I don't think it's wrong to follow a formula if it suits your movie/book, but the problem comes in thinking you MUST follow it, and believe it is the formula that makes the movie good/bad. Want a formula? Here you go: 1. Make the characters want something. 2. Make each scene a transition between positive and negative emotions. 3. Keep raising the stakes. Give the characters more to lose. Other than that, it's up to the writer to create empathy for the characters. There is no true page by page formula foe that.
The reason why modern screenwriters get paid so well is not only for their ability of storytelling but also because they know these two paradigms, structural and timing, and are able to combine them in actual application.
Taking McKee's advice from his book, Story, to study what films have in common, we can see from the practice of deconstructing films scene by scene for both content and timing --- that there are TWO paradigms in play. One is in regard to the STRUCTURE of the story and the other is in regard to how to fit that structure into the modern mode of "editor's timing" --- which is what Syd Field's observations are based upon.
That's always a problem for students. You'll always get teachers with differing points of view. It's inevitable. No teacher ever thinks the same as the other. What you can learn out of this is to understand which opinions they have in common, which advice works and which advice doesn't, and, in the end, take the best from each one and have your own opinion or understanding.
And so what the "Hollywood Paradigm" actually consists of is two paradigms, the STRUCTURAL paradigm (the classic structural approach) that applies to story and plot --- and the TIMING paradigm that applies to feature LENGTH films, a la Syd Field, which is a study and an approach in how to encapsulate what could be or what is a "novel length" story --- and put it into a 120 minute format.
McKee in his book, Story, says to look many in a genre, and from an overview see what they have in common. If you do examine one or two dozen films in a scene by scene TIMED deconstruction then you can indeed come to notice some things about writing a certain genre. BUT after you deconstruct a few HUNDRED films then what you see for certain regarding ALL genres is that they follow the "paradigm" described by Syd Field --- or they do not get distributed by "Hollywood."
I have used structures on many scripts that I wrote before I knew what I was doing. All I can say is that using a formula has greatly improved most of my scripts while others had little to no improvement. So it helps most of the time. Having ran a script workshop for a year now, I can say that scripts that follow CLOSELY to a formula tend to have a better pace but are still extremely unique in their own right. But as others have said, a blend of formula and free thinking is the best.
In 1990, Robert McKee was brought to New Zealand by the NZ Film Commission, and delivered a three-day seminar on screenplay and story structure in Auckland and Wellington. In the audience were Peter Jackson & Jane Campion. The seminar had a major influence on Jackson[citation needed], who went on to write and direct Heavenly Creatures, The Lord of the Rings, and King Kong.
McKee is an elite professor of screenwriting, he's revolutionary and unique. Don't have to agree with him, but please, do respect him. He's knows his craft, believe me.
He was profiled by Bob Simon of 60 Minutes for CBS News, and CNN recently did a profile and review of McKee and the Story Seminar. The notable writers and actors such as Geoffrey Rush, Paul Haggis, Akiva Goldsman, William Goldman, Joan Rivers, Rob Row, David Bowie, Kirk Douglas, John Cleese, Tony Kaye, Steven Pressfield, among many others have taken his seminar.[1]
He is right. I am taking a course, and I don't feel like writing again. I think I will have to make my own movies and the world will love them. Seems like Hollywood want movies to stimulate. If you have a great idea, know how to create story around character and follow some structure. That's all that's necessary.
What is not apparent in Field's observations on the subject is how the Hollywood Paradigm for editing films started pretty much with Charlie Chaplin and then evolved as films got longer, going from 1 reel to 2 reels and on up to "feature length" --- and as film projectors also evolved to handle larger reels of film. So, we might think of this evolution as a process of "reel theory," as in how screenwriters addressed movies as they got longer and longer.
In commercial TV sit-com and drama writing, it is essential and demanded that the plot points hit on specific pages for commercial breaks to keep the audience coming back to the program after the commercials. Other than that, there is no exact page set for plot points in a non-commercial feature film. It is and should be flexible according to the material, the story length, plot, and the desired cathartic climax of the film. Storytelling is a craft and an art which best serves its audience when the writer, director, and creative team are free to use their creativity. Esoteric rules stifle creativity! David Hagan, www.HSCDevelopmentAndLiteraryAgency,com .
From Wikipedia: Robert McKee is among the most widely known screenwriting lecturers. McKee's former students include 36 Academy Award winners, 164 Emmy Award winners, 19 WGA (Writers Guild of America) Award winners and 16 DGA (Directors Guild of America) Award winners (all participated in McKee's course before or after winning their award; not all were awarded for writing).
