Does the audience need to know, or can I just imply?

harmonica44 · Apr 13, 2015

In my script the villains kill a cop and the main character cop is angry about it and wants justice. The district attorney does not want to prosecute, because there is not enough evidence against the villains, so he feels it would be a waste of money.

So the cop ends up blackmailing the DA into prosecuting the suspects. However, I am not sure how to go about writing this. If the cop is going to blackmail a DA into prosecuting an 'evidence-less' case, what's the point if a jury will not convict, right? There has to be just enough evidence for the cop to think it has a chance, but not too much evidence cause I need the DA to not prosecute it in the first place.

Basically the cop who is killed, is shot to death in a shoot out. The main cop, also in the shoot out, then has to pretty much take the body, and escape with it, so the crooks cannot have the chance to get rid of it. Once he escapes he then puts the body somewhere, where it can be found, but wipes away his own evidence of being there.

The cop who survived cannot testify himself cause he was not suppose to be there, which is why he left the body somewhere and takes off. But even if he said he was there, his testimony could legally be used anyway.

I originally wrote it so that the surviving cop takes the crooks hostage at gunpoint and forces them to plant evidence. He gets one to spit on the dead body, one to bleed on the it, and one to sign a their gang name on it.

Then what happens is, is that the DA does not prosecute because the investigators tell him that the evidence of the spit, blood and signature, were actually planted by someone else, and not by the gang of crooks themselves. Someone forced the gang to plant the evidence, so the prosecutor does not charge the gang. So the cop learns that his framing of the gang has come off as incompetent, and the DA can tell it was a frame, he then blackmails the DA.

Is this scenario better? That was the original one I wrote, but my friend said she didn't believe it after reading it, because she thinks that a DA would take on evidence even if it could have been planted, and how could they tell really? What do you think, is that more plausible, and I should stick to the original idea?

Or should I just write it so that the body is found, but the DA says there is not enough evidence, and that's all he says. The audience does not need to hear anything more, and the cop blackmails him anyway, even though the audience does not know what kind of faith the cop has, based on evidence whatever evidence there is to go forward with even?

Thanks for the input!

harmonica44 · May 29, 2015

arrodiii said:
A couple comments/points:

------------
The raping of a woman as an "initiation" into a gang seems over the top and VERY unrealistic, especially once the initiate is unable to perform everything seems to be ok

The reason for the gang perpetrating these crimes is over the top/absurd. There are plenty of people who are unable to get women that do not rape people. Also, how did this gang get together and meet? One of them accidentally blurts out that he is a rapist and the other says, "Hey, me too! We should go rape people together!"?

Why is Manning in the meeting with other, regular officers? Is his undercover assignment over? It seems foolish for him to be in a meeting with regular officers/detectives while still undercover.

What was the court date for Sheila about that she missed? On what grounds did Tyler get the warrant? How did the warrant specify the pool hall as a place for her to be arrested?

A police officer CANNOT issue contempt of court charges, only a Judge can do that and that is only allowed for things that occur inside his/her courtroom/chambers

Safe house? Like the US federal witness protection?

Wray's attorney CANNOT ask a potential witness questions ESPECIALLY when that person is not in a deposition or an attorney is not present for that potential witness. How does Tyler know that Sheila is a material witness? And what is she a material witness to?

So, Kimble and Tyler come across Sheila as co-working cops but then when they see her Kimble does a complete 180 and starts to attack Tyler so he can play off being a gang member? Seems kinda absurd.

Cops CANNOT delay a trial. Only attorneys, through a written motion and a Judge may not accept it due to his calendar

What kind of a trial is this? How much time has passed? Trials of important magnitude, in the US, do not happen immediately. Usually it takes a couple years for a case to be brought to trial

You make this "trial" sound like a motion hearing. The whole thing of Tyler not identifying himself as a cop would be an issue for a hearing through a motion to suppress and WOULD NOTt be brought up in a trial at all

I don't understand that "probable cause cannot be used as a defense..."

Again, cops DO NOT have any bearing on trial procedures, only attorneys do. While shows like Law and Order portray that they do, that is the long running suspension of disbelief of the show

Why is Sheila claiming the 5th Amendment? I thought that this was taking place in Canada? The 5th is a part of US jurisprudence, not Canadian jurisprudence.

Cops do not sit at attorney tables.

Witnesses CANNOT produce evidence

Sheila CANNOT claim immunity on the rape of Tyler as that has NOTHING to do with this hearing/trial (what is this hearing/trial about anyway?)

WHY WAS SHEILA CHARGED? Wasn't she initially a victim in the cops eyes???

Tyler screaming that she is a rapist in front of tv cameras sounds petulant

I don't think that you understand the concept of "blood out" when it comes to gangs
------------

Sorry, but I stopped at the start of the 15th sequence. As other say above this is a hard one to digest. It has a lot of lapses in logic and asks the audience to suspend a TON of disbelief in order to make it through this film. Also, it is kinda hard to get through due to the seemingly carefree attitude of the characters when its comes to rape. FSF is correct in that the message that will be perceived is "If you can't get a date boys and girls, it's okay to rape," the way it currently is because there are too many instances where that crime is seemingly shrugged off or that a character comes out to defend the nonsensical "mission statement" of the gang.

