Your Script Does NOT Have Three Acts

[word2yourmogwai]

Since when did Marz Girl become a screenwriter?

[Trelli28]

strange accent. very distracting.

[Luke1268]

very strange voice. the point is that the three act structure is a proven form. No one ever said that it was a rule, just a very successful principle. now fuck off.

[rerite2]

Annoying woman.

[raymondleeleggs]

my story only has 2 true acts because the 2nd act is really both the 2nd and third act.

It was supposed to ge a novel simila to his dark materials but I got too lazy and decided to make a much shorter movie. (without talking animals). Why does she croak so much?

[filmfelineadmin]

Honey, the only reason why I listened to you from the start to finish is coz that accents is totally whacked ;)

As for the content of your speech - YES - Sid Field is right - when you're writing a script, you're telling a story. WHICH MEANS it has a BEGINING, MIDDLE and an END - those are 3 things, you can call them acts or parts or what haveyous, but they are 3 things and just like you would tell a story to a friend, you write a script with a begining, middle and an end.

[Acard89]

Even though I disagree with her, She's actually kinda right. The SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION is a good example of screenplays that DO NOT follow the three act structure. But it all depend on narrative demands

[filmfelineadmin]

@Acard89 Pop in SR again and watch carefully - not only is the entire film done according to the standard, even the scenes are broken down into 3 parts babeee ;P

[cheesybuttocks]

what he SAIID was this

[TheHandOfFear]

In fact your list of names proves that a three act structure is important. I can't think of a good film any of those people have written. It just shows that writers who buck act structure and other writing tools blindly turn out bad work.

Thank you. You proved the merits of the three act structure.

[TheHandOfFear]

And Alex Epstien? Seriously? The guy who wrote 'Bon Cop, Bad Cop' is a writing guru? Seriously? That move was just 90 minutes of clichés with no story substance.

Do you seriously think these guys are good screenwriters or are you just throwing out their names because you did a google search for people who didn't like the three act structure like you?

[TheHandOfFear]

John Truby is a terrible "writing guru" in my opinion.  He picks on weird inconsequential elements of a story and seems to miss completely the important elements. Wait a minute why are we even discussing John Truby? How can you call him a guru at all. He's more of a guy with a website and an opinion on screenwriting.

[TheHandOfFear]

I just re-wrote a screenplay that the director and previous writer knew was a good story but knew wasn't working in screenplay form. They read the new draft and loved it.

You know what I had done? Simply re-arranged scenes and events so that they followed a logical progression and a three act structure. It didn't kill the story. It saved it.

You know why the original writer couldn't do it? Because he was like you and automatically bucked the act structure without actually trying it first.

[TheHandOfFear]

Tell me this, have you even taken a story you have written that doesn't follow a three act structure and rework it into that structure?

You act like that would somehow destroy the story. Like it just can't be told in a three act structure. But have you tried it? I have never once seen it destroy a story, only help it.

[TheHandOfFear]

Most of the bad screenplays I read have one painfully long first act with no conflict, and then a rushed overly conflicted third act. Most of the time they lack any second act or "middle".

[TheHandOfFear]

A studio would be crazy to pass up a good screenplay just because it didn't fit some checklist. Yes they do pass up good screenplays for other reasons, some sensible, some not. But the good ones that get passed up often get made independently, because somebody eventually sees it's merits.

In my experience when an aspiring screenwriter says "My screenplay didn't get bought/made because it didn't have a three act structure!" that is ALWAYS just an excuse for bad writing in general.

[TheHandOfFear]

Studios don't pass up screenplays because they don't have a three act structure. They don't literally catalog whether it had act changes on specific pages. They judge it on wether or not it's a good story. And the truth is stories that defy a three act structure are often hard to follow and not very good.

[raymondleeleggs]

@TheHandOfFear if that's true then explain how the final (butchered) battlefield earh got greenlighted, even a money hungry film anything with dialogue proder could see tha tthe finl draft was a turd!

[TheHandOfFear]

I think Erin is one of an all to common type of screenwriter. Someone who bucks convention because she thinks that's how you be original. This is all too common in aspiring screenwriters and ultimately leads to failure.

It's like trying to design an original new style of car and saying "I'm going to make a car without wheels. Who cares if it can't go anywhere. Look at me, I'm original!" A skilled car designer knows that no matter what kind of car she is making, it has to be able to drive.

[TheHandOfFear]

Television shows for instance often have more than 3 acts. Each span of time between commercials is considered an act. However if you notice good television shows usually group the middle acts into one logical piece story-wise, so really there are three "acts" of the kind Syd Field describes.

Shakespeare did the same thing. He may have technically had more than 3, but if you analyze it carefully, it's really a 3 act structure with the longer middle act broken up into multiple sequences.

