Here I was starting to think I'd never be able to write a screenplay under 150 pages, and this one's only just gonna scrape 90. But all the acts are about 30 pages!
Does it matter?
Does it matter?
All my acts are the same length.
- Thread starter stuckupmyownera
- Start date
It looks like I might run into a similar problem during this draft of my current story. I think a lot of it is self-editing, though. I left out a few things I wanted to put in, but I guess I could have killed if I had to. Well, if I come up short, I'll just put as many of those things back as I could.
Act 1 – (Setup) – 30 pages
Act 2A & 2B – (Conflict) – 60 pages
Act 3A & 3B – (Resolution) – 30 pages
That is a total of 120 pages. Aspiring screenwriters are expected to strictly adhere to this structure but of course there are exceptions. George Lucas wrote Star Wars in three Acts of equal length and Cellular, one of the films that I analyzed, had a First Act that was barely 10 pages long.
So long as you have an exceptionally interesting premise, a compelling hook, fascinating conflict and an equally appealing resolution, coupled with attractive characters, no one is going to be too concerned with the length of your Acts. However if you are not a produced, established screenwriter, it would be wise on your part to stick to Industry established parameters.
Raghu.
Act 2A & 2B – (Conflict) – 60 pages
Act 3A & 3B – (Resolution) – 30 pages
That is a total of 120 pages. Aspiring screenwriters are expected to strictly adhere to this structure but of course there are exceptions. George Lucas wrote Star Wars in three Acts of equal length and Cellular, one of the films that I analyzed, had a First Act that was barely 10 pages long.
So long as you have an exceptionally interesting premise, a compelling hook, fascinating conflict and an equally appealing resolution, coupled with attractive characters, no one is going to be too concerned with the length of your Acts. However if you are not a produced, established screenwriter, it would be wise on your part to stick to Industry established parameters.
Raghu.
Last edited:
You'd be in worse trouble if you had left out an act. I did that once *blush*.
When you end up with a second act that doesn't have much meat it can mean you haven't developed your story, characters, and what not enough. Getting to their goal might be too easy. See if there's some obsticals you can throw in their way that would not only offer more challenges but more character development as well.
When you end up with a second act that doesn't have much meat it can mean you haven't developed your story, characters, and what not enough. Getting to their goal might be too easy. See if there's some obsticals you can throw in their way that would not only offer more challenges but more character development as well.
120 pages is not ideal for a spec script these days. 105 to 115 is a more sought after spec length.
A better spec "formula" is:
Act 1 - Set Up - 25 pages
Act 2 - 55 pages
Development - 20 pages
Complications - 20 pages
Focus & Acceleration - 15 pages
Act 3 - 30 pages (Crisis, Climax, Resolution)
So: 25, 55, 30 with the much maligned Act 2 truly being the meat of the story. New writers tend to love Act 1 and Act 3 but Act 2 is what separates the future pros from the wannabes.
Also, Lucas is a poor example. He wrote to direct. Many visual-effect laden directors tend to write spare because they "see it" and they don't need to translate it all into text.
There's no such thing as an optimal formula. Drop it in front of some people who don't know a thing about screenwriting and see if they are missing something. If they do, one or more of your acts might be too short.
That's what I'm hoping for!
Then there's hope for me yet, icerose
So should I take comfort in the fact that most of my second acts are stupendously long?
Thanks all. I think it works as it is, but I guess the only way to know is to get some feedback on it. Don't think I'm ever gonna get the hang of this...
Stick with it, You'll get the hang of it eventually. As for the different act lengths...I can't really say anything due to the fact that I DETEST formula writing.
I don't feel that you should format your story to fit a formula.
Format to hit a certain length, why not.
I feel that if you can keep the audience interested throughout the script what's it matter if your 1st act was 5 pages or 30 pages. Same goes for 2nd and 3rd.
I normally go by my own guides of once i have finished introducing everything that needs to be introduced, the 1st act is done. Once I have posed all the questions I want to ask, the 2nd act is done. Once everything that NEEDS to be answered is answered, then the 3rd act is done.
Bing, Bang, Boom - you got a finished script. The audience is entertained, you told the story you wanted to tell, and you got done what needed to be done.
Granted, don't take this as a ANY sort of sure fire way of figuring out act length but this is how I normally deal with that issue.
I know most would probably disagree with my approach, but we all have our own ways of doing things.
I don't feel that you should format your story to fit a formula.
Format to hit a certain length, why not.
I feel that if you can keep the audience interested throughout the script what's it matter if your 1st act was 5 pages or 30 pages. Same goes for 2nd and 3rd.