Okay thanks. Well these villains are not normal villains and since they are evil and twisted they can choose do whatever evil acts they want. Now that doesn't meant they will do anything but they chose this as their M.O. Plus there are movies out there with over the top criminals that do nasty things. I don't think I pushed the envelope too much but I guess I'm wrong. As far as how they met, I do go into that more in the real script, I just didn't write it in the outline, since the outline is a summary that does not explain all the background story.

Manning was not undercover. I did not mean to confuse readers. He is corrupt. No one knows he is associated with the gang.

Tyler was given a warrant because since she missed previous court dates to testify at before, a material witness warrant was issued for he arrest. As far as arresting her at a pub, lots movies do not show how the cops figure out where the suspects are, when they go to arrest them. For example in The Dark Knight, we have the mob character, Salvatore Maroni (played by Eric Roberts). Gordon and other officers show up to arrest Maroni, at a restaurant he is eating at. They do not explain how they knew Maroni was eating at that restaurant. Lots of other movies do this same thing. They will arrest a villain in a public place, like a restaurant, bar, etc, not knowing how he was there. It's left up the audience's imagination.

I know that judges issue contempt of court charges, not the police. The police were just using that as a tactic to intimidate Sheila into testifying. They were not laying official charges, before the contempt happened yet. Just intimidating her.

By safe house I mean a place where Sheila can be held before the trial, but be more comfortable like with a bathroom, bedroom etc.

As far as Kimble attacting Tyler to keep his cover, you see this all the time in other movies. In 24, Jack Bauer had to shoot at federal agents to keep his cover. Not that my situation is as extreme as that, but it's the same undercover philosophy.

I know cops cannot delay a trial. The reason why Tyler calls about delaying it, is that what he means is, is that he his superior if he is going to call the courts to recommend that it be delayed. Sorry for the confusion, I just wrote that way, cause the cops and the prosecutor, judge, are kind of working together, at least I would think so I didn't write it as if they are different forces.

I know it takes a couple of years to bring a case to trial. I was thinking of writing it that way, and skip ahead two years, but lots of movies show a trial much quicker after the crime. Movies like Fracture, for example, or episodes of Perry Mason. Law and Order may skip ahead a couple of years all the those episodes, but it doesn't feel that way, since the characters all of the same hair cuts from the episodes I saw.

I thought that Wray's attorney could ask Sheila those questions. Sheila was ordered by the court to testify against Wray, so wouldn't Wray's attorney have the right to cross examine her, since she is testifying against the defendant, which is Wray?

I am aware that it's more like a motion hearing and that would have been brought up before. However, when someone who knows a lot more about law helped me write this, he said I have to write it as a trial. I wanted Sheila to testify in the same sequence as the Tyler. I was told by someone who helped me write it that arresting officer testifies at the motion hearing, but not the witness. The witness is saved until trial, especially if the witness does not give a deposition and has to be subpoenaed for not cooperating. But I wanted Sheila and Tyler to both testify in the same sequence, so I took some artistic license and decided to put both their testimonies in the same court time, even though Tyler's would be at a motion hearing, and her's at a trial.

So was it bad of me to take artistic license, and I should just stick to reality, and write two court scenes?

I realize that cops do not have a bearing on the case and only attorneys do. But Law and Order does it for artistic License to push the story forward in interesting ways, and like that show, I do not believe I have to stick to 100% reality. Is it really that bad not to nowadays in writing, depending on how far you go with it?

I know Canada does not have the fifth amendment. They have the same law but it's called section 11. However, since I have not decided where it's set yet I chose to use the 5th amendment term, because so many people around the world have heard of that term compared to section 11. I was making it easier to understand, without having to go in where it takes place specifically.

I know cops do not sit at the same table as attorneys. I did not mean to imply that. They sit further behind in my scene and speak to the attorney from there. The trial is originally about charging Wray with kidnapping. However, since the night before, Tyler was raped by the witness, Tyler pursuades the judge and prosecutor to cross examine Sheila about the rape, since a witness raping the arresting officer, could have relevance in a court case. The prosecutor wants to see how reliable the witness can be if the witness raped the arresting officer.

Sheila then pleads section 11, to avoid being held accountable by her own words, since she has a legal right not to be held for incriminating herself on the stand. Now yes they are separate charges to be pursued later, but since she covers her evidence of the rape the night before, those charges are never laid against her. I should have made that more clear, if it makes sense. And yes Tyler screaming that she is a rapist in front of TV cameras, is petulant, but it was suppose to be petulant. Tyler is angry about it, and he makes himself look petulant because his anger. It was suppose to come off that way.

When it comes gangs and blood outs, I got the information while reading Police Procedure & Investigation: A Guide for Writers, by Lee Lofland. The book says that a blood out is when a gang member wants out of the gang he has to 'spill the blood of another person', as it says in the book. Did I take that out of context?

When you say witnesses cannot produce evidence, which part are you referring to?

Sheila was not charged but arrest for missing her court dates. Does this make sense?

maz · May 29, 2015

harmonica44 said:
And yes Tyler screaming that she is a rapist in front of TV cameras, is petulant, but it was suppose to be petulant. Tyler is angry about it, and he makes himself look petulant because his anger. It was suppose to come off that way.

