I've been thinking about what are the most basic components that make up every good movie (or, let's say 99% of them because there are always some exceptions).

I think every movie comes down to this:

Someone does something in the end that they couldn't do in the beginning because of what they go through in the middle.

Or, in the language of film:

Our main character has to go through act 2 to be able to do something in act 3 that they couldn't do in act 1.

The trick is to find the way to make the middle part, act 2, no matter how unconnected it may seem, be the most appropriate, logical way to get the character from act 1 to act 3. The best way to get them to be able to do in the end what they couldn't in the beginning. And, in a tight script, every scene should be a step in the progression from act 1 to act 3.

It's freakin hard to do.

I've been trying to come up with exceptions to this and can't really. Can anyone else?

I don't whether to take you serious or if you're being sarcastic..

James:
It's freakin hard to do.

Not if you have a beat sheet..

"I've been trying to come up with exceptions to this and can't really. Can anyone else?"

There is no exception..This is not the basic components of a Good movie..This is the components of every movie..But you know that right? This was just an sarcastic poke at thoses who don't know better? If not, I'm regret thinking so, and peacefully join this battle of trading knowledge and barbs...

Word.

If you leave, you leaving the best:
I don't whether to take you serious or if you're being sarcastic..

Nope, I was being serious (a rarity for me).

James:
It's freakin hard to do.

Not if you have a beat sheet..

I have never met a good writer who thought writing good was easy. Maybe you're the first, but I'm not holding my breath. It may seem easy. It may even look easy in a beat sheet form, but going from that to a script that actually pulls off having every scene be a necessary step in a compelling progression from can't to can is freakin hard.

"I've been trying to come up with exceptions to this and can't really. Can anyone else?"

There is no exception..This is not the basic components of a Good movie..This is the components of every movie..

Nope. It may be the goal of every movie (or those that are really trying) but there are a lot of bad movies out there that don't pull it off. Let's see, Doom, the Broderick Godzilla, Ang Lee's Hulk. The most recent Superman, Donny Darko, Resevoir Dogs (I know people will disagree with these two), the 2nd (and I suspect 3rd) Pirates of the Caribbean, The 2nd and 3rd Matrix. The first (aka 4th) Star Wars, The Day After Tomorrow, Shrek 3, Speed Racer... And I'm sure countless others that I haven't seen (I try not to see bad movies).

The trick is in the causality. A lot of movies tack on a character change at the end to appease... I don't know who, but if it's not tied to the 2nd act, it fails my definition. Act 2 has to be necessary. It's best if it's the only possible way our guy can get to his final action. And a lot of films fail because the final action doesn't actually pay off the 2nd act. It doesn't prove to us that our guy has "figured it out".

Actually, I just came up with a good movie (great movie) that doesn't follow the formula above: Being There. See, I knew there'd be at least one exception.

James:
The trick is to find the way to make the middle part, act 2, no matter how unconnected it may seem, be the most appropriate, logical way to get the character from act 1 to act 3. The best way to get them to be able to do in the end what they couldn't in the beginning. And, in a tight script, every scene should be a step in the progression from act 1 to act 3.

It's freakin hard to do.

I've been trying to come up with exceptions to this and can't really. Can anyone else?

Makes your brain fizz, don't it?
I can't imagine there are many exceptions at all. From Dune to Caveman and Casablanca to Happy Gilmore and Blazing Saddles to Alien...
And to sit down and make each word, sentence, scene and act flow perfectly with the previous AND next word, sentence, scene and act and have the end completely complete the beginning...
Makes my brain fizz.

:)
Margo

James: I have never met a good writer who thought writing good was easy. Maybe you're the first, but I'm not holding my breath. It may seem easy. It may even look easy in a beat sheet form, but going from that to a script that actually pulls off having every scene be a necessary step in a compelling progression from can't to can is freakin hard.

Good writing is hard....Not disputing that-But my beat sheet statement was in reference to your statement about finding a (logical) way from act I to act III. If you have an outline or even aa beat sheet, a way to fill out where you're going in the script at certain points, it can simplifed the writing process. Because you now know the story, and the what happen nexts to get to Act III, now all you have to do is fill in the blanks (The characters, dialogue, the actions). Now that may the hard part for some people.

"Nope. It may be the goal of every movie (or those that are really trying) but there are a lot of bad movies out there that don't pull it off. Let's see, Doom, the Broderick Godzilla, Ang Lee's Hulk. The most recent Superman, Donny Darko, Resevoir Dogs (I know people will disagree with these two), the 2nd (and I suspect 3rd) Pirates of the Caribbean, The 2nd and 3rd Matrix. The first (aka 4th) Star Wars, The Day After Tomorrow, Shrek 3, Speed Racer... And I'm sure countless others that I haven't seen (I try not to see bad movies)."

