• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Thoughts on John Truby's screenwriting structure.

H

harmonica44

I read the book John Truby's The Anatomy of Story for the third time now (a recommendation thanks to some members on here!). It's a good read for screenwriting, and I have been trying to apply it to my own screenplays.

One of the structure details that he talks about is that he says that about three quarters into the script, the main character should reach his/her lowest point, and then figure out what he was missing all along and figure out how to reach his goal.

However, I find this be to kind of curious and contradictory. If the MC is suppose to reach his lowest point three quarters in then how is the MC suppose to recover and dig his way out of the hole, when he is that far in, with only one quarter of the story left to go?

If the MC has reached his lowest point that far into the story, then it will take much longer than one quarter for him to be able to recover from the deepest point, cause the deeper you go into the hole, the longer it will take to find your way out.

So isn't three quarters in far too late for something like to happen, if you are to only have one quarter left to go to get him out, and wrap everything up? What are your thoughts on this part of his story structure?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
harmonica44 said:
I read the book John Truby's The Anatomy of Story for the third time now (a recommendation thanks to some members on here!). It's a good read for screenwriting, and I have been trying to apply it to my own screenplays.

One of the structure details that he talks about is that he says that about three quarters into the script, the main character should reach his/her lowest point, and then figure out what he was missing all along and figure out how to reach his goal.

However, I find this be to kind of curious and contradictory. If the MC is suppose to reach his lowest point three quarters in then how is the MC suppose to recover and dig his way out of the hole, when he is that far in, with only one quarter of the story left to go?

If the MC has reached his lowest point that far into the story, then it will take much longer than one quarter for him to be able to recover from the deepest point, cause the deeper you go into the hole, the longer it will take to find your way out.

So isn't three quarters in far too late for something like to happen, if you are to only have one quarter left to go to get him out, and wrap everything up? What are your thoughts on this part of his story structure?
Click to expand...


I think the idea of treating it as a "hole" to climb out of is the wrong way of looking at it (I assume what you're talking about is the archtypal "all is lost" moment). If there is some detail the MC has been missing all along, and then suddenly he realises what it is, it won't require much screen time to build from that point to a conclusion, as the character now has the solution and just has to implement it. All it takes is one lightbulb moment.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm with Maz.
It actually sounds like you were reading a book 3 times, but didn't realise you saw this moment time and again in many movies.

The MC thought he could 'win', but lost almost everything instead. That is as deep as you can fall. This is where the 'lightbulb' as Maz calls it comes in: that one clue, memory, device, solution, whatever that inspires a new solution.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This "dark-moment " :

1. It doesn't have to happen at the 3/4 mark; it actually often happens much closer to the end of the movie, often on or near the last page!

2. It often involves a moment of self-sacrifice; the MC makes a leap of faith or otherwise sacrifices winning or safety for the greater good. This tells the audience that the character "deserves" to win.

3. You can throw a stroke of luck in there if you want; the MC has earned it because of 2. Best example is Butches' ropes going loose in Pulp Fiction, Since Tarantino likes to mess with us, he did it backward- he made the stroke of luck and then Butch retroactively earns it by going back for Marsellus.

In Seven this sacrifice moment is actually a failure. I wont give away the ending of Seven but yeah, the hero does the selfish thing and does not win. We don't blame him, tho. Man, that's a dark movie.

Also:

A lightbulb moment or plan-to-win can, if you like, come from a buddy helper. Again the audience wont mind if the hero has proven himself morally (Mad Max comes up with the plan to go back to the Citadel; Furiosia is the MC. Everyone going back is the sacrifice/leap into danger/show of bravery etc). This is often why you need this buddy character, by the way.

examples:

"Use the force, Luke"....Cross the Streams (ghostbusters).....Batman taking the nuke away in the batwing (not that I think DKR is a great screenplay or anything, but that's the sacrifice choice)...

Those are the broad strokes, you must still apply your talent and skill to making it work, no technique is foolproof

there are no rules only tools

Have fun good luck
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. Since Seven is a tragedy I see what you mean, by the 'all is lost' moment coming way later, right near the end.