Tyler's reaction to his rape is another thing that doesn't ring true at all. Being raped by a woman is likely to be one of the most humiliating things that can happen to a man - especially one who identifies as a strong, heroic type.

Now a man's reaction to being raped by a woman is not something I have ever seen on screen, but I am pretty sure a realistic portrayal shouldn't involve shouting about it on TV. If anything, he would try his hardest to keep it a secret. There's a lot of mileage in that character study - guilt, humiliation, identity crisis - but you don't go near it.

At that point, more than any other, Tyler ceases to be a relatable human and becomes little more than a plot device with a penis.

harmonica44 · May 29, 2015

Okay thanks. If it's more believable that he retreats to shame, I can write it that way. It's just since he was already introduced as a strong type, I thought it would be more likely of him, to make noise about the wrongdoing. He is not a typical man. Just because most men would react a certain way, doesn't mean he would. But if that rings as too false for the audience to believe, then I can write it the other way. Actually perhaps I should do that way, as it gives me another angle to play with that character. If I decide I want to continue with this script. Thanks for the input.

FantasySciFi · May 29, 2015

harmonica44 said:
When it comes gangs and blood outs, I got the information while reading Police Procedure & Investigation: A Guide for Writers, by Lee Lofland. The book says that a blood out is when a gang member wants out of the gang he has to 'spill the blood of another person', as it says in the book. Did I take that out of context?

Yep. That or the author is clueless. Gangs work on a "blood in, blood out" system. You kill/injure someone (spill blood) to get into the gang. Being a gang member is a lifetime commitment. "Blood out" means that to leave the gang, you die or get killed. It's the gang member's blood that's spilled to get "out".

WalterB · May 30, 2015

I found a way to salvage this script.
It just needs an extra layer:

"An eager and ambitious director, hungry for work got hired to direct his first feature.
Before knowing all the details of the story he says yes and signs the contract, but he is not the only one: the cast got on board the same way.
How will he manage to create something watcheable from this madness?"

maz · May 30, 2015

FantasySciFi said:
Yep. That or the author is clueless. Gangs work on a "blood in, blood out" system. You kill/injure someone (spill blood) to get into the gang. Being a gang member is a lifetime commitment. "Blood out" means that to leave the gang, you die or get killed. It's the gang member's blood that's spilled to get "out".

To be fair to the author, it seems h44 has ignored most of what he has to say.

maz · May 30, 2015

harmonica44 said:
Okay thanks. If it's more believable that he retreats to shame, I can write it that way. It's just since he was already introduced as a strong type, I thought it would be more likely of him, to make noise about the wrongdoing. He is not a typical man. Just because most men would react a certain way, doesn't mean he would. But if that rings as too false for the audience to believe, then I can write it the other way. Actually perhaps I should do that way, as it gives me another angle to play with that character. If I decide I want to continue with this script. Thanks for the input.

That's fine to say "he's not a typical man", as long as you're consistent with that characterisation throughput the rest of the script, rather than just when it's convenient. Again, without knowing what you've actually written, it's impossible to say.

harmonica44 · Jun 2, 2015

Okay thanks. One person who read it in more detail says a lot of it makes more sense with the details, but there are still some sections that are illogical.

Manning's section of the plot is illogical. I think I have found a way to make his section more logical, and for him to die, in a more logical scenario. He has to die to get the other cops motivated to avenge.

I thought of a scenario where he can die, however, it cannot build into the main plot. Building it into the main plot is where problems occur, and if after the first act, where he is needed cause he gets the ball rolling. Let's say I have it so that Manning finds evidence on the gang, and they kill him stop him from taking the evidence. The gang then destroys the evidence. However, if the evidence has no barring on the rest of the plot will the audience be okay with that, since the villains have no reason to keep it?

Will the audience say, what was the point of introducing the evidence, if it's destroyed and the ending has completely different direction?

I suppose other movies have done this. In Enemy of the State, a large portion of the movie is devoted to the protagonist stopping a video recording of a murder from getting into the wrong hands. Only later, the recording burns and there is no proof against the villain, thus that whole large section of the plot perhaps lead up to nothing, and the protagonist was back to where he started.

In 24 season 5, Jack Bauer spent at least 4 episodes trying to recover an audio recording, but then it gets erased, thereby making at least the previous 4 episodes moot, structurally, cause he is back to where he started.

Or how in Psycho, Lila Crane flushed evidence down the toilet. It never turned up again for the rest of the plot, and everyone knew she was the culprit anyway later, so what was the point of the evidence? But it still made for a good section of plot, although it didn't tie in later, right?

I guess I am just afraid of the audience asking what's the point of this character, to go off on his own, find evidence, and get killed over it, with the evidence being destroyed, if it does not come back to the main plot at all? Basically I need Manning to start off the first situation since he is why the gang and Sheila do what they do, to get everything started. However, since Manning is not needed after that, I have to end his story, without it tying into the main plot at all. Because tying it into the main plot just keeps causing problems. Keeping his plot away, from the main plot doesn't mean I have to break logic with the character. But so far the subplot I gave him goes on for five scenes so will the audience expect a tie in? So is it okay to have a subplot that ends, unrelated to the main plot?

Sweetie · Jun 2, 2015

Will the audience say, what was the point of introducing the evidence, if it's destroyed and the ending has completely different direction?