I mean first off it's subjective statement, so it's hard to really discuss as you already perceive them as bad movies..  But maybe if you give me examples of some the movies you have said (Except Donny Darko-never seen it) that does not logically connect Act  to Act III....Let me see it from your point of view..Because except for Donny Darko, I seen the movies you're talking about and I believe they all  were logically thought out..But can we even say logically as all except for Reservoir Dogs stretch the limitations of  imagination.  So "logically" there's no way Neo can fight off all of those Smiths. 

"The trick is in the causality. A lot of movies tack on a character change at the end to appease... I don't know who, but if it's not tied to the 2nd act, it fails my definition. Act 2 has to be necessary. It's best if it's the only possible way our guy can get to his final action. And a lot of films fail because the final action doesn't actually pay off the 2nd act. It doesn't prove to us that our guy has "figured it out"."

Definitely cosign.  I do believe sometimes writer's put in an "articifical" character change, just so they can end the story on a good note.  But on the examples you gave up on top-I don't see it..The Hulk for example-Act II was needed  for the final showdown between Bruce/Hulk and his father..Act II for the Matrix Reloaded was needed to embraced the sacrfice, seen in Act III.  It's not necessary a character change, but the progression of the character.

James:I've been trying to come up with exceptions to this and can't really. Can anyone else?quote]

I'd like to submit "2001" as Exhibit A, and what the hell, "Apocalypse Now" as B.

Sorry, that should've read:

[quote user=James]
I've been trying to come up with exceptions to this and can't really. Can anyone else?

I'd like to submit "2001" as Exhibit A, and what the hell, "Apocalypse Now" as B.

“2001: A Space Odyssey” is more difficult, but it does what James suggests. Each of the three segments have the standard 3-Act structure. So when you break down each segment you will find them. In an abstract way, the through line of the entire movie is an inanimate object. An object that doesn’t do anything, but causes actions to happen. And using the abstract style Clarke and Kubrick set up, that inanimate is the “main character” who goes through the 3 acts and ends up doing (causing) in the third act what it couldn’t do (cause) in act one.

Not really a stretch if you get into the abstract mood the writers and director set up.

“Apocalypse Now” uses the classic, three act, hero’s journey structure. Someone (Willard) does something in the end (eliminates Kurtz) that they couldn't do in the beginning because of what they go through (an understanding of evil) in the middle.

LOL at screenwriting being easy if you have a beat sheet. Thats the equivalent of saying, "movies are easy to produce if you have a c-stand"

If I would have known this golden advice I could have saved a lot of money on books. Who needs to read or write when you got a beat sheet?




JAMES- you are a smart man please keep posting.

James:
I've been thinking about what are the most basic components that make up every good movie (or, let's say 99% of them because there are always some exceptions).

I think every movie comes down to this:

Someone does something in the end that they couldn't do in the beginning because of what they go through in the middle.

Or, in the language of film:

Our main character has to go through act 2 to be able to do something in act 3 that they couldn't do in act 1.

The trick is to find the way to make the middle part, act 2, no matter how unconnected it may seem, be the most appropriate, logical way to get the character from act 1 to act 3. The best way to get them to be able to do in the end what they couldn't in the beginning. And, in a tight script, every scene should be a step in the progression from act 1 to act 3.

It's freakin hard to do.

I've been trying to come up with exceptions to this and can't really. Can anyone else?

I guess the same could be said in a religious forum about the cause and effect of karmic law..either way I hear there are loopholes but good or bad will always be open to intepretation..

rik:
“2001: A Space Odyssey” is more difficult, but it does what James suggests. Each of the three segments have the standard 3-Act structure. So when you break down each segment you will find them. In an abstract way, the through line of the entire movie is an inanimate object. An object that doesn’t do anything, but causes actions to happen. And using the abstract style Clarke and Kubrick set up, that inanimate is the “main character” who goes through the 3 acts and ends up doing (causing) in the third act what it couldn’t do (cause) in act one.

Not really a stretch if you get into the abstract mood the writers and director set up.

“Apocalypse Now” uses the classic, three act, hero’s journey structure. Someone (Willard) does something in the end (eliminates Kurtz) that they couldn't do in the beginning because of what they go through (an understanding of evil) in the middle.

