I've noticed a bit of a connection between self insert characters and missing a super objective. That's why it's so important to distance yourself from your characters. If you identify too much with your character, you'll struggle to dig deep into what drives the character, because at the core, there is often pain and trauma, and if you and your character are one and the same, you'll need to do a lot of soul searching, and that's not only difficult, but painful as well. That doesn't mean you can't write about personal topics, but it means you need to keep a clear distinction between yourself and the character, in order to be able to explore him and his inner workings, without you being too affected by it. In the end, if it is a deeply personal topic you write about, you'll also learn more about it and yourself, if you allow yourself to keep the distance while helping your character work through it.
What you say about self inserting is certainly true. As a songwriter it's all about self. The challenge...the music is to be part of a story/screenplay for the 1st album or "season 1", in which the main character is practically me. I want it to be compelling both as music and visual story telling...but the more I try to develop the "character" arc I realize there is no clear underlying want...because I have no idea what I want. That's the common theme in the music. Mystery of self and the obstacles to self discovery, or if rigorous search of self is ultimately intangible and misleading. Big personal questions. My gut is that it will have to be somewhat unconventional, but I don't want to take the easy way out (tends to result in suck).
@@HORNGEN4It's not always about a want in the sense we typically think about it. Like "I want to be a rockstar", "I want to publish a book", these sorts of things. Instead, the super objective can be more ephemeral, maybe not even known to the protagonist until the very end, and that's what we as a writer need to work on to show these kinds of things to our readers. Or in your case listeners. A lack of want can be a fantastic super objective, because this usually comes with its own problems. Nobody is naturally with a lack of want or doesn't know what they want. Often, that stems from something deeper, and that is what we're aiming for, that's where the heart of the story is sitting. And as I said, exploring that in yourself can be tough, near impossible. Which is why it is so important to put up a boundary between a character and yourself. The character might be inspired by yourself, but he is not you. You can do things to him you wouldn't want to happen to you, because of that boundary. And because you can push him into situations you wouldn't be able to push yourself into, you can explore a topic a lot deeper.
@@MatrixQ Thanks, this is inspiring and clarifying. Coming up with situations that manifest from the confusion may be a great way to focus. The "something deeper" is certainly known. If I didn't have to be the one in front of the camera it would be easier to disassociate. Maybe fortunately, a twisted net of insecurities and fear of rejection are often relatable :)
Some writers work things out in their head or in a clear outline, and their writing phase tends to be efficient. Some jump straight in and then figure it out slowly through rewriting. Either way can work, or a combination. But planning everything out first can also be a form of procrastination. It's going to take a lot of work. The main thing is to do the work, which means confronting your fear, shame and unrealistic expectation.
I just get started and watch the character do their thing. It's like watching a movie that already exists and then tell it to my best friend. The further in I get in he story, the more I can predict what's going to happen and kind of an outline becomes visible. But when I start off, I don't know where it's going. Almost as if itss really happening somewhere and the characters have their own lives and decisions to make.
I was thinking of trashing my whole story yesterday because I couldn't move it forward and I wasn't happy with it but this video offered so much insightful advice that I think I'll continue!
Continue because you have a tale to tell, not because a single person stated their *personal* opinion. There are too many writers that say things they feel are absolute. As long as your conflict happens naturally, and indeed you have conflict, you can move your story forward. You do not need others to encourage you when you have a story to tell. Just tell the story. Keep writing because you enjoy creating.
"The real work doesn't begin until after the first draft," ain't that the truth. Though for me the first draft is usually exploratory, where I think I know my characters and I'm working out the story, but really it's in the rewrite where I figure out what they theme of the story actually is vs what I thought it would be and then I attune the characters to further fit that narrative. For me, writing is like piecing together a puzzle but where you have the option of molding the pieces so that they fit better.
I like his take on spare dialogue. The visual always takes precedence in the medium of film. I'd posit that's true for written works as well, contradictory as that may sound. You're in the character's head and in their space either way, and you have to visualize that. While he spoke about outlining, I finally realized the *reason* discovery writers write the way we do: we need to *see the character in action* before we can find out who they are--just like in life. We have to do the same back-end work that other writers do, but the way we squeeze the juice of a story out is to jump into the vat of grapes with Lucy.
I recently read Black Beauty. I was struck but how much was "said" with so few words. We have a lot to learn from classics that required real effort to put every letter onto paper.
I write stories and read them and my only critique would be the implications of the word "visuals". There's also "sound design" in the shape of words creating ambiance, and things like acting that are more relational and internal that would have to be expressed in weird ways in film. But yeah, dialog isn't for communicating with other characters, it, like everything else in the story, should mostly just be for the reader.
@@Rodomist There are sounds in talking pictures...colors in Technicolor but not black and white...but there are always visuals to a movie. I take your point, though. And now I'm interested to go back to some of the classic literature and find out how much of the auditory they included besides dialogue
Meh, Hollywood is dead. Do whatever you want. Make your own rules. Stop making crap for the lowest denominator. Make something that's actually good. To do that, you have to take risks and do things that haven't been done. Following a beat sheet is a recipe for a forgettable story.
I think you're confused. Hollywood is dead because they aren't even attempting to write good stories. They are letting politics and marketing departments win over story.
Judging by these explanations, Slacker is the worst film ever written. The writing industry tends to force everything into a set of patterns because so many writers that work there are basically machines trained to do a task according to formulas. Writing could be interesting even without any clear "whats" and "whos". Rhythm, movement, and emotion are the most important things in writing. Just like they are in music. And it doesn't matter if it's a book or a screenplay.
That's totally true. When the Walking Dead was based on Rick's attempts to keep his family alive at any cost, the show was compelling. When all his family died by Season 6, no one knew what the point of the show was anymore. When Rick left the show in Season 7, even most of those who'd held on through Season 6 quit, including myself. The fact that Rick was more grounded AFTER all his family died and cared more about losing his adulterous wife than his beloved son, the show jumped the shark. Similarly, the fact that Game of Thrones gave up on or forgot the story arcs of nearly all its central characters, the show became about pure spectacle and cinematography, which is not what made the low budget first seasons such a huge phenomenon. We were watching the same actors playing characters with the same name, but we weren't watching our characters anymore. Season 7 and 8 is like invasion of the body snatchers in Westeros.
I don't know about game of thrones being low budget for the 1st season. Maybe for it's scope but the cost per episode was average for the time. But yeah I agree they destroyed all the characters or just flattened their character arc into something bland
Rey Palpatine seems to lack a super objective, especially in the Force Awakens. Finn and Dameron had goals, Dameron was an active member of the resistance and Finn desperately wanted to defect to the resistance. Rey was just on a planet that she made no effort to leave until she was whisked along with the story on a whim, tried to leave the story ASAP, then was captured and went along with other people's plan after reacting to circumstances. But then Rey goes to find Luke, not Leia? Rey seems more sad about Han Solo dying than his wife! She barely knew Han.
Only two that was completed. Just short films. A third one is in post production. Working on several others that may become a movie in the future. It’s really hard to finish one. A good one.
I'm a newbie screenwriter working on writing a pilot for an animated sitcom and I find these interviews incredibly helpful for developing characters that can drive many plots and have their own voices. Since story comes from character, it doesn't seem enough just to have a story engine situation, I also need good characters. Good writing trumps everything else, just look at South Park, the animation is crap, but the stories are pretty solid and follow 3 act structure.
Unfortunately he's contradicted himself within 5 minutes. 2:34 "They can't want justice - that's too Generic". Then 4:34 "she wants to be the best FBI agent she can" Which is generic. Thinking in terms of wants and needs gets confusing (what does James Bond 'need'? Nothing). What Clarise (specifically) wants - her goal - is to rescue the senator's daughter. The goals that drive the story should be specific so we know when it's been achieved (It's often driven by the bad guys.) To bring Debbie home. To get back to Kansas / To recover the slippers. To get rid of the Homesteaders / To develop a homestead. To get out of Casablanca / to prevent Victor Laszlo from getting an exit visa. To destroy the Empire / to destroy the rebellion. To get the Ark before the Nazis / to get the Ark to Berlin (to win WW2). To rescue the senator's daughter / to make a dress. You can factor in a personality flaw later, but the story is driven by a specific, achievable intention.
