For those who don’t have as much patience as me, here’s the cliff notes version: - Jeffrey’s 4-Act Story Structure: Act 1, Act 2A, Act 2B, and Act 3. (Why? Personal preference.) You’re welcome.
@@charlesk22 they aee not rare in India. Many Kollywood movies are made in 4 act structures. Literally 4 stories/phases going on one after another. Usually the 4th one is a half hour flashback
I use the exact same structure and still call it a 3-Act structure. The “long second act” can easily be thought of as two discrete events with Act-2A leading up to the midpoint crisis and Act-2B is everything remaining in the Act. My novel is set during COVID-19 and it is based exactly in this structure.
@@serumnexus6961 the 3-Act structure is as old as the hills but Syd Field's paradigm focused on it as-Act One: story set up; Act Two: confrontation; Act Three: resolution. I read his “Screenplay” years ago and found it useful. So is Joseph Campbell, Vladimir Propp, and Robert McKee. And it wouldn’t do any harm to read Christopher Vogler and Aristotle’s “Poetics” as well.
Been following Jeff’s model for a while. My first script I used his model and got two phone calls from the Vice President of ICM for my script. It didn’t get sold (for whatever reason) but it got noticed! Been using his model ever since. Best book on screenwriting to date. For me.
I actually use four quarters like a football game. The inciting incident occurs with the first turnover. The first pinch point appears with the turnover in the second quarter. At halftime, you've got to up the stakes for the halftime show. The 4th quarter is where the climax occurs, also like a football game. If you need to go into overtime, audiences are more likely to enjoy if the last few minutes see a photo finish. A plot twist works like an interception because it changes the nature of the whole story with a sudden reversal. It's all still three acts, but it's easier to work out six hero goal sequences in each of four quarters, and it helps to focus on equal partitions of time, rather than the specific purpose of each act.
@@347Jimmy I realized the sense of it after finding that, while script doctoring other people's screenplays, act boundaries would keep moving around, forcing added fluff to keep the structure. Four quarters just adapts to the run time of the final release.
I think whatever the structure is it shouldn’t be all you’re writing to. Seen far too many shows trying to write to this exact formula without deviation to the point where all the character’s choices feel at best forced and at worst nonsensical. I feel for the writer though. I’m sure it’s a closed loop of needing to write to that formula to get producers/studio execs to want to “buy in” but they won’t if the story doesn’t fit this formula. Or perhaps the writer did have more interesting arcs on the page that once bought by corporate stooges hack it up to fit the formula because they believe they know what audiences want.
I prefer not to use act structures to create a story. Rather I write the story in a highly-iterative way, living it along with the characters (so to make it authentic). But until I find the perfect ending --- which can take a while (but I am patient) I don't worry about structure. But once the ending is found --- that I am in love with --- and I know what all dipoles need to align to (including foreshadowings) I then outline, relate to structural models, as a way to identify what is missing (the sort of points that show up in notes from others because you forgot about them). In summary, story first, structure second.
I’m glad you said it’s all the same. I think it’s funny that John Truby says he doesn’t use the 3 acts structure, but in the same paragraph says “weakness x action = change” is his plot structure lol
But is it a truly different structure, or (as in the vid) a different way of describing what Westerners would call a 3 act? Or does it examine things through an entirely different lens (like how the Chinese 5 elements differ from the Western 4)?
@@347Jimmy 起: to occur; a cognition of outside world surrounding (poem), an inciting incident (story) 承: to proceed; a description about observing a outside world surrounding (poem), a rising action (story) 転: a turning upside down; a climax that emotional impression, memory, or feeling from the observing (poem), a turning point/Climax (story) 結: To conclude; a sentiment from the climax (poem), a conclusion and ending. It it kinda Mckee’s 3 act but more weighting on emotion/sentiment.
I don't like the idea of "you have to follow this model when writing," and they somehow use a description of a three-act structure and apply it to any famous story, even if the story is far from it. Pretty much only movies use a 3 act structure, and not even all of them. Any TV show has way more than 3 acts, usually each episode serves as an act. Most video game stories certainly don't follow this structure, most long books have more than 3 acts. I agree with Schechter that these things are descriptive, not proscriptive.
