What is the story 'goal', and when does it occur?

[Randall_Oelerich]

Take a film like Jurassic Park. What is the story's 'goal', and when (%) is that goal made clear in the story? And then once that is answered, how does the answer relate to any story we write?

This is a somewhat rhetorical question as I often do in some of my posts here. But the answer may not be so simple. I had an interesting email discussion with a screenwriting friend on this, and I think I learned something in so doing. Thought I would put the question out for discussion here on the forum. I have studied a gazillion books on story structuring, thought I was crystal on this, now not so sure, as I think there could be more than one answer to such a question.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

On the surface it's to escape the island but in reality it's to see sights unseen (here , the dinosaurs). So the story of escape exist only to give some drama so the dinosaurs exist outside of realms of a documentary with cool recreations.

 

[nycineaste]

I would think the goal in any thriller/action flick where one is being chased by monsters is GET ME THE HELL OUTTA HERE!!! This pops up likely at the end of act one when the good guys become aware of the monster and decide GET ME THE HELL OUTTA HERE!

This is flexible, of course- I've always loved the structure of Romero's "Dead" films, where the monster/crisis is there from the opening, and it just spirals out of control from there...Nightmare on Elm street is like this- it opens with the villian Freddy on the offense and the goal of finding out what the hell is going on, evolving into the goal of escaping then killing freddy, starts immediately.

In "Writing Screenplays That Sell" Michael Hauge says each act has a seperate (related of course) goal. I dont know jurrasic park well but it's likely something like:

ACT ONE: Check out to Jurrasic Park
ACT TWO: GET ME THE HELL OUTTA HERE!
ACT THREE: Some specific plan or decision to kill the monsters or escape (in NOES Nancy decides she's gonna KILL FREDDY).

THEYRE COMING TO GET YOU BARBARA!!

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

I just popped in my brand spankin new blu ray trilogy of Jurassic Park and it is defective, arrggggggh! Going to file a return now with amazon, might have to pull up the script now for reference instead of going the lazy route of watching the film.

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

I would think the goal in any thriller/action flick where one is being chased by monsters is GET ME THE HELL OUTTA HERE!!! This pops up likely at the end of act one when the good guys become aware of the monster and decide GET ME THE HELL OUTTA HERE! ...
...

But here's the thing-- in Jurassic Park (JP), no monsters are on the loose until midpoint, nobody dies until midpoint, nobody is trying to survive or escape until midpoint. As Hauge, Syd Field and others point out, typically there is a lock-in goal at the end of Act One, viz the 'Turn into Two', where we know what the story is about, what the protagonist's overarching goal is, what the C.Q. is. But in JP, how can that goal be 'Get me outta here!' when for the first half of Act Two the protagonists are all still exploring and enjoying dinosaurs, even feeling around in dino poop?

As regards typical screenwriting story structure, the end of Act One seems to give a goal of (in the form of a question) 'Can the park function as a safe dino park to open to the public?' Which of course is a boring 'goal', but it is enough in the story and it works because of all the great eye candy in the form of dinos. If you read imdb, the story is about getting the hell off the island, surviving, not becoming lunch meat for dinos, which of course makes for some serious action and conflict and popcorn munching-- but all that does not begin until midpoint, almost to the minute, either in the film or in the screenplay.

So that begs the question, for me at least-- are there really TWO goals for defining a story? (1) the ~25% goal we structure in as writers to define the broad goal the protag seeks to resolve by the end of the story, so we as writers know the spine of the story as we write, and (2) the 50% into the story [midpoint] goal that is perhaps more beneficial for pitching? At midpoint there is often a secondary goal related to the 25% goal, that ratchets it up and takes the story in a new direction-- and I guess what I am asking is if this is the 'goal' we (I) need to use more for pitching a story, that addresses the bigger more trailer/poster aspect of a story? I see this a lot when I read TV guide loglines of e.g. Family Guy or whatever, and then I go watch the episode and that TV guide logline does not really pertain until the midpoint of the TV episode; which I find interesting as it pertains to this thread. Granted that is Family Guy, I know; maybe we can find more worthy examples.

