A film is or should be more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.- Stanley Kubrick
+Sean Ramsdell Yes! I also wonder why there is such an emphasis on having a certain set of "beats" to a story. I think a story beat is an event that helps to progress the story forward...kind of like an escalation. So if you compare it to music, there is a heck of a lot more beats in that than the 20 something beats you hear about in most story paradigms...or it would be a very short song.
I always shy away from someone who says, "if you don't do X it won't be good." There are ALWAYS examples of something without X being great, not to mention that "good" and "great" are subjective and often (not always) stifling to the evolution of art.
There will always be exceptions, but there are reliable patterns and structure that can be relied upon. I forget who said it, but you have to know the rules before you can break them.
I agree. I had one screenwriter teacher say you HAVE to make a script for 90 minutes and DO NOT go to two hours cause that's WAY too long. And I'm like "...honey, Star Wars, Harry Potter movies, Lord of the Rings and Avengers movies NEVER followed that rule." -_-
@@DanielSelk most of them had that long arc that needed to be stretched out ya know. The books for Harry Potter and LOTR. They had to be cut short. So we're a lot of things from the Star Wars and Avengers stories. The 90 minute thing is alright but again, there's no rules to follow but a few
@@jay3398 I'm not saying 90 min is bad, but they were making it say that if you go over it then NO ONE will see your movie and your movie is bad and that no one goes that long. I hated then saying things like that as if we were allowed to do what we wanted in our stuff.
I very recently overheard a dialog between people that went something like this, "If you do it that way then you're a second rate them instead of a first rate you." That stuck because it's true. All these people with the perfect recipe but like with anything else, you're doing it THEIR way and not your own. Stuff like the BMOC, or "Save The Cat". That's great as one of many building blocks, but let's be honest here, who among us can build a Lego house with one piece of Lego? Stuff like that should be used as a platform or as I said, a building block, but should never ever be used as a Bible. Never be used as "the source". This is how movies get far too predictable and a viewer like myself knows the finer details of the plot I'm about to see within the first few scenes because I know the rules of BMOC/Save The Cat. There's nothing worse than a predictable plot/story, and you get those when you have people that religiously follow someone ELSE'S method dogmatically. Again, a second rate THEM or a first rate YOU.
I recommend reading some of Syd Fields old books on screenwriting, "Save the Cat" by Blake Snyder is also good, short and concise, THe Heros Journey by Joseph Campbell is kind of compulsory although one have to translate some of the structural elements a bit and then there is a perhaps less known book by Lajos egri called THe Art of Dramatic Writing, which takes a dialectical approach which is pretty useful too in ensuring progress of conflict. Between them I believe they cover at least some of what "this" is. Incidentally the book "creating emotion in games - the art and craft of emotioneering" by David Freeman also has a lot of properly basic rules in it, boiled down to simple concepts, although it's about gamewriting. Personally I hate ticking clocks when they are too literal, like "ship will self-destruct in T minus 30 seconds" usually leading up to something like "cut the blue wire, no the green wire" t'a just too 80s early 90s for me. Certainly there are more elegant ways than that ... Also there are so many books that just live off peoples dreams and try to obfuscate the fact that this is very much about a western take on storytelling, and the realm of art movies and other modes of narrative can take quite different approaches. This is about a certain mainstream thing. I am not denying that there is an ancient paradigm there, but at that same time it's not that simple. If a story is ONLY an efficient machine, it will likely feel too smooth and too much like other similar machines.
@@whynottalklikeapirat thanks for your comment. I had a discussion with a fellow filmmaker, where you can go down a rabbit hole of screenwriting instruction and it can actually do more harm than good if you get stuck in that For me, it killed my natural creative process and made me fall out of love with my ideas when I tried to make sure every single scene is crackling with tension and conflict and yada yada. We have to remember that these classes are all oriented towards becoming a well paid for-hire screenwriter, which might not be everyone's goal.
@@Adam-fb5nt Good point. To some extent I think this is also a question that pertains to process - to when you are approaching your work with what attitude. For creative writing there seems to be really two schools of thought where you are either what some will call "a gardener" or archeologist, unearthing something from the unconscious and letting the art object grow in an organic way, and then the architect type which is more construction-oriented, more analytical and arguably a bit more like a designer. While I consider myself to mostly belong to the first category, at the same time I consider all of this a bit of a false dichotomy seeing as all conscious activity has an unconscious substrate and both are alwas active in human thought processes or indeed creative activities. However in practice I think it's all about being the right "person" at the right time. While getting the raw material down, the first draft or at least a good sizable chunk of it that captures enough of the substrate of interconnections ideas were borne out of, I'd say don't analyse or think about it at all. This is a point of view echoed by many writers. Purists will say work ONLY this way - only from the sensual nature of the object inside you. But of course once it's out you can have a more analytical look at what you think you have. But it's delicate and lots of individual rituals seem to govern this part of it. I think the knowledge of craft can help spot problem areas or boost certain qualities. It is a tool to be used when doing a bit of a rundown. I like the idea of doing this work or using it to ask questions but then not answering them with contrivances but just letting the unconscious marinate further until the answers present themselves. I think the interplay is useful, but its a tight rope walk. For sure the more analytical you get WITHIN the writing process the more you are going to sever ties with the unconscious and eventually leave you dried up and uninspired - because there is no roots or inspiration in contrivances. THey're ideas with no true connection and they float around like objects rather than organic things - and they get in the way of the truly emergent stuff. Different modes of language come from different parts of the brain and consequently are connected to completely different modes of language use or thinking. So many people get stuck either trying to do both at the same time, which I suppose is possible to some extent if you have A LOT of experience, but in western culture the tendency is to divert to a more scientific mode of thought every time a wall is hit. Depending on your personality type - that's pretty much guaranteed to kill inspiration before too long. It's actually not sensible to analyse something that is not done as if it was. It's reductive. You become focused on what is visible now, not on what is emerging. IN brain terms, the emergent process is suppressed or even disrupted as this other mental object and focus takes center stage in the imaginarium. At the end of the day craft is technique and if practiced enough it becomes an internalised thing that very like does unconscious work for you in it's own right. Internalised craft becomes part of the intuitive engine and part of efficient decisionmaking in an open-ended field. BUT - consciousness has limitied band width. We can focus on only one thing at a time and hold something like a maximum of 8 mental objects in our field of attention at ay one time. All these techniques and rules - we can't apply them while trying to be engrossed and immersed in a flow process of writing where we are trying to commune with something unknown coming out of us that has been forming down there in the darkness until it finally hit critical mass and surfaced. At that point its getting it out and not getting in its way. I kind of like to believe that something borne out of a true flow has a natural logic and some invisible selective agency to it that, as Hemingway put it, is as fragile and fleeting as the dust on a butterfly's wings. And if it was truly interesting to you to be in that flow, there is a chance it will be interesting to others, and if it surprised you - it might also be surprising to others. WHen you are thinking like the architecht - that's what you already know. That's the old or current you talking. The other stuff - that's the emerging you being borne. And it SHOULD be something unknown. It SHOULD be a discobery and not a maths assignment. And again - in brain terms, and in flow terms, if they new is to have a place to emerge - the old must be temporarily suppressed and deliberatly set aside - and process must be let go of ... there wll be time to integrate the new with the old later for balance - and that may require some thinking too. But writing is alwasy NOW. There's half an essay anyways, sorry xD
Problem: Many scenes don't allow for cheap suspense tricks, and you have to get more elaborate. Take the Tarantino movies, they're full of apparently peaceful dialogue but with a subtext that makes you feel uneasy and makes you want to know what will happen next. Every scene needs some kind of hook to keep the viewer interested, but pointed guns and ticking clocks aren't always the answer.
To people who think this guy is perpetuating and enabling formuelic writing, you're confusing tools with formulas. You can theoretically build a house with something other than a hammer, but is it wise? Obviously whatever kind of style of house you build with said hammer, the slant of the roof, the type of windows, the color of brick, is up in the air.
I emphatically disagree. A solid foundation (act one) is needed before you can put up the walls (act two) and cap it with the roof (act three). HOW the foundation, walls and roof are constructed and how pleasing it is to the individual is subjective but an average house is going to sell faster than a fancy one. But now we're getting into economics...
I totally agree (with your disagree). Coincidentally, I've studied/worked in film production and construction project management. Great similarities, not only on story structure but also from a production POV; sourcing crew/props/approvals vs sourcing contractors/materials/approvals.
No, because a film is not a house. It is a piece of artwork. I agree with you, but your analogy is poor; changing tools when making art has vastly different effects on the final artwork.
Every device should be used to make the story advance, to develop character or to reveal plot ("show, don't tell"). So the most important thing in my opinion will always be to know the story you want to tell and to know your characters the best you can. Having said that, I truly believe that creating doubt is the most important device one can use in a script. If you can make the reader (and the audience) question wether the character will eventually achieve his goal or not by making him face a challenge after the other (each one more difficult than the last) then you will be able to grab their attention and take them at least to the end of your script.
Audience giving a shit for the characters should be the ultimate goal I think, and you got to achieve that fast but naturally (Good luck to us ... ). Then you can play with doubt and all the tricks known to man to make the story more thrilling
@@alexispapageorgiou72 personally, I feel the most important thing to use when making a character the audience will "give a shit about" is their flaw/flaws. Put it out in the open early, even if it's presented subtly to the point where most of the audience isn't immediately consciously aware of the flaw, and make it a flaw that someone in the real world would have (and thus most people will have experienced it at some point themselves,) which I feel makes audiences not only want to see them change for the better, even if they ultimately don't (such as in The Godfather,) but also makes them personally invested because it's become personal. From that early point on, make the flaw/flaws a common problem, give the character at least one chance to overcome it which fails (which easily leads to the good news/bad news-higher stakes method,) and the climax would be them overcoming it. For both presenting the flaw and overcoming it, I feel the best and most powerful way to do this is to make it so subtle that most audiences will have to really think about why that affected them to notice it. My favorite example is in Black Panther, the first (and arguably still the only) movie in the MCU that didn't use these story beats with the subtlety of a baseball to the face. T'Challa's flaw, presented early though not necessarily as a flaw, was that he believed in and even idolized his father, to the point where he wouldn't question the decisions for the direction of Wakanda his father and ancestors set, so he would continue Wakanda's isolationist policy putting his people above all others, and he showed he wasn't really thinking for himself. This was presented SUPER subtly. Finding out about his father's involvement and negligence toward Killmonger devastated him, and when face to face with Killmonger, he showed no respect or sympathy towards him, refusing to admit that his father was in the wrong, thus failing to overcome his father's shadow. The climax, where T'Challa is in the Veldt and sees his father and past kings, he yells, "You are wrong! All of you are wrong!" That scene was powerful because that was him overcoming his flaw, not only accepting that his father wasn't perfect, but also showing, without directly saying, that he would now think for himself, without the veils of tradition clouding his judgement, and that those with the ability to help others NEED to be willing to help others. He doesn't use the preachy, tired ass method mediocre writers will use where they say, "I have learned [insert how their character flaw was harming them/holding them back,]" he IMPLIED it indirectly through words or actions.
