The original broadcasts were in standard definition, and in the old 4×3 aspect ratio. Only at the end of 2014 – seven years after the last season premiered – a remastered version was released in 16x9HD. For me it was a reason to revisit 60 hours of spectacular drama.

60 hours of spectacular drama.

The Wire immerses us in stories from the street, in drugs beleaguered Baltimore. We live with the dealers on the corners and among the high-rises, and we follow homicide and narcotics police struggling to curb the unrelenting death toll. We see the connections with politics, the role and impotence of the education system, and the power of the press.

The Wire is pure mythical storytelling. We get an insight into the Hero’s Journey of an addicted Baltimore homicide cop, and we learn about the complexity of a micro-cosmos that is very much a metaphor for modern day America.

David Simon

Creator and executive producer David Simon is one of the smartest show runners around. He managed to fit an issue as complex and far-reaching as the urban drug trade into a one-hour entertainment concept, without dumbing down characters and plot (much). The feat is simply mind-boggling. That said, the Hero’s Journey myth helped Simon in his sheer insurmountable challenge.

Creator and executive producer David Simon is
one of the smartest show runners around.

David Simon genuinely cares about his characters. All of them. Long after the show had aired first, Simon keeps lobbying for the plight of his cast, many of whom weren’t professional actors, but plucked from the streets of Baltimore.

The ‘war on drugs’ is effectively a ‘war on the poor’. The Wire is a dramatic testimony to this fact. In the series, Simon also shows us how politicians have a stake in the trade, and therefore will never make serious attempts to fight it.

The ‘war on drugs’ is effectively a ‘war on the poor’.

Hero’s Journey In A Serial

Given Simon’s tremendous integrity when it comes to representing the Truth, I didn’t expect him to build a Hero’s Journey. Rather like a docudrama, I thought he would waive a more realistic narrative, without a conventional ebb and flow, let alone neatly closed storylines. Looking at the individual episodes, indeed it seemed he didn’t stick to the classic 4-act ‘clock’ one-hour drama.

I didn’t expect him to build a Hero’s Journey.

Then, we approached the mid of Season 1, and I realised a few things. We had not seen the face of the Shadow character Avon Barksdale until well into the series. Hero McNulty uses his little sons when he shadows Stringer Bell, and for the first time his addictions are mentioned explicitly in dialogue (work, woman and booze). Meeting with the Hero’s Journey Shadow, things becoming personal, and awareness of the Hero’s flaw; three typical aspects of a strong mid point in any major dramatic story.

It doesn’t end there. As we move towards the end of the season’s 2^nd act, things get more and more difficult… and McNulty must approach his ‘inmost cave’. Like in every Hero’s Journey story, it means the character is facing his own weakness, and a confrontation with death…

Three typical aspects of a strong mid point
in any major dramatic story.

True Detectives

When True Detective was released, my industry peers raved about the long one-take shot at the end of Episode 4. Admittedly, it was an impressive feat. More impressive even, was the sense of scope, the relative powerlessness of the heroes under the circumstances, and the feeling of dread and impending doom.

While watching that shot in True Detective, I remembered something. There is this brilliant sequence towards the end of The Wire S01E10, an episode written by the core team of David Simon and Ed Burns; and directed by Brad Anderson (“The Machinist”).

More impressive even, was the sense of scope,
the relative powerlessness of the heroes under the circumstances,
and the feeling of dread and impending doom.

Officer Kima Greggs goes undercover to witness a drug deal. She is covered by colleagues, who are tailing her in several unmarked police cars, all ready to jump in, if and when necessary.

Then, things feel wrong… Kima has lost track of where she is. Street signs don’t seem to make sense… and furtive shadows approach the car. What follows is a brilliant, cinematic sequence, brimming with menace and suspense: The Hero’s Journey Ordeal.

Not a single note of music, other than the diegetic hiphop track from the car radio.

No need for subtitles.

-Karel Segers

[vimeo 128212971 w=900 h=504]

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

by The Single Screenwriter
And snapping gets in the way of the writing, no matter what form the meltdown takes – deviant binges, forced stays in a luxury padded cell, swat team take-downs – so writers naturally seek out others to guide them through the madness and to give them solid advice.

But sometimes, good advice can do more damage than a mob of hormonal teens with no adult supervision and a supply of booze.  Always take advice with a grain of salt.  Hell, if the advice isn’t working for you, dump an entire shaker of salt on the sucker and watch it writhe like a slug.

Here are the four worst offenders disguised as well meaning advice:

Stupid Advice Number 1: Write what you know

STFU with that.  People as a general rule are boring as hell.  And that includes you.

I know a whole heck of a lot about bone china, but my goal is to connect with the audience, not bore them to death.

Sure, a china shop could be a good setting, and the knowledge could make for some quirky character bits, but please, unless you work for NASA, or have some awesome kick-ass job in the sex industry (which you don’t ’cause you’re a writer) please don’t write what you know.

People don’t go to movies to watch other boring lives. They want space aliens, or cool undiscovered viruses.  Not lawn mowers and laundry.

Sure, there was that one time back in school where you and your friends did that awesome thing that you bring up every time you get together and get drunk, but… It probably isn’t that awesome to everyone else in the room, even with a good deal of embellishment.  And besides, you’ve already used variations of it in three previous scripts.

If writers stuck to what they knew, no one would go to movies.  There would be no space cowboys, no secret agents, no world leaders, no sex goddesses with seven breasts.
(Yes, some of these do exist, but do you think sex goddesses and secret agents have any time to write scripts?!)