I realise this was more of an introductory view on structure, but I think the more interesting question is 'why?' to each of these discussion points. '3 act structure' is just the "beginning, middle and end" perspective that makes sense for any layman to understand a story, or life & time in general. Any element of story, even a scene (or part of a scene) can be broken down into those segments. And I agree it's not much use as a structure tool, since the middle is generally split in two. But *why* is it split in two? We need a 'change' in some form in the middle act to keep the audience engaged. So yeah, you can break it into '4 acts' to make more sense of it. But in that case, why not just break it into 8 sequences, like the Sequence Approach? And then every 'act' is better structured. He mentions Truby and McKee. IMO, Truby is more interested in 'the 7 steps' - and actually rejects '3 act structure' as any kind of useful writing tool, since it's way too vague. And McKee thinks of structure as 'change'. Scene - minor change, Sequence - moderate change, Act - major change, leading to the climax and an irreversible change. The reason he defines it this way is because audiences get bored by repetition, and so even "change" must vary its degree of intensity and build up and release tension. In fact, I could sum up McKee's stance in one quote, "You can do whatever you want, as long as it works." As for how many 'acts' your story has, neither Truby or McKee are proscriptive about this (as far as I know). My advice would be work out your story in outline and/or work out your story in the 'vomit draft', (however you prefer to work) and when you know broadly what your story is, then you can decide how many 'acts' to break it into however you deem appropriate. It will probably change during the rewriting process, anyway. Adam Skelter has the approach that each act is a strategy by the protagonist. I think that's more useful for crafting a story than thinking in terms of the number of acts.
Another great post Ruy! Thank for for taking the time to share your thoughts. We have an upcoming segment with Jeffrey where we go deeper into this topic. Jeffrey talks about how the 4 archetypes and the 4 questions fit in perfectly with 4 act structure. We think it will be helpful to a lot of people.
I agree. For me calling the acts "beginning, middle and end" doesn't tell me how to write or what to write about or helps me break it down into actual scenes. We have to define Acts in a useful way. Plot points are about reveals or changes. Acts must highlight the reveal and changes, no? So a particular kind of plot point much be at the middle and end of each Act. But there is a finite number of story elements that can be changed or revealed, and a minimum number that must be included, otherwise you don't have a story if one is missing. Typically it is the antagonist's story elements that get revealed, and the protagonist's story elements that get changed. The minimum is Four. So it makes sense to me that Acts are reveals of the antagonist's minimum four (in the middle of each act is the antagonist's reveal), and changes or reveals of the protagonist's minimum four (at the end of each Act). Defining it this way indicates there must be a minimum of Four Acts. What are the story elements every story must have? That's the motivation, the plan, the mindset, and the goal. These are related to Orson Scott Card's MICE quotient, Milieu / Idea / Character / Event. The Milieu is the setting, either physical or social, that creates a motivation by the character's relationship to the setting. An Idea is more about the functional nature of the plan or the strategy the characters are employing or change. Character is about the mindsets that the characters are operating with to decide the other story elements, before and after any changes. And finally the Event is the goal the character is trying to prevent or achieve. Four Acts, with the final Act hinging on the most important story elements from the antagonist and protagonist that determine what kind of story it is. You can add additional Acts, but then you'd just be repeating a type of reveal or change that has already occurred in the story. Sure you can start with one goal, change to another, and finally change again to a third goal in a 5th Act, but that's going to look sloppy and unbalanced. You can give a change/reveal in mindset to 2nd Protagonist or 2nd Antagonist, and create additional Acts out of that, and contrasting with the main agonists is worthwhile, but what you're doing might be better accomplished with a subplot as part of the Four Acts rather than creating additional Acts. So four Acts is both the minimum and possibly the maximum too, for a story not to be unbalanced and bloated. UNLESS your basis of the nature of an Act is something totally different that what I've described. If you can think of a different way to define an Act, go for it, and good luck! No harm in trying something different.
This is exactly how I feel about structure. And it’s funny he says 44 plot points. When I outline I usually end up with 50 “scenes” I need to happen to get from beginning to end. And many end up condensed into one scene. So, yeah, 44 sounds about right.
No matter how you break it down, it's still a Three-Act-Structure: Act 1, and Act 2 is broken in half with a Mid-Point, and Act 3, I think it's better to think in terms of the Beginning, Middle, and Ending. Every story should have a beginning, middle, and ending, but not necessarily in that order.
My current project is basically three acts plus an epilogue. *ACT 1:* Set up the plot *ACT 2:* Put a plan into action *ACT 3:* Big honkin' action scene *EPILOGUE:* The aftermath and "riding off into the sunset".
For me, act one introduces the struggle, act two presents the modus the story will be resolved, act three presents the motivation for the main character (dramatically), and act three resolves the struggle.
I tend to agree. The Act IIa break to Act IIb is a bit artificial. It's four acts (like the four Cups and the four Vedas). Four works. Neatly balanced, too. How wonderful is that.
Cheers Daniel, we have another segment upcoming with Jeffrey where he goes into more detail about 4 Act Structure. We believe it will be helpful to many.
@@filmcourage I would REALLY like to participate at his next Seder Dinner to hear how HE tells the timeless story of the Exodus and Pass-Over. THAT would be wonderful.
I also break story into 4 acts, Like we have four seasons in a year, four quarters in an Hour, And when conventional three act structure, includes Act 2 as twice as long, 2A + 2B - It seems a bit silly to not just call them 4 acts. I feel it is also easier to break up "act two" into a pre and post midpoint.
Clicked on this video to roll my eyes at someone but was refreshingly greeted with Jeff just telling it like it is. People who say they use the three act or four act structure typically are saying the same thing. It feels like the three act definition just comes from less of a structure place and more of a conceptual, that concept being beginning, middle, and end, where as calling it a four act structure refers to it more technically as how the parts are broken down. The four act could be called four-part structure instead, but either way is fine. However, I do find he difference between the three/four act structure and the "five-act" structure (though I call it five-part) to be where there is a genuine difference. And you feel that difference when you watch a five-act/five-part and it is especially noticeable in some Eastern movies and anime.
I think 3 act structure works because it's simple. But the audience doesn't want mediocrity, or they will tune out. So just working isn't enough. You need to make a masterpiece, because that is what the audience demands. So more acts are usually better just because those who have mastered their craft have learned how to pull off a more complex story in general. It isn't the structure that is superior, it is the writer who prefers the structure.
This man is saying that whether it be three or four acts, they're both the same thing. The three act structure calls for act 2 to be split into 2a and 2b. The four act structure simply makes these acts 2 and 3. Neither is superior because they're the same thing. It's all based on how you wanna define it.
To put it in the simplest way the three acts are 1. Setup 2. Conflict 3. Resolution .. this is how most of the things works like jokes or puzzles or stories , that’s y it’s 3 acts. There is no 4th act actually. I read his book ‘ my story can beat your story’ where he explains 4 acts, but it’s not actually 4 different parts of story. He defines 4 stages of main characters arc. He says a character changes from a Orphan to a wanderer to a warrior and finally to a martyr.
@@igug5268 From Orphan to a wanderer- Act 1 From wanderer to warrior - Act 2 From Warrior to martyr - Act 3 But yeah I get why some prefer to say it's 4 act structure as it's easier not to forget the midpoint, lol. It's a discussion on semantics. Both are the same.
Writing a book, and writing for a movie, are very different states of mind. Like.., for design, you create or you produce..(technician- industry). Anyways, always great videos from this channel! Thankx
Ah! Jeffrey is on the money again in the real world. Remember that early film structure was determined by the length of a reel. Shakespeare's plays are almost all five act structured works. Being locked by a structure is writing from the outside in. If you can visualize your film or story - say, in a mind map, or a list or whatever, it will have a bunch of scenes in which something happens. What happens will almost always be a main character changes or something is changed by something. That arc of change will detemine the shape of the story. It doesn't matter one bit whether you chop up that arc of change and call the bits 'acts'. You'll know when the arc is right for your story. If you are a witer you could care less about acts. If you are a critic or an academic that's a paradigm you can't get past.
Isn't the four act structure just the three act structure without a dedicated midpoint? Have I been misunderstanding the three act structure? I always thought it was: Act 1, Act 2A, Midpoint, Act 2B, Act 3...I thought Act 2 served as a stage for the character arc (Act 2A start of arc, Midpoint fail at change, but learn what they must do, Act 2B overcome shortcomings to learn the lesson of the arc). Have I misunderstood?
I honestly don't like story structure. I just write the story without thinking of any structure or any kind of plan. I let it play out how it naturally does. Maybe it fits into a structure, but i ultimately say dont try and compare the story to a structure or make a structure out of it until after its already been written
Fascinating! Such a great interview! Scriptwriting sounds like the Kiss of Death, unless you are extraordinarily talented, dedicate your essence to the craft, produce brilliance, and are graced with a double-ice cream scoop of good luck.
Act 1, Act 2a and 2b, Act 3 is THREE ACTS with one broken in two. Four-act structure is not new, not controversial. It's a tool like any other. But at the end of the day, ALL story structures fit into three-act structure. At least he admits it's just a semantic issue. He says nothing of value here unless you are COMPLETELY NEW to screenwriting and structure.
1. set stage 2. set conflict and goal 3. move towards goal 4. climax 5. takeaway 6. rinse and repeat until story is finished. even the example story he gives of julie and ben can fit neatly into that. it can be a complete story in itself. but what he does say that is of value is at 8:05 he shares how once his story is sold, his vision doesnt matter anymore as it is now in the hands of directors, producers, actors, whatever. so telling a good story the best you can should be your priority.