Some might. Once again, depends on your execution.

In 24

TV and movies have different structures and expectations. You haven't worked that out yet?

I am just afraid of the audience asking what's the point of this character

Good. You should be.

So is it okay to have a subplot that ends, unrelated to the main plot? I suppose Pulp Fiction did this

Yes. No and no it didn't. You don't understand the fate story structure. You can do a B story. It's ill-advised to have your B story completely unrelated.

harmonica44 · Jun 2, 2015

Okay thanks. TV was a bad example. What about Enemy of the State though, how a large portion of the movie is devoted to getting a video recording into the right hands, and then it just gets burned in a fire, and the protagonist is back to where he started? You could argue that it was all for nothing and there was no pay off to the introduced plot device. But then again some might say it was more exciting that way.

Sweetie · Jun 2, 2015

What about Enemy of the State though, how a large portion of the movie is devoted to getting a video recording into the right hands, and then it just gets burned in a fire, and the protagonist is back to where he started?

What are you asking? Whether movies have plot points? Of course they do.

You could argue that it was all for nothing and there was no pay off to the introduced plot device.

2 points: a). You need to fail to understand the English language when you talk about this being unrelated. b). If you don't understand the basics of writing for feature films, I suppose you could make that argument. I really don't know why an intelligent person would take this position.

I take it you still haven't bothered with my suggested reading list? If so, you wouldn't continue your foot in mouth barrage.

All this is relatively trivial to understand if you bothered to learn the basics about screenwriting.

arrodiii · Jun 2, 2015

harmonica44 said:
Okay thanks. Well these villains are not normal villains and since they are evil and twisted they can choose do whatever evil acts they want.

Understandable, but what I, and I believe others are saying, is that the evil acts that they choose to do is unrealistic and absurd.

harmonica44 said:
As far as how they met, I do go into that more in the real script, I just didn't write it in the outline, since the outline is a summary that does not explain all the background story.

Understandable, I am just giving some feedback and points on what I was able to read.

harmonica44 said:
Tyler was given a warrant because since [Sheila] missed previous court dates to testify at before, a material witness warrant was issued for he arrest.

Ok, from what I remember reading, it was never explained that Sheila missed court dates. Also, is this rime that Wray is arrested on a federal crime or a state crime (if in the US). Most of the time a material witness warrant is issued by a federal judge in relation to a federal crime. Some states do have something similar to a material witness warrant though there are different guidelines that they have to follow in order to have one issued/executed.

harmonica44 said:
I know that judges issue contempt of court charges, not the police. The police were just using that as a tactic to intimidate Sheila into testifying. They were not laying official charges, before the contempt happened yet. Just intimidating her.

Ok, I am unaware of how much of the legal process you know, I was just letting you know. Though in this instance would it not also be known to Sheila that the "Contempt of Court" charge is a tactic and that she knows nothing will happen?

harmonica44 said:
As far as Kimble attacting Tyler to keep his cover, you see this all the time in other movies. In 24, Jack Bauer had to shoot at federal agents to keep his cover. Not that my situation is as extreme as that, but it's the same undercover philosophy.

Ok, same philosophy, but your execution had me imagine something from Monty Python or Benny Hill. The idea of two people working together until they see someone (who probably also sees them working together) and then one of them immediately turns on the other in order to keep cover just sounds absurd.

harmonica44 said:
I know cops cannot delay a trial. The reason why Tyler calls about delaying it, is that what he means is, is that he his superior if he is going to call the courts to recommend that it be delayed. Sorry for the confusion,

I am sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. If you are saying that Tyler's superiors are going to try and delay the trial, then that also may not work because cops cannot delay a trial.

harmonica44 said:
I just wrote that way, cause the cops and the prosecutor, judge, are kind of working together, at least I would think so I didn't write it as if they are different forces.

Ok, Judges do not work with the cops. That would show a HUGE amount of bias and impropriety. If this were the case, then why would there ever be a criminal case? Everyone would automatically be guilty.

harmonica44 said:
I know it takes a couple of years to bring a case to trial. I was thinking of writing it that way, and skip ahead two years, but lots of movies show a trial much quicker after the crime.

Ok, yes that is true. Though I am just pointing out something that doesn’t seem logical to me, especially since nothing was mentioned about previous hearings or anything.

harmonica44 said:
I thought that Wray's attorney could ask Sheila those questions. Sheila was ordered by the court to testify against Wray, so wouldn't Wray's attorney have the right to cross examine her, since she is testifying against the defendant, which is Wray?

Wray's attorney can cross exam Sheila in a deposition or on the stand though you wrote it in a way that had Sheila being escorted by Tyler and Kimble(?) by the safe house and the attorney stopped to ask her questions. That would never happen and that is what I was commenting on.

harmonica44 said:
I am aware that it's more like a motion hearing and that would have been brought up before...So was it bad of me to take artistic license, and I should just stick to reality, and write two court scenes?

