The B Story

[Stealth66]

Every time I think I have screenplay structure down, I learn something new, something I didn't quite achieve in my first draft. :cry:

Right now, it's about the B story. I've just finished reading Blake Snyder's Save the Cat and am trying to rework my story based on his lessons.

The problem is, I don't feel I need a brand new character to come in around page 30 for purposes of a "love story" or having a place to "discuss the theme" of the script. One, I don't need my main female character to hook up with some guy. It's just not necessary and would seem irrelevant in this story. I know it's not always literally a love story, that it can be a friend the character meets like in Legally Blonde, but my MC already has this person, her sister, who is introduced from the very beginning. These two are the ones who discuss and build on the theme, along with their mother.

I need the sister early on, because she is involved in the event that helps my MC make a final decision that leads her into Act II.

I guess my question is, then, does a brand new B story character have to come in at page 30, or can I continue using the sister and mother, who help her get through her internal struggle?

I guess if I absolutely had to, I could completely rewrite Act I and have MC's sister arrive in town around page 30, but I hate to change the events.

Also, is it unheard of to have this B story character die at the midpoint? The MC still has her mother to help her through, but the sister's death at midpoint commits my MC to the mission 100%, no turning back.

Don't get me wrong, I undestand the purpose of the B story character, I just don't like that he/she must show up on or around a certain page. It's all getting a little too formula for me.

I'm looking at my script collection now to see if any have this character in Act I already, too.

Anywho, any thoughts would be appreciated.

Jamie

[icerose]

Sorry, I haven't read any script writing books so I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "B story". Are you saying like a secondary story to the main plot? Sorry for the confusion.

[NikeeGoddess]

since we don't know your story i don't know how you could possibly think we can tell you what to do with it.

but i must say... when reading screenwriting books on story and style then you cannot always take everything so literal. they're suggestions and guidelines.

blake snyder chooses movies that fit in his mold in order to make his points. but there are many flicks that will not fit into his formulas.

on the other hand, structure is where a lot of people are lacking in their story.

it usually takes years of writing and rewriting for anyone to get all the p's and q's in order and write and meaningful and marketable script.

okay - so none of what i said helped. you need a beta reader. maybe join a screenwriting group to find one.

[zeprosnepsid]

I'm sure 10 other books would tell you something else. As Nikee says, don't take it so literally. Do what's best for your story.

Sometimes it can be interesting to have a 'b story' (if it's what I think you mean), like a subplot, to fill out the overall story. In the romantic comedy I'm currently working on, I have the main story between the girl and her guy, and also a subplot with her and her friends - both of which come to a head at the end of Act 2 (in traditional 3 Act structure, some books will tell you there are 4 or 5 Acts!). But you certainly don't have to have one.

[Stealth66]

Sorry, I haven't read any script writing books so I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "B story". Are you saying like a secondary story to the main plot? Sorry for the confusion.

I hadn't heard of it either until reading Snyder's book. Here's what he says about it:

"The B story then does a lot. And you must have one. It provides not only the love story and a place to openly discuss the theme of your movie, but gives the writer the vital 'cutaways' from the A story. And it starts on 30."

Snyder uses the movie Legally Blonde as an example, where the MC meets a manicurist shortly after breaking into Act II. This manicurist character nurtures the MC, provides her strength for her internal struggles, and their interactions expound on the theme of the movie.

So, yes, I guess it is the secondary story, the one that helps resolve the internal conflict.

Maybe someone else familiar with Snyder can explain it better.

I find it interesting that you haven't read any of these books, but yet you're a paid scriptwriter. You're either doing these things naturally, or you're a good example of what Nikee and Zepro are saying. Pretty cool either way.

[Stealth66]

Nikee and Zepro, thank you. I guess I'm trying to do it by the book because it's hard enough when you're an unknown. I thought maybe getting as formula as possible would help, but it's getting to be too much. There's gotta be some balance here, so I'll keep an eye on my structure, but won't fret too much on this page 30 B story intro right now. If it happens naturally, great. If not, well, it is what it is.

[icerose]

I am absolutely terrible at formulas and even worse at picking up on them. I just write the story how I feel it needs to be told, and if something is off then it bugs me until I figure it out and fix it.

I think in terms of speed, story, characters, background and such. I couldn't tell you over ten technical terms when it comes to writing. I just write. I study other people's writing and go from there.

I guess with enough practice you get a feeling for things, like Grammar. I can do it. I can ace a class, but I couldn't explain a single word of it.

