32 Responses to “Screenwriting structure Part 11 your first 10 pages and the Ordinary World”

1. JD on Wednesday: 9 January 2008|1822

   Great f*cking post, man. An easy to understand 10 page rule, for once.

   +1 for the Metallica vid as well.

2. Paula on Wednesday: 9 January 2008|1946

   Holy shit. I feel like somebody hit me with a baseball bat up the side of the head. Elevator scene is gone forever. Theres more in that video than there is my entire scritp. It tells it all. I’m ready to pay.

3. Mike on Wednesday: 9 January 2008|1959

   WoW!
   ‘nough said.

   Regards,

4. Ben on Wednesday: 9 January 2008|2052

   Unk, all your stuff blows me away. I just sent you an email via your contact form. I really hope you read the email and reply. You won’t be sorry.

   Ben

5. Joshua James on Wednesday: 9 January 2008|2129

   Unk,

   You know I LOVE Metallica, right?

   My brother’s band used to do TURN THE PAGE with his band back in the day (the Seegar version, of course) and it always brought the house down. Always. Panties got thrown at the stage. I shit you not. That was his ordinary world back then.

   Now he’s married and settled down and likes to pretend the eighties weren’t nearly as rowdy as some would portray, but hey, I was there. Heh-heh.

   I just saw ONCE and wrote about it on my blog, great flick, and it does just what you say in setting up the world. A Busker (street musician) playing for change, his ordinary day, dealing with drunks stealing his coin, etc.

   Three minutes, tops. And then THE GIRL comes in. Movie shifts, as does the GUY’S world. Right there.

   I do think it depend on the type of film, genre-wise, don’t you? In part, at least. Films like 2001, etc.

   NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, by those pesky Cohen brothers, sorta does that by showing Moss (me old buddy Brolin) out hunting, just like every day.

   Until he sees a wounded pitbull dog out running away from something. And his world changes.

   I thought of this, too, when you wrote this -

   “I recently read a script where the screenwriter didn’t introduce the protagonist until page 22. Of course he had introduced other characters before this and to be honest, I didn’t even know this new character was the fucking protagonist until I read another 25 pages.”

   That’s exactly was FARGO did, right? Except, of course, better. Heh-heh.

   Sounds like someone wanted to emulate Fargo but, uh, didn’t write very well, or you wouldn’t have been pissed.

   A great, great example, one people don’t really think of, is QUEST FOR FIRE, which follows the hero’s journey nearly exactly, and has our protag’s ordinary world set up (for a caveman) up until they lose their fire.

   And no real dialogue, either.

   Great stuff, Unk. Damn it, it’s so much fun to be here instead of working on my scripts.

6. Unk on Wednesday: 9 January 2008|2329

   Josh,

   Fargo does it but to be honest, we’re talking about selling spec scripts, right?

   If an unknown screenwriter submitted Fargo to a producer, I’m almost positive it would get a PASS.

   Is it a good movie? Should it have been made? Of course! There are always exceptions to the rule… Look at THE BIG LEBOWSKI. But again, these guys can do whatever they want to do.

   Should someone trying to break in the business with a spec script emulate screenplays like this?

   Well that’s a tough question because you certainly don’t want to quash someone who might turn out a great script but all things being equal…

   Fargo didn’t do exceptionally well at the boxoffice. It did do well considering that it was only made for something like $7 Mil. *NOTE: I said “exceptionally well” — yes it made money but I sincerely doubt an unknown spec screenwriter could have sold that script.

   So to ME — all things being equal — and knowing what 99% of the producers out there are looking for in a screenplay, my recommendation would be to introduce the Protagonist within the first 10 pages.

   It’s a numbers game… Not unlike playing poker even. You watch your adversaries and analyze them — make note of their weaknesses. You know how they play and you play accordingly but you play STRONGER than the rest.

   Same with a spec… Just because SO and SO does it this way or SO and SO did it that way doesn’t necessarily mean YOU should do it that way if you want to break in the business with a spec script.

   In other words… If two writers were of equal caliber yet one wrote specs with weak ordinary worlds and didn’t introduce his or her protagonist within the first 10 pages and the other writer of the same caliber did, who do you think is in a better position to sell their screenplay?

   All the conventions in the world can fly out the window after you make it. You can break all the new ground you want after you make it. Because after you make it, they stand in line believing in just about everything you write…

   Until it bombs.

   Which is WHY FARGO was made for $7 Mil. Not a lot of risk there. If they’d made it for $30 Mil, it’d been a lot rougher…

   Whether you want to believe it or not — by and large — the producers in this business are in it to make money. Some are in it to make less money and better films which is good because without them — we’d have no FARGOs.

   And since 99% of producers and prodcos are looking for the same kinds of written stories but just written better than anything else they’ve seen, why not give them that until you get your foot in the door?

   Some people might call that selling out.

   Bullshit. That’s being smart because the writing always shines through.

   Unk

7. Joshua James on Thursday: 10 January 2008|0813

   Hey Unk,

   I totally agree with you and am not in any way trying to argue regarding FARGO. For me, it’s fascinating in terms of story. That story works, and part of the reason it works is that it does the opposite of what it’s supposed to do in terms of how the story is told. But it is executed so with SOOO well that how it’s told makes it successful.

   We both know that execution matters most, we never argue about that.

   I mean, I’ve also read scripts that did just what you’ve mentioned, introduced the protag in the first ten pages, showed the ordinary world, had the inciting incident, etc. and still it sucked, mainly because the writer didn’t have, well, talent. Didn’t make the story breathe.

   Couldn’t execute, in other words.

   But again, I’m not arguing with you at all about this post. I know what you wrote works, and it’s what I love about most movies, the story shift from ordinary to extra-ordinary is one of my favorites.

   Can I riff a little bit on this? We’re just talking, right? It’s early in the morning here before I take off and lemme spin some of the juice sloshing around in my noggin.

   Like producers, I’m also in this to make money. And FARGO made money. Now the film itself didn’t make exceptional money, but winning an Oscar for a screenplay turns itself into much more money that that for the writer or writers. It makes a career. It translates into dollars.

   I mean, to be brutally honest, I’m looking for more than one script sale, I want a career. That means writing a lot of scripts and taking risks with them. And while I’d never plan on winning an award (because how can you do that? You can’t, it’s a PR contest, it’s outa a writer’s hands) one thing I do note is that scripts that reach that level do something out of the norm, takes risks and usually do it so well that directors / producers fall in love with it and champion it.