Honestly, I think that you should write more court scenes, especially since they would help you develop this trial. I have asked many questions about the motions/hearing/charges, etc. because there is no development about it, just a trial and Sheila arrested for missing previous court date. But those were not mentioned or shown.

harmonica44 said:
I know Canada does not have the fifth amendment. However, since I have not decided where it's set yet I chose to use the 5th amendment term, because so many people around the world have heard of that term compared to section 11. I was making it easier to understand

Ok, but if I remember correctly you have Tyler in a Vancouver police uniform or some sort of patch or emblem/insignia that indicates Vancouver. I was pointing out an inaccuracy.

harmonica44 said:
The trial is originally about charging Wray with kidnapping. However, since the night before, Tyler was raped by the witness, Tyler pursuades the judge and prosecutor to cross examine Sheila about the rape, since a witness raping the arresting officer, could have relevance in a court case. The prosecutor wants to see how reliable the witness can be if the witness raped the arresting officer.

Ok, but Tyler's rape doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the kidnapping. How can it have any relevance to a Kidnapping, especially if no one knows about it? Tyler also can not persuade a judge to cross examine a witness.

harmonica44 said:
Sheila then pleads section 11, to avoid being held accountable by her own words, since she has a legal right not to be held for incriminating herself on the stand. Now yes they are separate charges to be pursued later, but since she covers her evidence of the rape the night before, those charges are never laid against her.

This is very illogical. She cannot plead the 5th or section 11 on a separate crime and expect to have immunity from the new crime. Also, how is Tyler, an experienced police officer unable to get ANY bit of evidence from a crime that happens in his own house?

harmonica44 said:
yes Tyler screaming that she is a rapist in front of TV cameras, is petulant, but it was suppose to be petulant. Tyler is angry about it, and he makes himself look petulant because his anger. It was suppose to come off that way.

Tyler doesn't seem like a childish character though and that is what I was saying. This is very out of the norm for a heroic type to do a 180 and become petulant and start yelling like a child and is just unbelievable.

harmonica44 said:
When you say witnesses cannot produce evidence, which part are you referring to?

There was a scene where I believe Sheila produced some evidence, though since the link is down I can't point you to it.

harmonica44 said:
Sheila was not charged but arrest for missing her court dates. Does this make sense?

It does now, though when I read through it it did not because you never mentioned it. You just went from an arrest to a trial because it seemed like you have the trial there as a convenience for your plot.

FantasySciFi · Jun 2, 2015

harmonica44 said:
... I guess I am just afraid of the audience asking what's the point of this character, to go off on his own, find evidence, and ....

Same is true for your main plot involving Tyler. The audience is left wondering what's the point from the very beginning. Tossing in more subplots doesn't fix the main problem--your main plot. It's like dropping more candy canes into your whirring blender of brownness hoping for a different outcome.

You need to learn that it's about character development not so much plot. The McGuffin is a focus device for motivating the characters' actions. In "Indiana Jones", the pursuit of the grail, obtaining it then its loss form the basis of the story. I can see where you wanted to model your film after "Enemy of the State". The plot is incredibly intricate and convoluted. Theirs works and yours doesn't.

Big picture: An overarching force (NSA:antagonist) seeks to prevail against a common guy (Dean:hero/protagonist) who is dropped into a situation by fate (data disc). His current life is stripped from him and he is sent spiraling until he runs into a wizard (Brill/Lyle:mentor). Things seem good until there is a disaster (data disc destroyed). They just barely escape. However, with the wizard's help, a new plan emerges that is successful (blackmail Sen. Albert:Antagonist's stooge) because it pulls in powerful neutral allies (media & FBI). The evil isn't vanquished but retreats. The common guy becomes a hero and returns to his life a bit elevated. The wizard goes off on his own path (Lyle in Bahamas or wherever). Note that in "Enemy of the State", the loss of the data is the crisis that precipitates Act 3; it is the "all is lost" moment.

This is classic hero's journey. You keep saying you want Tyler to go on an Anti-hero's Journey (AHJ). Very different beast. Your motley band of villains aren't all-powerful. Manning is no "mentor". You call upon Truby who says in the detective genre, the protagonist chooses the girl or honor. "Enemy of the State" involves espionage but is not detective genre. Not to mention a great deal goes into developing Dean's character. So in short, by trying to draw comparisons from this movie to fit to your own, is like trying to remodel your mobile home based on the designs from a mansion. That indoor pool isn't going inside the bedroom unless it's the kids' inflatable.

You could simply copy the formula above. It works. You seem to want to defy convention. You're confused about what you want your story to be. By making Tyler the anti-hero, you change the dynamics. With the AHJ, the audience watches as the hero transforms to villain. In yours, Tyler simply wants to kill bad guys that the audience would like to see punished anyway. The Hero's Journey is not about vengeance but the protagonist's increasing need to regain control in the midst of spiraling events. What makes it positive or negative depends on the character development--does he retain his moral integrity (and grow) or does he abandon himself to his shadow side leaving his past behind.

As I said before, your story is flawed because its direction and focus are muddy. You can't indiscriminately throw in subplots, especially when your main plot isn't solid. As your quote says above, the audience will be asking this of Tyler and other characters. If they are asking this of your protagonist, your story has a major issue. Why is Tyler going off on his own to seek evidence without a warrant or justification? Just sayin'. Good luck.

harmonica44 · Jun 2, 2015

arrodiii said:
Understandable, but what I, and I believe others are saying, is that the evil acts that they choose to do is unrealistic and absurd.

Understandable, I am just giving some feedback and points on what I was able to read.