This "adaptation" was gradual through the industry, and could be noted to have occurred in 3 stages: circa 1900 to 1949, 1949 to the 1970's and Francis Coppola, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg --- and from there to the present.
Syd Field is famous for his exposition of "Hollywood Timing," which is not his invention, but rather the phenomena, or the "paradigm," that he observed in regard to how FEATURE LENGTH films are EDITED for timing - and therefore reflected in screenwriting as it is WRITTEN for that paradigm of editing films.
This "three major reversals" formula sounds precisely like SF author A.E. Van Vogt's advice on writing science fiction stories, given as pretty much his stock-in-trade on "writing track" panels at regional and world science fiction conventions decades ago.
Mckee is right. Why? Well. First because you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT IN A MOVIE. You can do a movie about a guy sleeping for one hour and some people think is amazing. There is no fucking formula. There is a documentary about birds (i forgot the name) and i found a critic that loved it. Minority Report has a inciting incident that happens only 40 into the movie. Before that we don't have "exposition". We have subplots that work as a exposition. And every subplot has a inciting incident. How Syd Field and ScriptLab explain that? Lets talk about plot points. People say that a midpoint need to be a victory. This don't seems a rule. The midpoint of Iron Man don't have a victory.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Obviously you cant even break down a movie properly. The inciting incident of Minority Report does not happen in 40 minute mark, happens way earlier and it is Agatha's vision. That's when he goes to the library and finds out that the murder report has been pulled from the composite. If you are comparing a documentary with a feature film then either you are an inbred or you are so fucking stupid not to understand that all these rules ONLY APPLY to feature movies, not documentaries. All those books talk about FEATURE MOVIES. MOVIES. You got it now? A documentary is NOT a movie you idiot. Nobody will find a movie amazing which shows a guy sleeping for one hour, otherwise nobody would shoot movies and we would all watch cctv feeds to entertain ourselves. I've seen so many retards and ignorant idiots on youtube but you by far rank #1 you fucking idiot.
Thanks for being as vague as possible, however you are correct about needing a rhythm, but you don't give out any substantial information. Such as the biggest change in the protagonist should be around page 60, which is as I was taught, the one hour turning point.
he wrote a book caled "story" where he explains this rythm. Basically it is not having 2 good or 2 bad act climaxes in a row unless it is bad climax then really really reallly bad climax that shadows the previous one.
120 pages = a 2 hour movie, based on 1 page = 1 min of flim time. Some books or people say by page 30 you need something done a plot twist or turn because it'll be based on the 30 pages you'll hand out to script reader or a person you are trying to sell a movie to. it becomes a boring movie, because if all movies follow this exact same flow then you'll start to notice around the 30 min mark of every movie something big happens. That is why he says don't do that just plan it the way you want.
Maybe that's why so many screenplays don't make it to the big screen. People force the formula and in turn, write a stagnant Movie with no real feeling .
+Jim Miles I read more scripts that are artistic to a fault than I do pure formulaic scripts. The saddest thing is when someone desperately tries to hit the formula, but doesn't understand the formula well enough to do it right.
And where did this "Hollywood Paradigm" (aside from its aspects of timing) come from? It came from phenomenal successes of novelists like Jane Austen, Lew Wallace, Robert Lewis Stevenson and Edith Wharton. They did Hollywood Structure before Hollywood ever existed. Then as films went from 1 reel to 6-7-8 or more reels, Hollywood simply adapted the common structural approach of these great novelists and fitted it into a 120 minute format.
1. You can do what you like, so long as it is your movie that is financed by you. 2. Movies and books that stand the test of time, tend to follow the "formula". Bringing up Baby and/or The Third Man were made long before Syd Field, Blake Snyder, et al. 3. Hollywood follows the formula, because it reduces the risk of failure due to a structure that runs counter to the tastes of a sufficiently large audience. 4. Eric Rohmer's better works, such as Pauline at the Beach, etc., and regardless of their artistic merit, follow the formula.
The "save the cat" beat sheet is a movie length break down of the "hero's journey". The reason this formula works is because it's meant to mirror the way we as humans learn things and go through paradigm shifts. It feels good to come to a realization and the "hero's journey" does a good job of doing this. I'm sure you can play around with it and experiment as to why the formula is the way it is. But if you want something that appeals to a large audience that formula works pretty well.
Don Quixote, the Brothers Karamazov and most of Shakespeare's work were made before Syd Field and do not follow the formula. Do they just actually suck?
