Trying to write a story that is 'underbudget' in this case.

harmonica44 · Apr 13, 2016

I am writing a thriller, and I would like it to take place in not very many locations, since it's microbudget. But the more I try to keep it in a low number of places, the less sense the story makes.

I was talking to a professional novel writer about this and he says that by deciding on keeping the story in a small amount of locations, especially ones I have access to in real life, that it creates plot holes. I cannot make decisions for the characters in advance, because of money.

I have to let the characters go where they would naturally go and let them make the decisions he says. If a character would make a decision that would require a lot more budget, then the script needs a lot more budget, and that's all there is to it.

Is he right though, and there is not way around that, without the story becoming implausible or contrived? Do plot holes need to be rewritten with more money in order to make sense, cause it's in the character's motivations and consistency? He also said that writer's do not plan for a story to all take place in one location and it just ends up that way much later in the writing process. But you cannot know if a story will take place in one location in advance till it's finished.

What do you think?

Filman · Apr 13, 2016

He's wrong, obviously. With a solid construction a movie in one room can be as good as one with unlimited access to locations. The only thing you can't have in your movie is cuts from location to location. The rest you can have.

mad_hatter · Apr 13, 2016

If your story takes place in more than one location, it takes place in more than one location. That's all there is to it.

If you want to write something that takes place in one location, write something that takes place in one location. What's the problem?

mlesemann · Apr 13, 2016

You've beautifully (if accidentally) highlighted the difference between writing a novel and a screenplay.

mikemintzdj · Apr 13, 2016

I understand where you are coming from. However there are many ways to get around such issues. Say your characters decide they are going to a big opera show. Do you actually need to show them at said show, is there a way that you could imply this? Could you get some external establishing shots, etc... Being creative in the budget doesn't make your script any less great, in fact sometimes it improves upon it. In the television show Human Target, there was one particularly bad ass action scene with no action screen. I know what you are thinking, how is that possible? The entire scene took place in one room, with two guys listening to their radios as the main character blew through bad guy after bad guy. The radio would come to live every couple of seconds with excited voices mentioning where they where and what they were seeing amid gunshots, screams and explosions. This was way cooler than actually showing this action on screen and has stuck with me for a couple of years since, so it was pretty impactful.

harmonica44 · Apr 13, 2016

Well the problem is, is that if a character has a logical reason to leave a location, then I cannot re-write the character's motivations to stay, without the character's motivations becoming contradictory. If I change the characters whenever the plot requires it, the character comes off as mechanical, if that makes sense.

Also, as far as not showing things go, I was told I should show and not tell. Like for example, if a main character is suppose to be killed, I should show it in most cases. Cause if I skip over it, and another character tells another character he saw the character murdered, the audience may think "What? When did this happen? Why didn't we see any of this, since it was a main character we have been following?"

Sometimes it is better to show and not tell, isn't? I have a long scene that takes place in a courtroom for example, that deals with the criminal case at hand. But if I skip over the whole courtroom process, would it come off as cheap to the audience if one character tells another what happened, and explains how everything went wrong, as oppose to showing it?

Some readers complained how in my story, how one villain was arrested and interrogated, but they thought it was a problem how the interrogation was never shown, and one cop, just tells another later, that the man was arrested but he wouldn't give up anything and they had to let him go.

The readers were bothered by it not being shown. So can telling and not showing, be a problem in that case?

Filman · Apr 13, 2016

mikemintzdj said:
The radio would come to live every couple of seconds with excited voices mentioning where they where and what they were seeing amid gunshots, screams and explosions.

And there we have a cut to another location. But yes, an interesting example. Solutions for an one location movie might be unproven but better.

harmonica44 · Apr 13, 2016

Well one if my favorite movies is Fail-Safe and in that movie, you hear an explosion over the phone and it is not shown. However, the character on the other end of the phone in fail-safe is not the protagonist. What if the protagonist has to leave a location and go to a new one? Should I still not show it, but you can only heard of it over the phone? What if my protagonist has no reason to be on the phone? Then someone else will have to explain everything that happened to the audience later, which they were not shown. Is that bad?

Filman · Apr 13, 2016

Yes, it's all bad, because you are not describing a one location movie.

WalterB · Apr 13, 2016

As always, it all depends.