@@omegagilgamesh What you write is just one story. It's not the manual for stories. Stories that evolve through a character becoming better through the journey while pursuing a goal should follow a smart, interesting, intriguing, humane path like the one you described. I can name numerous examples that don't follow this path and are top shelf ... The good, the bad and the ugly (unbelievable story ... none of the character changes), Inglorious bastards, deep blue sea, hateful eight, blah blah ... I can go on and on and on ... All these movies have one thing in common. They're a story in their own right thus there's no need in character change and if you put one in there, it will not make the film better. On the contrary ...
This is the same thing Alfred Hitchcock said, when people called him a genius. In the interview, where they ask him about how long would he let a kiss last in a movie, and he said 10 minutes, but I'd put a bomb under their chair. He and this dude are just saying you need suspense and conflict in every scene, and that's true, but it can be presented in a myriad of ways.
@@BassLiberators nope is not, he doesnt mean it always has to be a scene with a gun pointed at someone it really doesnt matter what it is,as long as it fits the narrative and theres something happening it could be tension between dialogue or any other form
@@andresnavarro5978 There are plenty of great movies though that have scenes where intentionally nothing is happening. Sometime's it's just the writer's intention for nothing to happen.
@@BassLiberators if its great than trust me, something is happening, like i said it doesnt have to be something huge it doesnt always mean tension or suspense just something that has your charecters doing something for the story, lets say i have a charecter that forgot to feed his cat and then he goes to the store to buy something but then he forgets his wallet ,this may seem like a useless scene but it actually shows you that this character is never concentrated on anything it will be important scene for an arc that will take place in the third act (despite of it being an action scene or a charecter driven scene) it may seem like nothing but theres actually something happening even if its a slow scene, now compare that to a bunch a stoners hanging out in a room just talking about random stuff snd then the next scene is someone eating cereal for like 2 minutes alone, now those would be useless and boring scenes because charecters aren't doing anything there
@@LuisAngel-mu4zv I still don't agree with this idea. The example I always use as a counter is the floating monolith scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey. One of the most iconic scenes in cinema, totally core to the movie, and nothing plot-related is accomplished with it. There's no tension, no ticking clock, no character growth, nothing changes in the world. And yet it's one of the most important scenes in one of the most important films ever made.
Film tip: If you’re from a culture that reads from left to right, that directional eye musculature (L->R) is stronger and faster. Thus, a villain entering suddenly up close from the far right of a movie screen would startle an audience more-so than vice versa. If you want to mimic a great hit film, play its sequences in reverse. The first 8 notes of the hit song “Born Free” were reversed to create the hit song of “Star Wars”.
I agree. I call it by a different name (storytelling mechanics) but it's the same principle. Good news/bad news raising stakes, one thing leading to another. I'm a comic book artist who falls victim to illustrating very bad comic books for some of my clients (who are spending a lot of money on me). They tend to have me draw the same scenes, the same characters page after page without anything happening of any consequence to anyone. The worst of them are clearly having me draw images they'd like to see... repeated again, and again, and again (like the hero of the story). What kills me is if they'd apply this (and Kurt Vonnegut's seven rules for writing a novel) it would cost nothing and would save their project from complete hopelessness. As I'm illustrating their script I keep asking myself 'where's the story?' There is none.
Write first. Structure later. A good story is more than just tricks and devices. Plot isn't the end; just a means to an end. The characters should be the story, not the other way around.
Well, character-driven stories should be about character but event-driven stories are about events. Both types of stories have plots but it's where the focus of the story is. THE JOY LUCK CLUB is about character but any James Bond movie is about events. Having said that I generally agree with your opinion.
@@AlanSmitheeman i dont quite get it about the 007. is it a event driven story because we dont get to see the pov of the bad guy who is always one step ahead of bond?
"Write first, Structure later"... I think that's a good advice. I take "write first" as knowing what your story is about a lot already before putting it in act structures.. however I dont agree with the last sentence. Sometimes plot driven stories can be more impactful then characters.
I didn't quite agree with this guy, but I must admit that there is some value to what he says. If you take his comments with a grain of salt and remain TRUE to the essence of YOUR story, it can't hurt to look for opportunities to create suspense. Just don't compromise your story
i think if you write a compelling story, one that ratchets to a conclusion without being repetitive, you got a winner. i don't believe you need to hit all these plot points, highs and lows, the hero is down, all is lost, comeback themes. if a writer is fully engaged with his story, his emotion will carry through. and the reader/watcher will pick up on it.
@@jatnhielfonseca208 Lol, did he named them? In my defense, I really lost interest after the first examples. My bad. BB is great and so are some of Tarantino's films.
I try not to tell people exactly what I want to do for the career I'm going for so, I just tell them any ol' thing. However, what I truly want to do is definitely in the same category as being a screenwriter and novelist and even though this video is quite old, I find it very helpful moving forward.
I used them more intuitively but being aware of them as a toolset to use is a great asset I think. when you need to change things, you know what you can do but it's important to know exactly what tool is appropriate for each work, so you don't overuse or misuse them, and that's intuitive for me, I follow my heart in the end. for example, even breaking bad has some beautiful boring scenes, they are designed to be like that, to give the audience time to process to think to take a break, and to contrast with the other ones so to make them more powerful.
Sorry, I personally like it when people go against the rules and make it work. When everyone follows the rules to a T I find it often makes it organic. There are teachers "teaching" that you can't go over 90 minutes EVER or it's "too long" as well, and am I supposed to listen to that?? Especially when Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and every Harry Potter movie didn't do that at all?? NO WAY!!! Every story has its OWN length whether it's short or long. Sure there are rules that you have to abide by but even those you can expand or bend. I say let artists be artists and don't confine them to rules you "HAVE" to abide by and find out whether it's good or bad. I've found when someone says "That will NEVER work" then people will find a way to make it work and it will happen.
Worse, he sounds like a manager rather than a teacher. A manager knows how to get the most value out of business (he talks about how these tools are cheap, but they work incredibly well on the human brain). A teacher will share wisdom of using these tools and structure properly. It's really discomforting how he talks about pop culture; again, he's completely right, but it's like coaching salespeople to use certain tactics that get results, rather than really believing in what you're selling. I'm highly conscious when I see film and TV, spotting these ticking clocks and raising stakes that seem deliberately planted to raise tension and keep the audience from getting bored. It's sad, but it works.
I looked him up, and you're 100% correct. He has almost no writing credits yet sells a 60 dollar screenwriting guide and calls himself "the script doctor." Glad to see there's so many people in the comments that see how sus this guy is.
Well to be fair. Kanye has a track record if hits. He knows how to make music that sells and sells really well. No matter what we might think of him personally; he is successful.
He's not wrong. I don't think Russell is saying that's all there is to great screenwriting, just that these are the building blocks of an engaging script.
What about films lacking form? No one would say Terrence Malick is a bad filmmaker, his pages rarely incorporate these elements. Some films also have relatively static but lovable characters. Like The Tramp in most of the Chaplin films. Things change around him but he rarely changes. There are songs with alternative structuring can we do the same successfully with film? I want to make sure I'm not off base here, because I'm writing screenplays right now. If someone could let me know if I'm wrong and why, it would be immensely helpful.
This is exactly the technique I have implemented with my screenplay writing. And I thought I was a bit over the top. Breaking Bad and Stranger Things have been my inspiration.
This is a very limiting mindset. Not all stories should follow a specific sequence of events. As a writer, you should have an understanding of what makes BMOC work. Then you can learn how to make your own structures, so that they compliment your story better than a general structure that just works. With that said, you obviously shouldn't throw away general methods just because they're general. They obviously work for a reason. If you're just starting out, write a simple story that's good. But after you've written a couple of good stories, you should start changing things up. That's how you learn what actually works and what doesn't. That's how you develop your own style of writing. Otherwise, all of your stories would be the same, and that's boring.
Be who you are...its what make this world what it is...he make some good point but dont limit yourself...im abook writers myself and screenwriter and ill never let anyone limits my ideals.
Knowing what the 'tricks' are and having the creativity and skill to think them up are 2 different things. They had a minimum of 8 top class writers working on every episode of Breaking Bad.
This is what I suffer with. I know the tricks, how to technically make a story, but I lack the skill to write it! It's so frustrating, I don't know how people do it
Capuchino Sofia It's kind of simple. Artists create art, they start off bad and the more they do the better they get. You see videos on YT of artists looking at sketchbooks they did a year ago and the artist can see the progress he's made. And just as artists make art, writers must write everyday. Look at the world around you and write about it. It could provide important content for your first second or third screenplay. Keep a diary and commit to writing a minimum of 100 words per day. You'll see progress because everyone improves at anything the more they do it. If you just pull out a writing book every couple of months and try to write a story, poem etc you'll fail because you're not doing enough. You need to decide if you're going to commit to being a writer.
@@capuchinosofia4771 When someone asks you about your day, you reply in kind and tell them about your day. When a family member asks you about your day, you tell them but the story is always different. Same basic elements, but there's always more to the story. This is writing, which is little more than written storytelling. You already know how to tell a story. There's no trick(s). If I were to ask you about your dream destination, the story you could tell me would either be very bland or super engaging, depending on what parts of the story you choose to share with me. You could tell me about this 3 bedroom cottage high in the hills overlooking a stream/river. Okay that sounds kind of bland doesn't it? Or, you could tell me about that same cottage, kind of rustic and almost ancient looking but once you get inside it's like freaking Narnia in there, and it's nestled in the rolling hills where all you can see is lush green trees with some poplar and birch sprinkled in there for good measure. Looks like an older growth area but not too old. Great firewood to be found for those late nights gathered around your pit enjoying the tranquility of nature and the stars as you roast your S'Mores. It happens to overlook a bubbling stream down yonder, and every once in a while you can spot a bear family hunting for food in the stream. You've been down there a few times so you know the fishing is great. One story is bland. Just facts. One story is vibrant. Detailed. Engaging. You can almost see this place. You're already a storyteller. You just need to figure out a way that works for you on how to get those stories in a written format. Out of your brain and onto a page. Don't rely on tricks. Rely on your imagination first. Tell a story. Blurt it out on paper. Then shape it. Think of it like a chunk of stone. You start with a chunk of stone but as you work away at it, there's a sculpture in there somewhere and you need to draw it out. Use those tricks to refine a story you already blurted out. Don't use the tricks to try and tell the story. Good luck.
While I agree with his premise - there had better be something of Story Telling value happening every next “sentence” / “scene” but his examples are very specific to a genre of action/suspense and don’t take into account far more subtle exposition, intent, action... and you can’t really expect the formulaic plotting to work like a “gear” in a machine. Audiences are not homogeneous blogages - different audiences have different expectations and enjoyments. Moreover, you cannot detach the “gears” from the characters... if the intents or actions do not rise - consistently - our of the character (even though an arc) then the “engagement” gear reads as - just that - a cheap trick and - constant tricks - can become as boring as a flatline with annoying bumps. “Outlander” comes to mind. No doubt it has its audience and that audience is sufficiently large enough to keep it going... but it started “creaking” in the 1st season with characters inconsistencies that were crudely inserted to “give good news” or “bring bad news” or “raise the stakes” that simply became sillier as they became every on inconsistent with the characters and how they - should - be growing with the story. At this point, it’s just entertaining to watch what hoops thru jump through next... when you know NOTHING is “at stake” anymore... but getting to the next scene where Jamie beats up or kills some other guy... or they take their clothes off and do some cheese cake for the Romance Novel crowd... but it HAS an audience... so “bad story” or a “matter of taste” or a “matter of artistic elitism?” Jazz and Classical Music followed this advice (musically) and left its audience completely behind. Just saying. No formulas in Art.
