Yes. I order to make sense of anything I need to at sometime to discover its paradigm. I first subscribed to Syd Field's 'Screenplay' plot points and 3 act structure. It wasn't enough for me. Then I met Blake Snyder and subscribed to Save the Cat's 15/40 Beat Sheet 4 Act structure. This is what I mainly use to beat out my story structure. This allows me to visualize where I'm at when telling the story. It just makes sense to me. I think that is the whole point - to find a paradigm that helps you to move the story forward toward a final image that mirrors both world and character change. That's all folks......

In practice, I use bits and pieces of pretty much every system, paradigm and structure. But what that leads me to think is - There are certain basic structures that underlie not only storytelling, but the way we perceive the world. Work with those, your story grows stronger; work against them, the audience struggle to enjoy your story. And when I say "basic", I mean very basic. Beginning/Set-up, Middle/Complicate, Ending/Resolve. The character has to start one place and end in another. The theme has to permeate every scene, every moment of your story like a fractal pattern. Simpler is better. Supporting characters must bring out some aspect of the protagonist. And so on. Beat sheets and structures are brilliant if they work for you - but it's worth remembering that the underlying structure doesn't have to be more complicated than a few basic rules. The moment you start distorting your story to fit the beat sheet - c'mon, we've all done it! - something's gone badly wrong...

When I hear plot, I think of plot points. And I think of plot points as major shifts or changes in our main character's journey in this particular story-verse. Plot is story and a story is a telling of how your main character reaches (or doesn't reach) their goal. I suppose the difference between a screenplay and a novel is number of plots, to include subplots. Screenplay has less than a novel. I do suscribe to that theory. I think structure is the one thing with enough work you can get right. All stories (well good stories) have a beginning, middle and end. Plan and simple.

As someone very new to this practice, I 1) believe that patterns/paradigms exist for writing screenplay plots; and 2)definitely believe having a pattern/paradigm as an example of what/what not to do is very helpful in trying to organize your story. Despite that fact, I've come to realize quickly that many people have vastly differing opinions on what they believe should be "the right way" to go about structuring a story. On that note, I feel as time goes on for writers, they create their own paradigm for themselves to follow. And to go that step further, I believe that's what would distinguish a good writer from a great writer. I could be way off the mark since again, I'm very new at this, but the more I read, the more I realize that everyone has their own way and no one should subscribe to just one persons opinion on the topic.

Once again, some excellent comments to kick off this discussion about plot, specifically if there are general patterns or paradigms for screenplay structure. Chris's comments -- "All stories (well good stories) have a beginning, middle and end". Whether told in nonlinear fashion or not, I think this is true. And it goes back to Aristotle. Here is his quote from "Poetics"on the subject: “A beginning is that which is not itself necessarily after anything else, and which has naturally something else after it. An end is that which is naturally after something itself, either as its necessary or usual consequent, and with nothing else after it. And a middle, that which is by nature after one thing and has also another after it.” I like to think of these as movements. We see them literally everywhere we look and in everything we do: Sunrise – Day – Sunset; Departure – Journey – Return; Birth – Life – Death. We see it in classical music and "sonata form": Exposition - Development - Recapitulation. That's why I bristle when somebody opines that three-act structure is arcane, simplistic, hackneyed, or whatever. The sense of these three movements is, in my view, innate to Nature itself and therefore the human experience. Not only in terms of an overall screenplay, but also sequences, even scenes. So that, for me, is a baseline for screenplay structure and, indeed, story. Now there are all sorts of other theories out there promulgating this pattern of stages, beats, whatever. My problem with this way of thinking is the residual effect that occurs in script after script after script, something Debbie describes aptly: "The moment you start distorting your story to fit the beat sheet – c’mon, we’ve all done it! – something’s gone badly wrong…" Fitting a story to fit into some predetermined set of beats or paradigm. Yes, you may have a sound structure, at least in theory. But what of the soul of the story? Stories are by their very nature organic, alive and vibrant. When we squish them into little blocks, we can squeeze the life right out of them. Look, what we do as screenwriters is try to wrangle magic. That's hard. But the only way to find the magic is by allowing the story to breathe, not cram it into some prefabricated scheme. As difficult as it is to find the magic and write a great story, we should be thankful that's the case. Otherwise if story were just structure, Hollywood could come up with a software system, and use interns to plug in the details, thereby terminating the craft of screenwriting as we know it. That said, I do think there are general overarching patterns that appear in most movies. Beginning, Middle, End is one. Another thing I keep in mind: About every 10 pages or so, something significant enough to twist the narrative should happen. But none of that means anything unless we also include the movements of what transpires in a story's Internal World, the psychological journey of the characters, and most especially the Protagonist. His or her metamorphosis is a critical part of screenplay structure, not only in giving the story emotional depth and meaning, but also in shaping the what I call the Plotline. So in my view there are some general, even fundamental narrative patterns, rhythms and dynamics, but we should never allow them to dominate the story. The story must be allowed to emerge and grow of its own accord, which we come to know by digging into it, its universe, and especially its characters.