Perhaps I am confused though. You say in Ghostbusters it's the cross the streams moment. I thought that in Ghostbusters, the moment when the main characters reach their lowest point is when the city is being taken over. But the cross the streams moments comes right after that pretty much.

I understand how usually this is one the main character gets an idea for the right solution. I just feel that when the MC gets the idea for a solution, the idea itself will take a lot longer to execute, than the remainder time for the story will allow for. Like for example, if a villain has taken 90 pages for the main character to try to fool, but he constantly fails, how is he suppose to come up with a new idea to fool the villain in only 10-15 pages left to go, when he couldn't even fool the villain in 90 pages with the first idea.

Plus the villain will be twice as watchful now, since he was almost fooled once, so his guard will be up even higher, which calls for a more big, more complicated plan logically as a result.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ryan, you're thinkng too much about "how many pages it should take". Why? So Truby says it's 3/4 of the way through, and now you're trying to engineer that moment to happen exactly 3/4 of the way in. It's not an absolute.

As for the climactic moment of the story, which is what we're talking about, the story is in seeking success, not in applying it. More succinctly, the story is in the struggle. If your main character were to hit that moment early in the film, what would be left to tell? It would be all perfect and tidy with no conflict and no real character development. THAT is why all this happens near the end.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Okay thanks. Since Seven is a tragedy I see what you mean, by the 'all is lost' moment coming way later, right near the end.

Perhaps I am confused though. You say in Ghostbusters it's the cross the streams moment. I thought that in Ghostbusters, the moment when the main characters reach their lowest point is when the city is being taken over. But the cross the streams moments comes right after that pretty much.
Click to expand...

Yes, because at their darkest moment they get the idea, since there is not much left to lose anyway.


harmonica44 said:
I understand how usually this is one the main character gets an idea for the right solution. I just feel that when the MC gets the idea for a solution, the idea itself will take a lot longer to execute, than the remainder time for the story will allow for. Like for example, if a villain has taken 90 pages for the main character to try to fool, but he constantly fails, how is he suppose to come up with a new idea to fool the villain in only 10-15 pages left to go, when he couldn't even fool the villain in 90 pages with the first idea.

Plus the villain will be twice as watchful now, since he was almost fooled once, so his guard will be up even higher, which calls for a more big, more complicated plan logically as a result.
Click to expand...

Real solutions can be simple. NASA spend a fortune to create a ballpoint that can write in space. The Russians just used a pencil.
Just like E=mc^2 is simple and elegant. All the failed attempts are not in it.
It is not logic to say that a better plan always needs to be more complicated. Actually, any failed attempts contribute to the solution because they eliminated possible solutions.

You seem to assume as if the main character knows he needs an idea that fits in so many pages.
You also seem to think that a better idea equals spending more time to get it.
While it can come from inspiration, help or lessons learnt during the adventure up till this point.

Let go of all those rules you make up. Use the force.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Whatever the solution, it needs to be something that is consistent with the story and universe, and ideally something that was mentioned well in advance of the point where it needs to be used (otherwise it becomes a deus ex machina). Like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters - that was signposted right at the start of the machine as an unpredictably powerful and dangerous thing to do.

By the way, Walter, the "Russians just used a pencil" thing is a myth, apparently. It quickly became clear to all in the space race that broken pencil nibs floating around and getting into delicately calibrated equipment was not a good idea at all :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
its both

at around the 3/4 mark usually something super bad happens that throws the movie into the third act (keep in mind tho bad stuff/setbacks/crises should be happening all over your script- that's what drama is- bad stuff happening). whats this 3/4 point in ghostbusters? Could be the keymaster and gatekeeper hooking up and Gozer showing up, I think.

Near the end of the movie when it looks like all-is-lost the MC makes this moral sacrifice/act of bravery whatever and then gets some stroke of luck that helps him/her win.

oh also this thing that helps them win is often setup earlier: the crane kick in karate kid, the streams, cinderellas slipper

This is a great book- was written by an actual working screenwriter:

https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Scri...1470241715&sr=8-1&keywords=writing+the+script
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
maz said:
...........