[TheHandOfFear]

You accuse people people of misinterpreting things. Yet you are confusing "acts" with "sequences". Yes in plays they often call them acts and they are logically divided up. However the equivalent in screenwriting is closer to a sequence.

There can be any number of sequences within each act. What Syd Field refers to as acts are yes, a beginning middle and end, but he structures them as "acts" in order to show that there is a logical ratio in the lengths of the beginning, middle and end.

[Jojo3000s]

Three act just seem natural, Some cultures who never heard of Aristotle have same structure of 3 act in their story. How about you show us the 5 acts in Shakespeare you're talking about and what the other 2 acts are all about.

[astrologysongs]

Hi Erin,

Here's a video of HOLLYWOOD SCREENWRITER - the song

...on my youtube site.

[Hold423]

facepalm

[mlaunder]

I didn't know Sarah Palin didn't know how to write...

[rawREN]

It would be a huge mistake to confuse a play's literal act structure with the more abstract idea of three acts as described by McKee or Field. A five or seven act play (or screenplay) can often still be described as a three act work. A story does not have to be three acts... but it will still likely need to have what Aristotle loosely described as being a beginning, a middle, and an end. Exceptions may be interesting and effective... but it does not discount the idea in general.

[ibcnunabit]

Whatever you think of the young woman, but she's right, you know. This is a particular fixation of screenwriters--good playwrights know there are differences in act structures--and they tend to produce different kinds of stories, with different feels to them and different characterizations to the kind of exploration they involve. Some great movies had one-act or two-act structures, people just try to impose a three-act structure on top of them.

[FoolTuber41]

@ibcnunabit

But most follow 3 acts for a reason. By and large it's the most effective. (aside, I don't thinks it's imposed, I think by definition it's always there to some degree.)

1 act, 2 act, etc structures exploit niches not available most stories. When you teach concepts you focus first on the rules, then the exceptions.

The fixation exists because it works. Movies and , indeed, stories of all kinds followed the 3-Act structure as Field "misinterpreted" it, long before he did so.

[fhorton2000]

I'll bet she can't write worth a damn . . . normally people who nit pick like this can't.

[mojo972]

agreed.... ...and a 101 class in lighting would be a start ;)

[dantean]

It's weird that she engages screenwriting gurus to do battle with other screenwriting gurus while offering herself up as yet another screenwriting guru. The guru's goal is to make a living writing how-to's for something few, if any of them, have ever or will ever do. Her getting all righteous about Field seems cynical to in this context, when all she's looking to do is be the next Syd Field. Her bashing the gurus for having ruined the movies is just her way of preparing to become the next guru.

[0FindGlory]

Whether its a misquote or not - three acts do work! she's a nice girl! now I've forgotten what I came in here for... no, I've remembered; as banal as this question sounds: Does anyone have written down (for themselves) a top 10 or 15 or 20 or 25 'rules' (no matter who they are from - Field/Mckee et al ) that some of us could keep in mind when writing? can you share?

[AJ5150rOXmyISH]

@0FindGlory did you ever find any lists of screenwriting tips online?

[Br0kenEnGliSh]

interesting perspective

[chairman21]

Nit-picking nonsense. I've read the Syd Field book twice and it's crystal clear what he means by the three acts. He even says you don't have to take it literally. Verdict: do your homework before spouting on about something you haven't understood.

[drboogersnot]

I really honestly meant to watch this all the way through. But the grinding drone of her voice makes me want to kill myself. It's like Peter Brady hitting puberty x 1000.

[VinsonLWatkins]

All these artsy types who think they are rebels by going against "the grain" might consider that the structural grain they oppose is entertainment itself... and the opposite of entertainment is BOREDOM. Bore your audience at your own risk, but good luck getting funding for it.

[VinsonLWatkins]

Actually, a story of length, be it a novel, a full-length play, or a feature film MUST have a minimum of three acts if it is to sustain the attention and interest of an audience. The acts are built around major reversals. If you can't pull off three major reversals in two hours, you are wasting our time. Write a one act short and be done with it.

[Relugus]

The most important thing is that a story works, regardless of whether it has three acts or not.

Saying a story must have three acts is like saying a film or play must be 2 hours long.

Beginning, Middle, and End, yes, they are necessary, but a story can have more than one middle.

[cbdurietz]

@Relugus "A story can have more than on middle"? Perhaps if we are using quantum physics.

If you have two pieces of rope of different length, do the longer rope have several middles?

[ProverbsandPrisons]

This person's voice/accent destroy any credibility her argument might have. 1 star, and may God have mercy on you and your peculiar and jarring way of speaking.

[hecklongtree]

Of course Aristotle didn't say plays should have three acts. Ancient Greek plays were not divided into acts. The curtain, as a theatrical device dividing plays into acts, hadn't been invented yet.

