Exposition in "Executive Suite" (1954)

One of Ernest Lehman's first jobs as a studio contract screenwriter for MGM was to first write a treatment for an adaption of a Cameroc Hawley novel of the same namen. Having suitably impressed the studio heads with that, he was then given the assignment to write the screenplay for the 1954 movie Executive Suite, starring William Holden and directed by Robert Wise.

The movie starts with the sudden death of the president of a furniture company, a man named Avery Bullard who we don't evey see (except for his hands). After Bullard's death, there is a struggle among the directors (the head of development, of production, of sales, the CFO, and so on) to succeed him. The protagonist is Don Walling (played by William Holden), the idealistic head of development. The antagonist is Loren Shaw (played by Fredric March), the over-confident CFO of the company. Sound boring? Actually, it's quite fascinating thanks to the excellent writing by Lehman and the fine acting (Nina Foch, who played Bullard's secretary, got an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress).

While the pdf is (as far as I know) not on the web, I bought a scan of the screenplay from Script City. To learn from Lehman's style, I typed the screenplay into fountain format. In the process, I learned something very interesting!

Lehman does do an excellent job of hiding exposition (as he should - see this earlier post). However, some of the exposition appears as a scene which lacks (for lack of a better word - pun intended) "emotional energy", such as the following.

EXT. PIKE STREET PLANT - DAY 

Don walks through the gate to the sidewalk, on all 
sides of him factory workers, anxious, depressed, 
as they move towards lined-up buses, towards the 
nearby parking lot, towards wives and children 
waiting for them at the curb. Don looks up the 
street, then turns and faces the building, atop 
which is a flag at half-mast. As the men and women 
stream by, they glance at Don with questioning, 
worried expressions. Some of them greet him by name; 
others nod or waves some look away, embarrassed. 
An old Woman comes up to him, clutches his hand.

WOMAN
Mr Walling ...

DON
Hello, Liz ...

WOMAN
(anxiously) 
Everything's going to be all right, isn't it? 

Several workers stop to listen.

DON
(puts an arm around her shoulder)
Don't you worry about a thing...

WOMAN
You weren't here in Thirty-three. You don't know 
how it was in Millburgh when Tredway shut down.

DON
(sees the faces watching him tensely)
Nobody's shutting anything down around here. 
Mr. Bullard brought us a long way from *that*.

The workers glance at each other, then at Don, 
with gratitude on their faces. They begin to scatter, 
Liz the last to go. Don watches, deeply affected, as 
the men are joined by their women and children, and 
the family groups go off together by car and bus 
and on foot.

I read the scene quite impressed with the importance and emotinal impact of the scene. (It helps to set-up an important point Don Walling argues towards the end of the film in his confrontation with Loren Shaw in the Director's Room. So, I think this scene counts as being expositional in nature.) However, I couldn't remember seeing the scene in my viewing of the movie. I actually assumed it must have been cut in the final version. (Actually, Robert Wise often worked with Ernest Lehman and rarely cut scenes from his screenplays.) However, I was wrong - it wasn't cut. This made me realize, I don't read scenes with the same engagement that I view them on screen. Why? What engages my brain in a viewing? The answer, I think, comes from something Mike Nichols (who BTW also worked with Lehman) said: every scene must be one of three things: (a) a fight, (b) a seduction, or (c) a negotiation. IMHO, the scene above is none of these.

This is why, IMHO, it lacks emotional energy on the screen.

By the way, there is a well-researched and well-written, biography of Ernest Lehman out now:

Jon Krampner, Ernest Lehman: The Sweet Smell of Success, University Press of Kentucky, 2022 (396 pages).

Ernest Lehman's 4 credos of a good movie

Ernest Lehman is famous for writing movies made by Hitchcock (North by Northwest and others), Mike Nichols (Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf), Robert Wise, and many other greats. About movie screenplay structure, he said:

In the first act, it's who are the people and what is the situation of this whole story. The second act is the progression of that situation to a high point of conflict and great problems. And the third act is how the conflicts and problems are resolved.