   I think a TV writer wrote on a blog about fashioning your TV spec, do you do it copy the style seamlessly or take a huge risk and do something never been done before. She mentions that taking a risk means people may not like it, actually probably won’t, but if done right, means someone could fall in love with it. She cites a LOST spec told from the POV of Vincent, the dog on the show. Never been done before. Totally got attention from the hundreds of other LOST specs.

   I believe you’ve spoken about this when you’ve discussed CUBED, right?

   Again, I think some producers are also looking to fall in love with something unique enough that stamps their identity, and to do that you may have to break some rules, which you can do as long as you know you can write well.

   Fargo turned a genre on its head (like a lot of Oscar-winners, Pulp, of course, American Beauty, etc) and it’s been copied relentlessly since (as evidenced by the spec you read, and the number of pregnant protags we’ve had since) and usually copied badly.

   So the trick, in my mind, is to also have one of those scripts in my library as well. One I love, that I took risks with and one I know I’m going to hear that it’s great, but:

   A-movies like this aren’t told in this fashion.
   or
   B-movies like this don’t make money.

   And they’ll be right . . . until they’re *not* right. You know?

   I’ve got stuff like that, among others. Stuff I know would break out.

   Okay, I’m doing it again. I’m sorry. I’ll crawl back to my blog.

   It’s just so much fun to talk this stuff over with ya, you know. It ain’t like the theatre people in New York can converse with with me about it, heh-heh.

8. Unk on Thursday: 10 January 2008|1016

   Josh,

   Always feel free to riff… That’s what it’s all about, right?

   I wasn’t arguing with you either… LOL. Just clarifying a few things.

   I submit to you however, that FARGO might not have worked had the Coen Brothers not made it. Imagine different actors, different direction, different music.

   I am not convinced that another director could have made that movie and subsequently won the awards and accolades that it did win.

   Which is not a lot different than a Quentin Tarantino movie… Would it work if someone else made it? I’m not convinced that it would.

   You said, “I mean, to be brutally honest, I’m looking for more than one script sale, I want a career. That means writing a lot of scripts and taking risks with them.”

   I don’t disagree with that… I don’t actually know anyone that wants only one script sale. Everybody I know who’s writing screenplays wants a career. And yes, you have to write a lot of scripts and yes you take risks with the material.

   However, risk doesn’t have to be introducing the Protagonist 28/29 pages into the script… LOL. Risk can be just about anything. It can be characters, subject matter, locations, etc. It doesn’t always have to be structure and to be honest… Until somebody can really execute WELL, I’d highly recommend that they be careful emulating people like the Coens and QT.

   If for no other reason than so they CAN break in and start a career. LOL. I’m not saying don’t break the rules… Shit, I break them every fucking day. I’m not saying to NOT write screenplays like that… What I am saying however, is that you have to break in first. Break in and you can do anything you want just about.

   I’m not even saying one couldn’t break in with a script like what we’re talking about. Anything’s possible but is it probable?

   Nope.

   Every amazing musician I know and I know a few… Can play all the classical stuff. They had to learn the hard way before they could take risks that WORKED. I don’t think writing screenplays is very different from that analogy.

   The guidelines I outline here are not only from a screenwriting perspective but from a producer’s perspective as well.

   Nobody’s trying to quash experimentation and risk taking but let me just say this… I won’t be reading any more scripts from the writer who introduced the Protagonist on page 22. Nor will I read any more scripts from the writer who missed all the opportunities with the salesman on the road script.

   Somebody might make those films — we won’t. If the script where said Protag came in at page 22 were amazing in every other way then I would be happy to read more of this writer’s material.

   It wasn’t. It was obvious that this writer didn’t have the skill to pull off what he tried to pull off.

   In other words, had that script simply been structured to make just a little more sense and get things moving just a little faster, we might not have shitcanned the script. We might have gone back to the writer and made some suggestions and if the writer was willing to consider those suggestions — we’d probably read it again. Assuming he tweak as per.

   All because the structure would have been there.

   But we can do that because we’re in charge. We’re the ones that obtain the financing so in our position, we go with what we have reason to believe WORKS.

   You can write a great screenplay — as good as FARGO — win awards, develop a career and all that and still have good structure.

   I think I would be remiss if I were to suggest or recommend to people trying to become better screenwriters to go ahead and emulate writers like the Coens or QT to break into the business.

   If however, I read a first script from someone that knocked me out, I would of course be willing to read anything that writer put in front of me — no matter what kind of structure they use.

   As you hinted… Talent shines through everything… Even bad structure. Unfortunately, talent doesn’t come along every day. Talent can do whatever it wants and it usually does.

   Having said that… I think FARGO would have worked just as well if Marge had come in by page 10. LOL.

   Unk

9. bobbie on Thursday: 10 January 2008|1227

   Speaking as a pro screenwriter, I’d have to say let people like the Coens and Quentin Tarantino do what they do and you do what you do. Find your own voice but find it through building your foundation of knowledge, most of which, you can get right here on Unk’s site. Emulation is fine to assist in finding that voice but should never be relied on because chances are you won’t be able to pull it off as well as the guy who you are emulating. Fargo aside, I’d still rather see a movie quickly set up the protagonist’s world and introduce the protagonist so we can get moving. Not only would I rather see a movie like that but so do the vast majority of film goers. Which is one of the reasons producers want screenplays that do the same thing. Good post. Still waiting on that 4 act structure!

10. Joshua James on Thursday: 10 January 2008|2236

    Hey Unk,

    Agree on many parts, just a few notes on the subject and then if there’s more I’ll email ya, simply becuz I don’t wanna sound like I’m getting all up in ya grill or nothing, you know that’s not me, I just love dishing this stuff with you, I feel it makes me think harder about why I do what I do, just by having to define it to you, you know? This is the good stuff, you know?

    1) I know some pretty amazing musicians as well, maybe not as many as you, but a decent share. And they’re quite often classically trained as well, because it’s tough and disciplined and not only does one learn more about the craft, one learns about themselves.

    But you know what one of them told me about classical music?

    “You can’t dance to it”

    He also said, “You learn the rules so you know which ones you’re gonna break and exactly why you’re breaking them.”

