Save The Cat or How to be a Hollywood Hack

Batutta

Batutta

Major Contributor
I read the screenwriting book Save The Cat and personally think it's a recipe for mediocrity. I can't fault most of the author's logic, but too much of his advice seems superficial and formulaic. That's fine if you are going to write superficial and formulaic films. This seems to be the genre the author prefers so I guess his ideas would be useful in that context. He does cover the basics in the first half, but his ideas about structure are better covered in Syd Field's books, without the pithy insider dogma. Of course, the author has made millions writing scripts and I have not, so you might not want to take my word for it. If you dream about being a Hollywood hack then read this book. You will probably be successful. Just consider the fact that the author, whose two produced film credits are Stop or My Mom Will Shoot! and Blank Check, at one point writes, "F*ck Memento." That should tell you where he's coming from.
 
F*ck Memento?

Yeah f*ck writing an intelligent piece of cinema and go straight for cheesed out mediocre kid's films.

Right-o :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
If you f*ck MEMENTO, is the "money shot" in reverse?

Haven't read the book, but all of these things are just tools - in the hands of an idiot, the tools create mediocrity... in the hands of the talented the exact same tools create a brilliant film. It's not the tool's fault.

The proof is in the results - if you write a script and people want to buy it and make it into a movie, you have used the tools well. If no one wants to buy your script and turn it into a movie, you have failed and may want to re-examine your use of the tools.

- Bill
 
I read Save the Cat when I was deployed back in 06. At the time, I already had one "free option" under my belt to an indy-prodco and wanted to better hone my skills to attain that "high level." After reading, I engaged in a dialogue via email with Blake Snyder and really pulled some good **** out of it. The book on the other hand is a playbook for the up and comer that is looking solely to write movies. Those of us who want to write both movies and film must drive a deeper technicque into our work.

Blake Snyder is a helluva nice guy, but his only real merits are this book and Blank Check for Disney back in the 90s. The best way I look at writing is that we all need to focus in on what makes the best story and go with that. I'm not going to stress that on page 20 there is no question being asked of the protagonist...likewise, if he ends up in act two having no idea how he got there, this only expands my story to ecompass whatever pulled him into the second act.

Save the Cat is the cookie cutter formula for those who don't know how to craft a story. I said something on movie poet that I amnow coining, "You can be a well read writer, or a well written one." Personally, I'd rather be well written with a good story, then having read every screenwriting book out there and not able to craft a story to save my life.
 
SAVE THE CAT is a solid but simple book, but don't let that fool you.

I don't know what the OP point was. He's banging on writing commerical scripts? That sell to studios? That make careers? That people actually turn out in droves to actually want to ****ing see?

Is that a bad ****ing thing?!

Honestly, if you want to write MEMENTO then do the indie thing, but SAVE THE CAT will still be useful for those stories too - because although MEMENTO has an ass-backwards plot structure, it's still a linear story told in an non-linear manner.

EJ
 
The Save The Cat approach is basic dramatic structure restated in Blake's terminology. Nothing new. Nothing ground-breaking. Just a proven approach to screenplay structure, no matter what your writing goals are.
 
EJ Pennypacker said:
Honestly, if you want to write MEMENTO then do the indie thing, but SAVE THE CAT will still be useful for those stories too - because although MEMENTO has an ass-backwards plot structure, it's still a linear story told in an non-linear manner.

EJ
Click to expand...

Well, exactly!...I think he dismisses Memento for no good reason, when if you examine it there is a structure there that works, and a three act one. I think his main achievement is that he lays out some of the basics of structure in a conversational tone that's not intimidating. But it's a structure that's been covered in other, better, more thorough books for me, going all the way back to Aristotle. I think the problem is that he expands on that basic structure to the point of cookie cutter formula and doesn't leave the door open for other approaches. As I said, this book would be the last book you'd ever need if all you wanted to write was Miss Congeniality or Legally Blonde. Hell, I like Legally Blonde. But writing it would bore me to tears. There are those of us who would like to write a Memento, or Reservoir Dogs, or Raging Bull, or There Will be Blood, and his advice leaves us out in the cold. The only part of the book I found interesting was his approach to genres.
 
