I don't mean to come across as antagonistic, but Syd Field's "Screenwriting" is not a great start for a fledgling writer. Field certainly has a grasp (not necessarily a firm one) of what constitutes a compelling screenplay, but his "3 act" dissemination is far too reductive and misses the point entirely.
The problem is that it inadvertently perpetuates some of the WORST traits in screenplays. When you're breaking a film, novel, comic, what have you, you must do what's right for the story and characters. Story is paramount to a compelling piece of work. There's no way around this. Whenever a film fails to fully resonate with an audience, the story is often the issue buried beneath a bunch of smaller problems.
In a writer's nascence, we often copy things in a trial and error sort of way to hone our voice. Many cling to structure as a means to justify their decisions, and with good reason! A screenplay requires MANY decisions to be made. The 3 act structure is certainly a structure we can understand and use to guide us in the writing process, but it's rudimentary and often too vague.
For example, without answering with a page count, what defines an act? What is an act break? What does a "rise to conflict" really mean, especially when it's the primary designator for "Act 2," per Field? I couldn't muster much of an answer after reading through "Screenplay." It left me befuddled.
Mixing this with a cursory understanding of "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" was more than likely how the screenplay for The Green Lantern ended up being made. And that film didn't resonate with the general audience, fans of the source material, or critics. It failed on three fronts, and yet it "technically" hits the marks elaborated upon in the books of Field and Campbell.
"Screenplay" was the first book I read on the subject and it certainly didn't help solidify the mechanics of storytelling or structure of a compelling narrative. In fact, I think it obfuscated things further for me.
Fellow writers, do yourself a favor...
Take this:
And toss it in a bin. Then fire said bin into the sun or something.
Instead, give this a read:
Skeptical? Peruse this: HULK’S SCREENWRITING 101 EXCERPT: THE MYTH OF 3 ACT STRUCTURE.
I can't heap enough praise on this book. It's helped me immensely in my own process and reaffirmed several things I already do. It's an indispensable guide to storytelling distilled through the typings of the big green brute. Don't let the ALL CAPS mislead you; he's sharp, erudite, and articulate... And, yes, it comes with a "Banner" version in normal capital letters.
Jump on it.
Then get back to writing.
The problem is that it inadvertently perpetuates some of the WORST traits in screenplays. When you're breaking a film, novel, comic, what have you, you must do what's right for the story and characters. Story is paramount to a compelling piece of work. There's no way around this. Whenever a film fails to fully resonate with an audience, the story is often the issue buried beneath a bunch of smaller problems.
In a writer's nascence, we often copy things in a trial and error sort of way to hone our voice. Many cling to structure as a means to justify their decisions, and with good reason! A screenplay requires MANY decisions to be made. The 3 act structure is certainly a structure we can understand and use to guide us in the writing process, but it's rudimentary and often too vague.
For example, without answering with a page count, what defines an act? What is an act break? What does a "rise to conflict" really mean, especially when it's the primary designator for "Act 2," per Field? I couldn't muster much of an answer after reading through "Screenplay." It left me befuddled.
Mixing this with a cursory understanding of "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" was more than likely how the screenplay for The Green Lantern ended up being made. And that film didn't resonate with the general audience, fans of the source material, or critics. It failed on three fronts, and yet it "technically" hits the marks elaborated upon in the books of Field and Campbell.
"Screenplay" was the first book I read on the subject and it certainly didn't help solidify the mechanics of storytelling or structure of a compelling narrative. In fact, I think it obfuscated things further for me.
Fellow writers, do yourself a favor...
Take this:
And toss it in a bin. Then fire said bin into the sun or something.
Instead, give this a read:
Skeptical? Peruse this: HULK’S SCREENWRITING 101 EXCERPT: THE MYTH OF 3 ACT STRUCTURE.
I can't heap enough praise on this book. It's helped me immensely in my own process and reaffirmed several things I already do. It's an indispensable guide to storytelling distilled through the typings of the big green brute. Don't let the ALL CAPS mislead you; he's sharp, erudite, and articulate... And, yes, it comes with a "Banner" version in normal capital letters.
Jump on it.
Then get back to writing.