Write what you don’t know.  It’s much more interesting.  And guess what?  You already know everything you need to know about all the stuff you don’t know, but you just don’t know it yet.

Write what you don’t know.  It’s much more interesting.

Huh?

Listen, what makes a good movie isn’t specific expertise in stuff like nanotechnology or world politics. That’s just window dressing.  It’s called research.  Any monkey with Google can do it.

What makes a movie worth watching is the universality of the human condition.  And if you’re human, you’re qualified.  Find the human element of the story and you can do whatever you want with it.

You’re a single dad with a mundane job who hasn’t had a date in five years?  You, sir, are the guy to write that script about being trapped with a mutant kid on that distant alien outpost.

Spend your day in a cubicle wishing the girl three cubicles over and one down to the left knew you existed?  You know way more than enough to write that superhero with the power of invisibility flick.  Who gives a crap if you have no clue about the science that would go into designing an invisibility cloak.

You don’t need a degree in bio-nuclear mechanical electromagnetic particle physics to give yourself permission to write it.

And if you turn tricks to pay the rent?  Ummm, I won’t touch that one, but trust me, you’re more than qualified to write one hell of a kick-ass script or several.

The point is, don’t get hung up on what you don’t know.

You don’t need a degree in bio-nuclear
mechanical electromagnetic particle physics
to give yourself permission to write it

Go ahead. Write whatever the hell you wanna write about.  Just remember to channel good ole’ Joe Campbell and find the universal human element in whatever crazy twisted story you run with, then you’ll be onto something good.

Stupid Advice Number 2: You can fix it in the rewrite

STFU.  Yeah, of course you can fix it in the rewrite.  Rewrites are for fixing!

But if these words are going through your brain in the middle of a first draft, it’s usually a sign that something’s really not working and hasn’t been well thought out at all.  For real.  You can either figure out the big problem and fix it now – be it story, character, pacing, whatever – or take the easy way out and leave it ’til the rewrite to do the heavy lifting.

Do it now.  Trust me.

Yeah, first drafts are usually crap and the magic happens in the rewrite, but man, give yourself a leg up and start with a solid foundation.  You’ll save yourself days, weeks, sometimes months, and cut way down on the number of rewrites if you fix it now.  Otherwise, you’ll waste so much time wandering aimlessly around making more problems as you try to fix crap you have no idea why you wrote in the first place, rather than using the rewrite for its real purpose – elevating and clarifying an already solid story.

On a similar note:

Stupid Advice Number 3: Just get it down

Again, STFU (see above).

Yeah, sometimes this is good advice, but sometimes getting it down is exactly the wrong thing to do.  Some concepts need to percolate.  Build.  Become more than they are.  Sometimes you have to take the time to explore every avenue before just getting it down, because just getting it down solidifies a direction (not necessarily the best), and cuts off alternate pathways that could lead to brilliance.  Sometimes just getting it down is settling for okay instead of pushing for great.  Sometimes this advice is just plain wrong.

Okay, if you’ve been percolating for 5 and a half years, you’re not doing it right.  You may think your wonderful percolating brilliance will pop out of your writer womb fully formed and be able to walk on water, but really, you’re just using the percolation thing as an excuse to procrastinate.  And procrastination is just one of many forms of writer’s block.

The above is usually followed quickly by this gem of advice:

Stupid Advice Number 4: There’s no such thing as writer’s block

Well, technically, there’s not.  But that doesn’t stop millions of wanna-be writers from suffering from this phantom disease.  In fact, there’s a 50/50 chance that you found this post because you Googled looking for a cure.

But the thing about writer’s block is, it’s only a symptom of something else.

Fear.

Fear of success.  Fear of failure.  Fear of frog feet.  Whatever.  Something outside of your writing is scaring you, and messing with the pathway between your brain and the page.

And the thing about fear is, there’s only one way to get over it.  Face it.  And by face it I mean slay the living crap out of it ’til it’s nothing but a pile of blood and bones and intestines ‘n shit.  If you don’t, you won’t write.  Simple as that.

It goes back to write what you know.  (No, I’m not talking about that sweet collection of boogers you keep in a matchbox under your bed.  I’m talking about what you know about the universal human condition ‘n shit.)  You may know jack all about medicine, but give your medical thriller a lead character facing a similar fear to your own, and voila!  You’ll force yourself to face your fear AND tap into the universal human crap that sells movies.  Two birds.  One stone.

(You’re welcome.  Expect my very over-priced bill for this therapy session in the mail.)

My advice when it comes to all this stupid advice?   Simple.  Embrace the fact that we’re all totally messed up and human.  Write what you want, how you want.  Use the rewrites wisely to save yourself a page one rewrite or twelve. And forget about writer’s block.

Write what you want, how you want.

Or don’t.  Doesn’t matter to me.   Do what works for you.

-The Single Screenwriter

I am a phenomenal screenwriter and self-appointed guru on all things.

I am here to spread wisdom to anyone stupid enough to listen to me.

by Karel Segers

This post is for those in the latter category. Those who claim that overly structured stories don’t work.

Let me begin by saying I yet have to read an Australian script that is ‘overly structured’. In fact, there is no such thing as ‘overly structured’. Scripts are ‘unoriginal’, ‘boring’ or ‘predictable’. But ‘overly structured’? No. Among the most mathematically structured scripts I know are The Untouchables and The Incredibles. Did you find those boring or predictable? Probably not.

