The internet is rife with advice of all kinds, and I find it increasingly difficult to locate useful gems. If you’re really critical, you could argue that even the best known and most respected authors such as Robert McKee offer very little in terms of workable advice. I’m talking about techniques that writers can actively apply during the writing process.

Most of what you will find falls in the category of analytical observations – and I have pleaded guilty to the same.

We do need analysis, and critical thinking about how stories play out. But a writer expecting to find practical guides during the actual chore of writing a story will often be sorely disappointed. Not much of this around.

This means that you will need to develop a BS radar when it comes to screenwriting advice. The best way to do this, is always ask “Why?”

I would place the worst kind of screenwriting advice into three separate categories.

The Obvious – and mostly useless

At first sight, these types of screenwriting advice sound perfectly plausible.

• “A high concept story is something that everyone wants to see, no matter who the actors are”. Sound legit, right? Until you question it. How do you know everyone wants to see it? Back to square one. Not a smidgen of useful advice here.
• “Just tell a great story.” I won’t even go there. Just watch my great video.

This type of tips you can easily undress by asking But why? and How does this advice help me today?

The Plain Wrong – and often dangerous

• “Script formatting doesn’t matter, as long as you tell a great story.” This is a variation on the obvious screenwriting advice above, only now with a dangerous sting. Trust me, formatting does matter.
• “The inciting incident must be on page 12.” The alternative goes: “The inciting incident must be at your story’s 10% mark”. These numbers may be correct if you consider the average. However, this means that the majority of films do not have this beat on that particular page or percentage, but higher or lower.
• “Show, don’t tell”. Now, this one must be correct, right? Yes, if you have the budget. Otherwise, you’ll have to put a lot of exposition in dialogue, whether you like it or not.
• “Register all your drafts with the local guild, and always have the registration # on the cover page.” No. Do your research.

Because this type of advice is often factual, just doing some more research may teach you the truth.

The Confusing – and hardly helpful

This is the toughest category of screenwriting advice to debunk, because often, there’s truth in it. Only, it appears not practical when you’re actually writing. I plead guilty to having given this type of tips in the past.

• “The 3-Act Structure is broken. Here’s something better.” A smart writer recently pointed out to me how John Truby attacks the 3-Act Structure, then replaces it with the same using different labels. Challenging existing paradigms is great, but ultimately terminology matters, as we use it to communicate about story. The reality is that you’ll need to speak the language of the person who will decide on the future of your script. Most of them still use the 3-Act Structure, or the Hero’s Journey. Sorry, John.
• “Your story’s halfway point should have a point-of-no-return.” I have never really understood the dramatic value of being closer to your goal than to the departure point. Unless you’re in a road movie, this metaphor can mean a million things. A failed film like Annihilation proves how this approach doesn’t work, which is why I much prefer a Mid Point Reversal. However, be careful: if the executive prefers a point-of-no-return, then call it that (but write it as a reversal anyway).
• “Strong screen drama is a visual expression of our deepest humanity, and it confronts our inner conflicts in a way that makes us question our reason for being.” Some people just love using big words to make it sound as if something matters. And the statement above may be true, but how is this going to help you in writing your flabby first half of Act 2? The advice in this category may sound inspiring, but rarely helps.

Screenwriting Advice – The bottom line

Don’t just accept the words of your favourite guru, even if they sound great. Always ask “why?” and “how does this help me?”

I know what you’re thinking now.

So what about that setting up the goal before the end of Act 1, from the title? Isn’t this sound screenwriting advice? Shouldn’t the goal be set up early, and definitely no later than the first half hour?

Okay, let’s go there.

You’re assuming that the first act should be thirty minutes in length. Why? Because some guru told you? And how does this help you?

Here’s my take – and that of many authors I respect. (If you want a name, I’d say Paul Gulino.)

The first act is over once the goal is established.

Stories are about characters responding to events or change, with a certain action or series of actions. Once the story’s main action or goal is established, in terms of dramatic tension we call this the end of Act 1.

So what this piece of advice above is really saying, is that you have to end Act 1 before the end of Act 1.

Nice one.

-Karel Segers

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!

Every structure model is academic. There really are no rules. Instead, these systems are merely tools to allow us to communicate about story.