I normally go by my own guides of once i have finished introducing everything that needs to be introduced, the 1st act is done. Once I have posed all the questions I want to ask, the 2nd act is done. Once everything that NEEDS to be answered is answered, then the 3rd act is done.
Bing, Bang, Boom - you got a finished script. The audience is entertained, you told the story you wanted to tell, and you got done what needed to be done.
Granted, don't take this as a ANY sort of sure fire way of figuring out act length but this is how I normally deal with that issue.
I know most would probably disagree with my approach, but we all have our own ways of doing things.
WMcQuaig did a great job on expanding what I wanted to express. There are plenty of good screenwriters who never read a book on screenwriting and wouldn't know an act if they saw one. They can still produce solid work. The point is not whether you can fit all your acts in a certain length; you just need to make sure they're all in there. You need to introduce your characters, show what the conflict is and guide your characters to the end -- around the obstacles that are scattered along the way. THAT is important.
There is a world of a difference between *Art* and *Commercial Art* and I think most people tend to confuse between the two. Here is an example.
I can dip my hands in paint, splash a wall with it and boldly call it a painting. I have every justification for doing so since the very essence, the core and substance of Art is self-expression and nobody can question the ways, means and style I employ to give life to this expression. However whether my audience likes my painting or detests it is a completely different matter. So too is the issue of my painting being saleable or not.
The difference between Art and Commercial Art is simply this. Commercial Art communicates with the intended audience, whereas pure Art does not. If as a screenwriter I employ certain time and Industry tested techniques that will fulfill the wants of my audience then I am communicating with my audience and they with me. This is Commercial Art.
My audience wants an interesting hook in the early part of the film and I give it to them
My audience wants the hero to encounter seemingly unsurpassable obstacles and powerful conflict and I give it to them.
My audience wants the protagonist to resolve the crisis he is forced to encounter in a daring and surprising way and I give it to them.
My audience is happy with the film and I, as a screenwriter, have delivered the goods successfully.
However, if I completely disregard the likes and dislikes of my audience and stay isolated from the so-called formula style of screenwriting, then it is pure art.
It is a well-known fact that conflict forms the crux of powerful drama and I have always wondered what the consequences will be if I were to write a screenplay without any conflict at all. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, get married and live happily ever after. Absolutely no hassles whatsoever!!! Seems like a cool idea? Maybe, but who will want to see a film like this? Which producer will be insane enough to produce it?
Point is, there is a particular formula involved in screenwriting, including the three-act structure, its length and what not. Following them will make your screenplay an interesting read and ultimately, saleable.
If however you feel that by following the Formula style of screenwriting your creative freedom is being stifled, your artistic life beheaded and your freedom of expression raped, well, you can always dip your hands in paint and paint the walls.
Raghu.
Last edited:
Sure, using tried and tested methods to create good drama is a fine idea, but your audience doesn't care whether you have 1,2,3,4, or 13 acts because that is a lower layer only you will notice. The right elements of drama should be in there, but how many pages it takes can be quite flexible.
Structure is not about formula - it's about story foundation and pace. Formula has more to do with what occurs at the individual beats as opposed to when the beats happen.
The three act structure and the other story paradigms are not formulas, they are all simply analyses of story foundation and story pace that were derived through reverse engineering. Meaning that Syd Field, (et. al.) looked at the thousands of scripts he'd read and movies he'd seen, broke them down and found a pattern of where certain plot points occurred and how the stories built these plot points. He didn't create the structure, what he did was find a way to explain it so that others could learn how to build a story.
No, it doesn't matter if Act one of a 100 page script occurs on page 25 or 28, but generally speaking if the story is paced correctly act one will take up roughly 1/4 of your script, act two which has more plot points will take up 1/2 and act three will be 1/4 (or less).
It's been my experience that whether I consciously pay attention to the paradigm or not, my acts automatically break down along those lines.
My big concern with having three acts of the same length is that the pacing may be stagnant, or the second act may move too fast or not have enough plot points. You want the pace to change. The second act is tasked with the heavy lifting of developing the story and normally has more plot points than either the first or last, and act three is usually the fastest paced act as it leads up to, and through the climax.
Let me explain myself a little bit.
Raghu, you are very correct in the idea behind *commercial art* and *art*. I'm not arguing the fact that even though we as screenwriters have to be able to not only appease our artistic side we also have to keep an eye on making the product *sellable*. No producer in their right mind is going to produce a film that has zero conflict and everything is happy go lucky.
DevelopmentExec, you are right in the idea that formula is not structure. I agree with you on that point. Just because something happens at a particular beat doesn't mean that it also dictates where the beat occurs.