+Clive Makong'o That stuck out at me too. But when you're selling a formula you want to cast a wide net. You're not going to say a film that did $158 million worldwide, and is part of a lucrative franchise, doesn't fit into it. Especially if someone wants to write films like that. "Every great and profitable film uses my system! That film you like? It does too!"
+Clive Makong'o I believe, because Peter "watches" movies differently than usual non-screenwriting consultant. Maybe when he refers to a movie, he actually refers to its screenplay, or even it's structure, beats, characters, plot twists and so on. You know, a great script doesn't guarantee a great movie, and vice versa.
Clive Makong'o pretty sure he was just giving examples of how different types of stories still have to utilize similar structure to grab the audiences attention. And a movie is different from a story, he's talking from a writing perspective.
He was taking about the formula, and I think he was referring to the turning point in the movie. Like the O in BMOC, I mean however bad the movie was that part of the script that Twist that changes the character was pretty great. I think that's what he was mentioning. I'm probably wrong but meh...
He is 100% correct. He is not trying to put 'limitations' on anything, he is simply saying that certain plot devices and story arcs work for a reason. You can write about anything, but there are definitely, for want of a better word, 'formulas' that we respond to. It's why Beatles or Sting or U2 songs work; The Beatles created an enormous and extremely varied body of work within these boundaries. Writing is writing- doesn't matter if it's songs, novels, or scripts. You can bend or break these rules within reason, but the basic elements still need to be there, which is really all he is saying in this video.
Very True... it's funny coz it's true I wind up doin' that unconsciously without even knowing... I think when u really understand what good art looks Like and feeL Like, u can effortlessly make the Writing flow and it will organically hit the requisite beats it has to...🤷🏽♂️
Advice like this seems to be less useful to being a good artist or story-teller and more useful in fooling Hollywood shills that you're one of them. Oh, yes, sir! I know exactly what you mean, sir. BMOC is how I write everything. I always make sure page one starts with the beginning. The middle, of course, comes after that, sir. Then, there needs to be some kind of obstacle and overcoming that is a climax. I never would have thought of that genius until I paid Peter Russell to tell me about it, sir. We were all so shocked about Harvey. Please pass the Soylent Green, sir.
Basically, the screenplay with the suspense within them are having the characters on a rolling coaster. They're going up and down. They're all good and they're in a bad situation. I like his points of view and knowledge on the screenplays even mentioning one of the best writers on how they use those methods that never get old.
Great point. I find that most Hollywood films fail to properly and thus, gradually, acquaint us with the characters before launching the plot. Why would we care about the bank heist when we don’t know if we are interested in or like the banker or robber?
This is such old school advice. "Cheap tricks" is a very old school way of thinking. It's why shows like Atlanta are the new normal and the "ticking clocks, guns, etc." are on their way out. Or at least in the sense that this guy proclaims "all good stories" have this.
Theres a lot of good points he makes for conceptual story design. Raising the stakes, having them scattered throughout the scenes, etc. But! He comes across like a manipulative salesman.
I don't usually have patience to binge watch or tune in every week for a series. I prefer movies. Most shows can be condensed into a movie (at least each season can).
If this fine man would have never said these 3 words: 1) Tokyo, 2) Drift, and 3) "Kan Yay", there would have been very little or no bad comments. Pretty good tip regarding all forms of art, but surely writing.
So if I used BMOC to structure WW2 in the Pacific it would be something like: Beginning: Pearl Harbour attack Middle: Halting the Japanese at Midway Obstacle: Fighting through the Pacific islands (Iwo Jima, Okinawa) Climax: Dropping of atomic bomb on Hiroshima Which leads me to a conclusion. BMOC is how we describe historical events. The same structure could be applied to the Civil War, the race to the Moon or the siege of Troy. But.....should fictional story telling, and particularly movie making, use of the same structure as historical story telling?? And if you are applying BMOC to every page, then how can you have BMOC running from the beginning to the end of the story? Personally I always the find the end of a movie the most boring part because by then the story has become so repetitive and predictable.
could we have a detailed and structured video on THRESHOLDS? What are threshonds? How to use them? How and where to write them. Noone seems to talk much on these. Thank you. Am from India, a hobby writer and follow your channel meticulously.
Who the hell is this hack? There is nothing on IMDB about this guy. Peter Russell's recipe will only create mediocre movies. Here is a list of truely great movies, none of them follow Peter Russell's reasoning. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) A Clockwork Orange (1971) The Tree of Life (2011) Mulholland Drive (2001) (BBC Culture poll of 177 film critics around the world puts David Lynch’s 2001 surrealist masterpiece in top spot, best movie of the 21st century) Lost Highway (1997) The Mirror (1975) Blade Runner (1982) La Jetée (1962) Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972) What makes a great movie? --> If they are still writing dedicated books about that movie 50 years later.
These are guidelines for new and struggling writers who are trying to enter the Industry. All of the above films are terrific and I love every single movie that you mentioned. But the thing is, those movies were made because those are done by some masters in filmmaking. All of those legendary filmmakers are extremely talented and they are backed up by a lot of production houses who trust them. A movie like Taxi Driver was made because Martin Scorsese was behind it. I'm pretty sure that 95% of the production houses won't accept a fresher's script that resembles The Space Odyssey unless you're extremely talented like those masters, Inwhich case you probably won't be here, you'll be out making them. I'm not blaming the producers, afterall it's their money and they need the confidence that the filmmaker will be able to pull off. What most producers expect from a newbie is a high concept movie that reaches a large mainstream audience. A Filmmaker called Mani Ratnam once said " First make movies that the audience wants to watch. Then make the movie that you truly want to create." So if you're a struggling filmmaker working for a big break, try using these guidelines. If it doesn't work, feel free to discard and chose another method that works best for you.
@@mugeshramamoorthy1353 A Filmmaker called Mani Ratnam once said: "First make movies that the audience wants to watch. Then make the movie that you truly want to create." If you follow this method, you'll never end up making the movies that you truly want to make. By the time you get there, you'll be so swallowed in by the industry, template/formulaic thinking and money, that you will have forgotten your true calling and lost all your artistic integrity once you have the freedom and money to make the films you truly want to make. Every film or artistic endeavour is a struggle. If it's not a struggle, it's product, definitely not art or cinema.
I can't help to notice how there are also great movies like Pulp Fiction that don't really have this kind of structure, yet it's still very entertaining, even more so because they it's not predictable.
+Goncalo Norton Funny, because for me, the non-linearity of Pulf Fiction has had the effect of me growing bored with it. I still appreciate the movie for other reasons, though, like its characters.
+Goncalo Norton That's not at all true. If you look at each character individually, they have each of these elements that Peter Russell talks about. Good screenplays are character, after all. Not this over-arching plot device that most screenplay books talk about. If you break down Pulp Fiction into individual characters and not over-all structure, you'll see these simple dramatic breakdowns. And if you read novels, Tarantino has simply adapted a novel form to a movie.
Every pop song may have chorus, verse and bridge, but not every song. There's plenty of ways to tell a story. Of course, if you break it down to such a basic level that it doesn't add much of value to the making of a story, you will find certain beats in every story.
Wait so "it's about being aware of these things" because if you look at a Tarantino script these things are "on every page" but on the other hand "good writers aren't consciously doing these things" and "they don't build them into their story". That's an awful lot of self contradiction inside the first 4:32 You know, watching these film courage videos it seems like everyone you interview who earns a living by teaching a writing course tries to tell us they've gone through all these movies and they've found the one winning structure that all the great movies or tv shows have and bad ones don't. But each of them presents a different structure and they invariably contradict one another and very often themselves. That's a gimmick at work and very often we can see examples in film and television where bad movies have been made and the reason they're bad is because they tried to fit themselves into a story structure that doesn't suit the story being told. It just constantly feels like someone is trying to sell me something instead of give genuine advice. Except for that UCLA guy who straight up said 99% of scripts won't be read passed scene 1 so you'd better come up with something fresh and compelling. That guy was good, give us more real talk like that and fewer sales pitches
He's wrong about the 'ticking clock' on every page. He's wrong on Tarantino. "A gun in very scene" - not really. His overall approach is all right but a movie with a ticking clock on every page would soon get boring. Had he said a problem on every page I could go with that. He has obviously not seen any European films.
PZK12 Thank you! I don't know how the hell this guy's formula works in La Strada, Julieta, or The Double Life of Veronique. Not to mention Lynne Ramsay's early work, or anything by Ingmar Bergman.
Tarantino steals everything. His dialogue is good, but I turned off The Hateful Eight and Django. The first half an hour of Basterds is excrutiatingly slow.
I would be curious to hear if there are any scenes/ films that he considers great that buck the BMOC formula somehow. It would be helpful to contrast them.
You should interview Corey Mandell. By far the best approach to story I have ever heard. Will totally blow your mind on how to write a compelling story. 3:30 that is called building in conflict to your story. If you know the tools to do it you won't have an issue with writing compelling story, it's the use of tools not a structured story paradigm.
+Jared Isham Everything Corey teaching or Peter or this guy or that guy, shouldn't blow your mind. It should just confirm that you are on a right way. If that's not a case, than you are on the wrong railway. As long as writers ignore what people who work in film industry saying, they will not make a progress. You have to be a sponge, listen, take a not and then use it. Merge, combine, execute.
+RUclips Fun True to some extent. The problem I see with a lot of story structure models is that they want everyone to follow the same structure. Inciting Incident page 12 Act 1 current page 30, all is lost moment, blah blah blah. Why do we want to all watch the same story, that is what it produces and when you follow the story paradigms as scripture, then I think you start to build a box that you are working in. "Blow your mind" may not have been the best phrase, maybe a better way of saying it is "open up the possibilities of what story actually is." Knowing what is BS and what is of value I think is the most important part of what you mention as "Merge, combine, execute." But yeah, there is no one way, which is probably my problem with a lot of people trying to sell the idea that if you follow my steps you will write a good movie. It's more than steps, it's knowing the tools and having the proper mindset.