In the course of my screenwriting training career, I have always strived for simplicity. What we need in screenwriting, is an MVP, a Minimum Viable Product: the simplest possible system that still delivers the results for you. So you can focus on the creative aspects rather than the ‘how to‘.

Ideally, each screenwriter develops their own method. Only, there wouldn’t be much communication in that screenwriting utopia, as each were to use a different language.

As a thought experiment, I would like you to consider my approach to the Grand Story Arc: the 2-Act Structure. Before we venture into that, let’s brush up on the 2 main competing approaches: the 3-Act Structure (mostly for film and TV half-hours) and the 4-Act Structure (mostly for one-hour TV).

The 3-Act Structure

Although different people use different criteria to determine act breaks, I like a combination of dramatic tension and Hero’s Journey. In my approach, you will find that:

1. Act One ends once the main character’s goal is clear; either to the audience, to the characters itself, or both. Then, in Act Two we see the active pursuit of that goal.
2. Act Two ends after the character has almost given up on that goal, but finds a final reason or clue to push through.
3. Act Three sees the character’s final – and mostly successful – action in pursuit of that goal.

A massive problem of the 3-Act Structure is that chunky mid-act. Most writers struggle to create interesting story material that sustains 45-60 minutes. This is why the Mid Point is so important. I prefer calling it the Mid Point Reversal because in great stories, a very important value is completely reversed.

(It’s about time I write another piece about this, after early attempts in 2006 and 2009.)

Just because this Mid Point Reversal is so critically important, I believe the 4-Act Structure is a really helpful way of approaching screen story structure.

And look, in one-hour TV drama, we already have 4 acts, as the act breaks are roughly every 15 minutes on the ‘TV clock’. So before we move on to the mysterious 2-Act Structure, let’s examine the 4 acts.

The 4-Act Structure

This structure is no different than the 3-Act Structure, with the only difference that we have an act break for the Mid Point reversal.

So what does this Mid Point Reversal do that it is so important?

Let’s first look at what other authors and teachers think (that I don’t necessarily agree with).

1. It’s a point of no return.
   Yep, that may well be, but both act breaks are also points of no return.
2. It raises the stakes.
   Like those other act breaks, you mean? More proof the Mid Point is more like an act break.
3. It’s a false victory or false defeat.
   In fact, it is most often a false victory followed by a false defeat. A kiss and a slap.

The Mid Point Reversal

Here is what I think the Mid Point Reversal (MPR) really means … and it supports the 2-Act Structure beautifully:

1. A reversal of fortune
   In Groundhog Day, Phil (Bill Murray) believes his scheme has worked when Rita (Andy MacDowell) kisses him. But she immediately sees through the con, and slaps him.
   In The Untouchables, Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) achieves a major win by stopping a liquor transport at the Canadian border, and he seizes the accountant’s ledger, but at the end of the sequence one of his ‘untouchables’ is murdered.
2. A reversal of approach
   In the first half of Die Hard, McClane tries getting help from the outside. At the MPR he receives it, only to realise he now has to solve the problems himself because the outside help is making matters worse. A reversal, indeed.
   In One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest McMurphy tries to stay in the asylum, but after the mid point he tries to get out. Quite the opposite!
   In The Incredibles, Mr Incredible works [inadvertently] for Syndrome until the MPR. Here, he learns the truth about all the Supers, and now he will fight Syndrome. The ally becomes an enemy (or Shadow, in Hero’s Journey terms).
   In Avatar, Jake first works with the military against the Navi’, but after the MPR this reverses, and he now fights with the Navi against the military.

I am a huge fan of great mid points, and I will dedicate a full article to this soon. Meanwhile, see if you can find the meaning of the MPR in your favourite films. It is not always as clear as in the examples above, but you may be surprised…

The 4-Act Structure proves that the MPR has fully fledged act-status. It is just as important as the other act breaks.

In fact, I think it is even more important.

The 2-Act Structure

In many great movies, at the MPR two major reversals occur. One is often experienced as the result of an EVENT – or series of events – that happens to the character; this is the reversal of fortune. The other is a reversal in the way the character pursues the goal, or ACTION; This we call the reversal of approach.
In the greatest movies, this reversal is so profound that it sometimes feels as if we are entering a whole new movie altogether. Do you remember Life Is Beautiful? The first half of this incredibly successful foreign language Oscar winner was a love story, the second was … a World War II-drama.

