Lessons from the Screenplay Iron Man 1 still takes the cake for us. Felt unique at the time, its writing is superb and RDJ is seriously incredible in that role. Is there going to be a Blade Runner 2049 or Last Jedi video? I know you did all those notes on TLJ but would still love to see them condensed and focused in for a video
Hey Mike! I've been lost from your channel lately, but what's a better way to come back than with one of the most interesting videos you've made by far dude! Congratulations! I'm currently studying "Creating Character Arcs" (thanks to you btw) and i have seen lots of interesting things about story structure that i've already readed on that book. Pretty great video man. Glad to watch this quality on your work.
Great video! Delineating between acts has always been something really difficult for me. I was actually going to suggest the "when a character makes an irreversible choice" definition so I'm glad you brought it up in the video. On another note, I think the 3 Act structure is such an unshakable paradigm because it seems to make so much logical sense, at least superficially. If you see it simply as Beginning, Middle, and End, you can theoretically fit everything into it.
Agreed on all accounts, and I too have always had trouble delineating acts, which I think is why I became obsessed with finding a definition that I actually liked.
I am loving your channel. It's fantastic. I've been "writing" the same script now for years, and watching these breakdowns have been really helpful. Thank you.
I love that definition: The end of an act is a point in the story where a characeter(s)makes a choice and can no longer go back. Excellent. Great video essay. Also - when i worked on straight to DVD aniamted films, our scripts had defined 6 Acts. so not everyone uses the the traditional 3 act structure. cheers
Michael, could you do an analysis of what conventions are being failed in damn near all third instalments of trilogies? There have been a LOT of trilogies in my lifetime that have fallen flat for the third film, and I'd ADORE to see a technical analysis on what lessons they should learn from their fallen screen plays. That would be fantastic! Now I've got the bell turned on. Hearing from you is the best man! - Derek =]
Spider-Man Homecoming would make for a really good and fairly complex subject. It deviates from standard storytelling in the genre and does it exceptionally well.
What's your take on Kubrick's "6-8 non-submersible units"? Is this essentially 6-8 sequences or acts? What do you think he meant by "non-submersible", and how is this effective within filmmaking?
Holy shit! You did a much better job of defining act and story structure much better than my Shakespearean lit class I took. Like a lot better. Props man. Props.
Vinny H. Half and half. It was a requirement to take a performing arts credit or the Shakespearean Lit class to take part in the theater productions. I really liked running theater tech and set design, so I took the class so I could participate.
nooranik21 It's amazing what happens when you're taught by someone who legitimately wants to teach rather than someone who's trying to drag out the curriculum to continue getting paid.
That was a disgusting level of detail for this breakdown... I love it. Thank you so much for making these incredibly helpful videos. Can't wait until next weeks episode!
@@LessonsfromtheScreenplay How can the midpoint of Avengers possibly be described as the climax of the film? Surely the climax is when they all come together to defeat the great enemy at the end. That is objectively the culmination, the apex of the story. Otherwise, this is my favorite breakdown of structure that I have ever come across. Thank you for a great channel.
@@sol8140 He describes this at 5:52, where he defines the "climax" as the high point of a conflict that leads to victory or defeat. This can apply to smaller conflicts or storylines, like Loki's escape, not just the big climatic finale.
Lessons from the Screenplay No problem at all. I think most, if not all of us understand these take a lot of work and, hey, the content you make is always worth the wait! So thank you for your hard work.
Say what you will about Joss Whedon, but I feel like people (mostly the ‘intense film fans’) enjoy to belittle his talents because he makes popular, and for the most part, simple movies. But you don’t get movies like Toy Story and The Avengers in your filmography by dumb luck. The guy has some serious writing chops.
