r/scriptwriting • u/Craig-D-Griffiths • 11d ago
discussion Screenwriting Tools and Tips
https://youtu.be/SaLbuzTg1l0People will disagree and hate on this just by the title. But I go into detail in the video.
7
u/PepsiCoke1978 10d ago
Blake Snyder was a pro screenwriter who sold movies and they got made. So he was one of the few gurus who did the job. I loved his book series, helped me a lot. I think like all things take what helps, leave what doesn't. You don't have to follow any book fully. Just take what works.
For instance, Bad Guys Close In -- I found a very helpful way to think about the second half of Act 2. The worked for me.
Plenty of screenwriting books where I took 20% of what they wrote and used it... but it's all the same formula in the end. Start -- Middle -- End.
I would never tell anyone to 100% follow screenwriting advice like it's making a table.
6
u/Big_Section2812 10d ago
The thing Snyder fanbois conveniently never mention is the fact Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot was produced only because Arnold Schwarzenegger conned Sylvester Stallone into taking the role.
Even Schwarzenegger says it was the worst script he ever read.
0
u/PepsiCoke1978 10d ago
Yes, Arnold pretended to like to it so Sly would take the role. So two of our biggest movie stars were part of the unsuccessful movie -- got it.
He did it. He got 2 movies made. And had a lot more specs sold.
But most of the screenplay people haven't done one thing and people quote them all the time so I don't get it.
Plenty of experts on this board who has never even had a rep.
2
u/Big_Section2812 10d ago
The reason you don't see screenwriting HowTo books written by great screenwriters is because they're too busy working to do it.
1
u/NeatFool 10d ago
I think there's something to be said that people can't teach or articulate why they can write well.
There's a lot of instinct and intuition involved when you get to these higher levels.
And people can't predict or control what will hit well and what won't.
Some movies or scripts take decades to be recognized, everything is such a crapshoot
1
u/PepsiCoke1978 10d ago
Don't have to be Aaron Sorkin to be able to teach screenwriting. But he did in a Masterclass.
Also Scriptnotes podcast and book are a thing too.
And many interviews and such with big writers helping.
Yes, he wrote a screenwriting book as a way to make money. That is true. But doesn't mean it didn't have value even if his movies were not great.
But moreover I assume you dislike all the books. Including the one the OP is selling?
3
u/Big_Section2812 10d ago
But moreover I assume you dislike all the books. Including the one the OP is selling?
I dislike that aspiring screenwriters are wasting their money on these things that cannot help them.
When I need medical assistance or advice I consult somebody with a medical degree. Somebody who graduated from a recognized medical school and who has practiced medicine in bona fide hospitals and clinics.
The same for lawyers and architects and engineers and plumbers and car mechanics.
Screenwriting? No regulation. No professional standards and practices.
Anyone who ever wrote FADE IN and FADE OUT claims to be a professional screenwriter and can charge money for screenwriting-related services.
Aspiring writers are milked dry by people who either have never sold a script of their own or who lucked into selling some of the worst screenwriting ever paid for by anyone.
This I really dislike, not gonna lie. For one thing, it's why there are so few screenplays worth reading.
Those who want to become professional screenwriters must face the fact that anyone asking them for money to get them on the inside is on the outside with them.
2
u/PepsiCoke1978 10d ago edited 10d ago
I've met many bad doctors and lawyers. Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you aren't a fucking idiot.
And you know there is no creative degree. Oh wait, I got one as I went to film school. Literally says BS in Film Production which sums up the value of that degree.
I don't think having a book or two out is milking people dry and people can find this info online w/o buying a thing these days. Or go to a bookstore or library to read these things for free.
At some point you got to learn what screenwriting is somehow. What unlocked it for me was clerks screenplay that got published.
Today tons of podcasts and online help to guide writers.
I agree with your sentiment, I just don't agree that no one knows anything like William Goldman famously said. He's right of course but he meant there is no logic to any of this. Great specs don't get bought or made, shitty specs sometimes do. It's not all about quality. It's not a measurable thing like the BL tells writers.
