Screenwriting : What does this mean? by Tamanna

What that means is simple. Don't have scenes in your script just because it fills pages. I've read one screenplay where all the main character did was go to concerts and walk around after singing the songs but nothing happened. He got into a couple of arguments and had a couple of minor disappointments but they did little to show any struggle, change or growth towards the final resolution. The story was flat because there was no real driving force. Major conflict drives a story. Twists, fakes and setbacks while working towards the goal are what make it interesting.

I get what you're saying/asking. To me, it means that each scene you write should have a point to it. For example, a really stupid-funny film like Wayne's World has a lot of scenes that are there just to be funny, but not really moving the plot to the end goal. It's entertaining and we expect that in a movie like that. If you are writing something more serious a scene that may be interesting but has nothing to do with the story/plotline can fall a little flat. Hence, before you start a new scene, think to yourself "What is the goal of this scene?" or "What am I trying to accomplish with this scene?" You'll be a better scriptwriter because of it.

I hope I was coherent enough in my answer. Good luck!

It is literally what it means. Every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The character has a goal in mind. Every scene is about moving towards the end goal. The decisions that the character makes to overcome the obstacles in the way of achieving the main goal is what makes the story. If characters aren't making the choices that allows them to move towards their main goal, the story isn't moving forward. Plot is just the series of steps the character made to get to the goal. We don't care so much about plot as long as it doesn't wander. What we care about is how and why the character makes those decisions, because that is what pushes a story forward.

delete the boring parts. But boring is subjective.

Anyone think that two gangsters talking about foot massages would be interesting for 3-minutes of screen time, filmed one-take camera shot?

Dan MaxXx That conversation would be meaningless if there wasn't payoff later with Mia's barefoot dance performance with Vincent Vega.

If the action, dialogue or scene adds no worth to the script and does not move the action from point A to B, then you may want to hit the delete button.

That’s what the ‘rules’ dictate. But how many successful movies have you seen with set pieces that do NOTHING to move the story forward? I’ve seen a bunch - and I’m guessing they’ll keep coming...

I scene cannot just inform you about a character, what you learn must also inform something outside the scene in the larger story and in that moment help move the story forward.

Foot massage scene in Pulp Fiction.

We learn these guys are close friends even though Vince has been hiding in Europe for a while. (That may be in the car earlier).

We learn that they are killers and talk about it casually. Important to establish this for when Vince meet Butch at the bar. Respect is very important. Reflects in the hand washing scene.

We learn that they don’t do anything that their boss doesn’t tell them to do, even waiting just a few minutes before going in.

We learn that Marcel Wallace has people killed (not beaten up) for double crossing him, again important for the Butch story line. We learn that Marvin is important to Marcel, so when Vince kills him they have a problem, other than just a body in their car.

The conversation is just a way of getting them to the door. But it give us everything we need to know so what happens in the room makes sense. If we didn’t have that scene the room wouldn’t make sense in context to the overall movie. It moves the story forward by establishing the characters enabling a short hand to be used later.

If we learned about a character and what we learned had no impact on their actions in the future it could be cut. This scene facilitates the getting of the case as well as us learning everything we need for the rest of the film.

Plus, I have never given another man a foot massage.

"Moving the story forward" means, in my humble opinion, that the protagonist is moving closer and closer to his goal. It's not just about a series of unfolding events happening to the protagonist or side characters. As stories are about protagonists reaching for something, more the protagonist gets closer to his goal more the story's moving forward. And as Robert Mckee stated, only through conflict (opposite forces to the protagonist's goal) the story moves forward.

As a new screenwriter myself but as someone who is familiar with writing stories, I take the phrase moving the story forward as meaning no wasted dialogue or action scenes. Everything said or done needs to have some plan to it. It can't just be great dialogue without a purpose nor can it be action without a reason. When I write my screenplays or even in my books, I try to always ask myself the question of whether this particular scene works to set up the inevitable ending or if it doesn't does it give hints to an important fact that will come into play later on? If it does neither I cut it.

Brett Hoover I understood that. I try to keep that in mind as well: not to waste my dialogues and be as concise as my character allows! Thank you so much for the reply.

