from Hacker News

The 2005 screenwriting book that’s taken over Hollywood

by markcmyers on 7/19/13, 7:53 PM with 173 comments

  • by georgemcbay on 7/19/13, 8:31 PM

    I haven't read "Save the Cat" so I can't speak to it specifically, but the article doesn't do a great job of selling me on the idea that the book is responsible for the sameness of movie plots considering that for all the examples of "beats" given in the article, I can think of dozens and dozens of movies that hit those beats well before 2005 (when the supposedly ruinous screenplay manual was published).

    If anything, it seems like the book was just clearly documenting what nearly every writer was already doing anyway, in some cases basically as far back as three act storytelling has existed (even prior to movies existing at all).

  • by joshuak on 7/19/13, 10:22 PM

    As others have pointed out the concept of a more detailed screenplay structure has been around for a very long time, and typically pretty well understood by working screenwritters.

    I remember reading about the 9 act structure in the 90s (can't remember if this is the guy who started it, but I think so): Edit corrected link (thanks to hncommenter13 below): http://web.archive.org/web/19961103105817/http://dsiegel.com

    The problem with modern blockbuster films as described in the article is for the most part not because of a better understanding of structure but because of less understanding. Perhaps poor writers are using tools like Save the Cat to believe they understand writing better then they do. Or perhaps studio executives (who are notoriously near pathologically risk averse to new ideas) reading new screenplays use a poor understanding of Save the Cat to validate perspective scripts.

    I can say for sure that many modern movies, particularly summer movies, are absolutely not following these structures, good or bad. Mainstream narrative filmmaking always follows the hero's journey, whether your hero is a neurotic writer in new york, a young black girl in New Orleans, or a genetically modified super hero.

    Summer blockbusters these days are focused on something different. Visceral response. Well structured storytelling (whether you think that's "Save the Cat" or something else), is about stories and human relatable emotions and characters. Recent films have started focusing more on the roller coster ride of the visuals, and will do any distortion of the story necessary to motivate a visceral impact on the audience. Good storytelling takes a second seat to putting the audience into the most intense situations possible.

    This has been helping get people into the theaters because the trailers for these types of films make them seam very exciting. But I would argue that Hollywood is struggling right now - the visual effects industry in particular - due to the audience getting wise to these ploys. A bad film is still a bad film, formalized story telling structure won't save you. Even less so if you ignore it so that you can have a bigger explosion.

    Want to be a good screenwriter? First learn how to write a story. And then guess what? You can still have explosions too.

  • by gandalfgeek on 7/19/13, 9:10 PM

    There's a sidebar that has the detailed outline, also called a "beat sheet".

    http://www.slate.com/content/slate/sidebars/2013/07/the_save...

    If you read that, you will notice that the arc of the hero almost exactly matches the one of the prototypical hero from many cultures and mythologies, as explained by John Campbell in "The Hero with a Thousand Faces."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces

    There are just so many elements one can make a compelling story out of.

  • by __david__ on 7/19/13, 8:52 PM

    This reminds me of pop music. At some point you realize most of the songs on the radio are "verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, chorus" with only subtle variations in structure.

    But in the end, I don't actually think that's a bad thing. There is a lot of variations you can do, even within such a limiting structure. Summer blockbusters are the pop music of movies. And just like pop songs, even if you know the overall structure you can still be surprised and entertained throughout.

    And, just like music, it doesn't mean that there can't be things that break the mold entirely, even if they aren't quite as popular. There's always going to be someone out there pushing the boundaries, and there's always going to be someone really skilled who makes something really popular that doesn't conform to the formula at all.

  • by thenomad on 7/19/13, 8:39 PM

    I may be somewhat odd for a professional filmmaker in this, but my reaction is less "aargh, no, my pure pure art!" and more "Hmm, interesting, I wonder if I have time to try that out?"

    Frameworks work well for visual design, adverts, web design, music (to a certain extent), so I can't see a problem with them for films.

    Of course, if one framework becomes the One Possible Framework, that's more of an issue. But there are enough filmmakers out there willing to try seriously wierd shit that I don't think that's a problem yet.

    For example, David Lynch is working on a new feature film right now. Call me crazy, but I don't think he'll be sticking to Save The Cat's formula.

  • by dugmartin on 7/19/13, 8:22 PM

    Some friends and I made a simple hot-or-not style site using the "Save the Cat" formula as a way to kill time on a 6 hour drive:

    http://www.pitchwar.com/

  • by davidgerard on 7/19/13, 10:12 PM

    See KLF's "The Manual", which did the same thing for pop music.

    http://rocknerd.co.uk/2013/07/19/the-manual-hollywood-editio...

    Intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, middle-eight, chorus, chorus. Verse sixteen bars, others eight or sixteen bars.

    This didn't ruin pop music at the time (1988) because it was describing what was already happening. But the Manual damage over the next couple of decades is another question.

  • by Zimahl on 7/19/13, 8:59 PM

    All I have to say about this is maybe. I mean, tropes are used, overused, and come and go - that's how the industry works. Writers are who they are just like directors. You aren't all of a sudden going to turn Zack Snyder into Scorsese or Abrams into Tarantino.

    But then again, Scorsese and Tarantino aren't making movies like 'Pirates of the Caribbean 7: Wet, Hot Caribbean Summer' that can be absolute shit, but as long a Johnny Depp is playing Jack Sparrow it's a billion dollars globally.

  • by adamnemecek on 7/19/13, 8:49 PM

    Monomyth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth) slightly adjusted for the 21st century? Sounds a lot like it.

  • by petegrif on 7/19/13, 11:04 PM

    I was a pro screenwriter for 20 years and am intimately familiar with a great deal of 'prior art' in thinking about screenplays. There is nothing new in 'Save the Cat.'

  • by gojomo on 7/19/13, 9:33 PM

    In the mid 90s, writer David Siegel argued (in his writing and consulting) that a very, very similar "9 act" structure was the key to Hollywood screenplay success, based on his study of hundreds of blockbusters. See:

    http://web.archive.org/web/19980206083911/http://www.dsiegel...

    So I agree with others that the 2005 book is more descriptive of long-existing patterns (and requirements of the movie format), than prescriptive and culpable for recent practice.

  • by zhemao on 7/19/13, 8:47 PM

    If you look at the actual beat sheet.

    http://www.slate.com/content/slate/sidebars/2013/07/the_save...

    They all seem pretty general. I'm pretty sure you could stick to the structure without being very formulaic.

    And yes, I'm pretty sure most movies had a structure very similar to this one even before the book came along.

  • by chocolateboy on 7/19/13, 9:10 PM

    It's odd that the article fails to mention the most high-profile film to follow Snyder's template, How To Train Your Dragon. Unlike the speculative examples in the article, the creators of that film have explicitly acknowledged Snyder's role in the development of their story (he's thanked in the credits). [1] I guess the fact that it was a huge commercial and critical hit (98% on Rotten Tomatoes) doesn't fit the simplistic, tabloid template that's taking over serious journalism.

    [1] http://www.blakesnyder.com/2010/03/26/how-the-dragon-really-...

  • by stfu on 7/19/13, 8:44 PM

    No way! I am pretty sure big data strongly indicated that based on the past performance of similar movie structures these are going to perform strongly in the future. And I am quite confident that the studios are already implementing a data driven decision making process. At least since Google went around pretending being able to predict the box office numbers/success of a movie [1]...

    [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/07/googles-s...

  • by jemfinch on 7/19/13, 11:08 PM

    What I'm more interested in, but the author (unfortunately) didn't expound upon: tell me what movies don't follow the expected "beats". Those are the ones I want to see.

  • by 6ren on 7/20/13, 1:34 AM

    It makes sense we'd refine our theory of story telling. It is modelling an aspect of humanity, analogous to how lossy image compression models human visual perception.

    Along the way, we might have a spuriously precise theory, that excludes perfectly good stories that would resonate with us.

    But ultimately, when the theory is as accurate as it can be, it does not mean that stories become formulaic. I don't just mean that some variation is still possible. I mean that the theory is merely a way to communicate effectively - like spelling and grammar, like public speaking techniques, and the fundamental ancient story rules, like having a narrative, having characters, having a problem to solve, having help from outside. Is having a narrative - a sequence of events - really that limiting? Yes, it is. But you can still work within that structure. There are infinite possibilities within it, the same for any other framework for communication.

    However, a more serious problem is that the "theory" of summer blockbusters is not modelling the human story perception at all - it is modelling the particular demographic of male-adolescent story perception. Who knew? I think it's perfectly fine that some particular demographic is being served - like bubble gum pop music. Other movies are still being made, with the long tail, as are books and blogs etc.

    And, really, male adolescents are not completely divorced from the rest of humanity. We can still enjoy their films.

  • by cafard on 7/20/13, 12:58 AM

    After seeing "Top Gun" ca. 1986, I said to those I went with that Hollywood had forgotten how to make movies. It knew how to make commercials (TG is full of sequences that would fit right into a Navy recruiting commercial) and music videos ("You've lost that loving feeling"), but that was about it. The rest of the movie was negligible, though perhaps I should have added in video games to allow for the fighter-jet stuff.