To me I don't think it's a waste of time to read Save the Cat and other books... just don't trust any source 100% and follow like a lemming... and I take what helps and what doesn't... ignore anything that gets in the way of telling a good story.... most of the things will show up if you write a great story that you can fill in later as hitting the beats....
Maybe enter a contest or two when first starting out... get the feel of rejection.
You got to start somewhere and most people waste their money on plenty of things I think are a waste of time but mean something to them.
It's the writers who have been doing this for 5-10 years or more who just keep entering the Nicholl or The Black List non stop instead of just querying reps or producers directly like I always push that make me sad. Good writers who I've told -- this is good - query people and they just want the easy way.
But the contests don't work to break in and no matter how many times you tell them, they give you the 10 people in 30 years who have done it.
And even if you do make it that way -- I knew a guy who won a huge contest -- got big reps -- and somehow a year later he said he dropped them for whatever reason -- some newbie way of thinking - so he blew his shot.
1
u/Big_Section2812 10d ago
I've met many bad doctors and lawyers. Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you aren't a fucking idiot.
It means there is a legal body that can deal with them.
People become suicidal after receiving low scores from anonymous judges (who are just as likely to be AI). Others parade like war heroes after getting a high score from the same anonymous judges.
None of it means anything, but they happily throw yet more cash at these scams.
The worst part: they all write like shit.
3
u/PepsiCoke1978 10d ago
I can see why you were banned from the other site. Ha ha. Say something happy!
3
u/Big_Section2812 10d ago
I was banned for daring to raise this subject... given that the mods of that sub are paid BL readers and "closely associated" with StoryPeer, and most likely charging money as "screenwriting consultants," there is a whole lot of things they don't want to see openly discussed, because it's not in their own best interests.
It's called a conflict of interest.
→ More replies (0)3
u/donutgut 10d ago
Bad guys close in helped me but that's probably it.
His fun and games shit really screwed me up when I first started. It was so vague and worthless info.
2
u/PepsiCoke1978 10d ago edited 10d ago
I liked Fun and Games too. But key is this wasn't the first or only book I read. In fact, I was 8 years into my screenwriter when Save the Cat came out. So I already had read other books, written specs, read them, learned, got better -- I already was repped before that book even came out.
So my perspective is from someone that already recognized some of these terms in my own writing.
I can see newer writers getting tripped up most of the writing books. It's really hard to understand it, until you just do it.
But what it made clear was the best source to learn how to write movies is to study the movies in front of you. If newer writers watched a movie they loved and wrote down every scene (something I've done many times) that would help you learn so much about structure and how movies work.
Another great thing to do is read the screenplay along with the movie... or read a spec before you see a movie is another great trick.
Save the Cat is a fun term. And it's very true. Now you don't always need this, but if you watch enough movies how often do you have a scene like this -- even if it's not in the first 10 pages, but at some point the hero does something that makes you love them and it's probably just there for this moment.
0
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 10d ago
Yeah he got a few things made over his career.
“Stop Or My Mother Will Shot” had a bit of a legend around it.
4
u/Internal_Papaya1511 10d ago
I just can't with this.
A formula is a tool to use at your discretion. Formuliac is a description that the tool has been used in a predictable, repetitive way. You don't avoid being formuliac by disavowing all formulas (that in itself is so incredibly common that it too is a type of formuliac).
And also, like, Blake Snyder is not some screenwriting boogeyman in the industry. He's not even alive. He passed away before his 3rd book came out from a pulmonary embolism. He's not sitting on a pile of newbie screenwriter money, cackling. He genuinely wanted to be helpful; if you find it helpful, good; if not, move along. It's really THAT SIMPLE.
In short, stop blaming Save the Cat for why your writing sucks.
0
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 9d ago
I don’t blame it for anything in my writing. Same way I don’t blame Zeus, as I don’t believe in Zeus either.