    2) I don’t agree FARGO would be a better movie if Marge came in on the first 10 pages. I think it’d be a bit more predictable, maybe, I don’t know. I feel one of the interesting themes was the ordinary world reversed. Instead of an ordinary person going about their ordinary life until a dastardly criminal comes in and upsets the apple cart, instead we meet a crooked car salesmen and nasty kidnappers FIRST, who kill and do terrible things, that’s their world, until they run into the ordinary mundane world of Marge Gunderson. And it totally flipped the genre, and was unique and engaging because of it.

    I’d hazard a guess that the poor bastard to introduced his protag late in his crappy script, the one you refer to, may not have done it because it was the right choice for that specific script, but rather because FARGO did it so he could do it.

    So his mistake was that he made a choice for his story for the wrong reason.

    That’s my take, but I could be wrong, I didn’t read it. He could also just suck.

    3) No one ever INTENDS to sell only one script, but we know that there are people it happens to. And what’s interesting is that they sometimes end up selling the same script, over and over again.

    A TV director I know who was working on a made for TV movie was complaining about the writer, said he was just recycling an old Rockford files script he’d written twenty years earlier. I know this happens to some film writers as well.

    And hey, they’re making a living, they’re working as a writer, I don’t say that to slander them, no sir.

    Just that, to me, I want more than that as a career, personally. I look up to Bill Goldman more than anyone, in terms of the material he’s been able to handle. He does a lot of things well, and in challenging ways, too.

    Not that there won’t be themes and genres that have a close flavor in my work, but I want a career more than just the guy who does (insert cliche’) type o’ movies - since we’re talking, that’s what I want.

    I hope to strive to be exceptional, and that means, as you put it to me once when I first came here, “looking at everything, reading everything, learning everything” which, I gotta tell ya, rang my bell. Made me think long and hard about what I wanted to do, how I wanted to do it and how those guys ahead of me did what I’d like to do. Guys like Goldman, guys like the Cohens, guys like YOU, dude. All of ya. To really perceive it as an organic craft rather than only expression, if that makes sense.

    And part of what I got outa it (and my theatre training crap) is understanding that by sometimes doing things in a challenging way is the right choice. It doesn’t mean not using structure, ignoring it or not looking at things in the classical sense, not to me.

    It means getting that different things work in different situations and what might work perfectly for one specific story may be completely wrong for another. It doesn’t mean I’m rejecting what you write here, far from it, I endorse it and use the same structure in stuff I several of my scripts (and a novel) and plays -

    But sometimes, bold things which break the rules take notice . . . a lot of folks are slagging on the “last act” of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, and I understand why some people had certain expectations, but a lot of people were wowed by it, including me and the film geeks I dish with this stuff about. I’d also note that 3:10 TO YUMA, a film I enjoyed very much, has a very classical structure to it, and it works perfectly. It was a great film. But to me, it didn’t have the impact of NO COUNTRY.

    It’s exceptional, and other scripts are exceptional which deviate from certain formats or forms, and it’s not just a black swan event, it’s not random.

    It’s because, and here is just my opinion, that each story has a structure that’s exactly right for it. And while lots of stories have commonalities of structure, just like biology, we all have common biology and bone structure, they are also fundalmentally different. Like people.

    Some of us are seven feet tall and are good at basketball. And some of us are five feet tall and can ride a horse like the wind. But putting Yao Ming on Seabiscuit will win us nothing. So sometimes figuring out structure is part and parcel of figuring out, what is this athlete built for, exactly. That’s why I said genre matters, because different stories have differing demands, in sense, like different athletic disciplines (though I’m sensing that metaphor may be sagging, LOL!)

    Anyway, let me say again, none of this is to argue, not at all, we’re just talking about it and the differing demands of things. You’re right, in that if someone else wrote FARGO and took it to the studios, they would pass on it. And me, I think that’s a mistake. Because the film was exceptional and successful. And of course everyone knows all the major studios passed on Pulp Fiction, that’s a common trope by now that everyone is sick of hearing about, but it did happen. And it was a mistake, because not only was the film innovative, it was financially successful.

    Just like people emulate the “standard” films like CASABLANCA and the like, because McKee cites them, folks will also do that with films like FARGO and PF, and like they do with the others, will write them badly. It’ll happen. I’ve read ‘em, lots of people have.

    And writing under certain proven structures is a smart way to write, no doubt about it.

    But there will be those which break the mold, and we need to honor those stories too.

    forgive my damned long-winded-ness, like I said, I just love talking shop with you, I do.

11. Christian Howell on Friday: 11 January 2008|1451

    More gold from the UNK one. That was a great clip of a protag. The big thing was its visual cues. I try to show things like clothing, hairstyle, walk, hand movements, a smile or a frown.

    I would NEVER borrow from anyone’s style because I want to be loved or hated for my voice. The funny thing is that I have been pushing a story that may get a boost by the wide acceptance of Juno.

    Every story I have seems to intro the protag’s world in the first 5 minutes. Sometimes I’ll throw in a scene that sets the tone for the action. Sometimes. it’s just the protag going about their normal day.

    Where I like to really differentiate is with the inciting incident. Sometimes it can be as simple as moving to a new neighborhood, starting at a new school or perhaps letting someone use a computer or an incorrectly addressed package. (Yes, those are actual script examples)

    But then, everything about screenwriting gives me he worst goosebumps ever. I find myself watching movies I’ve already seen to analyze character and mostly the images as they apply to the story, whether it’s a character drama or a fantasy comedy.

    Right now I’m off work watching “Galaxy Quest” which is about 10 movies in one, but it all works. It combines a yearning to hold onto the past while trying to live in the present. It shows camaraderie in the face of danger, the innocence of children (and their usefulness), the frustration of lost-fame and even a space-borne antagonist that forces everyone to grow. And it does all of this using the ubiquitous SciFi convention. Wow.

    It’s just unfortunate that I have a non-disclosure agreement with myself. Some of my scripts have some great stuff (I think).

    And speaking of scripts that miss opportunities, a few months ago I took a non-paying job to write a short for someone. This producer had no idea of how human nature plays into movies. The gist of it was a character who had everything going for him but knowingly sacrifices his life for a no-good sibling who kills an undercover cop in a drug deal gone bad.