+Jared Isham Beats or plot points are just moments for changes and twists. It's alarms that says "hey, you are getting boring, it's time to do something important dramatically". It's your decision how to fill a blank space between, but you have to know where you going. It's important only that they have a meaning this screenwriting gurus are talking about, everything else is up to you. Beats always existed and after a while it comes time for update, to add even more drama and suspense. If you put some catalyst or incinting incident about ten minutes and next plot point somewhere about midpoint, story will become boring and audience will lose interest and focus. Beats are not limitation and for sure they are not everything you need, it's just a little but very important helping tool for proper visual storytelling. After first time reading and hearing about all this creating processes from McKee, Truby, Snyder, Peter, Hauge, Richard Walter and many others thanks to this channel (which happens just 3 or 4 monts ago when I finally start to learn about storytelling) ... I started to watch movies with different eyes and I watched first my favorite movies Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile. And guess what, Frank Darabont hit the beats. So, for me that was already enough, two of some most loved and successful movies of all time fits. But literally every movie I watched after, hits it. Doesn't matter which year is filmed. And also they have some kind of suspense in almost every scene created just like Peter and others teaching. Just, they talk figuratively and some take it literally but that's theirs problem. For example, scene with Andy on the roof when he interrupts the guards speech and he is going to push him down but he turns around events and got a beer for everyone there. From bad to good and the other way. It is a simple and effective tool. If you do that all the time in a proper way, as he said, audience will even need a break from that amount of excitement which is much better than need to get home as soon as possible. But you need to be innovative almost all the time, too.
+RUclips Fun just be cautious about fitting every movie into the same mold. I've been studying it for 15± years and saying every one follows it is not entirely true. the biggest thing is knowing that there are far more beats in a story than, for example, the Truby 22. I look at movies as music, I did a video explaining my take on it a while back. I think that if you know why you need to add a beat or as I call it an escalation will put you in a much better place than thinking, this is getting boring I should add something in here. boring is relative, but escalations and de-escalation are a little more easier to identify and gives you something to practice...obviously that is a small part of creating conflict but is important to understand that it helps in creating "beats" to avoid boring.
+Jared Isham Well, english is not my native language so It would took me more time to find a right words but I agree. About beats, every major title from the past and not to mention new movies, really does fit. I don't like it but it's a fact.
"Great stories: The fault in our stars and Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift". Is this guy kiding me? This kind of tips, BMOC, these magical perfect structures, are useless. This is the kind of shit that makes most americans films today so boring and forgettable. This guy is part of the problem today where young filmmakers are taught to be more businesman than artists. A fuck ton of super influential directors and writers don't use that. Just watch Fellini, Antonioni, Bergman, Godard, Paul Thomas Anderson, Robert Altman... And the list goes on and on. All those guys revolutionized the medium. So don't give me fucking "Fast and Furious". Also, I think he never watched a Trarantino movie. If you look at his scripts most pages are dialogue, not "pointed guns", dialogue. Yes, he builds a lot of tension and his movies are super fun to watch, but not beacause of "cheap tricks" in every page.
Our topic is HOLLYWOOD. Did your thick dumb head get that, yet? European cinema is an entirely different topic, you idiot. Different audience, different market. You are comparing apples to oranges. Gosh, what a moron you are.
I agree man. WTH? Every page has to have some kind of tension ? Even love stories ? That's like saying every music should have high notes every 10 seconds. Did he see The Hateful 8 ? Half an hour to the movie and you still didn't know what the movie was all about. Half an hour was all setup . Every page does not have to have a ticking clock. Every page has to be a part of a flow. Your point of that BMOC ruining the American movies is on point. Funny that he brings up Fast And Furios. They are crap. Even if they follow his rule. His rule is what's ruining it. You have characters being out of character all the time b/c the stupid Hollywood bullshit structures.
Here's the thing. Sure, Fellini, Altman, Anderson, Tarantino, etc. get (or got) experimental with their work. Times are different, though. If you want to break into the Hollywood studios, you have to give the execs what they want - for your first couple scripts, anyway. Then, if you're successful, you can do what you want. Granted, Altman, P.T. Anderson, and Tarantino went full-bore right off the bat. Times were different, though. Altman broke through in the 1970s, a period when the studios were willing to take risks. P.T. and Tarantino were part of the indie-film boom in the 1990s, when studios were snapping up unique films and putting them in theaters. Both of those periods have passed, and now we're in another business-oriented period for Hollywood. You want big money to make your films? You have to play the execs' game at first. If you want to make your films entirely on your own, then have at it and I wish you well. If you want the big studios to give you multi-million dollar budgets and big marketing campaigns, though, then you have to play the game until you're successful. And these writing methods (like ticking clocks and such) are part of the execs' game.
Dialogue is a pointed gun. It was literal and a metaphor. And no one has the magic formula. Absolutely no one. You simply get whatever you can from each person, teacher, filmmaker. I don't get your approach even if you're right
I enjoy these videos very much. I'd love to hear a professional screenwriter analyse any of my favourite and most watched films: Withnail and I, Lawrence of Arabia, Brief Encounter, Casino Royale. These are all well-known films with excellent (if slightly unconventional) screenplays. I'd love to hear an analysis of how they're structured and why they work so well.
Sure Ghibli uses this. Imagine the beginning of Spirited Away: Good news, Chihiro finds a friend and a magical place Bad News: Parents turn into pigs Ticking clock: She has to turn her parents back
Actually, writers can indeed do a lot of this unconsciously. I started writing fiction like I was shot out of a gun. I didn't read how-to books or seek out advice, because I wanted to see if I could express a natural authorial voice without being influenced by others. That worked. Later, when I studied structure, it was apparent that I'd already done 95% of the important things that Professor Google says to do, and rejected 95% of the ridiculous things that Professor Google says to do. Now I'm continuing to work on that last 5%. This advice helps.
I have a real problem with story structure formulas. It seems to me everyone who has one (or more importantly is trying to SELL one) does whatever they have to to get a film to fit inside it. Talk to any working screenwriter: If there was a magic formula to writing a film everyone would be using it.
+Kevin Dombrowski There is a formula. The ingredients are 100 different little bits of knowledge that you can learn yourself or from others. But like the man just said in the video, not everyone is conscious of it.
To me, the tool of story structure is like a basic cake recipe. Following the recipe will give you a product that most people who want cake will enjoy. Omitting certain ingredients or approaching the process willy-nilly might give you a product that some people may like, but will it be recognizable as a delicious cake to the majority of people that are specifically craving cake, or will it end up being an unsatisfying experience for them? You can mix it up and add strawberries or candy or whatever you want, but as long as you make sure that it has flour, sugar, and eggs, you have a higher chance of being successful at making something people will enjoy and that resonates with them. And isn't the goal of storytelling to entertain or engross the audience in some way? If not, what is the point? That doesn't mean you can't be creative, but it gives you a place to start. Besides, I think most people will be able to tell when something is off about a story whether they can pinpoint it or not, because storytelling is so ingrained into humanity.
why the fuck people compare movies to cakes, houses, and other objective things? films are subjective. as long as you compare them to cake you are obviously going to be a shitty writer.
To be honest there's no rules to this game. The only way a writer should do it is to allow himself be a vessel to the story. To believe that the story is not his, he's just a medium between the spirit world and the page. What I have come to understand is, the story itself, if you write it truthfully, it contains everything these guys then breakdown, dismantle and then start calling them devices or tricks. In every true story that comes to you, with it, it comes with its characters, plot, complexity, tensions, twists, drama and everything. And as an aspiring writer, if you keep listening to all these guys, you will realise that they all contradict themselves leaving only one conclusion, there's no rules to this game. And as an advise to writers, listen to actual working writers interviews not these teachers.
+Film Courage This is actually my third feature and I have also completed a first series of my TV show. So I'll be bombarding him. I contacted him via Facebook last year and I mentioned I would be sending him my work once completed. I actually found him through your channel, when you had interviewed him before. Your channel is brilliant and has been incredibly helpful to me. So thank you.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
![What Screenwriters Get Wrong About Outlines - Alan Watt [Founder of L.A. Writers' Lab]](/img/1.gif)
A film is or should be more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.- Stanley Kubrick
+Sean Ramsdell Yes! I also wonder why there is such an emphasis on having a certain set of "beats" to a story. I think a story beat is an event that helps to progress the story forward...kind of like an escalation. So if you compare it to music, there is a heck of a lot more beats in that than the 20 something beats you hear about in most story paradigms...or it would be a very short song.
YES!!! Spot On!
Check out Miles Davis - Agharta.
That makes me sad... Fiction was supposed to be a progression of moods and feelings... It's the goal of every novel writer
@@JaredIsham Nah u dont get it. If you're gonna compare lengths then 1 minute of a song would be about 45 minutes of a movie in terms of structure
I always shy away from someone who says, "if you don't do X it won't be good." There are ALWAYS examples of something without X being great, not to mention that "good" and "great" are subjective and often (not always) stifling to the evolution of art.
There will always be exceptions, but there are reliable patterns and structure that can be relied upon. I forget who said it, but you have to know the rules before you can break them.
I agree. I had one screenwriter teacher say you HAVE to make a script for 90 minutes and DO NOT go to two hours cause that's WAY too long. And I'm like "...honey, Star Wars, Harry Potter movies, Lord of the Rings and Avengers movies NEVER followed that rule." -_-
@@DanielSelk most of them had that long arc that needed to be stretched out ya know. The books for Harry Potter and LOTR. They had to be cut short. So we're a lot of things from the Star Wars and Avengers stories. The 90 minute thing is alright but again, there's no rules to follow but a few
@@jay3398 I'm not saying 90 min is bad, but they were making it say that if you go over it then NO ONE will see your movie and your movie is bad and that no one goes that long. I hated then saying things like that as if we were allowed to do what we wanted in our stuff.
I very recently overheard a dialog between people that went something like this, "If you do it that way then you're a second rate them instead of a first rate you." That stuck because it's true. All these people with the perfect recipe but like with anything else, you're doing it THEIR way and not your own. Stuff like the BMOC, or "Save The Cat". That's great as one of many building blocks, but let's be honest here, who among us can build a Lego house with one piece of Lego?
Stuff like that should be used as a platform or as I said, a building block, but should never ever be used as a Bible. Never be used as "the source". This is how movies get far too predictable and a viewer like myself knows the finer details of the plot I'm about to see within the first few scenes because I know the rules of BMOC/Save The Cat. There's nothing worse than a predictable plot/story, and you get those when you have people that religiously follow someone ELSE'S method dogmatically.
Again, a second rate THEM or a first rate YOU.
This video is 90% saying that 'this' works in all sorts of things and very little about 'this'
That is "that" simple trick which made you watch the entire video.🤣🤣
They're selling a product, what do you expect?
I recommend reading some of Syd Fields old books on screenwriting, "Save the Cat" by Blake Snyder is also good, short and concise, THe Heros Journey by Joseph Campbell is kind of compulsory although one have to translate some of the structural elements a bit and then there is a perhaps less known book by Lajos egri called THe Art of Dramatic Writing, which takes a dialectical approach which is pretty useful too in ensuring progress of conflict. Between them I believe they cover at least some of what "this" is. Incidentally the book "creating emotion in games - the art and craft of emotioneering" by David Freeman also has a lot of properly basic rules in it, boiled down to simple concepts, although it's about gamewriting.
Personally I hate ticking clocks when they are too literal, like "ship will self-destruct in T minus 30 seconds" usually leading up to something like "cut the blue wire, no the green wire" t'a just too 80s early 90s for me. Certainly there are more elegant ways than that ...
Also there are so many books that just live off peoples dreams and try to obfuscate the fact that this is very much about a western take on storytelling, and the realm of art movies and other modes of narrative can take quite different approaches. This is about a certain mainstream thing. I am not denying that there is an ancient paradigm there, but at that same time it's not that simple. If a story is ONLY an efficient machine, it will likely feel too smooth and too much like other similar machines.