Last edited:
He dismissed Memento because it didn't make a huge amount of money, that's all. It did make a very respectable amount in my book though (although unlike Snyder, I don't actually have a "book"): $25M on a $5M budget. Fine by me... Snyder sniffs at anything less than zillions, and that's his prerogative I suppose.

I liked "STC", mostly for its catchphrases, like the title one (a situation that visually establishes a character's goodness), which I think are useful little nuggets to keep in mind while writing. Another one is "The Pope In The Pool", a way to visually enhance expositional material so it's not so burdensome (have it said by the Pope while he's in a pool).

Otherwise, like KyleKMD said, it's pretty much the same stuff as most other screenwriting how-to's, and decidedly a lesser light IMO to the best works on the subject (for me, McKee's "Story" and Dara Marks' "Inside Story" - and great thanks to Kyle for the heads-up on the latter).
 
Ted Spencer said:
I liked "STC", mostly for its catchphrases, like the title one (a situation that visually establishes a character's goodness), which I think are useful little nuggets to keep in mind while writing. Another one is "The Pope In The Pool", a way to visually enhance expositional material so it's not so burdensome (have it said by the Pope while he's in a pool).
Click to expand...

The term Save the Cat is useful if you're trying to establish the character's goodness, but what if you're writing about an anti-hero? I imagine he would say, "Why the hell are you writing about an anti-hero! Those films don't make any money!" . Personally, I don't need to like a character, I just have to find them interesting. Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood is one of the most loathesome humans in the history of movies, but I find him fascinating. Same for Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull. When I want to root for somebody I'll go to a football game. As for "The Pope in the Pool", I think it's just putting a band-aid on a problem that's still there. The best advice I got about exposition was from one of my teacher's, "Use exposition as ammunition." It's best when it exists in a dramatic context, such as trying to convince somebody of something. That's actually my number one rule for writing -- Always dramatize your idea, meaning a scene where two or more characters try to verbally or physically resolve a conflict. The same should go for exposition. Putting the pope in the pool is just a clever distraction.
 
No fundamental disagreements here...

But an anti-hero can have a "save the cat" moment too. Showing a good side to a bad character can add much needed complexity and ambiguity (think Brando in Godfather or Apocalypse Now). A one-dimensional bad guy is almost always less interesting.
 
Ted Spencer said:
But an anti-hero can have a "save the cat" moment too. Showing a good side to a bad character can add much needed complexity and ambiguity (think Brando in Godfather or Apocalypse Now). A one-dimensional bad guy is almost always less interesting.
Click to expand...

Brando isn't the lead character in either film. Michael is in Godfather. Martin Sheen's character is in Apocalypse. They are both more traditional heroes at the start, even if they end up going to dark places. I notice in the more successful films featuring an unlikeable anti-hero (Raging Bull, Goodfellas, There Will Be Blood), they are centered around a character who is exceptional at their job. Jake LaMotta is a world class boxer. Henry Hill is a successful gangster and thief, Daniel Plainview is one of the best oil prospectors. If you want to apply "save the cat" in the thinnest sense here, it's in showing these characters at the top of their game at the start of the film. That makes them appealing somehow.
 
So you're complaining that a book written by a studio-friendly writer, who works with studios, and has actually had several studio specs bought and turned into studio movies - wasn't writing a book about the indie industry full of terms that can help you write not-studio pictures?

Honestly, it sounds like you're reading the wrong type of books. Leave the "blockbuster" and "studio" books alone and delve into the indie types obviously.

EJ
 
EJ Pennypacker said:
So you're complaining that a book written by a studio-friendly writer, who works with studios, and has actually had several studio specs bought and turned into studio movies - wasn't writing a book about the indie industry full of terms that can help you write not-studio pictures? Honestly, it sounds like you're reading the wrong type of books. Leave the "blockbuster" and "studio" books alone and delve into the indie types obviously.EJ
Click to expand...


Well said. And for the OP, Robert McKee even talks about this somewhat in his book Story, how if a person is happy writing artsy non-studio type stories and being content not to sell them to studios and make a pile of cash then by all means do so. McKee is serious on that, because some people have non-studio type stories to tell, which is just fine; but then they should not expect studios to buy them, not expect mass market rentals and ticket sales and revenues. But one should keep in mind that such artsy non-studio stories will not be seen by too many people, so how much power lies in such stories to really fullfill an end goal of sharing the [artsy] story?
 
