Comments on: What’s Wrong With The Three Act Structure

By: B P

B P — Wed, 11 May 2011 01:16:12 +0000

The author of this article clearly doesn’t understand structure. The 3 act structure isn’t absurd at all – its actually the structure of some the greatest pieces of work.

The author also clearly doesn’t understand storytelling. The way he explains it is as if there is nothing more to a story than the problem and the solution. That is just a terrible way of seeing it.

I disagree with the viewpoint of this author.

By: George The Curious Monkey Doolittle

George The Curious Monkey Doolittle — Tue, 10 May 2011 01:05:40 +0000

Those who can’t write, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach gym. Those who can’t teach Gym……..file for unemployment

By: George The Curious Monkey Doolittle

George The Curious Monkey Doolittle — Tue, 10 May 2011 01:04:42 +0000

what shows/films have YOU wrote and produced then……..MISTER – I KNOW IT ALL THAT USES ONLY THE 3 ACT STRUCTURE BECAUSE MY BRAIN CAN”T FUNCTION#8TYOILWKHFKLAHFKL!!!!!!!!!??!?!?!???!!

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:15:15 +0000

Just another “guru” trying to sell a book by claiming the foundations of 3 act structure are wrong.

By: Dan the Man

Dan the Man — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:49:25 +0000

Just another crazed Campbellian on the loose I assume. But it is weird the guys understanding of dramatic structure is that slight he cant distinguish between this and presentation formats.
Maybe his choice of illustrations are a clue – 90% Hollywood hits and similar intellectual candy.
Article should be entitled ‘Who needs the 3 Act Structure to make money in Hollywood’.

By: Sean Gaffney

Sean Gaffney — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:04:49 +0000

Wow, what a confusing article. The article starts by saying the author doesn’t like the “three act structure” – a writing term that basically means the Aristotle model of beginning, middle and end. Then the article redefines the “three act structure” to mean something that it has never meant — act breaks. (Shakespeare wrote using the three act structure — but he wrote in five act breaks. Those are two very different uses of the same word, like “pen” as in cage and “pen” as in writing utensil.) Then the article uses a hosts of examples, all of which use the “three act structure” — but claims they are good examples and not negative examples. And then the article describes the points of the three act structure, making no changes other than subbing in new terms – claiming that this is a new way to look at structure. And then the article ends by saying that one can always go back to Aristotle — the founder of the “three act structure” — as a substitute for the three act structure.
I must be missing the point — the article shows a great love and reinforcement of the three act structure in content, while claiming not to like that structure. Was this meant to be humorous and I’m just missing the joke?

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:04:43 +0000

I think this article displays a profound misunderstanding of the three-act structure and its relationship to character transformation, which is the bedrock of all great stories. Character transformation naturally lends itself to a three-act structure in terms of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. In the first act, the character is presented with a change, problem or opportunity and then and commits him or herself to a course of action in response. In the second act, the character attempts to deal with the problem in the wrong way, which ultimately leads to an ordeal moment, during which he or she faces death either literally or figuratively. Rather than receive just payment for their stubbornness, however, the character receives unmerited favor, grace, a second chance. This leads us into act 3, where the character attempts to deal with the situation in the correct way–if the story is a comedy, in the classical sense of the word–or clings to the unhealthy coping mechanism, thus bringing about his or her own demise.

By: Hardy Capo

Hardy Capo — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:37:31 +0000

I think the article is correct in saying that the three act structure is very much a theatrical device. But it’s also true that in the industry, that’s what people use when talking about narrative.

By: WGA

WGA — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:58:12 +0000

As someone who studios pay to write feature and tv scripts, let me tell you… three act structure rules. In TV, act structure is paramount as each act is bookend by commercials.

So for Mr. Bonnet to claim that acts are “absurd”, is to put it bluntly, not the reality of a working writer in Hollywood.

But then those who can’t do, teach.

At least teach correctly, Mr. Bonnet.

By: surrealista

surrealista — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:29:39 +0000

wow… very eyeopening. I’ve always been told otherwise, but I’m still learning and I’m open to new ideas to make my work better. Thanks.