Those who don’t see the merit in strong structure skills mostly haven’t done the hard work.

Oh, and before I see the same hands go up again, let me state the obvious: you don’t write in the creative zone while thinking of structure. You only get to look at your story structure when you’re in the left brain. Over time, structure skills become second nature in the same way you drive your car without thinking about how you shift gears or which foot to use to break.

Why movie structure works

Movie structure is nothing more or less than emotional logic. It is the order of things as we understand them subliminally, on a deeper level. It is the psychology of characters as we experience it in our everyday lives.

Recently a student wanted to write a story about a character going through the various stages of grief. No coincidence that these stages match beautifully with the Hero’s Journey.

Movie structure is nothing more or less than emotional logic.

Why?

Because this model is all about the necessary steps a character needs to go through before we believe that this character can change.

We’re talking here about change of any kind. Have a look at the Kübler-Ross model with the 5 stages of grief, compared with some of the Hero’s Journey stages.

Another student once asked me if there is a correlation between the Hero’s 12 journey stages and the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. The answer is: yes, but not because of the number twelve. In fact Joseph Campbell used a few more stages than Vogler’s twelve.

Wherever we see character change or any behavioral change such as addiction recovery, the character will have gone through a minimal number of steps, or we won’t buy it.  Character change follows certain patterns and this emotional logic is reflected in the 3-Act Structure and Hero’s Journey. It is firmly grounded in human psychology and therefore ignoring it makes your story unbelievable to a mainstream audience.

This emotional logic is reflected in
the 3-Act Structure and Hero’s Journey.

For this reason, you can’t just skip steps unpunished.

The Mythology of Redemption

An incident at my son’s preschool some years ago gave me an interesting insight. I learned about my own darkest emotions – and how the principles of character transformation are engrained in our collective unconscious.

The school management stuffed up, in a major way. As a result, fifteen adorable pre-school kids lost their teacher and were subsequently left rudderless for the last three months of the school year. The decision was irreversible and as a parent all I could do was accept it (after going through the stages above).

The principles of character transformation
are engrained in our collective unconscious.

Then the management kept bungling and I felt that something – or someone – needed to change.

The principal had been making mistakes that reflected a lack of competence or at the very least a temporary incapacity to manage the school’s affairs satisfactorily.

This person was the Hero in her own story and she needed to go on a journey of change, or…

How I became The Shadow

When the parents asked for an explanation, the management responded that no mistakes had been made and the principal would continue to take the children’s best interests at heart. No acknowledgment.  No redemption.

I didn’t buy it, nor did any other parent. When we called a meeting of the school’s Board, all we got was another litany of denial.

Ironically, in the meantime slowly things started to change for the better at the school.  But I was not happy, nor were most other parents.

That doesn’t make any sense. Things were improving?

What more could we hope for?

Redemption.

There had not been a public apology. There had not been an open redemption for all the mistakes from the past.

As human beings, we need to see this redemption. We need to see the perpetrator of the wrongdoings taking the blame – publicly. Or else we don’t believe any improvement is genuine.

It took Australia many generations to say ‘Sorry’ to the indigenous people for stealing their land, then their children. But it had to be done.

This is emotional logic.

This is why The Hero’s Journey works. This is why we see a scene of public redemption at the end of Act Two in so many movies. It is what we subliminally need to see before we believe character change to be real and lasting.

This structure is not dogmatic; it works because it reflects the true nature of the human kind.

Hey, look at those stages again…

They map your journey to successful screenwriting:

1. you’ll deny the need for structure
2. you’ll be angry that without, it doesn’t work
3. you’ll bargain and compensate with extra-awesome dialogue
4. you’ll be depressed because your efforts still don’t pay off
5. you’ll accept the need for structure – and be successful

Now go and start your grieving.

– Karel Segers

Karel Segers is a producer and script consultant who started in movies as a rights buyer for Europe’s largest pay TV group Canal+.

Back then it was handy to speak 5 languages. Less so today in Australia. Karel teaches, consults and lectures on screenwriting and the principles of storytelling to his 7-year old son Baxter and anyone else who listens.
He is also the boss of this blog.

 Photo Credit: Dave Keeshan via Compfight
 Photo Credit: Meredith Farmer via Compfight
 Photo Credit: Luc De Leeuw via Compfight
 

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

[divider]

by Lawrence Gray

Most big budget blockbusters are plagiarized from other big budget blockbusters. You can buy computer programmes that do the plagiarism for you, labeling each component with technical terminology to disguise the fact that the writer has analysed some hit movies and then given the components archetypical terms pulled out of such books as “The Hero’s Journey.”

 Most big budget blockbusters are plagiarized from other big budget blockbusters

I’m sure you have read the book by now: Joseph Campbell’s “Hero With a Thousand Faces” filtered through “The Wizard of Oz” by Christopher Vogler. It is not a bad book and as a writer you should read all this stuff. You should know what a story consists of and what stories repeatedly grab our attention. This is your field of study.

But you could just as usefully sit with a DVD of Mission Impossible and jot down a description of what happens in each scene and then change all the names, change the locations, and think of some new piece of technology that seems suitably gee wiz for the Mission Impossible team to play with, then you have a treatment.  And better still, a treatment that you know bears a resemblance to a multi-million dollar franchise.

sit with a DVD of Mission Impossible and
jot down a description of what happens in each scene

With a bit of finessing, a little more brainstorming, you could make it just that little bit more different, and thus market it as an original piece. You could reposition it for Vin Diesel or, if you’re here in Hong Kong wonder if Jackie Chan would be a good alternative to Tom Cruise.