I think it’s the fact that he can make a movie “simple” but not stupid. There’s nothing inherently complicated about the avengers at all, but it doesn’t suffer from dumb action movie lines or deus ex machina plot devices. That’s why the MCU is currently my favorite movie franchise
Winter Soldier is my personal favorite. It’s one of the few MCU movies that deals with interesting themes beyond simple good and evil. The action scenes are tight and brutal (well, as brutal as you can get in a PG-13 movie). Even though I knew Winter Soldier is Bucky from the comic books, the reveal of it to Cap is heartbreaking. Cap’s character shifts from Lawful Good to Chaotic Good once he realizes that pretty much everyone has been lying to him. And there were actual consequences that reverberated through the rest of the MCU with SHIELD being destroyed.
I have to ask, does every series of movies that becomes popular suddenly become obligated to sate every creative desire possible? I love the Marvel movies, but I'm not here to espouse them as timeless masterpieces. But I don't recall any other popular movies that were constantly shit on because they aren't Citizen Kane. The fact the the Marvel movies trigger all these film snobs to me proves my long suspicion that people can't delineate between a subjective "like" and an objective "good."
Even though their not all extremely complex movies their still for the most part objectively good from a script writing standpoint. The characters are good with really good thorough arcs and they create a great balance between drama and comedy. Theirs no overwhelming existential themes but don’t let do hide the fact there are some standout really good movies in the mcu
Oh man this is the best way a youtuber has introduced square space as a sponsor. This whole video was so informative, so well articulated, and the editing was exemplary! Well done!
I've seen Captain America (1 & 2), Iron Man (all 3), Thor, Black Panther, Avengers, Doctor Strange, and Ant-Man, more than I thought honestly. I guess I don't seek them out because I'm afraid of safe storytelling. I'm a writer and I want my stories to surprise people; Marvel movies don't do that, at least in my experience.
Fincher's point is commendable as he really cares about avoiding formulaic screenwriting. I absolutely love the question-and-answer approach to act structure that you've presented, since one could basically look at most Marvel movies and assume their structure is generic, and disregard their ideas and extensive character development. Not only is it pragmatic in a way, but it could truly help look at screenplays differently. Just excellent.
The best and quickest way I can summarize the major plot points in a three act structure is the following: Act 1 into Act 2: "There's no turning back" Act 2 into Act 3: "All is lost"
1. Avengers are on a mission to stop crossbones from getting the neuro toxin 3. Winter Soldier "kills" Black Panther's father 4. War Machine is critically injured in the Hero Conflict 5. Iron Man Discovers Winter Soldier killed his parents
1) Exposition - Lagos, Miriam Sharpe, Passing of Sokovia accords 2) Complications - Bombing in Vienna, Escalation of conflict between protagonists 3) Climax - The battle at Berlin Headquarters and the Airport fight 4) Falling action - Natasha switching sides, Rhodey's injury, Tony visit to RAFT 5) Consequences - Tony learning about his parents, Captain and Bucky Barnes vs Tony Stark, Black Panther stopping Zemo suicide, Captain America giving up shield.....
Joss is one of those writers who really know how to make a structure work for him instead of the other way around. And being a tv writer, he lives and breathes structure - even the final battle from Avengers has a 3-act structure!
I think the biggest issue I have with act structure is that it trains us to know exactly where in the film we are, and if the acts aren't delineated where we expect them to be, the film can "drag" or "fly by" without any reason except the structure isn't the same. I think Marvel films have to be a bit formulaic not because of the act structure, but because they have to fit into a "universe" narrative that hogties them into very specific parameters. I'd love to see something that covers a few films that just break act structure expectations directly to the audience. The three films I'd choose to do that would be Run, Lola, Run (repeating acts with different outcomes), Funny Games (directly telling the audience they're expecting the wrong things, especially in the remote control scene) and Limbo (basically ending the film at the end of Act II).
One of my favorite things about Fantastic Beasts was that at one point I thought "I have no idea where this is going". I couldn't tell you if there were fifteen minutes left of film or fifty, and I love it.