By the way, Walter, the "Russians just used a pencil" thing is a myth, apparently. It quickly became clear to all in the space race that broken pencil nibs floating around and getting into delicately calibrated equipment was not a good idea at all :)
Click to expand...

A powerful myth it is then, since it's an anekdote that was even used at the University where I studied aerospace engineering to show that the best solution does not have to be the most advanced/complicated one.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks everyone.

Even though in my story I feel that my MC reaches the point earlier on, I feel that once he gets the new idea on how to reach his goal, the idea itself will take longer to execute. So there will still be story tell, cause the execution of it, will take up the remainder of time, if that works.

One movie I can think that did this was The Sting (1973) maybe.

The plan on how to sting the villain did take quite a while and was started earlier on, compared to only one quarter left to go, wasn't it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
The plan on how to sting the villain did take quite a while and was started earlier on, compared to only one quarter left to go, wasn't it?
Click to expand...

that may be true-

keep in mind these types of things are only guidelines, approximations. you don't need to be too rigid about the page numbers. I know when were learning we try to do things "right" , but art doesn't work like that, you have to mix the guidelines with your own tastes and skills. Three act structure is a flexible framework and it works a little different in every movie. SO yeah keep analyzing and seeing how dfifferent movies handle it.

Every artist invents his own methods. Books and teachers can only give you CLUES..HINTS...on how things are done and to help you figure out how to do things for yourself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There are a lot of advanced things to consider in film.. they're hard to notice until you've been analyzing for a while and until they've been pointed out to you.

WHEN things happen in a film is important. Yes, you know this.. that's why you made a topic about it. So here is what I recommend.

Try this.. this is what I do now... if I'm watching a movie and something major major major happens ... Pause it for a second just to see where you are in the movie. Is it 60 minutes into it? is it 2/3 of the way? Maybe half an hour?

You will start to develop a better understand of pacing for the american audience.. or whatever style of films you're watching.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Using "The Sting" as an example;

The lowest point of the main character is when Hooker is arrested by Lt. Snyder
and forced to betray Gondorf and then finds out that Loretta is Lonnegan's hired
killer but Gondorf hired someone to watch over him.

All that happens exactly where Truby says it should - at the end of Act II.

Now in that movie...

DO I NEED TO SAY "SPOILER" FOR A 43 YEAR OLD MOVIE?

...it turns out that Hooker was never going to betray Gondorf. But the
audience doesn't know that going in. So it's not only a great story telling
device as Trudy shows, but it further throws the audience off track. It
rarely take the main character the same amount of story time to get out
of the lowest point as it takes to get to that point.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. Well in The Sting, the MC reaching his lowest point is actually a ruse cause it was part of their plan all along to get the antagonists.

However, in my story, if the MC doesn't have to reach his lowest point as part of a ruse to fool the antagonist, is that bad?

What's more important? The logical motivation what the plan would require? Or, giving the audience the lowest point, even if it has to be ruse, as part of the bigger plan? Cause having a ruse, will interfere with logic, if the plan doesn't require such a ruse. I keep trying to fit in the character reaching his lowest point at the end of the second act or halfway into the third, but it keeps coming off as forced as it's not just working with his plan, or the antagonist's for that matter, cause the MC needs time for his plan to work, and if something goes wrong, the plan will go wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
.............
What's more important? The logical motivation what the plan would require? Or, giving the audience the lowest point, even if it has to be ruse, as part of the bigger plan? Cause having a ruse, will interfere with logic, if the plan doesn't require such a ruse. I keep trying to fit in the character reaching his lowest point at the end of the second act or halfway into the third, but it keeps coming off as forced as it's not just working with his plan, or the antagonist's for that matter, cause the MC needs time for his plan to work, and if something goes wrong, the plan will go wrong.
Click to expand...

The most important is a great story.
You are pretending as if you have to choose between drama and logic, while you shouldn't have to if the story made sense in the first place.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A plot needs to be both exciting and surprising and logical at the same time.

If it were easy then every Hollywood movie would work. Even professionals can fail:

MARTHA!!?!?!?!?

WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?!??!

No easy answers for you. Just do your best!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top