1. I don't think this is really a contradiction, especially as you only include half the quote. "She’s living in the shadow of her dad. What she needs to understand is who she gets in bed with could destroy that." Starling, by the part of the quote that you clipped, could be seen as 'generic' on the surface. But part of what makes her interesting is how naive she is - and that she is selected as bait for Lecter because of this trait. She is up against a psychopath with a genius level intellect, and completely out of her depth. And he is able to manipulate her because of her ambition and naivety. Not that I want to make everything about gender, but it is significant to the story that she is a young woman, and the attacks are specifically against women and Crawford and Chilton are men. All of this context is important in making the character/story work, and extracting Starling from this context to claim she's generic is missing the point. But I understand that you are specifically talking about 'wants' and how he phrased his point. We could say her want is to 'rescue the senator's daughter', but she really has no connection to her. So just, 'to complete the case' is a reason to follow her from an audience perspective, but solving the case is - arguably - part of her deeper want to be a great agent. I think it's a very sophisticated story because of the level of deception and disillusionment at the center of it. If she had been an experienced field agent, I don't think the story would work. And so her desire to establish herself is part of what drives her forward and makes her compelling - especially up against (or allied with) Lecter. Her idealism is also part of lack of experience. To include all this as a tangent to his point would have taken up half the video, so I suppose he is presuming we are familiar with the story. 2. I think a better word at 2m34s would be 'abstract'. "Justice" is too abstract by itself. But we could say Erin Brokovitch wants "justice" for the group she represents, because of all the times she has been screwed over, and empathising with people in the same position. 3. Bond doesn't really prove or disprove anything about how audiences generally want most character arcs to work. We could argue he has 'no need', but then he isn't a character with an arc, in an individual story or connected series. And we don't watch of read Bond to see him change. We watch to see him mercilessly pursue his mission. Usually main characters with no arc have characters around them who change, or the world changes. And we could arguably make these claims about Bond's sidekicks, or the individuals/organisations he tries to thwart. 4. Probably we could make a case that Bond is an egotist, sadist and a snob that gets his identity and purpose through the actions he takes and what is at stake. And part of the audience's enjoyment is witnessing this behaviour; Bond doesn't think twice about killing or torture most of the time, while other popular "heroes" are never seen to behave in such a cynical way. 5. On the surface, something like EEAAO is a fairly generic mother/daughter superhero story, but what makes it compelling is the specificity of gender/orientation/race in that relationship and setting.
Exactly what I needed - commentary around 3.00 minutes. Thank you Stephen Douglas-Craig. I had begun a fabulous story of a young girl, a map in a locket, a vast treasure of gold... ancient family battles, based on a true story! BUT I had stopped writing around halfway because I couldn't see what was driving the personal connections and the super objective (I mean, The Goonies... really?). Now I see that the old guy needs to rescue the young girl in reality and in heart.
@@oneyeseesin3D Every screenwriting guru tells us the hero must be proactive. What is their goal? As someone who loves thrillers and writes them it took me a long time to stop banging my head against the wall and learn that the hero is actually reactive. What a hero in a thriller needs to be is dynamic, not passive. Bourne is reactive and so is Driver in Drive but they react explosively.
also see superhero, a genre which often features protagonists whose lives are interrupted by the sudden plot of evilman, and obviously iron man 6 the quantum kangs is gonna make more than the earths population at the box office come april
McNeil isn't really the main character; it's Father Karras. In order to understand this, one has to realize that ultimately, the movie is about Faith - or in Karras's instance, a lack, or loss of it. McNeil isn't even a passive observer when the climax comes around. Sure, we're invested in her storyline, but breaking the story down to its more universal elements, not all of us are mother, or parents, or find ourselves in inexplicable situations such as this. However, just as the argument is that Red is the Main Character in The Shawshank Redemption, the majority of us have questioned our faith (Karras) just as much as we have hope (Red). These are the vessels, aka "Characters," that the majority identify with, not the Andy Dufresne's or Chris McNeil's, that make the story's outcome, and subsequently the story itself, so powerful.
10:30 'if the main character is not developed enough...' A good reason to (re)write your opening last -- that is when you know the character best. I usually draft an opening but I write the opening after I have the ending locked down.
Another great video. Character is everything. Dialog is an action that reveals character. Plot arises from different characters acting as obstacles to one another. Structure is important as a support and facilitator of creativity.
first thing that came to mind is how d&d (dan weiss and david beniof) dropped the "super objective" of grrm's story and just made an entire joke of the second half of game of thrones.
in the older stories we wanted to BE the main character. the protagonist. Now, the writer just PUTs HERSELF in as the main character. theres a huge difference.
I don’t think this is a new phenomenon, I think you just notice it more because female self-inserts typically have a different flavour than male self-inserts. The 16 year old girl that is not like the other girls overthrows dystopian society with her 3 hot simps vs the ordinary guy that discovers secret magic powers and defeats the evil wizard with his harem of 6 hot princesses. The latter has been so common for so long that we don’t even register it as a Gary Stu self insert.
@j.c.jeggis1818 no, the problem with writing these days is not making the story relatable to the audience. it's become quite tribal and identity based. it's not hard to write stories that we all can relate to. Put it another way: The way they are written now, you have to look exactly like the character in the movie! In the past we had NO PROBLEM identifying with Ripley in Aliens or Blade or The Prince of Zumunda in coming to America. I think its cos today's stories are preachy and try to lecture their audience. no one wants to be lectured to.
@@j.c.jeggis1818 Yep. It's common with a lot of writers throughout time. Stephen King is notorious for this. Classics like CS Forester's Hornblower or F. Scott Fitzgerald = Gatsby. The problem today is when it's more about the writer having a grievance fest monologue about injustices today than a fictional character going on an adventure who's kind of similar to their creator.
What if your MC wants more than one thing? Or let's say they start out wanting something very specific and then over the journey they discover a conflcting want? They must choose which want will prevail. That struggle makes the story. Take The Godfather. Yes, Michael's driving want in the beginning is only to save his Father briefly from an immediate peril. But slowly he wants more and more power for himself. He becomes his father, the kingpin. That gradual seepage of power corruption is the whole story.
TL;DR: My theory is that the Superobjective is the uncompromising drive, but multiple desires come from characters who are still testing out their methods. New opportunities arise, their approach changes, but deep down they always want the same thing above all, its just that other temptations or other approaches come up to test which path they'll take, and sometimes it's extra challenging for the character to decide - especially when both approaches seemingly achieve the same desire. My favourite example for this is Dr Horrible: he wants to get into the evil league of evil, but he also wants to date Penny. Problem: Penny is dating his arch-nemesis and Dr H has done so poorly that the league wants him to kill someone. It appears on the surface he has two conflicting goals, but actually, what he wants to To Be Recognized (a state he can work towards to and the audience can recognise when it's happen because there will be a change in Ego) and he just doesn't know how to go about it. He has 2 conflicting strategies, but one clear super objective. This creates a bitter-sweet story in which he can achieve Ego in either direction, but at the expense of the other option, and so whichever way he succeeds he will also fail, but this is a result of being doomed to suffer Shame going down any path that offers Ego. One objective, conflicting strategies. In a story I'm writing I initially had the goal of "they want everything, and they're overcome with pressure as the options overwhelm them" and I felt like that gave the MC way too many goals and I couldn't find a direct line. Until I changed it to "They want To Be Successful, and will ultimately decide X strategy is the best one above all." And then the conflict comes from how all the other options slowly collapse until they're all in with the main plot option and then they're going to risk everything and crack under the pressure of thinking they MUST have that thing to be successful and will end up unsuccessful having wasted all of their perfectly fine options for an unneccesarily soul-destroying level of success. They seemingly have multiple goals, but their super objective keeps them coming back to the main plot when the chaos (intentionally) derail events, gives them a focus they will cheat and sacrifice all else to get. Super Objective helps you find your ending when otherwise multiple goals would take you down various plotlines that don't naturally reunite. Jumping all over the place, another good example is mini-goals. Ash Ketchum's super objective is to "be a pokemon master" but also in the meantime wants to help people out as he passes by. His super objective keeps the plot intact - catch pokemon, win badges, bond with pokemon - but he can go off on all sorts of side quests in the way there due to the WAY he approaches said mastery - with humility and friendship and casual fun. A characters approach, and how they change their approach, can determine far more about a characters goal than just "they want x" although "they want X by the end above all" stops episodic from becoming too episodic for too long, it's still the key drive for what ash is trying to achieve while being helpful.