Would love if you did a video on "writing the mis-en-scene." One of the early lessons I learned in writing screenplays was that it's not "appropriate" to detail camera angles (my first short film was a screenplay and shot list rolled into one...) However, great writers often include the mis-en-scene embedded in their story. The comment above made me think of this, in mentioning Funny Games. In the English-Language version, Naomi Watt's character has a significant character change near the remote control scene, in which she's forced to take her dress off. However, when she goes to put the dress back on, the audience realizes that the print/pattern of the dress material is completely different, thus signifying her change. No mention of this is made by the characters, and one can assume that she is technically wearing the "same" dress, as her character. To the audience, this is a pivotal character change, as she not only stops trying to make sense of the unpredictable terror in her home, but it shifts us into an entirely new act, posing a new question of survival over sense-making. I'd love if you did a video in this ballpark... not sure how many American films you'll find that are this brilliant, but I'm sure many would love if you tackled a smattering of foreign films if need be!
I don't think it it's an issue. For me at least, since I've been studying three-act structure (maybe 2009), it has helped me to watch movies. I think understanding it challenges the writer to step their game up and for an understanding audience to have higher expectations of quality. I also don't think it is an issue because of the immeasurable intangibles like taste & talent. Since there is no accounting for taste, you have to ask the question did it work? I think that you have to understand and possibly master the rules in order to break them effectively. I would argue that it didn't work in Funny Games. I respect the ambition, but that was a bait and switch in content and tone through 4th wall breaking rather an element of act structure. The story was not about the desensitization of violence on modern audiences, the gimmick was. If the film had any semblance of character development and we saw the two young men enjoying violent films and acting out on it, I'd get it. But the totally out of left field thing did nothing for me. I think We need to talk about Kevin & Se7en were much more effective films about violence and audience expectations without gimmicks. Seven provides it's commentary in dialog, the moral choice of the protagonist and the fact that none of the violence is shown yet many consider it a violent movie.
The tree act structure is nothing new, it is a variation of the greek drama structure, it is used because it works. Directors could subvert those expections while keeping a tension with resolution intact.
Don't you think it's a little unfair of fincher to specify marvel movies and not all blockbusters as a whole? I mean the problem he's talking about, to me, isn't a result of fun or argue restricted superhero movies, it's the hero of a thousand faces that restricts these characters. And the same could be said of Star Wars and many other franchises, even the ones that use adult themes. Great video once again! I always look forward to a new post from this channel
Someone who was in the audience commented that in context, Fincher was using "working for Marvel" to mean blockbusters as a whole. So, it's probably unfair that the quote is taken straight at face-value.
As someone who's practiced screenwriting for over 20 years, I've learned that act structure is more of a suggestion and should be discarded if the story demands it.
I’ve noticed this general concept in and around the film industry that comic book movies are somehow “low effort” or “lesser quality” simply by the fact of being a superhero film. It’s really sad to see people write off good storytelling and great characters just because it’s a film about superheroes.
It's not because they're super hero movies. they're low effort because Disney doesn't see them as art. Disney sees them as products. The characters are shallow and one dimensional and the villains are even more so. The stories are simplistic and repeated film after film. These movies aren't made to tell good stories or present good characters. They're made to sell toys and tickets based on the logo's strapped to the main characters chests. Good super hero movies use to exist and they didn't have to pander to the audience to do it. All they had to do was tell a good story with well rounded characters. The Richard Donner Superman movies, the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies (1 & 2), the Bryan Singer X-Men movies (1 & 2), Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, and yes, even Zack Snyder's Watchmen. Those movies where made with the story and characters in mind first and they each have unique voices behind them. They where directed by directors who where interested in making a good movie, not just pushing a cinematic universe to pump out as many films as they can until they finally kill the genre. None of the marvel or DC movies are directed by directors anymore. They're directed by a board of business men only interested in how best to pander to the widest audience possible. The movies have no unique voice. They all feel like the same movie and all tell the same story. So no, it's not because they're "Super Hero" movies. it's because they're lazy, cynical, products designed to print money. The fact that Marvel fans don't ask for better from Disney blows my mind. Being a fan means wanting the thing you're a fan of to be as good as it can be. Not just blindly fallowing what ever has your favorite logo slapped across it.
