One thing, though, that I think is really wrong is his analysis of the characters in “Toy Story 2”. I originally wrote:

Big Al is NOT the villain of Toy Story 2. He is not actively preventing the other toys from saving Woody. Stinky Pete is. Stinky Pete is the Antagonist of the film, even if it isn’t revealed until much later in the story. His efforts were always there, just hidden from us. Big Al is the Contagonist of the film, meaning he is the character who generally gets in the way, driven by the temptation of making big bucks off of the little toys.

I do read screenplays by aspiring writers.

With the exceptions of point 7, point 10 and point 11, the article has no level of expertise and could have been written by any relatively well informed film student.

Point 7 could have been written by anyone who has skim-read McKee or Field, and presumes to make imprecise generalisations sound like steadfast laws: ‘by page 10 readers expect to be introduced to your hero, what he wants, and the genre’ – I’ve heard the same thing said by readers, producers, writers and academics who’ve placed it at page 2, page 4, page 5, page 10, page 15… all with similarly misleading finality, without a detailed explanation.

Point 10 is useful and accurate, but ultra simplified, and with absolutely no disclaimer mentioning what an ultra simplification this is. Simplifications can be useful, especially to novices, but only when treated as such, otherwise they quickly lead to cliche and can stunt a young writer’s progress – like a guitarist or pianist learning a song he is not skilled enough to play at full speed, and therefore learning his mistakes and imperfections along with the melody. And I’ll give an example of a film I and many other grown-ups love that disproves the first paragraph of point 10: Taxi Driver.

As for Point 11, everything except sub-points 2 and 3 (revealing a significant character trait, resolving the central problem) could have been written by an amateur. It could have been written by a dentist who likes to go to the cinema a lot. It’s full of vague generalisations, and contains little or no insight into the craft of screenwriting.

I apologise for my first rudely worded comment.

I do wonder though if you could address some of the examples I gave in relation to the points made in this article? The Dardenne Brothers? Michael Haneke? PT Anderson? The Coens? Or even the case of Paul Schrader’s Taxi Driver? The 400 Blows? Le Samourai? The Bicycle Thieves?

Could you explain Taxi Driver in terms of “The Goal”, “The Stakes” and “The Villain”?

Tim, thank you for your comment. You are right and I do sincerely hope most readers will understand that they are not breaking the law by ignoring these tips (LOL).

I do however agree that screenwriting and storytelling are often confused and this is not always helpful.

That said, it is necessary to update our terminology to fit the times we live in.

I believe the main contemporary forms of storytelling are TV drama, news and advertising.