Act Breaks? — Page 6

Sluggo said:

So would you say that the trilogy

Trilogy or RotJ?

 has three main plot threads.  The Rebels against the Empire, Luke's reconciliation with his father and Han's redemption from Jabba the Hutt

I'm no expert at this, but I would say that stories (in movies or elsewhere) are very clearly centered around a focused "plot."  That which I call "the problem."   The characters serve this plot, and the resolution of "the problem" obviously has to be the goal of at least one of the characters (the protagonist(s))... and the perpetuation of the problem is often the goal of the antagonist. 

But beyond that, each of the characters may also have their own interests which may or may not lead to their "character arc" in the story.  Han struggling with his attachment to the Rebellion in ANH and ESB is part of his arc, but it is isn't the plot, or "the problem" of the film itself. 

ANH is pretty interesting that way, since the problem of the Death Star, which I'm convinced is "the problem" of the film, is not really the focus of any characters except for Leia and R2-D2.  Luke's quest to explore the galaxy and his destiny, and his quest to become a Jedi and to rescue Leia, all of Han's stuff, Obi-Wan's quest to train Luke and put him on the path of becoming the galaxy's saviour, C3PO's quest for his next oil bath... all of these things are more forefront than the threat of the Death Star to the Rebellion, but they are all character bits and not "the plot" or "the problem."

Back to RotJ- I think in some cases it can be harder to separate the character bits from the "the problem".  I think a big part of my trouble identifying "the problem" in RotJ has been separating it out from the character bits.  The love triangle is resolved in two major ways, but that's certainly not "the problem."  Onto Luke and Vader as father and son... now we're getting into dodgy territory.  Absolutely, Luke's motivation after Tatooine is completely "redeem my father".  And Vaders, absolutely, is "straddling allegiances between the Emperor/Dark Side and Luke/love of son."  That seems a little nearer to "the problem" of the film, but I don't think it is yet it.  Luke's journey to become a Jedi ends somewhat mid film when Yoda pronounces that title upon him.  Great arc for Luke.  Not the plot of RotJ.

To summarize, I don't think, in my humble opinion, that those character moments are "plot threads" of the movie.  They are "character threads" which might mean the same thing as "sub-plot" but they are not "plot-plot".

However, I think that the redemption of Han from Jabba (sounds like they traded in Skee-Ball tickets for him) does play out like its own 45 minute three arc mini-movie.  The characters/problem (Jabba has Han) are all introduced.  The problem gets worse (Jabba has Han, the droids, Chewie, Leia and eventually Luke).  And then the problem is resolved (everyone is free- Jabba is dead (duh)).  The only things that really connect this first third of the movie to the other two thirds are: The crawl mentions the Empire, the introduction of DSII right after the crawl, and the fact that they needed to rescue Han before the real action of the movie could get started.

and general scoundrelness. 

:)  I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I like the word.

The thing I don't think works as well with the Han Solo sub plot is that the rescue from Jabba's palace is dis-proportionately large compared to the Bounty Hunter interaction in the first two movies.  I understand that this also serves for Luke's progression to the title of Jedi Knight, but I think the cutting of the scene where Luke makes his saber lessens Luke's showing up at Jabba's palace to chew some bubblegum and to kick some butt.

Am I wrong about this?

I'm not sure I'm following you.  Yeah, the "Jabba wants Han" subplot (<- see what I did there?) from the other films is maybe 5 minutes total, but in this film it's about 45 minutes.  I don't think that's wrong.  It certainly fits in with the Macro storyline for Act 3.  In Act 1 (ANH) we learn that Han owes Jabba some money, but it's no big deal since he crisps poor Greedo and gets on with life... he even makes some bread from the Rebellion and we assume he can pay his debts at that point.  In Act 2 (ESB) we learn that he's still not paid his debts and that the pressure Jabba is putting on him is getting worse.  He tries to make his way back to pay Jabba, but evades pursuit from the Empire instead.  A real bounty hunter like Fett shows up and Han is in real trouble now.  Then, in Act 3, the heroes have to rescue him and payback Jabba in the only currency he understands.  The currency of El Muerte!

If you're looking for a specific balance (in terms of pages/minutes/whatever) between the three acts, you usually won't find it.  One act is usually funnier than the other two.  One is more tragic.  One is more uplifting.  It's wrong to assume that they will be more consistent...  That's probably actually one of the leading causes of "sequelitis"... when the sequel feels entirely too much like the original.

But I'm making this all up as we go along.  What do you think?

He's (one of) the incentive man.  Obviously Fett works it out to get money from both Vader and Jabba... but Jabba had had a price out on Solo for sometime.  You can't say that Fett would have necessarily been willing to catch him if it weren't for the bounty Jabba had out there.  That is to say, you can't say that Jabba had nothing to do it.

In fact, Jabba and Fett must be given credit for keeping Solo alive.  If Fett hadn't wanted to collect the bounty that Jabba had out on him, I doubt Vader would had let him live.  After what he did to his daughter... 