Shepp Husky I was merely talking about the somewhat elitist atmosphere that has prevented superhero movies from being more recognized. However, I actually completely disagree with what you’re saying. While Disney may certainly see them as only products, it’s plain to see that Marvel Studios has a deep respect for these characters, and works extremely hard to bring them to life. The heroes are neither shallow nor one dimensional, and it’s kind of sad that you’d even suggest so. Every single movie dives deeper and deeper into existing character’s psychology, and introduces new ones to boot. And this idea that they’re all the same is so laughable. Guardians of the Galaxy is a space opera, Spider-Man Homecoming is a highschool coming-of-age film, and Captain America: Winter Soldier is a political-spy drama. These are so far from the same movie, and so far from telling the same story that they couldn’t get much further if they tried. If Marvel only ever cared about making money, they never would have greenlit a Guardians or the galaxy movie, a nigh unknown property that wouldn’t sell unless the product was truly good. They wouldn’t have greenlit an Ant-man movie, or given Hawkeye prominent roles to play throughout the avengers films. If they were truly only interested in pandering to the widest audience, they would’ve kept Captain America on ice, since he’s not guaranteed to work well with foreign audiences. But they didn’t. I am a Marvel fan, and I DO demand better when they don’t deliver on the quality I would like. But that hasn’t happened often. I am a fan. And yeah, that does mean that I want Marvel to be as good as they can be. And so far, they’ve done a pretty grand job of it. They’ve had a couple hiccups, sure, a couple wrong turns. But overall they’ve delivered quality stories and characters. And that’s all I want, as a fan.
bobunitone True, they say this about comics, cartoons, and now superhero films. They seem to think that *bright colors and the occasional joke = for children and devoid of any critical good*. And it’s just sad to see people completely ignoring their quality because of their genre, or their origins.
Fincher's own films have a tendency to deviate from the standard three-act structure, so it's understandable he'd feel this way. Or rather, they _seem_ to follow it up until the last thirty or forty minutes of the film. _Benjamin Button_ for example has no real climax, it seems to "fade out" rather like a song, and _Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_ feels like it climaxes at the two-hour mark, but then takes another half-hour to resolve the b-plot. And looking back at _Zodiac_ it has a "third act" which lasts almost as long as the second act, despite having a familiar climax at the end.
Eoin O'Connor It would be interesting to see Fincher make a marvel movie on a panic room budget. There are plenty of stories to mine from, I'm sure one would appeal to him.
@@peterfrank3365 that is excellent strategy for screenwriting in my opinion.character should be given slightly bigger priority than the plot.because they are the pens through which we see the plot.the plot is well understood only if the characters are well developed
I really enjoyed that video, but the problem with defining acts with the rise and fall of tension is that it can easily lead to mechanical writing, with tensions rising and falling irrespective of the character's motivations and actions. I'm not saying that Lindsey is wrong, far from it, if I remember correctly, she explicitly states that act structure is more useful in analysing a story than it is in writing one. If you are in the process of writing a story, the definitions provided above will probably be far more useful in determining a structure that works.
Yeah i saw that one. Im a writer and her rigid adherence to three act structure baloney is what results in hackneyed, un-organic writing. the way a story develops should totally come from the characters and conflict and not an arbitrary paradigm superimposed on the story.