44 plot point recommendation, I haven't heard that thought experiment before and I have watched a lot of writing advice channels over the years. Not wanting to say I like 'confirmation bias', but I like the fact that this guy is describing the first plot point of the story the way I make sense of it. I've heard a bit of contrary advice about the 'First Plot Point' and the 'inciting incident' recently that's spun me out because wth was it doing so far out from the start on those channels? What exactly are we inciting here? 'This is your fault, you were the one incubating a Godzilla egg from the beginning of the story while the rest of us yelled at you, what did you expect? For Pete's sake, now we've go to stop it.' (I don't watch modern children's cartoons, but that sounds like a premise for an episode of Teen Titans Go.) Also he was sincere to highlight the angle of making something to sell to a producer as different to the angle of making something unique and bizarre. As someone maybe 2/4ths of the way along the DunningKruger curve on writing 'advice', some people don't speak the same English as others (not to mention listening comprehension!). That's why hearing more people moving in the same direction with their advice does add up to still being useful. Also he was sincere to highlight the angle of making something to sell to a producer as different to the angle of making something unique and bizarre. These are both important angles for you to consider as you go about your creation process.
Very fuzzy description of plot. For clarity: a plot point is a character defining decision made during conflict, or crisis. Full stop. Everything else is EXPOSITION - not plot.
"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" is exposition. Having a tell, not show moment; that's exposition. Providing backstory, that's exposition. Many teachers have explained that exposition dumps are bad and why. You use exposition to quickly fill your audience in on your characters and world that are completely new to them. You don't use exposition to get to the next plot point unless you are retelling it in a live chat.
Loving “My Story Can Beat up your Story!”! Wondering if you applied the 44 plot points of Ben and Annie’s story set in the city of brownstones anywhere? And-- Really, Film Courage! Cause of you guys I have two shelves of read and studied books! 🙏🙏🙏🙏😂 All great and helpful!
A side note: I’ve been watching a lot of the Film Courage interviews and find them both informative and entertaining as well. But I’ve noticed that several of the male screenwriters display their toys in the background, like StarWars or Batman models etc. Maybe it’s a cultural thing (I’m not american) but I find this a sign of artistic immaturity. I get that it’s supposed to be half-way ironic but even so. Many of the writers refer to Aristotles and other giants of history and drama. Why don’t they wish to show more gravitas, more depth, greater width? I also enjoy watching science fiction or fairy tales like Lord of the Rings etc. But why do they take it so seriously? I don’t get that. Maybe they never read Strindberg, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Thomas Mann, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Camus, Steinbeck, Orwell to name but a few? Maybe they never saw the films of Fellini, Kurosawa, Bergmann, Tarkovsky, Lang and all the others? What would be Stanley Kubrick’s choice of background I wonder? Not some Batmobiles, that’s for sure. Anyway, to me, this is a sign of cultural poverty.
@@paulaandrea1015 My point was that, because some screenwriters only have popculture and contemporary movies as point of referance, and have such a limited cultural depth, their output will consequently be shallow and introspective (but not the way of psychologic reflection) and poor. The weight typically placed on such figurines is an example of this. If you don’t know literature and the masters of visual art and your film history, you will never ever achieve mastery yourself.
@@Mr.Monta77 why is it naive? you like something? go and buy it. You want to have marvel figurines in your background? Have them in your background. At the end of the day is not hurting anyone.
![21 Ways To Structure A Screenplay [WRITING MASTERCLASS]](/img/n.gif)
I like how relaxed he is: it's all the same pie, just cut differently.
For those who don’t have as much patience as me, here’s the cliff notes version:
- Jeffrey’s 4-Act Story Structure: Act 1, Act 2A, Act 2B, and Act 3. (Why? Personal preference.)
You’re welcome.
Oh, yeah. I actually think ive seen a few movies use this format, though they are rare.
@@charlesk22 they aee not rare in India.
Many Kollywood movies are made in 4 act structures.
Literally 4 stories/phases going on one after another.
Usually the 4th one is a half hour flashback
I use the exact same structure and still call it a 3-Act structure. The “long second act” can easily be thought of as two discrete events with Act-2A leading up to the midpoint crisis and Act-2B is everything remaining in the Act. My novel is set during COVID-19 and it is based exactly in this structure.
Wait isn't this the same as from the book Screenplay by Syd Field. He talked about the same format.
@@serumnexus6961 the 3-Act structure is as old as the hills but Syd Field's paradigm focused on it as-Act One: story set up; Act Two: confrontation; Act Three: resolution. I read his “Screenplay” years ago and found it useful. So is Joseph Campbell, Vladimir Propp, and Robert McKee. And it wouldn’t do any harm to read Christopher Vogler and Aristotle’s “Poetics” as well.
Been following Jeff’s model for a while. My first script I used his model and got two phone calls from the Vice President of ICM for my script. It didn’t get sold (for whatever reason) but it got noticed! Been using his model ever since. Best book on screenwriting to date. For me.