I haven't watched 2001 all the way through in a long time, so I won't weigh in, but "Apocalypse Now" is a clear example of what I was saying above as rik points out.

You could possibly argue that Willard would have eliminate Kurtz if he hadn't gone through act 2, but that he wouldn't have done it for the right reasons. If he was just plopped down in Kurtz's lawn at the start of the movie, he'd shoot him because that's his job, but because he goes through act 2, he sees both what the war can do to any man and what Kurtz has done with the war and so, rather than just follow orders, he chooses to kill him. He wouldn't have been able to make that choice without act 2.

Dan :
JAMES- you are a smart man please keep posting.

That and a metro card will get you on the subway...

If you leave, you leaving the best:
Good writing is hard....Not disputing that-But my beat sheet statement was in reference to your statement about finding a (logical) way from act I to act III. If you have an outline or even aa beat sheet, a way to fill out where you're going in the script at certain points, it can simplifed the writing process. Because you now know the story, and the what happen nexts to get to Act III, now all you have to do is fill in the blanks (The characters, dialogue, the actions). Now that may the hard part for some people.

That's the easy part for me. The hard part is getting that beat sheet worked out. Actually, both are easy on their own. The hard part is moving from one to the other. I can come up with a logical, motivated beat sheet pretty easily, but when I start writing the pages, they expose all the holes in the beat sheet and I have to start all over again. And repeat. And repeat, hopefully a little tighter each time through.

I mean first off it's subjective statement, so it's hard to really discuss as you already perceive them as bad movies..  But maybe if you give me examples of some the movies you have said (Except Donny Darko-never seen it) that does not logically connect Act  to Act III....Let me see it from your point of view..Because except for Donny Darko, I seen the movies you're talking about and I believe they all  were logically thought out..But can we even say logically as all except for Reservoir Dogs stretch the limitations of  imagination.  So "logically" there's no way Neo can fight off all of those Smiths.

It's not about logic in the sense of the real world. It's about the logic of the characters. The logic of the story. But if you don't like the movies I've chosen, I bet if you look at a couple movies you hate, the core reason they don't work for you is that you don't believe this progression (or it's not there at all).

Definitely cosign.  I do believe sometimes writer's put in an "articifical" character change, just so they can end the story on a good note.  But on the examples you gave up on top-I don't see it..The Hulk for example-Act II was needed  for the final showdown between Bruce/Hulk and his father..Act II for the Matrix Reloaded was needed to embraced the sacrfice, seen in Act III.  It's not necessary a character change, but the progression of the character.

I'm not following. What do you see as the difference between a character change and the progression of the character? What I'm talking about is not just that a character changes, but that the character at the start is presented with exactly the right set of obstacles in act 2 to get him to act in act 3 in a way that the person he was in act 1 could never have. Act 3 proves to us that he's fixed the problems he had in act 1 and it takes act 2 to get him there.

James:
I'm not following. What do you see as the difference between a character change
and the progression of the character? What I'm talking about is not just that a
character changes, but that the character at the start is presented with exactly
the right set of obstacles in act 2 to get him to act in act 3 in a way that the
person he was in act 1 could never have. Act 3 proves to us that he's fixed the
problems he had in act 1 and it takes act 2 to get him there.

Sorry I should had said 'Progression of the Story". The moving forward of the story without Character development.

As some of you guys know, I'm a bit of an amateur screenwriter. While I'm not going to say I'm great at it (although I am), I do like to think I know about the subject. It helps that I've read a stack of books and attended many classes and lectures. That doesn't mean I know everything, that's impossible, but I'm trying as best I can.

One thing I have worked out for myself is a paradigm of what a story is. Yes, it's a 3 act structure but it's how it's defined is what's most important. The First Act is a Set Up, you set up the characters, plot and what comes in the Second Act, which is an Event. This event can be anything, big or small, but it must completely change the nature of the story. The Third Act is the Resolution, where everything from the First and Second are paid off.

You don't have to agree with me, in fact I really recommend you don't write like me and find your own paradigm.

My point is that a story works because the brining together of all the story elements. If you're story doesn't have that Event in the middle, it's going to spend a long time setting up something which will never come and by the end, nothing will have changed. The same goes for the Set Up and the Resolution; without the Set Up, you're story is just going to be dealing with an event and nothing will change, and without a Resolution, the story will just go on and on and on until you're to fed up to keep writing.

Oh, and please don't confuse plot devices, like McGuffins, with the Second Act Event. They are either part of the Set Up at the beginning or part of the Resolution. To say "They we're all ghosts" right in the middle would only confuse the story and you would miss what the story was really about.