And not every story has a love interest.

[zeprosnepsid]

I've never read any of these books either. When I was in film school they never made us read a screenwriting book. In screenwriting class you'd mostly just write and then get critiqued or critique other's work. The closest thing to studying was simply looking at other scripts.

I'm not against books though. I think books can be good if you are starting from square one. Just to get down the basics. But I think you learn best from watching movies and reading scripts. And writing them.

[nmstevens]

Nikee and Zepro, thank you. I guess I'm trying to do it by the book because it's hard enough when you're an unknown. I thought maybe getting as formula as possible would help, but it's getting to be too much. There's gotta be some balance here, so I'll keep an eye on my structure, but won't fret too much on this page 30 B story intro right now. If it happens naturally, great. If not, well, it is what it is.


I recently read "Save the Cat" and while it has some interesting things to say, what I have to say about Snyder's "formula" is what I have to say about every other formula proposed by every other writer of screenwriting books (every one of which, by the way, is different from Snyder's formula).

If there was really a formula for a successful screenplay, every screenplay would hew to that formula and they'd all be successful and all the movies made from them would be successful and they'd all make lots of money.

If I proposed to you that there was a formula for a successful novel -- that it should be so many pages long, that characters had to be introduced in a certain way, that there should be so many sub-plots, that actions should turn on certain pages, you'd laugh at me. You'd say it was ridiculous.

If I proposed the same thing about stage drama, you'd probably say the same thing -- even though there was actually a book written about that very thing -- something like "The Well-wrought Play" or something like that, that laid out the formula for how to write a successful play.

But nobody suggests anymore that there is any such formula.

Somehow it's only us poor schmucks who write for the movies that have to be subjected to this sort of thing.

Well, it's as ridiculous in reference to screenplays (and by extension to the movies based on them) to suggest that art can be reduced to formula, as it would be to say that there's a formula for a successful novel or a successful play or a successful song or a successful painting.

What there are are trends and fads -- in plays, in painting, in movies (and obviously in screenplays) -- and if you're looking to sell, it makes sense to know what's in style.

But even knowing what's in style and writing to that is no guarantee of what's going to sell, because often what buyers are looking for are those "break-through" scripts or movies that are going to be the "style-setters."

So in reference to formulas -- pick any one you want -- sure you can find movies that fit. Probably lots of movies. And lots of movies that don't.

Nobody is going to *not* buy a script because the *B* story character doesn't show up on page 30 or that any of the other things that are supposed to happen on certain pages according to Snyder or McKee or whoever, fails to happen on the appropriate page.

They won't buy the script because the script fails to do certain basic things.

It has to have an immediately graspable, saleable, and intriguing concept.

If it doesn't, then they end up having to sell it based on the stars or the director of flash -- lots of effects and explosions and stuff. That makes it harder to sell.

It has to be star castable -- because generally, they need to have stars to make the movie happen.

If they make it, it should make lots and lots of money.

If a script excites them in that way -- if they see those three elements in the script, that's what really counts. Immediately graspable, saleable, intriguing concept. Star castable. Will make a lot of money.

Then they'll want to buy it.

The people who make the decisions to buy or not buy don't care about that first act twist, second act whatever.

Their reactions are going to be much more like "audience" reactions -- so you have to write it lean and exciting and make sure that it is emotionally involving.

If you want a rule, here's a rule.

Draw the reader in immediately -- and never let them go. Once you lose the reader, you've lost the sale.

NMS

[Stealth66]

I'm not against books though. I think books can be good if you are starting from square one. Just to get down the basics. But I think you learn best from watching movies and reading scripts. And writing them.

I agree, and that's what I'm going to keep doing.

[Stealth66]

If I proposed to you that there was a formula for a successful novel -- that it should be so many pages long, that characters had to be introduced in a certain way, that there should be so many sub-plots, that actions should turn on certain pages, you'd laugh at me. You'd say it was ridiculous.

I'd certainly say the idea was ridiculous, yes.

Well, it's as ridiculous in reference to screenplays (and by extension to the movies based on them) to suggest that art can be reduced to formula, as it would be to say that there's a formula for a successful novel or a successful play or a successful song or a successful painting.

Yet the pros, like Snyder, are doing just that. There's got to be a happy medium and obviously there is from what you all are saying. Structure is important and since I've studied it more, my scripts have gotten better, but Snyder's beat sheet just felt overly constricting.
I'm happy to hear that the idea is ridiculous. Now I can get back to work and quit worrying about it.