Louis Tete I thought it that way as well! I knew that my characters are reaching for something and the plot moves forward. Thank you for being so kind and replying. Cheers! xx

Brad Havens Hey Brad! You guessed right. English is my third language but that can't be the reason I have been pondering over this phrase because I have a Masters in Literature. I get what you mean. I do tend to over analyse and it is refreshing that you pointed that out since it usually skips my mind. Maybe I do have a grasp, but I still thought to just put it out here and ask people here, and look how great the responses have been, yours included! Thank you so much for your assurance, believe me, it is very helpful! Take care and happy writing. xx

Craig D Griffiths Thank you so much for that in-depth answer. I do get what you mean. Its the reason behind everything shown in that scene. You focused on the 'why' of the scene, and I have a better understanding of it now. Thank you so much for taking out some time and replying the way you did. It is genuinely very helpful and inspiring. Take care!

Nina Berlin Hey! I loved your to-the-point answer. I am going to repeat this mantra while writing or editing. Thank you for being so forthcoming with your reply!

Nick Assunto - Stage32 Script Services You are right I guess. I do tend to think a lot about whether I am making my story move forward the right way, or the way it is usually advised for screen writers. But you saying it makes me realise something that I didn't notice earlier, that is is okay to do so. Thanks for the suggestion!

Christopher Phillips Thanks for that distinction. I understand what you mean about plot and other attributes in a screenplay. Thank you so much for replying here!

Cannon Rosenau YO, seriously, thanks for that tip! Next time before I write a new scene, I am going to ask that same question. You are a gem! Really. Keep creating and thank you so much for replying to my post. I really do appreciate it. Cheers! xx

Anthony Moore Hello!, I replied to your answer at the end because you provided with a new perspective for me and it took me some time to work it out. Through the example you gave, you drove home the point about needless things that halts the motion if our story going forward. I get it now. It was really amazing to read your example because it made me visualize what you were pointing at. Thank you for writing this response. It's overwhelming how much advice and suggestion people share with others. Take care and keep writing! Thanks and cheers.

The broad concept of beginning/middle/end applies not only to the total story but also to each scene within. Even those little INSERT and CUTAWAY must move the story forward. Anything that does not advance the story ought not be included.

Tamanna, You've already got some seriously great answers here, so I would just add one thing worth considering. - Since it may actually clarify what I sense you are still understandably confused about.

It involves the eternal debate among teachers of this craft that we call screenwriting - and it centers upon who or what is actually driving a story. There are those that absolutely insist it is ALWAYS character that drives plot (even in seemingly plot driven films). Then there are those who insist that it MUST be plot that drives story.

Personally, I try to avoid extremes and over-generalizations, but for the purpose of a coherent explanation, it can loosely be said that indie and arthouse films are mostly (but not always) character-driven, and many (but not all) big Hollywood blockbusters are plot-driven. Having said that, I think if we really examine the best films they are usually a harmonious balance between plot and character driven.

Still, there are always exceptions - so there are some purely character-driven quirky films with almost no plot at all, and yet are critically acclaimed and beloved. (Their viewing demographic tends to skew female.) Just like there are some mostly plot-driven movies that have minimal character development arcs and are still loved by many. Those tend to be action based and filled with cutting edge visual effects. (That viewing demographic tends to skew male.)

Anyway, that explains why you actually do see many scenes in films that don't attempt to "move the story forward." - Because there are some indie filmmakers who seek to capture "reality" in its purest form, and on a philosophical or existential level that equates to offering viewers an authentic experience. Which at times translates into a "real life" moment - detached from anything contrived or connected to plot. The entire French New Wave film movement is based on this premise. (Since it evolved from a documentary style of filmmaking called "Cinéma Vérité.") For better or worse, this also is emulated in the craze that is "reality tv." (Although you could easily argue that in many instances what appears to be "reality" is anything but, since it's actually somewhat scripted or staged for ratings. But I digress.)