@@whynottalklikeapirat thanks for your comment. I had a discussion with a fellow filmmaker, where you can go down a rabbit hole of screenwriting instruction and it can actually do more harm than good if you get stuck in that For me, it killed my natural creative process and made me fall out of love with my ideas when I tried to make sure every single scene is crackling with tension and conflict and yada yada. We have to remember that these classes are all oriented towards becoming a well paid for-hire screenwriter, which might not be everyone's goal.
@@Adam-fb5nt Good point. To some extent I think this is also a question that pertains to process - to when you are approaching your work with what attitude.
For creative writing there seems to be really two schools of thought where you are either what some will call "a gardener" or archeologist, unearthing something from the unconscious and letting the art object grow in an organic way, and then the architect type which is more construction-oriented, more analytical and arguably a bit more like a designer.
While I consider myself to mostly belong to the first category, at the same time I consider all of this a bit of a false dichotomy seeing as all conscious activity has an unconscious substrate and both are alwas active in human thought processes or indeed creative activities.
However in practice I think it's all about being the right "person" at the right time. While getting the raw material down, the first draft or at least a good sizable chunk of it that captures enough of the substrate of interconnections ideas were borne out of, I'd say don't analyse or think about it at all. This is a point of view echoed by many writers. Purists will say work ONLY this way - only from the sensual nature of the object inside you.
But of course once it's out you can have a more analytical look at what you think you have. But it's delicate and lots of individual rituals seem to govern this part of it.
I think the knowledge of craft can help spot problem areas or boost certain qualities. It is a tool to be used when doing a bit of a rundown. I like the idea of doing this work or using it to ask questions but then not answering them with contrivances but just letting the unconscious marinate further until the answers present themselves.
I think the interplay is useful, but its a tight rope walk.
For sure the more analytical you get WITHIN the writing process the more you are going to sever ties with the unconscious and eventually leave you dried up and uninspired - because there is no roots or inspiration in contrivances. THey're ideas with no true connection and they float around like objects rather than organic things - and they get in the way of the truly emergent stuff.
Different modes of language come from different parts of the brain and consequently are connected to completely different modes of language use or thinking.
So many people get stuck either trying to do both at the same time, which I suppose is possible to some extent if you have A LOT of experience, but in western culture the tendency is to divert to a more scientific mode of thought every time a wall is hit.
Depending on your personality type - that's pretty much guaranteed to kill inspiration before too long.
It's actually not sensible to analyse something that is not done as if it was. It's reductive. You become focused on what is visible now, not on what is emerging. IN brain terms, the emergent process is suppressed or even disrupted as this other mental object and focus takes center stage in the imaginarium.
At the end of the day craft is technique and if practiced enough it becomes an internalised thing that very like does unconscious work for you in it's own right. Internalised craft becomes part of the intuitive engine and part of efficient decisionmaking in an open-ended field.
BUT - consciousness has limitied band width. We can focus on only one thing at a time and hold something like a maximum of 8 mental objects in our field of attention at ay one time. All these techniques and rules - we can't apply them while trying to be engrossed and immersed in a flow process of writing where we are trying to commune with something unknown coming out of us that has been forming down there in the darkness until it finally hit critical mass and surfaced. At that point its getting it out and not getting in its way.
I kind of like to believe that something borne out of a true flow has a natural logic and some invisible selective agency to it that, as Hemingway put it, is as fragile and fleeting as the dust on a butterfly's wings. And if it was truly interesting to you to be in that flow, there is a chance it will be interesting to others, and if it surprised you - it might also be surprising to others.
WHen you are thinking like the architecht - that's what you already know. That's the old or current you talking. The other stuff - that's the emerging you being borne. And it SHOULD be something unknown. It SHOULD be a discobery and not a maths assignment.
And again - in brain terms, and in flow terms, if they new is to have a place to emerge - the old must be temporarily suppressed and deliberatly set aside - and process must be let go of ... there wll be time to integrate the new with the old later for balance - and that may require some thinking too. But writing is alwasy NOW.
There's half an essay anyways, sorry xD
Problem: Many scenes don't allow for cheap suspense tricks, and you have to get more elaborate. Take the Tarantino movies, they're full of apparently peaceful dialogue but with a subtext that makes you feel uneasy and makes you want to know what will happen next.
Every scene needs some kind of hook to keep the viewer interested, but pointed guns and ticking clocks aren't always the answer.
Think about it, it's just a type of ticking clock
Im pretty sure thats his point, it could be anything as long as it fits the narrative and keeps the viewer hooked
That's weird because every Tarantino movie I saw made me want to turn off the movie.
Ah yes, the great stories--Star Wars, The Fault in our Stars, and Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift
Talk about a heavy line up
What do you have against Star Wars?
Lmao
referencing three different genres, in popular culture, of different audiences
Screenwriting teachers LOVE terrible movies, as long as they follow the “rules”
To people who think this guy is perpetuating and enabling formuelic writing, you're confusing tools with formulas. You can theoretically build a house with something other than a hammer, but is it wise? Obviously whatever kind of style of house you build with said hammer, the slant of the roof, the type of windows, the color of brick, is up in the air.
movies and houses are pretty different things.
I emphatically disagree. A solid foundation (act one) is needed before you can put up the walls (act two) and cap it with the roof (act three). HOW the foundation, walls and roof are constructed and how pleasing it is to the individual is subjective but an average house is going to sell faster than a fancy one. But now we're getting into economics...
I totally agree (with your disagree). Coincidentally, I've studied/worked in film production and construction project management. Great similarities, not only on story structure but also from a production POV; sourcing crew/props/approvals vs sourcing contractors/materials/approvals.
No, because a film is not a house. It is a piece of artwork. I agree with you, but your analogy is poor; changing tools when making art has vastly different effects on the final artwork.
He is promoting ADHD story telling, which, thank God, a show like Mad Men could get made in this age.The
Every device should be used to make the story advance, to develop character or to reveal plot ("show, don't tell"). So the most important thing in my opinion will always be to know the story you want to tell and to know your characters the best you can. Having said that, I truly believe that creating doubt is the most important device one can use in a script. If you can make the reader (and the audience) question wether the character will eventually achieve his goal or not by making him face a challenge after the other (each one more difficult than the last) then you will be able to grab their attention and take them at least to the end of your script.
Audience giving a shit for the characters should be the ultimate goal I think, and you got to achieve that fast but naturally (Good luck to us ... ). Then you can play with doubt and all the tricks known to man to make the story more thrilling
A movie about a guy climbing a mountain (alone, in silence) will be the best of all stories, ever.
@@alexispapageorgiou72 personally, I feel the most important thing to use when making a character the audience will "give a shit about" is their flaw/flaws. Put it out in the open early, even if it's presented subtly to the point where most of the audience isn't immediately consciously aware of the flaw, and make it a flaw that someone in the real world would have (and thus most people will have experienced it at some point themselves,) which I feel makes audiences not only want to see them change for the better, even if they ultimately don't (such as in The Godfather,) but also makes them personally invested because it's become personal.
From that early point on, make the flaw/flaws a common problem, give the character at least one chance to overcome it which fails (which easily leads to the good news/bad news-higher stakes method,) and the climax would be them overcoming it. For both presenting the flaw and overcoming it, I feel the best and most powerful way to do this is to make it so subtle that most audiences will have to really think about why that affected them to notice it.
My favorite example is in Black Panther, the first (and arguably still the only) movie in the MCU that didn't use these story beats with the subtlety of a baseball to the face. T'Challa's flaw, presented early though not necessarily as a flaw, was that he believed in and even idolized his father, to the point where he wouldn't question the decisions for the direction of Wakanda his father and ancestors set, so he would continue Wakanda's isolationist policy putting his people above all others, and he showed he wasn't really thinking for himself. This was presented SUPER subtly. Finding out about his father's involvement and negligence toward Killmonger devastated him, and when face to face with Killmonger, he showed no respect or sympathy towards him, refusing to admit that his father was in the wrong, thus failing to overcome his father's shadow.
The climax, where T'Challa is in the Veldt and sees his father and past kings, he yells, "You are wrong! All of you are wrong!" That scene was powerful because that was him overcoming his flaw, not only accepting that his father wasn't perfect, but also showing, without directly saying, that he would now think for himself, without the veils of tradition clouding his judgement, and that those with the ability to help others NEED to be willing to help others. He doesn't use the preachy, tired ass method mediocre writers will use where they say, "I have learned [insert how their character flaw was harming them/holding them back,]" he IMPLIED it indirectly through words or actions.
@@omegagilgamesh What you write is just one story. It's not the manual for stories. Stories that evolve through a character becoming better through the journey while pursuing a goal should follow a smart, interesting, intriguing, humane path like the one you described. I can name numerous examples that don't follow this path and are top shelf ... The good, the bad and the ugly (unbelievable story ... none of the character changes), Inglorious bastards, deep blue sea, hateful eight, blah blah ... I can go on and on and on ... All these movies have one thing in common. They're a story in their own right thus there's no need in character change and if you put one in there, it will not make the film better. On the contrary ...
This is the same thing Alfred Hitchcock said, when people called him a genius. In the interview, where they ask him about how long would he let a kiss last in a movie, and he said 10 minutes, but I'd put a bomb under their chair. He and this dude are just saying you need suspense and conflict in every scene, and that's true, but it can be presented in a myriad of ways.
There are great movies that don't have suspense and conflict in every scene though, that's why this advice seems silly.
@@BassLiberators nope is not, he doesnt mean it always has to be a scene with a gun pointed at someone it really doesnt matter what it is,as long as it fits the narrative and theres something happening it could be tension between dialogue or any other form
@@andresnavarro5978 There are plenty of great movies though that have scenes where intentionally nothing is happening. Sometime's it's just the writer's intention for nothing to happen.
@@BassLiberators if its great than trust me, something is happening, like i said it doesnt have to be something huge it doesnt always mean tension or suspense just something that has your charecters doing something for the story, lets say i have a charecter that forgot to feed his cat and then he goes to the store to buy something but then he forgets his wallet ,this may seem like a useless scene but it actually shows you that this character is never concentrated on anything it will be important scene for an arc that will take place in the third act (despite of it being an action scene or a charecter driven scene) it may seem like nothing but theres actually something happening even if its a slow scene, now compare that to a bunch a stoners hanging out in a room just talking about random stuff snd then the next scene is someone eating cereal for like 2 minutes alone, now those would be useless and boring scenes because charecters aren't doing anything there
@@LuisAngel-mu4zv I still don't agree with this idea. The example I always use as a counter is the floating monolith scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey. One of the most iconic scenes in cinema, totally core to the movie, and nothing plot-related is accomplished with it. There's no tension, no ticking clock, no character growth, nothing changes in the world. And yet it's one of the most important scenes in one of the most important films ever made.
Close your eyes: DIY Owen Wilson.
RYSE wooow
Wheow
Now I can't unhear it!
I think it's literally Owen Wilson in disguise, Aaron Sorkin is Matt Damon. weird weird world we live in.