I would say without question that there are paradigms and patterns in movies (which all screenplays set out to be) -- you've all seen the movie where you *know* what is going to happen next -- and those paradigms reveal themselves more so once you delve into genre. The one paradigm I consistently rely on and try to incorporate into my work has been around thousands and thousands of years: beginning, middle, and end. Tell a good, entertaining story above all else, and let it have a beginning, middle, and end. Then get the hell out. When I began, I really wanted to find a great formulaic approach (e.g. this happens on this page, that happens on that page, etc.). I listened to Story and read Truby's book; Truby's was the most promising for its 22 beats (I think it was 22). My next script I wrote a detailed outline, hitting nearly all of the beats in Truby's book. However, when it came time to write the script I found myself very bored with the whole exercise. It was much more mechanical and less fun... less experimental. I like to find the story as I go and surprise myself along the way. If a character takes a left turn I wasn't expecting, it's that much more enjoyable to be along for the journey. With that being said, of course I'm going to take a detour here and there, and those will subsequently get cut, but that's not a bad thing. I just informs me that I'm headed in the wrong direction, then I can try to analyze how I got there in the first place. It may take a little longer to write a script, but it is a much more exciting venture.

Hey Scott, sorry to keep banging on, but -- "But none of [these patterns mean] anything unless we also include the movements of what transpires in a story’s Internal World, the psychological journey of the characters, and most especially the Protagonist. His or her metamorphosis is a critical part of screenplay structure, not only in giving the story emotional depth and meaning, but also in shaping the what I call the Plotline." Aha! So that's what this is all about? In order for a script to achieve emotional depth, the plot or plotline should be structured/shaped so as to follow the psychological journey of the characters, especially the protagonist? Is that the intended message behind the formula 'plot = structure?' If so, then yes! Absolutely!

I subscribe to the notion of Christopher Booker's The Seven Basic Plots (Continuum, 2004, pp229-235) that THREE is archetypal in story. That is, human imagination shapes story in three quite distinctive 'acts', which is what provides story its basic archetypal rhythm.

Firstly, we see the central figure in some way constricted, but then enjoying a phase of limited enlargement. Secondly, we see the dark power closing in to impose a more severe sense of constriction (the 'central crisis'), which leads in turn to that gradual constellation of the light and dark elements in the story as they move towards their final showdown. Thirdly, in the story's climax, we see the most acute phase of constriction of all, as the prelude to that reversal which leads to the overthrow of darkness and the liberation of light. (page 235)