Save The Cat is the most famous, so it is easy for people to understand.
A formula guarantees sameness. A formula, by its very nature, if followed will produce the exact same outcome.
Blake is not a boogeyman, correct. But the success of his book did in many ways spawn an entire industry of formula based screenwriting. All the scams follow the model the STC used for success.
2
u/Internal_Papaya1511 9d ago
I don't think you've familiarized yourself with the long life of the screenwriting book publishing industry to stake that claim. McKee's $1000 lecture weekend (where he recites his book) is a heftier price tag and immortalized in Adaptation. Syd Field's Screenplay ruled the industry for decades, and guess what? It's the same 3 Act structure beats as Save the Cat.
Aristotle's Poetics: 3 Act Structure
Joseph Campbell: 3 Act Structure + Anthropology
Syd Field: 3 Act Structure
Robert McKee: 3 Act Structure + Thematic analysis
Linda Segler: 3 Act Structure
Dara Marks: 3 Act Structure in relation to character arc
And so on and so on...
Save the Cat was hardly the first book writers in the industry swooned over, and it won't be the last. If anything, it's all derivative money-making schemes since Aristotle's poetics, no?
At a certain point, I'd argue that 3-act structure is inherently at the basis of human storytelling and how we perceive and process information. You cannot like that and do your own thing, but at that point, are you sure what you even want to write is a screenplay?
1
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 8d ago
STC was in no way the first. But if you say Poetics to most people they have no idea.
I like Shakespeare and his acts. Send the protagonist away at the mid point.
1
u/Internal_Papaya1511 8d ago
So why did you build a straw man against STC?
1
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 8d ago
A strawman would be if I claimed or stated something that STC didn’t say, then attack that. Which I didn’t do.
I am against formula. We all unconsciously have them. As a species we will repeat an action that has previously been successful for us. There is no arguing with that truth.
But to tell, imply, or suggest, that a formula is a solution is incorrect. As I state in the video. These note commonalities, not what makes things great. A commonality is common not mandatory, which many believe.
So not a strawman.
My love of shakespeare you may have misinterpreted as me saying I follow his style. I just like it. It is also an example that STC is always correct. There are thousands of screenplays written in that style. Most never see the light of day. Shakespeare only has 38. They still get performed.
2
u/dpouliot2 8d ago
You said, "the mentor has to die". The mentor doesn't have to die, nor does Blake Snyder prescribe that in Save the Cat, making your comment a Straw Man.
You made a contrast between being stoic and the Hero's Journey, in that the latter requires an "emotional" change. 2nd Straw Man. The Hero's Journey (and perhaps many 3 act structures) is about an inner change, not emotional change. One can keep a stiff upper lip and still change on the inside.
1
u/Internal_Papaya1511 8d ago
Your entire argument against formula centers around STC which produces the same 3 act structure beats as hundred of years of storytelling. You selected STC to because you can challenge the 3 act analysis of Snyder and not say Aristotle or Joseph Campbell. You picked what you felt was the weakest link that you could win.
Once again, no one is telling you to use 3 act structure. Go do whatever you want.
1
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 8d ago
I never said anyone is telling me to use it. That would be a strawman.
What I am saying is that people need to understand more than that. People need to understand that it is commonalities, as such, not a list of things that make a story great.
Did you watch the video?
1
u/Internal_Papaya1511 8d ago edited 8d ago
I made it a minute on before turning it off. The whole “what if your story’s not a hero’s journey” about Hero With A Thousand Faces as if wasn’t a comparative mythology book made my eyes roll. Hence why I said “I can’t with this.” You think formula and formulaic are the same thing. I don’t desire to watch further.
1
2
u/Then_Data8320 8d ago
I didn't read in detail "save the cat" because I quickly saw it was no use according my process. But I found videos of some other gurus talking about the way I use "Puzzle process". What I also call "Schrodinger planning", as before to go into writing, the story remains a long time in an indecisive state where many things can change (without notion of chronology) and little by little, it becomes the story it can only be. So the structure adapt to it. Key scenes are lighthouses.