Because the MPR really cuts the movie in two in a way that is much more obvious than the break from act 2 into 3, I would propose to do exactly this: cut the movie in two at the halfway point.

Voilà. The 2-Act Structure is born.

Two Parts Of The Journey

Michael Arndt, writer of Little Miss Sunshine and Toy Story 3 gives us another strong argument to support the 2-Act Structure.

After the Inciting Incident, the hero responds with actions that demonstrate the character flaw. Michael Arndt calls this the hero’s flawed response.

The MPR mostly starts with what looks like a major win for the character (false victory). Whatever approach they took, it worked! Then, they’re put with both feet on the ground, and they suffer a major loss (false defeat). These two polar opposites are part of the same MPR.

The negative polarity, the loss in the MPR, is a major event, and it actually looks very much like a second Inciting Incident, effectively testing the hero’s response after what they learned in the preceding story stage.

This time around, the hero will change their attitude, and respond in a way that shows they have learned something, or are learning.

See? There really are two parts to the story. Here is how I would summarise it.

Act One
The hero experiences the (first) Inciting Incident.
The response to the Inciting Incident is flawed, as they continue their dysfunction.
They enjoy a major win, and for a moment it seems the goal is (almost) achieved.

Act Two
The hero experiences a second Inciting Incident, as part of the MPR.
The response to this MPR Inciting Incident is the right response, as now the Hero makes an effort to improve, to heal.
They enjoy a final win, and we trust that in the future they will continue to act in the right way.

What do you think?

I believe the 2-Act Structure is a simple, appealing way of looking at the character’s journey, both in terms of plot and theme.

This approach recognises what some people call the ‘Inner Journey’ and the ‘Outer Journey’ in one simple, integrated model.

There is no need to throw out whatever structural tools you have been using up to this point, but perhaps this sheds a new, fresh light on how stories for the screen are structured from a bird’s eye perspective.

Let me know if the comments in this approach makes sense to you, and if you would like to use it in the development of your own stories.

– by Karel Segers

– Karel

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!

Creatives hate screenwriting ‘rules’. So they should. But it is also helpful to understand what rules really are, and what they do.

Observe And Study

All Blake Snyder did (just like Field, McKee, Seger etc.), is study films and look for patterns, then describe the patterns he found in films that were successful.

Many screenwriters find this approach incredibly attractive, because it creates the illusion that you can reproduce success by replicating those patterns.

Of course it isn’t this simple.

If you ask yourself what vehicles are the fastest, you’ll see that a Ferrari is faster than a bus, and a Boeing 747 is faster than a Ferrari. Now you know that if you want to go fast, you pick the 747. Sadly, this knowledge doesn’t buy you the ticket; let alone build the airplane.

Screenwriting rules show you what is fast, not how to make it fast.

Analysis vs. Creation

Screenwriting rules, theories and books are mostly analytical. Intellectually, it can be incredibly gratifying to acquire these insights. But none of this is creative. It doesn’t get you anywhere near having a screenplay that works. What these theories do, is give you an understanding of what you need to be successful. Not how to create it.

Now you know this, you are one step closer to writing a successful screenplay. The next step is to figure out how to use this type of information practically. Let me tell you this: studying these theories by heart to apply it during the writing is not the solution. In fact, this may even hold you back by causing writer’s block.

Most working writers first come up with a concept (or else it is handed to them). Next, they write an outline, and finally they write the script. At any stage of this process, they look back at the work and reflect on it. Does it work? Where could it be improved?

This is the analytical stage.

You need to have something written before you can apply any theory to it.

Screenwriting Rules That Work

So, does it work?

Your answer to this question will initially be subjective. You’ll probably think “yes, it works”.

In your head.

The bad news: as a beginning screenwriter you may safely ignore your subjective assessment, as 99% of the time you’ll be wrong.

The great news is that you have written something. Now you can apply your analytical knowledge to it, and make a prediction based on what has worked previously.

You examine any similarities – and differences – between successful scripts, and yours.  (After this, you’ll see that you were indeed wrong.)

