A buffalo used to be painted by hand and every buffalo was subtly different.
Now “buffalo” is just something anyone can stamp into clay. structure, his formula, isn’t that different from the three-act structure touted by story-gurus like Robert Mc Kee and Syd Field.
Suderman’s article is well-written, and his perspective is shared by many.This structure has made it easier for many new writers to understand how to write a screenplay.It has also has helped many executives learn how to speak a dialect of “writer.” Now, let’s talk about why Hollywood makes bad movies – and if it is Blake Snyder’s fault.For that matter, it isn’t that different from the hero’s journey as described by the comparative mythology expert Joseph Campbell.What’s different isn’t what he says—it’s the way he says it.Writers with tremendous intellects—geniuses, even—have written scripts that turned into “bad” movies. I’m choosing him because few writers are as accomplished or respected, and he’d be the first to admit that he’s written some scripts that, for one reason or another, were disappointing movies (e.g., ).I suspect that this issue of intelligence is what’s really going on for Suderman and the writers I know who agree with him.Snyder is much more direct, simple, and accessible when he says that you have to hit the “Break Into 2” on page 25.This clarity takes some of the mystique of storytelling away. And this is what renders Snyder’s approach vulnerable to Suderman’s argument.is just another way of looking at the same underlying story structure that the psychologist Carl Jung would say is in everyone’s unconscious, that Campbell would say is in every culture’s stories, that Field and Mc Kee described in a less formulaic, more intellectual way.In my opinion, that issue of Snyder’s less intellectual, straightforward style is the argument within Suderman’s argument, and why a lot of smart people—screenwriters included—agree with Suderman.