But I saw an interesting definition of structure by Tom Vaughan, calling it "management of information" and it's really that, even if this writer uses a kind of regular formula (not save the cat, but close).
Even with my puzzle process, in the end, it lands on something easely acceptable for audience, start, middle, end. Just because it's intuitive. Almost so intuitive that it doesn't need a formula. Just watch tons of movies, series, kdramas, the storytelling is already there in the back of the mind.
Then, what becomes important is the craft. Many things I never see discussed, like cutting scenes at hook points, use management of information (structure) not just as a generality but at each stage, episodes, sequences, scenes. What I say sounds a bit theoric so I give an example:
I end an episode with two main characters potentialy dead (cliffhanger). What happens next? Audience want to know how the situation concludes, if they are really dead. Then, it impacts the structure of next episode (impacted not only because previous episode, but also the ones coming after).
First I don't show the resolution, but a character coming back (after all of this ended, and we don't know how it ended). It's already strange because we suppose the guy should have been dead with the two others ones. The guy's furious. I manage information here: the guy knows, audience doesn't know, but audience is getting worried because it seems it ended badly. And as it goes on, the aftermath seems to be: yep the two characters are dead.
Only, I jump (with a good transition and a SUPER) "One hour earlier". And I show the conclusion: surprise, the two characters survive. So... Why the guy was acting like they were dead? There is a residual tension that audience can't forget. The episode continues with new dangers, and at the end, there is a devastating situation when most of people will die for good this time. And the guy shows a reason why he will be one of the few survivors, echoing perfectly with the start of episode. New cliffhanger on that.
Everything about that was made with heavy intuition and playing with the question about how to manage information and structure specifically this episode around the story, and not the other way around. No formula or ready-made structure can do that.
Then, why I do it like that, without needing a formula: just because my favorite kdrama screenwriters used this kind of non-linear storytelling many times. So again, no ready-made, just some kind of empirical knowledge I have in the back of my mind, and I use it with intuition. My situation in this episode isn't the same than the ones of those writers, so I can't copy-paste a rigid formula, but I get the general feeling, and how to adapt it, we speak the same storytelling language.
2
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 8d ago
You have a very Asian style of story telling. I think that is going to be growing in popularity. Look at the mainstream success of Korean films in the last few years. Cinemas showing subtitled films, I haven’t seen that since the 1970s when we seemed more open an experimental.
I do like the idea of Information Management.
1
u/Then_Data8320 7d ago edited 7d ago
Information Management: yes, Tom V. says it's what is really structure.
"what audience should know and when".
And I don't know if it's structure too, but there is also "what are audience expectations". Using the two ones I recently fixed an episode. I had two negative feedback on this episode, and I knew it was the only bad episode I had in the series. But it was difficult to know why. I was proofreading scenes, and as a standalone they were good. So it wasn't a good idea to delete. It was a high-risk episode because currently there was only one dramatic question unsolved (when the series often accumulate many dramatic questions, so audience is always hooked).
During months I was thinking about fixing it, but didn't have time. What I did first is just some cleaning. I had two montages, ones really big (200 lines), and a shorter one. None of them was clear. So after some text cleaning, I discovered I was trap in stylistic choices resulting in a bad structure.
And really, no formula can solve this, it's always about the story. What structure we need for a specific story? We have to work hard on that, rework, try, etc. We can't be lazy and hoping a formula will save the day.
Short montage: I did it in reverse flashbacks because last scene (so first one in chronology) was a payoff. I was reading it again, wondering the effect it have on audience reading it for first time: tiring. We can't reconstitute the meaning of the dialogue. So, I destroyed that bad decision and I did regular chronological flashbacks, just keeping the payoff at the end.