In assessing your work, you look at the precedents, and you apply common sense. Much like this:

• If successful screenplays are mostly somewhere between 90 and 130 pages, while yours is 276 pages, perhaps you should consider some cutting.
• If those successful works have a balance of dialogue and description, while yours has 85% description, there’s a clue as to where to cut.
• If you have only one cliffhanger on page 87, and most scripts have a climactic scene every 10-15 pages, you may have to look at your story’s structure again.
• Etc.

You may think these are not hard-and-fast screenwriting rules, but many people that judge screenplays actually do.

L’Artiste

Alternatively, you can ignore all the above, and just follow your gut. Because you’re creating art.

I am not being sarcastic here.

If you are independently wealthy, and don’t need to draw an income from writing, why would you pander to any audience? Do your thing. Be bold and crazy. What do you have to lose? Ignore screenwriting rules.

The same goes for those who love the romantic idea of the poor, struggling screenwriter.

But most of you want to get your script read, right?

Trust me, no serious producer will read your 276 pages, your endless blocks of description, your badly formatted genius.

Even if they read, and nothing majorly dramatic hooks them in by page 10, that’s it. They’ll bin it. And your name may go on their blacklist. No hard feelings, they’re just trying to be efficient.

Of course there are exceptions, and if you want to bet on those, go for your life.

It makes perfect sense to try and understand what qualities are present in most successful works.

Whoever blanket-rejects the notion that there exists a set of common sense principles, is an idiot.

Does this mean you need to aim and replicate all of these principles? No. But you may want to be in the ballpark, if you want to be in the industry.

Even in the ballpark, you will need to stand out, and be different somehow. In order to be noticed, you may need to bend some rules.

How To Write

Guess what is the one thing that keeps wannabe writers from breaking through the glass ceiling. Hint: it is not a lack of knowledge of rules or principles.

The only thing that holds you back is the discipline to read scripts and write – every day.

Those who are successful have managed to create a routine that allows them to deliver work, consistently.

No amount of books or courses or gurus is going to help you overcome this challenge.

The tools or programs that will ultimately get you the closest to your goal, are the ones that help you do what you need to do on a regular basis.

The 3-Act Structure

What about the Mother Of All Screenwriting Rules… The 3-Act Structure?

Writers have rejected the 3-act structure based on what I say above: it won’t help you come up with a great story.
What the 3-act structure does help you with, is understanding structure. And structure is one of those criteria where almost every successful film seems to align.

At the end of the 1970’s, Syd Field decided to stay vaguely in the realm of Aristotle, and divide a screen story in three parts.

He gave it a label: the 3-act structure. A paradigm was born.

Can you see that there is no inherent value to this approach?

It is only because professionals need to be able to talk about story, that you need to understand their lingo.

It’s Academic

That said, you can perfectly develop your own system, and write amazing scripts. But once you’re pitching – or working with others on development – they’ll all need to know your custom-built system. Imagine every writer did this. Can you see the problem? We need a common framework.

I would argue that it is better to have a bad understanding of the 3-act structure than none at all. At least you can enter into a conversation, and learn from the people you speak with.

Some producers love showing that they understand story structure (even if they don’t), and you can forge a bond by pretending you are on their wavelength by being prepared to speak their lingo.

In essence, the 3-act structure is no more than a tool to communicate about stories.

To summarise, it really doesn’t matter how you get to write your story, and how you make them work. But sooner or later you will need to talk about them, and you better speak some generally accepted structure language.

Pick Your Label

Sure, not everyone sticks to the 3-act tool box. Some talk about Hero’s Journey, Dramatica, 4 Parts,  22 Steps, 6 Stages, etc.

You know why?

Because each guru needs a point of difference to get their stuff sold.

Only a very few have really added anything of note to the existing screenwriting rules; they simply change the labels.

Lazy, I know.

I’m incredibly tempted to add a new approach to the list, just for fun. My own structure paradigm: The 2-Act Structure. You might even like it.

But when all is said and done, the 3-act structure ends up being the most commonly accepted dramatic language for the screen.

Learn it.

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!

McKee looks at the nature of turning a script into a film, and concludes that the single most important thing writers can provide is a great structure.

If you liked this, check out more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. Thanks!

If you liked this, check out more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. Thanks!

If you liked this, check out more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. Thanks!

If you liked this, check out more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. Thanks!

At some point during this video, McKee says

“Raiders of the Lost Ark” was in seven acts.
It could be seven, eight, nine acts structures,
in “Speed,” if you counted the major reversals
in a chase film like “Speed” it’s probably nine.”