+Presto 76 I think you sort of misunderstood her point then... She never adhered to the structure to prove anything besides an analysis of already selected works... She gets into 5 act structure and, as the above comment states, says that it is better for analysis than actual writing
Wrapping my brain around your Question/Answer act definition. I think it's definitely a cool approach to analyzing a story and figuring out what the thrust of an act *was*, from a critical perspective, but I don't think the questions you're asking are useful as a writing tool. Each question is based on an outcome you already know. They can only be asked after the story has been told, which doesn't help during the plotting and planning stage. (which, if I'm not mistaken, was the main goal of your video) Example: Act 1. "Will Nick Fury recruit our heroes to help stop Loki?" There is no drama in this question because the answer was Yes before the audience even bought their ticket. I think the only time this question was ever dramatically relevant was after the end credits scene of the first Iron Man. That's the only time when the answer was uncertain. The reason I don't find this valuable from a writing standpoint is that it doesn't propel me to discover the story. If I only write with the intent to answer "Will Nick Fury recruit the heroes?" then I'm assuming the audience doesn't know the answer, which, from my view, is the death of stakes, the death of drama. If all I've accomplished with Act 1 is showing people, "Hey, look, he recruited them all!" Then I've given the audience nothing of value. What *does* help the writing and structuring process, I think, is to ask a nonbinary question. "What does Nick Fury do next?" Close. We kind of already know that too. Coulson asks Fury this exact question and the answer is literally the title card. But what about "How?" Act 1. "How does Nick Fury recruit the heroes?" That's a question neither I nor the audience know the answer to, and so it propels me forward and helps me understand what purpose the following scenes need to serve. It begs extrapolation. It invites surprise. Answers: Fury chooses to dispatch select SHIELD agents to recruit specific heroes. An old friend for Stark. A commanding officer for Rogers. And who for Banner? Why her? (More extrapolation and surprise. Just how does a spy catch a hulk?) Act 2: "Once assembled, how do they track Loki down, and what is the outcome?" Answers: Loki chooses to reveal himself, Cap chooses to go after him, Stark chooses to help, Thor chooses to visit. Act 3: "Now that our heroes are together and they've seemingly won (a little too easily), how does the next shoe drop?" Answers: Tony chooses to distrust SHIELD. Steve chooses to believe Tony. Natasha chooses to confront Loki. Loki chose way back in act 2 to let himself be captured in order to cripple the team. Act 4: "Everything has fallen apart. How do the heroes recover and save the day?" Answers: Fury manipulates them to spur them into action. Each hero follows their own path to the final showdown, and in the end they choose stand together against the overwhelming threat. Act 5: "Now united, how might the heroes fail? How do they succeed?" Answers: Loki chooses to up the ante. Each hero chooses to put themselves in increasing danger to stop him and save civilians. The world security council chooses to place their faith in a bomb instead of the heroes. Tony chooses to sacrifice himself to save the city. The hulk chooses to smash a god and catch a colleague. I kind of found my way through this as I was writing it, but it feels like this may be the key. For it to be useful in plotting the story, it has to be a question I could ask without knowing the outcome already - something that helps me understand what NEEDS answering so I can find my way to the choices that resolve the act.
I think this is definitely a really useful way of thinking about it. What I like about the “will they...” method is that it tracks the thought process of the audience and helps me keep track of pacing. Ideally, they don’t know what is going to happen, but you’re right, they often do-one of the problems that come with narrative conventions. But as writer, you definitely need to ask yourself how you are answering the question. So essentially I’m saying that I like your definition too, and this is why it’s important for each of us to figure out what resonates with us.
I think I was latching onto his stated goal at the beginning of the video - "What is the most useful way for a writer to think about act structure?" - and then just kind of projected my own needs as a writer onto that question. :) I agree 100% with Michael that each person needs to find a way of thinking about this stuff that resonates with them - and I totally agree that the Question/Answer format he presents is a great tool to aid critical thinking about film and storytelling. What's more, I definitely wouldn't have found the pathway, or even the impetus, to my own definitions without the crucial work he does in laying out his concepts. It's why I love this channel so much. It's a great education. :D The root of my disagreement was just that "for a writer" bit, because it implies a tool I might then carry forward into my own writing. And the specific issues I had with those questions were, in order for the questions to take those forms, the story would already need to be written. But then, that's me projecting my own needs and thought process as a writer onto the thing. I still find these videos (and his next one if you haven't checked it out yet) incredibly valuable.
That's fair! And you're totally right - it's ultimately up to each person to find their own use for the "idea" of acts. I just watched this one again and I really appreciate the work you put into this! Thanks for such a great channel!