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

But here's the thing-- in Jurassic Park (JP), no monsters are on the loose until midpoint, nobody dies until midpoint, nobody is trying to survive or escape until midpoint.....

And I find it interesting that what we remember JP being 'about' is what happens starting at midpoint-- dinos are loose, we gotta survive and get the frick off this island!

 

[Carla]

Take a film like Jurassic Park. What is the story's 'goal', and when (%) is that goal made clear in the story? And then once that is answered, how does the answer relate to any story we write?

It's been a while since I've seen it....

Doesn't Sam Neill hate kids/can't get on with them/doesn't want any? At the end he comes around. The park is the New World. Classic hero's journey if I remember correctly.

 

[Amr Rahmy]

what movie were you guys remembering, the underlining message is "you mess with nature, nature messes you up". the voice of reason was materialized by one of the doctors. the problem was making the park. the 2nd act starts with the new world(the park they are exploring), the struggle/pop corn action does not have to start at the beginning of the 2nd act.

 

[nycineaste]

the struggle/pop corn action does not have to start at the beginning of the 2nd act.

im not surprised. the OP is confused about goals and when they start. I am explaining to him that you can think of each act as having a seperate, related goal, and you can divide your movie up however you like. in monster movies the goal of "escape the monster" can start at any off the earier acts depending how much pipe/exposition/setup you want to or have to lay, in which case you occupy the characters with other related goals.

i wouldnt be suprised if the alien chestburster arrrives at midpoint, too.

personally I think of three act movies as having four acts , since theres often a turning point/new goal at midpoint.

 

[nycineaste]

So that begs the question, for me at least-- are there really TWO goals for defining a story? (1) the ~25% goal we structure in as writers to define the broad goal the protag seeks to resolve by the end of the story, so we as writers know the spine of the story as we write, and (2) the 50% into the story [midpoint] goal that is perhaps more beneficial for pitching? At midpoint there is often a secondary goal related to the 25% goal, that ratchets it up and takes the story in a new direction-- and I guess what I am asking is if this is the 'goal' we (I) need to use more for pitching a story, that addresses the bigger more trailer/poster aspect of a story?.

i see where your coming from and I have your answer:

the goal that the movie is "about", is the goal that (usually) starts at the end of act one, sometimes at the middle of act two(as in the case of jurassic park) and continues, in one form or another, till the end of the movie, or at least occupies its MIDDLE. every movie is different. but essentially its the MIDDLE OF THE MOVIE, which is usually MOST OF THE MOVIE that is, basically, what your movie is MOSTLY ABOUT (what ppl paid tickets for).

in other words, its the "middle to end" or the "meat" or "center" of your movie.

heres an example.

lets say Im making a monster film with an ice monster that takes place at a ski resort (yeah i just made this up)


ACT ONE: Get to the ski resort. Or, HAVE FUN at the ski resort. Now, this isnt much of an exciting goal, but while this is happening, maybe I have the monster knock off a local, or stalking the teenagers, etc. The first act goal of the Piranha remake was like this-it opened with a killing (horror films often do), and the cops were trying to find out WHAT IS GOING ON (the Goal). meanwhile, the kid in the movie had the goal of HAVE FUN AT SPRING BREAK.
ACT TWO: The Monster pops out, starts killing, Goal: ESCAPE (THE CORE of the movie).
ACT THREE: the teenagers have discovered how to kill the supernatural killer and decide to trap it or kill it or whatevers.


get it?

every movie is different watch monster movies figure out what the act goals are.

but youe answer is, (usually) whatever goal is in the MIDDLE OF THE MOVIE, or the MIDDLE TO END, or occupies MOST OF the movie. Common sense once you think about. The movie is mostly about what the movie is mostly about.