Thereby he ignores the difference between a sequence and an act. This is not helpful. As a matter of fact, the more I hear McKee, the more I wonder whether he actually has much practical advice to offer for screenwriters.

What do you think?

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

Here’s my weekly selection from the blogosphere. Feel free to recommend anything or give your feedback in the Questions and Comments below.

And don’t forget you can subscribe to our posts so you don’t miss any of this, ever.

• Robert McKee goes Campbell: Culture makes no difference
• “CUT TO:” – Cut it out.
• Final Draft adds highlighting – Easier PDF.
• Emily confused about Happy Endings. WTF is wrong with them?
• You can’t proceed without a PLAN: the crucial plot element
• How to write good characters: observation and mimicry
• Know bad writing so there’s no bad writing
• Breakdown of Indie “The Dinner Party”, writing lessons applied
• The Climax: finding the hero on villain turf
• More hypocrisy in our industry: 10 noms for Ward’s ugly egg
• Do’s and Don’ts for your spec script
• Don’t turn the lights out on your story: writing scenes in blacknessCOMING SOON to the Story Department:

• Structural breakdown of THE UNTOUCHABLES (Monday night midnight)
• Paul Gulino: Screenwriting, the Deadline Approach.

Enjoy!

Karel

Most ‘gurus’ each have their own area of expertise and angle of attack, they each follow their own agenda. And with every new light shed on the craft, different people may see that light.

Don’t they ever contradict each other? And if they do, which truth do YOU choose?

Screenwriting is a dynamic craft. What Syd Field wrote back in 1979 was state-of-the-art… but things change.

Earlier theories fall short when it comes to writing successfully for today’s audiences.

And surely Aristotle’s basic  beginning-middle-end will not get you far – if applied only to the story spine.

Screenwriting principles and techniques keep getting ever more sophisticated as successful movies bend or refine the old molds and screenwriters share their secrets.

The mere fact that the gurus keep being reprinted (Field for thirty years now, Aristotle for 2,000) exposes them to obsolescence. Yet there doesn’t seem to be any flagrant contradictions between what most recognised story teachers and screenwriting authors have said.

Here is a choice of statements and claims that you may not fully agree with. Let us know what you think:

– McKee says “The finest writing not only reveals true character, but arcs”. This sweeping statement has been successfully contested by Mystery Man in a fine piece of research and clear and unbiased thinking.

– John Truby and James Bonnett denounce the 3-act structure. As I yet have to find a discrepancy between Truby’s teaching and the 3-act structure, I assume it’s just a matter of marketing.

– Michael Hauge once said that Inner and Outer journeys are completely separate. In an interview on this blog he tells us how he has changed his view on this, which will be included in the revision of WRITING SCREENPLAYS THAT SELL.

– In Save The Cat, Blake Snyder called the Mid Point either a “false peak” or a “false collapse”. No mention of an Inner Journey, which is essential to e.g. Michael Hauge’s approach to that crucial story point.

– Defining what we call the Inciting Incident, Billy Stoneking asks “What INITIAL PROBLEM or OPPORTUNITY confronts or is created by the main character […]” This includes the assumption that the Inciting Incident can be created by the Hero.

– Kal Bashir in his detailed and insightful Monomyth eBook says: “in Star Wars (1977), music when Luke appears signals that there is a quality about him.” But what use is it to the screenwriter?

What theory do you follow? Ever changed your mind along the way?

A very small minority of successful screenwriters denounces all theory. They follow “their gut”. But most working writers know there’s a hell of a lot you can learn from studying films and screenplays as well as reading up on modern story theory.

In my work with screenwriters, I’m learning every day and I constantly refine my own views. In the first screenwriting lesson I ever taught, I stated that the Inciting Incident should be a ‘deus ex machina’ (oh dear oh dear…). I knew darn well what a deus ex machina was but clearly hadn’t nailed the essence of the Inciting Incident yet.

I also once disagreed with Linda Aronson when she stated that Ridley Scott’s THE INSIDER was a failure. I vehemently argued against this. Boxoffice Mojo reports for THE INSIDER a worldwide Box Office of $60,289,912 and a budget of about $90,000,000.

Epic fail, Segers.

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!