    But was it ever that different? The stuff we still watch is the exception. Hollywood cranked out a hell of a lot of stuff 80 and 70 years ago that nobody but a film studies graduate student could bring himself to sit through. Read for example S.J. Perelman on how the studios worked.

    As for "adolescent men coming to grips with who they are", arrested development is one of Hollywood's favorite subjects. I noticed this in watching "Sideways", but would Dean and Brando have ever made their names without it?

    [Edit]

    On consideration, isn't "adolescent men coming to grips with who they are" a large theme in Western literature? (And I suppose, but can't cite, other literatures also.) The Odyssey kicks off with Athena inspiring Telemachus to independence. Shakespeare's Henry IV plays are all about Prince Hal becoming Henry V. War and Peace follows three men from adolescence to maturity, and one of them, Prince Andrei, to a couple of levels. And I think one could find examples of literature following adolescent women through.

  • by philmcc on 7/19/13, 11:46 PM

    You don't actually have a problem with movies using formulas, you have a problem with them feeling formulaic. (Chances are.)

    Formulas exist because, when followed properly, they work. For the casual movie viewer, I'm sure that 90% of your favorite movies adhere to this structure, more or less. That, alone, won't cause your movie to feel bad.

    There are countless other variables that affect whether or not a movie feels formulaic but, very roughly, I'd suggest that it's when a writer/production team feels like the formula -alone- is enough, that it should work. The beats are just there, but there's still no pulse.

    IMHO, this summer, Fast Six nailed the beats perfectly, and people walked away mostly satisfied. Man Of Steel didn't, people were unhappy. Most Pixar movies are lockstep with this structure. Few people gripe about the formulaic pixar movies.

    You could probably convince me that movies, as an artform, are more or less built for this structure in the same way that sonnets have a particular rhyme scheme. Sure you can make other kinds of poems, but if the audience really likes sonnets, what's the point? I think the average movie-goer really likes Sonnets, so to speak. And there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone has seen enough movies to develop an appetite for The Tree of Life.

    Note: I've read Save the Cat, have studied screenwriting at a graduate level, and have a (very humble) IMDB listing. So consider this my 2.1 cents worth.

  • by snikolic on 7/19/13, 9:43 PM

    I would argue that this trend stretches back well before "Save the Cat" or even Syd Field or Joseph Campbell, all the way to Aristotle. This isn't really new stuff.

    A few years ago I was backpacking through the Gobi desert and stayed with a Mongolian family. On the floor next to my bed I found a copy of Syd Field's famous guide to screenwriting. Until that moment, I hadn't realized just how widespread this philosophy of storytelling had become.

  • by anigbrowl on 7/19/13, 9:32 PM

    When Snyder published his book in 2005, it was as if an explosion ripped through Hollywood.

    Yes, like The Writer's Journey was an explosion that ripped through hollywood, and Story and a bunch of other books. It's amusing and instructive to look at classics like the Iliad or Macbeth through this structural formule. Clearly, this nefarious writer also owns a time machine!

    Hey, I think that story could sell...

  • by icesoldier on 7/19/13, 8:51 PM

    Sounds to me like someone just packaged up the Monomyth[0] in a version that makes more sense for movies. Formula in fiction is not necessarily new, as the article points out at the end. The trick is to dress it up, change it around, or throw it out if necessary.

    [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

  • by x0054 on 7/20/13, 9:08 AM

    It's not that they are so formulaic, it's that they are so identical. It's as if every one who used bootstrap for web design also used identical color schemes and layouts.

    Take a look at the upcoming "RIP Department." It's like someone just took the Men in Black script and replaced all references to aliens with references to the undead. It's the same movie!

  • by lukifer on 7/19/13, 9:23 PM

    Stories have always made use of templates and archetypes. However, I vastly prefer Dan Harmon's story circle: http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/4570/673288-danharmonsto...

  • by hristov on 7/20/13, 9:02 AM

    I remember an old Vladimir Nabokov quote that is very apropos to this. I do not remember the quote exactly and i do not have the book with me, so I cannot look it up, but it went something like this:

    "The play was in perfect harmony with the modern rules of drama and storytelling or, in other words, it was perfectly idiotic."

    I read this quote about 10 years ago in a Nabokov short story but I keep getting reminded of it whenever I see a modern movie. And they are getting very idiotic. The strict plot structure is making characters say or do stupid things just so the action can follow the predefined plot lines. This really prevents one from creating believable characters. All the reverses (the false victories and false losses) often make characters reverse themselves until they become mostly unbelievable to anyone that tries to remember the entire movie from beginning to end.