Your videos always have such high quality animation and graphics. I can tell that you've spent a lot of time and care making them. Thank you for educating the world on the beauty of screenwriting!
I was skeptical that you'd manage to say anything I hadn't heard about 3 act structures before, but was pleasantly surprised to see you reference and integrate all the different stuff I've heard before, into a more useful and coherent take. Wish I could like this video twice
Incredible. Incredible video. I’ve been watching your channel for a while and have been taking notes on almost all your videos. This is one of your best. Thank you. You’ve become one of my favorite RU-vid channels. I’ll make sure I support the Patreon. Keep up the great work!
Wow. I am consistently stunned at how helpful and inspiring your videos are. Even when you just describe the structure of the stories for the films, I am occasionally moved as if I were watching the actual movie. My favorite of your videos would have to be the "Logan" and "Children of Men" one, but this has come pretty close. The classical 5 act structure has opened up a ton of new possibilities and made it easier for me to understand how to tell stories better. I love how you explain everything in a simple yet engaging manner, complimented by your use of visuals and music choices. You are by far my favorite screenwriting channel and I always look forward to your videos. Phenomenal work!
Hey Michael, this might be a bit of an offbeat request but I was wondering if you could cover the importance of sounds in the form of background music in some movies?
I've been confused with these act structures for a long time, finding it hard to identify in stories and to apply in my writing. Most of the time, for me, it felt like it restrained storytelling, instead of helping it. But watching this cleared all that up, and everything makes a lot more sense now! With that definition, act structure seems more flexible, allowing stories to really flow organically. I feel so enlightened omg. Thank you so much for this video and all your videos! Your channel is one of my favorites ever, to be honest. I am absolutely ecstatic for the next one! :D
Here is the problem with your definition: You are assuming that every movie has one protagonist you can follow through the movie. This is not the case, though. Take Fritz Lang's M. The movie clearly has a three or five act structure, but it doesn't feature the same characters in all of them. That is because the movie doesn't explore a character, but the impact a serial killer has on a city. That makes the city the character, and being a city, it can't exactly make decisions. So maybe you should simply describe it as a turning point in the narrative.
Yeah, I don't think there is any perfect definition that will work 100% of the time. I would say even if it's not the same protagonist across the entire film, each act is still a "mini story," and probably concludes with some kind of choice and climax. But, that won't always be the case.
I happened to watch the original Iron Man last night. It's very tame in comparison to later Marvel films, but by god does it hold up from a screenplay perspective. It's just so rock solid. Such a great way to start the MCU
I actually wouldn't consider Homecoming an "origin" film. Peter Parker already has his powers at the beginning of the story. I guess you could say he really doesn't "become" Spider-Man until the end - but it's different I think. I actually think the best superhero origin movie is The Rocketeer (1991) from Joe Johnston (who would later direct Captain America: The First Avenger!) In terms of structure, it's about as solid as can be. I would love to see you do a video about it sometime!
Greta Gerwig had some really interesting things to say about story structure. She believes its intuitively part of us as human beings and we don't need formulas to stick to.
Loved this, Michael! I've been using The Avengers (and Guardians of the Galaxy) as great examples of blockbusters with plot structure for years. It's just so refreshing to see someone on RU-vid making essays about storytelling concepts, and not just technical filmmaking.
I love watching video essays in my free time, especially ones about movies. There's just something...stimulating? (I feel like there's a better word for what I mean but Oh Well) about learning How these processes behind making movies work, how we look at them, and how we Should at them/into them. But I feel like something Clicked in my brain with this one. Less of a "Oh cool, I didn't know that" and more of a "Whoa, I never thought about that" feeling. It's like you just explained in 15 minutes a concept my 12th grade English teacher couldn't in half a semester.
Thanks for the amazing video. If I may leave an suggestion for a movie to make a video on, it would have to be Arrival. I have watched it multiple times and I feel as it does everything a good movie should and executes a set of goals in a way that I find compelling. Anyway, that's my two cents. Again, congratulations on a great video.
have you done much on secondary characters specifically? the way Ryan Gosling's relationship with his A.I. girlfriend worked with the main plot was pretty incredible. her character added a ton of depth to the protagonist, felt very organic, and the moments when he saw her face on ads around the city were heartbreaking. just a thought.