So after a man sheds light on destructive pseudo-wisdom you try to drag it back and lecture it down to people as some standard to be. Great. You hear that great artists of the world. Turns out you didn't know better. Writing was never about skillful use of tools to craft a shape unique to your story, it's about spoon feeding one safe formula. Have fun peddling safe, formulaic art.
Try to get a script sold following Blake Snyder's formula to the T. If your script is formulaic, readers will notice a thousand miles away. Formulaic *=/=* good screenwriting! Structure (pacing, etc) should be intuitive to the story being told IMHO. EDIT: Also, your notion that Hollywood follows Blake Snyder's formula is so blatantly incorrect. Sure, that's not to say some writers use it, but most probably don't follow it strictly. In the words of The Bitter Script Reader, "fuck Save The Cat!"
Sorry, Forum. My rather extended reply to the assertion made here by McKee came out with the first post on the bottom, the rest stacked up from there. OH FOR THE GOOD OLD DAYS when we could do a video reply.
I would disagree that formulas are destructive. I think for a beginning novelist or screenwriter, knowing that there is (generally) a 3-act dramatic structure that one should operate within, with plot points at certain junctures, helps structure what may be formless ideas, character concepts and story ideas into a working storyline. In a novel the formula is much looser than in film, and even in film there's no law that says that the inciting incident must occur twenty minutes into the film, on the dot. But it does need to occur, early on. Same for plot points. Just let your characters tell you when, around or about those time frames. The world is loose, but it is helpful to us all to be familiar with dramatic structure and use it to our advantage.
What Robert McKee is telling me here is the opposite of what Syd Field is telling me. So basically Syd Field doesn't know what the hell he's talking about?
Typo: (should read) to look at many films in a genre and then from an overview to see what they have in common. So how are we to overview them? The only accurate way is to deconstruct the timing of a film, scene by scene in outline form, as in, writing it all down so you can reference it later. And what you see most consistently is that the story plays from "the paradigm" described by Syd Field --- not on the TRY-FAIL cycle noted here by McKee and also touted by David Farland. See for yourself.
Great advice... ... I could tell this was an old video when he said movies are becoming "Shorter"... not in 2017... It is nothing to see a movie (action) be 120 min to 130
He mentions "screenplays", not movies. What he means is that plotting becomes simpler as most "action" takes place within the spectacle - fights, flights, transformations, etc. - not with character development per se. So, yes, you may have longer movies, but not necessarily "denser". Within the Hollywood industry, it's blantantly so.
He's talking about the 3 act structure, because no matter what you do with your story it has, at the very least, a beginning, everything in the middle, and an end. This is, in essence, the only unbreakable rule of storytelling. "A man sneezes." is a story. It's just a very short story.
The "TRY-FAIL Cycle" method of structuring a story --- with its TRY and then "GET-REVERSED three times" after three efforts to address a problem --- is most typical of writing for television, not for feature length films. And while that paradigm can be employed in feature length films, what films actually operate on is a method of "act structure" as it fits into Syd Field's descriptions of the "Hollywood Paradigm."
Look on the back of any DVD and see how long the movie is. Then watch the timer. Keep track of what happens when. You will find, without exception I've seen, that every movie made in recent years follows the formula he's talking about exactly. Virtually to the second. All of them. That means that if you want to get a script produced, it must follow the formula, or at least the movie as produced must follow the formula. I don't think it's right, but it's the way it is. So, while I appreciate what he's saying, it's destructive of a career to tell a person that it doesn't have to match the formula. It does. The same is true now for novels, although there is more flexibility.
You wrong. Compare, for instance, The Fugitive, Texas Chainshaw Massacre, X-Men: Days of future past, Casablanca and E.T. Casablanca first act has 4 plots happening. The Fugitive has exposition scenes, most of the time, and flashback in the first act. Every writer put twists and turns whatever where they want.
betofranca2802 I disagree, and I'm not sure you understand what I mean. Sure, they tell a different story, but the "plot points," which a term of art, all happen at the same point in the movie. 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and about 90%. You could time it with a stopwatch. And this same restriction is being aplied to writers to the extent that editors and agents are expecting to turn to the page that is 10% of the way through and find the inciting incident, etc.