5:55 I wish Steve had his interview questions public, or better still I wish he had a book on all this! Great tips here, I want more! This clip inspired me to read Stanislavski to try and learn more about building the character.
Lord of the Rings: Get the Ring from Hobbiton to Mordor, and then throw it away. The Gods Must Be Crazy!: Get the Evil Thing from the Kalahari to the End of the World, and throw it away. Star Wars: Get the Death Star plans from Princess Leia to the Rebels so they can blow it up. Die Hard: Go to the party with Holly, reconcile with her, and then go home to spend Christmas together with the kids as a family. Night of the Living Dead: Survive the night! Jingle All the Way: Get Jamie a TurboMan action figure (doll). Men In Black: Keep Earth safe from the scum of the Universe.
Desire is really the foundation under which 'want' and 'need' rest. If the main character chases after a rich jerk and ignores the boy next door, she may eventually realize that while she wanted the rich guy, she needed the boy next door. But fundamentally her bodily desire for love is what's satisfied, regardless of how her conscious 'want' changed. 'Want' can also be tricky to play with in the context of a heroic genre like a comic book film or show. In 'Batwoman', the title character gets into the superhero role for selfish reasons and a lot of viewers were turned off by it. Additionally, the title character continues to let her serial killer sister evade justice because she 'wants' to bring the innocent version of her sister back. She's acting in the name of a want, but in the context of the genre, it's repellant to the people watching.
He said inciting incident should happen by page 10. Others have said about 25% of the way in, say pages 23-30. So which is it? If i submit a script with it on page 23 is it going to be rejected? Does it depend on who is reading it?
I would say 25% for the inciting incident is quite a long time, not that it can't work if there is a lot that needs to be established first. But bear in mind that different people use the terminology differently. As a general rule, I would say that 25% should be the end of act 1, and the beginning of act 2 (in a standard structure). Not that your inciting incident can't be at the end of act 1, but the end of act 1 would traditionally have some kind of 'decision', which is usually after a 'debate' about how to respond to the inciting incident, otherwise it might feel like the opening drags and then feels rushed. I suppose pacing is also dictated to some extent by your choice of genre, and whether it's TV or movie. For some straightforward breakdowns on structure, I'd recommend K M Weiland or Ellen Brock (although they are both focused on novels, the principle of pacing is the same). You might also try the 'sequence' approach, breaking the run time into 8 segments. Overall, I'd say it's probably better to get to the inciting incident sooner rather than later, even though anything can be made to work. I would suggest (if you have time) having a look at a dozen scripts from your favourite movies of the last 5 years or so, and see if you can identify where the inciting incident occurs. The other thing to consider when looking at your writing is if there are early scenes that aren't really needed, go on too long, can be combined, or can be moved to later in the story.
I think you're confusing the inciting incident with the first plot point/crossing the threshold/point of no return. Inciting incident is a trigger event, whereas the first plot point is an active decision that actually breaks the status quo.
@@kelliatlargeif that's the case, then for the sake of getting a second look, I'd put a dramatic teaser right off the top. When you're famous, you could get away with nothing really big happening for a while, but when no one knows your work, you kinda have to wow people. Same in singing auditions I used to do. For new people, casting only wants to hear your best 16 bars. Usually the highest notes.
the most important thing I know about scripts, is that production divides each page into 8 color coded sections.... very important to know, Karen do videos on this... Cheers
I have always loved the Aussies no BS, tell-it-like it-is approach to life. This default pragmatism saves so much time and you always know where you stand.
Human desire is endless but time is the most precious thing man can have. I have the tendency to want a countdown in every encounter, and a big overarching one threatening everything characters try to have or achieve. I can really relate to the idea of a conterfactual "interview" with a character. "What would you sacrifice to gain your desire?" On some level we should all measure what we stand to gain against that which we stand to lose. Sometimes the reckless man is compelling, sometimes tragic, sometimes both. Granted I'm not a screenwriter and I just write hack work short stories for myself, so...
Thank you for all this information. I've been working on my idea for a couple years building the world and its characters. This all helps a lot and the comments as well. But Schumacher's best film is The Lost Boys.
Excellent! I'm presently at work on a biography of a well-known actress (whose name I can't reveal here), and I see how Mr Douglas-Craig's ideas here apply to my subject, even though it's not fiction. In the life I'm describing, I"m starting to see clearly the 'inciting incident' (perhaps more than one), the 'superobjective', the 'obstacles', etc, and the need to emphasize them. Thank you sir.
I thought Neo in The Matrix wasn't pursuing anything and that the other guy.. what's his name... was pursuing him and basically handing him his purpose and only later did he come to accept it. So can't a story start off with the main character NOT knowing any need or want or purpose and the story still succeeded because ultimately the character DOES find his need or her want/purpose? I don't know. Just wondering.
When the pundit states "for me" as this guy does, it is a red flag. It is an ad hoc defense because he knows that what he is about to say is in no way a *must*. The fact that he only uses cinema for examples tells me he's a pulp writer and we all know that modern cinema sucks the ballsack. No writer needs to follow this guy's advice. Write your story, the inciting incident will reveal itself. As long as you are writing logically derived conflict incitement will mostly be automatic.
That's true for most writing advice/guides. It comes from seeing or reading something good and then trying to break it down as to why it works. It's not useless, just another guide to reference if one gets lost or feels like their story isn't working and can't tell why.
2:40 Steve is talking about wants. In a sense we all "want" world peace; Steve says this isnt a want. If its not a want, what is it (im really asking) - it is a generic "want" that anyone, and everyone can have, but its not specific? So is it not a specific "want"? What defines what is, and what is not considered a "want"? Im really curious...
What most people want is usually too generic to drive a character to act and to be relatable. Travelling; wanting money; finding love; to be healthy. These universal wants don't really push a story, but I believe with some nuance u can build a story around It. I would say "The Pursuit of Happyness" does this very well, but instead of just wanting to be successful, Will's character wants to escape the jaws of defeat, to prove he is a worthy husband and father, no matter the risks. It helps that It is based on a true story, great selling point. Late response, but I hope it helps. Have a good one!
IMO, Plot should always be the result of the interactions of the characters, it should never be what happens to the characters. What I mean, is if your character only does something because the plot needs it to happen, then you have dead characters and a bad story.
That’s the problem with many recent movies and stories is they stray to much from the story with a bunch of dialogue and conversations they don’t need.
I'm responding from a story telling perspective, not screenwriting. what is the most important thing? it is a story. characters are medium for that story. they are super important, because only through them we can care about the story, but the story comes always first. the story is alive while it is reveling itself, while it is unfolding and being discovered. too much outlining and planning all the plot points might makes you technically efficient, but at the same time once you actually start to write, you might be just digging out already dead stinking fish. in Yoga, there is a saying: the breath is your Master. In writing: story is your Master. and everything else, needs to adjust accordingly.
Some of his ideas sound like what Kurt Vonnegut's rules for writing, especially "a character must want something, even if it is just a glass of water."
Night of The Living Dead was a cheap put together of a movie. Today, it is a Cult Classic. Every Zombie film ever made or book written has that movie in mind. It was a cheap failure but it was underestimated. That is why you can never judge whether a movie will be popular.
This guy is wrong... Heinlein, arguably one the top 5 authors of all time literally wrote stories where the "super objective" was the character searching for freedom. So that debunks that notion. Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and quite a few other films have no "Super objective". This is a concept he made up so that he can act elitist and sophisticated. I'm not against what he's saying as rules of thumb and tools to use, but they are tools, not absolutes.
I think you can have a story that has no character, such as a story about a destructive blizzard. But you can't have a story that has no plot. The plot is the story, the character occupies it.
Any given story uses it's characters to drive it's story. If the story explores the consequences of a blizzard and all is accomplishments, that blizzard will be considered a character, believe it or not.
06:00 I am a 100% pantser, but that does not translate well to long fiction. But as a 100% pantser, I do get a couple super powers. I can pluck a fully formed character out of thin air in an instant who would be capable of answering all character interview questions. But I always consider their motivations as if they were a real person in a real world. How do you change the frame of mind such that they could answer "what do you want out of this screenplay (novel, etc)"? Are scope and motivation intertwined? I think the THING that the character wants is only the tip of the iceberg. A student may want to pass an exam. But what they yearn for is the life academic success appears to promise them. They yearn for prosperity. True character motivation is towards the intangible qualities of the thing they think they want. And yet this understanding does little to propel me beyond the confines of a short story.
