I want to write a microbudget feature that I will direct. It will be written around a small cast, take place in only a few locations (preferably one), and there will be no stunts or special effects. The script will be 85 pages, simply because the less pages to schedule, produce, and eff up the better--especially when it's your first feature. I seem to prefer 5 act story structure. My imagination functions in terms of Freytag's pyramid. I try to write in more traditional 3 or 4 acts, and I can, but for whatever reason I feel more comfortable with 5. For my microbudget feature, my act breaks will occur roughly around every 17 pages, as opposed to every 30ish pages in a more traditional 3 acts. My question concerns the audience. While they don't necessarily know what an act is, I would assume that they're still aware of the movements of the story, at least on a subconscious level. Are audiences thrown off by non-traditional story structures? Is this why Hollywood generally tells stories in 3 or 4 acts?
Screenwriting : Another Dang Story Structure Question by Jacob Buterbaugh
Other topics in Screenwriting:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
3 people like this
I don't believe they are. The key is, as you noted, "movement." If the story progresses in some manner which stimulates an audience emotionally (and hopefully intellectually as well), without becoming repetitive, then I believe that's all that matters as long as they're able to interpret something meaningful from it. People will look for patterns and associations on a myriad of different levels, but ultimately how one chooses to structure a story dictates how it will be received - thus the challenge of storytelling as the art of manipulation.
3 people like this
I can't speak for Hollywood, but I would focus on a well-written, well-told story. However you decide to do that is on you. Structure, like rules, are only tools. Pick what works for your story. Create your voice.
2 people like this
This is possibly too complex of a discussion for a forum. But my short answer is that the 3-act structure and the 5-act structure are functionally congruent, but use different terms/descriptors. For example, Freytag calls it Exposition, we usually refer to it as Set-up. He calls it Climax, we call it Midpoint. Functionally, both use the terms rising action and falling action, though these terms are probably used more frequently when using 5-act jargon. He says, "falling action may contain a moment of final suspense," and we'd call that final moment of suspense the Act 3 Climax. Etc. Because these turning points and "movements" are functionally congruent, an audience should not be thrown off. If you're in a "Hollywood" meeting, you might be better off using 3-act jargon instead of 5-act jargon just so you have a nice shorthand in the meeting room and avoid confusion. (I've very, very seldom used 5-act jargon among colleagues, so please pardon any inadvertent mistakes.)
3 people like this
Peter Jackson outlines/writes/creates using what he calls "blocks." I know there's a "mini movie" outlining technique that some people like to employ. Ultimately, you get a result that is functionally equivalent. In my experience, that's essentially the same case with 5-act and 3-act planning.
2 people like this
No. The structure is to serve your story. If you're using Freytag's, just make sure that between each 17 pages (act) you have a profound turning point (a cliff hanger is the best to hold your audience, see how Lost and Walking Dead used them, usually done with a ? What happens next? I want to find out), which breaks from the previous act and leads into the next act. That way the audience will follow. I think the question to be concerned with is the drag of the story if there's no significant turning point and less on structure. You could write this story using the sequence approach - break your 5 acts into 5 sequence, each sequence focuses on a particular problem and/or goal.
2 people like this
When you mentioned "preferably one location"...are you referring to one set? If you are.....even with the constraints of your budget, you should consider more than one set. ULB films shot on one set could get really boring rather quickly, and especially when they are mostly talking rather than performing actions. With regards to your structure choice...every choice is a good choice if the story is good - and your finished film is only as good as the sum of the parts (story, acting, producing, directing, lighting, sound, editing, etc.). I've seen some ULB films shot on an iPhone that are better than some big-budget films. Good luck with your project!
2 people like this
James - Thanks for the insight! Shawn - Thanks for pointing out that structure is a tool. I overthink it. Regina Lee - I get what you're saying about the differences being in terminology. I am definitely going to use 3-act terminology from now on. And I'm a big fan of the mini movie technique! Tao Ryan Moua - That's exactly how I plan to write - break the story into 5 acts, break each act into 5 sequences, and then break each sequence into 5 beats. Bill - I totally agree with you. Ideally I'd like to write around a primary location that can provide multiple sets. My hope is to keep company moves to a minimum. And thanks for the encouragement!
2 people like this
I think the main thing is to make sure the story doesn't drag - that it's got the same amount of entertainment value as the big studio film released on the same weekend. Yeah, your film may be in a Redbox kiosk or streaming online, but there will be big films competing for the audience in those venues as well. So whether it's 3 acts or 5 or whatever, just make sure it's just as entertaining (lots of ways something can be entertaining) as other films. I think the whole 3 act thing is more about making sure you don't skimp on conflict than anything else. But your 5/5/5 thing sounds like you're already on the right track.
2 people like this
I like the way some have described breaking the 3 act structure into 8 parts. 2 for act 1, 4 for act 2 and 2 for act 3. It's similar to the old school reels. You get 8 mini stories of 10-15 minutes. Each reel tends to focus on one character arch. Seems to help for me anyway.
2 people like this
William Martell - I think people sometimes forget that their small film is competing against other films. I mean, sometimes people skimp on the script, or on production value, or on casting, or on entertainment value, or whatever because maybe they think they'll get away with it since they're just making a small indie film. But when you read the mean reviews on Amazon or Netflix, you see that the audience didn't let them get away with it. This makes me think that the audience doesn't care whether the budget was $100,000,000 or $10,000. Either way, they expect to be entertained, and they expect to see a movie that was competently developed, produced, and delivered, all of which begins with a cool story and good script... I hope that my understanding of this helps me become a decent filmmaker someday. Peter - Right on. The sequence approach is wonderful. That was the technique that helped me understand that there is structure within the acts.
1 person likes this
Jacob. That's true. Many people know little about production value and disregard it. There are so many bad movies out there. In fact too many!
2 people like this
In the end - it comes down a clever story that works, dialogue that doesn't jar and actors that can deliver your lines - without you wanting to slit your wrists when it's time to edit. A one location shoot - has to have very, very good dialogue and delivery to hold the interest of a modern audience. So spend the time on the screenplay and spend the money on buying the best actors you can afford.
2 people like this
I agree with Andrew. If the story works, it works. I personally believe that 3 acts 4 acts 27 acts.... it is a tool for writers. Not everyone uses the same tools, or uses them in the same way. I never start with acts. I just outline a story. I don't care what page things happen on. Because some of my favorite movies did not follow any formula. Now, I am not concerned with making it in Hollywood. I just want to tell good stories and am attempting to make as much of my own writing as I can. I may end up as an Ed Wood. But I don't care. I have stories to tell, and that is what really matters.