25% Turning Point -- breaking the rule

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
The "formula" often followed and seen in film is that the major turning point (Act I to Act II, hero's outer visible goal to accomplish by the end of the story) appears pretty close to 25% into the timeline. I would wager 99% of films follow this? I am reading the script for Taken, a recent hit film, and it is interesting that that turning point does not appear until the 40% mark; very lengthy setup; but it works. Just an interesting observation. Another screenwriter I know (a member here but rarely seen in this forum) told me he thinks scripts often do not take enough time for the setup so as to create characters we really care about as the real story gets under way (and he sold his script for 'low seven figures'). Just wondering what you all think about the rigidity of the '25% turning point' 'rule'? When to use it, when not. Of course the obvious answer is put it where the story demands it, but are there certain genres where that TP should be moved farther out? brought in sooner? why or why not?
~randall
 
I'm somewhat forgetting all the plot points of Taken, but maybe it's similar to Breach where the 40% turning point you're referring to could actually be called the midpoint. Then the Act I Climax would be closer to the inciting incident. Or, maybe structure is irrelevant with Taken because it's so short (90 minutes, though I'm not sure how short the screenplay is).

Could you post a structural breakdown of the plot? Might help with our analysis.

Also, in regards to all these rules of thumb for screenwriting, here's my take (not that my opinion matters): they're only tips that have been gleaned from thousands of years of storytelling to help you keep your story interesting and emotionally appealing. Unfortunately, they're also tips that are probably considered supreme law by many readers / producers.
 
I suppose one could put the classic TP at 25% or so in Taken, at the timeline where Bryan (Liam Neeson) signs the papers to let his daughter Kim travel to Paris; the visible goal would then be for her to return home safely. But it still seems like the 40% mark where Kim is "taken" by the Albanian white slavery kidnappers is the more likely mark where the protagonist's goal becomes clear -- to 'rescue / retrieve' Kim. But the story works. I think setting up the family dynamics with the long setup works, to make us have that much more empathy for Kim who is taken, and for her father Bryan whose heart aches for her situation and needs to rescue her, and prove he still has it as an ex spy.

And hey, when you are Luc Besson you can get away with bending the more rigid formulaic expectations in story plot, because I am sure Luc Besson does not have to run such a gauntlet use newbie spec writers to get a script seriously considered.


Eximious said:
I'm somewhat forgetting all the plot points of Taken, but maybe it's similar to Breach where the 40% turning point you're referring to could actually be called the midpoint. Then the Act I Climax would be closer to the inciting incident. Or, maybe structure is irrelevant with Taken because it's so short (90 minutes, though I'm not sure how short the screenplay is).

Could you post a structural breakdown of the plot? Might help with our analysis...
Click to expand...
 
To me it depends a lot on how origonal the characters, setting and initial situation are - if they're really unusual, I'm interested/entertained/fascinated enough not to care so much about plot immediately, but if they're more stock standard then I'll be thinking "I'm bored, get on with the plot!"

So I'd treat the 25% purely as a useful average. The Suits With Money may disagree of course...
 
There isn't a single paradigm. There's in infinite number of paradigms and each film must find it's own structure that best illuminates the story.

I think it would be pretty rare to find a film that exactly follows a particular paradigm -- and those that do are likely to be labelled as contrived or boring.
 
I don't have the "TAKEN" screenplay or movie in front of me at this minute or I'd calculate my take on it, but I'd say when the daughter boards the airplane is the 25% turning point. Why? because the father, The HERO, is a careful person and plans everything: gets a birthday gift by visiting the shop several times prior to buying the gift to check it out and make sure it's correct, etc... The 2nd ACT is when the Hero's world is turned upside down. I think this is when the daughter boards the plane. At that moment she is then beyond his control. He's a guy that likes to keep his hand on a situation. Remember, he's a "Preventor" by profession: he controls things from getting out of control. The second ACT is where things go out of control. We see him cope with her not calling as soon as she lands in Paris, etc... He's already taking a 2nd ACT bumpy ride. The abduction is a confirmation of his fears and then he goes back into his old profession one more time at hyper speed.

That's my 3 cents "shooting from the hip," analysis on this 2nd ACT break biz.

Maybe someone can check up on screenplay for page count when she boards the plane to see where it lands as a percentage of the film.

For me this was a Good & Fast movie. I enjoyed it.
 
Last edited:
The plane with Kim and Amanda takes off from LAX on page 29 (script is 102 pages). Yes I agree with you. The more I look at this story, and the all important THEME (as Kyle has pointed out theme rules, is so important), the abduction story is almost secondary. If we look at the story as being about the relationship between Kim and her father Bryan, indeed close to the 25% mark we have Kim 'taken' away from her father, not by the Albanian white slavery thugs, but simply by her own accord as she heads over to Europe. The Act One setup has laid out how Bryan is distanced from Kim because she now lives with mom and the rich stepfather, and now he is distanced even more from Kim as she heads to the other side of the Atlantic. Bryan's outer motivation, his hero's goal, is to get back his daughter's love and affection and close the distance between their relationship that he is losing to the rich stepfather. Kim's abduction at the 40% mark (close to MIDPOINT Mind **** / Moment of Grace) simply provides the means to the end for Bryan, to allow him to rescue the princess from the dark tower. So as the story ends, Kim decides she wants to be with her father, go live with him for awhile, and even puts her arm into his as they walk together; she is with Bryan as the story ends, not with the rich stepfather.