I accept what Mckee saying because lets take the movie "The Tree of Life" as an example. A lot of people hated and a lot of people loved. If the young writer is so worried about hit the mark all the time, he would never wrote a movie like that. I think that is formulaic to say that the inciting incident need to hit the 10% mark. Minority Report don't follow this and is a great movie. And i think that maybe 40% of movies don't do that. Some movies need more time to show the character before the inciting incident explode in his face. Another thing... I'm very sure that movies have more than 5 plot points.
betofranca2802 I don't know that movie, but I found a blog that breaks it down. If you have the movie, take a look at this, and see when these things happen in terms of time. int-screenblog.blogspot.it/2010/11/breaking-it-down-minority-report.html
After that, get MMSW or FINAL DRAFT and write ten scripts. If you can't get an agent is producer after that, DO SOMETHING ELSE. (If you want it bad enough to get to your tenth screenplay in my suggestion, you'll BE a screenwriter)
people wanted to know the secret, the how to, the magic recipe, so the gurus provided it and every filmmaker/writer want to be bought their book and/or attended their classes and all we've got is work based on tired worn predictable formulas. Not for everyone. Of course if something is really good it's bound to be different and different isn't for everyone either. Trying to appeal to a gigantic audience seems to be a problem. Shouldn't today's tech mean films made 4 less? + that = freedom
Yep and then see what does better... the conventional structures or the stuff that breaks the rules. You'll get an understanding as to why the structure is the way it is and also know how to manipulate it.
the irony in this is that those conventional structures have already been broken; in order to break the current "conventional structures", one needs to go beyond material that already breaks conventional structures, because breaking and tweaking conventional structures is basically already a conventional structural paradigm. What would this look like? If you are frustrated by the vagueness of that idea and it seems hard to understand it's because it is incredibly difficult to be an original artist.
I do find Mr. Mckee's wisdom very insightful and useful. Its good to know the academic side of scriptwriting, but looking at this man's IMDB page I don't see any accomplished works that I like in any capacity? For him to criticize Formulaic Writing is IDIOTIC because movies have normal people for audience members, not tormented creative geniuses with substance abuse problems. McKee has written nothing populist, nor anything accolade worthy... I would take what he says with a pinch of salt.
Formulaic = boring = majority of movies now. Too predictable, you're asleep on the trailer. New writers - find the out of the box gurus. Give us something new. Look at the movies that are out these days. Snooze fest. All spectacle, nothing sticks with you. :-S
he's wrong. 10 mins in there's an inciting incident, 25 - 30 pages in the hero willingly goes down the path, 55-60 in there's a midpoint where character either decides to proceed in a new light or steps out of character and has setback (midpoint) then every ten mins there's another set back for the next half hour.
He is categorically, objectively, written in stone correct. And if you disagree, you make nothing debatable. You are categorically, objectively, written in stone incorrect. These safe formulas lesser writers pidgeon holes themselves in are ones many great films like Rocky and Rashamon don't concern themselves with. Writing is about using tools to discover the shape necessary for the unique story you're trying to tell. It's never about a page quota.
Robert McKee is the biggest, rudest and most overblown teacher I have ever had. I took his class and he was more concerned with reprimanding paid in full students than teaching. I demanded a refund after sand blasting him back for acting like a bully and a fool. What a loser.
***** Maybe you just didn't understand him and filter your interpretations of his behaviours though your limited perspective? And if you're American, then I should qualify that this is not an attack on you personally, as most Americans think when someone raises a point. I am saying that there might be something in him that you didn't see, or get or understand.
i'm not arriving to conclusions, but your story reminded me of the first ep of the new season of the Affair. the same situation, and there are always two sides to it.
I don't think it's wrong to follow a formula if it suits your movie/book, but the problem comes in thinking you MUST follow it, and believe it is the formula that makes the movie good/bad. Want a formula? Here you go: 1. Make the characters want something. 2. Make each scene a transition between positive and negative emotions. 3. Keep raising the stakes. Give the characters more to lose.
Other than that, it's up to the writer to create empathy for the characters. There is no true page by page formula foe that.
The reason why modern screenwriters get paid so well is not only for their ability of storytelling but also because they know these two paradigms, structural and timing, and are able to combine them in actual application.
Taking McKee's advice from his book, Story, to study what films have in common, we can see from the practice of deconstructing films scene by scene for both content and timing --- that there are TWO paradigms in play. One is in regard to the STRUCTURE of the story and the other is in regard to how to fit that structure into the modern mode of "editor's timing" --- which is what Syd Field's observations are based upon.
That's always a problem for students. You'll always get teachers with differing points of view. It's inevitable. No teacher ever thinks the same as the other. What you can learn out of this is to understand which opinions they have in common, which advice works and which advice doesn't, and, in the end, take the best from each one and have your own opinion or understanding.