Ok, from what I remember reading, it was never explained that Sheila missed court dates. Also, is this rime that Wray is arrested on a federal crime or a state crime (if in the US). Most of the time a material witness warrant is issued by a federal judge in relation to a federal crime. Some states do have something similar to a material witness warrant though there are different guidelines that they have to follow in order to have one issued/executed.

Ok, I am unaware of how much of the legal process you know, I was just letting you know. Though in this instance would it not also be known to Sheila that the "Contempt of Court" charge is a tactic and that she knows nothing will happen?

Ok, same philosophy, but your execution had me imagine something from Monty Python or Benny Hill. The idea of two people working together until they see someone (who probably also sees them working together) and then one of them immediately turns on the other in order to keep cover just sounds absurd.

I am sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. If you are saying that Tyler's superiors are going to try and delay the trial, then that also may not work because cops cannot delay a trial.

Ok, Judges do not work with the cops. That would show a HUGE amount of bias and impropriety. If this were the case, then why would there ever be a criminal case? Everyone would automatically be guilty.

Ok, yes that is true. Though I am just pointing out something that doesn’t seem logical to me, especially since nothing was mentioned about previous hearings or anything.

Wray's attorney can cross exam Sheila in a deposition or on the stand though you wrote it in a way that had Sheila being escorted by Tyler and Kimble(?) by the safe house and the attorney stopped to ask her questions. That would never happen and that is what I was commenting on.

Honestly, I think that you should write more court scenes, especially since they would help you develop this trial. I have asked many questions about the motions/hearing/charges, etc. because there is no development about it, just a trial and Sheila arrested for missing previous court date. But those were not mentioned or shown.

Ok, but if I remember correctly you have Tyler in a Vancouver police uniform or some sort of patch or emblem/insignia that indicates Vancouver. I was pointing out an inaccuracy.

Ok, but Tyler's rape doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the kidnapping. How can it have any relevance to a Kidnapping, especially if no one knows about it? Tyler also can not persuade a judge to cross examine a witness.

This is very illogical. She cannot plead the 5th or section 11 on a separate crime and expect to have immunity from the new crime. Also, how is Tyler, an experienced police officer unable to get ANY bit of evidence from a crime that happens in his own house?

Tyler doesn't seem like a childish character though and that is what I was saying. This is very out of the norm for a heroic type to do a 180 and become petulant and start yelling like a child and is just unbelievable.

There was a scene where I believe Sheila produced some evidence, though since the link is down I can't point you to it.

It does now, though when I read through it it did not because you never mentioned it. You just went from an arrest to a trial because it seemed like you have the trial there as a convenience for your plot.

Okay thanks. Perhaps the script was a bad idea if the acts are TOO evil and absurd. I asked around and got different opinions. Some found it really intriguing they said, and one who had a major in psychology, said she believed from her experience that something like this could definitely happen. At least that's what she said, but the opinions I got were very back and forth as to how plausible the evil acts are. But then again, you see villains like Buffalo Bill or John Doe, and those villains were absurd. I don't feel that I crossed the line of absurdity quite, but perhaps I did.

Sorry about not explaining that Sheila missed court dates. In the actual script, this is explained in one of the first act scenes when the detectives are going over the case, while they watch Sheila being questioned on a TV monitor feed.

I know that Sheila would not be able to get immunity for her separate crime against Tyler. She just gets immunity for confessing to it. The confession is immune, but while Tyler is tied up, she knocks him out. When he wakes up hours later, the crime scene has been cleaned by her. She gets away with the crime itself this way. This is also explained later after the court scene, but I could rewrite this more specifically.

I know what you mean about perhaps I should have more court scenes. The reason why I didn't is because I was trying to keep the script from going over 100 pages, and more court scenes equals more shoot time in a courtroom, so I thought I would just have Tyler's superior officer, Kowalksi, talk about the missed court dates and what not. If I should show it, instead of him talking about it, then I can write some more scenes perhaps, if the verbal explanation is not enough.

As far as Wray's lawyer going to question Sheila, I just wrote this from other movies. A lot of times a lawyer will go to question a witness at their house, such as on The Practice or something like that. I asked the cop, if it was legal to for an attorney to question a witness, outside of a police station, after they leave. He said yes, they could do that if they wanted to, there are no laws against it. The reason why Wray's lawyer does it here, is because Wray asks him to, to see if she cut a deal or revealed anything, since she is complicate in Wray's criminal activities. So he wanted to know soon, what she knew, rather than wait.

Even though cops cannot delay a trial, if the witness in the case, rapes the arresting officer, the night before the trial, who is also a witness, then the Tyler can tell the court. Even though cops cannot persuade judges to do anything, if a witness says that the other witness raped him, then that probably would persuade the judge of something either way, no?

As far as delaying the trial, it's just in real court cases, trials are constantly delayed when you read about them or see it in the news. Something comes up with a witness or something, and it's delayed. In this case, they are considering delaying the trial, because the witness is complicit with the defendant. However, if the trial cannot be delayed at all, then I will rewrite it so that they have to go forth as planned, without even discussing a delay.