It's easy for Fincher to armchair quarterback the MCU when he's never attempted the intricate and audacious task of weaving 20+ movies together to spin a singular narrative while attempting to provide each film with a unique identity. While stories can be told in different methods there are some rules you just can't avoid. You have to introduce the audience to the world, the character, why we should care about him/her, what the problem is, what obstacles are in their way and how the obstacle is ultimately overcome. It's like time: to you it might "feel" like Wednesday but if it's Tuesday there's nothing you can do about it. I also think Marvel is an easy target when you're an artisan like Fincher but what Marvel has done and continues to do has never, EVER been done before in movies. Before the MCU films were relegated to trilogies or taking the 3rd film and dissecting it into two films. The amount of creativity and control to not veer too far off the beaten path shows just how vapid and obtuse Fincher is. He's still a cinematic genius and amazing storyteller but it's so much easier to sit back and judge when you've never had to do what Marvel has accomplished. I don't know when Marvel will put the MCU to bed (maybe never) but when the dust settles they would've achieved something that frankly may never be possible again. Not to this extent and since Marvel owns most every popular comic book character on the planet (especially if the Fox deal is approved) there really won't be another grand stable of characters to pull this off with. And even if that happens it will always be in the massive shadow of Marvel's grand achievement.
I have read others' comments said that the quote in context makes it clear that Fincher is not putting Marvel down. LFTS has also indicated that but time constraints restricted what could be included in this video,
I'll concede that argument but based on how his quote was represented Fincher's words came off as throwing shade. I still credit Fincher with being an amazing filmmaker and it's not as though every Marvel film is perfect. There's a handful of MCU films that didn't work for me, starting with Thor 1 and Iron Man 2. I actually liked Iron Man 3 despite it not being as well received as other MCU films. Frankly, I wasn't a huge fan of the first Captain America but I learned to like it after the next two films and appreciated the time Marvel took to really build that character. Besides, they needed the first Captain America in order to spin off the Agent Carter TV show, which allowed them to connect Ant-Man and Agents of SHIELD while also providing another layer to Steve Rogers' character in Civil War when she dies thereby leaving Steve with one less connection to his past. As it stands Bucky is remaining sole survivor of Steve's past, which is likely why he's so adamant in clearing his name and trying to job his memory about stories from their youth. But I digress. Maybe I should listen to the entirety of Fincher's interview to judge for myself.
"And I think if we can make a playground for them that is thoughtful, adult, interesting, complex, challenging..." - Fincher You mean like Winter Soldier? Or Guardians? Or Civil War? Or several of the marvel movies and netflix shows? Sorry, I know that's not what the video is about. But that part of the quote bugged me a bit. Glad to have you back btw! Great video. Looking forward to more. Avengers is a delight! Well, except for that Cap suit....
I think that is what the video is about! Or at least, partially. Because I was trying to figure out if his criticism is valid or not. I get more into that aspect in part two.
Alex Love I think it should be noted that Fincher was not actually singling out Marvel with that criticism. I attended the Q&A for Mindhunter where this quote came from and it's completely out-of-context. What we don't hear in that clip was the question he was asked moments earlier about "entering the Marvelesque world of franchise sequels" and deciding to direct World War Z 2. That's why he said "Marvel" when he was referring to this phenomena of franchises and that's why people chuckle in the audience, because he looked directly at the woman who originally mentioned it. I've been to just about every Fincher Q&A in the states of California & New York and have read/heard just about every single world he's ever muttered to the press, and he has always spoken positively about Marvel films. The only time I've ever heard him speak badly about anything Marvel was when he told a story about his pitch to Sony when they were hiring a director for the first Spider-Man movie, but that's not even Marvel Studios.