Why not make it an absurd comedy that goes through the 4th wall as soon as the main character tries to leave a location?
'No! You can't leave this room!'
'Why not? I have to..."
"You just can't...''
"Let me go or I'll punch you in the face!'
"I just can't" PUNCH!
MC opens the door and there is nothing.
Man on the floor: 'You can't go: there is no script beyond this room.'
END.

Limiting the amount of locations doesn't create the plot holes. The inability to work with the limitations does. Limitations are challenging because they indeed limit you.
The other way around is: letting your character leave the location and figure out how you can solve it budgetwise. Or change what happens so the character doesn't want to leave or create a situation where (s)he can't leave.

Writing a novel has no limits, but the imagination.
Writing a script with budget restrictions has limits to solve with imagination.

sfoster · Apr 13, 2016

harmonica44 said:
I have to let the characters go where they would naturally go and let them make the decisions he says.

that's true.

and if you're setting them up for decisions that make them go to another location then you don't have a single location thriller. Modify your story accordingly or start over fresh.

Sweetie · Apr 13, 2016

I was talking to a professional novel writer about this and he says that by deciding on keeping the story in a small amount of locations, especially ones I have access to in real life, that it creates plot holes.

I've told you many times before, stop taking advice from the voices in your head. It's not mental illness until they start answering you back, right?

If you're right, explain the plot holes in 12 Angry Men that the location caused.

the problem is, is that if a character has a logical reason to leave a location, then I cannot re-write the character's motivations to stay

It's really simple. You're doing it wrong. Stop making the same error over and over again. Learn from your mistakes for once and adjust accordingly. There are more than enough suitable answers in this thread that will get you out of your predicament. Try experimenting with some of them.

There is a common thread which causes all your stories to fail. Can you guess what it is?

AudioPostExpert · Apr 14, 2016

harmonica44 said:
Is he right though, and there is not way around that, without the story becoming implausible or contrived?

Yes, he is right, normal people living a normal life, change locations. If you don't want your characters to change locations then the ONLY way of doing that is to create a "contrived" situation which does not allow them to change locations. You can do this plausibly or implausibly! In the previously mentioned case of 12 Angry Men, it's entirely plausible because jurors are not allowed to change locations when deliberating. There are numerous other plausible reasons for effectively being trapped; various physical/mental illnesses, being held against one's will and stupidity are just a few I can think of without even trying!

G

mad_hatter · Apr 14, 2016

H44 - When you ask novel writers for advice, do you tell than that your story is actually for a film, or do you forget to tell them this, so that they think (and give advice based on the fact) that you are writing a novel?

Actually, you don't need to answer that... I'm a member of same writing forum as you, so I know that you don't. I've never replied to your threads over there, as I don't really feel that it's my place to inform everybody on that forum that you're pretty much wasting their time...

You must know there's a huge difference between writing a screeenplay and a novel. Don't try to act like there's not.

harmonica44 · Apr 14, 2016

Yeah I told them, that I am writing a script, why?

Well it just seems that if I make modifications it makes the story more illogical. For example, there is a scene where a character breaks into another character's house cause he wants to rob his safe.

But I was told this was a plot hole, because the homeowner would not use his own home to store such sensitive contents in a safe, but would use a bank safety deposit box.

But it would cost more in the budget to shoot the script in a bank vault, or a set that is made to look like a bank vault, compared to a house that I would have access to. So is a story not workable, when I try to write it so that a house safe, does a bank's job for example?

mad_hatter · Apr 14, 2016

harmonica44 said:
Yeah I told them, that I am writing a script, why?

You may have done so in this particular case; I can't say otherwise. But I've just looked through the past few threads you've started over there and not once do you mention the fact that you're writing a screenplay. I'm sure their advice would be considerably different if they knew...

harmonica44 said:
Well it just seems that if I make modifications it makes the story more illogical....

So don't do it. You already know you can't without opening up a bunch of plot holes, so why is it even a consideration? You're talking like you're writing to a budget. You need to write a story to meet that budget.

WalterB · Apr 14, 2016

Since when is having a safe at home instead of at the bank a plothole?
It might be unwise, but I don't see how that is a plothole.

LOL@Mad_Hatter reminds me of a thread about sending a project to a colorist that wouldn't work. After 4 pages H44 revealed he only sent the xml file of a few kb without all the videofiles... :lol:

Some people never learn...

Sweetie · Apr 14, 2016

lol. He should write a bank heist movie, with a car chase with the intention of a single location film, shooting in his toilet.

It won't matter. The plot holes will be the least of the films problems.