If a script excites them in that way -- if they see those three elements in the script, that's what really counts. Immediately graspable, saleable, intriguing concept. Star castable. Will make a lot of money.

Then they'll want to buy it.

Sounds sensible to me. Thanks so much for your post, NMS.

[jonpiper]

I recently read "Save the Cat" and while it has some interesting things to say, what I have to say about Snyder's "formula" is what I have to say about every other formula proposed by every other writer of screenwriting books (every one of which, by the way, is different from Snyder's formula).

If there was really a formula for a successful screenplay, every screenplay would hew to that formula and they'd all be successful and all the movies made from them would be successful and they'd all make lots of money.

If I proposed to you that there was a formula for a successful novel -- that it should be so many pages long, that characters had to be introduced in a certain way, that there should be so many sub-plots, that actions should turn on certain pages, you'd laugh at me. You'd say it was ridiculous.

If I proposed the same thing about stage drama, you'd probably say the same thing -- even though there was actually a book written about that very thing -- something like "The Well-wrought Play" or something like that, that laid out the formula for how to write a successful play.

But nobody suggests anymore that there is any such formula.

Somehow it's only us poor schmucks who write for the movies that have to be subjected to this sort of thing.

Well, it's as ridiculous in reference to screenplays (and by extension to the movies based on them) to suggest that art can be reduced to formula, as it would be to say that there's a formula for a successful novel or a successful play or a successful song or a successful painting.

What there are are trends and fads -- in plays, in painting, in movies (and obviously in screenplays) -- and if you're looking to sell, it makes sense to know what's in style.

But even knowing what's in style and writing to that is no guarantee of what's going to sell, because often what buyers are looking for are those "break-through" scripts or movies that are going to be the "style-setters."

So in reference to formulas -- pick any one you want -- sure you can find movies that fit. Probably lots of movies. And lots of movies that don't.

Nobody is going to *not* buy a script because the *B* story character doesn't show up on page 30 or that any of the other things that are supposed to happen on certain pages according to Snyder or McKee or whoever, fails to happen on the appropriate page.

They won't buy the script because the script fails to do certain basic things.

It has to have an immediately graspable, saleable, and intriguing concept.

If it doesn't, then they end up having to sell it based on the stars or the director of flash -- lots of effects and explosions and stuff. That makes it harder to sell.

It has to be star castable -- because generally, they need to have stars to make the movie happen.

If they make it, it should make lots and lots of money.

If a script excites them in that way -- if they see those three elements in the script, that's what really counts. Immediately graspable, saleable, intriguing concept. Star castable. Will make a lot of money.

Then they'll want to buy it.

The people who make the decisions to buy or not buy don't care about that first act twist, second act whatever.

Their reactions are going to be much more like "audience" reactions -- so you have to write it lean and exciting and make sure that it is emotionally involving.

If you want a rule, here's a rule.

Draw the reader in immediately -- and never let them go. Once you lose the reader, you've lost the sale.

NMS

Thank you for saying that. I'm relatively new at this, but after reading bits and pieces written by the gurus, I've concluded that what you said is correct.

I would add: The receipes in each of those cookbooks might produce a fine dish, depending on the cook.:)

[FinbarReilly]

If it helps....

A good B-Story should enhance the main story, while at the same time allowing your audience a break from it. You know, looking at the effects on other characters' lives, exploring the theme from a different perspective, even branching from the main sequence and eventually returning to it.

If you really want to have fun, you can use the B-Story to explore what the antagonist is up to, and his story. It's usually only done in action/adventure movies, but can be fun in romantic comedies.

As for adding a new character by page 30, the character should be an obstacle type of character; the character should present some sort of obstacle to the sub-plot and be thematic-related (you know, someone who is everything that the main character isn't and can beat him on every level). The new character should be dealt with in the first part of the third act, or towards the close if you want to add some comedy to the end. In essence, this character should either show that the end is close or that the situation has returned to normal.

FR

[Stealth66]

If you really want to have fun, you can use the B-Story to explore what the antagonist is up to, and his story. It's usually only done in action/adventure movies, but can be fun in romantic comedies.

That's interesting, because we go into my antag's world on page 27 and see what his story/deal is.
But there I go again getting caught up in the numbers game.

Thanks for the post, Finbar.

[nielsty]

I actually like Blake Snyder, but as metioned elsewhere his method shouldn't be more than inspiration. And I would be careful calling any of these "how to writers" gurus. Take a look at his IMDB record. He's had two mediocre scripts made back in the beginning of the 90's and that's it.

