plot point 1

avid-dreamer said:

Me again! I have a question:

If the plot point one begins on page 20 and ends on page 26, is anything after that considered ACT II even though act I should be 30 pages long?

The reason I'm asking is because I am preparing to write my plot point I - where the story gets "yanked" in another direction and the hero is forced to make a choice.
However, it will begin on page 20 and perhaps be about 6 pages.
There is a scene I wanted to add after it where he seeks help in fleeing the country. That would've taken me to 30 pages. Now I'm not sure anymore.

Would that final scene be considered a part of my plot point 1?

Thanks people!

Click to expand...

Act 1 does not have to end PRECICELY on page 30. The rule of thumb is that it should end NO LATER THAN Page 30.

Whatever the final page-count of your script might turn out to be, here are the suggested ratios:

Act 1 = 25% (approximately)
Act 2 = 50% (approximately)
Act 3 = 25% (approximately)

There's still wiggle room in there for you to go up and down a few percentage points here and there. So if your script is just 80 pages long, Act 1 should end somewhere AROUND Page 20, give or take 2 pages.

Plot Device said:

So if your script is just 80 pages long, Act 1 should end somewhere AROUND Page 20, give or take 2 pages.

Click to expand...

If your script is only 80 pages you have bigger problems at play...

I'm an amateur here, so be warned. <---------!

I really wonder about the page count. I know it works and it makes up for a "balanced" script, but what I'm personally go for is try to balance it as much as I can and let the story flow, if that makes any sense. I'd say, in all my ignorance, go for whatever the scene calls for and forget the exact page count---so what if you write a couple of more pages?
I think Plot Device is right on using non-fixed percentages.

i just finished blake snyder's 'save the cat.' he makes no mention of 'plot point one,' rather, as far as i can tell, he's got as one of his fifteen beats 'catalyst' which happens on page 12 of a 110 page script. bear in mind he's offering advice on 'high concept' scripts, i.e. those targeting the widest possible audience. the catalyst would be the point where the package arrives in the mail, a phone call, a knock on the door. it's the thing that sends the character on their mission that changes their life. and blake admits that his catalyst moment floats around in the first draft and ends up on page 20, but then advises you trim the story and 'put it where it belongs -- page 12.'

is that the same as your first plot point? if so, that's snyder's advice, take it for what it's worth. (page 20 of snyder's method is about midway into his 'debate' section of the script.) presumably, if you've got a 120 page script, your catalyst will probably be on page 14 or so.

as a rank amateur myself, i'd say that if your catalyst (assuming that's what you mean by plot point 1) happens on page 20 of an average length script, you may consider that you've 'laid too much pipe,' i.e. have too much of a set-up. 20 pages is about twenty minutes, and, yeah, if it ain't LOTR or otherwise so compelling that regardless of what plot point goes where and i'm still enthralled, that may be pushing my limits. that's just me.

Half the fun in reading guru advice is equating it with what other gurus say and trying to figure if they mean the same thing or something else entirely. Then deciding what best suits you and your story beats.

My "inciting incident" and "plot point 1" equivalent in my own rough outline template are,

Act I
1-10 SETUP & INTRO + SHIT HAPPENS - BIG KICK OFF
11-25 LOST IN FRANCE + HIT IN FACE BY FRYING PAN

Which might sound kinda weird, but I know what they mean. I'm aiming for something interesting to have happened by page 10 that will engage the reader and make them cancel all appointments for that afternoon. Hey. I can dream.

-Derek

what, then, is the definition of 'plot point one'?

i went to the library yesterday... they had one book on screenwriting. fortunately it seems like a fairly comprehensive primer, covering films, tv, plays, radiodrama, history, format, hints, tips, tricks. unfortunately, it was published in 1996. the point is there seems to be a serious derth of screenwriting books in this area for me to compare with! damnit! which leads me to my second question, what guru's how-do-you-do-to are you referencing, if any, b/c it seems there are many, lenny. (am i being more annoying than usual or what, scott?)

preyer said:

what, then, is the definition of 'plot point one'?

i went to the library yesterday... they had one book on screenwriting. fortunately it seems like a fairly comprehensive primer, covering films, tv, plays, radiodrama, history, format, hints, tips, tricks. unfortunately, it was published in 1996. the point is there seems to be a serious derth of screenwriting books in this area for me to compare with! damnit! which leads me to my second question, what guru's how-do-you-do-to are you referencing, if any, b/c it seems there are many, lenny. (am i being more annoying than usual or what, scott?)

Click to expand...

I've been writing professionally for close to twenty years and if you asked me what "Plot Point One" was or where it should go I wouldn't have the faintest frigging idea.

But I know where I'd like to tell you it should go.

Here's the deal -- three act structure is a rough template that is applicable to traditional narrative story-telling.

Anybody who is trying to slot specific events into specific pages or page ranges is out of his head.

The reason that so many contempary movies seem to have similar events falling into virtually the same points in the story is because these stories are incredibly in-bred and copy one another in an absurdly almost superstitiously, pointlessly slavish way, for no reason at all.

The reason that you will find the same twists and turns and plot points (whatever the hell they are) hitting at exactly the same spots in lots of different scripts is the same reason that the screenwriter who wrote the first big three-D movie was hired to write the next big three-D movie.

Was it because there was some special skill associated with the *writing* of three-D movies?

No. It's because the first one was successful and so, in attempting to duplicate the success, the idiot producers simply grabbed onto anything, however aburdly random, associated with the first one -- and tried to do it again.

And it's the same thing with formulaic script structures.

Oh, having a twist here and a reveal there and an X there and Y there -- see, it's here in this successful movie and that successful movie --

Therefore, we've cracked the formula on how to write a successful movie.

Except they don't want to mention the countless successful movies that don't have those same beats -- nor mention the countless failed movies that no doubt use the "sure fire successful" formula.

I could easily lay out how I think first, second, and third acts should develop -- but even then -- it would even begin to apply to every movie -- it wouldn't even apply to many of my favorite movies.

Where's "Plot Point 1" in Radio Days? Or any David Lynch Film?

So if you want to read what people write about these things -- go ahead and read them. But they are not hard and fast rules.

They apply to certain films, not to other films and those films that they don't apply to are not doing anything wrong because there is no litmus test for a "well-writ screenplay" -- the only test is whether you, the reader, and ultimately the viewer are involved and moved and whether it works for you when you read/watch it.

NMS

nmstevens said:

I could easily lay out how I think first, second, and third acts should develop --

Click to expand...

Please! Pretty lease!






We await your opinion!

yeah, come on, nm, don't be a tease, do tell!

for what it's worth, i think how-to's are like all those books on making millions playing the ponies my friend used to read. he would read a guy's system ('it's just that easy!) and wonder why he couldn't win the big race time after time. it wasn't a lack of research or knowledge or experience on his part... i simply think he was unlucky.

still, i like to know how it's 'supposed' to be done as there may actually be a kernel of truth in some of this stuff, especially since it's certainly the 'high concept' kind of things i'm aiming for right now. so don't hold back, nm, if you've a personal formula, share it with us! believe me, using someone else's 'formula' isn't likely to get me personally closer to any goals, just like my friend reading another padded betting system book isn't likely to get him rich. it's great food for thought, though.

besides, if *I* had a magick formula, i'd share it with *you*....