Shakespeare stole his stories, so why shouldn’t you? He talked about the artist holding up a mirror to their times, which is a neat summation of what we do, but one could also say that my having an iPhone is a sign of the times as well. Everything, in short, is a sign of the times.

And what you want to know is what story should you write? And as you can tell, the artist in me groans at the thought of churning out the formula, though the now ageing and much-unsung artist in me wishes he had been sensible enough to just rip off something and grab the money.

 Shakespeare stole his stories, so why shouldn’t you?

After all, Shakespeare wrote, among other things, a lot of patriotic plays whooping it up for English nationalism. Thus ensuring he was on the right side of the politics of the day, while keeping his Catholic sympathies and dubious associations subdued until a better moment when the old religion might return. In short: he wrote propaganda for the bunch of thugs then in power.

One can sense the deep sigh that lies behind the title, “As You Like It.” But at the same time, the great pleasure he took in purchasing back all the land his bankrupt father lost. And so England’s greatest artist was perhaps great because he managed to have it all ways and it was his career rather than individual pieces of writing that made him the consummate English playwright.
(to be continued) 

-By Lawrence Grey

In a prior life, before moving to Hong Kong in 1991, I helped found the London Screenwriters Workshop, and since coming to Hong Kong I founded the Hong Kong Writers’ Circle.

I was chairman of both august organisations and have only just stepped down from the Writers’ Circle, considering myself far too damaged to continue leading the charge for the great unknowns of Hong Kong literature. [more]

[divider]

( photo credit Construction Schedule: Eric Fischer)

In this video, Chris Vogler, the author of The Writer’s Journey, walks us through the twelve story stages while referring to The Matrix. Apologies for the poor picture quality (I had to aspect-ratio convert the original, which you can still watch on YouTube).

With thanks to Louise Lee Mei and Niels Abercrombie.

_____________________________________

Check out this video link…

_____________________________________

For more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking, look in the sidebar or click on the category link under the title of this post.

If you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let me know!

Just complete the form below and send me the link.

Thank you!

Karel

by Karel Segers

To my taste – I was not raised on popcorn fare – James Cameron is the only true-bred Hollywood writer-director. His cinema is high concept, superbly entertaining and truly spectacular.

He understands the craft of mainstream cinematic storytelling like no other and like George Lucas back in the 1970’s, he seems to have been listening to Campbell:

And the only myth that is going to be worth thinking about

in the immediate future is one that is talking about the planet,

not the city, not these people, but the planet, and everybody on it.

-Joseph Campbell (1904-1987)

This part of the ‘POWER OF MYTH’ interview with Bill Moyers is effectively anticipating not just stories with a broad environmentalist message but a very specific type of stories like AVATAR and WALL-E.

It seems that the film’s Box Office confirms the audience’s need to see this type of mythology.  The overwhelming and continuing response to the film cannot be just reduced to its technological innovations.

The film is ultimately telling the myth we need to see(*).

Apart from the Gaia principle, AVATAR also expresses an other mythology that has been prominent in science fiction movies of the past decades: Man vs. Machine. Note the parallel between Jake’s Avatar and the Colonel’s exo-skeleton, the helis vs. the banshees etc.

It seems to me that the Hero’s Inner and Outer journey in AVATAR are split almost perfectly in parallel with Jake’s two alter egos: his human identity and his Avatar essence.

Although I’ve seen the film three times now (one viewing ruined by jet lag) I haven’t studied the structure thoroughly yet, as I’ve been pretty much holidaying since its release last month.

Please see the breakdown and notes below as a working structure; I’m keen to see your comments at the bottom of this post.

:: what follows is one big spoiler ::

For a full synopsis in narrative form, check the IMDb. I used this to fill in blanks in my own notes here and there. As usual with these overviews, there really is not much point trying to make sense of the breakdown without having seen the film.

ACT ONE

Sequence A: Pandora Ordinary World & Avatar Call to Adventure (19mins)

00.00    Fox Leader

00.30    Jake VO: Dreams of flying + waking up. “We’re there.”

02.00    Taking over brother’s contract; fresh start in a new world.

03.00    Landing on Pandora // intercut with brother’s cremation.

05.00    Jake in wheelchair: money can fix him. Vehicle with arrows in tyres.

06.30    Colonel: “Not in Kansas anymore.” Safety brief puts Jake’s mind at ease.

07.30    Norm shows Jake the Avatar.

09.00   Norm: “It looks like YOU. This is YOUR Avatar.”    Videolog: for science.

10.00    Grace ‘wrote the book’, she and Norm speak Na’vi.

11.00    Grace: “I need your brother.” She goes to complain to Parker.

12.00    Parker to Grace: Get me some results.

14.00    Jake lacks training. Goes in, to link with his Avatar. Grace going in, too.

16.00    Jake wakes up in Avatar. “Welcome to your new body, Jake!”

(=ENTERS SPECIAL WORLD OF AVATAR)

16.30    Jake walks, doesn’t listen, runs out, has fun. (=INNER JOURNEY CALL)

18.30    Meets Grace’s avatar (“Don’t play with that!”), then goes to sleep.

(=MEETING THE MENTOR)

Sequence B: Refusing Inner Call & Committing to Outer Journey (12mins)

19.00 Wakes up as Jake – “Welcome back”. (=REFUSAL OF THE CALL)

20.00 Introduced to Trudy, she flies the science sorties.

21.00 Col.: Provide intel, get real legs. “Report to me.” Jake: “Hell yes!”

(=CROSSING OUTER JOURNEY THRESHOLD)

23.30 Grace going in, with heli. Jack loves it. Ship lands.

(=SPECIAL WORLD OF PANDORA)

25.30 Jake explores. Lemurs. Helicoradian flowers. (=TESTS)

27.30 Titanotheres. Jake stands his ground. (=TEST)

29.30 Thanator. Grace: “Run, definitely run!” Jumps off waterfall.

(=SEPARATION, CROSSING THE FIRST THRESHOLD?)