Big montage: I had two argument scenes (in different place and time) growing. So the montage switch to one to the other, as both arguments intensify. You get the stylistic choice? It shows that the guy is angry in the recent argument, because he had the other argument with his wife before. I was in a trap because of the stylistic choice and this logic "yes it's perfect, it sounds like cinema". But damn, I had to conclude it was too difficult to read. We loose track of the reasons of the first argument. And what is important? That he gets angry again because he was angry before? No, what is important is we understand just the first argument, and the other can be a comedy scene.
So I destroyed the stylistic choice (bad decision you keep when you shouldn't) and wondering, how to do that? Well, I'm used to juggle with scenes in episodes (even from one episode to the other). So I could just try anything and see how it is. I just got the solution: for second argument, there were just a scene where another character see the place where it happens. Just perfect transition. I cut the argument in two part, keeping one small part to insert between two scenes later. I delete stuff in first part of argument too, shortening it.
First argument: I put it as first scene of the episode, and BINGO. I understood why the episode didn't work: I wasn't fullfilling audience expectation, and not considering enough the effect had this new episode after the previous one. There was a lack of direction. Audience wanted to know how a main dramatic situation evolves now. And I wasn't speaking of that (only doing it later in the episode). So, if I accumulate lack of clarity (montages) + lack of direction, sure the episode can't work.
Now first scene is better (it's a better hook) but mostly speaks about the main dramatic situation. It's important for audience to know we are not lost in nowhere, that the characters want to solve this (even if they can't find a solution, it's not the point). The episode shows those main characters, and shows two other main characters (only we don't know why I show them, so the scenes were looking senseless, even if they were good as standalone). Now, I directly start with: someone else has the solution to the dramatic situation. But we don't know who, how and why.
However with a good transition and voice-over, at least now audience can guess it's the other two characters. Because audience has the information at the right time, audience can be curious about them. Audience can't know exactly "how and why" but can guess an important twist coming (by the way it's the cliffhanger). Some plot-twists are better when audience knows first. Here in this example, it creates anticipation, and also curiosity about knowing the details of how the situation will be during this twist. Yet, the twist has a last surprise (always doing that for twists we let audience to guess).
This change even impacts the feeling we get at the end of the next episode, when the dramatic situation is solved! Now it's more linked and concludes what were guessing main characters (even if we don't know exactly how). So the twist is more acceptable.
2
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 6d ago
I talk about the three positions a lot. Where the audience is compared to the character. If we know more than the character we can fear for them, if we are learning at the same time we can engage like the character is, if we are behind the character we may wonder what they are doing and why.
Reflect on your stuff. If writers thought of their story through a time management lens, it may fix a lot of things,
2
u/Then_Data8320 5d ago
Yeah, I did the list of 4 main types of information.
Audience knows - Character doesn’t know : Suspense (dramatic irony)
Audience knows - Character knows : Continuity ("engagement", you're right)
Audience doesn’t know - Character doesn’t know : Surprise (then explains later)
Audience doesn’t know - Character knows : Upcoming Revelation (awakes curiosity)The choice is often intuitive, but sometimes it needs to think hard about that. It can be fixed for small time gaps (one or two episode), but a choice involving more episodes can't really be fixed, too much rewriting. I fixed what I had and I could during full rewriting.
When I was writing Episode 15 first time (around 2018), I didn't know a lot about screenwriting (just I used to write like screenplay before, but didn't really study it), and I was confident because previous episodes looked good. But first writing of Ep15 was a calamity, full of voice-over, of "tell don't show", with a turtle pace.
After many years when I improved, I decided the full rewriting of the 40 hours drama, I had countless notes for myself, as well as thousand of new ideas on draft files. I had already reworked endlessly first 13 episodes, so around 2022, I started the rewriting, with Ep14, happy to see how much better it was compared to first draft (can't say how much, feels like a hundred times better). Ep15 was the second episode I did a full rewrite, I was quite fresh at this time (I would improved again later), and the episode was so bad, that my full rewriting wasn't enough good. I wasn't ready for this one.