Best comment of all time
Film tip:
If you’re from a culture that reads from left to right, that directional eye musculature (L->R) is stronger and faster. Thus, a villain entering suddenly up close from the far right of a movie screen would startle an audience more-so than vice versa.
If you want to mimic a great hit film, play its sequences in reverse.
The first 8 notes of the hit song “Born Free” were reversed to create the hit song of “Star Wars”.
I agree. I call it by a different name (storytelling mechanics) but it's the same principle. Good news/bad news raising stakes, one thing leading to another. I'm a comic book artist who falls victim to illustrating very bad comic books for some of my clients (who are spending a lot of money on me). They tend to have me draw the same scenes, the same characters page after page without anything happening of any consequence to anyone. The worst of them are clearly having me draw images they'd like to see... repeated again, and again, and again (like the hero of the story). What kills me is if they'd apply this (and Kurt Vonnegut's seven rules for writing a novel) it would cost nothing and would save their project from complete hopelessness. As I'm illustrating their script I keep asking myself 'where's the story?' There is none.
Caught me in a bad night I was kind of on a rant there
Look up Kickstarter “White Meat”
Write first. Structure later. A good story is more than just tricks and devices. Plot isn't the end; just a means to an end. The characters should be the story, not the other way around.
well said
Well the story is what triggers changes in the characters... so story and character must be totally in sync.
Well, character-driven stories should be about character but event-driven stories are about events. Both types of stories have plots but it's where the focus of the story is. THE JOY LUCK CLUB is about character but any James Bond movie is about events. Having said that I generally agree with your opinion.
@@AlanSmitheeman i dont quite get it about the 007.
is it a event driven story because we dont get to see the pov of the bad guy who is always one step ahead of bond?
"Write first, Structure later"... I think that's a good advice. I take "write first" as knowing what your story is about a lot already before putting it in act structures.. however I dont agree with the last sentence. Sometimes plot driven stories can be more impactful then characters.
The video made this sound very complex, but it's actually quite a simple concept. Be simple, but effective.
"Good news, I'm giving you 20 bucks! Bad news... I'm slapping you."
I will accept this cruel fate the Gods have bestowed upon me.
I didn't quite agree with this guy, but I must admit that there is some value to what he says. If you take his comments with a grain of salt and remain TRUE to the essence of YOUR story, it can't hurt to look for opportunities to create suspense. Just don't compromise your story
i think if you write a compelling story, one that ratchets to a conclusion without being repetitive, you got a winner. i don't believe you need to hit all these plot points, highs and lows, the hero is down, all is lost, comeback themes. if a writer is fully engaged with his story, his emotion will carry through. and the reader/watcher will pick up on it.
He’s giving examples of great stories, then he says “Tokyo Drift” lmao.
that was the point, to say that all movies, good and bad ones, use it.
What?
The only good thing coming out of his mouth is True Detective, lol.
@@tanayyd5951 if you think Breaking Bad or Tarantino movies are bad, well I'm really sorry for you.
@@jatnhielfonseca208 Lol, did he named them? In my defense, I really lost interest after the first examples. My bad.
BB is great and so are some of Tarantino's films.
I try not to tell people exactly what I want to do for the career I'm going for so, I just tell them any ol' thing. However, what I truly want to do is definitely in the same category as being a screenwriter and novelist and even though this video is quite old, I find it very helpful moving forward.
I used them more intuitively but being aware of them as a toolset to use is a great asset I think. when you need to change things, you know what you can do but it's important to know exactly what tool is appropriate for each work, so you don't overuse or misuse them, and that's intuitive for me, I follow my heart in the end. for example, even breaking bad has some beautiful boring scenes, they are designed to be like that, to give the audience time to process to think to take a break, and to contrast with the other ones so to make them more powerful.
Sorry, I personally like it when people go against the rules and make it work. When everyone follows the rules to a T I find it often makes it organic. There are teachers "teaching" that you can't go over 90 minutes EVER or it's "too long" as well, and am I supposed to listen to that?? Especially when Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and every Harry Potter movie didn't do that at all?? NO WAY!!! Every story has its OWN length whether it's short or long.
Sure there are rules that you have to abide by but even those you can expand or bend. I say let artists be artists and don't confine them to rules you "HAVE" to abide by and find out whether it's good or bad. I've found when someone says "That will NEVER work" then people will find a way to make it work and it will happen.
This guy sounds more like a salesman than a writer.
@Derrick Ogole The premise was writing a script that is boring or not. Not selling.
Worse, he sounds like a manager rather than a teacher. A manager knows how to get the most value out of business (he talks about how these tools are cheap, but they work incredibly well on the human brain). A teacher will share wisdom of using these tools and structure properly. It's really discomforting how he talks about pop culture; again, he's completely right, but it's like coaching salespeople to use certain tactics that get results, rather than really believing in what you're selling. I'm highly conscious when I see film and TV, spotting these ticking clocks and raising stakes that seem deliberately planted to raise tension and keep the audience from getting bored. It's sad, but it works.
I have a strong feeling Hollywood is full of em
Title already says it all
I looked him up, and you're 100% correct. He has almost no writing credits yet sells a 60 dollar screenwriting guide and calls himself "the script doctor."
Glad to see there's so many people in the comments that see how sus this guy is.
You heard him guys... Kaaanye does it too.
HooBear Couch was thinking the same thing
Well to be fair. Kanye has a track record if hits. He knows how to make music that sells and sells really well. No matter what we might think of him personally; he is successful.
People here don’t like Kanye because he likes Trump or because he’s Christian?
@@MicahMicahel It has nothing to do with liking him or not, the comment is pointing out how the dude in the video pronounced his name in an odd way
@@AdrianLoganLive And yet if Kanye pronounced this guys name in an odd way.....
I need him to never say Kanye again 😂
greeeyedboi Canyay. 🤣🤣
Because he’s black?
@@MicahMicahel No lmao, cuz he pronounced it "Can-yay" 😂😂😂
rob jabbaz lol no clue 😂😂
@@robjabbaz ry cooder is the slide guitarist who composed the score to 'paris, texas' as far as i'm concered.
He's not wrong. I don't think Russell is saying that's all there is to great screenwriting, just that these are the building blocks of an engaging script.
thank you film courage for the great pieces you offer!
Thanks a lot, Sir.
every book or a movie must be like a rollercoaster that has it's ups and downs it can't be a flatline because if it does it will be boring .
All of your videos have been a godsend. Thank you!
You must be finding the right ones.... 😉
Such a brilliant teacher. Love Peter!
What about films lacking form? No one would say Terrence Malick is a bad filmmaker, his pages rarely incorporate these elements. Some films also have relatively static but lovable characters. Like The Tramp in most of the Chaplin films. Things change around him but he rarely changes. There are songs with alternative structuring can we do the same successfully with film? I want to make sure I'm not off base here, because I'm writing screenplays right now. If someone could let me know if I'm wrong and why, it would be immensely helpful.
Thank you Film Courage! :^)
Your videos are really amazing and valuable!
tokyo drift truly a gift from the gods
yeah sure
This is exactly the technique I have implemented with my screenplay writing. And I thought I was a bit over the top. Breaking Bad and Stranger Things have been my inspiration.
This is a very limiting mindset. Not all stories should follow a specific sequence of events. As a writer, you should have an understanding of what makes BMOC work. Then you can learn how to make your own structures, so that they compliment your story better than a general structure that just works.
With that said, you obviously shouldn't throw away general methods just because they're general. They obviously work for a reason. If you're just starting out, write a simple story that's good. But after you've written a couple of good stories, you should start changing things up. That's how you learn what actually works and what doesn't. That's how you develop your own style of writing. Otherwise, all of your stories would be the same, and that's boring.
Be who you are...its what make this world what it is...he make some good point but dont limit yourself...im abook writers myself and screenwriter and ill never let anyone limits my ideals.
Then "EDIT" what you write next time... so you'll look more professional.
Get spell check.
You misspelled:
i'm... don't... i'll.. abook ?
Knowing what the 'tricks' are and having the creativity and skill to think them up are 2 different things. They had a minimum of 8 top class writers working on every episode of Breaking Bad.
This is what I suffer with. I know the tricks, how to technically make a story, but I lack the skill to write it! It's so frustrating, I don't know how people do it
Capuchino Sofia
It's kind of simple.
Artists create art, they start off bad and the more they do the better they get. You see videos on YT of artists looking at sketchbooks they did a year ago and the artist can see the progress he's made.
And just as artists make art, writers must write everyday. Look at the world around you and write about it. It could provide important content for your first second or third screenplay. Keep a diary and commit to writing a minimum of 100 words per day. You'll see progress because everyone improves at anything the more they do it.
If you just pull out a writing book every couple of months and try to write a story, poem etc you'll fail because you're not doing enough. You need to decide if you're going to commit to being a writer.
@@capuchinosofia4771 When someone asks you about your day, you reply in kind and tell them about your day. When a family member asks you about your day, you tell them but the story is always different. Same basic elements, but there's always more to the story. This is writing, which is little more than written storytelling. You already know how to tell a story. There's no trick(s).
If I were to ask you about your dream destination, the story you could tell me would either be very bland or super engaging, depending on what parts of the story you choose to share with me. You could tell me about this 3 bedroom cottage high in the hills overlooking a stream/river. Okay that sounds kind of bland doesn't it? Or, you could tell me about that same cottage, kind of rustic and almost ancient looking but once you get inside it's like freaking Narnia in there, and it's nestled in the rolling hills where all you can see is lush green trees with some poplar and birch sprinkled in there for good measure. Looks like an older growth area but not too old. Great firewood to be found for those late nights gathered around your pit enjoying the tranquility of nature and the stars as you roast your S'Mores. It happens to overlook a bubbling stream down yonder, and every once in a while you can spot a bear family hunting for food in the stream. You've been down there a few times so you know the fishing is great.
One story is bland. Just facts. One story is vibrant. Detailed. Engaging. You can almost see this place.
You're already a storyteller. You just need to figure out a way that works for you on how to get those stories in a written format. Out of your brain and onto a page.
Don't rely on tricks.
Rely on your imagination first. Tell a story. Blurt it out on paper. Then shape it. Think of it like a chunk of stone. You start with a chunk of stone but as you work away at it, there's a sculpture in there somewhere and you need to draw it out. Use those tricks to refine a story you already blurted out. Don't use the tricks to try and tell the story.
Good luck.
@@BigDaddyJinx best comment ever made
People who teach film on youtube:👎
People who critique them in the comments section:👍
Ah yes, my favorite rapper, *_"Can-yay"_*
While I agree with his premise - there had better be something of Story Telling value happening every next “sentence” / “scene” but his examples are very specific to a genre of action/suspense and don’t take into account far more subtle exposition, intent, action... and you can’t really expect the formulaic plotting to work like a “gear” in a machine. Audiences are not homogeneous blogages - different audiences have different expectations and enjoyments. Moreover, you cannot detach the “gears” from the characters... if the intents or actions do not rise - consistently - our of the character (even though an arc) then the “engagement” gear reads as - just that - a cheap trick and - constant tricks - can become as boring as a flatline with annoying bumps.
