Something I learned while watching Tarantino movies.

WalterB said:

I have a little secret:
Good feature films don't have a 3 act structure. They have about 8 acts...

... Try to make this fit Alien, Terminator, Notting Hill, etc.

Click to expand...

Yep.
Fits like a glove.



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...EI1dGU1VUxaVDhCQmVnVFBLeUxSaWc&hl=en_US#gid=0

That's an awesome way to write a story, and if you think about it it better reflects the creative process.
I mean, when I have an idea for a script, be it for a short film or feature length, I think of episodes. Interesting things that happen to the characters. Things I'd like to include. Then, it's a matter of filling in the spaces.
Kind of high stakes madlibs...
It works for dialogue too. I think of stuff that the character wants to say, or that sound cool, and then I work my way around them.

You end up with a bunch of short films, snippets of a global event that interwine to form the major story arc.

WalterB said:

I have a little secret:
Good feature films don't have a 3 act structure. They have about 8 acts.

Something like this:

-intro (meet the actors )
-discovery of problem (maybe recognized and ignored or hero is unaware, unlike the viewer)
-bad decision causes real problem/villain pops up
-first solution fails
-second solution fails
-ultimate plan fails
-the protagonist feels/is/seems defeated but gets inspired by something
-the new final plan works

Click to expand...

Many people would say that your structure fits perfectly into what I call three acts, and that the only difference of our opinions is in semantics (how exactly do you define an "act").

Dreadylocks said:

Είμαστε μιλώντας ελληνικά τώρα?

Click to expand...

Нет, мы говорим русский с французским акцентом.

Hab SoSlI' Quch!

Cracker Funk said:

Many people would say that your structure fits perfectly into what I call three acts, and that the only difference of our opinions is in semantics.

Click to expand...

Agreed.
Semantics.

Cracker Funk said:

(how exactly do you define an "act")

Click to expand...

I have a very clear idea as to what defines an "Act" in screenplay crafting.

Begin with this version I found on the internet a few years back:



Now, prior to finding that li'l nugget I had already observed some sorta vague notion that something kinda like that was going on.
That just solidified it for me by a great deal.

It was a little big, (and somewhat... unclear) so I made my own smaller version that I could slap on a email draft where I commonly work from.



And then I started watching and dissecting films with a much more critical eye, especially for timing.
WHEN does WHAT happen?
Patterns that were somewhat apparent became quite apparent at this point.

After a year of this and dissatisfied with the above model I fabricated my own variant of it:



DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS:
- Two challenges.
Act I concludes upon the successful achievement of the first challenge.
Act II (obviously) begins at this point.
- Learning situation after first challenge achieved.
- When introduction of additional significant elements gives way to development of the existing elements that's the story's midpoint.
Act II, Part II
- Total loss, story over at low point just before a solution arrises.
Act II, Part II concludes
Act III begins

It
Is
Plain
As
Day.

That said, not every story or film follows this format no more than every dance is a waltz or ballet.
But when you know what to look for a three act struct is easy as π to identify.

FantasySciFi said:

Нет, мы говорим русский с французским акцентом.

Click to expand...

Best reply ever.

True: defining act is a bit semantic, but I noticed when I was studying a lot of people struggled with the 3 act structure. Most of them got stuck between the first and second turning point: stuck in the middle.

But to return to the OP: I think it's good to try to make every scene a little story with a 'winner' or 'loser' (or a cliffhanger of conclusion that reveals something about motivation).

I'd been noticing this for documentaries as well - I'm about to start editing my first feature length one and I've been analyzing others to see how they structure things. One example I was looking at recently is "Planet B-Boy", if you haven't seen it I'd definitely recommend checking it out. What I've noticed is that it's not just a sequential series of short films, each with a beginning-middle-end structure - it's actually a nested 3-act structure. So the overall film has a pretty clear beginning, middle and end. Each of those three acts has it's own beginning, middle and end, which in turn is made up of short scenes/stories with their own three act structure. The story flow then becomes not just linear but a combination of horizontal/vertical movement. Within a single short story is generally a horizontal (linear) story movement. When one short story finishes there can be a further horizontal movement to another related short story. At various points though things move vertically, up from a single story to the larger story it's contained in, or up from the larger story to the beginning/middle/end of the overall film structure.

I'm currently looking at over 100 hours of footage on this project that needs to be cut down to 90 minutes or so, so looking at things this way gives me a much more manageable approach to sorting things even before any of the real editing begins.