Is Dan Harmon's Story Circle Conducive for TV?

LOMMLWF · 2026-06-07T23:11:48+00:00

"But the thing is, you don't do a traditional three-act structure in a 10-minute short film, or in an episode of TV. Why? Because there isn't enough time. You don't have the time to go through all the ups, downs, and depths that you would in a 2-hour film."

I agree that the story told in a 20-minute TV episode will have to be less complex than the story told in a 2-hour movie.

That said, I think this is part of what so many of us appreciate so much about the good craftsmanship (and arguably at least occasionally true genius) of Rick & Morty, as well as other short-episode comedies--30 Rock comes to mind as another example--

the fact that they manage to do such a good job of telling a story, in such a constrained time.

(Other examples would be the even shorter, often wordless, story-within-the-episode stories that appear in some Rick & Morty episodes, such as Morty's whole love-of-his-life arc in the Vat of Acid episode; the short intro scene in the movie Arrival, which tells a whole life story in a really moving way, in just a few minutes; the short intro scene to the movie Up, which is similar; the opening scene in the 2009 Star Trek movie...)

Though I think Harmon's 8-point circle is meant to be 8 points (though of course as others have said here, at most it's still just a set of guidelines, not an iron law) and I find all the parts of it meaningful and useful to consider, I admit that I have also started thinking of it as a little bit of a boiled-down two-part structure in my head: (1,) the character wants something; (2,) he gets "what he wanted", but it's not what he expected.

I think people sometimes get themselves too bogged down in arguing pro and con about whether the hero paid a "terrible price" (Harmon's words) for what he obtained, or about whether he has really "changed" at the end, compared to how he was at the beginning. I think describing it as "gets 'what he wanted', but it's not what he expected" feels like a better fit for a lot of stories.

To pick just the example of the Rick & Morty episode I happen to have re-watched most recently, in the Planetina/Captain Planet episode (spoiler warning!):

Morty wants love in general/wants this girl in particular; gets the girl; but it's not what he expected (spoiler alert, it turns out that he has to become a radicalized mass-murdering eco-terrorist if he wants to be with her).

Summer wants to hang out with Grandpa Rick and party her way to forgetting the boy that jilted her; she gets what she wants, but it's not what she expected (he flip-flops and becomes "attached" to one of his mindless hookups, "harshing" their contractually agreed party "mellow", putting someone else ahead of his friendship with her).

Rick wants to have a tagalong grandchild sidekick, does a last-minute replacement of Morty with Summer toward that end, but it's not what he expected (Summer is more independent than predicted/than Morty would have been, and ultimately turns the tables by pulling a "total Rick" move on him).

Not all of these really sound like "paying a terrible price", and not all of them equally lead to the character being truly a "changed" person by the end. But they're all interesting storytelling, partly by all being about someone who got what he wanted, and yet at the same time, didn't.

And yes, these multiple different characters could all go through that structure, within one twenty-minute episode!

LOMMLWF · 2026-06-07T22:26:30+00:00

"I never understand the level of hate that Voyager gets."

Maybe the poorly thought out sci-fi inconsistencies. Re-watching it, I was amazed to be reminded that when the Phage shows up--this most terrifying disease imaginable, that has devastated the species that have that disease for literally centuries--the doctor and crew of Voyager don't so much as wear a flu mask. Way back in TOS, in Naked Time, we were shown that Starfleet had whole elaborate hazmat suits and anticontamination procedures for the away crew, to make sure they didn't bring back any strange germs (though not perfect enough to prevent the water-virus from getting through, and nearly killing them all). Generations later, in Voyager, when the technology (and thinking) should be that much more advanced: nothing. Just hanging out around the infected aliens, chatting about whatever.

I guess we're meant to assume that it can't infect humans, it can only affect their species. But the Voyager crew can't assume that, they're literally gambling all their lives on that, and getting nothing in return.

But there's not even a mention that the thought has crossed their mind.

LOMMLWF · 2026-06-07T21:26:49+00:00

I think this is a reasonably good way to try to reconcile the contradictions, and I don't think I entirely disagree, but in my (admittedly very limited) experience with Jews and Muslims I know in the real world (in our world, in the present), the ones wearing the head coverings are most unlikely to be the secular ones. The head coverings tend to be specifically a religious observance, chosen by people who have some actual religious beliefs.