ACT TWO (a)

Sequence C: Meeting Pandora Mentor & Omaticaya (17mins)

31.00 Avatar prepares spear, torch. // Neytiri watches, almost shoots.

32.30 Grace & Trudy looking for Avatar. “He won’t make it till morning.”

33.30 Keeps Viperwolfs at bay, but loses torch. Arrows save him.

35.30 Neytiri is saviour: “Strong heart and no fear; but stupid.”

38.00 She is mad at him, because killing animals is sad. “You’re like a baby.”

41.00 Seeds of Sacred tree land on Avatar; Neytiri stays with him.

41.30 They run. Tsu’Tey etc. appears on horses. They take him to the tribe.

44.00 Parents; mother Moat: “Teach him our ways. See if his insanity can be cured.”

47.00 Sleeping in the leaves of the Hometree.

Sequence D: Two conflicting journeys and a deadline (12mins)

48.30 Jake wakes up. -Is the Avatar safe?

49.00 Parker: Find me a carrot that will get them to move. Three months.

51.00 Jake identifies the Omaticaya from photos; Eywa is their God.

52.00 Avatar with Neytiri, on Direhorse. He connects and rides it.

54.00 Jake reports back.

54.30 To the Hallelujah Mountains to set up the science camp.

57.30 Neytiri and her flying Mountain Banshee. Choose your own when ready.

Sequence E: Avatar gets more deeply infiltrated, initiated (17mins)

60.00 Videolog-montage. Neytiri: ‘moron’. Grace: see forest through her eyes.

64.00 Videolog: Deep connection, network of energy, borrowed.

64.30 Jake shoots deer, says prayer. Neytiri: You’re ready. To banshees.

67.30 Under waterfall. Choose, you have one chance. It will try to kill you.

70.00 Fight. Make the bond! Jake falls, then ‘bonds’ & flies.

72.00 Neytiri follows. They fly together.

74.30 Debrief with Grace: The tree of souls. Most sacred place. Lucky swine!

75.30 Attacked by the giant Banshee, the Toruk.

76.30 Neytiri explains: great great grandfather rode the Toruk to unite tribes.

MID SEQUENCE

Sequence F: Jake/Avator reborn – one of the Omaticaya (7mins)

77.30 Everything is backwards now. Out there is true world. In here is the dream.

78.30 Col.doubts resolve. “Terminate mission! Legs back. Done deal. Get it done.”

80.30 “Every person is born twice.” Avatar to earn place among the people – forever.

81.30 Initiation ceremony.

83.00 Neytiri & Jake kiss. With you, Jake. Mated for life.

84.00 Videolog. Jake: “What the hell are you doing, Jake?”

ACT TWO (b)

Sequence G: First betrayal, one hour to negotiate retreat  (12mins)

84.30 Dozers roll in, Neytiri tries to wake him up//Jake eating //Avatar in danger.

86.00 Jack goes in. // Avatar wakes up; jumps on vehicle & kills video cameras.

87.30 Robo-suits go in. Fight. // Colonel ID’s Jake on photo. “Get me a pilot.”

88.00 Na’vi assemble & prepare for attack.

89.00 Neytiri: mated with him. Tsu’tey angry. “He’s not your brother!”

89.30 Avatar: “I am Omaticaya. One of you.”

90.00 Col. goes in to break the link. // Avatar falls. Tsu’tey doesn’t trust him anymore.

90.30 Col. angry. “You let me down.” Grace explains forest biology & pleads.

93.00 Jake’s videolog: “a waste of time. They’ll never leave hometree.”

94.00 Col. & Parker: Minimal casualties. Let’s pull the trigger.

94.30 Trudy: Parker is running the gunships. Jake: Let me try. Parker: One hour.

Sequence H: Diplomacy has failed. All-out war. Ordeal & Death (12mins)

96.00 Avatar pleads with Omaticaya. Neytiri: You’ll never be one. (=APPROACH)

97.30 They’re coming. Military attack on a tree. Na’vi killed.

99.00 Col.: One big tree. Diplomacy has failed. Let’s get this done. Fire!

101.3 Moat frees Jake & Grace: Help us! // Trudy defects. (=REWARD)

103.0 The tree comes down. (=ORDEAL)

105.0 Col.: Good work people!

105.3 Neytiri bemoans dying father. (=ORDEAL) To Avatar: “Never come back!”

106.3 Parker: pull the plug. Jake and Grace’s avatars fall. Na’vi flee.

FADE TO BLACK

ACT THREE

Sequence I: Na’vi armies prepare for battle (12mins)