My 2 cents:

STC: The STC moment for an audience is where we gain Empathy for the character and understand the motivations, even if we may not like him and their actions are questionable. With Empathy we can understand the Main Character in films such as "There will be Blood." The STC is this film is the adoption of a helpless baby by a tough hard working guy. Besides raising the child, he strives toward a difficult goal over years of hardship and time after time he gets turned down in his quest, but he never quits. That creates a lot of respect and empathy in me, so I end up caring about this main character.

Blake: I think Blake gets tired of newbies (I certainly do) that are going to set the world on fire with their rip-off versions of Memento or whatever is the lastest cool thing out there to wrap yourself in. After a decade or so of seeing this behavior and the results, it gets really old and almost intorerable. Too often young people fall into this trap because they simply have not been around that long and can't see the big picture yet. (IMO) I imagine Blake is simply advocating one learns the traditional craft of storytelling and I imagine he tries to get newbies to not fall into the young person syndrome:someone obsessed with creating what they percieve to be a cutting edge, totally cool artifact, but in fact, it's an ego driven rehash of someone elses creation. In other words, the garbage no one wants (they've already seen the real thing) and it's certainly something Hollywood doesn't touch because their dumpster out back is already full of similair copy cat landfill.


Bottom Line: Blake Snyder is a very good guide for writing a screenplay that Hollywood is interested in buying. If you don't want to go this route and make a living writing, that's your choice.

Resources: I enjoy Synders advice as well as John Truby's, Jeff Kitchens, Micheal Hauge, etc. These guys are just helpful tourist guides. Ultimately each of us have to make the correct choices in our creative crafting adventures. The audience has the final say. They vote with their money.
 
Damn. With all this discussion I may have to get STC just to see what it's all about.:furious3:
 
Last edited:
10s said:
I enjoy Synders advice as well as John Truby's, Jeff Kitchens, Micheal Hauge, etc. These guys are just helpful tourist guides. Ultimately each of us have to make the correct choices in our creative crafting adventures. The audience has the final say. They vote with their money.
Click to expand...
We take a little from each Guru--a dash of Snyder, a dollop of Truby, a sprinkle of Hauge--to create our own unique approach to storytelling. Or, an emetic meal.

"Never Gonna Give You Up..."

A firm believer in story structure, I'm obviously kidding (that is, about the emesis).
 
Last edited:
EJ Pennypacker said:
So you're complaining that a book written by a studio-friendly writer, who works with studios, and has actually had several studio specs bought and turned into studio movies - wasn't writing a book about the indie industry full of terms that can help you write not-studio pictures?

Honestly, it sounds like you're reading the wrong type of books. Leave the "blockbuster" and "studio" books alone and delve into the indie types obviously.

EJ
Click to expand...

When a book has the subtitle: The last book on screenwriting that you'll ever need, I expect it to be comprehensive and not skewed to just one kind of storytelling. What irked me most is that he is dismissive and rude about films that don't fit into his notions about what a good story is. Perhaps if he had not said "F*ck Memento", I wouldn't have even bothered to write a negative review here, but it showed a very callous attitude towards any film that's even remotely outside the mainstream. Couple that with the types of films he has written and it's clear he has a bias and interest in only one type of story, the straight down the middle softball with pre-programmed beats we've seen a million times. He's telling you how to make a cheeseburger, and that's all well and good. People like cheeseburgers. I eat cheeseburgers. McDonald's has made trillions selling them. Just don't try and tell me it's good food, because it's not. It's cheap sh*t.
 
You said it! "He's telling you how to make a cheeseburger, and that's all well and good. People like cheeseburgers. I eat cheeseburgers. McDonald's has made trillions selling them."
 
So let me get this straight, just to be crystal clear.

The only reason you actually came on here and made my day was because he wrote "poo poo MEMENTO?", and on the cover of the book, you took *literally* that it was indeed, the last book you'll ever need again on screenwriting?

HOLY FUKCING SHTI

Man, I'd love to walk down NYC with you and just see you rush into each coffee store Will Ferrell in ELF-style, and after tasting each cup of coffee in every shi*ty coffee house, you'll exclaim in disgust "But it said outside - THE BEST COFFEE IN THE WORLD EVER!!!!".

Priceless.

Honestly dude, you seem like a nice person, it's just what you're saying is setting you up to be taken down time and time again.

EJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top