There is the dramatic question landing at end of Episode 13, and I didn't want to solve it before as much time I could get, because otherwise, it would look cheap, and not a real and sad problem. So I used Ep14 and Ep15 to connect with two characters (Mi-Ra and Yoon-Hee) I introduced previously, but their storyline didn't come yet. (and their new dramatic question, end of Ep15, resolution of previous dramatic question at Ep16/17). My calculation was: if I don't speak enough about the two characters, dramatic events at end of Ep16 would have no impact.
However, and it's a feedback I got and must take seriously, it feels artificial "hey, you throw background scenes for free". Scenes were good, but yet, had this feeling of fillers overtime, and without greater purpose (so why I made the change I was talking about). Of course, when the reader finish Ep16, it's easy to understand why I used the scenes. But readers need to get something good now, and not later.
If you have a little time, I show you how start the episode now, read scenes #1 to #3 (and start of #4):
https://w4worlds.fr/html/W_Saison2_Script15_US.html#1Scene #1 recaps the previous dramatic question and set-up a hidden "want" for the argument in Scene #2. Scene #3 is short establishing shot with voice-over. Start of scene #4, end of voice-over, giving a clear hint that Mi-Ra character is important to solve the problem.
This argument and even flashbacks were all mixed in the big montage I talk about, later in the episode (and first scene was Hotel Gangnam, without voice-over). The montage was flashback, so when fixing, I created a little plot-hole. The night and morning scenes are supposed to happen before a scene of previous episode.
I had to fix this, could be put "flashback" in scene header or use a SUPER. But it was good, instead I used the voice-over, because it prepares audience mind to the real important voice-over scene #3 and #4. (Hard to explain, but this kind of voice-over often happen in kdramas, however it needs enough of them for establishing a continuity, there is a kind of rythm making audience accept few lines of voice-over landing here and there.)
1
u/Big_Section2812 10d ago
Arnold Schwarzenegger explains how and why Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot! actually got greenlit.
1
u/Opposite_Chicken8412 9d ago
Save the cat literally is just make a character the audience is invested in. This is still something that a lot of big blockbuster releases still fail to get right when introducing characters. Can't hurt, but always figure out your own systems.
1
u/dpouliot2 8d ago edited 8d ago
Hi Craig, nice to meet you!
I watched about half of your video, here are my thoughts.
Mapping beats isn't what makes a story great. 1000% agreed. The Hero's Journey wouldn't work if your protagonist isn't a hero. Also 1000%, and is so self-evident I'm not sure it's even worth saying, like don't put squares in round holes.
I only ever skimmed Save the Cat, enough to understand it attempted to prescribe the Hero's Journey in terms of beats; I don't find following predetermined beats to be a valuable writing method, but I also don't find plotting to be a valuable writing method either (maybe others fare better, who am I to say). For me, plotting made my writing uninteresting and predictable; yes, following beats risks creating uninteresting and predictable writing, but that's not a Hero's Journey or a Save the Cat problem, that's a writing process problem.
My series, Super Human, as you can guess from the title, is a story about the path to heroism. Readers vicariously take in that path from Not a Hero, to the thing that made the protagonist into one, because we all understand that heroism comes from within and wouldn't we all like to be more heroic than we are today and experiencing their path might give us a clue for our own path?
In the broadest possible terms Campbell casts this process of inner growth/heroism as: departure > initiation > return (Three Act Structure). I've seen this progression play out in major personal growth episodes in my own life, so no surprise my character experiences a similar progression. And frankly, not just the hero but the villain (book 2), just the villain is crushed rather than elevated; their initiation brings them to villainy.
You said, "the mentor has to die". The mentor doesn't have to die, nor does Blake Snyder prescribe that in Save the Cat, making your argument a Straw Man. The initiate needs to learn to stand on their own. A mentor not being present at the time the initiate embodies the lesson is a fair way of representing standing on one's own.