Jay Pee, ahh I see. Thanks for the clarification. I love Fincher. I always wanted to see him tackle Batman, but I'd love to see him on a Marvel project as well.
Alex Love I think this was pretty well-publicized at the time, but I remember hearing him talk about the Spider-Man movie he pitched to Sony after James Cameron left the helm in the late 90's when they were taking meetings with potential filmmakers. Just based on knowing what we ultimately got compared to what could've been, I can't say I was upset with Sony's decision. Having said that, it's fucking Fincher. Hell fucking yes I'd kill to see characters I admire through the lens of Fincher both literally and figuratively.
This was a great video, well done. Super helpful. Also, wanted to thank you for recommending Creating Character Arcs by K.M Weiland, I ended up buying and reading it on your recommendation and I really like it. I also like the development you go into in this video about making the acts center around a question and an answer. That's a great way to look at it!
One thing I love about this channel is how many different movies Mike uses to get across his message. He is willing to use superhero movies, movies that are often seen as inferior to Academy Movies, for his own benefit. It's awesome
This is something I've never really considered. I'm ridiculously formulaic with my writing. Thank you for broadening my understanding of this! Can't wait for the other half^^
I love your videos. They are always so calm and well though out. Really good analysis of the act and the structure. I look forward to part 2. P.s. my favorite MCU movie is Guardians of the Galaxy, I just love movies that manage to work a musical journey in the plot. Maybe an idea to consider for a video?
Writer and long-time viewer here. I’ve been banging my head against the wall trying to figure out the second act of the script I’m writing. This helped me see through the structure to focus on character motivation and action. I can’t say thank you enough!
I think an interesting topic is about the limitations of the 3 or 5 act structure. Basically, where is it necessary and where is it limiting? The best way to answer it is by referencing to foreign films, which often use no 3 or 5 act structure, but a more episodic one. Incidentally, it would be so great if you also did the occasional foreign film, just to analyze how different films can be and look from the American style of filmmaking. They write their stories in such unique ways. But great video, like always!
Great video! I have two suggestions for future videos: 1. For Valentines Day you could do 500 Days of Summer, one of my favorite romantic comedies. 2. For April Fool's Day you could do The Big Lebowski, one of the best comedies ever made. I was also wondering if you could maybe add spanish captions in the future. Thanks for all the great content!
Also I know that it'll be a bit more difficult to get the screenplays for them but please consider doing videos on anime films. Satoshi Kon's and Ghibli's films are pretty popular and accessible to a mainstream western audience, though if you're not really into anime it's fine too
Lessons from the Screenplay i agree that you can't go wrong with satoshi kon's films, and his films Perfect Blue and Paprika are favorites among essayists (maybe because of their influence on other hollywood films like Black Swan and Inception). Same goes for the Ghibli films. Ghibli bases most of their films on western novels so those could also be used as a point of comparison and reference. Other good first time anime films I recommend outside the usual Kon and Ghibli films are Akira and Ghost in the Shell (classics) and Wolf Children and maybe A Silent Voice (newer films). Wolf Children is the most beginner friendly I think of the films
So exciting every time I get a notification from your channel, quality over quantity. Keep up the great content. I'm looking forward to the next part of this video!
Liked the video before watching I because it contains three of my favorite things; The Avengers, writing, and Lessons From the Screenplay. I love every video of yours and anticipated the new video. I couldn't wait to watch it seeing my notification. Keep up the amazing work! 👌
Your work is always informative and well-organized, and this video is no exception. The topic of acts and their structure is one I find myself returning to often, and this is by far the most efficient and effective analysis I've seen of it. Excellent work. Thank you for creating and sharing this video.
Love these kind of “nerd writer” videos on RU-vid because it helps me understand appreciate things I would normally turn a blind eye to and helps me define what I like and dislike so thank you and keep it up mate.
They're called video essays. And now for a totally unwarranted/unsolicited opinion... Nerdwriter is a pompous hack, who occasionally strikes a neat idea (probably gleaned from smarter people online) and manages to illustrate it well enough while grating your face off with pretension.