[souldude81]

Erin, I want to point out that an interpretation isn't necessarily a missinterpretation. The 3 act structure is the minimum required for a 120 minute complete telling. However it should also be noted that the more acts you have in a story the greater the danger of inviting cliche's into the telling.

[TourRoyale]

The 3 act structre is why all films are exactly the same cookie-cutter garbage and why there are morons who say "there are no more ideas/ storys to tell".

Aristotle's ideas are so formulaic and ancient. Instead read "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky.

[Aristurtle89]

I'm reading McKee at the moment, he says that the three act structure is a myth & Aristotle is commonly misquoted- which i agree with

[scroll2b]

There's no denying that films have a setup and a resolution, and a journey of confrontation in between. That's merely what Field is trying to illustrate: beginning, middle, and end. Read Joseph Campbell if you can't stomach Field and you'll find the same thing...

[snackswilson]

this makes no sense and even if it does the point it s trying to make is completely irrelavant.

[tonamoreno]

I think you are right and that you are brave for talking about it. I am currently reading "story", by McKee and I think he is right in many aspects, but others are just opinions and arbitrary standards.

[crankyerma]

Beyond my previous comment, one has to recognize that the Hollywood screenplay is a form with accepted guidlelines. A good writer can say what needs to be said within them. You wouldn't decry the fact that no one accepts a haiku written in iambic pentameter. Because it wouldn't be a haiku. So why rail against the 3 act structure? If one feels it is too limiting, fine. Write something else but don't expect it to be seen by anyone and then what was the point? The form is about entertaining.

[crankyerma]

The real thing here:

Are you a produced screenwriter with some pull who can get an unusual project made? Do you have investors and distributors who are willing to follow your vision regardless of an atypical structure? Do you have a star attached to the project? If the answer to these questions is 'no', then regardless of the 'tyranny' of the 3 act structure, you have to do it just like every one else or you won't even get a reader at an agency to move past page 30. An unfortunate reality.

[NartSaga]

Syd field = ALL BS

[cubesearch]

Yep, keep whining, and all you syncophantic posters keep nodding along.

Professional writers get on with it and get paid.

[nekidspaceman]

This is very true, if something comes along which blows everything out of the water and has it's own unique structure then it will be the new rules. However I can imagine it being nearly impossible to change things from my lonely bedroom. And once you've changed everything for the better you tend to eat yourself to death, like orson welles. who wants that? actually I want that! i love food. As long as the money want 3 acts I'll write 3 acts. when I have money I'll make whatever I want! happiness

[bowloforanges123]

You can have as many acts as possible, the only thing is 3 is the minimum number of acts, and technically its 4 acts, as there is a mini act before the inciting incident.

There are hollywood films which are more than 3 acts,

Raiders of the Lost Ark. The only problem is that increasing the number of acts, you run out of bigger and better turning points.

[jpaw33]

Structure is important if you want to be successful. In film the beginning, middle and end must occur within a certain time frame.

Of course you could do some visual art type thing like the beautiful film Baraka, but that's a rare Gem.

Most film is about money, don't forget the bottom line for a producer is investment. If it works they'll buy it if it doesn't they'll tell you to fix it.

[edsas]

Good job. You hit the nail on the head as to why Hollywood is the most frustrating industry on the planet. Thanks for nothing, Syd Field.

[RAHAproductions]

thank you its stupid how all these uncreative writers say books and movies have to have three acts, i mean i'm just a student but i go nuts whenever my english teacher tells us 'the correct way to right a story'. pisses me off

[FilmTeller]

When it's come to screenwriting I've always thought it's best to learn all the "rules" and then listen to your own voice when you start writing.

[Alasil]

Actually, Syd Field just expanded on the idea of "beginning, middle, end". Hollywood doesn't take on movies with three acts because of a missinterpretation. They do so because they work.

I would agree that writing should not stick to the three acts, but that doesn't mean the structure is faulty.

[robopoet]

You should read a book about lighting.

[naiproductions]

LOL

[word2yourmogwai]

@robopoet Everyone on youtube needs a lesson on lighting.

[bearcurt]

No, Syd Field did not crap his pants. He even addresses that exact film in his book. We need some ACTUAL evidence behind your bs, thank you very much.

[beichola]

Syd Fild crap on his pants when Pulp Fiction wins the Oscar, by the way, the oscar for the best original screen play, né, galerinha do outro lado da ponte...

[AGentertainment]

Pulp Fiction, as well as movies like Memento and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, follow the paradigm very well, but are just written extremely well that many miss seeing it.

[clonespeck]

You sure that people didn't seek the paradigm in a more complex, out-of-the-box shift, then pointing out familiarities to what they know? I mean, if you look hard enough at anything in search for the familiar, you'll eventually believe it to be what you want it to be, instead of what it is. What I am saying is, those movies may have never had a thought about the three acts in mind when writing, and since we pick at the plots, we found them -- afterall, there is a start, middle, and finish.