To me, I'll come up with stories first. Then, I'll remember the 3-Act structure and other rules. And all of a sudden, I have to rework how my story will fit that.
I'm always blown away at how truly special of an interviewer you are ... I mean I'd watch a 10 hour interview of someone interviewing you about interviewing! ha
A bright man that gives us a lot of insight. I have to disagree with the outline a little bit. It is helpful for some but some people find it restrictive. I feel like it should be somewhat organic. He does it because it works for him. It requires complete trust that the words will find you as you go along.
It's important to learn about what the rules are, and why they work. This way mediocre writers can still achieve success, while the innovators look to where best to break the rules and that works even better for them, making them into household names in the process. Try Steven King. He would say outlines and plots are for cowards to hide behind.
Umm, I still dont know what a super objective is. Is a super objective what a character wants, or is it what the character needs? because those are often opposed ideas.
The main character in the exorcist is Damien Karras. The camera is even in his head for certain shots. It’s based on a book that’s based on a true story. Just because we’re following the mother at the start (who even remembers that’s characters name?) doesn’t make her the main character. Who is the main character in psycho? Depends on what section of the movie.
What he really needs to see is that he hasn't a home to go to.and in a larger sense he has been evicted from a society which no longer recognizes him as a valid citizen.
I FEEL THAT THEY OVERCOMPLICATE THINGS. TWO FILMS THAT BECAME A PHENOMAN IS ROCKY & BRONX TALE. IF YOU CAN HAVE A SCRIPT THAT YOU BELIEVE IN & CAN HANDLE REJECTION, THEN ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS PURSUE IT WITH A DESIRE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN..
@@BrooklynRises I’ll sum it up. Basically the main character wants to be the greatest superhero to have ever lived which to him that means basically being Superman (I’m putting a lot of emphasis on both sides of the name. The “super” and the “man”) along with being rich and loved by everyone. At least that’s the version he tells other people, but he needs to realize is that he is worth loving even if he’s not perfect. Does any that make sense?
@@YasaByYasa definitely makes sense! I would say you just clarified his need (to be loved for who he is without all the power, super-ness even if he doesn’t realize that quite yet.) the want is what will create your conflict and story. How does he become the greatest superhero, what’s in his way, and lastly how can his pursuit of this teach him an unexpected lesson and get him what he actually needs (which is self love)? This is the basis for a great film in my opinion
Out of curiosity, what is the Theme you had envisioned to subtle explore by telling this story?! What aspect of life is being discussed through the internal and external flow of this story of the "Superman" "Super Perfect Man" screenplay?!
holy cow u just explanied monark and how after the fifth epiosde it just went down hill to wtf i know its about godzilla and the titans but u just lost me with the ok there he is and no answer yet it just kept going
Thank you for the precise, spot-on questions, I think those were some of the most common things all new writers need help with, and thank you mr. Douglas for your deep and thoughtful answers.
There can be characters who simply serve as a mirror of the action, right? Without driving the action themselves. They just serve as a guide through the story without actually influencing it. Like in a war movie, the character realizes he won't make it, he has a premonition and finally finds peace with it. Whatever happens to him now will be ok for him He lets go of all desires and needs to control his situation. Meanwhile, a lot of stuff happens, and he's being carried away with it rather than driving the action.
Or private WItt in Thin Red Line. Although that movie is more of a succession of episodes in which several characters are shown, but Witt is the one who is watching rather than acting, except the last couple of scenes before he dies.@@Fernando-ox5mo
Here's what I have... I regularly have a single main character but there are many other characters that come in that suddenly it's "Oh, you're the main character!" Keep it going. engaged. Keep the main character in, but the other characters need to attach the mind. For instance.... Sorry for the well over used reference... For me, STAR WARS is about Han Solo! And he discovers love. With his friends. In a exceptionlly dramatic way.
If you want to see a show that proves this point so well, it's High Guardian Spice. None of the characters in that series have any real objectives. It boils down to them going to this academy to learn to be guardians, but the show never tells you what a guardian actually is or what anyone's end-game is, so they just sort of faff around in a setting that's essentially Hogwarts meets D&D. Rose and Thyme have end-goals, the former wanting to find her mom and the latter wanting to stop a corrupting force called the Rot, but the show never takes the time to explain how becoming a guardian is a step toward achieving these objectives or even why these characters think becoming a guardian will achieve their objectives. Meanwhile, another character Sage wants to learn magic, but the academy teaches a school of magic she doesn't want to learn, so her being there is a step AWAY from her objective and the show never explains why she chooses to stay there despite it not actually getting her closer to her objective. In the end it basically makes it impossible to sympathize with or identify with any of the characters because they just feel like tokens, like "here's the idiot hero trope, here's the best friend trope, here's the all-loving hero trope, here's the bitchy character who warms up to everyone trope, thank you and buy our toys".
I still feel like his analysis is kind of surface level. It's not that he *personally* is missing or misunderstanding things necessarily, but i feel like the way he breaks things down is simultaneously reductionistic and imprecise.
So what happens if the main character achieves their goals early on in the story? Yet the story isn't done? Can they have a new goal just thrown in there to keep interest in that character?
The issue lies in an understanding of basic and even sometimes, complex storytelling concepts. Be you a pantser or a plotter, none of it will matter if you don't have an inking of where your story is going or even what it's about.
I've noticed a bit of a connection between self insert characters and missing a super objective. That's why it's so important to distance yourself from your characters. If you identify too much with your character, you'll struggle to dig deep into what drives the character, because at the core, there is often pain and trauma, and if you and your character are one and the same, you'll need to do a lot of soul searching, and that's not only difficult, but painful as well. That doesn't mean you can't write about personal topics, but it means you need to keep a clear distinction between yourself and the character, in order to be able to explore him and his inner workings, without you being too affected by it. In the end, if it is a deeply personal topic you write about, you'll also learn more about it and yourself, if you allow yourself to keep the distance while helping your character work through it.
What you say about self inserting is certainly true. As a songwriter it's all about self. The challenge...the music is to be part of a story/screenplay for the 1st album or "season 1", in which the main character is practically me. I want it to be compelling both as music and visual story telling...but the more I try to develop the "character" arc I realize there is no clear underlying want...because I have no idea what I want. That's the common theme in the music. Mystery of self and the obstacles to self discovery, or if rigorous search of self is ultimately intangible and misleading. Big personal questions. My gut is that it will have to be somewhat unconventional, but I don't want to take the easy way out (tends to result in suck).
Nonsense.
@@HORNGEN4It's not always about a want in the sense we typically think about it. Like "I want to be a rockstar", "I want to publish a book", these sorts of things. Instead, the super objective can be more ephemeral, maybe not even known to the protagonist until the very end, and that's what we as a writer need to work on to show these kinds of things to our readers. Or in your case listeners. A lack of want can be a fantastic super objective, because this usually comes with its own problems. Nobody is naturally with a lack of want or doesn't know what they want. Often, that stems from something deeper, and that is what we're aiming for, that's where the heart of the story is sitting.
And as I said, exploring that in yourself can be tough, near impossible. Which is why it is so important to put up a boundary between a character and yourself. The character might be inspired by yourself, but he is not you. You can do things to him you wouldn't want to happen to you, because of that boundary. And because you can push him into situations you wouldn't be able to push yourself into, you can explore a topic a lot deeper.
@@MatrixQ Thanks, this is inspiring and clarifying. Coming up with situations that manifest from the confusion may be a great way to focus. The "something deeper" is certainly known. If I didn't have to be the one in front of the camera it would be easier to disassociate. Maybe fortunately, a twisted net of insecurities and fear of rejection are often relatable :)
Why writing memoirs (me right now) is so hard 😭
You have to really love storytelling & writing to enjoy the challenges of rewriting stories to get it right.
Some writers work things out in their head or in a clear outline, and their writing phase tends to be efficient. Some jump straight in and then figure it out slowly through rewriting. Either way can work, or a combination. But planning everything out first can also be a form of procrastination. It's going to take a lot of work. The main thing is to do the work, which means confronting your fear, shame and unrealistic expectation.