And so what the "Hollywood Paradigm" actually consists of is two paradigms, the STRUCTURAL paradigm (the classic structural approach) that applies to story and plot --- and the TIMING paradigm that applies to feature LENGTH films, a la Syd Field, which is a study and an approach in how to encapsulate what could be or what is a "novel length" story --- and put it into a 120 minute format.
McKee in his book, Story, says to look many in a genre, and from an overview see what they have in common. If you do examine one or two dozen films in a scene by scene TIMED deconstruction then you can indeed come to notice some things about writing a certain genre. BUT after you deconstruct a few HUNDRED films then what you see for certain regarding ALL genres is that they follow the "paradigm" described by Syd Field --- or they do not get distributed by "Hollywood."
The inciting incident in Die Hard happens after 45 minutes !!
I have used structures on many scripts that I wrote before I knew what I was doing. All I can say is that using a formula has greatly improved most of my scripts while others had little to no improvement. So it helps most of the time. Having ran a script workshop for a year now, I can say that scripts that follow CLOSELY to a formula tend to have a better pace but are still extremely unique in their own right. But as others have said, a blend of formula and free thinking is the best.
If I remember correctly he maid a distinction in his book between using a formula and being formulaic, the later being the one to avoid.
Remeber what Napoleon said, "The only rule that counts is winning!"
In 1990, Robert McKee was brought to New Zealand by the NZ Film Commission, and delivered a three-day seminar on screenplay and story structure in Auckland and Wellington. In the audience were Peter Jackson & Jane Campion. The seminar had a major influence on Jackson[citation needed], who went on to write and direct Heavenly Creatures, The Lord of the Rings, and King Kong.
McKee is an elite professor of screenwriting, he's revolutionary and unique. Don't have to agree with him, but please, do respect him. He's knows his craft, believe me.
He was profiled by Bob Simon of 60 Minutes for CBS News, and CNN recently did a profile and review of McKee and the Story Seminar. The notable writers and actors such as Geoffrey Rush, Paul Haggis, Akiva Goldsman, William Goldman, Joan Rivers, Rob Row, David Bowie, Kirk Douglas, John Cleese, Tony Kaye, Steven Pressfield, among many others have taken his seminar.[1]
He is right. I am taking a course, and I don't feel like writing again. I think I will have to make my own movies and the world will love them. Seems like Hollywood want movies to stimulate. If you have a great idea, know how to create story around character and follow some structure. That's all that's necessary.
What is not apparent in Field's observations on the subject is how the Hollywood Paradigm for editing films started pretty much with Charlie Chaplin and then evolved as films got longer, going from 1 reel to 2 reels and on up to "feature length" --- and as film projectors also evolved to handle larger reels of film. So, we might think of this evolution as a process of "reel theory," as in how screenwriters addressed movies as they got longer and longer.
In commercial TV sit-com and drama writing, it is essential and demanded that the plot points hit on specific pages for commercial breaks to keep the audience coming back to the program after the commercials. Other than that, there is no exact page set for plot points in a non-commercial feature film. It is and should be flexible according to the material, the story length, plot, and the desired cathartic climax of the film. Storytelling is a craft and an art which best serves its audience when the writer, director, and creative team are free to use their creativity. Esoteric rules stifle
creativity! David Hagan, www.HSCDevelopmentAndLiteraryAgency,com .
From Wikipedia: Robert McKee is among the most widely known screenwriting lecturers. McKee's former students include 36 Academy Award winners, 164 Emmy Award winners, 19 WGA (Writers Guild of America) Award winners and 16 DGA (Directors Guild of America) Award winners (all participated in McKee's course before or after winning their award; not all were awarded for writing).
This "adaptation" was gradual through the industry, and could be noted to have occurred in 3 stages: circa 1900 to 1949, 1949 to the 1970's and Francis Coppola, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg --- and from there to the present.
Syd Field is famous for his exposition of "Hollywood Timing," which is not his invention, but rather the phenomena, or the "paradigm," that he observed in regard to how FEATURE LENGTH films are EDITED for timing - and therefore reflected in screenwriting as it is WRITTEN for that paradigm of editing films.
This "three major reversals" formula sounds precisely like SF author A.E. Van Vogt's advice on writing science fiction stories, given as pretty much his stock-in-trade on "writing track" panels at regional and world science fiction conventions decades ago.