It seems like really succesful screenwriters are too busy writing scripts to do a "how to book".

[RodThompson]

It seems like really succesful screenwriters are too busy writing scripts to do a "how to book".

Amen!

I have exchanged emails with Mr. Snyder, read Save the Cat, and still agree with pros like John Turman, Tim Talbott and Derek Haas that the most important rule to follow is to have a great story.

While a B-story may bring a deeper resonance to your story, or add a new flavor, it's not ALWAYS needed. That's the only problem with Snyder's rules is that it HAS TO HAPPEN. When in reality, it does not.

[Stealth66]

Good point, Nielsty. If he has a magic fail-proof formula to simply plug a story into, you'd think he would be selling screenplays left and right. Maybe he enjoys teaching more, though? Who knows.

[FinbarReilly]

NP, Stealth! For a good example, check out Die Hard With A Vengeance; one of that movies redeeming qualities is that it goes into Gruber's entire plan, and how McLean's torture is just the tip of the iceberg...

FR

[Hang of Thursdays]

Yet the pros, like Snyder, are doing just that.

I *might* be looking at the wrong Blake Snyder on IMDB, and I don't mean to just come in and be, you know, a dick, but looking at this: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0811414/ Snyder's only had two screenplays go to film. And both of those over a decade ago. Now, maybe he's made more sales since then, but a 14 year gap in getting anything MADE since then doesn't seem to speak too well to his skills. At the very least you could say that Blake Snyder is *doing just that* to very little effect.

I'll gladly stand corrected, by the way.

[Rainy Night]

That's the right BS... but realize though that just because a person doesn't have a huge IMDB rap sheet that it means they are inexperienced. I’ve read the book, took from it what I thought worked for me and disregarded the rest.

In reality a lot of people have a lot of advice… but you just have to find what works for you.

[Stealth66]

Hang, yes the gap is odd, but I agree with Rainy Night that lack of a huge rap sheet doesn't equal lack of experience.

I'd be curious to know why Snyder doesn't write more scripts, though.

[Rainy Night]

You could always ask Joe Calabrese, one our mods (who's been fairly silent lately -- miss you Joe -- hope all is well).

If I remember correctly I think he and Blake Snyder are associated through a writing group and he might be able to provide some insight.

[Hang of Thursdays]

Mm, yes, I agree with both of you. A limited resume of that sort isn't especially indicative of his skills, and, naturally, the advice should be taken on its own merits. But my issue with the statement was its wording -- that Snyder is taking his own advice, to great effect, which doesn't *appear* to be true. Now, if he's selling spec scripts for a million dollars a pop, then he's definitely doing something right, and you wouldn't find that info on IMDB, but I don't know if Variety or somesuch place has an archive of sales like that. Maybe someone else can chime in on that end.

[nmstevens]

Hang, yes the gap is odd, but I agree with Rainy Night that lack of a huge rap sheet doesn't equal lack of experience.

I'd be curious to know why Snyder doesn't write more scripts, though.

Well, it's also important to understand that for the majority of screenwriters, the ratio of projects sold to projects produced is generally quite large.

The ratio of projects put in development to projects made is something like ten to one so you might figure that the ratio generally for projects that you work on to projects that ultimately see the light of day is going to be something on that order.

Of course, some writers do better, especially writers who end up establishing long-term relationships with successful directors.

But that doesn't change the average. For every writer who does better that one in ten, there's going to be some other writer out there who tends to do worse.

In the last ten years, I've done better, but only somewhat better, and what's improved that average is really only a single movie that's gone into production recently.

Most of what I've written likely won't ever see the light of day. Some things I know for sure won't see the light of day (being based on optioned books for which the underlying rights have expired).

I suspect the same is likely true for Snyder -- that the material that's showing up on IMDb is just the produced "tip" of an iceberg of material that he's written and sold but that we're never going to hear about because it's never going to get made.

But on some level, I think that it's almost tangential. Even if he'd written a ton of movies and all of them have hewed to his formula and all of them had been really successful, all that that would mean is that movies that one can write movies that follow a particular formula and that those movies can be successful.

It doesn't mean either that:

A) All movies that follow that formula will be successful or that --

B) Writing a movie that doesn't follow that formula will fail to be successful or that --

C) "Success" by whatever definition one chooses to invoke is capable of being reduced to a formula by anybody.

