Screenwriting : Are you a method writer? by Phillip E. Hardy, Prolifique

Boy are you a glutton for punishment :)

Jeff: You're a scholarly man and instructor. I've enjoyed your posts. Please, provide why were gluttons... for punishment. PS, I did the online Stanford Project Management Program. Got one of them there certificates.

Hey---Wow how cool is that. I love Stanford, love teaching for them. Congratulations, that's pretty huge. Re the gluttons... I'm just beign a wise-ass. You're going to get deluged with everybody's "systems" .... you just asked people if they like vanilla or chocolate ice cream. :) IMO none of these systems are better or best or even good. They all just are. We have to just find the one that resonates with us personally. If it makes you productive, then use it. That's the bottom line. Obviously I'm prejudiced a bit having come out of the story structure world, so anything that doesn't support real story structure is weak, but that's just my opinion, and that and 35 cents will get you a dial tone. And I even have my own "system" :) Which I wont' sell here (though I guess I just did... sorry). Anyway, the only one that I just recoil from like a vampire to sunlight is three-act structure. Everything else is fair game. I'm actually writing a blog post for Stage 32 right now on why I hate three acts ... we'll see if they publish it. I may as well be throwing a gas can on an open fire with that topic... :)

Jeff: Great answer! And, exactly the type of response I posted this topic. I like having my S32 friends share their experiences. Thanks again.

I don’t want to make this thread a Blake Snyder referendum. And with all due respect for Save the Cat and his other screenwriting books, what films was he responsible for writing? Here’s your answer. He wrote Stop ! Or My Mom Will Shoot” and *Blank Check. Although both of these efforts did well at the box office, I wouldn’t say either of them had a profound influence on the American film making landscape. Blake also sold another ten scripts, none of which were ever made. So let’s just say that I don’t put him in a class with Woody Allen, William Goldman, Charlie Kaufman, Harriet Frank Jr. or the Coen Brothers. Although none of the aforementioned folks have best-selling screenwriting software. RIP Blake Snyder.

My dear Owen, exquisitely put.

I think Owen needs a mic to drop.

Lovin Owen's answer

Now I need to say something (mic picked up) :) I teach story, I teach process, I have a whole bloody book that teaches a "7-step" process. And it's bulls*#t. There are no 7 steps. There are no 5 steps, or 22 building blocks, or writing secrets or 10 this or that or anything. They are all bull. Just marketing and sales hype. Well, they are also something esle: they are ways to teach. I teach 7-steps for premise development, why not 6 why not 8? Because 7 worked better. It's just a way of transferring knowledge. I can't teach anything unless I can break it down so it is consumable by the learner. You can't learn math, or law, or programming unless you break it down into steps. The steps aren't real, they don't exist—"there is no spoon"— but steps are necessary to transfer the knowledge--because that's how people learn. You have to look beyond the marketing hype and proprietary sales strategies of any one guru (even me). I say in my book, the first thing I want people to do is throw out my process and make it their own. Combine steps, drop steps, do whatever you need as long as you make it productive. It's just a teaching tool to teach concepts and story structure, not a cookie cutter to make writing "easier." No such animal exists—writing just sucks—period! Ultimately that's all these "systems" and methods are--teaching tools. Don't make them more than that, or less than that, and you'll be fine. This is really important to learn so that you don't miss something in the story zoo that might actually be helpful. My mantra: Try everything, listen to everyone, follow no one. You are your own guru. :)

As the old saying goes "The only people that made money in the gold rush were the people selling shovel" The only people that make money from (any) advice are the people selling it.

And to call myself a hypocrite. I have an ebook about to come out about writing tools. Feel free to let fly with some body blows.

HA—touchette... :)

Sometimes I use STC beat sheet as a guide and sometimes I just sit down and start typing. I really don't like to overthink any of this stuff.

I am with you. I start with an idea, a problem the character is dealing with. I see the character fail and succeed in my head, and I think about what the character, along with the audience learns from this experience and I scribble down the premise of the story and go from there. I usually do an outline and I know my main characters, but the story moves me from there. It changes, twists and turns around corners I had no idea it would go and characters become more prominent than expected, it is a wonders experience. The story usually drives me. This is why I love writing so deeply. It is such a miraculous process...

I am a heavy structure writer. I utilize a large wall board when I write, with all the plot points/beats, and it goes from page 1 to 100. I respond best that way, and like to see the whole story in front of me. I get that some people are "anti-structure" - or at least think they are. I bet that they also employ nearly the same type of a similar methodology in writing a story - some type of structure that advances a story, consciously or sub-consciously - to get from FADE IN to THE END. If they didn't, their stories would probably not be very marketable. I also bet that a good writer can use any of the eight or nine promoted structures, and write a brilliant story. I also bet that a good writer can use any of those structures and write a bad story, too. So who is the enemy, then? A defined structure, or a defined bad story? At the end of the day, story is about CHARACTERS, and what happens to those characters. I'd bet that those industry folks who bad-rapped the STC stories were presented with stories that weren't interesting, and characters that weren't memorable. If the stories were marketable, and if the execs though they had a chance to make money off of them, then they would have probably been all over them.