Mckee is right. Why? Well. First because you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT IN A MOVIE. You can do a movie about a guy sleeping for one hour and some people think is amazing. There is no fucking formula.
There is a documentary about birds (i forgot the name) and i found a critic that loved it.
Minority Report has a inciting incident that happens only 40 into the movie. Before that we don't have "exposition". We have subplots that work as a exposition. And every subplot has a inciting incident.
How Syd Field and ScriptLab explain that?
Lets talk about plot points.
People say that a midpoint need to be a victory. This don't seems a rule. The midpoint of Iron Man don't have a victory.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Obviously you cant even break down a movie properly. The inciting incident of Minority Report does not happen in 40 minute mark, happens way earlier and it is Agatha's vision. That's when he goes to the library and finds out that the murder report has been pulled from the composite.
If you are comparing a documentary with a feature film then either you are an inbred or you are so fucking stupid not to understand that all these rules ONLY APPLY to feature movies, not documentaries. All those books talk about FEATURE MOVIES. MOVIES. You got it now?
A documentary is NOT a movie you idiot. Nobody will find a movie amazing which shows a guy sleeping for one hour, otherwise nobody would shoot movies and we would all watch cctv feeds to entertain ourselves. I've seen so many retards and ignorant idiots on youtube but you by far rank #1 you fucking idiot.
"A documentary is NOT a movie you idiot".
I rest my case.
There is no case moron. By that what I meant was It's NOT fiction. We are talking about fiction here and all those rules apply to fiction you idiot,
After you say sorry, we start to talk.
Roberto França I love that!
Thanks for being as vague as possible, however you are correct about needing a rhythm, but you don't give out any substantial information. Such as the biggest change in the protagonist should be around page 60, which is as I was taught, the one hour turning point.
he wrote a book caled "story" where he explains this rythm. Basically it is not having 2 good or 2 bad act climaxes in a row unless it is bad climax then really really reallly bad climax that shadows the previous one.
Like sex!
120 pages = a 2 hour movie, based on 1 page = 1 min of flim time.
Some books or people say by page 30 you need something done a plot twist or turn because it'll be based on the 30 pages you'll hand out to script reader or a person you are trying to sell a movie to.
it becomes a boring movie, because if all movies follow this exact same flow then you'll start to notice around the 30 min mark of every movie something big happens.
That is why he says don't do that just plan it the way you want.
Maybe that's why so many screenplays don't make it to the big screen. People force the formula and in turn, write a stagnant Movie with no real feeling .
+Jim Miles I read more scripts that are artistic to a fault than I do pure formulaic scripts. The saddest thing is when someone desperately tries to hit the formula, but doesn't understand the formula well enough to do it right.
And where did this "Hollywood Paradigm" (aside from its aspects of timing) come from? It came from phenomenal successes of novelists like Jane Austen, Lew Wallace, Robert Lewis Stevenson and Edith Wharton. They did Hollywood Structure before Hollywood ever existed.
Then as films went from 1 reel to 6-7-8 or more reels, Hollywood simply adapted the common structural approach of these great novelists and fitted it into a 120 minute format.
1. You can do what you like, so long as it is your movie that is financed by you.
2. Movies and books that stand the test of time, tend to follow the "formula". Bringing up Baby and/or The Third Man were made long before Syd Field, Blake Snyder, et al.
3. Hollywood follows the formula, because it reduces the risk of failure due to a structure that runs counter to the tastes of a sufficiently large audience.
4. Eric Rohmer's better works, such as Pauline at the Beach, etc., and regardless of their artistic merit, follow the formula.
The "save the cat" beat sheet is a movie length break down of the "hero's journey". The reason this formula works is because it's meant to mirror the way we as humans learn things and go through paradigm shifts. It feels good to come to a realization and the "hero's journey" does a good job of doing this.
I'm sure you can play around with it and experiment as to why the formula is the way it is. But if you want something that appeals to a large audience that formula works pretty well.
Don Quixote, the Brothers Karamazov and most of Shakespeare's work were made before Syd Field and do not follow the formula. Do they just actually suck?
So after a man sheds light on destructive pseudo-wisdom you try to drag it back and lecture it down to people as some standard to be. Great. You hear that great artists of the world. Turns out you didn't know better. Writing was never about skillful use of tools to craft a shape unique to your story, it's about spoon feeding one safe formula.
Have fun peddling safe, formulaic art.
Try to get a script sold following Blake Snyder's formula to the T. If your script is formulaic, readers will notice a thousand miles away. Formulaic *=/=* good screenwriting! Structure (pacing, etc) should be intuitive to the story being told IMHO.