    Perhaps you could figure out how to have a character do that, but I couldn’t. Maybe you should do a write-up on human nature as it applies to believability in stories. Or maybe I will.

    See ya.

    And,

    Keep writing as writing is the Revealing of the Soul.

12. Tom on Friday: 11 January 2008|2021

    Re: Fargo. It kind of makes sense for the protag to be introduced later — and this is kind of what Josh is getting at, I think — because she comes in after the crime is committed (actually, I don’t know that for sure, been a while since I’ve seen it). But in terms of story, it shows the crime, now we meet who’s going to solve the crime. It is reversed, kind of.

    I think Bullitt might do this as well, but in a much more condensed way. If I recall, the opening is the criminals, then we meet McQueen, who’s going to nab those criminals.

    Or I could just be full of it, I’ve already had 2 beers.

    Anyway, I do have to say, UNK, I’m glad you made this stipulation:

    “The ordinary world of your Protagonist doesn’t necessarily have to be a location either… It could simply be their state of mind.”

    Cause this is exactly how the script I’m working on works. It saved me a post asking, “what if the ordinary world is the protag’s outlook on life?”

    Though I am irked that I’ve had Duran Duran’s Ordinary World stuck in my head all day.

13. Unk on Friday: 11 January 2008|2029

    bobbie,

    It’s coming… LOL.

    Josh,

    Always UP for a good discussion about this… I don’t think you’re all up in my grill… LOL. You’re definitely allowed to have an opinion. Where else are we going to have these kinds of discussions where everyone benefits? Not even some of the screenwriting forums have as good debates as we’ve had right here.

    You said, “But you know what one of them told me about classical music?

    “You can’t dance to it”

    Hmmm. You can’t? Hmmm. So what were they dancing ballet to way back when? What about 16th Century renaissance dance? Especially 16th Century Italian and French dance?

    I think what your musician buddy MIGHT HAVE MEANT was that you can’t dance today’s dances to classical music but even THAT statement is ridiculous.

    Meaning that I think your musician friend got to the gist of this debate right there… Even the overwhelming majority of dancers — professional dancers — have to learn the basics. I’m not talking about a genius like Michael Jackson who can watch someone perform any dance and pretty much clone it right on the spot. That’s genius. We’re not talking about genius.

    You said, “He also said, “You learn the rules so you know which ones you’re gonna break and exactly why you’re breaking them.”

    Exactly. I’ve said that here on the site more times that I can recall and that’s inherently the PROBLEM I see all the time… Nobody knows the rules that you’re talking about. LOL.

    They think they do but they don’t… Or, at the very least… It doesn’t seem to show up in their screenplays.

    I’m not advocating predictable formulaic writing. You’ve seen my structure thesis. It wasn’t written to include every single story element within each beat although I do list them because they serve mainly to JOG the OLD MEMORY for ideas.

    I have no doubt that I could sit down and write a screenplay and introduce the Protagonist on page 28 and up until that point, it would still be an entertaining read.

    Would it have the emotional impact that I’d like it to have? Hard to say… Always depends on the story.

    I go back to my humble opinion however… Let the Coens be the Coens. Let QT be QT. I don’t want to write like either one of them. I don’t want to copy or emulate some “trick” that they managed to pull off in one of their stories.

    Which is what happens time after time after time… Somebody saw it in such and such film or read it in such and such screenplay and attempts to pull off very much the same thing.

    Again, you went right to the point of this debate… Create the structure that WORKS for the story… Do not attempt to use someone else’s structure for your story.

    Well the ONLY way I can see someone being able to create the structure that works for the story is to know basic structure to begin with i.e., know the rules so you can break ‘em.

    Just because somebody throws their protagonist on page 22 doesn’t mean it’s RIGHT for that story because they are the author of that story. It’s right as long as either:

    1) They are financing the film
    2) They aren’t trying to sell the script
    3) They are writing the screenplay as an experiment
    4) They are writing the screenplay for the experience
    5) The CHARACTER(S) in the story made it happen that way

    I’m sure I could come up with a few more instances but when it comes to trying to sell a spec… Which is what this site is much more about than anything else, sometimes you just have to swallow your artistic pride and go with what really works.

    Again, I will cave in to the fact that someone like Quentin Tarantino comes along and the talent SHINES through like a motherfucker. Especially in his early stuff when he was hungry.
    
    *NOTE TO SELF: NEVER LOSE THE HUNGER.

    I do not advocate that everyone write the same shit but I do advocate having a roadmap that leads you through to the end of the story.

    It’s your characters that decide whether or not a particular landmark is worth getting off the map for. When they do, THAT’S usually the time things get really interesting and structure turns ORGANIC and things start to happen.

    And so you go off the map from time to time but always end up at your destination. Then you go back and analyze your trip. Most likely it works in some places and not others.

    Having said that, knowing good overall structure from the get-go and having it as a reference nearby is always a good thing to do. Again, I’m not saying one never stray from good structure when the characters speak to you and want to head off in a different direction to their destination. That’s where good stuff begins to happen. I guess one could easily rip apart someone else’s structure from a similar type film and start writing to it but in my experience, it usually doesn’t work because you’re forcing it to adhere to someone else’s imagination.

    Which is why the Coens and QT can do what they do… They know when they come up with an idea that it may or may not defy solid screenplay structure but they don’t care because they are the ones making the film. They’ve visualized those scenes thousands of times and probably know pretty well how they intend to pull it off.

    Spec screenwriters aren’t so lucky…

    But they can still create their story’s roadmap and they can still deviate from that roadmap when the characters INSIST on it. That’s the kind of writing I advocate. That’s the kind of writing I find interesting.

    When I read between the lines, it almost feels as if some think that using a tried and true type of structure is formulaic. Sure, it can definitely BE formulaic ESPECIALLY when that writer copies from other films i.e., creates derivative and cliché story elements that we’ve seem much too often.

    But that’s where your ORGANIC STRUCTURE should take over from your well-planned roadmap or outline… If you know your characters and they are truly authentic and individual — not simply created in the image of some other well known character we’ve seen too many times before, then your imagination should kick in and cause you to turn derivation and cliché on its EAR.

    Unfortunately, that RARELY HAPPENS but whoa… WHEN IT DOES? You’ve really got something.

    In fact and dare I say it… One could create good structure and follow it with all their screenplays and as long as there’s little or no derivation or cliché, it will probably work and be unpredictable because of their imagination.