Just to make sure I'm following you... you think Luke was cool and collected when he handed himself over to Vader, and he remained too cool and too collected once he knew he was being taken to the Emperor, and never seemed in real danger?

Perhaps the peril shouldn't have come from a concern for his mortal peril... but more for his immortal soul.  Seeing it now, I think that's where the fear should come from... some sort of inevitability that Luke may join the Dark Side, even if he doesn't want to.

Back to the Future
in 3 Acts

The Problem: Marty's Parents are Losers.  Marty Doesn't Connect with his Parents.  Doc. Brown is killed.  Marty gets Stuck in the 50s.

BttF is very much a character driven movie.  By definition, character driven stories are less "plot driven" which I think does one of two things: The plot is much less complicated- therefore easier to identify the 3 acts ~or~ The plot is buried underneath and hidden behind so much character drama to the point that you wonder if there's a plot at all.  And in some cases there isn't.  If I think of what is resolved by the 3rd act, I immediately think of the change in Marty's family's life.  But while that is an awesome, emotionally fullfilling end of the movie... I propose it is not the plot.  It is not "The problem."  The problem is a simple one: Marty gets stuck back in time.  The movie presents other problems, but this is the only one it contracts with the audience that it will resolve.

Act 1:

As you might expect from a character driven story, the first act is much more focused on introducing each of the characters and hinting at what their problems are and what their arcs might be.  Eventually Marty is sent back in time, and I propose that this is when the plot of the movie is actually introduced.  What drives the movie until this point?  I'm not sure.  The characters are interesting... I guess we're all just patient.

Act 2:

When does Act 2 actually start?  I'm not sure.  Again, I think these things are more liquid than that.  There's no curtain drop, no intermission, no 3 year wait between Macro acts.  So the actual breaks are sometimes impossible to call.  But I can say that the defining moment of Act2: The Problem Gets worse is that Marty's siblings are starting to disappear from his family photo and he is given the information that he is going to cease to exist unless he can hook his parents up... again.  The problem is definitely worse: he's not just stuck back in time, but he'll fade away if he doesn't fix the 1955 first.

Act 3:

I'll admit, I'm going off of memory here, so someone who's seen the movies more recently should maybe chime in.  The third act is basically the Enchantment Under the Sea dance.  The problem continues to get worse, with little hope of resolve.  Until, just like that, George lays out Biff, Doc Brown gets the extension cords connected, and Marty headbutt starts the DMC and gets back to the Twin Lone Tree Mall.  And he even saved Doc.  And his parents are actually in love now.  And his siblings aren't lame.  But most importantly, Marty got back.  Back to the future.

Am I wrong?

xhonzi said:

cutnshut said:

Alien has 7 acts

xhonzi said:

No it has 3 acts... and maybe 2 other non-act thingyies.

cutnshut said:

thats great but its still 5 acts :p

It's true.  It's 5 segments.  But, as far as I understand the 3 act structure, it makes sense to call them prologues and epilogues, because the central 3 Acts ARE the 3 Act structure.

I was thinking about this one the other day.  It has been asserted (not by me, but I think I agree with it) that all stories must at least loosely follow the three (AKA five) act structure.  That it's some sort of hardcoded expectation in human DNA.  If a story is told without act structure... people wouldn't know that it was over.  Or that it had started.  Some would say a story without act structure is not a story at all.

So, Aliens has 5 acts (I can't deny it anymore, and Cut'n'shut isn't here to gloat).  I still thing P,1,2,3,E are good names for the acts (vs 1,2,3,4,5) since the central 3 and the three.  Is this the (or one of the) reasons that people are so attacted to Aliens?  Does the 5 act structure set it apart from all of the other 3 act movies and make it seem more epic?  Does it scratch some sort of preternatural itch that we as humans (or at least MEN) have for a 5 Act yarn- that they reduced 3 act structure just isn't getting?

What do you think?

Sluggo said:

Question:  Do you think movie trilogies (like BttF) follow the same 3 act pattern?  I know the classic SW movies do. 

Trilogies - yes.

Quadrilogies - no.

;)

More on that in a second, but on to this really quickly:

And if movies do or don't, do they influence how we define sequels?

I think so.  So far there's not another word for it, but you couldn't hardly say that the Indiana Jones Trilogy follows a Macro structure (they are simply sidequels, if that term suits you better (actually, I think sidequel is better used as a kind word for "movie spinoff" or "coattail rider")) nor could you identify any 3 Bond films and say that they follow a Macro structure.  But, as Scary Movie 3 taught us, trilogies often come in threes.  It's probably relatively easy to answer this question for most movie franchises:

Do the movies hold up to being watched out of order? 

But really, you already know the answer without being told.  You wouldn't want to miss an episode of Twin Peaks, or Lost, or Smallville... but you would probably be just fine if you dismissed an episode of Who's the Boss, Three's Company, or Taxi. 