Yes
I just get started and watch the character do their thing. It's like watching a movie that already exists and then tell it to my best friend. The further in I get in he story, the more I can predict what's going to happen and kind of an outline becomes visible. But when I start off, I don't know where it's going. Almost as if itss really happening somewhere and the characters have their own lives and decisions to make.
@@jasonnicholasschwarz7788 Yep, it's a discovery whichever way we do it.
Shame and unrealistic expectation is too real
Yep. I’m one that just has to write knowing it will probably change. But I have to play out things before I really know what happens
I was thinking of trashing my whole story yesterday because I couldn't move it forward and I wasn't happy with it but this video offered so much insightful advice that I think I'll continue!
Continue because you have a tale to tell, not because a single person stated their *personal* opinion. There are too many writers that say things they feel are absolute. As long as your conflict happens naturally, and indeed you have conflict, you can move your story forward. You do not need others to encourage you when you have a story to tell. Just tell the story. Keep writing because you enjoy creating.
@@Blabbermouth-w5w this is great! Thanks! I literally screenshot this!
"The real work doesn't begin until after the first draft," ain't that the truth. Though for me the first draft is usually exploratory, where I think I know my characters and I'm working out the story, but really it's in the rewrite where I figure out what they theme of the story actually is vs what I thought it would be and then I attune the characters to further fit that narrative.
For me, writing is like piecing together a puzzle but where you have the option of molding the pieces so that they fit better.
I like his take on spare dialogue. The visual always takes precedence in the medium of film. I'd posit that's true for written works as well, contradictory as that may sound. You're in the character's head and in their space either way, and you have to visualize that.
While he spoke about outlining, I finally realized the *reason* discovery writers write the way we do: we need to *see the character in action* before we can find out who they are--just like in life. We have to do the same back-end work that other writers do, but the way we squeeze the juice of a story out is to jump into the vat of grapes with Lucy.
I recently read Black Beauty. I was struck but how much was "said" with so few words.
We have a lot to learn from classics that required real effort to put every letter onto paper.
I write stories and read them and my only critique would be the implications of the word "visuals". There's also "sound design" in the shape of words creating ambiance, and things like acting that are more relational and internal that would have to be expressed in weird ways in film.
But yeah, dialog isn't for communicating with other characters, it, like everything else in the story, should mostly just be for the reader.
@@Rodomist There are sounds in talking pictures...colors in Technicolor but not black and white...but there are always visuals to a movie. I take your point, though. And now I'm interested to go back to some of the classic literature and find out how much of the auditory they included besides dialogue
Meh, Hollywood is dead.
Do whatever you want. Make your own rules.
Stop making crap for the lowest denominator.
Make something that's actually good. To do that, you have to take risks and do things that haven't been done. Following a beat sheet is a recipe for a forgettable story.
Example - Shawshank redemption is truly about Hope. Having hope pays off.
I think you're confused. Hollywood is dead because they aren't even attempting to write good stories. They are letting politics and marketing departments win over story.
Judging by these explanations, Slacker is the worst film ever written. The writing industry tends to force everything into a set of patterns because so many writers that work there are basically machines trained to do a task according to formulas.
Writing could be interesting even without any clear "whats" and "whos". Rhythm, movement, and emotion are the most important things in writing. Just like they are in music. And it doesn't matter if it's a book or a screenplay.
That's totally true. When the Walking Dead was based on Rick's attempts to keep his family alive at any cost, the show was compelling. When all his family died by Season 6, no one knew what the point of the show was anymore. When Rick left the show in Season 7, even most of those who'd held on through Season 6 quit, including myself. The fact that Rick was more grounded AFTER all his family died and cared more about losing his adulterous wife than his beloved son, the show jumped the shark. Similarly, the fact that Game of Thrones gave up on or forgot the story arcs of nearly all its central characters, the show became about pure spectacle and cinematography, which is not what made the low budget first seasons such a huge phenomenon. We were watching the same actors playing characters with the same name, but we weren't watching our characters anymore. Season 7 and 8 is like invasion of the body snatchers in Westeros.
I don't know about game of thrones being low budget for the 1st season. Maybe for it's scope but the cost per episode was average for the time.
But yeah I agree they destroyed all the characters or just flattened their character arc into something bland
Rey Palpatine seems to lack a super objective, especially in the Force Awakens. Finn and Dameron had goals, Dameron was an active member of the resistance and Finn desperately wanted to defect to the resistance.
Rey was just on a planet that she made no effort to leave until she was whisked along with the story on a whim, tried to leave the story ASAP, then was captured and went along with other people's plan after reacting to circumstances.
But then Rey goes to find Luke, not Leia? Rey seems more sad about Han Solo dying than his wife! She barely knew Han.
"The power of Film Courage compells you".
It’s super hard to write a good screenplay. Stay at it
How many have you written?
Only two that was completed. Just short films. A third one is in post production. Working on several others that may become a movie in the future. It’s really hard to finish one. A good one.
This video is very accurate in my opinion.
Nice! Great to see you putting in the work!
I'm a newbie screenwriter working on writing a pilot for an animated sitcom and I find these interviews incredibly helpful for developing characters that can drive many plots and have their own voices. Since story comes from character, it doesn't seem enough just to have a story engine situation, I also need good characters. Good writing trumps everything else, just look at South Park, the animation is crap, but the stories are pretty solid and follow 3 act structure.
Unfortunately he's contradicted himself within 5 minutes. 2:34 "They can't want justice - that's too Generic". Then 4:34 "she wants to be the best FBI agent she can" Which is generic. Thinking in terms of wants and needs gets confusing (what does James Bond 'need'? Nothing). What Clarise (specifically) wants - her goal - is to rescue the senator's daughter. The goals that drive the story should be specific so we know when it's been achieved (It's often driven by the bad guys.) To bring Debbie home. To get back to Kansas / To recover the slippers. To get rid of the Homesteaders / To develop a homestead. To get out of Casablanca / to prevent Victor Laszlo from getting an exit visa. To destroy the Empire / to destroy the rebellion. To get the Ark before the Nazis / to get the Ark to Berlin (to win WW2). To rescue the senator's daughter / to make a dress. You can factor in a personality flaw later, but the story is driven by a specific, achievable intention.
This I agree
She wanted to solve the case.
Good conversation starter
I would argue that wants are almost always very generic
1. I don't think this is really a contradiction, especially as you only include half the quote.
"She’s living in the shadow of her dad. What she needs to understand is who she gets in bed with could destroy that."
Starling, by the part of the quote that you clipped, could be seen as 'generic' on the surface. But part of what makes her interesting is how naive she is - and that she is selected as bait for Lecter because of this trait. She is up against a psychopath with a genius level intellect, and completely out of her depth. And he is able to manipulate her because of her ambition and naivety. Not that I want to make everything about gender, but it is significant to the story that she is a young woman, and the attacks are specifically against women and Crawford and Chilton are men. All of this context is important in making the character/story work, and extracting Starling from this context to claim she's generic is missing the point. But I understand that you are specifically talking about 'wants' and how he phrased his point.
We could say her want is to 'rescue the senator's daughter', but she really has no connection to her. So just, 'to complete the case' is a reason to follow her from an audience perspective, but solving the case is - arguably - part of her deeper want to be a great agent. I think it's a very sophisticated story because of the level of deception and disillusionment at the center of it. If she had been an experienced field agent, I don't think the story would work. And so her desire to establish herself is part of what drives her forward and makes her compelling - especially up against (or allied with) Lecter. Her idealism is also part of lack of experience. To include all this as a tangent to his point would have taken up half the video, so I suppose he is presuming we are familiar with the story.
2. I think a better word at 2m34s would be 'abstract'. "Justice" is too abstract by itself. But we could say Erin Brokovitch wants "justice" for the group she represents, because of all the times she has been screwed over, and empathising with people in the same position.
3. Bond doesn't really prove or disprove anything about how audiences generally want most character arcs to work. We could argue he has 'no need', but then he isn't a character with an arc, in an individual story or connected series. And we don't watch of read Bond to see him change. We watch to see him mercilessly pursue his mission. Usually main characters with no arc have characters around them who change, or the world changes. And we could arguably make these claims about Bond's sidekicks, or the individuals/organisations he tries to thwart.
