Screenwriting : A Question About Screenwriting Structure: Should the Setup Happen Faster by Aleksandr Rozhnov

hello Aleksandr Rozhnov it depends on the writer, i personally like to lure in my audience, i like to first set them up with the atmosphere of the story , the world i am building then slowly lure them in to the main course i feel the longer you delay its more digestible and ait also depends on the theme of the story i personally like revelations impactful twists in a story so yeahs that my way of story telling

Hi, Aleksandr Rozhnov. It depends on the project. I have a feature script where the inciting incident happens on page 8 and Act Two starts on page 18.

Hi, thank you both for your insights.

Today I started outlining a new script called "Fast as a Fly", and I’m currently working on the step-outline. I can already feel that the inciting incident will happen within the first 10 minutes. I guess the story demands a quick setup — it kind of flies in fast, just like the title suggests.

Hi Aleksandr,

That actually sounds great, and the title Fast as a Fly really fits the pacing you described. I think when the concept demands fast momentum, an early inciting incident works perfectly—it pulls the audience in before they even realize it. I'm also exploring pacing styles in my own writing, and this modern, fast-moving structure feels very fitting for today’s audience. Looking forward to hearing more about your project!

You can read the synopsis for Fast as a Fly in the "Loglines" section of my profile. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts.

You're welcome, Aleksandr Rozhnov.

Hey Aleksandr Rozhnov This is a great question that gets to the heart of how storytelling is evolving! You're absolutely right that attention spans and consumption habits have shifted dramatically with digital platforms. However, it's not end all / be all.

Your instincts about faster pacing have merit, especially for certain types of content. We're definitely seeing:

- Streaming content that hooks viewers within the first few minutes with exciting, pithy teasers

- Genre films (horror, action, thrillers) that establish stakes almost immediately

- TV pilots that compress traditional act structures significantly

However, consider these factors:

Genre Matters: A psychological character study might still need that full setup time to establish emotional investment, while an action thriller could absolutely launch into plot points faster to get the guns blazing and people excited.

Platform Distinctions: What works for a Netflix series might not work for theatrical releases, where audiences have different expectations and attention commitments.

The "False Start" Phenomenon: Some films that rush too quickly into plot points can feel superficial or leave audiences emotionally disconnected from characters. Many great films have multiple starts - on page 1 the world is explored/characters unveiled, on page 15 as the inciting incident occurs, on page 30 as the character heads out of their journey and you break into act 2 while introducing the B-story.

What's really changed: It's less about compressing traditional structure and more about making every moment count. Modern audiences will tolerate slower pacing if each scene delivers value - whether that's character development, world-building, or plot advancement.

Your 5-10 minute setup rule could work brilliantly for high-concept genre pieces, but might hurt character-driven dramas that need time to establish emotional stakes and worldbuild.

Thank you so much for your detailed and thoughtful response. I really appreciate it. That’s actually what I was thinking as well, but I wanted to clarify it with professionals like you.

Right now, I’m working on a screenplay that I consider a high-concept sci-fi. The inciting incident and the transition into the second act happen quite early in the story. The main theme explores how many people today aren’t willing to put in the effort to achieve success — they want everything immediately, without the struggle — and what the consequences of that mindset might be.

Thanks again. Truly. Your insights mean a lot

so I haven’t read through all the comments yet, but I just wanna say that I have in all the years I’ve been in scream Writing never read anything that says to wait 15 minutes or 30 minutes. I feel like that’s quite Long even back in the day.

I will say that it depends on the story. It depends on the genre. It depends on what you’re setting up.

I do agree with you, however that in 2025 we can’t do slow burns into Films like we did in the 90s.

I mean, I’ve taken workshops with laike Corey Mandel and he says the first two scenes are what tells him if he’s gonna read a script or not.

Other people say five pages some people say three pages some people say 10 page

Definitely also be on genre. It’s the medium you’re working with. There’s so many different factors.

Personally, I think the best thing that any screenwriter can do is just continue to read new scripts and watch new movies and pay attention and analyze when things happen.

I hope this makes sense and also I’m speaking into my phone right now so I hope that there’s not too many typos are weird weirdness

Thank you very much!

Syd Field definitely mentions the 15- and 30-minute marks.

And, if I'm not mistaken, Robert McKee does too.

Also, if I were a producer, I probably wouldn't read the first 10 lines—

I'd read the last 10 lines of the script and synopsis.

Because the ending of a film is probably the most important part.

For example, if it's a weak film but has a great ending,

the viewer will always say, "Oh, that was an interesting film, I didn’t expect that ending."

But if it's a good film with a bad ending,

the viewer will say, "I knew how it would end—a bad film."

Thank you so much!

Hi Aleksandr, I agree with the 15- and 30-minute marks.

I agree with Pat Alexander on:

"Your 5-10 minute setup rule could work brilliantly for high-concept genre pieces, but might hurt character-driven dramas that need time to establish emotional stakes and worldbuild."

My assassin action script has generally received comments on clarity of plot in act 2, not pacing and it's fast. Shootouts, fights, from the get go.

But the script I wrote right after is a drama and it received notes to slow down. In its current draft, the inciting incident is on the bottom of page 10, literally the last lines of that page. But by that time the characters are way to too fresh to a new reader to care about them taking that irreversible turn, so I will redraft to make the first act the "meet them" and start the "they go off doing stuff" with act 2.

If I’m honest, I both agree and disagree.