Thanks for posting!
I actually use four quarters like a football game. The inciting incident occurs with the first turnover. The first pinch point appears with the turnover in the second quarter. At halftime, you've got to up the stakes for the halftime show. The 4th quarter is where the climax occurs, also like a football game. If you need to go into overtime, audiences are more likely to enjoy if the last few minutes see a photo finish. A plot twist works like an interception because it changes the nature of the whole story with a sudden reversal.
It's all still three acts, but it's easier to work out six hero goal sequences in each of four quarters, and it helps to focus on equal partitions of time, rather than the specific purpose of each act.
Brilliant method!
Dig the metaphor; well done
@@347Jimmy I realized the sense of it after finding that, while script doctoring other people's screenplays, act boundaries would keep moving around, forcing added fluff to keep the structure. Four quarters just adapts to the run time of the final release.
Do you prefer to use 3 Act Structure, 4 Act Structure or something else?
Four quarters, like football, but three acts. Act II is second and third quarter.
I typically begin with a scotch on the rocks or a cheap merlot, but beer also works.
I think whatever the structure is it shouldn’t be all you’re writing to. Seen far too many shows trying to write to this exact formula without deviation to the point where all the character’s choices feel at best forced and at worst nonsensical.
I feel for the writer though. I’m sure it’s a closed loop of needing to write to that formula to get producers/studio execs to want to “buy in” but they won’t if the story doesn’t fit this formula. Or perhaps the writer did have more interesting arcs on the page that once bought by corporate stooges hack it up to fit the formula because they believe they know what audiences want.
I prefer not to use act structures to create a story. Rather I write the story in a highly-iterative way, living it along with the characters (so to make it authentic). But until I find the perfect ending --- which can take a while (but I am patient) I don't worry about structure. But once the ending is found --- that I am in love with --- and I know what all dipoles need to align to (including foreshadowings) I then outline, relate to structural models, as a way to identify what is missing (the sort of points that show up in notes from others because you forgot about them). In summary, story first, structure second.
Structuring.. is not the main thing. Like a food recipe, it’s the result that counts, whatever the ways
This is how I set my stories up as well. I'm glad to hear somebody else share my viewpoint.
I’m glad you said it’s all the same. I think it’s funny that John Truby says he doesn’t use the 3 acts structure, but in the same paragraph says “weakness x action = change” is his plot structure lol
Well, In Oriental Countries at Far east, 起承転結/기승전결 which is the four act structure for poem or story have been standard for thousands years.
But is it a truly different structure, or (as in the vid) a different way of describing what Westerners would call a 3 act?
Or does it examine things through an entirely different lens (like how the Chinese 5 elements differ from the Western 4)?
@@347Jimmy
起: to occur; a cognition of outside world surrounding (poem), an inciting incident (story)
承: to proceed; a description about observing a outside world surrounding (poem), a rising action (story)
転: a turning upside down; a climax that emotional impression, memory, or feeling from the observing (poem), a turning point/Climax (story)
結: To conclude; a sentiment from the climax (poem), a conclusion and ending.
It it kinda Mckee’s 3 act but more weighting on emotion/sentiment.
@@Doskharaas thankyou very much
Thanks for the slice of knowledge
But isn't it just the same outcome of a story? Add 1 and 2 together and just call it act 1. Act 2 is the journey and act 3 is the ending section?
I don't like the idea of "you have to follow this model when writing," and they somehow use a description of a three-act structure and apply it to any famous story, even if the story is far from it. Pretty much only movies use a 3 act structure, and not even all of them. Any TV show has way more than 3 acts, usually each episode serves as an act. Most video game stories certainly don't follow this structure, most long books have more than 3 acts. I agree with Schechter that these things are descriptive, not proscriptive.
I realise this was more of an introductory view on structure, but I think the more interesting question is 'why?' to each of these discussion points.
'3 act structure' is just the "beginning, middle and end" perspective that makes sense for any layman to understand a story, or life & time in general. Any element of story, even a scene (or part of a scene) can be broken down into those segments. And I agree it's not much use as a structure tool, since the middle is generally split in two. But *why* is it split in two? We need a 'change' in some form in the middle act to keep the audience engaged. So yeah, you can break it into '4 acts' to make more sense of it. But in that case, why not just break it into 8 sequences, like the Sequence Approach? And then every 'act' is better structured.
He mentions Truby and McKee. IMO, Truby is more interested in 'the 7 steps' - and actually rejects '3 act structure' as any kind of useful writing tool, since it's way too vague. And McKee thinks of structure as 'change'. Scene - minor change, Sequence - moderate change, Act - major change, leading to the climax and an irreversible change. The reason he defines it this way is because audiences get bored by repetition, and so even "change" must vary its degree of intensity and build up and release tension. In fact, I could sum up McKee's stance in one quote, "You can do whatever you want, as long as it works."