Structure is story; story is structure. Just because you don't follow someone's interpretation and promoted "system" of structure doesn't mean you don't know or understand or practice structure. Personally, I believe it's best to keep an open mind and learn as much as you can from all kinds of approaches. Develop your own approach, your own understanding. Discover what works best for you. :)

I like Beth's thoughts. To quote Bruce Lee: "Absorb what is useful. Discard what is not. Add what is uniquely your own."

That's one of my favorite quotes, Bill. And it perfectly fits this discussion. Thanks for sharing it. :)

My dear Beth: Always a pleasure to read your wise words.

Aw, shucks, Phillip. xoxo ;) Speaking of different approaches... I've been utilizing sequencing as of late and have found it to be very effective. It doesn't seem as "dead" as beat sheets (No offense intended! I often use rough beat sheets as well), or as "dead" as formulaic, fill-in-the-blank approaches. It better gets me to think about cause/effect and driving the story forward. It also forces me to think more clearly and immediately about the audience experience. Anyway, I would recommend to anyone to add sequencing to their arsenal of writing tools. ;)

I've never used Save The Cat or the other popular script writing guides, but have considered penning a cheesy action screenplay following the structure then pitching it to executives. Re-writing Hollywood scripts and taking assignments would supplement my day job income and forge connections that would further my independent projects.

I think we're all “method” screenwriters – one way or another. In our beginning, we each study the craft and as we develop our skill-set and with experience comes the inner knowledge of story structure and what works best for us. We've all been exposed to Syd's three act model, Blake's beat sheet, the hero's journey... on & on. But it's up to each of us to develop and feel comfortable in our own “method”. I'm not an imitative writer. I take some from this method and some from another; I 'm a “Heinz 57” method writer – and it changes from day to day. Fluidity is one of a writer's more important characterics.

I use tools to understand characters and motives. The only structure I follow is start middle and end. Trying to follow anything other than that makes me feel like I am compromising. That's just me. Others live and die by other methods.

Whenever one of these discussions pops up about the efficacy and value of one screenwriting approach over another, the number of beats, preferred structure, the "method-of-the-day," a little voice inside me asks, "Is this why so many films feel, look and sound the same?" - because they're all based on a narrowly accepted and followed dictate or formula that the studios supposedly look for? The Holy Grail to an Option or outright Purchase? The cottage industry that has risen up to enlighten any all writers with "break-through" insights; professional guidance; the inside track to success, is almost embarrassing when you stop and examine the landscape of charlatans who base their entire marketing pitch on T.S. Barnum's famous quote. Now if I could just figure out the beats for that script...

"They can spot a script written to one of the popular structure formulas a mile away, and these scripts almost never succeed." This bit right here is where Mr. Mandell looses his credibility. If these "methods" are so "deficient" then why does virtually EVERY film made use them over and over? And the result? Millions upon millions of dollars. This is a far cry from "never succeeding". It's not anything new. Read your Joseph Campbell. This is how human beings tell stories. From the late Blake Snyder, to Christopher Vogler, to Michael Hague, to Syd Field, and going all the way back to Aristotle's Poetics. They are all saying the same thing. They all say that these are guides around which we dress the rest of the tale. There IS a method to how we tell stories. And as long as you are in the BUSINESS of telling stories, you use what works. If you want to write off the wall, non-conformist art house films that shun the method, then more power to you. It's an art form and people can do what they want. But if you are trying to sell something to a consumer base, you better understand what that market is. So if you're Shakespeare selling tickets in 16th century England or trying to sell tickets to the latest cinematic blockbuster, that method for telling stories remains present. It's nothing new- and was prevalent long before "the cat". As the great David Mamet said, "Film is Design". Learn them, use them, tailor them to your needs. No producer or distributor in the world wants you to try and reinvent the wheel.

for good or bad, i tend to think about the story first, usually envisioning them in vignettes that, although might not necessarily touch on the theme (or even be included in the script at all), describes an aspect of someone within the story's character. then i write down a few scenes that i think would work for, and should be included in, the script. after i get the general direction i want the story to go, to get from point "a" to point "z", i write a first draft. i may or may not use the scenes i previously wrote down, because i try to let my characters tell me how the story unfolds. sometimes the characters go where i planned for them to go and sometimes they do not. it ends up being a little more of a natural progression. well, that's my "what and why".

I think the reason why all words are the same is that they all use only 26 letters... and all sentences are the same for that reason as well.