108.0 Trudy frees Jake, Grace & Norm (=REWARD); they run to the ships.

109.3 Col. notified, runs after them, shoots. They fly off. (=THE ROAD BACK)

111.0 Grace is hurt. Hauling up the lab, fly to the Tree of Souls.

112.0 Jake: The people can help you. Grace: Why would they help us?

113.0 Omaticaya assemble at the Tree of Souls.

114.0 Jake VO: “Take it to a whole new level,” He tames Toruk and flies it.

115.0 Omaticaya praying at the Tree of Souls. Avatar arrives on Toruk.

117.3 Avatar calls on Tsu’Tey: I will fly with you. Praying for Grace.

121.0 Grace dies; with Eywa now. Avatar back to Omaticaya. (=ORDEAL)

122.0 Avatar rallying Omaticaya: Send a message! OUR land! (=RESURRECTION)

124.0 Recruiting more tribes.

Sequence J:  Military prepare and attack (17mins)

125.0 The Colonel rallying his troops: “Fight terror with terror!”

126.3 Jake is briefed by friends on the plans: 0600 tomorrow.

128.0 Avatar prays to Eywa, who protects the balance of life. (=ORDEAL)

129.3 Next day: Helis attack, carrying explosives.

131.0 Na’vi attack: sky and ground. Casualties on both sides.

134.3 Engage all hostiles! Scorpions: pursue and destroy!

136.0 Trudy intervenes: “You’re not the only one with a gun.”

137.0 On the ground: major casualties. Trudy sacrifices herself and ship.

138.3 Avatar can’t reach Tsu-tey, Norm, Trudy.

138.0 Preparing bomb for dropping.

139.3 Avatar to Neytiri: do NOT attack. An order.

140.0 Hold position… Animals come in to the rescue. Eywa’s heard you. (=REWARD)

Sequence K: Final Confrontation (15mins)

142.0 30 seconds to payload drop… Avatar intervenes.

143.0 Bombship falls & explodes; battle moves from the sky to the ground.

145.0 Col. moves towards camp, Neytiri attacks, trapped under killed animal.

146.3 Avatar appears, duels with Colonel. (=RESURRECTION)

148.0 “Hi Sully… How does it feel to betray your own race? Time to wake up.”

149.0 Jake has trouble breathing. Neytiri kills the Col. with bow & arrows.

151.0 Neytiri finds Jake, gives him oxygen. “I see you.”

Sequence L: Aftermath & New Life as a Na’vi

152.0 “The aliens returned to their dying world.”

152.3 Last video log. I don’t want to be late for my own party. Signing off.

154.0 Avatar: Na’vi Ceremony. Reborn as Avatar.

154.3 THE END

______________________________

ACT ONE

The end of Act One is not entirely obvious to me because unlike the Mid Point and Act Two, I don’t believe Cameron used a FADE TO BLACK – or else I’ve missed it.

Here’s my reasoning for putting the first act break where I did in the breakdown.

Jake’s longing is to get new legs. When the Col. says “I look after my own” and he promises Jake new legs in return for intel, this is a CALL TO ADVENTURE for Jake. There is no REFUSAL and he immediately accepts/CROSSES THE THRESHOLD by promising the Colonel he will report back to him (“Hell yes!”).

More important in this story from a structural perspective will be Jake’s INNER JOURNEY of realisation that he belongs in the world of the Na’vi, where he has REAL legs already. The INNER CALL TO ADVENTURE is the sensation of how much he loves his new body and the fact that he can walk and run. However, he REFUSES THE CALL by going back to the base and returning to the military program.

The SEPARATION from Jake’s ORDINARY WORLD happens in a number of stages. You can say that the arrival on Pandora is a first separation, from planet Earth. The first science sortie as an Avatar is the second and the physical separation from his team when he escapes the wild animal is the final one. Symbolic action for this Separation is the jump off the waterfull, a typical ‘Point of No Return’.

Early in the first sequence, we see Jake’s longing and his flaw: he wants his legs back. But he can’t do anything about it as he doesn’t make enough money. His wheelchair is also perceived as his flaw, as becomes clear when one of the military makes the comment “That is just … wrong.” He doesn’t belong in this military world.

Unlike the usual Hero’s Journey, in which we leave the ORDINARY WORLD at the end of Act One, the CALL TO ADVENTURE introduces Jake to a SPECIAL WORLD – that of his Avatar. This structure is similar to movies such as BACK TO THE FUTURE.

Jake meets with Grace, his ORDINARY WORLD MENTOR. However it is not until he meets her in the SPECIAL WORLD that she assumes her role of giving him ‘advice’ (“Don’t play with that!”) and guide him. Later, he will meet his SPECIAL WORLD MENTOR in the shape of Neytiri.

ACT TWO

In the SPECIAL WORLD of Pandora’s jungle, Jake is immediately confronted with a number of tests. The first is the Titanotheres, the second a Thanator. In both cases, he follows the advice from Grace. Once separated, he will need to develop new skills to withstand the Viperwolfs and here he needs the help from his new SPECIAL WORLD MENTOR, Neytiri.

Act IIa is essentially a succession of tests in a positive, optimistic atmosphere, leading to the Mid Sequence that reverses it all. By completing the ceremony and becoming one of the Omaticaya and mating with Neytiri, Jake’s Avatar has now committed to the Na’vi and betrayed the humans.

Immediately after the Mid Sequence, the Avatar proves his allegiance to the Na’vi by attempting to stop the bulldozers on their way to Hometree. Back at the base,  Jake is given a last chance and a deadline (one hour) to negotiate and make the Omaticaya retreat.