As for how many 'acts' your story has, neither Truby or McKee are proscriptive about this (as far as I know). My advice would be work out your story in outline and/or work out your story in the 'vomit draft', (however you prefer to work) and when you know broadly what your story is, then you can decide how many 'acts' to break it into however you deem appropriate. It will probably change during the rewriting process, anyway. Adam Skelter has the approach that each act is a strategy by the protagonist. I think that's more useful for crafting a story than thinking in terms of the number of acts.
Another great post Ruy! Thank for for taking the time to share your thoughts.
We have an upcoming segment with Jeffrey where we go deeper into this topic. Jeffrey talks about how the 4 archetypes and the 4 questions fit in perfectly with 4 act structure. We think it will be helpful to a lot of people.
I agree. For me calling the acts "beginning, middle and end" doesn't tell me how to write or what to write about or helps me break it down into actual scenes. We have to define Acts in a useful way. Plot points are about reveals or changes. Acts must highlight the reveal and changes, no? So a particular kind of plot point much be at the middle and end of each Act. But there is a finite number of story elements that can be changed or revealed, and a minimum number that must be included, otherwise you don't have a story if one is missing. Typically it is the antagonist's story elements that get revealed, and the protagonist's story elements that get changed. The minimum is Four. So it makes sense to me that Acts are reveals of the antagonist's minimum four (in the middle of each act is the antagonist's reveal), and changes or reveals of the protagonist's minimum four (at the end of each Act). Defining it this way indicates there must be a minimum of Four Acts.
What are the story elements every story must have? That's the motivation, the plan, the mindset, and the goal. These are related to Orson Scott Card's MICE quotient, Milieu / Idea / Character / Event. The Milieu is the setting, either physical or social, that creates a motivation by the character's relationship to the setting. An Idea is more about the functional nature of the plan or the strategy the characters are employing or change. Character is about the mindsets that the characters are operating with to decide the other story elements, before and after any changes. And finally the Event is the goal the character is trying to prevent or achieve. Four Acts, with the final Act hinging on the most important story elements from the antagonist and protagonist that determine what kind of story it is.
You can add additional Acts, but then you'd just be repeating a type of reveal or change that has already occurred in the story. Sure you can start with one goal, change to another, and finally change again to a third goal in a 5th Act, but that's going to look sloppy and unbalanced. You can give a change/reveal in mindset to 2nd Protagonist or 2nd Antagonist, and create additional Acts out of that, and contrasting with the main agonists is worthwhile, but what you're doing might be better accomplished with a subplot as part of the Four Acts rather than creating additional Acts. So four Acts is both the minimum and possibly the maximum too, for a story not to be unbalanced and bloated. UNLESS your basis of the nature of an Act is something totally different that what I've described. If you can think of a different way to define an Act, go for it, and good luck! No harm in trying something different.
This is exactly how I feel about structure. And it’s funny he says 44 plot points. When I outline I usually end up with 50 “scenes” I need to happen to get from beginning to end. And many end up condensed into one scene. So, yeah, 44 sounds about right.
No matter how you break it down, it's still a Three-Act-Structure: Act 1, and Act 2 is broken in half with a Mid-Point, and Act 3, I think it's better to think in terms of the Beginning, Middle, and Ending. Every story should have a beginning, middle, and ending, but not necessarily in that order.
In true 4 act structure there isn’t always a clear mid point. The transition from the development into the twist can be smooth or abrupt.
Omg this. Thinking in three acts is why the saggy middle is such a problem. BMOC not beginning, middle, and end.
My current project is basically three acts plus an epilogue.
*ACT 1:* Set up the plot
*ACT 2:* Put a plan into action
*ACT 3:* Big honkin' action scene
*EPILOGUE:* The aftermath and "riding off into the sunset".
For me, act one introduces the struggle, act two presents the modus the story will be resolved, act three presents the motivation for the main character (dramatically), and act three resolves the struggle.
Michael Keaton? Mando? The Shooting Star (leaping OVER) the Mach 5? The 1701A and 1701-Kelvin??? A man after my own office!!🔥🔥
I tend to agree. The Act IIa break to Act IIb is a bit artificial. It's four acts (like the four Cups and the four Vedas). Four works. Neatly balanced, too. How wonderful is that.
Cheers Daniel, we have another segment upcoming with Jeffrey where he goes into more detail about 4 Act Structure. We believe it will be helpful to many.
@@filmcourage I would REALLY like to participate at his next Seder Dinner to hear how HE tells the timeless story of the Exodus and Pass-Over. THAT would be wonderful.
Yes!!! 44 Plot Points it is to write a screenplay. No more no less. I like this guy.