I know what scene you mean about Sheila producing evidence. Yes I can rewrite that so that Tyler produces if it that's better.

harmonica44 · Jun 2, 2015

FantasySciFi said:
Same is true for your main plot involving Tyler. The audience is left wondering what's the point from the very beginning. Tossing in more subplots doesn't fix the main problem--your main plot. It's like dropping more candy canes into your whirring blender of brownness hoping for a different outcome.

You need to learn that it's about character development not so much plot. The McGuffin is a focus device for motivating the characters' actions. In "Indiana Jones", the pursuit of the grail, obtaining it then its loss form the basis of the story. I can see where you wanted to model your film after "Enemy of the State". The plot is incredibly intricate and convoluted. Theirs works and yours doesn't.

Big picture: An overarching force (NSA:antagonist) seeks to prevail against a common guy (Dean:hero/protagonist) who is dropped into a situation by fate (data disc). His current life is stripped from him and he is sent spiraling until he runs into a wizard (Brill/Lyle:mentor). Things seem good until there is a disaster (data disc destroyed). They just barely escape. However, with the wizard's help, a new plan emerges that is successful (blackmail Sen. Albert:Antagonist's stooge) because it pulls in powerful neutral allies (media & FBI). The evil isn't vanquished but retreats. The common guy becomes a hero and returns to his life a bit elevated. The wizard goes off on his own path (Lyle in Bahamas or wherever). Note that in "Enemy of the State", the loss of the data is the crisis that precipitates Act 3; it is the "all is lost" moment.

This is classic hero's journey. You keep saying you want Tyler to go on an Anti-hero's Journey (AHJ). Very different beast. Your motley band of villains aren't all-powerful. Manning is no "mentor". You call upon Truby who says in the detective genre, the protagonist chooses the girl or honor. "Enemy of the State" involves espionage but is not detective genre. Not to mention a great deal goes into developing Dean's character. So in short, by trying to draw comparisons from this movie to fit to your own, is like trying to remodel your mobile home based on the designs from a mansion. That indoor pool isn't going inside the bedroom unless it's the kids' inflatable.

You could simply copy the formula above. It works. You seem to want to defy convention. You're confused about what you want your story to be. By making Tyler the anti-hero, you change the dynamics. With the AHJ, the audience watches as the hero transforms to villain. In yours, Tyler simply wants to kill bad guys that the audience would like to see punished anyway. The Hero's Journey is not about vengeance but the protagonist's increasing need to regain control in the midst of spiraling events. What makes it positive or negative depends on the character development--does he retain his moral integrity (and grow) or does he abandon himself to his shadow side leaving his past behind.

As I said before, your story is flawed because its direction and focus are muddy. You can't indiscriminately throw in subplots, especially when your main plot isn't solid. As your quote says above, the audience will be asking this of Tyler and other characters. If they are asking this of your protagonist, your story has a major issue. Why is Tyler going off on his own to seek evidence without a warrant or justification? Just sayin'. Good luck.

Okay thanks. However, I am not trying to add in a subplot, I am trying to cut down and end one. I need Manning to go away, after his opening is done, so he needs to be killed off though still, in order to motivate the other cops later. But I don't want him running around on his own getting evidence, cause it would be illogical. So I need to get rid of this subplot with him, kill him off, and not have it effect the main plot.

I was not inspired by Enemy of the State because it's convoluted and intricate. I didn't even think of that movie while writing mine. I only brought it up as an example, because a user on here before, compared my story to enemy of the state, which made me think of the evidence being destroyed and it was all for nothing.

Other movies do that too though. In Dirty Harry, Harry investigates and finds out who the killer is, and where he lives. He then finds the rifle in the killers place. But then later, none of that did any good, the killer went free and he hijacked a bus after. Which means that plot structure wise, Harry didn't even need to know who the villain was or where he lived, etc. He just needed to able to find that bus since it would have lead to the same climax anyway.

So if I can do it that way, where I can end Manning's subplot without it coming off as random to the viewer since the evidence he finds is destroyed and not used again after introduced, with the execution being good and all, then I think it's okay maybe? Also, sorry if I mislead, but at what point is Manning suppose to be a 'mentor'? I never meant to convey that with him.

Sweetie · Jun 2, 2015

Perhaps the script was a bad idea

It's your execution. I suggest taking a look at a couple of Shane Black scripts. The Long Kiss Goodnight and The Last Boy Scout. Absorb their essence. If you study those scripts, you'll see how great scripts and exceptional and talented writing can under-perform due to subject matter choice.

If you continue down this path, your writing has to be top notch or your script will fade into obscurity. That's the nature of anti-hero stories. That's my opinion, so don't take it as gospel.

Sheila missed court dates

Warning. You're going to exasperate your problems if you bore your audience. You're getting caught up in the everyday snooze fest. Hell. In your attempt to create realism, even the highlights of your story are dull. This will be your death long before continuity or audience acceptance issues come into play.

FantasySciFi · Jun 2, 2015

harmonica44 said:
In Dirty Harry, Harry investigates and finds out who the killer is, and where he lives. He then finds the rifle in the killers place. But then later, none of that did any good, the killer went free and he hijacked a bus after. Which means that plot structure wise, Harry didn't even need to know who the villain was or where he lived, etc. He just needed to able to find that bus since it would have lead to the same climax anyway.