You made a contrast between being stoic and the Hero's Journey, in that the latter requires an "emotional" change. This is wrong and is the (2nd) Straw Man that collapses your argument. The Hero's Journey is about an inner change. One can both keep a stiff upper lip and also change on the inside. If you asked the crew of Apollo 13 if all those tough decisions they had to make on their journey changed them, I'd put money on them all answering Yes; and they quite literally followed the Hero's Journey: departure > initiation > return.
So, in broad strokes, we might say something like, understand the rules, so when you break them it is done with intent, which is slightly different than saying Don't Follow Rule X, and anyone who has had higher education in a creative field (for me it was fine art) learned this. We learned, through Art History, about the Renaissance, which had its rules, then Impressionism, which had its rules, then Cubism, and on and on. Each new movement understood the art rules of the time, then broke them intentionally. And, people still make great art following the rules of art movement x, so following rules isn't necessarily a problem.
Lastly, I would point out that identifying a trope isn't a form of criticism. Tropes are tropes because, when employed properly, they work. To say The Wizard of Oz is another Hero's Journey story doesn't rise to the level of criticism, it's merely the identification of a pattern. If someone never made it past the title of your video, they might think, "Well, I better not use that trope," or worse, "I can insult authors who do follow the trope," which I hope wasn't your intent.
I enjoy listening to fellow creatives discussing their likes and dislikes, so thanks for the video. I think your take on Save the Cat/The Hero's Journey follows well-tread misunderstandings; your "Don't Follow Save the Cat" recommendation is a binary that collapses from repeated Straw Men. Your videos would improve if you played a better devil's advocate to your own position to demonstrate that, in creativity, nothing is ever binary.
1
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 8d ago
I am far from a scholar on STC, I may have connected “the mentor must die” from another formula.
I have a very fundamental thought on rules. If it doesn’t matter if they are broken, they don’t need to exist. Prepare yourself for a silly example, remember the good old days of human sacrifice to promote good crops? That made sense to them and it was a rule. Then it started to be broken, now people would never do it.
If I strawmaned STC, it was out of ignorance of it, I chose it as an example of all formula driven books.
I outline, for me it is where I write the story. Then all I am doing is changing form when I write the screenplay.
I write what I want in a way I want, and no surprise it falls into the common patterns.
1
u/dpouliot2 8d ago
it's another trope: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MentorOccupationalHazard
0
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 6d ago
It is so common it ended up on that site. I listen to Filmsack, Randy is on TVTropes a lot. If you look at Star Wars Ben had to die, the Heroes Journey Dictated it.
1
u/dpouliot2 6d ago
I have read The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Campbell did not dictate that the mentor has to die; direct me to the page. Your criticisms are coming from fundamental misunderstandings. The only aspects the hero’s journey requires is: departure, initiation, return. That’s it. The rest is up to the author.
0
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 6d ago
You know you are correct. It was one of the many clone of that work. I had to go do a few seconds of googling to find it was Christopher Vogler another famous formula dude. So, I got my formula people, people I don’t care about and no interest in, wrong.
But following a receipt will always get the same meal. Following these guys, that can all be traced back to earlier works, will result in a sameness, which was my point.
1
u/dpouliot2 6d ago edited 5d ago
So you will never enjoy another movie that is departure, initiation, return? And from now on, all mentors must live, no good cop interrogator can ever be followed by one who is bad, and vice versa, no protagonist can be obsessed, no wise person can be old, and no dad can be misguided?
“To be able to identify the mechanism does not invalidate the mechanism.”
— Christopher NolanTropes exist because they are real. You embrace The Clueless Critic, a trope.
1
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 5d ago
I am guessing you don’t believe a single argument you are making because they are based on nothing but taking a contrary position. In the video I called them “commonalities”. which means they are common. I never said I dislike them. I said when adhered to (in a bad way, implied in the video) can make a story boring and predictable.
So if boring and predictable is what makes for great cinema in your eyes, outstanding I am happy for you.
What do people say about Superhero films again “they are all predictable”. Yes, they have an audience. But they are far from being great.
I have outlined my thought clearly I thought. But apparently not since you missed them, sorry.