I’ve found it easier to use 4 acts. I break every act into 25 pages.
I also break story into 4 acts, Like we have four seasons in a year, four quarters in an Hour, And when conventional three act structure, includes Act 2 as twice as long, 2A + 2B - It seems a bit silly to not just call them 4 acts. I feel it is also easier to break up "act two" into a pre and post midpoint.
Three acts - four acts - there's one thing that matters - a good story, well told.
....and a story you can finish writting
Clicked on this video to roll my eyes at someone but was refreshingly greeted with Jeff just telling it like it is. People who say they use the three act or four act structure typically are saying the same thing. It feels like the three act definition just comes from less of a structure place and more of a conceptual, that concept being beginning, middle, and end, where as calling it a four act structure refers to it more technically as how the parts are broken down. The four act could be called four-part structure instead, but either way is fine. However, I do find he difference between the three/four act structure and the "five-act" structure (though I call it five-part) to be where there is a genuine difference. And you feel that difference when you watch a five-act/five-part and it is especially noticeable in some Eastern movies and anime.
I think 3 act structure works because it's simple. But the audience doesn't want mediocrity, or they will tune out. So just working isn't enough. You need to make a masterpiece, because that is what the audience demands. So more acts are usually better just because those who have mastered their craft have learned how to pull off a more complex story in general.
It isn't the structure that is superior, it is the writer who prefers the structure.
Lol that's not how it works
@@igug5268 Then how does it work?
This man is saying that whether it be three or four acts, they're both the same thing. The three act structure calls for act 2 to be split into 2a and 2b. The four act structure simply makes these acts 2 and 3. Neither is superior because they're the same thing. It's all based on how you wanna define it.
To put it in the simplest way the three acts are 1. Setup 2. Conflict 3. Resolution .. this is how most of the things works like jokes or puzzles or stories , that’s y it’s 3 acts. There is no 4th act actually. I read his book ‘ my story can beat your story’ where he explains 4 acts, but it’s not actually 4 different parts of story. He defines 4 stages of main characters arc. He says a character changes from a Orphan to a wanderer to a warrior and finally to a martyr.
@@igug5268 From Orphan to a wanderer- Act 1
From wanderer to warrior - Act 2
From Warrior to martyr - Act 3
But yeah I get why some prefer to say it's 4 act structure as it's easier not to forget the midpoint, lol.
It's a discussion on semantics. Both are the same.
Peter russell and Jeffrey allan schecter are my favorites.
Writing a book, and writing for a movie, are very different states of mind. Like.., for design, you create or you produce..(technician- industry). Anyways, always great videos from this channel! Thankx
I use a 3 act structure but most of my stories start with a prolog which is basically a very short act 0.
Yeah if act 2 is twice as long as act 1 & 3 why not just call it 4 total? I agree with him I find that to be ridiculous
Ah! Jeffrey is on the money again in the real world. Remember that early film structure was determined by the length of a reel. Shakespeare's plays are almost all five act structured works. Being locked by a structure is writing from the outside in. If you can visualize your film or story - say, in a mind map, or a list or whatever, it will have a bunch of scenes in which something happens. What happens will almost always be a main character changes or something is changed by something. That arc of change will detemine the shape of the story. It doesn't matter one bit whether you chop up that arc of change and call the bits 'acts'. You'll know when the arc is right for your story. If you are a witer you could care less about acts. If you are a critic or an academic that's a paradigm you can't get past.
Isn't the four act structure just the three act structure without a dedicated midpoint? Have I been misunderstanding the three act structure? I always thought it was:
Act 1, Act 2A, Midpoint, Act 2B, Act 3...I thought Act 2 served as a stage for the character arc (Act 2A start of arc, Midpoint fail at change, but learn what they must do, Act 2B overcome shortcomings to learn the lesson of the arc). Have I misunderstood?
In 4 act structure the midpoint just transitions from act 2 into act 3. Instead of saying act 1, 2a, 2b, 3 you just say act 1, 2, 3, 4. That's all.
I honestly don't like story structure. I just write the story without thinking of any structure or any kind of plan. I let it play out how it naturally does. Maybe it fits into a structure, but i ultimately say dont try and compare the story to a structure or make a structure out of it until after its already been written
i think good writers have an instinct for intrinisc structure.
@@1adadada Some MC's want to travel their own path.
Fascinating! Such a great interview! Scriptwriting sounds like the Kiss of Death, unless you are extraordinarily talented, dedicate your essence to the craft, produce brilliance, and are graced with a double-ice cream scoop of good luck.
Who was thinking about Better Call Saul S04E07 ?
I disagree. I like 20 act structure
👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽
I'll stick to the three act structure because I have OCD and three is the smallest prime number.
