A good well-organized book for beginners. For someone like me who knows a little even about the Three Act Structure, it was easy to follow up with. It just assumes you've watched many movies already (I just skip reading a deep movie-analysis till I watch it then go back to read this skipped part).
I don't even intend to write scripts but it was helpful to develop a deeper eye and an insight in how writing in general and scripts specifically is done. It's like writing a play but then you have many bonus elements such as Credit, Cut Scene, Color Correction and Visual Effects to harness for the sake of delivering and narrating your story.
She insists on glorifying Three Act structure, but also emphasizes on Second Turning Point occurring on mid-act-two/mid-film. But then we can divide Second Act into two acts. The structure becomes Four Act structure as my friend Ayman (I borrowed the book from him) suggests. That is not contradicting with her reasoning, t's just a difference in labeling.
She is a bit academic and by-the-book. Three Act Structure is ancient history; developed by Aristotle! I watched Apollo 13 where the director followed this book to develop as she mentions (this is third edition, he read earlier one). She claims that Three Act Structure doesn't necessarily lead to predictive story just as that music structures where each Fugue or Sonata composition is unique. I'm not gonna lie, Apollo 13 was cliché (hence 13) and predictive, but at least not as bad as Gravity's (another Space movie) predictability.
So what's going on? Why does she insist on avoiding artistic not-following-rigid-Three-Act-Structure even though she gives really good examples of such artistic movies? "Making good script great", great as in sellable and profitable, as noted by a fellow goodreader. TAS is the to-go-to mainstreamizer. Note that HEAVENLY artistic movies are not usually box office hits, such as that 2001: Space Odyssey was not a financial success because many people didn't like it and may walked out of theaters because they couldn't figure what the movie is about. I can't say if the movie followed TAS or not, but it is indeed artistic and not at all predictable. So darling, do you want to write the next Die Hard, or the next Space Odyssey?
Subplots chapter describes how subplots should be inserted within acts and developed throughout the film and not at the very beginning (viewers will think it's the main plot) and not at the very end (the story ended and interest is lost). She inserted Subplots chapter between TAC chapter and Second Act chapter. The book is narrated following the same structure described within it lol.
I noticed one thing reading POV chapter. Yesterday I watched Rashomon, it starts with two people stuck under ruins because of the rain, a third man came running joins them. The two men eyes are wandering, they still can't believe the story that happened to them throughout last week. The third man since he has nothing to do (the rain seems going to fall for a while longer), doesn't mind the two men telling him their story. Now, if the movie started just when the story started you don't know what to expect, but with this way you know it's a really interesting story, you know the two men still live, but be careful since you're raising the expectations of the viewers (the two men kept insisting to third man that their story is unbelievable). Many movies start with unique ways of narrating. Double Indemnity starts with protagonist (insurance agent) walking to his manager's office and starts recording to him, telling him that he was responsible for everything but eventually he didn't get the girl nor the money. I mean the heck! This was 3 minutes into the movie and we already know how it's going to end?! Interesting! The way The Mural (an epic magnum-opus poem by arabic poet Mahmoud Darwish) starts with "This is your name, said a women and gone. I see the sky over there, within a hand's reach. And the wing of a white dove lefts me into a new childhood. I didn't dream that I was dreaming, everything was realistic. White; everything was White. I came before my time, no angel showed before me telling me (what did you do, there, in life?). I didn't hear the cheers of the righteous nor the moans of sinners. I'm lonely in Whiteness.. I'm lonely..", goosebumps..
So the way you start (and tell) a story is really important. Imagine you will do a story just the way Citizen Kane was done, how well will you do? I especially pay attention to how novels and movies are narrated and POVed. The way a story is told is really interesting and gives you an insight into the story itself. Kane seems to be a really famous controversial person because everyone knows him and has a POV that flash us back into a side of Kane's life. If we just started with Kane while he was a kid and saw him grow up then dying, he is not going to be the same awesome person as the way it's done in the movie!
I resonated so much with POV and Character Functions chapters; strongly thought-provoking.