    Imagination is often the only real key ingredient lacking from a lot of otherwise well written screenplays. I can’t tell you how many well written screenplays I’ve read that could easily be made into a movie and maybe even make some money but the events, obstacles, and climax were all derived from other movies.

    Either the writer thinks that this is what Hollywood is looking for or they have no real imagination of their own. Either way, those screenplays are most likely DOOMED or maybe headed for a direct to DVD deal but even then, I know direct to DVD producers that still want originality.

    Just let me say AGAIN that I’m all for breaking the rules but you have to KNOW the fucking rules in order to break them unless you’re a genius with inherent talent that shines through no matter what.

    To ME, organic structure comes from the characters. You want them to start out from point A and end up at point Z. You create a roadmap or outline to get them there but you only do this after you’ve created and gotten to know those characters as well as you know your closest friends and family members. Maybe even know them more than that.

    Now you start your characters out on their journey via the roadmap. As you create situations, events, and obstacles, those characters SHOULD react with a mind of their own. Deep in your subconscious, you and that character KNOW the roadmap but here you are writing to the roadmap and that fucking character just won’t let you take him or her down that particular path… They want to go their own way.

    ORGANIC.

    The character has sufficiently grown to the point that they have taken on a life of their own and within a particular point in your story, they’ve grown up enough to make their own Goddamn decisions… LOL.

    ORGANIC.

    So you let them go. But make no mistake… Their decision is based on the knowledge of that fucking roadmap you took so long to map out in the first place.

    NON ORGANIC.

    And combined with that roadmap and their knowledge of the rest of the story and characters, they’ve managed to come to life…

    ORGANIC

    They’ve come to life and say fuck the roadmap which is how it should be…

    ORGANIC.

    But somewhere within that mix of roadmap, story, and character, they are in fact heading to their ultimate destination — just doing it through character instead of the PLANNING.

    NON ORGANIC.

    Which is where your planned out structure changes and you allow it to change for the sake of the characters and of course the story is all the better for it.

    And those changes can happen ANYWHERE along the roadmap.

    ANYWHERE. But in order for them to happen and happen well, I still think you need that roadmap.

    Unk

14. Joshua James on Friday: 11 January 2008|2124

    Unk,

    Couldn’t agree more. I think that last comment you should put up as a post all it’s own, the ORGANIC vs NON-ORGANIC, ect.

    That stuff is gold, pure gold.

    I don’t think my musician friends consider ballet to be “dancing” as they look at dancing, anymore than they consider elevator music to be “music”. But you certainly must agree, while people pay to see other people dance ballet to classical music, folks don’t crowd into clubs on the weekend to dance ballet to classical music themselves. Therein lies an important distinction. Like the difference between kata and fighting. One is not organic, the other is. Ballet isn’t really organic, as that the moves are all prescribed beforehand. A rave is organic by nature.

    But, and here is where we agree, take a classically trained ballet dancer to a club, do some shots and you’ll see some really fucking amazing dancing (I dated a ballet dancer briefly in the 90’s, she was something when we went to the club) and it won’t be ballet. And it won’t be to classical music.

    That’s the thing. Let the monsters loose, right?

    Slight correction - QT was a spec screenwriter and sold a couple things before getting the green light to direct, in fact, he was originally gonna shoot Dogs for 35 grand in black in white, money he made from selling Romance. But originally, he was viewed as a screenwriter.

    Check out REBELS OF THE BACKLOT by Sharon Waxman, if you haven’t yet, you’d dig it. I probably know more than is healthy about QT from my last gig.

    Yeah, I agree about structure, I simply think too many (not you) folks react negatively when they see something good but different (the oft-aforementioned PF) and to me, that hurts the biz and us. We should be taking risks, if we’re good.

    Because it’s how we all evolve, right? Plays used to be three acts with two intermissions (Shepard won a Pulizter in 79 for BURIED CHILD, which is structured just like that) but rarely will modern playwrights do that these days, unless it’s a hugely long opus that’s four or five hours long (Kushner or Stoppard) - most plays are like movies, now, and few even have intermissions. Because the craft, and the structures delivering the stories, evolved.

    It’s not that the other structures don’t work anymore, though (see Kushner, Stoppard) but that folks realized that other structures worked, too.

    I’d note that TV writing follows a very specific structure, with a teaser, three acts, and a tag, and it’s successful because the familiar formula proven successful. Then you get a show that comes along and does things kinda like it, but a little different. And it catches folks by surprise and ends up redefining the whole notion of how the stuff is created (it’s happened in early TV, but the most recent example was Seinfeld, which was so unlike how a lot of TV sitcoms was structured, they’d have a bunch of filmed spots, and how the stories were approached, that they influenced loads after it . . . in fact, FRIENDS was considered a blatant ripoff by Jerry himself, one that took Sienfied’s ideas and put them into a more traditional structure, etc) and later on, it becomes the standard . . .

    Anyway, I actually don’t mind stuff that is derivative, all stories are, in some ways, even OLD COUNTRY was derivative of other western stories, and I think it’s natural for folks to write like other writers they like (Goldman from the beginning, emulated his favorite story, QT was and still is hugely influenced by Elmore Leonard) but eventually a person’s own voice comes out, if they keep at it and they’re good . . .So myself, my own opinion, I never mind stuff that harkens to others . . . I simply hope to be drawn in, and where I absolutely holler “halleluyeah is your words on the characters driving the thing, that’s gospel to me.

15. Unk on Friday: 11 January 2008|2205

    Josh,

    To be honest, I DON’T think that IS an important distinction because here’s the difference…

    The ballet dancers are PROFESSIONALS. They get paid to get it right.

    People in the clubs are just having fun. So if there IS a distinction, I think it would be THAT more than anything else.

    Bottom line? To be a PROFESSIONAL and get paid, you really should know the rules in order to break the rules and to take that even further…

    You have to write a few screenplays BY THE RULES before you really know the rules that you want to break.

    Hell, that could be after ONE script if you really know what you’re doing and breaking the rules could be the rewrite.

    Ballet dancers… The amazing ones, do break the rules. They create new moves within the confines of the overall structure.

    Whereas a club dancer doesn’t know any rules… On that I think we have to agree… LOL. So whereas they may look okay on a club dance floor, not too many are going to get snatched up on SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE (I had to look that up… LOL).

