I think the guys at Scriptnotes, like a lot of writers, don’t comprehend anything beyond the three-act ‘Save the Cat’ formula. Which is fine, it sells. Judging by their filmography, they’ve made quite a bit of money with some not-so-great movies. But they don’t seem (in my opinion) to grasp anything beyond that rigid three act structure. I understand that they have sold scripts, and lots of people heed their advice and words as crucial lessons. But I personally don’t want to write that same story again and again. Dramatica helps me create something unique, and it doesn’t treat the users as though they are stupid - something the ‘Save the Cat’ formula fails at.
1 Like
The problem with Scriptnotes and Dramatica is that it’s two arguments with no overlap. It’s someone who thinks a protagonist is a hero, or that a script can have co-protagonists, talking to someone who thinks that a protagonist and a main character are separate functions occasionally occupying the same character.
I’m going to go listen to the podcast now.
It’s almost like psycholinguistics: to us it’s crystal clear because we have a structure and terminology to derive meaning from. For them, it’s like looking into a bowl of muddy alphabet soup, struggling to make sense of the abstract they know exists… it’s just there’s no words for it - hence no meaning and ultimately understanding. Caveman Cog know wheel go round and round. But you ask Cog for “tire”, Cog just drool, check pulse and grunt “Cog no tire.”
5 Likes
Nah, they don’t believe it exists.
I was thinking in terms of what Jim said with two-hander. There’s obviously an awareness, they just don’t have any concept for it in their vocabulary and fumble conveying it.
1 Like
I disagree with Jim that “everything is a two-hander” – but that’s because what Jim is talking about is at the level of structure, and what these guys are talking about is at the level of screen time. Is Hamlet really a two-hander? What about Lost? It’s all about our perspective.
Also, FWIW, I"m halfway through the podcast, and I’m having trouble disagreeing with these guys. It is all about the why; isn’t that exactly why Dramatica is so much more valuable than saving cats?
Ugh, I had two comments not post.
I still disagree that these guys believe there is something underneath. I don’t think they feel that a two-hander is somehow drawing them towards a deeper understanding…
Ok, ok, you’re going to force me to listen to it. I’m making something of a generalization based on Jim’s comments and some of the previous podcasts from a while ago - in particular where JA talks about fumbling around on the screenplay he was working on at the time and just the overall back and forth they seem to struggle with at times. I know at the time I said it was nice to know that they’re human, but I was still somewhat baffled with their disconnect between knowing what you want to convey and not knowing how to go about doing it.
They use “two-handers” as shorthand for not understanding the dynamics between Main and Influence Character perspectives. They make matters worse when they then talk about these two characters changing or arcing as if it is a special subset of storytelling.
Lost is a collection of “two-handers”. Every character had their Influence Character and a corresponding Relationship Story–or at least they tried to. The whole thing fell apart halfway through the 2nd season.
If they just referred to screen time then your comment about Hamlet would be accurate. Unfortunately, like everything structurally related in their show, they blend storytelling and storyforming into one huge mess. Knowing Dramatica and listening to these guys is a very frustrating experience.
Ok, I can understand some of what they’re saying - but what is problematic is they’re making generalizations, specifically Craig, which makes it all the harder to buy into his perspective. It’s certainly not a persuasive argument by any means, it’s merely their opinion (and in Craig’s case, I can only wonder if it’s a defense toward his critics. Yes, he’s a working professional, but his work gets criticized an awful lot).
What they SHOULD be doing is calling out specifically what gurus and theories they’re readily dismissing and why instead of lumping everyone into the same worthless category. I didn’t buy into Craig’s explanation of plot is yadda, yadda, yadda. My high school English teacher would have wrapped his knuckles good! What’s he’s trying to say is they all play an intricate role in the story - but to not delineate and know the differences between their functions and how they contribute to the whole and casually dismiss those elements as “plot”? Aye aye aye.
I haven’t listened to it all the way through, so I haven’t heard them refer to the inter-character dynamics yet. But I have ZERO DISAGREEMENT that they cannot distinguish between storytelling and storyweaving and structure. They talk about everything being interconnected, which it is, but then they also talk about not being able to take things apart and look at them… which I disagree with.
At any rate, your point that Lost is a collection of two-handers goes to my point, which is that it’s true if you look at Lost as a collection of stories with their own MC/IC pairs, but it’s not true from any other perspective. Perspective matters.
But, I don’t want to overlook their other point, which is that they are talking about screenwriting books that promise if you take certain steps, things will work. We all know that isn’t true. It’s why we’re willing to dedicate ourselves to Dramatica. And to that end, we all agree that hard work is mandatory; there is no magic pill.
I’m realizing that a better misconception that points towards a deeper structure is in lots of horror movies: everyone says that the problem the Protagonist (read: main character) has must relate to the horror that is plaguing everybody. “It has to be a metaphor.”
This indicates the problem/symptom quad more than anything else I’ve come across, while still not being there.
Okay, listened to the whole podcast now, and it gets more frustrating after the midpoint. I’m so with Jim.
They talk about charlatans and their step by step formula. Then they go on to say “you have to dissolve the character” – first of all, what? Second of all, if that’s not the same kind of meaningless mid-point garbledygook, I don’t know what is. There’s more too it than that, a few more steps in their formula, but they really go on and propose the same kind of thing they excoriate.
However, I’m going to back them on one crucial point. Mazin talks about how it has to be honest. I’ve heard him criticize formula books as suggesting bloodless story. I agree with him here. Even Dramatica can be bloodless if we forget that the subjective characters have to have a subjective experience.
1 Like
“Dissolve the character”
Argh…luckily the transcript is now up, or has been, so we can reread for clarity.
He says “disintegrate” not “dissolve”
I read @jhull’s Narrative First post (nice job as usual, Jim!) - I was actually thinking I might tackle the “two-hander” over the weekend. I thought they did a lousy job of conveying it. I have to live up to the blog’s name, lol.
Thanks! (the article for reference).
And I was going to do the two-hander next week! LOL. I’ll just wait a week and copy and paste yours 
I think I’m going to have fun with this - I came up with a great analogy to use.
I moved 12 posts to an existing topic: Likeable Main Characters.
It was an interesting enough discussion that I thought it deserved it’s own topic. Hope that’s OK!
3 Likes