 

[Batutta]

If I'm being honest, I've never thought Jurassic Park was an especially good script, for a lot of the above reasons discussed. It's an entertaining thrill ride with a few amazing set pieces, but as a story it is kind of thin. It's one hour of exposition, and one hour of relentless, and admittedly enthralling chase, with little in the way of compelling character drama. What is included, Grant learning to like kids, is lame and feels irrelevant to the proceedings. The end, when it comes, seems anticlimactic. So what I'm saying is that Jurassic Park probably isn't the best script to study to learn the craft from. In the man vs monster genre, Spielberg's JAWS or even DUEL are better stories to study.

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

If I'm being honest, I've never thought Jurassic Park was an especially good script, for a lot of the above reasons discussed. It's an entertaining thrill ride with a few amazing set pieces, but as a story it is kind of thin. It's one hour of exposition, and one hour of relentless, and admittedly enthralling chase, with little in the way of compelling character drama. What is included, Grant learning to like kids, is lame and feels irrelevant to the proceedings. The end, when it comes, seems anticlimactic. So what I'm saying is that Jurassic Park probably isn't the best script to study to learn the craft from. In the man vs monster genre, Spielberg's JAWS or even DUEL are better stories to study.

Battuta, just to be clear, I am not even saying that JP is a good or great screenplay. Only using it as an example of comparing the @25% hero's goal (C.Q./spine) against what I am calling the '@50% midpoint goal'-- the latter which is used by imdb.com's pitch logline, and what I am using as an examples to possible pose the premise that the 'midpoint goal' and the action that follows may perhaps serve a better purpose than the 25% C.Q. goal for the purposes of pitching, to generate a high concept premise for pitching. But that said, JP did pretty good for the studio-- $63M budget, almost a billion dollars in revenues ($914M to be more exact).

 

[Batutta]

But that said, JP did pretty good for the studio-- $63M budget, almost a billion dollars in revenues ($914M to be more exact).

I'd say that's mostly because of the concept, which is great, Spielberg's directorial skill, and ILM's groundbreaking work. The best that could be said of David Koepp's script is that it's serviceable. I would never suggest it's bad or doesn't work. It functions, just not at a very high level.

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

.... but essentially its the MIDDLE OF THE MOVIE, which is usually MOST OF THE MOVIE that is, basically, what your movie is MOSTLY ABOUT (what ppl paid tickets for). in other words, its the "middle to end" or the "meat" or "center" of your movie.

Exactly.

heres an example. lets say Im making a monster film with an ice monster that takes place at a ski resort (yeah i just made this up) ACT ONE: Get to the ski resort. Or, HAVE FUN at the ski resort. Now, this isnt much of an exciting goal, but while this is happening, maybe I have the monster knock off a local, or stalking the teenagers, etc. The first act goal of the Piranha remake was like this-it opened with a killing (horror films often do), and the cops were trying to find out WHAT IS GOING ON (the Goal). meanwhile, the kid in the movie had the goal of HAVE FUN AT SPRING BREAK.
ACT TWO: The Monster pops out, starts killing, Goal: ESCAPE (THE CORE of the movie).
ACT THREE: the teenagers have discovered how to kill the supernatural killer and decide to trap it or kill it or whatevers.
get it?
...

Take the movie COLD PREY as an example (nice indie horror by the way, very nice cinematography; I emailed the writer/director for the script, but doh!-- it is in Norwegian!), group of college students end up stranded at an abandoned ski resort. Or WRONG TURN where e.g. the group has car trouble and is stranded. In either case, someone gets killed at the proverbial 'Turn into Two' (C.Q./Central Question) plot point (25%), so a 25% plot point C.Q. goal might be 'we need to get to safety' (C.Q. = Will the group make it out alive to safety?)

Then at the 50% midpoint (Half way into Act Two), with the C.Q. goal still intact, the only way to get to safety will be to kill the monster/killer so that becomes the new 'secondary (50%) goal'. The initial goal never goes away until the Resolution PP, but at midpoint a new secondary goal, more Warrior/action intensive and more visually interesting is ratcheted and layered on top of the C.Q. 25% goal. The two goals are completely related.

