It´s always annoying not to get in somewhere you´d really like to be - but if there is no reason for it that really sucks.

Many US websites behave like an awkward doorman, but let´s start at the beginning.

When Dexter´s first season started the website was only accesible by US citizens - why?

I´ve been really curious to watch the web series Gemini Division since i read an article in the latest issue of Creative Screenwriting - it sounds like a great idea.

So how do i like the show? I don´t know, i´m not allowed to watch it - it´s not allowed for Europeans, i mean not even for Canadians.

Could it get any more ridiculous? What is the damn internet for? Not only to get content from your own country, the big advantage of the internet is that it is should be international.

Gemini Divisions explanation for that is the following: GD and the Geo-Lock.

Nothing would be easier to adjust the advertisment on the particular country, i mean thats what porn sites do since ages (No thanks, i don´t want to meet a girl near Vienna).

There is a big promising benefit by letting the world take part:
With web series you´ve got the incredible chance to reach audience in real time all over the world - that should be one key marketing point in difference to TV. But they really mess this chance up.

Sure there would be solutions, but i don´t get why i should use a proxy server, or spoof my ip, or search for downloadable episodes, or or or. But why so difficult, it could be so easy.

And by the way: i´d really like to watch movies when they come out and not have to wait for the translation. Just take The Dark Knight for example, i never watched the german version but still had to wait a month until it reached our cinemas.

I don´t really think that anyone would actually loose money - the people who want to see it in original sound can do - the others can wait. It´s just another way to promote illegal downloads (just like the annoying anti-piracy ads on DVDs).

I think there are quite some people like me who orient themselves on the international (and that often means American) market. I read American magazines, read American blogs, watch American series and movies but still it´s unnecessary hard to catch up with some stuff - and i don´t see a reason why.

While it really sucked to wait a month for the movie to start in Austria, i finally saw it. As you may have read a hundred times by now, the movie is great, it is epic and it is Heath Ledgers legacy (and yes, i´m going to watch it a second time).

The thing i enjoyed most in the first place are not the amazing action scenes, it´s the story. It´s not important if that movie is about a super-hero, it´s an epic story and every single detail of the movie fits. And just to mention it again, Heath Ledger plays an incredible Joker.

Now that i saw the movie i finally was ready to read Dark Knight´s Screenwriting Lesson by Mystery Man (and even when i have posted it before, when you´re at it you should read 10 Reasons Why I Loved The Dark Knight as well).

One key element why the story is that fascinating are the inner conflicts of the characters (not only of the protagonist but of all the characters). Mystery Man wrote down the inner conflicts of the most important characters in his post, here is a quote:

Bruce: Reveal himself to Gotham or endure the terror? And that’s a conflict rooted in his origin story, too. Because we understand now his dark, inner needs to put fear into the hearts of the criminals. I think he knew the truth about his unlikely future with Rachel, too, but he couldn’t face it. And there’s also Harvey Dent. Should he fight or support him? He’s a good guy, yet he’d love to knock his teeth in. Later, should he save Rachel or Harvey? Well, that wasn’t much of a conflict. He told Gordon he was going to save Rachel, but the Joker had switched the addresses. There were conflicts about Bruce’s limits, too, his physical and moral limitations as Batman. And we also sense that he was conflicted about his one rule – should he kill the Joker?

Rachel: Bruce or Harvey? Accept the proposal or not?

Harvey: Should he work with or against the Batman? Should he arrest him? He, too, faced his own inner conflicts about staying within the ethical limits of his power. Remember that scene where he tried to interrogate one of Joker’s minions? He wanted to go too far and Batman stopped him. And later in the third act, shoot or not?

Gordon: Should he work with or against Harvey Dent?

Alfred: Share or destroy Rachel’s letter?

Lucius: Help eavesdrop on the city in a way he doesn’t approve?

Lau: Cooperate with Harvey or face the Joker?

Salvatore Maroni: Work with or turn in the Joker?

People on ferries: Turn the pins or not?

I don´t really understand why the plot lacks or completely sucks in so many high budget action movies. The Dark Knight not only features ground-breaking action scenes and IMAX shots, there are so many little details in the story that are just ingenious.

Take just one little example: for the second time the Joker tells about how he got his scars - it´s a different story than the first. So what do we learn about the Joker in this moment? He lies. You can´t trust him.
It would have been a very easy exposition if someone talked about the Joker and told us “He lies. Don´t trust him.”. Yeah, great exposition, but what the screenwriters have done here is stick to one key principle of screenwriting: Show, don´t tell (and still so many high budget movies do it over and over again). Thanks to Amanda for that little article that says so much.

I think it´s pretty amazing how any setting or genre can make a great movie wheter it´s “in” or not. Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan proved that a movie works in any genre, time or structure. They have told a story backwards (Memento), showed two rivalling magicians (The Prestige) and made two super-hero movies (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight).

These movies don´t have a lot in common, except the amazingly constructed plots coupled with a solid (in some cases even overwhelming) execution.

It´s all about the story.

Although i am currently busy writing my feature (the austrian comedy if you remember) i delayed the development a little bit and started working an another project, a short movie.

My last short, Greener Pastures, premiered a year ago and i really really need to make another movie right now.

When i started to structure my ideas i more and more realized that i won´t be able to apply my structure methods for features on short movies, it just does not fit 100 percent. The article i wrote about my approach to structure a story can be found here, but as said at some points it just doesn´t fit when developing a story for a short movie.