4. Probably we could make a case that Bond is an egotist, sadist and a snob that gets his identity and purpose through the actions he takes and what is at stake. And part of the audience's enjoyment is witnessing this behaviour; Bond doesn't think twice about killing or torture most of the time, while other popular "heroes" are never seen to behave in such a cynical way.
5. On the surface, something like EEAAO is a fairly generic mother/daughter superhero story, but what makes it compelling is the specificity of gender/orientation/race in that relationship and setting.
Exactly what I needed - commentary around 3.00 minutes. Thank you Stephen Douglas-Craig. I had begun a fabulous story of a young girl, a map in a locket, a vast treasure of gold... ancient family battles, based on a true story! BUT I had stopped writing around halfway because I couldn't see what was driving the personal connections and the super objective (I mean, The Goonies... really?). Now I see that the old guy needs to rescue the young girl in reality and in heart.
Why aren't there more stories about a young boy instead of always about a young girl?
@bluenetmarketing Nah. The Goonies is about boys, star travel story... a boy. ET. etc. etc. Name me some young adventure stories with girls.
@@stephenanastasi748 Strangely enough, I'm writing two of them.
@@stephenanastasi748 K. M. Weiland has two books about girl leads (Storming and The Wayfarer).
@@stephenanastasi748i think you guys are saying the same thing
This is so straight forward. I love it!
I really connect with his explanations. Thank you! So clear and helpful and down to earth and accessible.
Glad it was helpful Bob!
I could not agree more 🧡
Thank you! This is such great advice, I already feel much more confident in the direction I will take my story.
Great to hear!
The thriller is the most popular genre and in thrillers the hero is reactive and it's the antagonist that has the main objective.
Very true!
😮 that is fascinating. It's completely true though
@@oneyeseesin3D Every screenwriting guru tells us the hero must be proactive. What is their goal? As someone who loves thrillers and writes them it took me a long time to stop banging my head against the wall and learn that the hero is actually reactive. What a hero in a thriller needs to be is dynamic, not passive. Bourne is reactive and so is Driver in Drive but they react explosively.
Yeah look at North By Northwest. While the society looks dated to younger people, it’s an absolutely masterful thriller!
also see superhero, a genre which often features protagonists whose lives are interrupted by the sudden plot of evilman, and obviously iron man 6 the quantum kangs is gonna make more than the earths population at the box office come april
McNeil isn't really the main character; it's Father Karras. In order to understand this, one has to realize that ultimately, the movie is about Faith - or in Karras's instance, a lack, or loss of it. McNeil isn't even a passive observer when the climax comes around. Sure, we're invested in her storyline, but breaking the story down to its more universal elements, not all of us are mother, or parents, or find ourselves in inexplicable situations such as this. However, just as the argument is that Red is the Main Character in The Shawshank Redemption, the majority of us have questioned our faith (Karras) just as much as we have hope (Red). These are the vessels, aka "Characters," that the majority identify with, not the Andy Dufresne's or Chris McNeil's, that make the story's outcome, and subsequently the story itself, so powerful.
10:30 'if the main character is not developed enough...'
A good reason to (re)write your opening last -- that is when you know the character best. I usually draft an opening but I write the opening after I have the ending locked down.
I need to write a script for my film class so for this to randomly pop up on my fyp is a funny coincidence haha
Serendipity!
@@filmcourage indeed!
The algorithm knows you
@@LilyGazou they know me too well for my liking...
What do you think?
Another great video. Character is everything. Dialog is an action that reveals character. Plot arises from different characters acting as obstacles to one another. Structure is important as a support and facilitator of creativity.
Every story we write is fiction, especially the one about ourselves. To make it interesting, leave yourself out of it, please.
first thing that came to mind is how d&d (dan weiss and david beniof) dropped the "super objective" of grrm's story and just made an entire joke of the second half of game of thrones.
in the older stories we wanted to BE the main character. the protagonist.
Now, the writer just PUTs HERSELF in as the main character.
theres a huge difference.
Do I detect some anger in your comment? Lmao
@@Well_Ill_Be_GodDangled do i detect stupidity in yours? lmao
I don’t think this is a new phenomenon, I think you just notice it more because female self-inserts typically have a different flavour than male self-inserts. The 16 year old girl that is not like the other girls overthrows dystopian society with her 3 hot simps vs the ordinary guy that discovers secret magic powers and defeats the evil wizard with his harem of 6 hot princesses. The latter has been so common for so long that we don’t even register it as a Gary Stu self insert.
@j.c.jeggis1818 no, the problem with writing these days is not making the story relatable to the audience. it's become quite tribal and identity based.
it's not hard to write stories that we all can relate to.
Put it another way: The way they are written now, you have to look exactly like the character in the movie! In the past we had NO PROBLEM identifying with Ripley in Aliens or Blade or The Prince of Zumunda in coming to America. I think its cos today's stories are preachy and try to lecture their audience. no one wants to be lectured to.
@@j.c.jeggis1818 Yep. It's common with a lot of writers throughout time. Stephen King is notorious for this. Classics like CS Forester's Hornblower or F. Scott Fitzgerald = Gatsby. The problem today is when it's more about the writer having a grievance fest monologue about injustices today than a fictional character going on an adventure who's kind of similar to their creator.
What if your MC wants more than one thing? Or let's say they start out wanting something very specific and then over the journey they discover a conflcting want? They must choose which want will prevail. That struggle makes the story. Take The Godfather. Yes, Michael's driving want in the beginning is only to save his Father briefly from an immediate peril. But slowly he wants more and more power for himself. He becomes his father, the kingpin. That gradual seepage of power corruption is the whole story.
I'd say his want is more of wanting to distance himself from his family and in the end failing in doing so. That's just my opinion though.
TL;DR: My theory is that the Superobjective is the uncompromising drive, but multiple desires come from characters who are still testing out their methods. New opportunities arise, their approach changes, but deep down they always want the same thing above all, its just that other temptations or other approaches come up to test which path they'll take, and sometimes it's extra challenging for the character to decide - especially when both approaches seemingly achieve the same desire.
My favourite example for this is Dr Horrible: he wants to get into the evil league of evil, but he also wants to date Penny. Problem: Penny is dating his arch-nemesis and Dr H has done so poorly that the league wants him to kill someone.
It appears on the surface he has two conflicting goals, but actually, what he wants to To Be Recognized (a state he can work towards to and the audience can recognise when it's happen because there will be a change in Ego) and he just doesn't know how to go about it. He has 2 conflicting strategies, but one clear super objective. This creates a bitter-sweet story in which he can achieve Ego in either direction, but at the expense of the other option, and so whichever way he succeeds he will also fail, but this is a result of being doomed to suffer Shame going down any path that offers Ego. One objective, conflicting strategies.
In a story I'm writing I initially had the goal of "they want everything, and they're overcome with pressure as the options overwhelm them" and I felt like that gave the MC way too many goals and I couldn't find a direct line. Until I changed it to "They want To Be Successful, and will ultimately decide X strategy is the best one above all." And then the conflict comes from how all the other options slowly collapse until they're all in with the main plot option and then they're going to risk everything and crack under the pressure of thinking they MUST have that thing to be successful and will end up unsuccessful having wasted all of their perfectly fine options for an unneccesarily soul-destroying level of success. They seemingly have multiple goals, but their super objective keeps them coming back to the main plot when the chaos (intentionally) derail events, gives them a focus they will cheat and sacrifice all else to get. Super Objective helps you find your ending when otherwise multiple goals would take you down various plotlines that don't naturally reunite.
Jumping all over the place, another good example is mini-goals. Ash Ketchum's super objective is to "be a pokemon master" but also in the meantime wants to help people out as he passes by. His super objective keeps the plot intact - catch pokemon, win badges, bond with pokemon - but he can go off on all sorts of side quests in the way there due to the WAY he approaches said mastery - with humility and friendship and casual fun. A characters approach, and how they change their approach, can determine far more about a characters goal than just "they want x" although "they want X by the end above all" stops episodic from becoming too episodic for too long, it's still the key drive for what ash is trying to achieve while being helpful.
5:55 I wish Steve had his interview questions public, or better still I wish he had a book on all this! Great tips here, I want more! This clip inspired me to read Stanislavski to try and learn more about building the character.