So my thesis is that the first goal is useful to me as a writer to structure my story, know the spine of my story. But the secondary goal at midpoint is often more useful for pitching, for stating the high concept 10-15 words to entice someone to read my script or plunk down $ for a ticket or for a prodco/agent to get interested in my script.

I could be wrong on this, been know to happen, but it makes sense to me. Jurassic Park is but one example of this-- we have a C.Q. 25% goal of 'Can the dinosaur park pass the muster as a safe theme park to open to the public?', which is kind of boring. But look at the 'midpoint-to-the-end' pitch--- 'Cloned dinosaurs get loose from a theme park and start eating the visitors!' --- makes for a nice movie poster, movie trailer, and makes we want to see that on the big screen.

 

[Batutta]

I could be wrong on this, been know to happen, but it makes sense to me. Jurassic Park is but one example of this-- we have a C.Q. 25% goal of 'Can the dinosaur park pass the muster as a safe theme park to open to the public?', which is kind of boring. But look at the 'midpoint-to-the-end' pitch--- 'Cloned dinosaurs get loose from a theme park and start eating the visitors!' --- makes for a nice movie poster, movie trailer, and makes we want to see that on the big screen.

I understand what you're getting at, but I'm not even sure the 'Can the park pass muster' scene qualifies as the 2nd act plot point, mainly because that's in play from the moment Hammond shows up. It doesn't spin the story into a new direction because that's the direction the story was already going. It's not like something happened, and now Hammond must get the park approval. Getting their approval is why he called them to the island in the first place, even if the characters don't know it yet. I think your point is valid, just JP is a poor example is all. It has a very ungainly structure with problems that are idiosyncratic to the story they were telling, and shouldn't really be applied to other stories.

 

[nycineaste]

we have a C.Q. 25% goal of 'Can the dinosaur park pass the muster as a safe theme park to open to the public?', which is kind of boring.

yeah but dont miss the point. Your goal as a screenwriter is to make the beginning of your story exciting and suspenseful enough for people to watch the movie and for readers to read. So, yes, in a monster movie "run from the monster" might not happen until 25 percent or halfway into your movie, but you need to fill the beggining of the movie with interesting stuff, even if (especially if) the opening goal is as mundane as "party at spring break". this stuff can be the monster stalking, or stuff we need to know to set up the existence of the monster (i agree jurassic park might lay too much pipe), or the monster killing off folks which arent main characters, or interesting character work that makes the audience care for certain characetrs so they hope they dont get killed and/ or showing what a jerk other characters are so they can cheer when THEY get killed, or what a HEDONIST certain characters are so we feel they DESERVE to get killed for being too busy having sex or drinking (all of these important horror techniques), etc. etc etc

like I said, Im a huge fan of Romeros structure in his "Living Dead" movies, where RUN FROM THE ZOMBIES starts from the OPENING SCENE/FIRST ACT. If/when I write a " monster in the house" movie, THATS what IM doing. Then the other goals can be tactical goals like GUARD THE HOUSE or GET TO THE TRUCK AND GET HELP or whatever the heck. You can find out about/care about the characters during the action and quieter parts of the movie as it barrels forward. To me this is the coolest, most exciting way to kick off a monster movie, but thats just personal preference.

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

yeah but dont miss the point. Your goal as a screenwriter is to make the beginning of your story exciting and suspenseful enough for people to watch the movie and for readers to read. So, yes, in a monster movie "run from the monster" might not happen until 25 percent or halfway into your movie, but you need to fill the beggining of the movie with interesting stuff,....

Of course. My whole point of this thread is what to use for pitching a story, not writing it. You write the story with hook, setup, inciting, Turn into II at 25%, obstacles and Hero as Wanderer, but then at Midpoint a secondary goal is layered and is useful for pitching, as the story takes a twist or major mind f&^k and the Hero becomes Warrior. But yes of course one needs all the material up until midpoint.