In 1997, the WGA interviewed Lehman for their "The Writer Speaks" series (youtube link). On a more granular level, these are the credos for a good movie screenplay that he mentioned:

• It is a succession of scenes each with a definite conflict.
• The dialogue is as clever as can be without seeming clever.
• Exposition is always concealed.
• Never confuse an audience for even 5 seconds.

For more on Ernest Lehman, read the excellent book "Ernest Lehman: The Sweet Smell of Success" by Jon Krampner.

"Man on Fire" (2004) three act structure

Man on Fire (2004) is a Tony Scott film (IMHO his best) from a screenplay by Brian Helgeland, based on a novel of the same name by Quinnell.

Theme and background

In some sense, the theme is forgiveness for one’s past. This is Creasy’s dramatic problem. Creasy (the protagonist) starts the firm believing he can’t be forgiven (the anti-theme).

The story follows Creasy, a man hired to protect a young girl, Pinta. Creasy has flaws: he’s an alcoholic and suicidal, feeling guilty about the things he did years ago when he worked as a CIA operative. However, cheerful Pinta gives his life a sense of purpose.

In relation to the theme, Creasy sees Pinta as his path to the forgiveness he seeks, almost in a (christian) Jesus-like way as someone who will “wash away” the sins he committed as a mercenary. To emphasize the judeo-christian aspect, the script (omitted in the film version) even has the following VO from Creasy:

Ezekiel 25:17 Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children.

Three act structure

Pinta’s parents are Lisa (mom, American) and Samuel (dad, Mexican), a couple in their 30s. Samuel’s lawyer, Jordan, tells him that he must get a bodyguard for Pinta in order for her to be driven to school in Mexico City (this is due to the spate of child kidnappings and the fact they, as rich parents, must have “kidnapping insurance” for Pinta). Creasy arrives in Mexico City to visit his old friend Rayburn. Rayburn is living in comparative luxury. Through a connection with Jordan, Rayburn offers Creasy a job as Pinta’s bodyguard. Creasy accepts, taking a bedroom in the Pinta’s family mansion in downtown Mexico City.

This is perhaps the inciting incident which starts Creasy on his journey. We are now into act 2.

Creasy soon becomes depressed, continues to drink in his room after work, and one night (drunk) he tries to kill himself. However, his gun misfires and the primer doesn’t discharge. Creasy calls Rayburn, asking if he’d ever seen something like this happen. Pinta watches him call Rayburn. Rayburn says “The bullet never lies” (a similar line is in the script, on page 32). To Creasy, it’s a sign.

This freak accident changes his attitude and he accepts the friendship (and potential forgiveness) of Pinta. He helps her with her schoolwork, helps her train for her swimming competition, and becomes devoted to her protection. As a nun at her private Catholic school says, he’s her surrogate father. There’s even a scene, one that seems minor at first glance, where Pinta’s parents are out-of-town and Creasy shares a dinner with Pinta and Rayburn and his family. It shows Creasy as a man with a family. He’s happy.

Then she’s kidnapped, during which time he is shot twice (almost killing him). This is the midpoint twist. Creasy now has lost the one person that can forgive his past sins. He reverts to his old ways and decides to kill everyone involved, especially the kidnapper (a man referred to as “The Voice”, later as Daniel).It turns out Pinta’s father and lawyer were both involved in the kidnapping scheme.

He (barely) recovers, gathers intel (sometimes by graphic tourture), and weapons helped by Rayburn and his money and connections. During one of the intell-gathering torture sessions, he finds one of the kidnapped girls alive. He thinks for a moment she’s Pinta. (This is on page 94 of the script). Not her, but this gives him a new sense of hope.

In some sense, this hope points a way for Creasy to possibly solve his dramatic problem - forgiveness. This is another turning point, and the start of act 3.

He finds where the brother and ex-wife of the kidnapper live and kidnaps them. Then he learns Pinta is still alive.

Now his path to forgiveness is (possibly) restored. Creasy offers to trade the brother’s life for Pinta. The kidnapper, The Voice, counters: Pinta’s life for Creasy’s. Creasy accepts, calls Lisa and tells her Pinta is alive. Now Creasy accepts the theme of the film, that he can be forgiven.