What I was talking about when I said that I DETEST formula writing is that I don't feel that structure should dictate the story and vice versa. All too often I see films that have a very clear and distinctive structure to it and thus make it formulaic, in the sense that once you understand the structure of the story, you can almost accurately predict the outcome of the story. At that point, it doesn't matter where the beat occurs because you've already given away the ending.
The story should be allowed to tell itself. It will dictate what elements it needs and how it is best told. We shouldn't have to force it into a particular structure to help convey the story. Yes, I believe that once you know the basics of story structure only then can you begin to define it for yourself and truly develop your voice as a writer.
I'm not denying that there are certain things needed to be able to convey the story. Storytelling has not changed in centuries, it's been like this since the days of ancient Greece.
I consider the three act structure to be a tool used in storytelling.
I don't consider using target act lengths to be storytelling.
As long as the elements are there, what does it matter how much room they occupy within the story?
If your script is 100 pages and your manage to fully convey what could be deemed as Act 1 in the first five pages, that's obviously not 1/4 of your script. So why add 20 more pages to convey a plot point?
I feel that once you have reached certain goals (Conflict, Rising Action, Resolution or whatever other story elements are needed) then you've done your job. If you can tell the story in a manner that is also sellable, all the better. If you can tell the story in a manner that doesn't alienate the audience, even better.
As long as you achieve your goal of telling the story (in it's entirety) then you have done you job.
And yes, the audience is everything. They are truly the only ones that matter. Why should we create something that is just like everything else they have seen? Why should we explain to them what they should feel and how they should feel it? Why can't we say "this is the story, make up your own mind" and encourage the audience to become a willing participant in the story being told?
Raghu, you are very correct in the idea behind *commercial art* and *art*. I'm not arguing the fact that even though we as screenwriters have to be able to not only appease our artistic side we also have to keep an eye on making the product *sellable*. No producer in their right mind is going to produce a film that has zero conflict and everything is happy go lucky.
DevelopmentExec, you are right in the idea that formula is not structure. I agree with you on that point. Just because something happens at a particular beat doesn't mean that it also dictates where the beat occurs.
What I was talking about when I said that I DETEST formula writing is that I don't feel that structure should dictate the story and vice versa. All too often I see films that have a very clear and distinctive structure to it and thus make it formulaic, in the sense that once you understand the structure of the story, you can almost accurately predict the outcome of the story. At that point, it doesn't matter where the beat occurs because you've already given away the ending.
The story should be allowed to tell itself. It will dictate what elements it needs and how it is best told. We shouldn't have to force it into a particular structure to help convey the story. Yes, I believe that once you know the basics of story structure only then can you begin to define it for yourself and truly develop your voice as a writer.
I'm not denying that there are certain things needed to be able to convey the story. Storytelling has not changed in centuries, it's been like this since the days of ancient Greece.
I consider the three act structure to be a tool used in storytelling.
I don't consider using target act lengths to be storytelling.
As long as the elements are there, what does it matter how much room they occupy within the story?
If your script is 100 pages and your manage to fully convey what could be deemed as Act 1 in the first five pages, that's obviously not 1/4 of your script. So why add 20 more pages to convey a plot point?
I feel that once you have reached certain goals (Conflict, Rising Action, Resolution or whatever other story elements are needed) then you've done your job. If you can tell the story in a manner that is also sellable, all the better. If you can tell the story in a manner that doesn't alienate the audience, even better.
As long as you achieve your goal of telling the story (in it's entirety) then you have done you job.
And yes, the audience is everything. They are truly the only ones that matter. Why should we create something that is just like everything else they have seen? Why should we explain to them what they should feel and how they should feel it? Why can't we say "this is the story, make up your own mind" and encourage the audience to become a willing participant in the story being told?
Last edited:
I like to think of the Three-Act Structure less and less as a formula and more and more as an archetype which almost all stories seem to follow. No reason -- it's as natural as the law of gravity. You see it everywhere:
Magic: Pledge, Turn, Prestige
Joke: Set-up, Development, Sting
Story: Beginning, Middle, End.
That said, I do agree that saying that "Act One has to be X pages, Act Two has to be X times two minus ten pages", etc. is taking it too far. An archetype is a mental construct shared by many people. That's why it's more important how long the acts "seem" to be in the audiences' mind, rather than how many pages or minutes it is. As long as there is a proper flow, the pacing would seem just right.
Magic: Pledge, Turn, Prestige
Joke: Set-up, Development, Sting
Story: Beginning, Middle, End.
That said, I do agree that saying that "Act One has to be X pages, Act Two has to be X times two minus ten pages", etc. is taking it too far. An archetype is a mental construct shared by many people. That's why it's more important how long the acts "seem" to be in the audiences' mind, rather than how many pages or minutes it is. As long as there is a proper flow, the pacing would seem just right.
Last edited: