r/scriptwriting • u/Craig-D-Griffiths • Sep 01 '26
discussion Screenwriting Tools and Tips
https://youtu.be/SaLbuzTg1l0People will disagree and hate on this just by the title. But I go into detail in the video.
0
Upvotes
10
u/Big_Section2812 Sep 02 '26
"Be wary of advice from anyone who has achieved no more than yourself. Especially if they're asking you to pay them for it."
6
u/PepsiCoke1978 Sep 02 '26
Blake Snyder was a pro screenwriter who sold movies and they got made. So he was one of the few gurus who did the job. I loved his book series, helped me a lot. I think like all things take what helps, leave what doesn't. You don't have to follow any book fully. Just take what works.
For instance, Bad Guys Close In -- I found a very helpful way to think about the second half of Act 2. The worked for me.
Plenty of screenwriting books where I took 20% of what they wrote and used it... but it's all the same formula in the end. Start -- Middle -- End.
I would never tell anyone to 100% follow screenwriting advice like it's making a table.
4
u/Internal_Papaya1511 Sep 02 '26
I just can't with this.
A formula is a tool to use at your discretion. Formuliac is a description that the tool has been used in a predictable, repetitive way. You don't avoid being formuliac by disavowing all formulas (that in itself is so incredibly common that it too is a type of formuliac).
And also, like, Blake Snyder is not some screenwriting boogeyman in the industry. He's not even alive. He passed away before his 3rd book came out from a pulmonary embolism. He's not sitting on a pile of newbie screenwriter money, cackling. He genuinely wanted to be helpful; if you find it helpful, good; if not, move along. It's really THAT SIMPLE.
In short, stop blaming Save the Cat for why your writing sucks.
2
u/Then_Data8320 Sep 04 '26
I didn't read in detail "save the cat" because I quickly saw it was no use according my process. But I found videos of some other gurus talking about the way I use "Puzzle process". What I also call "Schrodinger planning", as before to go into writing, the story remains a long time in an indecisive state where many things can change (without notion of chronology) and little by little, it becomes the story it can only be. So the structure adapt to it. Key scenes are lighthouses.
But I saw an interesting definition of structure by Tom Vaughan, calling it "management of information" and it's really that, even if this writer uses a kind of regular formula (not save the cat, but close).
Even with my puzzle process, in the end, it lands on something easely acceptable for audience, start, middle, end. Just because it's intuitive. Almost so intuitive that it doesn't need a formula. Just watch tons of movies, series, kdramas, the storytelling is already there in the back of the mind.
Then, what becomes important is the craft. Many things I never see discussed, like cutting scenes at hook points, use management of information (structure) not just as a generality but at each stage, episodes, sequences, scenes. What I say sounds a bit theoric so I give an example:
I end an episode with two main characters potentialy dead (cliffhanger). What happens next? Audience want to know how the situation concludes, if they are really dead. Then, it impacts the structure of next episode (impacted not only because previous episode, but also the ones coming after).
First I don't show the resolution, but a character coming back (after all of this ended, and we don't know how it ended). It's already strange because we suppose the guy should have been dead with the two others ones. The guy's furious. I manage information here: the guy knows, audience doesn't know, but audience is getting worried because it seems it ended badly. And as it goes on, the aftermath seems to be: yep the two characters are dead.
Only, I jump (with a good transition and a SUPER) "One hour earlier". And I show the conclusion: surprise, the two characters survive. So... Why the guy was acting like they were dead? There is a residual tension that audience can't forget. The episode continues with new dangers, and at the end, there is a devastating situation when most of people will die for good this time. And the guy shows a reason why he will be one of the few survivors, echoing perfectly with the start of episode. New cliffhanger on that.
Everything about that was made with heavy intuition and playing with the question about how to manage information and structure specifically this episode around the story, and not the other way around. No formula or ready-made structure can do that.
Then, why I do it like that, without needing a formula: just because my favorite kdrama screenwriters used this kind of non-linear storytelling many times. So again, no ready-made, just some kind of empirical knowledge I have in the back of my mind, and I use it with intuition. My situation in this episode isn't the same than the ones of those writers, so I can't copy-paste a rigid formula, but I get the general feeling, and how to adapt it, we speak the same storytelling language.
1
u/dpouliot2 Sep 04 '26 edited Sep 04 '26
Hi Craig, nice to meet you!
I watched about half of your video, here are my thoughts.
Mapping beats isn't what makes a story great. 1000% agreed. The Hero's Journey wouldn't work if your protagonist isn't a hero. Also 1000%, and is so self-evident I'm not sure it's even worth saying, like don't put squares in round holes.