EDIT: Also, your notion that Hollywood follows Blake Snyder's formula is so blatantly incorrect. Sure, that's not to say some writers use it, but most probably don't follow it strictly. In the words of The Bitter Script Reader, "fuck Save The Cat!"
Sorry, Forum. My rather extended reply to the assertion made here by McKee came out with the first post on the bottom, the rest stacked up from there. OH FOR THE GOOD OLD DAYS when we could do a video reply.
I would disagree that formulas are destructive. I think for a beginning novelist or screenwriter, knowing that there is (generally) a 3-act dramatic structure that one should operate within, with plot points at certain junctures, helps structure what may be formless ideas, character concepts and story ideas into a working storyline. In a novel the formula is much looser than in film, and even in film there's no law that says that the inciting incident must occur twenty minutes into the film, on the dot. But it does need to occur, early on. Same for plot points. Just let your characters tell you when, around or about those time frames. The world is loose, but it is helpful to us all to be familiar with dramatic structure and use it to our advantage.
What Robert McKee is telling me here is the opposite of what Syd Field is telling me. So basically Syd Field doesn't know what the hell he's talking about?
Typo: (should read) to look at many films in a genre and then from an overview to see what they have in common.
So how are we to overview them? The only accurate way is to deconstruct the timing of a film, scene by scene in outline form, as in, writing it all down so you can reference it later.
And what you see most consistently is that the story plays from "the paradigm" described by Syd Field --- not on the TRY-FAIL cycle noted here by McKee and also touted by David Farland. See for yourself.
I know. Just saying. It's interesting to see the varying opinions.
Great advice...
... I could tell this was an old video when he said
movies are becoming "Shorter"... not in 2017...
It is nothing to see a movie (action) be 120 min to
130
He mentions "screenplays", not movies. What he means is that plotting becomes simpler as most "action" takes place within the spectacle - fights, flights, transformations, etc. - not with character development per se. So, yes, you may have longer movies, but not necessarily "denser". Within the Hollywood industry, it's blantantly so.
action doesnt take up pages on a screenplay, the more action the shorter the screenplay.
Mr. McKee definitely is a "Screenwriting Guru."
The third act of Minority Report have 15 PAGES. Only 15 PAGES. And follow Mckee principle of have a crises in the climax.
Please check his writing credits. These screen writing gurus sure have guts. What they do not have is credits. Wonder if he has a WGA card.
He's talking about the 3 act structure, because no matter what you do with your story it has, at the very least, a beginning, everything in the middle, and an end. This is, in essence, the only unbreakable rule of storytelling.
"A man sneezes." is a story. It's just a very short story.
You are confusing an event with a story. He himself explains the difference in his book Story.
i know, right? who to believe. messes with you mind. think a blend of both is good.
The "TRY-FAIL Cycle" method of structuring a story --- with its TRY and then "GET-REVERSED three times" after three efforts to address a problem --- is most typical of writing for television, not for feature length films. And while that paradigm can be employed in feature length films, what films actually operate on is a method of "act structure" as it fits into Syd Field's descriptions of the "Hollywood Paradigm."
One also wouldn't do bad by picking up "The Writer's Journey" by Christopher Voggler.
Look on the back of any DVD and see how long the movie is. Then watch the timer. Keep track of what happens when. You will find, without exception I've seen, that every movie made in recent years follows the formula he's talking about exactly. Virtually to the second. All of them.
That means that if you want to get a script produced, it must follow the formula, or at least the movie as produced must follow the formula.
I don't think it's right, but it's the way it is. So, while I appreciate what he's saying, it's destructive of a career to tell a person that it doesn't have to match the formula. It does.
The same is true now for novels, although there is more flexibility.
You wrong.
Compare, for instance, The Fugitive, Texas Chainshaw Massacre, X-Men: Days of future past, Casablanca and E.T.
Casablanca first act has 4 plots happening. The Fugitive has exposition scenes, most of the time, and flashback in the first act.
Every writer put twists and turns whatever where they want.
betofranca2802 What part of "recent years" your inbred brain is having a hard time to understand? He said RECENT YEARS you fucking idiot.
betofranca2802 I disagree, and I'm not sure you understand what I mean. Sure, they tell a different story, but the "plot points," which a term of art, all happen at the same point in the movie. 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and about 90%. You could time it with a stopwatch. And this same restriction is being aplied to writers to the extent that editors and agents are expecting to turn to the page that is 10% of the way through and find the inciting incident, etc.