    As you said however, the ballet dancer just might get snatched up. That’s the real difference to me.

    You said, “Slight correction - QT was a spec screenwriter and sold a couple things before getting the green light to direct, in fact, he was originally gonna shoot Dogs for 35 grand in black in white, money he made from selling Romance. But originally, he was viewed as a screenwriter.”

    LOL. Correction to WHAT?

    Are you seriously assuming I don’t know this trivia? Look at what he sold. TRUE ROMANCE. NATURAL BORN KILLERS. Both in my humble opinion contain decent structure but I thought I already pointed out that GENIUS and or TALENT always shines through no matter what?

    I’ve already admitted to QT’s genius and talent many times on this site and within this discussion.

    If you’re good and you know the rules, you don’t need somebody like me to give you permission to break the rules… LOL. You just DO IT.

    I’d rather break the rules ORGANICALLY through the characters than with structure. In other words, I don’t plan something structurally different when I outline. I simply create my roadmap. I know that somewhere down the line, the characters WILL TAKE OVER and when they do, the story and structure changes through organic character rather than my coming up with some experiment, emulation, risk, etc.

    In other words, the risks grow from the characters and the story changes i.e., the risks taken because of that.

    But that’s just me. You are free to take any kind of risk you want. LOL. Shit, my entire life is risk… LOL. I may go on a ride tomorrow and not make it. But it was my character that took that risk… That decided to deviate from the rules of the road.

    Just like the characters in my story decide to say, “Fuck this… I’m going this way…” That decision is theirs and risk follows. Sometimes it works — sometimes not. You just follow behind and let their character flow through you and you get it all down.

    Those are the risks I love taking with a story because those risks GREW from the characters that the story is HAPPENING to. Not just some arbitrary decision I made as a screenwriter.

    But again, that’s just me.

    I don’t think we agree on the definition of DERIVATIVE. When I say derivative, I mean something we’ve definitely seen before. NO COUNTRY was adapted so you have to allow for this but I think it certainly stands on its own and it didn’t make me think of any other movie WHILE I was watching it.

    That’s derivation to me. On the other hand, when I watched 8MM, I kept thinking HARDCORE. When I watched HARDCORE, I didn’t think about THE SEARCHERS even once. When I watched SWIMFAN, I kept thinking FATAL ATTRACTION. When I watched FATAL ATTRACTION, I kept thinking PLAY MISTY FOR ME.

    Sure, there will be some derivation more than others… Depends on the writer. Depends on the how hard the writer wants to work to stay away from it.

    Unk

16. Unk on Friday: 11 January 2008|2224

    As it just so happens, my good buddy Clive over at $1000 Film kind of touches upon this discussion — definitely worth checking out:

    Originality Doesn’t Make Good Drama

    Unk

17. Joshua James on Friday: 11 January 2008|2259

    The correction I meant was originally referring to QT doing what he wants as a writer because he’s a director, when in fact he sold a couple scripts before directing reared its head. I figured you knew this, but thought I’d mention it. It came off as, he’s a director, so he can get away with it - when in fact, he got away with it before he directed, in terms of his scripts.

    Ballet dancers aren’t the only dancers getting paid, in fact, they’re probably not even the majority of dancers getting paid in the US - you bet, that’s the definition of professional, but we sort of got away from the point, which is silly because we were basically agreeing that classical training is a good thing and an excellent place to start.

    Me being a Bruce Lee fan, I look at it as possibly limiting if one is not of an open mind.

18. Unk on Friday: 11 January 2008|2323

    Josh,

    The way it should have come off is that Quentin Tarantino’s genius and TALENT came shining through because that’s what I meant.

    You said: “Ballet dancers aren’t the only dancers getting paid, in fact, they’re probably not even the majority of dancers getting paid in the US - you bet, that’s the definition of professional, but we sort of got away from the point, which is silly because we were basically agreeing that classical training is a good thing and an excellent place to start.

    Wow… Again, you MISSED the point. I’ve known quite a few professional dancers and so far, every one of them was trained in Ballet, Modern, Jazz, etc. In other words, most professionals have undergone this type of training in order to become a professional and get paid… Before they could break away from the pack and start breaking the rules.

    So how does that get away from the point? LOL.

    I don’t feel that I am limited at all by good overall structure to BEGIN my screenplays. In fact, I find it no different than building a house. Structure is more or less basically the same. I would even be willing to bet that the Coens’ and QT’s structure are blazingly similar to good overall structure.

    It’s when the characters decide to blaze their own path to reach their destination as to when we remove the limits.

    I’m not saying one can’t remove limits via some other method but I think I’d be remiss if I recommended or endorsed some other way i.e., “Just toss the Protagonist in on page 28 because the Coens did it in FARGO.”

    OR

    Go ahead and put your Climax in the middle because it’s never been done before. Yeah, do that. That sounds cool.

    OR

    Choose the WRONG ordinary world of your Protagonist because it’s different than what most screenwriters do. LOL. It’ll work because it’s cool. It’ll work because nobody’s done it before.

    And don’t be offended… I’m not saying that you advocate this either — what I am saying is that you start out with a good solid structure to begin with.

    For me… Deviation is left to the characters by and large because they know the story. It’s not a heck of a lot different than an actor IN CHARACTER tossing in a couple of extra lines that stay in the film. It’s organic and it works so you keep it. It’s the kind of risks that keep risks to a minimum.

    When you’re David Lynch, write it any way you want as long as your producers are cool with it but be prepared for the lake of money to dry out.

    Unk

19. Joshua James on Saturday: 12 January 2008|0028

    I, of course, was not saying you were limiting yourself in any way, I’m sorry if it seemed like that. I said, it can be limiting if one is not of an open mind.

    That’s not you, Obi-Wan, as I said. Not at all.

    It’s more probably a combo of our experiences . . . As you react toward the fella who copied Fargo, and seem to have no idea what a first act is or a second act, etc, I react to the drones who follow the blueprint exactly and yet their story just don’t sing, not at all. That’s my bias, showing thusly.

    And I’m all about getting paid, you bet. And as I noted, doing good work is mandatory, doing great work that takes risks also pays off, so why not be prepared for all of the above?