“Outlander” comes to mind. No doubt it has its audience and that audience is sufficiently large enough to keep it going... but it started “creaking” in the 1st season with characters inconsistencies that were crudely inserted to “give good news” or “bring bad news” or “raise the stakes” that simply became sillier as they became every on inconsistent with the characters and how they - should - be growing with the story. At this point, it’s just entertaining to watch what hoops thru jump through next... when you know NOTHING is “at stake” anymore... but getting to the next scene where Jamie beats up or kills some other guy... or they take their clothes off and do some cheese cake for the Romance Novel crowd... but it HAS an audience... so “bad story” or a “matter of taste” or a “matter of artistic elitism?” Jazz and Classical Music followed this advice (musically) and left its audience completely behind. Just saying.
No formulas in Art.
This is the issue with set structures. This guy said Tokyo Drift is a great movie.
+Clive Makong'o That stuck out at me too. But when you're selling a formula you want to cast a wide net. You're not going to say a film that did $158 million worldwide, and is part of a lucrative franchise, doesn't fit into it.
Especially if someone wants to write films like that.
"Every great and profitable film uses my system! That film you like? It does too!"
+Clive Makong'o I believe, because Peter "watches" movies differently than usual non-screenwriting consultant. Maybe when he refers to a movie, he actually refers to its screenplay, or even it's structure, beats, characters, plot twists and so on. You know, a great script doesn't guarantee a great movie, and vice versa.
Clive Makong'o pretty sure he was just giving examples of how different types of stories still have to utilize similar structure to grab the audiences attention. And a movie is different from a story, he's talking from a writing perspective.
He was taking about the formula, and I think he was referring to the turning point in the movie. Like the O in BMOC, I mean however bad the movie was that part of the script that Twist that changes the character was pretty great. I think that's what he was mentioning. I'm probably wrong but meh...
Lol
He is 100% correct. He is not trying to put 'limitations' on anything, he is simply saying that certain plot devices and story arcs work for a reason. You can write about anything, but there are definitely, for want of a better word, 'formulas' that we respond to. It's why Beatles or Sting or U2 songs work; The Beatles created an enormous and extremely varied body of work within these boundaries. Writing is writing- doesn't matter if it's songs, novels, or scripts. You can bend or break these rules within reason, but the basic elements still need to be there, which is really all he is saying in this video.
Excellent video. To the point, easy to understand and makes so much sense. Great interview. 👍
Glad it was helpful!
Very True... it's funny coz it's true
I wind up doin' that unconsciously without even knowing...
I think when u really understand what good art looks Like and feeL Like, u can effortlessly make the Writing flow and it will organically hit the requisite beats it has to...🤷🏽♂️
Wow. I'm glad I came across this video. The points he makes are so clear that it helps make it easier to apply to a script. Thanks, Film Courage.
Glad it was helpful Todd!
Advice like this seems to be less useful to being a good artist or story-teller and more useful in fooling Hollywood shills that you're one of them.
Oh, yes, sir! I know exactly what you mean, sir. BMOC is how I write everything. I always make sure page one starts with the beginning. The middle, of course, comes after that, sir. Then, there needs to be some kind of obstacle and overcoming that is a climax. I never would have thought of that genius until I paid Peter Russell to tell me about it, sir. We were all so shocked about Harvey. Please pass the Soylent Green, sir.
"Those who are motivated by formulas
will seldom create great works of art."
he was one of the writers in Remington Steele.❤️
I remember this technique in reading Trottiers book, usually associated with Action genre.
Basically, the screenplay with the suspense within them are having the characters on a rolling coaster. They're going up and down. They're all good and they're in a bad situation. I like his points of view and knowledge on the screenplays even mentioning one of the best writers on how they use those methods that never get old.
Great point. I find that most Hollywood films fail to properly and thus, gradually, acquaint us with the characters before launching the plot. Why would we care about the bank heist when we don’t know if we are interested in or like the banker or robber?
Best advice I've heard ever.
We can tell Peter Russell is a great teacher by just seeing this one video.
This is such old school advice. "Cheap tricks" is a very old school way of thinking. It's why shows like Atlanta are the new normal and the "ticking clocks, guns, etc." are on their way out. Or at least in the sense that this guy proclaims "all good stories" have this.
Theres a lot of good points he makes for conceptual story design. Raising the stakes, having them scattered throughout the scenes, etc.
But! He comes across like a manipulative salesman.
The Transcript. The Transcript. Hats Off.
I don't usually have patience to binge watch or tune in every week for a series. I prefer movies. Most shows can be condensed into a movie (at least each season can).
Braking bad is a painful story, but you can't stop watching.
The script sounded unrealistic, so I fixed the script, and it became bland
If this fine man would have never said these 3 words: 1) Tokyo, 2) Drift, and 3) "Kan Yay", there would have been very little or no bad comments. Pretty good tip regarding all forms of art, but surely writing.
Beginning, middle, obstacle, climax - is what you might be trying to go back on. BMOC
Amazing point!!! Thank you!
In other words, if you’re story doesn’t have the story beats in them, it will be boring.
Also if the story has the wrong usage of "you're".
So if I used BMOC to structure WW2 in the Pacific it would be something like:
Beginning: Pearl Harbour attack
Middle: Halting the Japanese at Midway
Obstacle: Fighting through the Pacific islands (Iwo Jima, Okinawa)
Climax: Dropping of atomic bomb on Hiroshima
Which leads me to a conclusion. BMOC is how we describe historical events. The same structure could be applied to the Civil War, the race to the Moon or the siege of Troy. But.....should fictional story telling, and particularly movie making, use of the same structure as historical story telling?? And if you are applying BMOC to every page, then how can you have BMOC running from the beginning to the end of the story? Personally I always the find the end of a movie the most boring part because by then the story has become so repetitive and predictable.
+stevo728822 "Events" aren't relevant, if nobody cares about the characters.
+Dialectical Monist So does that mean that if they care about the characters then no plot events are required?
+Brandon Brooks So if you write 5 pages of plot twists, what are the other 85 pages going to do?
stevo728822 Yes, but good luck with that.
+Dialectical Monist Balance is probably the objective.
could we have a detailed and structured video on THRESHOLDS? What are threshonds? How to use them? How and where to write them. Noone seems to talk much on these. Thank you. Am from India, a hobby writer and follow your channel meticulously.
Who the hell is this hack? There is nothing on IMDB about this guy. Peter Russell's recipe will only create mediocre movies.
Here is a list of truely great movies, none of them follow Peter Russell's reasoning.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
The Tree of Life (2011)
Mulholland Drive (2001) (BBC Culture poll of 177 film critics around the world puts David Lynch’s 2001 surrealist masterpiece in top spot, best movie of the 21st century)
Lost Highway (1997)
The Mirror (1975)
Blade Runner (1982)
La Jetée (1962)
Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972)
What makes a great movie? --> If they are still writing dedicated books about that movie 50 years later.
I can see where you're coming from actually, and I bloody hated Mulholland Drive.
These are guidelines for new and struggling writers who are trying to enter the Industry. All of the above films are terrific and I love every single movie that you mentioned. But the thing is, those movies were made because those are done by some masters in filmmaking. All of those legendary filmmakers are extremely talented and they are backed up by a lot of production houses who trust them.
A movie like Taxi Driver was made because Martin Scorsese was behind it. I'm pretty sure that 95% of the production houses won't accept a fresher's script that resembles The Space Odyssey unless you're extremely talented like those masters, Inwhich case you probably won't be here, you'll be out making them.
I'm not blaming the producers, afterall it's their money and they need the confidence that the filmmaker will be able to pull off. What most producers expect from a newbie is a high concept movie that reaches a large mainstream audience. A Filmmaker called Mani Ratnam once said " First make movies that the audience wants to watch. Then make the movie that you truly want to create."
So if you're a struggling filmmaker working for a big break, try using these guidelines. If it doesn't work, feel free to discard and chose another method that works best for you.
@@mugeshramamoorthy1353 A Filmmaker called Mani Ratnam once said: "First make movies that the audience wants to watch. Then make the movie that you truly want to create."
If you follow this method, you'll never end up making the movies that you truly want to make. By the time you get there, you'll be so swallowed in by the industry, template/formulaic thinking and money, that you will have forgotten your true calling and lost all your artistic integrity once you have the freedom and money to make the films you truly want to make.
Every film or artistic endeavour is a struggle. If it's not a struggle, it's product, definitely not art or cinema.
where can I learn more of the BMOC?
I can't help to notice how there are also great movies like Pulp Fiction that don't really have this kind of structure, yet it's still very entertaining, even more so because they it's not predictable.
+Goncalo Norton Funny, because for me, the non-linearity of Pulf Fiction has had the effect of me growing bored with it. I still appreciate the movie for other reasons, though, like its characters.
+Goncalo Norton That's not at all true. If you look at each character individually, they have each of these elements that Peter Russell talks about. Good screenplays are character, after all. Not this over-arching plot device that most screenplay books talk about. If you break down Pulp Fiction into individual characters and not over-all structure, you'll see these simple dramatic breakdowns. And if you read novels, Tarantino has simply adapted a novel form to a movie.
Pulp Fiction is actually structured in the traditional 5 act format like many great stories. It’s less unconventional than it seems on the surface.
@@silviemonk5556 Yet Nolan movies are mostly PLOT and not character yet everyone loves them
Love your channel. Incredibly insightful.
~Zack~
Thanks Zack! We're grateful for your support.
Every pop song may have chorus, verse and bridge, but not every song. There's plenty of ways to tell a story. Of course, if you break it down to such a basic level that it doesn't add much of value to the making of a story, you will find certain beats in every story.
Definitely not for every single page of a script lol. But it is important to build up to those moments throughout the script.
Wait so "it's about being aware of these things" because if you look at a Tarantino script these things are "on every page" but on the other hand "good writers aren't consciously doing these things" and "they don't build them into their story".
That's an awful lot of self contradiction inside the first 4:32
You know, watching these film courage videos it seems like everyone you interview who earns a living by teaching a writing course tries to tell us they've gone through all these movies and they've found the one winning structure that all the great movies or tv shows have and bad ones don't. But each of them presents a different structure and they invariably contradict one another and very often themselves.
That's a gimmick at work and very often we can see examples in film and television where bad movies have been made and the reason they're bad is because they tried to fit themselves into a story structure that doesn't suit the story being told.
It just constantly feels like someone is trying to sell me something instead of give genuine advice. Except for that UCLA guy who straight up said 99% of scripts won't be read passed scene 1 so you'd better come up with something fresh and compelling. That guy was good, give us more real talk like that and fewer sales pitches
He's wrong about the 'ticking clock' on every page.
He's wrong on Tarantino. "A gun in very scene" - not really.
His overall approach is all right but a movie with a ticking clock on
every page would soon get boring.
Had he said a problem on every page I could go with that.
He has obviously not seen any European films.
PZK12 Thank you! I don't know how the hell this guy's formula works in La Strada, Julieta, or The Double Life of Veronique. Not to mention Lynne Ramsay's early work, or anything by Ingmar Bergman.
He hasn't seen Korean movies as well.
Tarantino steals everything. His dialogue is good, but I turned off The Hateful Eight and Django. The first half an hour of Basterds is excrutiatingly slow.
@@Nautilus1972 If you think the first 30 minutes of Basterds is slow, you should stick to Transformers movies.
thank you.
