In a way, we always figure it out on our own - within the context of each story. Doesn't matter which paradigm or template we're using or rejecting - we still have to figure our own process for wrangling this particular story into the shape that suits it best...

Film is a real dichotomy. "The same, but different." really does sum it up. I think it's important to realize one thing though... these systems and paradigms aren't beginning points. Every one of these systems starts with the *existing art.* What the gurus are doing with the existing art is reading and watching and tearing it all down to commonalities. People come in lots of colors and sizes and languages and beliefs and two completely different genders. But, we all need a heart, a brain, and other stuff to be alive and aware. If aliens were deconstructing us, they would start with our framework and declare that our three acts. There are other things in common, of course. MOST of us have a pair of eyes, a pair of kidneys, a pair of legs - but, there are lots of us with only one of those, or none. Things like our fingerprints make us very individual, but are pretty far down the list of things that make us human. What all those screenwriting gurus are doing is trying to codify what they see. Once it's codified in a way they can understand and communicate, they try to find the combination of codes that describes success. Which is exactly what the student of screenwriting is doing every day. "Success" can be many things. Communication of a long-held belief. An income capable of supporting families. Art. It won't look the same for everyone. Reading the patterns other people have found is just another way of studying film. It is no different than students of architecture finding out how a yurt or a pyramid or a arch performs before creating a tunnel or a tower. The thing about being a student is that we progress. From learning how to crush and mix pigments, to studying the masters, to painting our own INFORMED works. Slathering paint on without any understanding of perspective, or colour, or what is going to preserve the pigments long enough for others to get to see it, can still make a pretty picture - I love my child's art. But, my child's art is beautiful only to me. :) It sure doesn't compare to a Michaelangelo. :) Knowledge never makes your work worse. You can pick and choose your brushes and paints. Know the underlying structure and you can make it do anything, as long as you are also studying human nature - what Scott would call "character?" - with the same degree of interest. All the technique in the world is nothing if you have nothing to say. By the same token, your message won't reach the most people if you create a menage of something so far outside the framework that people will reject it as quickly as readers reject typos. Just my two cents.

I have found craft is most useful when instinct hits its 'sticking point' - and not knowing enough craft can limit one's ability to work on a larger canvas. Turning convention upside down might on occasion, mean throwing all the craft out - just to let that 'crazy, brilliant flower' blossom. To quote Will Durant:"Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance."

"It is a strange thing. A composer studies harmony and theory of musical forms; a painter doesn't paint a picture without knowing something about colors and design; architecture requires basic schooling. Only when somebody makes a decision to start writing, he believes that he doesn't need to learn anything and that anybody who has learned to put words on paper can be a writer." -- Ivan Turgenev

Thanx to Andrew for raising this query. Coz I too have the same doubt. And this kills me even more, when I have to read lots and lots of good stuff in those comments. I know I can learn a lot from reading each and every post of GITS and GOYOQ... but how much reading is enough? What ever Scott says, it seems like a very easy and important thing to consider in screenwriting (for example - from this post 'Story and Character')... and when he tells about something else that also seems like quite important... but which thing comes first?... where/what should I begin writing exactly?.... these doubts again make me think "I should've attended a film school". To conclude, my query is : I have a logline and a very little idea about the Character. How can I start developing the story ?

Thanx to Andrew for raising this query. Coz I too have the same doubt. And this kills me even more, when I have to read lots and lots of good stuff in those comments. I know I can learn a lot from reading each and every post of GITS and GOYOQ… but how much reading is enough? What ever Scott says, it seems like a very easy and important thing to consider in screenwriting (for example – from this post ‘Story and Character’)… and when he tells about something else that also seems like quite important… but which thing comes first?… where/what should I begin writing exactly?…. these doubts again make me think “I should’ve attended a film school”. To conclude, my query is : I have a logline and a very little idea about the Character. How can I start developing the story ?

Great quote, plinytheelder, and quite true. This question stuck with me overnight because I do believe we're hardwired for story and can find it by shutting down the thinking mind and taking off with words and thought and a cast of characters for company, but not in film. It's a contained medium with a very short time to tell a story that's compelling, makes sense, and connects with the viewers on an unspoken, emotional level. I think the more condensed something is, the more structure becomes critical. If any element is left out, the whole thing tumbles. I don't get the feeling that most gurus have a formula they're trying to shove down our throats for the cost of three easy payments, but rather they've discovered their version of story structure and want to share it. Having read a fair amount of these books and taken classes, I've found that each "formula" works, even though they're different. Snyder's formula might be so popular right now because his writing style is conversational, and his communication of highly intellectual ideas is well done with humor. Rather than giving us archetypes that may be hard to understand at first, he gives us a dude with a problem. We get into trouble when we write to a specific formula, rather than testing story against the bits and pieces of structure we've discovered as a touchstone for when we get stuck, or the tested concept isn't working. Or worse, we think it's the magic wand that will take us to fame and fortune by this time next year. And I don't think we can blame Hollywood suits for turning to these formulas as a way of identifying a "good" script. Their decisions cost millions of dollars and decades of time. I'd be scared and looking for some reliable guide if I were in that situation, especially in this economy. Even if we read the books and take the classes and line up our index cards in pretty little rows, we still have to serve our apprenticeship of discovering how we, as individuals with our own unique voice, can give structure to a condensed medium without leaving the beams of the house exposed. The best way of doing that is with richly drawn characters interacting with each other over the cross sections of structure. Just as a spec script must often be clearly "similar but different," structure has to be there but obscured by character. And BTW, I'm finding the 10,000 hour just doesn't hold true. Many have a gift for story and hit their target right out of the gate. Those are the people with a talent so overwhelming that they never stop learning and invest a great deal more than 10,000 hours to something so obvious yet so difficult to grasp.

Every writer is going to do things in a different order... inspiration can start with incident, or character, or even place. But, frankly, the start is relatively minor. Between that and a first draft, much less a polished script, there's a lot of examination that is going to go on. Some people pin it all down first, others start and see what happens, most seem to do a bit of both. The goal, obviously, is to *finish* with strong plot and strong character. As one develops, it impacts the other. Reading all the interviews on this site, the majority of writers talk about having epiphanies about one while immersed in the other. Film school is one of those things that works for some, not for others. For some, it gives them a level of confidence to have someone else say, "Okay, you've got the basics, now you can build up with that foundation beneath you." Other writers who have never taken a class or read a book do just fine, they adapt what they learn from watching films and/or reading scripts and jump in. A first script can be brilliant, but the method used to get to it may not work for the next story. Taking in everything, writing a lot, finding what works best for yourself - even if it doesn't work best all the time :) , is all part and parcel of writing. You throw yourself off the ledge as often as you can, and, hopefully, the more experience you get, the softer you land. But, no guarantees.