Everything has a 'beginning, middle and end ... even a piece of string. But in story terms, the respondent (reader or audience) is looking for a structure that models, to some extent, their own experience of emotional reality. In life, something triggers an emotional diversion, what follows is usually a struggle to reverse that diversion, to find a way through, to see the light at the end of the tunnel. This struggle is often multifaceted, several attempts at escape are made, many failures can occur, and with each failure, we try to learn the mistake that caused the failure and make a better decision next time. Eventually, we stumble on the right decision, and emerge back into emotional balance. Alternatively, we sometimes meet with people who do not learn to make better decisions and persist in decisions that result in further complication until death. The appeal of story is that it mirrors life, leads us to discover our identity (or at least be able to discuss it). This means that it mirrors emotional life, not actual life. Great stories connect with us at an emotional level, cause us to consider what it feels like to be heroic, enable us to get in touch with our own aspects of heroism. But in order to do that, the central character of story needs to connect with us at emotional level, show us that we can be just like them, or they have attributes that are just like us. But, and here's the rub, simple engagement with the drama and crisis and climax does not give the respondent the full picture. So what is needed are two addenda to the 3-act structure: a beginning before the beginning, and a completion and perfection. What we see in the three act structure is actually five movements, the first two combined and the last two combined.

I’m in agreement, that the three act structure is vital to any story. Why? Because I believe stories are about problems, and problems are made up of three parts: 1 A problem arises. 2 A sustained attempt is made to solve the problem. 3 The problem is solved (or not, as the case maybe). These three elements make up the three major acts of the story, and as a story covers a Big Problem, Little Problems (or steps) have to be taken by the characters to solve it. These steps, in my opinion, constitute plot (therefore, plot is, at its core, character driven). The word “problem” implies a force of opposition to the issue being resolved, so the resolution to said problem will, by its very nature, involve conflict. In most cases, the characters cannot immediately solve the Big Problem at the outset of the story and must grow via conflict until they are in a position to solve said problem. On reflection, I think Jack Sparrow summed up story structure and plot points quite succinctly when he said, “Complications arose, ensued, were overcome.”

Hey Scott - My first comment is that I tried to log in here through Wordpress, and it said that my password was incorrect. (It wasn't - I double-checked). I was able to log in through Twitter (yay Twitter!). Second.... re: "Otherwise if story were just structure, Hollywood could come up with a software system, and use interns to plug in the details, thereby terminating the craft of screenwriting as we know it." Honestly, that is how I feel that most Hollywood films are. If you have any expereince in watching films or screenwriting at all, you can see the turning points and reversals coming. I'm not talking about the blockbusters or the one that win Academy Awards - but talking about the ones that still make some money, and that get released over Christmas or the beginning of summer. Probably they are successful because they meet their audience's expectations (the turning points all occurred at the right moments). But, speaking as an "artist", they are really boring because they are predictable. Reversals just as we are getting bored with the character's track...and a few explosions and gun fights thrown in to keep the "action" happening... It's very fristrating to me, as a writer, that people (like my husband!) want to pay money to watch these things... I find them so boring... but there you go. That's where the money is, and the sure successes (meaning they make their money back - not necessarily winning any awards or going down in history as great films, but "technical successes").

I think that all paradigms could be helpful, but important thing is that they are based on analysis of existing stories, so they are great tools to deconstruct your story. However, they do not reconstruct the process of creation. You can split your writing process to two subprocesses: creation and analysis and do not merge them together. Write with your flow, feelings, emotions. Then analyze. Ask yourself if your story fits (or doesn't fit) to any paradigm? If so - why? How the screenplay will change if you use or bend some theory? Will it improve your story, or it will just (as Scott said) "squeeze the life right out of it"?

Firstly, thank you Scott for creating such a Quest for your readers. I'm certain that first timers, like myself, are putting pens to paper solely based on the motivation you are providing them. Regarding the discussion on patterns, I find this discussion very educative. My thoughts mirror those that have already been stated above. Every story certainly has to be placed within a specific framework to elicit the desired response from the viewer/ reader. Especially when narrated in a visual manner with a definite timeframe. Kevin's comment is particularly illuminating since it connects the story's essence directly with the audience. On-screen drama is relevant if it sufficiently mirrors the emotional reality of the viewers. When in a problematic situation, we tend to use our best skills to find a solution. In the process of resolving our daily problems, we either grow wiser not to repeat them or chose not to learn and forever sink in the vortex of our own mistakes. I believe that audiences connect with such conflict and the resulting emotions even in the movies. In fact, that probably drives them to the watch films. Don't we all allow ourselves to briefly escape into the fantasy world and feel those same emotions that are normally not a part of their real world?