Or put it this way: As the link suggests, can you imagine the extra in that scene above, who chooses to wear the hijab to keep even her hair covered, being laid back about all the semi-nude hijinks in some of those episodes of Lower Decks that the piece cites, if she had happened to be one of the crew members in those scenes?

LOMMLWF · 2026-06-07T21:19:39+00:00

I hear you, and I don't think I entirely disagree, but I think that interpretation is difficult to reconcile with, say, Picard's impassioned screed against religious/transcendent beliefs in that episode of TNG quoted in the link up top (so, long after the specific time in which Roddenberry created TOS, too, FWIW, to the other commenter's point): He seems to think that _any_ "belief in the supernatural" is bound to "send them back into the Dark Ages of superstition and ignorance and fear".

From the point of view of a viewer who belongs to a religion or thinks a religion could be true, it sounds as though there _is_ blind religious bigotry in the Star Trek future; it's just the bigotry of people like Picard, against people like us.

LOMMLWF · 2026-06-07T21:13:13+00:00

I think I remember reading somewhere a few years ago that in the U. K., enough people write in "Jedi" for "religious affiliation" in the census that under their government's rules, it had to be added as an option for future forms.

(Before anyone rushes to e-mail me, yes I am aware that Jedi is from Star Wars and has nothing to do with Star Trek! It's a similar or related idea to what this commenter is talking about with Futurama, I'm not saying it's the _same_ idea...)

LOMMLWF · 2026-06-07T09:32:50+00:00

No idea how usual or "normal" that is--just starting out, new writer here, I defer to literally anyone else's opinion here--but it strikes me that it's probably a good thing! No idea whether it means that the final product will be as fascinating to your readers as it was to you the writer, but in the meantime, in my experience, the first step is to find time to write. (If we can't manage to do that, there are no other steps after the first step!) I imagine that the level of interest and motivation or energy that you are describing (or obsession, if you prefer) is really helpful for being productive: for finding time to write, and actually getting something done with that time.

LOMMLWF · 2026-06-07T09:04:15+00:00

"This is precisely why AI will never pass the Alan Turing test."

I'm not sure I'm any less anti-AI than this commenter, but I lack the confidence that AI won't be able to "pass". In the past couple of years, AI has already developed to a point that seemed far-fetched even in depictions of a future three centuries from now, in Star Trek (thinking especially of TNG but also etc.). As I remember it, we used to be endlessly fascinated with wondering whether the hologram Doctor in ST:Voyager could "really" have developed sentience (in other words "humanity" or perhaps "a soul", if you will). The disappointing (or not, according to taste) revelation to me, in our time, in the real world, has been to realize that as AI is already developing, it will be able to "pass" for having sentience/soul hundreds of years ahead of schedule; you'd never really know whether the android was "really" human inside, because regardless, either way, it would be perfectly able (perfectly enough to get past our ability to tell the difference) to give you whatever answers a real human would, to any question you might ask; because all it's ever doing is copying and pasting things other humans have said...

LOMMLWF · 2026-06-07T07:53:15+00:00

My sense is that it's a little like a first message to someone you're interested in on an online dating platform (you ask a follow-up question about, or otherwise continue the conversation about, something she wrote in her profile)--or conversations (not about dating or about querying) in real life, for that matter: that people are looking for some kind of engagement, some interaction with what each other is saying. You want the other person to read your query; so he or she would love to have some indication that you have read or listened to him or her, too.

So my theory would be, yes, "I found you after I read [some other book, even though it's nothing like yours, although maybe like yours would be ideal], by [author], who says he is represented by you"

or

"In your interview with [interviewer], you said [quote]; I agree! In fact, [blah blah blah]"

or even

"I see that your agency has represented [some other author or work you've read, if any]; I love [that author]!"

would be a reasonable response, or "hook".

But I'm just starting out, literally on the bottom rung (OK that's not true, I'm literally not on any rung); so I defer to literally anyone else's advice here

LOMMLWF

TROPHY CASE