MovieChat Forums > Chef (2014) Discussion > beginning screenwriting 101 forgot the t...

beginning screenwriting 101 forgot the third act

posted 11 years ago by gnilknoc
59 replies | jump to latest

I liked this film, but . . . as with many screenplays, it forgot to include act 3. That is, Act 1 and plot point--he gets fired; act 2--he finds himself by starting a food truck. Success. Fade to black. If the film seems a little too simplistic and hollow, it's really because he forgot to develop the third act. A little resolution with the food critic, but none with Scarlett Johanssen and other old friends/enemies, etc. Just has a problem and he finds solution. No more development or complexity which the film needed to be truly satisfying. the formulas are there for a reason! -jcc

[–] jzoole 10 years ago

For me, the third act came when he realized that the happiness of getting back to the basics of what he loved about cooking food had opened the door for him to reclaim his relationship with his family, and that he needed to reach out for that opportunity and take it. Anyway, not everyone requires every film they watch to cling like glue to an outdated Screenwriting 101 formula. Scarlett Johanssen's character played her role in the beginning of the film - she was the friend who helped him wake up to his unhappiness. What resolution were you looking for with her character?

[–] toky-world 10 years ago

I think there was a 3rd act, but the movie budget ran out. So they had to rush everything.

Patch things up with Oliver Platt and ex-wife,l bam you have a restaurant, bam a new marriage.

I feel there was much story to tell in those parts but as I said, I think money ran out, rather than the screenwriting was bad.

[–] BigScreenDom 10 years ago

is a failed bitter screenwriter who never got is break

[–] gnilknoc 10 years ago

why is it when someone disagrees, your arguments are so weak you simply try to denigrate someone you don't even know, or whose credits you have no idea about. How about an argument based on insights and reasons without the personal attacks; sorry, I forgot the old saw, he who attacks has admitted he has no reasons and has already lost the argument.

[–] freemanpatrick7 10 years ago

It could be that the necessary scenes were shot but the film was too long so they got cut. That would make it an editing problem. Which, of course, produces the same results.

WAD = What A Dick

[–] tolein 10 years ago

Maybe we just need to wait for the sequel..? ;-)

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Christine2603 10 years ago

I totally agree! But it was not only that the third act was missing but mainly the conflicts were missing! That's why the whole movie in the second act felt like too simple and at ease. Because there was no conflict and without conflict you don't have a story! The first act started interesting because the main character had his conflict with the restaurant owner (Hoffman) AND the critic. But from the moment he went to Miami to start his new business, it's only about making sandwiches, singing, dancing and laughing. Only fun and harmony, no conflict. Acts have names and they are: act 1 = Introduction (of characters), act 2 = CONFLICT and act 3 = resolution! So actually it was more like act 2 was missing and since the main character came to Miami we saw a very long act 3. LOL Well, that's why I didn't like the movie very much, too boring for my taste, although the premise of the story had a lot of potential but the writer/director didn't do anything with it. What a pitty!

[–] EndeAbgrunds 10 years ago

I definitely agree OP.. There seemed to be no third act.. I was expecting the chef to gain a lot of followers from his clichéd food truck business and then offered his job back from his former boss. To make the menu, that he wanted to serve to the critic. But instead the ending was literally one of the most rushed endings I have ever seen. And left me feeling cheated.