He relays instructions of where she should meet him (somewhere far out in the Mexican countryside). There, Pinta is released to Lisa and Creasy, finally forgiven, walks to accept his fate in the hands of Daniel/The Voice.

Notes on "Pericles, Prince of Tyre" by Shakespeare et al

Most scholars agree that William Shakespeare's play Pericles, Prince of Tyre was co-written with George Wilkins. It is believed that Shakespeare wrote acts 3, 4, and 5, while Wilkins wrote the first two. Their plot was, in turn, based on an earlier poem by John Gower (who is a character in the play), among other sources.

See wikipedia for links to where the text of the play can be found (free, online).

Characters Pericles main character list:

• Antiochus, King of Antioch (who's revealed early on to be evil)
• Thaliard, a Lord of Antioch (who is assigned to kill Pericles)
• Pericles, Prince of Tyre
• Helicanus and Escanes, two Lords of Tyre
• Simonides, King of Pentapolis
• Thaisa, Daughter to Simonides (who eventually marries Pericles)
• Marina, Daughter to Pericles and Thaisa
• Lychorida, Nurse to Marina
• Cleon, Governor of Tarsus
• Dionyza, Wife to Cleon
• Leonine, Servant to Dionyza (who is assigned to kill Marina)
• Cerimon, a Lord of Ephesus (and a skilled physician who saves the life of Thaisa)
• Philemon, Servant to Cerimon
• Lysimachus, Governor of Mitylene (who helps Marina and Pericles reunite)
• Pandar (male brothel owner, in Mitylene)
• Boult, his Servant
• Bawd (female brothel owner, in Mitylene)
• Diana, the Greek goddess (who helps Thaisa and Pericles reunite)

The protagonist is Pericles, but he has several antagonists, for example: Antiochus (and Thaliard), the fierce storms at sea, and Dionyza (and her servant Leonine, as well as her husband Cleon). He also has allies, for example: Helicanus, Cleon and Dionyza (who later turn against him), Cerimon, and the Greek goddess Diana.

Notes on the character of Antiochus (adapted from Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare): In the time of the play (around 200 BCE), Shakespeare’s Antiochus fits the actual leader Antiochus III (“Antiochus the Great”). However, the text of the play suggests that Shakespeare’s Antiochus was modeled instead on his brutal son Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Some of the conflicts of Antiochus IV are described in the Book of Maccabees, for example, the revolt of the Jews (this is of course before the origin of Christianity). For example, Antiochus IV wanted everyone to worship the Greek god Zeus, which was unacceptable by the Jews. This revolt is associated with the Hanukkah holiday that everyone knows. As Helicanus says in Act II, scene IV:

"A fire from heaven came and shrivell’d up
Their bodies, even to loathing, for they so stunk
That all those eyes adored them ere their fall
Scorn now their hand should give them burial.”

Compare that with 2 Maccabees 9:9 in discussing the punishment and death of Antiochus IV:

The body of this impious man swarmed with worms, and while he was still alive in hideous torments, his flesh rotted off, so that the entire army was sickened by the stench of his corruption.

Locations The cities used by Shakespeare as locations for his play are, at the time the play occurs, real places - they are all located on the western part of the Mediterranean Sea. However, their use in the play may put them in ficticious locations.

• Actioch: Act I, scene I

  (There, Pericles meet the evil Antiochus and escapes, fearing for is life.) This was a city in modern day Turkey. Its ruins lie near the current city of Antakya.

• Tyre: Act I, scenes II, III, Act II, scenes IV

  This is a city in modern day Lebenon.

• Tarsus: Act I, scene IV, Act III, scene III, Act IV, scenes I, III, IV,

  (Pericles saves Tarsus from famine and later leaves baby Marina there to be protected and raised. It turns out the Governor and his wife cannot be trusted...) This is a city in modern day Turkey.

• Pentapolis: Act II, scenes I, II, III, V

  (Pericles meets his wife Thaisa there.) Pentapolis in the play is a collection of 5 cities located in modern day Egypt and Libya. Some are in ruins and some have survived until today.

• Ephesus: Act III, scene II, IV, Act V, scene II, III

  (The coffin Pericles' wife Thaisa is washes ashore and she is saved by a skilled physician there. She is unaware of where Marina is.) This was a city in what is not the country of Turkey. Its ruins lie near the current city of Izmir.