Great thread discussion, thanks all for setting me straight, I learned a lot seeing how I was going down the wrong path analyzing Taken. The turning points, the hero's goal, is not about the abduction (well, that becomes a secondary quest and goal, but not the primary quest) but about the father daughter relationship!
~randall
 
Most produced screenplays have A, B, & C throughlines.

A: The plot or External conflict.

B: The Internal conflict, or fatal flaw of the Hero.

C: The relationship issue the Hero must face in order to achieve the goal.

These will be weighted differently depending on the genre and other factors.
 
Hmm

Hmm

Yeah I've been studying some structural issues lately too, to see how well I'm conforming to these types of guidelines, which I believe are quite important and more than that helpful to establishing the best pacing for my story.

I was a bit thrown off by the screenplay for Intolerable Cruelty. I just watched it again, and it seems like maybe the setup is overly long, structurally. The film is listed as 100 minutes, though it is not. It is actually 94 minutes before credits, which don't count at all towards the structure of the film. At the 52 minute mark, we have the point of no return as I see it -- he kisses Catherine Zeta Jones. Things cannot go back to how they were before. To me, that's the clear, big-as-a-huge-pimple "point of no return." It should roughly appear around the half-way point so let's say 47 minutes, it's 5 minutes delayed. Exactly 20 minutes later, at 72 minutes in, we have the event that ends Act II, him getting married to her, setting in motion this chaotic and funny Act III.

My issue isn't with any of that, or even the plot point at the 25% mark, which I also get. It's with the first ten minutes. I keep thinking about it, and I cannot really "get" what this film is about clearly in the first ten minutes. Most of the time it seems you know this, and it is heavily emphasized in screenwriting books. My own screenplay for instance, we know the main character, we know his challenges, and there is the "opportunity" that arises just before 10 pages in that he seizes, thus setting in motion the story.

With Intolerable Cruelty, we don't even see her until a bit after that I think, fair enough, the story isn't about her. I think it's about the main character being bored, perhaps a bit cynical, overly confident but empty in side, these are internal traits though, so I guess I'm not thinking clearly enough to be able to pin down in the first 10 minutes what the story is about. I would have to answer, "It's about a guy who is a divorce attorney who is really good at his job." But that's not what the story is actually about at all. It's actually about him searching for meaning, and finding something more than just his career, at least that's how I take it. Maybe it's because it's the Coen brothers, they don't have to adhere perfectly to that. I like that script actually, I think it's clever. It just seems like everything is delayed about 5 minutes, like maybe it could have or should have been a bit tighter at the very start and been exactly 90 minutes without credits. I don't know, who am I to say.

Also the resolution is super rushed, it's funny, watch that movie and the climax comes right at the end. Just 90 seconds later, the film is over! I can't blame them, though, when the couple gets back together, the film is over. There's no more story for this particular plot. That being said, what would be the equivalent in a romantic comedy like that of "the toughest challenge our protagonist has faced"? That's what a climax is supposed to be, like the fight in Rocky or the arena in Gladiator, etc. Is it that he has to find a way to regain her trust, after trying to have her killed, and the literal "face off" at the table in the legal conference room is like a figurative "fight" where he has to find a way to win her back? I guess that would make sense...
 
Most films do follow a paradigm, but when you start to wonder why they took an extra five minutes here, and five minutes less there, it's looking into something too much. A Paradigm is just a guide, not a "rule" that can be broken. There's no such things as rules in filmmaking. You must understand the guidelines, and why they are there, and have practiced it before straying from it, but if they were all rules, there'd be no creativity. Of course there's structures are more rigid when it comes to something like a TV script.

I was just re-reading "screenplay" by syd field (read it a few years ago and wanted to brush up), and I literally just read the section where he even said it himself that it's just a guide. So what if plot point 1 occurs at page 19? Or at page 35? Doesn't matter. It's about what works for your film, for your pacing. I completely agree with this.
 
The general structure is:
Act I: 25%
Act II: 50%
Act III: 25%

But it is not always the case. Look at "The Sixth Sense": the Act I/Act II break happens about 7 minutes in! It's one of the shortest first acts ever. But it works.
 
My theory is that there are an unlimited number of paradigms, and part of the fun of watching a film is figuring-out the structure -- particularly when the structure is perfectly mated to the material.

Reusing the same paradigms over and over again creates boring films. If you can make up your own paradigm to perfectly present the material in a compelling and unique way, then that's the height of film writing (imho).

Look, for example, and music. There are even more books about how to write "hit" songs than there are about writing screenplays. But in the end it doesn't matter -- all the audience cares is that the song rocks. Do you think Radiohead reads these books? Does NIN? Led Zep? Bob Marley?

The same with movies -- the audience doesn't care if you've followed such-and-such latest-and-greatest fad paradigm to the letter, they just want the movie to rock.
 
I think "Taken" may be better represented by the classical five act structure than three.

Also, when I have heard the 25/50/25 guideline presented, it was mostly in an effort to force undergrads to write more concise scripts. If you set up the story quickly, you have more time to tell/show the story. If you load up the first act, you're probably writing a board game instead of a movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top