2 is a prime number
Why not one?
@@Manu-vm4wb en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number
@@paulmurphy9809I meant smallest odd prime number
@@monkeywrench4169 One is still the smallest number out of those
Cool Tip
Act 1, Act 2a and 2b, Act 3 is THREE ACTS with one broken in two.
Four-act structure is not new, not controversial. It's a tool like any other. But at the end of the day, ALL story structures fit into three-act structure.
At least he admits it's just a semantic issue.
He says nothing of value here unless you are COMPLETELY NEW to screenwriting and structure.
1. set stage
2. set conflict and goal
3. move towards goal
4. climax
5. takeaway
6. rinse and repeat until story is finished.
even the example story he gives of julie and ben can fit neatly into that.
it can be a complete story in itself.
but what he does say that is of value is at 8:05
he shares how once his story is sold, his vision doesnt matter anymore as it is now in the hands of directors, producers, actors, whatever.
so telling a good story the best you can should be your priority.
44 plot point recommendation, I haven't heard that thought experiment before and I have watched a lot of writing advice channels over the years.
Not wanting to say I like 'confirmation bias', but I like the fact that this guy is describing the first plot point of the story the way I make sense of it.
I've heard a bit of contrary advice about the 'First Plot Point' and the 'inciting incident' recently that's spun me out because wth was it doing so far out from the start on those channels? What exactly are we inciting here?
'This is your fault, you were the one incubating a Godzilla egg from the beginning of the story while the rest of us yelled at you, what did you expect? For Pete's sake, now we've go to stop it.' (I don't watch modern children's cartoons, but that sounds like a premise for an episode of Teen Titans Go.)
Also he was sincere to highlight the angle of making something to sell to a producer as different to the angle of making something unique and bizarre.
As someone maybe 2/4ths of the way along the DunningKruger curve on writing 'advice', some people don't speak the same English as others (not to mention listening comprehension!). That's why hearing more people moving in the same direction with their advice does add up to still being useful.
Also he was sincere to highlight the angle of making something to sell to a producer as different to the angle of making something unique and bizarre. These are both important angles for you to consider as you go about your creation process.
Very fuzzy description of plot. For clarity: a plot point is a character defining decision made during conflict, or crisis. Full stop. Everything else is EXPOSITION - not plot.
"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" is exposition. Having a tell, not show moment; that's exposition. Providing backstory, that's exposition. Many teachers have explained that exposition dumps are bad and why. You use exposition to quickly fill your audience in on your characters and world that are completely new to them. You don't use exposition to get to the next plot point unless you are retelling it in a live chat.
I love movie math.
Loving “My Story Can Beat up your Story!”! Wondering if you applied the 44 plot points of Ben and Annie’s story set in the city of brownstones anywhere?
And-- Really, Film Courage! Cause of you guys I have two shelves of read and studied books! 🙏🙏🙏🙏😂 All great and helpful!
I knew it
😘😍
Beginning middle end. 3
A side note: I’ve been watching a lot of the Film Courage interviews and find them both informative and entertaining as well. But I’ve noticed that several of the male screenwriters display their toys in the background, like StarWars or Batman models etc. Maybe it’s a cultural thing (I’m not american) but I find this a sign of artistic immaturity. I get that it’s supposed to be half-way ironic but even so. Many of the writers refer to Aristotles and other giants of history and drama. Why don’t they wish to show more gravitas, more depth, greater width? I also enjoy watching science fiction or fairy tales like Lord of the Rings etc. But why do they take it so seriously? I don’t get that. Maybe they never read Strindberg, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Thomas Mann, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Camus, Steinbeck, Orwell to name but a few? Maybe they never saw the films of Fellini, Kurosawa, Bergmann, Tarkovsky, Lang and all the others? What would be Stanley Kubrick’s choice of background I wonder? Not some Batmobiles, that’s for sure. Anyway, to me, this is a sign of cultural poverty.
Man,they are only figurines. Just that. Nothing deep about it. Anyone can have whatever they want.
@@paulaandrea1015 ‘anyone can have whatever they want’? That’s the most naive statement I have read this century.
@@paulaandrea1015 My point was that, because some screenwriters only have popculture and contemporary movies as point of referance, and have such a limited cultural depth, their output will consequently be shallow and introspective (but not the way of psychologic reflection) and poor. The weight typically placed on such figurines is an example of this. If you don’t know literature and the masters of visual art and your film history, you will never ever achieve mastery yourself.
@@Mr.Monta77 why is it naive? you like something? go and buy it. You want to have marvel figurines in your background? Have them in your background. At the end of the day is not hurting anyone.
also, I wasnt expecting you to answer me, your post was from 11 months ago and I only just entered this video, nice
I guess he doesn't write jokes then.