...My point is simply that you should write the story YOU want to tell, and would pay to see. - using the "rules" as a guide, but not allowing them to stifle an innovative approach to a scene, should true inspiration ever strike. :)

P.S. - The success of Netflix's original "long-tail" marketing strategy proves that there is a niche market somewhere for everything. As did the success and critical acclaim of many 70's films that were known for their gritty realism, and for iconic and often improvised scenes.

a few fun examples -

Robert De Niro's infamous "You talkin' to me?" monologue / diatribe in TAXI DRIVER

Dustin Hoffman's "I'm walkin' here!" in MIDNIGHT COWBOY (his real reaction to an unplanned car intrusion during the scene)

Good points, J. Even if not everyone can hope to be the next Paul Thomas Anderson, his success as a highly diverse voice in the writer/filmmaker space can't be denied. It also pretty much throws any rule book out the window. Since the films he's best known for don't even fit into a single genre - Boogie Nights, Magnolia, There Will Be Blood, The Master, Inherent Vice, Punch, Drunk Love... . A rare talent and visionary for sure, but he epitomizes what I think you're trying to say.

Years ago I wrote down on a sticky note a quote from Trey Parker and Matt Stone -that hangs on my monitor - (paraphrased) "Between beats it should never be "and then" it should always be "therefore" or "but" to drive the story". I quite like it, hopefully you find it useful.

Justin Plourde Yes. I forgot all about that talk with Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Good advice.

You know where your story is going - the big resolution of the conflict - so every scene and character and line of dialogue is moving the story to that big ending.

R., That and then some. We can't all be PTA, but we can each push the envelope a bit. :)

Jean Buschmann That was some amazing explanation. I get what you mean. The distinctions that you made were somethings I too have been thinking about for quite some time. I think I'll take up your advice of using these rules 'as a guide' and go from there. Thank you for your response. It is really very helpful. Cheers!

Justin Plourde Guess that is going on my desk as well! Thank you for this, really. Its concise and yet tells me a lot. I appreciate it.

Doug Nelson I actually never thought about this intricacy of writing a scene. Thank you for pointing this out. I am going to start structuring the scenes in this detailed manner as well as start reading scripts keeping this in mind. Thank you for this!

Just remember that if we apply most of today's rules and conventional standards to the best scripts and films ever made - they'd likely never get produced, or at least many "unnecessary" (but iconic) scenes would be scrapped in editing. It's something to at least think about.

Great question and answers. I learned something reading this today.

Ruben L. Martinez Hey! Could you be kind enough to give an example? Something that might drive home your point? Thanks for the reply .

Tamanna If you scroll up, Jean mentions two classic examples at the bottom of her post. They were improvised and not written, but either way, the mentality that insists every scene must move the plot forward and that all non-essential dialog or action should be eliminated would likely not see the value in such iconic scenes today. Even though they reveal each character's "mindscape." If we applied the same stringent standard to Joaqin Phoenix's very recent Oscar-winning performance in JOKER, then it's equally likely that the scenes he breathed the most life into would have never made the final cut. And yet cinematographer Lawrence Sher freely admits the film rose to new heights because of JP's improvisations.

On the flipside, you have Aaron Sorkin - who is notorious for not allowing any improvisation of his lengthy "rule-breaking," fast-paced and quick-witted dialog. This is his signature, and the quality of his work speaks for itself - The Social Network, The Newsroom, Steve Jobs, The West Wing, A Few Good Men... .

So use "the rules" as guidelines, know their value, but don't ever let them completely constrain your creativity.

Great final point, Rube! Now that we just finished watching THE LAST DANCE, the thought that popped in my mind was - what if Phil Jackson had told Jordan ""hey so lose that whole flying thing - 'cuz it's against the rules." :)

(BTW - I still remember us rooting for The Bulls when they were underdogs to the Detroit Pistons, and how excited we were when they finally beat 'em! I know the one rule we both wish the NBA would still enforce though is travelling! - C'mon James Harden, dribble while you step, like the NBA legends all did back in the day. Ha ha!)

Can't even imagine that no fly zone! As for today's travelers, many of the younger fans don't seem to mind, so maybe that's how things evolve. Who are we to say? But what I do think the documentary nailed was just how easy it is for stubborn pride and human ego to destroy the very real potential for a winning collaboration. And that's a real shame. It also seems to haunt Jordan to this day.

(Good times and fun memories though, J.)