• Mytilene: Act IV, scene II, V, VI

  (This is where pirates took Marina after kidnapping her in Tarsus before she was almost murdered by the wife of the Governor there.) Mytilene is a city on the Greek island of Lesbos.

• On Pericles' ship: Act III, scene I, Act V, scene I

  (Pericles' wife Thaisa appears to die in childbirth there and is buried at sea in a coffin.)

Locations, in scene order More precisely, in the order of the play's acts and scenes, the locations, with characters, are as follows. The presence of Gower, the narrator of the play, in a scene is omitted.

• Actioch: Antiochus (king), Pericles, Thaliard (a lord of Antioch and one who wants to kill Pericles for Antiochus), the daughter of Antiochus, Messenger

  Act I, scene I

• Tyre (in the palace): Pericles, Helicanus (a lord), Escanes (a lord), Thaliard Pericles leaves Helicanus in charge, so Helicanus is now Governor of Tyre?)

  Act I, scenes II, III

• Tarsus (a room in Cleon's house): Cleon (governor of Tarsus), Dionyza, a lord, Pericles

  Act I, scene IV

• Pentapolis (by the seaside): Pericles, three fishermen

  Act II, scene I

• Pentapolis (by a pavillion): Pericles, Simonides (king), Thaisa (king's daughter, to be Pericles' wife), knights, their squires, various lords

  Act II, scene II

• Pentapolis (in a hall of state, a reception for Pericles): Pericles, Simonides, Thaisa, Marshall (organizer of the reception?), knights, ladies, various lords

  Act II, scene III

• Tyre (a room in Helicanus' house) : Pericles, Helicanus, Escanes, three lords

  Act II, scene IV

• Pentapolis (in the palace): Simonides, Thaisa, three knights

  Act II, scene V

• On Pericles' ship: Pericles, Lychorida (nurse to Marina), an infant (Marina?), two sailors

  Act III, scene I

• Ephesus (room in Cerimon's house): Cerimon (a lord of Ephesus), Philemon (In Cerimon's staff), two or three servants, and some shipwrecked sailors, two gentlemen, Thaisa

  Act III, scene II

• Tarsus (room in Cleon's house): Cleon, Dionyza, Pericles

  Act III, scene III

• Ephesus (room in Cerimon's house): Cerimon, Thaisa

  Act III, scene IV

• Tarsus (near the seashore): Dionyza, Leonine, Marina, three pirates

  Act IV, scene I

• Mytilene (room in a brothel): Pandar (brothel owner, male), Boult (his servant), Bawd (brothel owner, female), the pirates and Marina

  Act IV, scene II

• Tarsus (room in Cleon's house): Cleon, Dionyza

  Act IV, scene III

• Tarsus (near the monument/tombstone to Marina): Pericles, Cleon, Dionyza

  Act IV, scene IV

• Mytilene (street in front of the brothel): Two gentlemen (johns leaving the brothel)

  Act IV, scene V

• Mytilene (room in a brothel): Pandar, Boult, Bawd, Lysimachus (governor of Mytilene), Marina

  Act IV, scene VI

• On Pericles' ship: Two Sailors (eg, Tyrian Sailor), Helicanus, two gentlemen, Lysimachus, Lords (eg, First Lord), Marina, Pericles, Diana (as a godess in a vision)

  Act V, scene I

• Ephesus (temple of Diana): Thaisa, a number of Virgins, Cerimon, Pericles, Lysimachus, Helicanus, Marina, a Lady

  Act V, scenes II, III

How the audience relates to a character

I discovered a new podcast recently, Draft Zero, which has taught be a lot even though I've only listened to less than 10 edisodes so far.

One of their brilliant insights is on how the audience connects with a character. If I'm understanding it correctly, here's the idea.

Suppose the screenplay has already set up a character X who the writer wants the audience to connect with emotionally. Create a situation Y, without X in the scene yet, with some emotional impact. So the audience knows Y, but not X yet, and has enough time to create their our emotional response. At this stage the audience knows more than the character X. Now, let X come across the situation Y and X reacts exactly as the audience did a moment ago. Abracadabra, the audience has connected to X emotionally.