    So . . . this is the kinda conversation that usually flows easier over a couple beers, LOL

20. Joshua James on Saturday: 12 January 2008|0033

    And this:

    “It’s when the characters decide to blaze their own path to reach their destination as to when we remove the limits.”

    I live and die by, for what it’s worth. Pure gold. And you can dance to it, heh-heh.

21. Scott on Saturday: 12 January 2008|1247

    Wow, this is getting kinda intense… LOL

    From what I see here is that all of the examples of movies that break the conventions of structure are DIRECTED by their WRITERS. Now, if you want to break convention and invent a new fork in that structural road, then by all means direct the movie yourself. But if you want to get a script read by someone and have them see dollar signs and commercial appeal, which is I am pretty sure what it takes to get bought and made (judging from scripts like QT’s being passed on by every studio), then follow that structure, write a stellar script that they can’t help but want to hang on to and snatch before the next reader does because it is that damn good.

    Think of all the most well-known convention breakers: COEN BROTHERS, QUENTIN TARANTINO, CHRISTOPHER NOLAN. All writer/directors. When you look at True Romance, it has a linear timeline and a descent structure. AND I am sure Tony Scott made a lot of changes to put his voice into it, as most Director’s do. I think I even read somewhere that he has said once that once he has the script he will make whatever the hell changes and choices he wants. It was either him or his brother…

    The structure is your firend, your best friend, and if you lay the frame work for it than everything will fall in line. If then, the characters take on a path of their own and it melts the structure then fine, it may happen. It may make the script betetr or worse, but for a spec screenplay to really make some waves it needs to be damn good all the way around! And remember, money is the biggest player, so if there is no way for them to say, it reminds me a bit of BLANK, and it made 85 million and everyone went to see it, than it may not get passed on up the food chain.

    But I may be wrong, I am still unknown… Oh, speaking of unknown, I think UNK let it slip who he may be. After all, nobody compliments Michael jackson anymore, so Mikey, how’s it going? Hee hee, whoooo!

    Back to my thoughts… INSIDE MAN was the screenwriter’s first spec. It sold fast and hard and attached amazing talent. If you read the script the structure shines through and that is what made it such an easy ride. It has all the elements of the forst 10 pages listed here, as well as the ordinary world of the protag and his flaws and the set up, intro of antag and inciting incident. it is simply brilliant. And geuss what, he followed the rules to the tee, as far as I could tell.

    Anyways, my two cents…

    Scottie Screenwriter

22. Scott on Saturday: 12 January 2008|1408

    Oh, one other question for ya Unk,

    You got a husband and wife, the wife is the protag, how do you suggest building the characters up — the tension is there between them, the secrets and stuff that will come out, the emotions they keep inside, blah blah blah –but still let the reader know that the wife is your protag? The husband and wife share equal time, but the wife is the one who’s world I try to show, the incident happens to her, the husband is more along for the ride. The second act is where she truly takes control of the story and it’s obvious it is hers. Is that too far in?

    Thoughts by anone appreciated.

    Scottie screenwriter

23. Unk on Saturday: 12 January 2008|1630

    Josh,

    I hear what you’re saying but I am still of the opinion — all things being equal — that I would rather see a well structured script than a script that makes no sense.

    I would rather see a well structured script with weak dialogue because dialogue can be easily fixed.

    However, a script with so many story elements out of place so that it is now fragmented and barely makes sense when you finish reading it?

    FUGHEDABOUDIT.

    I’ll take a well structured script over that script any day of the week.

    I wholeheartedly agree that if one simply follows good structure and the situations, events, and obstacles contain no real imagination — that screenplay doesn’t have a chance in hell of being sold but to ME, it’s still better off than a script without good structure but still comparably written.

    Why?

    Because I could help that writer rework those situations, events, and obstacles — amp and crank them up so that they’re bigger — stuff we’ve never seen before. I can help them tweak the dialogue with more subtext. It’s easier to find the gold in a well structured script — plain and simple.

    The same script with no discernable structure would most likely require the writer — all things being equal — to start from scratch.

    The way you’re coming across to me with your comments is that RISK means a different kind of structure. LOL. I think the worst thing a spec screenwriter can do before they TRY to sell a script is to not use good structure.

    RISK is in the eye of the beholder… We simply don’t agree on RISK. I’m all for risk but I let my characters take all the RISK. My job is to lay the foundation i.e., the structure — their job is to get through the story the best way they can.

    NO RISK would be (for me) to structure out your story — push the characters around the game board until they get to the end.

    Sounds a little boring to be sure BUT if that script has good structure and the situations, events, and obstacles are imaginative — stuff that we’ve not seen — that’s a script I wouldn’t mind helping someone tweak to perfection i.e., “the illusion of perfection…”

    Whereas RISK to me is giving my characters their head. Letting them GO. Letting them feel their way through the story RATHER than making them follow the structure.

    To me… That IS GREAT WORK. So I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree — AGAIN. LOL.

    Scott,

    INTENSE? Now that’s funny. This ain’t intense… This is semantics.

    But I like your comment and basically agree with it.

    Good stuff.

    We’re not done are we? LOL.

    Unk

24. Joshua James on Saturday: 12 January 2008|1729

    “Whereas RISK to me is giving my characters their head. Letting them GO. Letting them feel their way through the story RATHER than making them follow the structure.”

    We essentially agree on almost everything - LOL!

    But what you said above is pretty much a large part of how I write, which also hearkens back to KING. Get your characters into something and watch them get out of it. So we do agree, it’s just the semantics that is our big chew toy, as you said.

    But yeah, I get ya . . . tho’ I wouldn’t necessarily say that RISK to me means a different kind of structure . . . I guess I only think of structure in terms of how it serves the story, that’s me, and sometimes a riskier story means a riskier structure, and sometimes it doesn’t . . .

    To be clear, I BELIEVE in GOOD STRUCTURE . . . I know you know that, but I felt I hadda just say it out loud. I also think all my scripts are structured pretty damn good, too. So to be clear, I wasn’t arguing against structure - I’m probably only quibbling over exactly the essence of it, of course.

    We are haggling over semantics, exactly as you said, but what fun it is!

    I get what you’re saying about, a well structured script with other weak elements means the dialogue / character stuff, you can fix easily, as long as you dig the story . . . totally get that, with your producers hat on, that makes perfect sense.