The idea behing the structure of a short movie

Especially short movies tend to lack of structure, many people think that the principles of structuring a plot don´t apply to short movies, but in my opinion that´s just wrong. I think there are some factors that determine if there has to be structure or what kind of structure you need for your movie.

What kind of movie should it be?

The first thing we have to take into consideration is what kind of short movie we´re talking about, is it an experimental movie? Then do whatever you think is right, because the term “experimental” is almost a carte blanche for breaking the rules.

But when talking about live action short movies (or animated shorts, documentaries, etc.) you have to work with some methods. A commercial is not really considered a short movie, but even commercials work with a certain formula, so there definitely has to be some kind of structure for short movies.

The length of the movie

Another important factor is the length of the movie, there definitely is a difference if you write a 5 minute or a 25 minute movie. In general a movie is considered as short movie when it is less than 40 to 45 minutes long.

For shorts that are longer than, let´s say, 20 or 25 minutes it would be a good idea to try to apply the structure of a feature film (meaning act structure, exposition, inciting incident, turning points, etc.).

A short with a length of less than 20 or 15 minutes will be hard to structure this way, but that does not mean that there doesn´t have to be a structure at all.

Even the shortest movies need to have some kind of dramatic arc, in fact also jokes are written with a certain formula (have a look at this post from Amanda for example, a double punchline joke).

It is quite impossible to categorize short movies by their length to determine whether to apply this kind of structure or that one, i just wanted to point out that you probably have to adjust your approach of structuring a story to many factors, one of them is the length.

What the structure is for

Like feature films you probably want the audience to enjoy the short and get it´s message. In my opinion the reason of structure is to give the audience the feeling that there is some kind of conclusion in the movie and not just different frames strung together.

After watching the short the audience should be satisfied in some way, even if someone doesn´t like the topic the movie is about, he should not feel cheated afterwards. Don´t get me wrong here, it´s a good thing to confuse your audience, but in some way the plot has to be self-contained.

How to apply the structure?

So which structure do you apply to your short movie and how? There is not one straight way to go here, but there are several points you should consider if you want to apply the structure.

The Act Structure

Most of the feature films use some kind of act structure, be it three or five acts. Whenever i start to develop a story for a feature film one of the first things i do is to group different actions in different acts. So i think about what could be the exposition and the inciting incident, what is the turning point that brings us to the next act or what is the climax of the movie, how does it end?

This thinking is some kind of safety net for me, whenever i feel lost i have a look at my outline and it helps me to get back on track, but for a short movie that approach might not work.

Many times a short movie is not a complete plot like in a feature film, it is just an insight on the characters, a little part of their life and their story, let´s say it is a snapshot of a certain part of the whole.

So when it is impossible to categorize the plot in three acts, what should we do then? I think there are certain basics that need to be present, at least the beginning and the end.

Beginning and End

The beginning starts the movie, it doesn´t necessarily have to be an exposition in a traditional way, the beginning just throws the audience into the action. Like in the exposition the setting of the movie will be shown, just not so detailed. If there is no time to tell why your protagonist is in his current situation then don´t, he just is (but it should make sense). You could give some hints, and that would be the exposition.

The end is probably the most important part, it should be conclusive (even if it is an open end). Because if the end wouldn´t be satisfying in some way the movie would have no point.

What about the middle part?

Usually the second act is the hardest one, so what about short movies? Well, if there is a beginning and an end the thing that is in between is the middle

But the good point is that you don´t really have to take care of a solid second act if the movie is too short for it, so you can save some plot points here.

If you happen to have enough time for a second act, go for it. Whenever there is time for a solid act structure it is worth it, but if not, a strong beginning and a solid end is sufficient.

The Turning Points

Inciting Incident, Act Turning Points, Climax, all of these might not be part of the short movie script, at least not in the traditional way. Of course there will be an inciting incident in some way, but probably it just doesn´t happen in the movie. Like i said before a short movie can also be seen as a snapshot of the current live of the protagonist (or the story), so it might be that your protagonist is already right in action.

As long as the beginning and the end is well constructed that´s ok.

The Character Arc

Just like the story, the characters probably don´t have enough time to develop in a short movie. It could be that the character didn´t change one bit in the short movie, but as i said before, short movies are sometimes just snapshots.

Subplots

If we are struggling to apply a structure to a short movie because of the length we don´t really have to think about that.

Subplots are a great thing to deepen the narrative of a feature film, give more insights into character relations or drive the story forward, but when there simply is no time for that we just don´t add any subplots.

Avoid long chunks of dialogue

Dialogue usually takes time plus there is the princible “show, don´t tell”, so you can save some time when you don´t put too much dialogue in your short movie script.

If you are smart you can transport more information in less time with showing instead of using long dialogue where one character explains the plot to another.

Conclusion

I don´t think there is a unique formular to structure every short movie, they just can be so vastly different, you have to decide for each story how to get a structured plot.

A short movie does not necessarily have to be a complete narrative, but it has to be self-contained in it´s own way (so it should at least have a beginning and an end).

You could for example take the battle of helms deep from The Lord of the Rings, this battle could be a stand-alone short movie.
You´d have to strip some stuff, probably add a little bit, but in the end you don´t need to know anything about the ring, the inciting incident does not happen in the short movie, but it is a self-contained and satisfying short with a dramatic arc, a beginning and an end.