Beginning Middle Obstacle and Climax - he says this like he came up with this himself.
Great points. I am not 100% sure Tarkovsky was using these tricks haha.
Click bait title.
Oh man, I've been saying this forever. Sonatinas basically have a 3 act structure.
I like to use the heroes journey when I write, the BMOC kind of reminds me of that.
Yeah, it's like a distilled version of that.
I like "save the cat" story beats
I would be curious to hear if there are any scenes/ films that he considers great that buck the BMOC formula somehow. It would be helpful to contrast them.
You should interview Corey Mandell. By far the best approach to story I have ever heard. Will totally blow your mind on how to write a compelling story.
3:30 that is called building in conflict to your story. If you know the tools to do it you won't have an issue with writing compelling story, it's the use of tools not a structured story paradigm.
+Jared Isham Everything Corey teaching or Peter or this guy or that guy, shouldn't blow your mind. It should just confirm that you are on a right way. If that's not a case, than you are on the wrong railway. As long as writers ignore what people who work in film industry saying, they will not make a progress. You have to be a sponge, listen, take a not and then use it. Merge, combine, execute.
+RUclips Fun True to some extent. The problem I see with a lot of story structure models is that they want everyone to follow the same structure. Inciting Incident page 12 Act 1 current page 30, all is lost moment, blah blah blah. Why do we want to all watch the same story, that is what it produces and when you follow the story paradigms as scripture, then I think you start to build a box that you are working in.
"Blow your mind" may not have been the best phrase, maybe a better way of saying it is "open up the possibilities of what story actually is." Knowing what is BS and what is of value I think is the most important part of what you mention as "Merge, combine, execute." But yeah, there is no one way, which is probably my problem with a lot of people trying to sell the idea that if you follow my steps you will write a good movie. It's more than steps, it's knowing the tools and having the proper mindset.
+Jared Isham Beats or plot points are just moments for changes and twists. It's alarms that says "hey, you are getting boring, it's time to do something important dramatically". It's your decision how to fill a blank space between, but you have to know where you going. It's important only that they have a meaning this screenwriting gurus are talking about, everything else is up to you. Beats always existed and after a while it comes time for update, to add even more drama and suspense. If you put some catalyst or incinting incident about ten minutes and next plot point somewhere about midpoint, story will become boring and audience will lose interest and focus. Beats are not limitation and for sure they are not everything you need, it's just a little but very important helping tool for proper visual storytelling.
After first time reading and hearing about all this creating processes from McKee, Truby, Snyder, Peter, Hauge, Richard Walter and many others thanks to this channel (which happens just 3 or 4 monts ago when I finally start to learn about storytelling) ... I started to watch movies with different eyes and I watched first my favorite movies Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile. And guess what, Frank Darabont hit the beats. So, for me that was already enough, two of some most loved and successful movies of all time fits. But literally every movie I watched after, hits it. Doesn't matter which year is filmed. And also they have some kind of suspense in almost every scene created just like Peter and others teaching. Just, they talk figuratively and some take it literally but that's theirs problem. For example, scene with Andy on the roof when he interrupts the guards speech and he is going to push him down but he turns around events and got a beer for everyone there. From bad to good and the other way. It is a simple and effective tool. If you do that all the time in a proper way, as he said, audience will even need a break from that amount of excitement which is much better than need to get home as soon as possible. But you need to be innovative almost all the time, too.
+RUclips Fun just be cautious about fitting every movie into the same mold. I've been studying it for 15± years and saying every one follows it is not entirely true.
the biggest thing is knowing that there are far more beats in a story than, for example, the Truby 22. I look at movies as music, I did a video explaining my take on it a while back. I think that if you know why you need to add a beat or as I call it an escalation will put you in a much better place than thinking, this is getting boring I should add something in here. boring is relative, but escalations and de-escalation are a little more easier to identify and gives you something to practice...obviously that is a small part of creating conflict but is important to understand that it helps in creating "beats" to avoid boring.
+Jared Isham Well, english is not my native language so It would took me more time to find a right words but I agree.
About beats, every major title from the past and not to mention new movies, really does fit. I don't like it but it's a fact.
The way he said KAH-NÉE-YAAAY 🤣
"Great stories: The fault in our stars and Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift".
Is this guy kiding me?
This kind of tips, BMOC, these magical perfect structures, are useless. This is the kind of shit that makes most americans films today so boring and forgettable. This guy is part of the problem today where young filmmakers are taught to be more businesman than artists.
A fuck ton of super influential directors and writers don't use that. Just watch Fellini, Antonioni, Bergman, Godard, Paul Thomas Anderson, Robert Altman... And the list goes on and on. All those guys revolutionized the medium. So don't give me fucking "Fast and Furious".
Also, I think he never watched a Trarantino movie. If you look at his scripts most pages are dialogue, not "pointed guns", dialogue. Yes, he builds a lot of tension and his movies are super fun to watch, but not beacause of "cheap tricks" in every page.
Our topic is HOLLYWOOD. Did your thick dumb head get that, yet? European cinema is an entirely different topic, you idiot. Different audience, different market. You are comparing apples to oranges. Gosh, what a moron you are.
I agree man. WTH? Every page has to have some kind of tension ? Even love stories ?
That's like saying every music should have high notes every 10 seconds.
Did he see The Hateful 8 ? Half an hour to the movie and you still didn't know what the movie was all about.
Half an hour was all setup .
Every page does not have to have a ticking clock.
Every page has to be a part of a flow.
Your point of that BMOC ruining the American movies is on point.
Funny that he brings up Fast And Furios. They are crap.
Even if they follow his rule. His rule is what's ruining it.
You have characters being out of character all the time b/c the stupid Hollywood bullshit structures.
Here's the thing. Sure, Fellini, Altman, Anderson, Tarantino, etc. get (or got) experimental with their work. Times are different, though. If you want to break into the Hollywood studios, you have to give the execs what they want - for your first couple scripts, anyway. Then, if you're successful, you can do what you want.
Granted, Altman, P.T. Anderson, and Tarantino went full-bore right off the bat. Times were different, though. Altman broke through in the 1970s, a period when the studios were willing to take risks. P.T. and Tarantino were part of the indie-film boom in the 1990s, when studios were snapping up unique films and putting them in theaters. Both of those periods have passed, and now we're in another business-oriented period for Hollywood. You want big money to make your films? You have to play the execs' game at first.
If you want to make your films entirely on your own, then have at it and I wish you well. If you want the big studios to give you multi-million dollar budgets and big marketing campaigns, though, then you have to play the game until you're successful. And these writing methods (like ticking clocks and such) are part of the execs' game.
Blue Rabbit got obliterated.lol
Dialogue is a pointed gun. It was literal and a metaphor. And no one has the magic formula. Absolutely no one. You simply get whatever you can from each person, teacher, filmmaker. I don't get your approach even if you're right
Thank you. So helpful..Do you give classes online?
I enjoy these videos very much. I'd love to hear a professional screenwriter analyse any of my favourite and most watched films: Withnail and I, Lawrence of Arabia, Brief Encounter, Casino Royale. These are all well-known films with excellent (if slightly unconventional) screenplays. I'd love to hear an analysis of how they're structured and why they work so well.
Thanks buddy!
but is every great story uses this? I don't think Ghibli used this, or I just don't know that much...
Sure Ghibli uses this. Imagine the beginning of Spirited Away: Good news, Chihiro finds a friend and a magical place Bad News: Parents turn into pigs Ticking clock: She has to turn her parents back
Actually, writers can indeed do a lot of this unconsciously. I started writing fiction like I was shot out of a gun. I didn't read how-to books or seek out advice, because I wanted to see if I could express a natural authorial voice without being influenced by others.
That worked.
Later, when I studied structure, it was apparent that I'd already done 95% of the important things that Professor Google says to do, and rejected 95% of the ridiculous things that Professor Google says to do.
Now I'm continuing to work on that last 5%. This advice helps.
Hello..I got a lot out of your video..if anyway possible..can you show me the proper format in writing a screenplay?..Thanks.
hahah "Star wars, the Fault in the stars ..... Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift" did not expect that 3rd one to be mentioned in the same breath.
3:00 *** good new bad news, ticking clock,
2021. Thank you.
Very Helpful
Come Gary on the kick drum, come come
I have a real problem with story structure formulas. It seems to me everyone who has one (or more importantly is trying to SELL one) does whatever they have to to get a film to fit inside it.
Talk to any working screenwriter: If there was a magic formula to writing a film everyone would be using it.
+Kevin Dombrowski exactly.
ReactionShot Right, I agree.
+Kevin Dombrowski There is a formula. The ingredients are 100 different little bits of knowledge that you can learn yourself or from others. But like the man just said in the video, not everyone is conscious of it.
To me, the tool of story structure is like a basic cake recipe. Following the recipe will give you a product that most people who want cake will enjoy. Omitting certain ingredients or approaching the process willy-nilly might give you a product that some people may like, but will it be recognizable as a delicious cake to the majority of people that are specifically craving cake, or will it end up being an unsatisfying experience for them? You can mix it up and add strawberries or candy or whatever you want, but as long as you make sure that it has flour, sugar, and eggs, you have a higher chance of being successful at making something people will enjoy and that resonates with them. And isn't the goal of storytelling to entertain or engross the audience in some way? If not, what is the point? That doesn't mean you can't be creative, but it gives you a place to start. Besides, I think most people will be able to tell when something is off about a story whether they can pinpoint it or not, because storytelling is so ingrained into humanity.
why the fuck people compare movies to cakes, houses, and other objective things? films are subjective. as long as you compare them to cake you are obviously going to be a shitty writer.
To be honest there's no rules to this game. The only way a writer should do it is to allow himself be a vessel to the story. To believe that the story is not his, he's just a medium between the spirit world and the page.
What I have come to understand is, the story itself, if you write it truthfully, it contains everything these guys then breakdown, dismantle and then start calling them devices or tricks.
In every true story that comes to you, with it, it comes with its characters, plot, complexity, tensions, twists, drama and everything. And as an aspiring writer, if you keep listening to all these guys, you will realise that they all contradict themselves leaving only one conclusion, there's no rules to this game.
And as an advise to writers, listen to actual working writers interviews not these teachers.
What about something like Dazed and Confused?
Good news, bad news, rising stakes, and ticking clocks should be present in every page.
I love Peter! He's a genius, and I can't wait until I've finished my screenplay (two more weeks, tops) I'll be sending it his way!
+R Phoenix Great to hear you closing in on the final stages of your screenplay. We're curious, have you already contacted Peter about your script?
+Film Courage This is actually my third feature and I have also completed a first series of my TV show. So I'll be bombarding him. I contacted him via Facebook last year and I mentioned I would be sending him my work once completed. I actually found him through your channel, when you had interviewed him before. Your channel is brilliant and has been incredibly helpful to me.
So thank you.
Click-bait title for a video that's more about selling this dude's writing workshop than actually giving writing tips.
People are so obsessed with breaking the mold that they make a boring story instead of remembering why those suspense tools exist.
I wish peter was still with us.
These are very good, thanks for posting. People pay $1000's for this stuff and now it's mostly free. thank you