Yes, I get that in character-driven drama you need time to build emotional stakes and show who the character is — so the audience connects with them. But let’s take a few well-known examples.

In The Green Mile (Stephen King), the inciting incident is when John Coffey ends up on death row — and it happens pretty early on. We gradually learn who he is throughout the film.

Same with The Shawshank Redemption. Andy Dufresne lands in prison pretty quickly, and over time we discover what he’s made of and what he’s planning.

Or Titanic by James Cameron. The setup is fast — Jack meets Rose — and only then do we slowly get deeper into their worlds and emotions.

All three are dramas. But they use what I’d call delayed exposition — letting the story start moving while peeling the characters open along the way. So personally, I believe even in drama, you can jump right into the action and let the audience catch up emotionally as you go.

Just my two cents.

Запитати в ChatGPT

Aleksandr Rozhnov important conversation topic you've posted - you are correct about the shortened attention spans but we should not underestimate the audience's ability to lock into something they find value in - the same person that scrolls through a social media at 100mph will also spend three hours binge-listening to a podcast. So, I think you are right to analyze what 'works' - that's the most important thing. What 'works' for your story. And, as Pat mentioned, creating value for the time they're investing in watching.

In terms of genre-specific expectations, which some have mentioned, I was reminded of McKees advice: (paraphrasing) give them what they want, but not in the way they expected it. Congrats on starting 'Fast as a Fly' and happy writing!

Thank you very much for your opinion. Of course, you are right. But I believe that the talent of the author lies in showing what is truly important. Because if the viewer starts choosing for themselves what is important and what is not, then everyone will see something different — one person will perceive one thing, another will see something else entirely. Therefore, the author must compose their work so that what they show is enough for the viewer to love the hero and become immersed in the story.

And even in a drama, it is important not to overdo the introduction, because if it is too long and boring, the viewer will get tired already in the first act and simply won’t wait for the second. That’s how I see it. Maybe I’m wrong.

There's also hitting the audienc with a powerful "WTF?!" image.

Take the opener - the actual opening shot - to "Breaking Bad" --- pants fall and an RV drives over them. Then it crashes and a pantless man points a gun at the camera. It's a WTF but it is also a hook that really got a lot of people, while the main story really took its time.

I especially notice this when observing young people. Nowadays, they have become very fast-paced, and they do not want to delve deeply into the essence of the problem. They want to see everything quickly — the setup, the conflict, and the resolution. That’s why I focus on the youth, who are much faster now than they were 30-40 years ago. So I tell myself that it’s not worth stretching out the resolution or going too deep into the character’s inner world. Young people don’t like that. They want to see immediately what the conflict is and how the hero will solve it. Thank you for watching!

The first scene in Breaking Bad is a hook. It shows the contrast between what has happened and where it all began. Viewers are curious about how a simple chemistry teacher turned into a drug lord. I think that’s somewhat different. But if we look at modern series, their setups aren’t very far off either. For example, I watched Gangsterland and the latest seasons of Mare of Easttown, and their action starts literally in the first episode.

Запитати в ChatGPT

By the way, I believe that young people have become like this also because of social media, where you have to show everything in just one minute. So everything is done quickly.

By the way, I would even slightly disagree with Robert McKee, who said that the ending should be unpredictable. If the ending is unpredictable, the audience leaves the theater thinking, "I’m an idiot, I didn’t see that coming." And when they think they are an idiot, the film feels bad. For example, if we go to watch the comedy Home Alone and in the end the burglars win, then it turns out we didn’t watch a comedy but a drama. Or if we watch The Matrix, where the theme is that people are stronger than computers and must win, we expect that in the end Neo will become "the One." The question is not that the ending should be unpredictable — we almost always guess how it will end. The question is how the hero gets there, and it is interesting to watch how he defeats the burglars or how Neo realizes he is the One. And so on, even though we know that this will happen.

Запитати в ChatGPT

Інструменти

By the way, I almost always guess how a movie will end. There are only a few cases when I didn’t. One of those films is The Game starring Michael Douglas. That’s where the ending was truly unpredictable. And by the way, it has a long setup that tells about the main character, his life, and so on. But the movie is very good—I really liked it.

Запитати в ChatGPT

Інструменти

THE USUAL SUSPECTS. Love the twist ending with the limp that disappears. Never saw that coming. Brilliant writing.

Aleksandr, I like to put the setup within the first 10 pages...and land my first plot point within the first 20. (That's what I get for having watched made-for-TV movies.)

If memory serves, Syd Field said inciting incident 10-15 pages in, and first plot point at 25-30. I have this habit of checking on the movies I'm watching (assuming that one minute of film time equals one page of script on average) and the vast majority of films today, as well as yesteryear's, do hit those marks, although I think plot point one is more likely to fall at page 25 than 30 these days. The one big change since Syd wrote his book decades ago is the average script is no longer 120 pages. The sweet spot today (though it varies by genre) is more like 100-110.

I believe a film must be felt and played out in your head, because the "one page equals one minute" rule is only a rough guideline. One page of dialogue might take just 20–30 seconds of screen time, while three lines describing a fight scene could turn into several minutes on screen. It even varies by language — in English, scripts are written in Courier font, which helps maintain the one-page-one-minute rule, but in Russian, for example, Arial is often used instead, as it better aligns with the timing. That's why it's essential to visualize the film as you write and imagine when each moment will unfold, because what's written on the page doesn't always match the actual screen time.

Запитати в ChatGPT