But the negotiations fail and the military attack and bring down Hometree, at the cost of many casualties.

This lowest point in the story is the ORDEAL (Crisis) for both Jake and his Avatar. They are arrested; the Avatar by the Omaticaya and Jake by the military. Next they are freed, each by their respective ally: Moat and Judy. This release (REWARD) completes the ORDEAL stage and allows the Hero to set out on the ROAD BACK.

ACT THREE

The last act is not a straightforward battle-confrontation-resolution-aftermath, because the story is explicitly told on two levels.

While the armies prepare for the final confrontation, we see Jake’s Avatar praying to Eywa in what seems a redemptive, spiritual ORDEAL that seals his transformation in the INNER JOURNEY. The REWARD for this follows when later Neytiri says “Eywa has heard you”.

In the OUTER JOURNEY, the story climaxes in the duel with the Colonel and is resolved with the death of the Colonel and the survival of Jake.

The INNER JOURNEY climax lies in the movie’s last sequence, when we see Jake’s last video log about his choice to leave the base forever.

The very last shot before the credits seals this choice, when the Avatar opens his eyes and we know that Jake will continue his life as a Na’vi.

Your comments, please!

______________________________

Could AVATAR have been a more satisfying story in any way? Probably (thanks MM).

Would it have been equally successful? Who knows…

Who cares.

OVERVIEW

ACT I, 3 Sequences (31mins)

ACT IIa, 3 Sequences (46mins)

MID SEQUENCE (7mins)

ACT IIb, 2 Sequences (24mins)

ACT III 3 Sequences (46mins)

Compare this structure with James Cameron’s scriptment of AVATAR.

Total: 12 Sequences (154mins)

(*)If you can think of any other successful films about the same theme, tell us in the comments.

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

I am speaking with Michael about his career, his teaching and his first visit to Australia in May of this year. With apologies for the poor audio quality of the telephone recording.

Karel: Terry Rossio, co writer of ALADDIN, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and SHREK, says you are “the only screenwriting instructor who might be truly wasting his time because he should be writing screenplays instead.” That’s my first question: Have you ever felt like you were wasting your time?

Michael: It’s very generous of Terry to say that. We first met when I did a special event as part of the American Screenwriters Association conference where I interviewed Ted Elliott and him. It was just when SHREK was in theatres. I gave a one hour lecture about SHREK and then they came on stage and we did a Q&A. They said later they appreciated that everything I had talked about was exactly what they intended when they wrote the script.At the time they were in the midst of writing Shrek 2 and weren’t real happy with the direction things were going, and people not appreciating their approach to it, which the studio ended up using anyway.

I really don’t think I’m wasting my time as a consultant. My strength, and my passion, is for working with writers and filmmakers, empowering them to get their stories on the page and on the screen, either by working with them one-on-one, or through my lectures, books, DVDs, articles, etc.

Karel: Have you ever written a screenplay?

Michael: Some time ago I made a stab at writing a screenplay, and it was OK, but it really wasn’t where my passion was. I just have so much fun doing what I’m doing.

————

Karel: How would you position yourself among the known screenwriting teachers?

Michael: Good question… How would I position myself? Well, first of all I’m somebody that has been around now a long time. There are a few of us who are sort of regarded as the front guard, or the old guard.

There’s me, there’s Bob McKee, there’s Syd Field, Linda Seger, Chris Vogler, John Truby, Kathie Fong Yoneda, a couple more that I’ve probably forgotten. So I think that gives us all a certain cachet. We all have books; we all have reputations and so on.

As far as lecturing goes, we all seem to have different things that we kind of enjoy doing. Linda goes to a lot of festivals and does a lot of work outside the US. I don’t do so much outside the US and I don’t do so much lecturing as her or Chris or Bob McKee. The trip to Australia, is the first time I will have come to Australia to give a seminar or to do a workshop, so that is a bit different.

I think of that whole group I mentioned, I’m the one that does the most coaching. Linda writes a lot of books. Chris, is working for Paramount, and he travels to Europe a lot to lecture and collaborate on projects. But I think I’m the guy who is primarily a script consultant

————

Karel: In your view, are there any contradictions between the various story theories?

Michael: In my experience, all those people that I mentioned, Bob and Syd and Linda and Chris and John, we all have our own approach to story, character and structure. And I have yet to find anything significant about which we disagree. It is just a different way of getting at the founding principles of story developed by Aristotle, and probably even before that.

That’s why I wanted to do the DVD of The Hero‘s 2 Journeys with Chris Vogler. He uses Joseph Campbell’s model, a mythical model for approaching story. I think it is wonderful, and I think his work is among the best out there. He and I don’t really disagree on the core principles of story, we just have different approaches, so we can sort of make fun of each other and argue about that.

I will say that there are a lot of myths about screenwriting floating around, and some are perpetuated by other lecturers. Myths like ‘if you live outside LA you don’t have a chance’ or ‘it’s not what you know, it is who you know’. It is important to know people, but you can get to know people. There are ways to network and contact people and get them to read your script and you’ll get to know them.

There are a lot of things like that, that I disagree with, but not the principles that I hear espoused by the top screenwriting teachers, or by the successful writers that I work with.

————

Karel: We know you from your books and DVDs but what keeps you busy most of your time?

Michael: I primarily do three things: I consult with writers, directors, producers, filmmakers and storytellers of all kind; I’m invited to lecture to lots of different groups; and I write — books and articles and so on. And of course, I have DVDs and CDs of some of the lectures that I give.

