ending, but it's not because the villian wins.

[Barry_Green]

I was thinking about ChinaTown also... it's been a while since I've seen it, but did Jack Nicholson really lose? Sure the villain got what he wanted, but so did Jack -- Jack solved the mystery, and didn't he get the girl in the end?

Chinatown is one messed-up film. When I first saw it many many years ago I didn't realize just exactly what was going on. Noah Cross is basically engaged in a one-man crusade to clone himself, by repeatedly committing incest with his successive offspring to minimize any genetic material other than his own. "The future, Mr. Gittes! The future!"

Freaky!

[J.R. Hudson]

John Carpenters THE THING?

Macready and Childs sit there wondering if one of them is a thing. *Fade Out.

Classic.

[Terry_Lasater]

I saw this movie about a bus that had to SPEED around a city, keeping its SPEED over fifty, and if its SPEED dropped, it would explode! I think it was called, 'The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down.'

--Homer Simpson
;D

[sumaraba]

Don't forget "The Usual Suspects" --- that is, unless you were rooting for Kevin Spacey and saw him as a good guy hehe.

[J.R. Hudson]

I saw this movie about a bus that had to SPEED around a city, keeping its SPEED over fifty, and if its SPEED dropped, it would explode! I think it was called, 'The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down.'

--Homer Simpson
;D

:D

[BLWolf]

Yeah, I would say that in "Chinatown" Jack Nicholson lost. He did solve the crime, but by solving the case he unintentionally assisted in the total victory of the villain.

In the end, Jack had no choice but to stand there impotent as the villain, Cross, walked away clean and profited in every way, while The Girl, Faye Dunaway, lay there dead and bleeding (shot by the police). It might have been better for "justice" and Nicholson personally, but not for the story, if he never solved the case at all.