    Me, I guess I still rant and rave like a geeky fanboy consumer rather than a producer, and that’s something I should look at when I think about my long term goals and ambitions.

    Scottie,

    Interesting thing about MEMENTO, if I was told correctly, it played at the festivals and all the distributers loved it, but no one picked it up because they didn’t figure it had an audience. So the prodco got some funds together and started a separate company which distributed it itself, and it ended up making a nice amount of money, audiences got it, and it gave Nolan a hell’ve a career start.

    That’s what I was told, anyway. I love how BATMAN RETURNS was structured, myself.

25. Unk on Saturday: 12 January 2008|2052

    Scott,

    Hard to say about the husband and wife since I don’t know the story you’re telling.

    But if the inciting incident does happen to the wife and you have the husband simply along for the ride, you’ve got to show us that. Show us HOW he is along for the ride. Show us the wife making decisions. Keep showing us HER reaction to action and again, the husband simply is along for the ride.

    Show the Antagonist going after the wife.

    Do it enough in the beginning and we’ll get it — then keep it going and let the wife resolve the central question of the story at the end or answer that question by allowing her to reach her goal.

    Don’t cheat US out of that and more importantly, don’t cheat the wife out of it either.

    Unk

26. Unk on Saturday: 12 January 2008|2118

    Josh,

    I think I know what you’re getting at…

    I FEEL like you’re trying to say that screenwriting is an art and as an artist, we owe it to ourselves, our careers, our future, and our audiences, to keep pushing. Experiment. Try new things. Attack stories differently and we all benefit from that experience.

    And I agree completely.

    I just like starting out with what I consider a solid success-oriented structure as simply the roadmap and no more.

    The roadmap, outline, beat sheet, sequence plan, whatever you want to call it is (for me), and always has been, just that set of blueprints you create and then go and get approved so you can get a permit and start building.

    At any time, the owner (the characters) can change their minds… They decide that the bathroom needs to be larger. More closet space. A wine cellar… LOL. Whatever. So when that happens, the builder (the screenwriter) LETS them make those decisions and tweaks the blueprints to reflect those decisions. Just like you end up tweaking the solid, success-oriented structure you start out with as your basic story plan or outline.

    You let the characters run amok and do what they HAVE to do and thereby, your solid, success-oriented structure begins to change. Sometimes DRASTICALLY — sometimes not.

    But because you are the writer AND the characters, your deviation usually makes sense and serves the existing structure very well.

    Organic structure is RISK.

    When you make those decisions yourself — without the owner’s permission, you certainly take a risk but one that is probably going to get the owners pissed off i.e., they want it their way so you have to go back to the drawing board. Why? Because it’s YOUR idea. It’s YOUR deviation. It’s not organic i.e., it doesn’t work for the rest of the house. It’s simply FUNCTIONAL. It’s an easy deviation. You saw it someplace else and thought it would work here. You thought it might be cool. You knew it would be so cool that the owners wouldn’t mind.

    And of course anyone can work that way and you can bet your ass they certainly do — I see it all the time.

    But that’s once again where, in my opinion, screenwriters go wrong because they stick something in the structure that’s functional. It works but it’s not necessarily the best thing for the story. One could argue of course that only the AUTHOR knows what’s best for his or her story and to a degree, that is certainly TRUE.

    But only to the degree where the author is the one making the movie. To the degree where the author is the one financing the movie.

    Because remember… We’re talking spec scripts. Send out too many spec scripts with faulty structure or structure that doesn’t work and see how many people in the business will no longer read your specs.

    Happens every fucking day.

    They really don’t care what risks you took. All they know is that they read a story that didn’t work for them.

    Sell a screenplay that started out with a success-oriented structure and you’ve gone quite far with helping your career. Keep writing and selling screenplays that start from success-oriented structure and your career is going to flourish and have longevity.

    And maybe an award or two along the way.

    Unk

27. Joshua James on Saturday: 12 January 2008|2339

    Unk, you still ‘DA MAN, you know that, right?

28. Scott on Saturday: 12 January 2008|2344

    Unk, you are so eloquent it’s frickin’ scary, LOL.

    Thanks for the tips.

    Scottie screenwriter

29. Ryan R on Sunday: 13 January 2008|1309

    Rules make most artists recoil.

    To pacify that inner boozy beret wearing anarchist rebel , just change the word RULE to PRINCIPLE.

    Principles are not etched in stone. The artist will not be tempted to break a principle. A rule begs to be broken. As screenwriters we ask ourselves to push limits. It’s in our nature.

    The aim of our art is to be transparent. When you break a rule simply to break a rule - you draw attention away from the work and onto yourself. The reader says, ‘wow, this kid can pull a mean kick flip,’ and now back to our story.

    Simplicity is the most complicated thing to achieve. To master the complications we face as screenwriters we have to simplify and we can’t do that if we are unable to master a screenplay’s basic necessities.

    Beginning. Middle. End.

    That shit’s hard. Been hard since the beginning, is hard now, and will be hard until the end.

    You can write Memento II and riff like Tarantino but that’s exactly what will stand out about your work. The reader will say, ‘wow, this writer writes like Tarantino,’ and now back to our story.

    Why hire an impressionist when they can hire real deals?

    It’s so simple, it’s stupid. Be you. You don’t need to pay Dr. Phil for that shit. You don’t have to endorse Nike to Just Do It. If you can master yourself then you’ve got a leg up on the competition. Know your strengths. Know your limitations. Milk and improve.

    If we adhere to the principles, it should keep us from having to rely on rules.

30. Unk on Sunday: 13 January 2008|1653

    Josh,

    I DA MAN? I never been DA MAN before. It feels strange but thanks… LOL.

    Scott,

    Eloquent? Damn. I need to work harder! LOL. Thanks, I appreciate that.

    Ryan R,

    Now that’s eloquent.

    Unk

31. Suzanne on Monday: 14 January 2008|1434

    Hey,

    Great post. Whether you want to call them rules or principles, I see writers all the time who don’t bother to learn HOW to write the types of things they wish to write, yet wonder why they just never can seem to break into the markets.

    Learn the rules or “principles” first, then you can eventually try breaking them.

    Suzanne Lieurance
    The Working Writer’s Coach
    http://www.workingwriterscoach.com

32. Susan P. on Tuesday: 12 August 2008|0602

    I specifically sought this topic out and it was a great read.

Leave a Reply