Rent the film “Collateral Damage” (Jamie Foxx, Tom Cruise) for a great example. At about the 12% mark (too early for the plot point), something huge happens (a murder) that places Jamie Foxx (the hero) into great peril. Looks and smells just like a plot point. Then, at the proper spot for the plot point (22%), the story takes another twist, and it happens just with a conversation. The nature of that conversation defines Foxx’s plight and need going forward, and ratchets up the tension even more.

I’ve said the the FPP is the first full frontal view of the story’s conflict, one that launches the hero down a new path. But don’t be seduced, anything can comprise the setup, including stuff that is huge and seems to be a plot point. In fact, it would be a plot point had it occured at the right point. But… the real plot point has a larger mission that just being big, it’s the thing that changes everything (perhaps again) for the hero.

What Frey’s going for is really more of a hook than a plot point. And frankly, I can’t say for sure if Frey even gets or ascribes to the theory of Plot Points (a theory that proves itself over and over). Using a plot point, as described here, will ALWAYS make your story better. Using a killer hook, as described by Frey, will also ALWAYS make your story better, provided the story can handle something that dark (not all stories are dark, some are romantic comedies, etc.).

Hope this helps, Shirls. L.