Here is our full interview with Steve - th-cam.com/video/adVxPaj17rU/w-d-xo.html
Why are so many bad movies made?
I’d love to see one of these well connected or well established writers have the guts to say that.
Why wouldn’t they?
Lord of the Rings:
Get the Ring from Hobbiton to Mordor, and then throw it away.
The Gods Must Be Crazy!:
Get the Evil Thing from the Kalahari to the End of the World, and throw it away.
Star Wars:
Get the Death Star plans from Princess Leia to the Rebels so they can blow it up.
Die Hard:
Go to the party with Holly, reconcile with her, and then go home to spend Christmas together with the kids as a family.
Night of the Living Dead:
Survive the night!
Jingle All the Way:
Get Jamie a TurboMan action figure (doll).
Men In Black:
Keep Earth safe from the scum of the Universe.
Desire is really the foundation under which 'want' and 'need' rest. If the main character chases after a rich jerk and ignores the boy next door, she may eventually realize that while she wanted the rich guy, she needed the boy next door. But fundamentally her bodily desire for love is what's satisfied, regardless of how her conscious 'want' changed. 'Want' can also be tricky to play with in the context of a heroic genre like a comic book film or show. In 'Batwoman', the title character gets into the superhero role for selfish reasons and a lot of viewers were turned off by it. Additionally, the title character continues to let her serial killer sister evade justice because she 'wants' to bring the innocent version of her sister back. She's acting in the name of a want, but in the context of the genre, it's repellant to the people watching.
He said inciting incident should happen by page 10. Others have said about 25% of the way in, say pages 23-30. So which is it? If i submit a script with it on page 23 is it going to be rejected? Does it depend on who is reading it?
It's all subjective. As long as it's good and the character has drive it doesn't matter.
I would say 25% for the inciting incident is quite a long time, not that it can't work if there is a lot that needs to be established first. But bear in mind that different people use the terminology differently. As a general rule, I would say that 25% should be the end of act 1, and the beginning of act 2 (in a standard structure). Not that your inciting incident can't be at the end of act 1, but the end of act 1 would traditionally have some kind of 'decision', which is usually after a 'debate' about how to respond to the inciting incident, otherwise it might feel like the opening drags and then feels rushed. I suppose pacing is also dictated to some extent by your choice of genre, and whether it's TV or movie.
For some straightforward breakdowns on structure, I'd recommend K M Weiland or Ellen Brock (although they are both focused on novels, the principle of pacing is the same).
You might also try the 'sequence' approach, breaking the run time into 8 segments.
Overall, I'd say it's probably better to get to the inciting incident sooner rather than later, even though anything can be made to work. I would suggest (if you have time) having a look at a dozen scripts from your favourite movies of the last 5 years or so, and see if you can identify where the inciting incident occurs.
The other thing to consider when looking at your writing is if there are early scenes that aren't really needed, go on too long, can be combined, or can be moved to later in the story.
I think you're confusing the inciting incident with the first plot point/crossing the threshold/point of no return. Inciting incident is a trigger event, whereas the first plot point is an active decision that actually breaks the status quo.
I've heard some producers say they'll only read the first scene and then move on. It really just depends on who's reading it.
@@kelliatlargeif that's the case, then for the sake of getting a second look, I'd put a dramatic teaser right off the top. When you're famous, you could get away with nothing really big happening for a while, but when no one knows your work, you kinda have to wow people. Same in singing auditions I used to do. For new people, casting only wants to hear your best 16 bars. Usually the highest notes.
the most important thing I know about scripts, is that production divides each page into 8 color coded sections.... very important to know, Karen do videos on this... Cheers
“PLOTS COMES FROM CHARACTERS” OMG I’VE WROTE THIS SENTENCE ON MY NOTE LAST YEAR. ARTISTS ARE REALLY LINKS WELL.
I have always loved the Aussies no BS, tell-it-like it-is approach to life.
This default pragmatism saves so much time and you always know where you stand.
Human desire is endless but time is the most precious thing man can have. I have the tendency to want a countdown in every encounter, and a big overarching one threatening everything characters try to have or achieve. I can really relate to the idea of a conterfactual "interview" with a character. "What would you sacrifice to gain your desire?" On some level we should all measure what we stand to gain against that which we stand to lose. Sometimes the reckless man is compelling, sometimes tragic, sometimes both.
Granted I'm not a screenwriter and I just write hack work short stories for myself, so...
Thank you for all this information. I've been working on my idea for a couple years building the world and its characters. This all helps a lot and the comments as well. But Schumacher's best film is The Lost Boys.
Excellent! I'm presently at work on a biography of a well-known actress (whose name I can't reveal here), and I see how Mr Douglas-Craig's ideas here apply to my subject, even though it's not fiction. In the life I'm describing, I"m starting to see clearly the 'inciting incident' (perhaps more than one), the 'superobjective', the 'obstacles', etc, and the need to emphasize them. Thank you sir.
I thought Neo in The Matrix wasn't pursuing anything and that the other guy.. what's his name... was pursuing him and basically handing him his purpose and only later did he come to accept it. So can't a story start off with the main character NOT knowing any need or want or purpose and the story still succeeded because ultimately the character DOES find his need or her want/purpose? I don't know. Just wondering.
When the pundit states "for me" as this guy does, it is a red flag. It is an ad hoc defense because he knows that what he is about to say is in no way a *must*. The fact that he only uses cinema for examples tells me he's a pulp writer and we all know that modern cinema sucks the ballsack. No writer needs to follow this guy's advice. Write your story, the inciting incident will reveal itself. As long as you are writing logically derived conflict incitement will mostly be automatic.
That's true for most writing advice/guides. It comes from seeing or reading something good and then trying to break it down as to why it works. It's not useless, just another guide to reference if one gets lost or feels like their story isn't working and can't tell why.
2:40 Steve is talking about wants. In a sense we all "want" world peace; Steve says this isnt a want. If its not a want, what is it (im really asking) - it is a generic "want" that anyone, and everyone can have, but its not specific? So is it not a specific "want"? What defines what is, and what is not considered a "want"? Im really curious...
What most people want is usually too generic to drive a character to act and to be relatable. Travelling; wanting money; finding love; to be healthy. These universal wants don't really push a story, but I believe with some nuance u can build a story around It.
I would say "The Pursuit of Happyness" does this very well, but instead of just wanting to be successful, Will's character wants to escape the jaws of defeat, to prove he is a worthy husband and father, no matter the risks. It helps that It is based on a true story, great selling point.
Late response, but I hope it helps.
Have a good one!
He's like an Aussie Rob Ager
fantastic advice.
He's absolutely right. Realizing the first draft is only the beginning is soul crushing.
IMO, Plot should always be the result of the interactions of the characters, it should never be what happens to the characters. What I mean, is if your character only does something because the plot needs it to happen, then you have dead characters and a bad story.
Eh you can work backwards, you need a plot point to happen, so you build your Character up to it.
Thank you so much Karen for this wonderful and useful interview 🧡
Thank you so much Steve for your meaningful insights 🧡
Great tips for actors also…
What a great way to establish/break down a character before you put them in a story! Respect.
Brilliant and captivating from start to finish. Great interview.
Thanks Andreas! We look forward to sharing more clips from this interview.
Great interview. Great questions here. Hats off to the interviewer. 🙏❤️
That’s the problem with many recent movies and stories is they stray to much from the story with a bunch of dialogue and conversations they don’t need.
05:50
11:50 Dialogue...
I'm responding from a story telling perspective, not screenwriting. what is the most important thing? it is a story. characters are medium for that story. they are super important, because only through them we can care about the story, but the story comes always first.
the story is alive while it is reveling itself, while it is unfolding and being discovered. too much outlining and planning all the plot points might makes you technically efficient, but at the same time once you actually start to write, you might be just digging out already dead stinking fish.
in Yoga, there is a saying: the breath is your Master. In writing: story is your Master. and everything else, needs to adjust accordingly.
Some of his ideas sound like what Kurt Vonnegut's rules for writing, especially "a character must want something, even if it is just a glass of water."
informative interview.
But the new Hawaii 5-0 was unwatchable
Night of The Living Dead was a cheap put together of a movie. Today, it is a Cult Classic. Every Zombie film ever made or book written has that movie in mind. It was a cheap failure but it was underestimated. That is why you can never judge whether a movie will be popular.