Karel: You seem to have a lot on your plate. How do you organize your day?

Michael: In a typical day, the majority of what I do is the consultation. I get up in the morning and I read a client’s script, and take extensive notes on that screenplay.

Later that day, I have a consulting session with that client, either in person or by phone. If it’s the first time we’ve talked, that might take up to three hours. If it’s an ongoing client, our session is closer to one and a half or two hours.

Then I might have another session with a writer who has outlined changes they plan to make as a result of our previous sessions. I might have a third coaching session with one of my clients who wants to get my guidance on their writing process, or on their pitch. And in between, I talk to prospective clients, write articles, prepare for lectures, add information to my web site and newsletters, and answer emails.

And after I’ve been in the office for about twelve hours, I’m done! And then my wife and I will have dinner and watch television or a movie. And that’s pretty much it. Glamorous, isn’t it?!

————

Karel: Which are your favourite TV series?

Michael: Well right now there are two new series that may not yet be playing in Australia. The season is kind of truncated because of the Writers Guild strike here. But there is a half-hour series on HBO called In Treatment, which I love. It’s on six nights a week. Gabriel Byrne plays a psychologist, and each episode shows him in therapy with one of his clients. The series is set up so every Monday we see the same client as we saw the previous Monday, just like it would be with a real therapist. So Monday nights are about a young woman, and Tuesday night it’s about guy, and Wednesday nights it’s a teenage girl, and Thursdays a couple. Then Fridays the shrink goes to see his own therapist and talks about his own problems. It’s just talking heads, just two or three people in a room doing therapy. It’s based, I think, on an Israeli series, and it’s brilliantly written and wonderfully performed.

My other favourite series so far is Terminator: The Sarah Conner chronicles. I was a big terminator fan and they are doing some interesting new things with that franchise.

Karel: What is your favourite classic movie?

Michael: When I hear the term ‘classic’, I think in terms of pre-1950. I don’t think of movies from the 70’s on as classics in the same way. I guess you would have to regard The Godfather as a classic film. But when you say classic, I think of black and white, Hollywood in its heyday. And then I think without exception it would be Casablanca.

In more recent times, certainly Chinatown, certainly The Godfather. Those are sort of easy, because everybody puts those on the list. But I think any list of great movies would have to include Sleepless in Seattle, Shrek, When Harry Met Sally, L.A. Confidential, and a number of Woody Allen movies – but probably most of all Manhattan.

To be honest, it is an impossible question. There are so many movies that I love, so many movies I think are just wonderful. I actually hate the questions because I know I’m gonna forget to mention a movie that is just very close to me. And there are more coming along all the time!

————

Karel: Do you watch a movie every day?

Michael: No, I probably watch on average about two movies a week, maybe three. But I watch television too, because I also consult with television writers, plus I’m a fan. I mean there are certain TV series that I really like, so I watch those. And I watch videos, and I go to the movies about once a week.

Karel: Do you have any favourites that don’t follow the principles you teach?

Michael: Oh yeah, yeah. There are a number of movies that I think are wonderful, that I generally don’t talk about when I lecture. The reason is: I want people to understand the core of what I consider the essential principles of story and structure and character arc and love story and eliciting emotion. So the examples I use are ones that follow the formula – if you want to call it that – so they can strengthens a writer’s understanding of it.

No movie breaks all the rules, but great movies often push the envelope, or they take liberties, or they fit into a niche that is less commercial.

So people regard Annie Hall as a great romantic comedy. But the basic formula for a Hollywood romantic comedy involves deception – a character with a compelling goal is lying about something to get it, then she meets someone and falls in love, but the person doesn’t know that the hero is pretending to be somebody she’s not, as in Working Girl or Tootsie or The Wedding Crashers. Or maybe the hero is just lying, as they are in a Sleepless in Seattle or Sideways. In any case, there is almost always deception, and always a happy ending.

Annie Hall doesn’t have any of those elements. It is more like a dramatic love story, but it’s so funny that it is regarded as a romantic comedy. And it doesn’t have a happy ending. Woody Allen is pretty much allergic to happy endings because he sees love affairs and relationships as finite. So he breaks the rules, but it’s still a great movie.

Another example, one of my all-time favourite movies and one of the great screenplays coming out of Hollywood in the last twenty years, is The Shawshank Redemption. It certainly follows rules for creating empathy, and giving characters visible goals, and developing character arc and theme. But it doesn’t follow a common structure. Instead it uses a three-stage structure. We see the hero in one period of time, then we jump ahead quite a few years, see them again, jump ahead, and see them a third time. That structure is used by When Harry Met Sally, by Steel Magnolias, by Driving Miss Daisy, by numerous other movies. But those movies are a very small percentage of the movies Hollywood makes.

So that’s not a typical film, yet it’s also a great screenplay.

Here’s the way I usually say it: you can break the rules only after you know the rules so well that you can honestly say, “I will elicit more emotion, and create a better emotional experience for the audience, by pushing the envelope rather than following the formula.”

When writers get in to trouble is when they say, “I don’t believe in formula, I’m just going to ignore the rules and tell whatever story I want to tell.” Those movies rarely work.

END OF PART ONE

For information on Michael’s books, DVDs and one-on-one consultation, or to contact him directly, please visit his web site: www.ScreenplayMastery.com. To register for any of his Australian seminars, go here: www.epiphany.com.au.

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!