next »

[cystem glitch]

-finnegans' wake

the irish guy get's drunk and falls off his ladder, busts his head

they put him in a casket so they can do his funeral, excuse to drink more

someone spills whiskey on him, it wakes him up


3 act structure



or is this thread about structure in porno movies

[ham and brie]

For another perspective, 5 act structure:

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

The difference from kishoutenketsu is the falling action part between the climax and denouement.

Good blog post arguing against using a 3 act structure when writing, from a screenwriter's pov:

http://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/hulk-presents-the-myth-of-3-act-structure/

[JWK5]

The thing people often misunderstand about the 3 act structure is that often there are multiple structures of different lengths going on in tandem in a single story, something that is especially true of video games where you have a lot of branching and shift of narrative focus. Several smaller 3 act structures might play out during the course of the larger, main structure. The goal of he 3 act structure is to create good story pacing.



When distilled down to its essence the 3 act structure pretty much is the following:

We are given the characters, place, and situation.
We become aware of an imminent conflict.
Things happen that propel us closer to the conflict, tension builds.
The conflict happens, and is resolved.
What did we take from the story?


That last line is the most important one, and often forgotten one. Since ancient times the goal of a story is to teach a lesson or moral, deliver a joke, ingrain a political or religious view, reveal something about the author, etc. but there is always a point. There is always some reason you are being told this story. This reason is what drives the theme which in turn drives plot. You can bend and twist the 3 act structure all you want (though it is pretty hard to avoid it completely given how practical it is) or just relay the story as a series of anecdotes but without a real point for telling the story it is just going to come out flat.

I've heard there is no right way to tell a story but there is one wrong way: to bore the reader (listener, viewer, whatever). I'd say that's about accurate.





By the way, 4 and 5 acts are pretty much the same exact thing as a 3 act structure, just with more numbers. It all follows the same formula: introduction, conflict awareness and tension, conflict climax, resolution. You can chop it up into as little or as many acts as you like but you're still dealing with pretty much the same thing.



4-act

Ki (起?): Topic toss or introduction, what characters appear, era, and other important information for understanding the setting of the story.

Shō (承?): Receives or follows on from the introduction and leads to the twist in the story. Major changes do not occur.

Ten (転?): Turn or twist to another, new or unknown topic. This is the crux of the story, which is also referred to as the 'yama' (ヤマ?) or climax. It has the biggest twist in the story.

Ketsu (結?): Resultant, also referred to as the 'ochi' (落ち?) or ending, it wraps up the story by bringing it to its conclusion.



5-act.

2.1 Exposition or Introduction
2.2 Rising action
2.3 Climax
2.4 Falling action
2.5 Dénouement, resolution, or catastrophe

[JMStark]

The problem is to think that if a story follows the 3-act structure it is then automatically qualified as entertaining. There are many more intricacies to creating a quality narrative.

Sure, most people know this, but with the kind of rhetoric used in the video this can become a point of confusion.

[Paul Eres]

yeah i thought the video was kind of stupid -- saying "it works" without elaboration doesn't really say much

that's like saying

i use c++ to program my games. why? because it works!!

[DavidCaruso]

The problem with 3-act structure is that it's basically like: 1st act is introduction, 3rd act is conclusion, and 2nd act is LITERALLY EVERYTHING INBETWEEN LOL. The Film Crit Hulk article linked earlier makes some pretty good points about this but the writing style is pretty unbearable.

[JWK5]

The problem with 3-act structure is that it's basically like: 1st act is introduction, 3rd act is conclusion, and 2nd act is LITERALLY EVERYTHING INBETWEEN LOL. The Film Crit Hulk article linked earlier makes some pretty good points about this but the writing style is pretty unbearable.

The thing is that "literally everything in-between" is actually a series of shorter 3 act structures within the main structures. Even within a single scene a full 3 act structure can play out, it is conflict resolution. The smaller conflicts build tension for the larger conflicts.

No structure can write a story for you, the point of the structure is to aid in pacing and give you a general sense of direction. It is like a compass, if you don't know where it is you are trying to go knowing which direction you're heading doesn't do you any good.



EDIT: A good way to visualize it (especially where Act 2 is concerned) is like "connect the dots". If you know what your starting dot, middle dot, and ending dots are (acts 1, 2, and 3) then you can add a new set of dots between your starting three that is a new conflict, and a series of conflicts can happen between those (or before or after those) and so on.