That's part of the Anti-Hero's Journey. Harry continues to compromise his values and integrity. His blind single minded pursuit becomes an obsession. If you want to model Tyler after Harry, go for it. What you can't do is mix your storylines as you've done in the current script summary. You can't merge "Enemy of the State" with "Dirty Harry" the motivations of their protagonists are different and at odds.

Again, the gun incident is developing Harry's character arc, his descent into blind vengeance. It's not unlike Capt. Ahab's descent into madness in the pursuit of Moby Dick. It's not about plot but about character development. Again, I think you don't actually understand the 'story' concept. You keep citing selected scenes without a grasp of the character development and dynamics that preceded it ("24", "Dirty Harry", etc.). Story is about characters, not scenes.

If Manning is inconsequential then he shouldn't be in the script. But given the first five pages and the summary you shared, there are more serious issues you need to worry about. You keep fussing over the small stuff. Good luck.

arrodiii · Jun 4, 2015

harmonica44 said:
She just gets immunity for confessing to it. The confession is immune

I'm sorry but I don't think that you understand the concept of immunity via pleading the 5th.

harmonica44 said:
The reason why I didn't is because I was trying to keep the script from going over 100 pages, and more court scenes equals more shoot time in a courtroom...I can write some more scenes perhaps, if the verbal explanation is not enough.

That's understandable. Maybe I am wrong but when I read the summary it seemed to me that the court hearing was a huge turning point and I thought that if it was that significant more development would be better.

harmonica44 said:
Even though cops cannot delay a trial, if the witness in the case, rapes the arresting officer, the night before the trial, who is also a witness, then the Tyler can tell the court. Even though cops cannot persuade judges to do anything, if a witness says that the other witness raped him, then that probably would persuade the judge of something either way, no?

This is something that I have noticed that you do. While technically something can happen the way you propose it it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best avenue to pursue. While theoretically this can happen the rest of your premise of the witness raping the other witness is so outlandish the rest of the entire premise is shot.

harmonica44 said:
I asked the cop, if it was legal to for an attorney to question a witness, outside of a police station, after they leave. He said yes, they could do that if they wanted to, there are no laws against it.

Again, while it is technically legal there are ethical violations that an attorney would have to be concerned with when attempting to question a potential witness about a case without that person's attorney present. Though if the attorney himself were a sleaze ball and working for a crime syndicate, then I guess they may not care about ethics violations.

harmonica44 said:
...trials are constantly delayed when you read about them or see it in the news

Ok, if you haven't guessed by now but I work in litigation as a day job. I don't know how many trials you've been through but 99% of the ones I have worked have never been delayed once a date has been set. There are a couple that had a "break" in the middle but those trials lasted at the minimum of 6 weeks and the breaks didn't come until after the 4th week.

Some people are saying that you are fixating on the smaller issues and maybe I am dragging you into a minute area of the larger script. But all I am trying to do is inform you that while some of the ideas you have are hugely incorrect you have do have the concept of that only the important issues of the trial need to be shown but it’s the development of that that I believe you really need to work on.

For instance if you decide to work further on this script you can add more court scenes to develop that part of the script and even take liberties in condensing the scenes. For instance a scene could start in the courtroom though continue outside the courtroom and have certain information passed along during a walk in the hallway or even towards the location of the next scene.

If I ever wrote a script that had to deal with a lawsuit of some kind I would never make a realistic portrayal of the discovery process because it’s really boring. So is trial work. But I, myself, would write extended scenes in a rough draft to have a better understanding of the character's motives and why they are doing what they are doing. Instances from those scenes could then be whittled down further to show only the important parts but at least I have a working understanding of my characters and hopefully am showing their development.

But then again, this is the film that you've been trying to get correct for months/years. In the end if you are happy with your work product then continue on to something else. If not you can continue to rewrite it though that is also up to you.

writersandfilmmakers · Jun 4, 2015

Okay...so the bad cop black mails the DA. The da says not enough evidence UNLESS you can produce X (that's pillar 1). Cop searches for x, but finds y and the plot thickens. the DA is now fucking with the bad cop and the case (Midpoint). Pillar 2, the evidence found by bad cop gets destroyed! ahhhh! But then....

FantasySciFi · Jun 4, 2015

writersandfilmmakers said:
Okay...so the bad cop black mails the DA. The da says not enough evidence UNLESS you can produce X (that's pillar 1). Cop searches for x, but finds y and the plot thickens. the DA is now fucking with the bad cop and the case (Midpoint). Pillar 2, the evidence found by bad cop gets destroyed! ahhhh! But then....

Well intentioned, but we've been down this path before with H44.
1. The "bad cop" is the protagonist.
2. H44 wants the DA to be a minor character. (Again, I was thinking like you originally.)
3. The real bad cop is really Manning, a character the villains kill off.
4. The reason the main cop is blackmailing the DA is to force him to take the case to trial, not stop it.
5. The problem is, there is no evidence. The main cop is manufacturing it to frame the villains for a crimes they've already committed, documented on video and put on the Internet.
6. The crimes are all rapes of women because the villains are "involuntarily celibate". To up the plot, our main hero cop is also raped by a female member of the villains with their help.
7. After the trial, the DA is out of the picture.

This is just to forewarn you to be prepared for H44's "yeah but ..." response. Your approach is well reasoned just not the path H44 wants to tread despite multiple suggestions.