Here's an example. We, the audience, sees a poor kitty cat stuck up in a tree. The kitty is meowing and can't get down. We feel sorry for the poor kitty. Who's going to help save it? Now X comes along and here's the kitty crying. Here too, X feels sorry for the poor kitty and helps to save it. We bond emotionally with X, as X has reacted the same way we did to to kitty's plight.

Check out the Draft Zero podcast for more. I think this discussion was in episode 5.

Favorite books of the year 2021

Which books really affected me? Here’s my list. There are no math books, even though I did read a few. They are mostly philosophy or writing books, listed below in no particular order.

• Steven B Smith, Spinoza, Liberalism, and the Question of Jewish Identity, Yale Univ. Press. Smith is a political science professor at Yale and a Spinoza expert. This is a book of how Spinoza’s philosophy influenced political science thought today and how he (in the 1600s) laid out foundational principles for the American democratic republic of today. Smith’s very clear writing and well-laid out arguments make this a terrific book for anyone (like me) who’s a Spinoza fan. I’m reading Smith’s next book, Spinoza’s Book of Life, now. Excellent so far.
  
• Zoe Quinn, Crash Override, PublicAffairs Books. This is an eye-opening account of how misogynists use the internet and social media to attack women. While specific to abuse of women in the video game community, these techniques have been refined and expanded to attacking politicians and journalists today (see Ezra Klein’s article from 2014 and the article of Aja Romano from 2021, among others).
• Michael Botvinnik, One Hundred Selected Games, Dover. I’m so impressed with this former world champion chess grandmaster. This book sent me down a rabbit hole trying to research his life. He was very self-disciplined and held down a full time job as an engineer, solving some important electrical engineering problems for the growing Soviet state, while pursuing the world chess championship title. Do I agree with his personal views? No. He once said Stalin wasn’t communist enough! But he’s also a Jew that not only survived but thrived in the Stalinist era, not an easy feat. My favorite part of each game was the one moment in which an ordinary looking chess move was made (that is, ordinary looking to me) and then the next line of Botvinnik’s commentary was “Of course, this was the move that lost the game.” Of all the games, I don’t remember even once predicting the losing move. I loved the commentary though.
• Mel Scult, volume 2 of Communings With the Spirit. This is the second volume in Mel Scult’s series of selections from Mordecai Kaplan’s diaries. Volume 1 was excellent and I’m reading volume 3 now. Kaplan (who died in 1983 at the age of 102) was IMHO one of the most important and profound philosophical thinkers on religion and American society. Like Botvinnik, Kaplan was another extremely disciplined worker. This is the volume where Kaplan explains his interest with Spinoza’s philosophy. While Spinoza’s precise influence isn’t clear from the diaries, the influence is clearly there. For more details on this connection, see for example the 2000 scholarly article by Shaul Magid, now a professor at Dartmouth College. I’m reading volume 3 of Scult’s series now. Excellent so far.
• Ben Westhoff, Fentanyl Inc, Atlantic Monthly Press. After my step-son Zach died, I wanted to learn more about how fentanyl reaches the USA, where it comes from, and so on. To be clear, when the press uses the work “fentanyl” it usually means a fentanyl derivative which has been cooked up to avoid export laws in China (where some exports are allowed even though use is illegal). While the situation on the ground is constantly evolving, this explains a lot about the origins in China of these narcotic products and the idiocy of the current US drug laws.
• Steve Kaplan, The Comic Hero’s Journey. This book should be paired with Kaplan’s earlier book, The Hidden Tools of Comedy. Steve Kaplan (no relation to my knowledge to Mordacai Kaplan) is a director and looks at comedy from that perspective. Before I read these books, I’d read lots of books on comedy and thought I had an inkling of comedic structure. I was wrong. These books, and Kaplan’s online courses, which go into detail on these books, really taught me a great deal. I may not be funnier but I understand comedic structure (and comedy screenplay structure) much much better as a result of Kaplan’s books and classes.
• Charles Deemer, Screenwright: the craft of screenwriting, Xlibris Corp (reviewed on this blog here). Deemer taught screenwriting for many years at the college level and this book distills the down-to-earth lessons from his classes. I liked that he presented a number of screenplay templates, such as the 3-act paradigm and some of its “spin-offs”. Deemer’s book is out-of-print but still available in paperback (on amazon, for example) or free from ibiblio.org, in html format, at this link. The online version is not only free but it’s expanded greatly in some sections, such as the examples of breakdowns breakdowns using one of his templates. I don’t want to say this is better than, say Dan O’Bannon’s book, Dan O'Bannon's Guide to Screenplay Structure, but it is in many ways similar and (like O’Bannon’s book) pleasant to read. O’Bannon is more of a Hollywood icon than Deemer. O’Bannon wrote or co-wrote the screenplays for, among many others, the classic movies Alien (the first in the franchise) and The Return of the Living Dead (the first of several sequels to George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, which was co-written with John Russo - the complicated explanation of the sequels is discussed at this link). I like the organization of both of these books by Deemer and O’Bannon.