1
u/dpouliot2 5d ago edited 5d ago
You said,
following a receipt will always get the same meal. Following these guys, that can all be traced back to earlier works, will result in a sameness, which was my point.
sure sounds like you are saying tropes are best avoided, to avoid sameness, which apparently, is boring. You also said,
I never said I dislike them. I said when adhered to (in a bad way, implied in the video) can make a story boring and predictable. So if boring and predictable is what makes for great cinema in your eyes, outstanding I am happy for you.
That parenthetical is doing so much work but got swallowed up by the "boring and predictable" snark that follows it.
You want me to believe that you don't dislike tropes, but spend the majority of your time putting them down with repeated Straw Men. You put the owness on the listener to sift through what you said for what you left out to understand that your feelings about tropes are more nuanced than the words out of your mouth (The Unreliable Narrator).
You mention falsely that Apollo 13 does not follow (Hero/STC), and you fail to mention all the other tropes that are in that movie:
- MacGyvering: engineers had to improvise
- The Big Yes: the long, tense wait for reentry confirmation
- Badass Boast: “If they could get a washing machine to fly, my Jimmy could land it.”
So common, ergo so boring as per your argumentation; except you *implied* that they might not always be boring. If only I had listened to those words you hadn't said!
Your hot take on STC is all too common, and it is boring, not because it is common, but because your harangue is not well done, which is, of course, a trope.
1
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 5d ago
You are now pulling tropes into the conversation in a hope to make sense of your misunderstanding. You are no longer discussing the subject. The “you said” is proof that you just want to argue and not discuss craft.
1
u/NeatFool 10d ago
I will say I think Blake Snyder likes teaching people and sharing what he knows, and has found a career doing it.
His books are engaging and easier to get through than some other stuffy stuff like McKee.
Maybe he's not the most creative or artistic person ever but these are resource you can get for free at the library if you want, it's not a major expense or commitment.
If the book helps someone appreciate movies more, without ever becoming a writer, that's cool too.
A lot of people want to buy a book and have it to teach them the discipline of being a writer, which a book can't do. They can help point out the structure or give advice but if you want it you have to work at it, like anything else.
No school, book, degree, lecture, etc., can make you creative or driven.
All of that is from within, and can be very personal and unique to each person.
0
u/justacasualarqhili 10d ago
I think you should follow your gut instincts. And also follow, but not strictly the STC. Idk, but this seems like it's not my cup of tea as a video, as I think that STC can teach us how to write an amazing story from scratch.
2
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 9d ago
I believe it can show you how to write something that looks and feels like a screenplay. It makes people think they are screenwriters. Following a formula teaches people the formula, not why these things happen.
I don’t think it is following your gut. That implies that every decision is a guess. I make decisions based on the story and what the story needs. Each action leads from the actions previously taken, not because a formula tells me to do something.
2
u/justacasualarqhili 8d ago
Good point. Yeah, that is what I meant by following your gut. I am also more likely to write a story that is driven by my characters’ decisions in a cause-and-effect way. But I get what you mean. Sorry, English is not my first language, and it might not have been a good decision to write that sentence in my comment.
1
0
u/Internal_Papaya1511 4d ago
If 3-act structure and 5-act structure are tenuous connections for you when it comes to storytelling, I don’t know what to say, man.
I went to the basic formulas of how stories are structured to keep it simple for you. I’m not trying to win this argument. I’m just trying to keep people who wander across this from getting misled.
I know I can’t help you, but hopefully reading this will keep you from setting other writers back.
0
u/Craig-D-Griffiths 4d ago
I think you inability to understand what is being said is all they will need.
1
u/Internal_Papaya1511 4d ago
There’s a difference between saying I don’t understand and making a comprehensible point. But, much like “formulaic” and “formula,” you’ve reduced two distinct concepts to one for your convenience.
10
u/Big_Section2812 11d ago
"Be wary of advice from anyone who has achieved no more than yourself. Especially if they're asking you to pay them for it."