This guy is wrong...
Heinlein, arguably one the top 5 authors of all time literally wrote stories where the "super objective" was the character searching for freedom. So that debunks that notion.
Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and quite a few other films have no "Super objective". This is a concept he made up so that he can act elitist and sophisticated.
I'm not against what he's saying as rules of thumb and tools to use, but they are tools, not absolutes.
I think you can have a story that has no character, such as a story about a destructive blizzard. But you can't have a story that has no plot. The plot is the story, the character occupies it.
Any given story uses it's characters to drive it's story. If the story explores the consequences of a blizzard and all is accomplishments, that blizzard will be considered a character, believe it or not.
06:00 I am a 100% pantser, but that does not translate well to long fiction. But as a 100% pantser, I do get a couple super powers. I can pluck a fully formed character out of thin air in an instant who would be capable of answering all character interview questions. But I always consider their motivations as if they were a real person in a real world. How do you change the frame of mind such that they could answer "what do you want out of this screenplay (novel, etc)"? Are scope and motivation intertwined? I think the THING that the character wants is only the tip of the iceberg. A student may want to pass an exam. But what they yearn for is the life academic success appears to promise them. They yearn for prosperity. True character motivation is towards the intangible qualities of the thing they think they want. And yet this understanding does little to propel me beyond the confines of a short story.
I’m one of those writers who just likes to write and follow the story as it inspires me. Let the character’s situations guide me
To me, I'll come up with stories first. Then, I'll remember the 3-Act structure and other rules. And all of a sudden, I have to rework how my story will fit that.
I'm always blown away at how truly special of an interviewer you are ... I mean I'd watch a 10 hour interview of someone interviewing you about interviewing! ha
A bright man that gives us a lot of insight. I have to disagree with the outline a little bit. It is helpful for some but some people find it restrictive. I feel like it should be somewhat organic. He does it because it works for him. It requires complete trust that the words will find you as you go along.
It's important to learn about what the rules are, and why they work. This way mediocre writers can still achieve success, while the innovators look to where best to break the rules and that works even better for them, making them into household names in the process. Try Steven King. He would say outlines and plots are for cowards to hide behind.
Umm, I still dont know what a super objective is. Is a super objective what a character wants, or is it what the character needs? because those are often opposed ideas.
When writing a script u must right the story first then from the story u can write the script
Great interview
Boy I would love to hear his input on Disney Star Wars story telling don’ts ! Lol
The main character in the exorcist is Damien Karras. The camera is even in his head for certain shots.
It’s based on a book that’s based on a true story. Just because we’re following the mother at the start (who even remembers that’s characters name?) doesn’t make her the main character.
Who is the main character in psycho?
Depends on what section of the movie.
Look, if it's a true story then that isn't the devil doing it.
He explained everything very clearly
What he really needs to see is that he hasn't a home to go to.and in a larger sense he has been evicted from a society which no longer recognizes him as a valid citizen.
I FEEL THAT THEY OVERCOMPLICATE THINGS. TWO FILMS THAT BECAME A PHENOMAN IS ROCKY & BRONX TALE. IF YOU CAN HAVE A SCRIPT THAT YOU BELIEVE IN & CAN HANDLE REJECTION, THEN ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS PURSUE IT WITH A DESIRE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN..
I almost feel like the more difficult you make a simple objective to obtain, the better the story.
Wants vs obstacles. Big wants require bigger obstacles.
Write the same number of draughts as the age you were when you lost your virginity - that's when the script starts to be vaguely readable.
So I have a main character I’m working on. I have a want and a need. I think it’s good and I’d like some perspective on it
Do tell, maybe we can help each other. I’m at the same place with my whole cast 😂
@@BrooklynRises I’ll sum it up. Basically the main character wants to be the greatest superhero to have ever lived which to him that means basically being Superman (I’m putting a lot of emphasis on both sides of the name. The “super” and the “man”) along with being rich and loved by everyone. At least that’s the version he tells other people, but he needs to realize is that he is worth loving even if he’s not perfect. Does any that make sense?
@@YasaByYasa definitely makes sense! I would say you just clarified his need (to be loved for who he is without all the power, super-ness even if he doesn’t realize that quite yet.) the want is what will create your conflict and story. How does he become the greatest superhero, what’s in his way, and lastly how can his pursuit of this teach him an unexpected lesson and get him what he actually needs (which is self love)? This is the basis for a great film in my opinion
@@likethesouuup THANK YOU!!!
Out of curiosity, what is the Theme you had envisioned to subtle explore by telling this story?! What aspect of life is being discussed through the internal and external flow of this story of the "Superman" "Super Perfect Man" screenplay?!
The lord of the rings tv series is an example of how not to write
holy cow u just explanied monark and how after the fifth epiosde it just went down hill to wtf i know its about godzilla and the titans but u just lost me with the ok there he is and no answer yet it just kept going
I would love to know his list of interview questions for his character!
My wife hated falling down. She's a idiot how many men know there wives?
Thank you for the precise, spot-on questions, I think those were some of the most common things all new writers need help with, and thank you mr. Douglas for your deep and thoughtful answers.
Thanks for watching! New video with Steve going up tonight at 5pm PST.
How wonderful is this "lecture." Great direction much needed. Thank you.
You're very welcome Daniel!
Cognitive dissonance creates the neurotic tension in most stories.
Peace on earth.
Steve's advice can easily fit for books too. This is awesome.
There can be characters who simply serve as a mirror of the action, right? Without driving the action themselves. They just serve as a guide through the story without actually influencing it. Like in a war movie, the character realizes he won't make it, he has a premonition and finally finds peace with it. Whatever happens to him now will be ok for him He lets go of all desires and needs to control his situation. Meanwhile, a lot of stuff happens, and he's being carried away with it rather than driving the action.
Do you think the character played by Matthew Modine in Full Metal Jacket could be a good example of what you say, maybe?
Or private WItt in Thin Red Line. Although that movie is more of a succession of episodes in which several characters are shown, but Witt is the one who is watching rather than acting, except the last couple of scenes before he dies.@@Fernando-ox5mo
That's pretty good, give me the same thing only different.
My favourite interviewer on the Interwebs.
Ack. What if my inciting incident is on page 15?
I want to expirement with no main character.
Here's what I have... I regularly have a single main character but there are many other characters that come in that suddenly it's "Oh, you're the main character!" Keep it going. engaged. Keep the main character in, but the other characters need to attach the mind. For instance.... Sorry for the well over used reference... For me, STAR WARS is about Han Solo! And he discovers love. With his friends. In a exceptionlly dramatic way.
Hajime Isayama needs to see this video.
If you want to see a show that proves this point so well, it's High Guardian Spice. None of the characters in that series have any real objectives. It boils down to them going to this academy to learn to be guardians, but the show never tells you what a guardian actually is or what anyone's end-game is, so they just sort of faff around in a setting that's essentially Hogwarts meets D&D. Rose and Thyme have end-goals, the former wanting to find her mom and the latter wanting to stop a corrupting force called the Rot, but the show never takes the time to explain how becoming a guardian is a step toward achieving these objectives or even why these characters think becoming a guardian will achieve their objectives. Meanwhile, another character Sage wants to learn magic, but the academy teaches a school of magic she doesn't want to learn, so her being there is a step AWAY from her objective and the show never explains why she chooses to stay there despite it not actually getting her closer to her objective. In the end it basically makes it impossible to sympathize with or identify with any of the characters because they just feel like tokens, like "here's the idiot hero trope, here's the best friend trope, here's the all-loving hero trope, here's the bitchy character who warms up to everyone trope, thank you and buy our toys".
Brilliant. Thank you.
This guy knows how to write
I still feel like his analysis is kind of surface level. It's not that he *personally* is missing or misunderstanding things necessarily, but i feel like the way he breaks things down is simultaneously reductionistic and imprecise.
So what happens if the main character achieves their goals early on in the story? Yet the story isn't done? Can they have a new goal just thrown in there to keep interest in that character?
Do you have an example?
The issue lies in an understanding of basic and even sometimes, complex storytelling concepts.
Be you a pantser or a plotter, none of it will matter if you don't have an inking of where your story is going or even what it's about.
Interview your character - a simple but powerful technique. Great advice !
Not that I'm an expert writer, but I just want to mention that I think that plot comes from character, but both come from theme.