In this way you can progressively fill in your story and manage its direction easily.

[JWK5]

[Muz]

+1 on the visual imagery.

I don't really get the 'well structured story' part though.

[JWK5]

+1 on the visual imagery.

I don't really get the 'well structured story' part though.

I didn't draw out the bottom one as well as I was thinking it, but basically a well-structured story isn't really one 3 act structure but several in tandem (unless we're talking a short story which can get by with just one). The overlapping conflicts that unfold create twists and turns in the story's drama that keep it from plodding along at a tedious and predictable pace.

Two teenagers from a small town who are in love and who's parents don't approve of their romance is a pretty predictable story. The writer could throw in all kinds of variations on how that plays out but for the most part we can pretty much guess how it will go.

Now, throw in the threat of a toxic gas suddenly coming up from the sewers, the father of one of the teens is accidentally responsible for the death of the other's sister, and the sheriff of the  town is acting suspicious and clearly hiding something about everything that's happened and the story gets a whole lot more interesting and unpredictable.

A good story keeps you on your toes and makes you anxious to find out what happens next (though the conflicts don't have to be as extreme as all that).

[1982]

A good story keeps you on your toes and makes you anxious to find out what happens next (though the conflicts don't have to be as extreme as all that).

Good story is not about the structure of the writing, but the content. By content again I don't mean structure, but the actual details of what is happening. Conflict, surprise, etc are structure. Eyes growing into back of the man is detail. Spaceship going into time-vortex. Not that good story can't have structure, and quite often does even. But that is NOT what makes the story good.

For example Outer Limits TV-series. Almost all of its episodes follow pretty much the same predictable structure, but then again the details are so "mind blowing" that it makes it awesome series in writing wise.

More crude example even, Space: 1999. It has even more fixed structure in its episodes where protagonists experience impossible conflict but then solve it. This happens in every episode, at least season 1 (haven't seen S2). It is the best sci-fi series I have ever seen because the details. Sure I know they will again encounter a threat or conflict in this episode, but the point is that what sort of threat. And there those writers imagination really works out.

So please people don't go out and say that if you have this, this and this structure and your story will be good. It only helps you to wrap your details together, that's all.

[JWK5]

Read what you've quoted.

"A good story keeps you on your toes and makes you anxious to find out what happens next."

Where does that say "only structure makes a good story"?

The structure is the frame, the conflicts are the canvas, the details are the paint. Take any one out of the equation and you end up with a fairly bland piece of art.

[baconman]

And here I was all like:

1. Why be a hero?
2. Who is the nemesis?
3. What is the recurring theme/humor?
4. Here comes the twist...
5. The formulaically unexpected ending (___ is your parents nonwithstanding).

[Gimym TILBERT]

3 acts structure is the universal structure of information gathering: Identification of the data, process, result. Writing prog is a 3 acts structure, playing game, arguing, mathematical demonstration ... it's how we process data.

[Gimym TILBERT]

A good story keeps you on your toes and makes you anxious to find out what happens next (though the conflicts don't have to be as extreme as all that).

Good story is not about the structure of the writing, but the content. By content again I don't mean structure, but the actual details of what is happening. Conflict, surprise, etc are structure. Eyes growing into back of the man is detail. Spaceship going into time-vortex. Not that good story can't have structure, and quite often does even. But that is NOT what makes the story good.

For example Outer Limits TV-series. Almost all of its episodes follow pretty much the same predictable structure, but then again the details are so "mind blowing" that it makes it awesome series in writing wise.

More crude example even, Space: 1999. It has even more fixed structure in its episodes where protagonists experience impossible conflict but then solve it. This happens in every episode, at least season 1 (haven't seen S2). It is the best sci-fi series I have ever seen because the details. Sure I know they will again encounter a threat or conflict in this episode, but the point is that what sort of threat. And there those writers imagination really works out.

So please people don't go out and say that if you have this, this and this structure and your story will be good. It only helps you to wrap your details together, that's all.

I bet the reason they have the same structure play a role in how the story are, even if it allow them to NOT be distract by thinking about it, if the structure they used wasn't so good, maybe the details would not have shine as clearly. ONLY structure does not make story good, but it sure helps to make half the path (ie remove vagueness and helping clear ambivalence).