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

[harmonica44]

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!

 

[FantasySciFi]

The problem is that H44 has too many disjoint threads and the suggestions confuse rather than clarify his writing. In his thread about "The first five pages" we get a snapshot of a Tyler (lead) and other key characters. Unfortunately, there are problems within the first five pages. Now coming back to this earlier post, people are commenting on problems that have already been changed or being altered. There are many good writers on this group who could easily fix his script to make it work. It is, however, H44's and he needs to make his own choices even if he elects to smash his head into a wall until it's bloodied.

"I want want my characters to behave illogically cause I think it would make for a better story. ... The only plot hole in this left to fill though, is ..." While I applaud his efforts to challenge his previous work, he unduly complicates his story and makes it harder. What I can't get him to grasp is that a story is like a balloon tube. When you press in one area, another area expands. You alter one major plot element, and it throws the rest out of sync. It becomes a game of 'whack-a-mole' or 'whack-a-scene'. He's dead set on beating a flawed concept into the ground.

The DA scene is just a small part of this story. There is also Sheila's part. Then there is how Tyler gets involved. Add on that the dynamics within the gang between Henderson and Manning. Of course, we also have the police department. There is/was also a scene where a ex-offender/computer hacker is pulled into the drama. By only feeding snippets for comment, no commenter has the full picture. And if we fix the DA problem, well now it ripples back into those other scenarios. The DA scene is not the story. And according to H44, it's only a small part of the story really. Originally I was led to believe the DA was the protagonist.

Do you remember the parable about the six hindu wisemen who each felt a different part of an elephant and based their descriptions upon what they felt? H44's posts are the same way. He gives only limited glimpse of his 'elephant script'--Sheila's kidnapping/rape (legs), the DA's blackmail (trunk), the computer hacker's investigation (side), gun fight with gang fleeing (tusk), police chasing Tyler who may have a partner killed/maimed (ears), and does he get the girl or choose honor like Truby said (tail). All these myriad pieces from across his many threads. Nobody has a full picture of his script. Is it any wonder then that when we say "You can fix the X problem by ...", he replies "Okay thanks, but I really need ... because otherwise ...". Until he's ready to begin a major overhaul that jettisons some very problematic material, I suspect it will continue to be an endless game of "Have you tried ... Yes but". He's very attached to it.

I like lemonade. I like chocolate milk. However, no matter how I try to mix them, the result will be disgusting. Maybe I could contrive some sort of buffer but what would be the purpose? Just because nobody's done it before? Just maybe there's a reason.

Nobody's used a plot arresting the victim of a kidnapping/rape before. (lemonade)
Nobody's used a plot where they blackmail a DA to actually prosecute a crime before. (milk)
Nobody's used a plot where the hero cop is pursued by his own force to stop his vigilantism. (ketchup)
Nobody's used a plot where the hero forces a felon to hack into a bank to get info on villains (mustard)
Nobody's used a plot where the hero is forced to kill/maim another undercover officer (peppermint)
... (mix in blender and serve to audience)

Maybe some "plot flavors" are more compatible. But without a full list of ingredients and the recipe (script), it's all just conjecture. But some of these should just never go together. And trying to find a way to make them all work is, well, ... Maybe if you threw in LOTS OF VODKA (for the audience) you could make a "Harmie Wallbanger". Still wouldn't make sense, but you wouldn't care.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I don't want the cops to go after the villains as well. I want them not to, so the protagonist feels he has to do it himself. It just seems that the cops going after the villains may be inevitable, so the protagonist needs a reason to kill them still, even though the cops may still pursue them. If the cops do not pursue them, that will make the protagonist's motivations more logical.

I keep going back to the drawing board and restructuring the plot over and over again. There really is no reason for the DA to be dirty, unless I create another subplot, but I don't want any more subplots if it can be helped, and feel that it's too long otherwise. I am looking to cut down if possible.

Basically, I have a premise, and I have an ending I want to that premise. But evertime I try to rethink the entire story, and all the characters, and try to recreate everything I still find myself with holes.

Basically in order to get the ending I want I need two things to happen.

1. I need the hero to feel he has to kill the villains out of revenge, and he needs to feel that is the only option to stop the villains.

2. I need the police to know AHEAD of time, that the protagonist is going to go kill them so they try to stop him beforehand and try to find out where he will be later.

Now I have tried a few methods to get these two things to work. The first was the protagonist planting evidence to frame the villains, but the cops and DA could tell it was a frame, and do not press charges. The hero then attempts to blackmail the DA, but the DA, tells his superiors about it. This leads the superiors to suspect his motives, and chase after him, attempting to stop him, before he can get to the villains, once they blackmail does not work.

But since that idea, is illogical I tried the whole protagonist and the other cop going undercover, causing the protagonist being forced by the gang to kill the other cop, out of a test of devotion. This I hoped would cause the cops to go after the protagonist, which it would, but they would go after the villains too since they forced him to do it, so the protagonist, has no reason to get revenge on them then. Or maybe the ending is not the problem, and I just have an impossible beginning and middle, which I keep changing and just haven't found the right one yet.

Another plan was to have a different undercover cop get killed during the break in operation, but the death is made to look like a self defense accident, thereby letting the gang off the hook.

But that one does not work either, because the police may just accept it as an accident and the protagonist will not act so harshly on it, in comparison. Even if that does work though, it still does not give the police a reason to go after the protagonist beforehand.

Perhaps it's the ending that's the problem. Maybe I just have an impossible ending, and I need to start from the drawing board again, on the very one line premise, and try to come up with a completely new ending. Perhaps even though I think the ending will be very effective, it's just impossible to get to, and those two situations cannot work together.

 

[Sweetie]

The problem is that H44 has too many disjoint threads and the suggestions confuse rather than clarify his writing.

