MovieChat Forums > TMNT (2007) Discussion > Plot structure problems from a film theo...

Plot structure problems from a film theory perspective

posted 12 years ago by paulkortne
8 replies | jump to latest

Alright, after reading over the script, I noticed several plot problems. I saw this in the theater and remembered it seemed like it took a long time for the story to start. And lately I've been reading about how to structure a movie with the 3 ACTS, and plot points, and realized that this movie seems to suffer by not following these guidelines.

You see, in most movies the three ACTs are broken up like this:
ACT I = 30%
ACT II = 60%
ACT III = 30% of the total story

This is a tried and true structure in many big box office movies.

But in TMNT the ACTs seem like this:
ACT I = 41%
ACT II = 31%
ACT III = 25% of the total story

This means ACT 1 lingers on WAY too long and ACT II is too short.

A movie is also structured around plot points or turning points. There are 5 main turning points that should happen around a particular time. In my analysis, I can see that the turning points take too long in TMNT:

page 21 - The "Inciting Incident" aka "turning point #1" - Splinter directs Leo to lead the group now that he's back. This should take place around pg 12, or 12 minutes into the movie (as each page of script corresponds to 1 minute screen time.

page 41 - turning point #2/end ACT I - The Turtles are surprised by the monster on the construction site. This changes their live direction and focus. This should be around page 25 not page 41.

page 62 - "point of no return" aka turning poing #3 - They figure out Winters is behind things. Now they have a clear goal they're after, and Raph takes off.

page 72 - "all is lost" (end ACT II/Start ACT III - turning point #4) - Leo is captured. Can the group still act without their leader? All seems lost here.

page 92/3 - The Climax - turning point #5 - They knock the badguys into the portal and the portal finally explodes.

The end.

I'd be curious if anyone agrees with my assessment of the plot/turning points. I believe this analysis reveals one of the fundamental problems with the movie.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lewisherschell 12 years ago

I guess you've been reading a lot of Robert McKee, haven't you? I'm not fond of his pushing of the three-act structure as if it's the only way to structure a film. Narrative conventions are there to be broken, and films are often more interesting when they do so (eg, the various New Wave cinemas) - not that TMNT necessarily falls into this category, but even so...

:)

'What does it matter what you say about people?'
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958).

[–] paulkortne 12 years ago

If there are other theories as to how the film is structured, I'd love to know.

When I first saw it in the theaters, I remember it felt like it took a long time for the story to "start", and my previous post offered an answer to why that may be.

Having read the script and seen the movie, I see no indication that this film "breaks the rules", intends to do so, or is innovative in any way. Mind you, however, I AM a fan of films that can pull off such things, and I am not here to preach for a 3-ACT structure. My post was to say the film would have been better had its structure followed a more balanced, typical 3 ACT structure.

[–] lewisherschell 12 years ago

No, I don't think TMNT is narratively innovative either :) I'm just a little anti-the hegemony / dominance of the three-act model in Hollywood, as if that's the only, or the best, way of structuring every film. Honestly, I prefer the old five act model that used to be popular in Classical Hollywood and 'golden age television :)

'What does it matter what you say about people?'
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958).

[–] DIguana 12 years ago

Here are two essays critiquing the idea of a three-act structure in film, one arguing for the five-act structure of classic theatre and another arguing that the number of acts should be dictated by the length of the movie, with each act being roughly 30 minutes long (meaning that a typical two-hour movie would be made up of four acts):

https://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/hulk-presents-the-myth-o f-3-act-structure/
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2008/06/21/times-go-by-turns/

Not to say that the criticisms regarding TMNT's pacing aren't without merit (it's been a while since I've seen the movie but I wasn't terribly impressed with it at the time; it's not the worst thing to come out of the Ninja Turtle franchise but it's far from the best) but I thought these might be an interesting read while we're on the subject.

--
Hulk want hug kitties
But they so easy to squish
Hulk live in cruel world

[–] lewisherschell 12 years ago

Those are a couple of good articles, DIguana. Thanks for those. The first is particularly good: it's funny and engaging, but also shows a clear understanding of narrative/storytelling concepts.

'What does it matter what you say about people?'
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958).

[–] sharpnova 11 years ago

I assume you meant 25%, 50%, and 25% and that you only screwed it up because you were thinking of 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 30 minutes.

[–] Andy-uGoonie 11 years ago

'I believe this analysis reveals one of the fundamental problems with the movie.' I wouldn't really call that an analysis.. More a cry for attention ;)