But then you have the X-Files.  Half of the episodes are non-serial, and the other half definitely are.  So, how do you classify that series?  Or think of the Kirk Star Trek movies.  2, 3 and 4 form a trilogy/follow the act structure macroly- how retarded is that?  But it's clearly there.  You can skip 1 (oh, and I do!) and 5 (doubly so!) and get right on with 6... but even then you don't have to.

As I ranted earlier, I don't like it when people (not that 005 did this exactly, but he was in the ball park) assinuate that everything besides LotR is "sequels" and LotRs is "one big story broken into three separate parts, primarily for marketing purposes" and therefore shouldn't be discussed the way "sequels" are.  To that point, it's probably the reason that I left the theatre in 2001 not sure that the movie was actually over.  Not having read the books, I was a little confused when the movie said, "All right then.  Nothing more to see here, just move along!"  I knew it was the first of three movies, but still- the only contract that had been established with me as viewer was "the ring must be destroyed".  There were no "death stars" that needed to be destroyed, no "black pearls" to be recovered.  No mini act 1 problems to solve.  Which is odd for the book(s) regardless of whether you have 3 Macro Acts or just 3 acts.  I guess *SPOILERS!* Sam and Frodo escape the orcs and the Fellowship is broken- that is a change that marks the end of that Act one way or another... but it's far from a resolution to anything.  It doesn't send you out on a highnote.  Unless you were having a hard time telling the difference between Aragorn and Boromir.  Then... I guess there's a silver lining there.

So, I think we do need another word than "sequel" for trilogies that follow the Macro structure... how's about "sequal"?  No... maybe just "trilogy"?  And we ask the likes of Jurassic Park and Indiana Jones to stop using it.  I guess Indy already has.  And, in a couple of years, Jurassic Park will be a Quadrilogy too... so I guess all might be right in the world.

Back to BTTF, for a moment.

It's funny.  BTTF2 & 3 sure form a matched set, somewhat like ESB and RotJ or Matrix 2&3, PotC 2&3etc...  But I think BTTF 1 fits in less with its sequels to form a "Trilogy" (capital 'T') than Star Wars or the others.

Star Wars sets up the Empire, that the rest of the trilogy must deal with.
Matrix sets up the... Matrix, that the rest of the trilogy must deal with.
Chronicles of Riddick sets up several things that the rest of its....  *boo hoo*... [uncontrollable sobbing]

Back to the Future, joke or not, sets up it's sequel at the very end, including one of the only movies to be first in its franchise and yet promise a sequel without knowing how well opening night would perform.  And yet, 2&3 are about problems (the almanac, the west, Marty not liking being called a chicken) that are in no way connected the first movie.

Unless the Trilogy is called "the perils of time travel" and said perils include:

1. accidentally negating your own conception!
2. Trying to get rich by taking information to the past about the future and accidentally making the biggest butthead of them all get too powerful
3. Rabbits full of buckshot.

So... it's just funny that it ends with "to be continued" but it has less to continue than most other capital T Trilogies.  Star Wars, Matrix, etc.. were definitely instances where the sequels were put into production after the success of the initial movie, but where there was a problem that was still left to be resolved.  Those are tight Trilogies.  BTTF a little less so.  PotC a little less so.

Funny.  Ha ha.

Don't get me wrong- I agree with you.  It puts the words up there: There will be sequels!

But it doesn't do anything storyline wise to set them up.

I always thought "To be continued!" was actually a joke.  They really wanted to say, along the lines of what you are saying- "The story goes on!"  Not necessarily that they were actually going to make more movies.

But I think the joke literally is "We're going to make more movies!  *snark*!"  Even though, as far as I understand it, no one actually thought there would be more movies.

Wow, am I making any sense?

Well, in your earlier posts, when you were saying "To be continued..." I thought you were referring to the concept.  Now it's obvious you're referring to the title card at the end of the film.  Except that that doesn't actually exist.  It wasn't there in the theatrical release and was only added for the VHS release when it was clear there'd be a sequel.  It was removed for the DVD release and hasn't been seen since.

Oh really?  (<-That's an honest "Oh really" not a sarcastic one.)

I didn't see it in theatres, but we had a VHS player and it seems that it was one of the only movies that there was to watch... so we rented it when it first came out on tape. 

It came out late '85 or early '86, I think.  Part 2 wasn't out until 1989.  Are you sure that the sequel was "underway" that early?

That's why they claim it was put there.  And I don't see any other reason why they'd randomly add that in there.  I mean, it probably wasn't officially "in production," but Back to the Future was an instant breakaway hit, so it probably didn't take the studio long to decide, "We're going to do another one!"

I've been listening to Robert McKee's abridged audio version of his book "Story." 

He claims that Raiders of the Lost Ark was in 7 acts (or maybe 8).

!

I have to grab my copy of the book and see if he goes into further detail.

But he's not exactly detail oriented.  He says, "Remember the classic ending to Empire Strikes Back?  Vader says, "Luke, you can't kill me!  I am your father!""  And he talks about Luke's reaction to this is first to try to kill Vader  (?).  And then he gets his hand cut off (?).  I think Mr. McKee needs to see the movie again.