  • by Semiapies on 7/19/13, 8:34 PM

    Structure is important to storytelling, or else you end up with something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xslyoK9uobE

    On the other hand, dang, you need more than going beat-by-beat with nothing else to say.

  • by gohrt on 7/20/13, 5:07 AM

    Oh boy, I can't wait to see the article Peter Suderman writes when he discovers tvtropes.com.

  • by gohrt on 7/20/13, 5:03 AM

    See also Dan Harmon's story circle, a less detailed version of this: http://channel101.wikia.com/wiki/Story_Structure_101:_Super_...

  • by ColinWright on 7/19/13, 8:37 PM

  • by guard-of-terra on 7/19/13, 9:02 PM

    These days I try to avoid going to movie unless it promises something genuinely new and interesting.

    All kinds of comic-inspired movies are hard no.

    And when you spend less time on crap you actually begin to explore the good parts!

  • by yurylifshits on 7/20/13, 1:09 AM

    Notes on screenplay structures by Reddit's CEO Yishan Wong

    http://algeri-wong.com/yishan/things-i-learned-from-my-wifes...

    Vladimir Propp was the original pioneer of narrative structures, published the foundational research on fairytale sequences in 1928 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Propp

  • by ricardobeat on 7/20/13, 7:52 AM

    For anyone still doubtful of how much structure and intent there is in a screenplay, this deconstruction of Jurassic Park is an amazing read: http://www.blakesnyder.com/2013/04/05/the-jurassic-park-beat...

    While not exactly following the 'save the cat' formula, and probably being a much better movie for that, it clearly rests on the same principles.

  • by callmeed on 7/20/13, 1:00 AM

    I have read this book 3x and it has always been a favorite.

    The thing is, as soon as you read this book, you'll recognize the formula in most movies you watch, including movies that came out before the book and especially family + rom-com movies.

    Personally, I doubt the book is responsible. It just heightened awareness. After all, Hollywood rarely likes to take risks. If a formula works, they're going to green light such projects.

  • by 6ren on 7/20/13, 1:53 AM

    It's a refinement of the Hero's Journey (see Vogler's memo; Joseph Campbell).

    The formula itself: http://www.slate.com/content/slate/sidebars/2013/07/the_save...

  • by lazyeye on 7/19/13, 11:48 PM

    Globalization is a significant influence on screenwriting big films. Because blockbuster are now being produced for a global market they turn up the special effects and visual action and turn down the plot subtlety and complexity which might otherwise be confusing to a non-English speaking audience.

  • by 6ren on 7/20/13, 1:59 AM

    About 2/3...3/4 the way through, the mood felt a bit forced, and it occurred to me that he was applying the formula to the piece itself.

    This may be a taste of the problem... but I think it's more imperfect application than damning the formula itself.

    Like grammar, it constrains but doesn't limit.

  • by linuxhansl on 7/19/13, 9:05 PM

    Not surprised. It's not about making a good movie, but about making money. Specifically making money safely, with low risk. Making a different movie is risky, and thus producers prefer tried formulas, no rough edges, no thinking really.

    Shame.

  • by vampirechicken on 7/19/13, 9:46 PM

    The write lost me completely when he complained about the main character of the Oz movie being the main character of the book on which it's based.

    That's just stupid. I want my three minutes back.

  • by biot on 7/19/13, 9:49 PM

    It sounds like a good way to bootstrap a movie script. If someone came up with the same type of framework but for web development, would we end up with a lot of formulaic startups?

  • by VladRussian2 on 7/19/13, 10:03 PM

    couple notes:

    - did author himself followed some formula (essay, etc..)writing this article?

    - after watching many Hollywood movies during last decade, i recently re-watched (as i had almost forgot the content of the movie, it was almost like watching for the first time) "For a fistful of dollars" - about half the movie in i was ready and felt like it was the climactic end with the showdown (bank robbery) and was genuinely surprised that it continues well beyond it

  • by foobarqux on 7/19/13, 9:15 PM

    For anyone else who doesn't like Hollywood here are some recent film recommendations:

    New World (South Korea)

    Le Capital (France)

    The Berlin File (South Korea) (although the end is disappointingly formulaic)

    After Fall, Winter

  • by TrevorJ on 7/19/13, 11:53 PM

    It's like anything else - to create, it is first helpful to be able to deconstruct examples first and understand how they work.

  • by steve19 on 7/19/13, 11:35 PM

    Is there an equivalent popular/influential book for modern fiction?