I accept what Mckee saying because lets take the movie "The Tree of Life" as an example.
A lot of people hated and a lot of people loved. If the young writer is so worried about hit the mark all the time, he would never wrote a movie like that.
I think that is formulaic to say that the inciting incident need to hit the 10% mark. Minority Report don't follow this and is a great movie.
And i think that maybe 40% of movies don't do that.
Some movies need more time to show the character before the inciting incident explode in his face.
Another thing... I'm very sure that movies have more than 5 plot points.
betofranca2802 I don't know that movie, but I found a blog that breaks it down. If you have the movie, take a look at this, and see when these things happen in terms of time.
int-screenblog.blogspot.it/2010/11/breaking-it-down-minority-report.html
After that, get MMSW or FINAL DRAFT and write ten scripts. If you can't get an agent is producer after that, DO SOMETHING ELSE. (If you want it bad enough to get to your tenth screenplay in my suggestion, you'll BE a screenwriter)
Great advice!
people wanted to know the secret, the how to, the magic recipe, so the gurus provided it and every filmmaker/writer want to be bought their book and/or attended their classes and all we've got is work based on tired worn predictable formulas. Not for everyone. Of course if something is really good it's bound to be different and different isn't for everyone either. Trying to appeal to a gigantic audience seems to be a problem. Shouldn't today's tech mean films made 4 less? + that = freedom
Read a lot of scripts: of famous movies, movies you like, and some you didn't like. Then watch those movies.
All writers should study conventional structures and practice them. Only then you can break them.
Yep and then see what does better... the conventional structures or the stuff that breaks the rules. You'll get an understanding as to why the structure is the way it is and also know how to manipulate it.
the irony in this is that those conventional structures have already been broken; in order to break the current "conventional structures", one needs to go beyond material that already breaks conventional structures, because breaking and tweaking conventional structures is basically already a conventional structural paradigm. What would this look like? If you are frustrated by the vagueness of that idea and it seems hard to understand it's because it is incredibly difficult to be an original artist.
genius!
In Blake Snyder's 'SAVE THE CAT' he said that you SHOULD plot things on certain pages.
15 + 75 = 90, Rob.
I do find Mr. Mckee's wisdom very insightful and useful. Its good to know the academic side of scriptwriting, but looking at this man's IMDB page I don't see any accomplished works that I like in any capacity? For him to criticize Formulaic Writing is IDIOTIC because movies have normal people for audience members, not tormented creative geniuses with substance abuse problems. McKee has written nothing populist, nor anything accolade worthy... I would take what he says with a pinch of salt.
"15 + 75 = 100 minutes" - Robert McKee
I respect his opinion, but I don't choose to follow what he is saying.
Like God!
Formulaic = boring = majority of movies now. Too predictable, you're asleep on the trailer.
New writers - find the out of the box gurus. Give us something new.
Look at the movies that are out these days. Snooze fest. All spectacle, nothing sticks with you. :-S
(Classic FAIL --- all most posts are in reverse order! Oops!)
he's wrong. 10 mins in there's an inciting incident, 25 - 30 pages in the hero willingly goes down the path, 55-60 in there's a midpoint where character either decides to proceed in a new light or steps out of character and has setback (midpoint) then every ten mins there's another set back for the next half hour.
He is categorically, objectively, written in stone correct. And if you disagree, you make nothing debatable. You are categorically, objectively, written in stone incorrect. These safe formulas lesser writers pidgeon holes themselves in are ones many great films like Rocky and Rashamon don't concern themselves with. Writing is about using tools to discover the shape necessary for the unique story you're trying to tell. It's never about a page quota.
Save the Cat >>>>
Robert McKee is the biggest, rudest and most overblown teacher I have ever had. I took his class and he was more concerned with reprimanding paid in full students than teaching. I demanded a refund after sand blasting him back for acting like a bully and a fool. What a loser.
Really !?
Truly yes. Really!
***** Maybe you just didn't understand him and filter your interpretations of his behaviours though your limited perspective? And if you're American, then I should qualify that this is not an attack on you personally, as most Americans think when someone raises a point. I am saying that there might be something in him that you didn't see, or get or understand.
+Catherine Manne Good writers need to de-establish themselves. If they can't, then a good teacher must do it for them.
i'm not arriving to conclusions, but your story reminded me of the first ep of the new season of the Affair. the same situation, and there are always two sides to it.
Worst book I've ever read.