A lot of times, the first major Subplot is where you find the heart of the story. The most clearcut example is BACK TO THE FUTURE. The plot is about a kid who accidentally gets sent back in time. The structure of the plot is his struggle to return to the future. But that's not really what the movie is about -- in fact, the movie has a device that allows them to "pause" this plot for a week to give it time to play with the subplot (the lightning bolt happens at a specific date -- just long enough for Marty to get to know his parents and royally mess things up). Very little of Act 2 has to do with Marty getting back to the future. While the lightning bolt is the main plot's ticking clock, the subplot has one as well -- The Enchantment Under the Sea dance where his parents are supposed to kiss for the first time. You see this structure a lot in classic Hollywood cinema -- 1) a main plot driven by action and events outside of the main character that acts as a framing device and 2) a strong subplot that deals with the protagonist's major problem/dilemma, which usually ends up being the bulk of Act 2. This also fits into Scott's paradigm of the status quo > journey > return to a slightly better status quo structure (which is also very similar to the Hero's Journey). The main plot knocks the protagonist out of the status quo and into being forced to deal with something he didn't want to/or know he needed to confront, which presents the journey. However, examining it in terms of plot and subplots shows how they intertwine and work off one another to create the structure of a film. For the movie to be successful, it has to payoff both things 1) Marty has to return to the future and 2) Marty has to set things "right" with his parents (the revelation comes in Act 3 where he discovers he actually improved all of their lives). Terry Rossio says all movies really need 2 ideas. While I don't personally agree with how he articulated the idea (I think all films are fundamentally about 1 thing), at the heart of what he is describing is this Plot/Subplot relationship. 1) Kid gets sent back in time and must harness the power of a lightning bolt to return to the present. 2) Kid meets his parents as teenagers and must right the wrongs he created by accidentally meddling in their past. These could be the plots of two separate, entirely different films. The magic of story is finding the symbiotic relationship between these two plotlines. What happens is that the main plot creates the outer conflict, giving larger, broader stakes, while the subplot delves into the underlying subtext of such a story often dealing with inner personal problems and relationships. Shane Black articulates this much better imho. I'll hunt around for the quote, it's too buried in Iron Man 3 stuff to find it with ease. If you look at Lethal Weapon, Up, True Lies, Die Hard (most classic Hollywood stories) they follow this relationship between plot and subplot. (Interestingly, Die Hard is actually backwards compared to the others -- the relationship subplot is the framing device and the main plot occupies the majority of Act 2). The plot/subplot relationship is vital. How they connect is what makes an interesting hook into a great film.

Do you even diagram the relationships? I don't mean something as detailed as http://flowingdata.com/2012/06/22/pulp-fiction-presented-in-chronological-order/ (for Pulp Fiction), but just a simple graph with circles containing the character and his/her attributes, and lines connecting the characters who are related somehow in the story? I think I read somewhere a suggestion along those lines but I'm curious if that is really helpful. I'll try your method and possibly also making a diagram for NCFOM to see how it works myself.

James, thanks for those thoughts. They are very much in concert with my instincts. And this point is where the rubber meets the road: "The magic of story is finding the symbiotic relationship between these two plotlines." One key, perhaps the central one for most movies, is zeroing in on the Protagonist and their journey. If you can get really clear on the essence of what they Want [Conscious Goal] and what they Need [Unconscious Goal], more often than not they feed right into both shaping the Plotline and major subplot, and sourcing that relationship between the two. This segues nicely into the post I'll be doing later on today about themes because the Plotline and subplots don't exist just simply for any old reason: they, too, have a function tied to the structure and soul of the story. And themes speak to this latter aspect, the meaning of the story, especially the emotional meaning which is how I view theme. You mention BTTF. Plotline: Marty gets stuck back in time. Goal: He wants to get home. Major subplot: Arranging for his mother and father to kiss at the dance. Goal: He needs to have his family connect and in so doing, he connects with them in a much deeper way than he did in his life leading up to Act One. I've always looked at BTTF as very much aligned with The Wizard of Oz as both Protagonists begin their stories feeling like their home is not really their home. So they get transported to a different world and through their experiences there, realize that they really do love these people, a deeper level of feeling and love for them. In BTTF you have the added dynamic that what Marty does in the past actually changes the life-circumstances of his family for the better. In TWOO, there is even a bit of that, too: Whereas in Act One, her Aunt, Uncle, Zeke, Hunk, and Hickory are either put out by Dorothy getting in the way of their work or allowing Miss Gulch to take Toto; in that very last shot of the movie, they are all crowded around her, warm and concerned, the very picture of a loving family. And so in both endings of BTTF and TWOO, you have a merging of Plotline and subplots to visualize that symbolic connection: The Plotline is about getting home, the subplots, in particular the major one, is about finding it in an emotionally satisfying way. Thanks again for your insights. Good stuff.

David, I don't, but I'll tell you what I do: Use different color 3x5" index cards when I'm brainstorming and plotting the story in prep, one color representing the Plotline [white], then other colors for subplots. When I arrange them on my wall, I can see how and where they intersect. Also I can see if the specific order I have is too light with a subplot in this section of the story, too heavy over there, it enables me to visually see the balance of emphasis, and that can also play into the story's pace. This is not a revolutionary practice. TV writer's rooms where they have 3 or more storylines going for each episode, I've seen several where they have different color index cards to represent each storyline. I can only imagine what the walls in the office "Modern Family" which often have 4, 5, or even 6 things going on plot-wise. I do have one paradigm tied to character archetypes that visualizes the key relationships between Protagonist-Nemesis, Attractor-Mentor, and Trickster. I get into depth on that in my Core III: Character class. And there is a connection of that paradigm to some ideas by Jung I discovered that to this day still blows my mind. Thanks for that link. I had seen a variation of that some time ago, but not nearly as graphic and complete as the one you linked to.

[...] How To Read A Screenplay (Part 4): Subplots, Relationships and Character Functions (gointothestory.blcklst.com) [...]