3 act breakdown of "Meet the Robinsons"

Let's look at one of my favorite movies, the inventive and energetic Disney animation, Meet the Robinsons (2007).

While overall quite a lot of fun, with a strong emotopnal theme, terrific music and memorable visuals, IMHO the film is complicated by too many subplots that don't contribute to the emotional core of the story. The description below skips a lot of these subplots. For a sequence breakdown that includes these details, see the blog post by Kirby Kirby Marshall-Collins, From Okay, But: A “Meet the Robinsons" Scene-by-Scene Breakdown. Despite these issues with subplots (which are IMHO relatively minor flaws in the story-line, but others may disagree), this is still one of my favorite movies.

The breakdown below follows the O'Bannon model [OL12], emphasizing the protagonist's Dramatic Problem arising from the Inciting Incident and the Point of No Return.

Note: The film goes back and forth in time using both flashbacks and a time machine. This in itself presents it's own set of plot problems which I'm also going to ignore.

Act 1: The Conflict.

Our protagonist Lewis (later renamed Cornelius) is 12, an energetic, science prodigy, and apiring inventor who's so far has spend his life in an orphanage. His roommate is Goob, another orphan who loves baseball.

So many potential adoptive parents have rejected him, Lewis is convinced that no one wants him. Mildred (voiced by the awesome Angela Bassett), the house mom of the orphanage, counters that they don’t know that; maybe his mom just couldn’t keep him. Lewis was the only one who saw her, so he decides to build an invention, his Mind Scanner, to look into the past and find his mom.

Lewis works on his Mind Scanner over months, keeping poor Goob up most nights building it. Finally, it’s the day of the InventCo-sponsored science fair. Goob can hardly stay awake but has an important event as well, a baseball game (he plays outfield). In fact, Goob falls asleep in the outfield and is, in fact, hit in the head by an easily caught ball. Because of that, they lose the game and his teammates are mad at him. Goob blames it all on Lewis, vowing revenge. Goob goes up hating Lewis.

At the science fair, an InventCo scientist, Mrs Lucille Krunklehorn (voiced by the legendary Laurie Metcalf) is a judge. Lucille's husband Bud will be important later but is not shown until later. (Bud and Lucille will later adopt Lewis/Cornelius.) Lewis barely notices young Franny, who has entered trained frogs into the science competition. (Lewis will later marry Franny the frog trainer.)

Lewis sets up his Mind Scanner machine. From the future, Bowler Hat Guy (BHG), an older and very disgruntled version of Goob, has arrived using a stolen Time Machine. Goob/BHG wants to steal Lewis' invention because he hates Lewis. Lewis' future 13-year old son Wilber follows BHG into the past in another Time Machine to try to stop him. (In this future, there are only two such Time Machines and the stolen Time Machine was Wilber's responsibility.)

In some sense, this defines BHG/Goob as the antagonist. This can also be regarded as the inciting event.

After BHG/Goob steals the Mind Scanner and returns to the future, Lewis is devastated. Wilber tells Lewis he's from the future and has a Time Machine. Lewis doesn't believe him. To prove it, Wilber tosses Lewis into his Time Machine and they fly away.