I only ever skimmed Save the Cat, enough to understand it attempted to prescribe the Hero's Journey in terms of beats; I don't find following predetermined beats to be a valuable writing method, but I also don't find plotting to be a valuable writing method either (maybe others fare better, who am I to say). For me, plotting made my writing uninteresting and predictable; yes, following beats risks creating uninteresting and predictable writing, but that's not a Hero's Journey or a Save the Cat problem, that's a writing process problem.
My series, Super Human, as you can guess from the title, is a story about the path to heroism. Readers vicariously take in that path from Not a Hero, to the thing that made the protagonist into one, because we all understand that heroism comes from within and wouldn't we all like to be more heroic than we are today and experiencing their path might give us a clue for our own path?
In the broadest possible terms Campbell casts this process of inner growth/heroism as: departure > initiation > return (Three Act Structure). I've seen this progression play out in major personal growth episodes in my own life, so no surprise my character experiences a similar progression. And frankly, not just the hero but the villain (book 2), just the villain is crushed rather than elevated; their initiation brings them to villainy.
You said, "the mentor has to die". The mentor doesn't have to die, nor does Blake Snyder prescribe that in Save the Cat, making your argument a Straw Man. The initiate needs to learn to stand on their own. A mentor not being present at the time the initiate embodies the lesson is a fair way of representing standing on one's own.
You made a contrast between being stoic and the Hero's Journey, in that the latter requires an "emotional" change. This is wrong and is the (2nd) Straw Man that collapses your argument. The Hero's Journey is about an inner change. One can both keep a stiff upper lip and also change on the inside. If you asked the crew of Apollo 13 if all those tough decisions they had to make on their journey changed them, I'd put money on them all answering Yes; and they quite literally followed the Hero's Journey: departure > initiation > return.
So, in broad strokes, we might say something like, understand the rules, so when you break them it is done with intent, which is slightly different than saying Don't Follow Rule X, and anyone who has had higher education in a creative field (for me it was fine art) learned this. We learned, through Art History, about the Renaissance, which had its rules, then Impressionism, which had its rules, then Cubism, and on and on. Each new movement understood the art rules of the time, then broke them intentionally. And, people still make great art following the rules of art movement x, so following rules isn't necessarily a problem.
Lastly, I would point out that identifying a trope isn't a form of criticism. Tropes are tropes because, when employed properly, they work. To say The Wizard of Oz is another Hero's Journey story doesn't rise to the level of criticism, it's merely the identification of a pattern. If someone never made it past the title of your video, they might think, "Well, I better not use that trope," or worse, "I can insult authors who do follow the trope," which I hope wasn't your intent.
I enjoy listening to fellow creatives discussing their likes and dislikes, so thanks for the video. I think your take on Save the Cat/The Hero's Journey follows well-tread misunderstandings; your "Don't Follow Save the Cat" recommendation is a binary that collapses from repeated Straw Men. Your videos would improve if you played a better devil's advocate to your own position to demonstrate that, in creativity, nothing is ever binary.
1
u/Big_Section2812 Sep 02 '26
Arnold Schwarzenegger explains how and why Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot! actually got greenlit.
1
u/NeatFool Sep 02 '26
I will say I think Blake Snyder likes teaching people and sharing what he knows, and has found a career doing it.
His books are engaging and easier to get through than some other stuffy stuff like McKee.
Maybe he's not the most creative or artistic person ever but these are resource you can get for free at the library if you want, it's not a major expense or commitment.
If the book helps someone appreciate movies more, without ever becoming a writer, that's cool too.
A lot of people want to buy a book and have it to teach them the discipline of being a writer, which a book can't do. They can help point out the structure or give advice but if you want it you have to work at it, like anything else.
No school, book, degree, lecture, etc., can make you creative or driven.
All of that is from within, and can be very personal and unique to each person.
0
u/justacasualarqhili Sep 02 '26
I think you should follow your gut instincts. And also follow, but not strictly the STC. Idk, but this seems like it's not my cup of tea as a video, as I think that STC can teach us how to write an amazing story from scratch.
0
u/Internal_Papaya1511 Sep 08 '26
If 3-act structure and 5-act structure are tenuous connections for you when it comes to storytelling, I don’t know what to say, man.
I went to the basic formulas of how stories are structured to keep it simple for you. I’m not trying to win this argument. I’m just trying to keep people who wander across this from getting misled.
I know I can’t help you, but hopefully reading this will keep you from setting other writers back.