NMS

[Daydreamer]

I personally don't think you can judge the value of a person's statement based on the number of sales of that particular person.
As has been pointed out in similar discussions, many film critics do not have an astounding track record when it comes to writing (or directing etc.) films. Still, they give their opinions on all the aspects of film making. I would not say that such critiques should be dismissed.
Some people are better at performing a task, others are better skilled when it comes to teaching.
A mechanic doesn't have to build and create an engine, but he's still able to see what's wrong with it.
I think the same concept applies here.
Just think about how many great literature and drama teachers/professors there are. I assume that most of them aren't the most successful writers and playwrights of their time.
So my advice: It can never hurt to listen to someone else's opinion. Not every movie impresses you. And not everyone is impressed with the same movies. The same applies to advice. Take what you think is a good idea and will improve your writing. And consider the rest to be nice input but just not the 'right thing' for you.

[Stealth66]

Most of what I've written likely won't ever see the light of day. Some things I know for sure won't see the light of day (being based on optioned books for which the underlying rights have expired).

I suspect the same is likely true for Snyder -- that the material that's showing up on IMDb is just the produced "tip" of an iceberg of material that he's written and sold but that we're never going to hear about because it's never going to get made.

I found the following bit of information here http://www.lowcountryrwa.com/blake-snyder/ :

"In his 20-year career as a screenwriter and producer, Blake Snyder has sold dozens of scripts, including co-writing Blank Check, which became a hit for Disney, and Nuclear Family for Steven Spielberg — both million-dollar sales. Named “one of Hollywood’s most successful spec screenwriters,” Blake continues to write and sell screenplays, most recently a 2006 sale of a horror-comedy that will be in theatres in 2007."

And from Snyder himself:

"If your goal it to sell a script, you must follow the steps. I’ve sold thirteen spec scripts in my career. I’ve sold a couple of million dollar screenplays. I’ve had good luck at this. But it’s also understanding the formula." http://writerunboxed.com/2008/03/21/interview-a-conversation-with-blake-snyder-part-1/

I wonder what happened to the 2007 horror-comedy? Anyway, I see what you're saying here. IMDb certainly doesn't give the full story.

So, that answers all of my questions.

[Stealth66]

Some people are better at performing a task, others are better skilled when it comes to teaching.

Yup, exactly. That's why I had wondered earlier if he just preferred teaching instead of writing. From what I've read tonight, though, he's been doing both.

[Hang of Thursdays]

Yeah, I think I should probably retract a bit of my earlier statement. Coincidentally enough, tonight I came across the story of Zach Helm, a very successful writer who, nonetheless, hadn't worked on a single script that went into production before Will Ferrell's Stranger than Fiction and Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium. So I've got more sympathy on that end than I did even 7 hours ago.

That being said, I'd be interested to read his more recent scripts, to see how he uses his own advice, and how often, just out of curiosity.

But, like I briefly noted and others have said before and after me -- the advice should be taken on its own merits. If it works, use it. If it doesn't, don't.

[Rainy Night]

I think Zach Helm had some success writing plays before he sold Stranger Than Fiction.

That had to help.

[Hang of Thursdays]

I think Zach Helm had some success writing plays before he sold Stranger Than Fiction.

That had to help.

Well, I didn't say he hadn't had success in the screenplay writing business, just that he hadn't worked on anything that had gone into production (not unlike our gal Friday, Mr. Snyder), which appears to be at least 99.9% true (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1590998/).

[nmstevens]

Well, I didn't say he hadn't had success in the screenplay writing business, just that he hadn't worked on anything that had gone into production (not unlike our gal Friday, Mr. Snyder), which appears to be at least 99.9% true (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1590998/).

Except that in that "99.9%" there happens to be a TV movie that Zach Helm both wrote and produced before he moved on to writing features -- "Other People's Business".

I don't know what his story was before that, but for sure, you don't go from dead zero to writing -- and especially not writing and *producing* a TV movie for Jersey Pictures.

So he had to have had some kind of professional relationship with Jersey prior to that.

So as far as "Stranger" is concerned, he was definitely not some guy who just tossed a feature script across a transom and had it bought by a major and produced.

He was in the business. He was writing professionally. He had sold and produced and had professional connections and representation at a significant level before Stranger Than Fiction sold.

NMS

[Hang of Thursdays]

So as far as "Stranger" is concerned, he was definitely not some guy who just tossed a feature script across a transom and had it bought by a major and produced.

He was in the business. He was writing professionally. He had sold and produced and had professional connections and representation at a significant level before Stranger Than Fiction sold.

NMS

Good. We're in agreement then.