While traveling to the future, Lewis realizes he doesn't need a Mind Scanner, he can just use the Time Machine to see his mom. Wilber and he get into a fight over this and they crash the Time Machine in Wilber's front yard. Wilbur wants Lewis to fix the machine. Lewis bargains that if he fixes the time machine, Wilbur will take him back to see his mom. Wilbur agrees.

This is the Lock in.

Act 2: The Conflict intensifies.

Bowler Hat Guy attempts to pass off the Memory Scanner as his own at InventCo, but the CEO says he "hasn’t thought this through." (A recurring joke.) He can’t even figure out how to turn it on. They throw him out the doors of InventCo HQ.

Wilbur and Lewis push their broken machine into the garage. Even though Lewis keeps failing, Wilbur simply says, "Keep moving forward," his dad’s motto. Also, based on an actual quote:

We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths. -- Walt Disney

Bowler Hat Guy arrives outside, undetected. BHG uses a robotic hat to control Frankie, leader of Frannie's frogs. Frankie approaches the table to get Lewis, but he can’t capture him since he’s too small. Frankie warns BHG hasn’t thought this through. (Recurring joke 2.)

This failing, BHG (again using a robot hat) decides to get a dinosaur, a life-sized T-Rex, to get Lewis. The Robinsons band together to save Lewis from the T-Rex. T-Rex corners Lewis outside, but "big head and tiny arms" means that it can't grab Lewis. T-Rex warns BHG hasn’t thought this through. (Recurring joke 3.)

Franny and the other Robinsons invite Lewis to join their family. He's elated. Wilbur confesses the truth about the Time Machines. Realizing now who Lewis really is, they decide he needs to go back to his time and life his life.

Unfortunately, before this can happen, BHG/Goob captures Lewis. He offers to take Lewis to see his mom if Lewis fixes the Memory Scanner. Lewis fixes his Memory Scanner and learns BHG is Goob in the future. Lewis learns disgruntled future Goob knew just the moment to go back to, so as to ruin Lewis' life. Lewis tells BHG he's sorry about the baseball game and that if he’d let go of the past and kept "moving forward" his life would’ve turned out better. BHG would rather blame Lewis. (This also establishes part of Lewis' character arc.)

Done with Lewis, BHG takes Lewis to the now empty orphanage building (still in the future) and dumps tied up Lewis on the roof of the orphanage. Wilber recovers Lewis from BHG, stealing back the Mind Scanner as well. They almost make it back to the Robinson home when BHG/Goob catches up to them and takes back the Mind Scanner. BHG tries to remarket the working Mind Scanner to InventCo. BHG shows the scanner and signs the paperwork with the InventCo executives. This changes the future, causing Wilber to stop existing.

Before Wilber disappears, he tells Lewis that it's up to him - he must fix the Time Machine in the garage and go back to the science fair and stop BHG from originally stealing the Mind Scanner.

The world is darker. Lewis rushes into the Robinson garage. No one is there. The only thing there is a screen that shows what happened in the new dystopian future.

This is the Point of No Return.

Act 3: The Resolution.

Lewis scrambles to fix the machine, as the world gets darker and darker. Lewis goes back to the past, not to his birth mom but to the InventCo-sponsored science fair to stop BHG from taking his Mind Scanner.

Lewis stops on his way to the science fair to wake up Goob at the baseball game, who is sleeping in the outfield. Goob wakes up just in time to catch the ball and save the game. Everybody cheers for him!

At the science fair, Lewis pleads for one more chance. Lucille whispers a date to Lewis to plug in. The memory scanner works perfectly, showing her wedding to Bud, who has just arrived at the fair to drive Lucille home. A frog lands on Lewis, and Franny and Lewis finally notice each other. She asks if he thinks she’s crazy for training frogs to sing. He says no, and it's love at first sight.

Lucille and Bud love Lewis and decide to adopt him, but rename him "Cornelius." They move Cornelius into their house and show him what room will be the lab.

The emotional ending is accentuated by music from Little Wonders by singer/songwriter Rob Thomas.

Bibliography:
[OL12]Dan O'Bannon and Matt Lohr, Dan O'Bannon's guide to screenplay structure, Michael Wiese Productions, 2012.