I respectfully disagree. The problem is h44 doesn't think for himself. He needs advice to solve even the simplest of issues. He's obviously worse at writing than he is at color grading, audio, film making, editing, problem solving and the list continues. I really don't know why you're still attempting to spoon feed him.

He has an idea that is rather easy to implement. He's falling victim to what poker players call "finding monsters under the bed". If you're constantly worried about the improbable bad beats, you force yourself into continually making bad decisions. He's hearing about all the problems with his script from those who haven't read his script. He's so ignorant, he doesn't understand any rules of writing, let alone possessing the ability to apply the premise of context. This causes him to apply non-existent rules to imaginary circumstances. It's not surprising. Even if he did understand basic screen writing rules, would he continue to make these mistakes? Probably. He fails to apply basic common sense.

 

[harmonica44]

I thought the idea was easy to implement but seems that when I think for myself, the plot doesn't make sense. So I feel I have to ask people's opinions before I write a final draft and call the script finished. I would like to make decisions for myself and just write it out, by myself. But I figure I might as well get an idea on how to end it that works first.

I agree that it's a premise that should be easier to conclude. In fact, I have a few endings that actually work and hold together a lot better. I just don't feel they are good and are underwhelming. Even though they make sense plot wise, I feel like there is something missing theme wise.

 

[Sweetie]

So I feel I have to ask people's opinions before I write a final draft and call the script finished.

See, here's where common sense would come into play. You're not a writer. You're just some guy with an idea. You've either got a hornets nest of a mess in that head of yours, or you purposely keep the important details to yourself. You're receiving bad advice and its your fault.

When do you think you're going to acknowledge that you need to learn more? You haven't noticed that throwing ideas and further brain storming is only digging you a deeper hole? You're what? Half way through your first screen writing book? Go and read a dozen more and come back. As I've said multiple times, you need to get a broader view of writing and take on a style that works for you. What you're doing is wasting both your time and everyone elses in this thread.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I have been reading Save the Cat lately, and that book has a different perspective.

I have almost the whole script written out, including the ending. I have 92 pages in the original script, but have been restarting from scratch lately, and writing different treatments now. There is one thing that the books do not as much. They say to make sure that the character act natural and are not pawns of the plot. I understand that. However, how do you know if your characters are acting logical, especially if you have written them to act a certain way?

For example, Me and two friends watched Rosemary's Baby. We talked about it after, and all agreed that the characters were pawns of the plot, and that their actions were completely illogical throughout, just to build towards a certain ending. However, the movie is a well loved classic and a lot of people would probably disagree with us three. But that' s just it. What one person thinks, another does not. So how do you know really? I understand the concept do not let your characters be a pawn of the plot.

I have been trying to do that the last few re-treatments, but I honestly do not know if they are not, since others can see what I do not. I feel it's good to have a third person perspective.

 

[Sweetie]

how do you know if your characters are acting logical, especially if you have written them to act a certain way?

It's rather simple, but you need to learn this your own way. It became obvious to me a long time back, I'm incapable of teaching you. However, it does sound like you now know what you next need to learn. Time to find more than one perspective on that question.

Me and two friends watched Rosemary's Baby.

Grats. It's great that you're spending time with great writers. If not, WHAT THE FUCK?

Is this another one of your "It's on the internet it must be true rule" ??? Perspective. If I could smack you in the forehead right now, I would.

Try reading the writing books by William Bernhardt. He has 4 books that goes into depth into character, plot, structure etc. The dialogue book probably won't help you. Character = plot = structure. It's a lot more intertwined than your currently simplistic thinking.

 

[FantasySciFi]

I respectfully disagree. The problem is h44 doesn't think for himself. He needs advice to solve even the simplest of issues. He's obviously worse at writing than he is at color grading, audio, film making, editing, problem solving and the list continues. I really don't know why you're still attempting to spoon feed him. ... He has an idea that is rather easy to implement. ... He's hearing about all the problems with his script from those who haven't read his script.

I agree. Books are great teachers for some, others need to have more interactive direction. The quote you borrowed from me is focused on that very issue--those who spoon feed solutions from an incomplete picture.

The problem is that H44 has too many disjoint threads and the suggestions confuse rather than clarify his writing. ... There are many good writers on this group who could easily fix his script to make it work. It is, however, H44's and he needs to make his own choices even if he elects to smash his head into a wall until it's bloodied.

I think we're in agreement. I try to focus my guidance on how to think about and structure writing as opposed to supplying content. He's not paying me to write his story for him. However, someone attempted to resurrect this dead thread. I felt it was important to point out that this script idea has since moved on or changed since its original post. H44 has released multiple tidbits over time. Each thread would seem to suggest that it is his central story, when it's not.

They say to make sure that the character act natural and are not pawns of the plot. I understand that. However, how do you know if your characters are acting logical, especially if you have written them to act a certain way?

Acting naturally is different from acting logically. A mother antelope fighting a tiger to save her baby would be insane but would be chalked up to 'motherly instinct'. It's not rational but emotionally 'logical'. The behavior is expected. When it is unexpected or contrary, it signals there's an underlying problem that will be resolved in the drama. Tom is an honest man. We see examples where Tom is honest--reports when he's undercharged at the store, admits to skipping work to go fishing, etc. What happens when Tom lies? Immediately you wonder, "What's up with Tom?"

A good writer can use contrary or unexpected behavior to mark emerging drama. If there is no follow through, then actions suggest they are merely plot-driven. If Tom lies then we find out he's being blackmailed, the drama unfolds. If Tom lies and then nothing much happens, it's simply a plot device. This isn't about absolutes. All behavior is purposeful in advancing the plot. The question is whether it's consistent with everything we've come to learn about the character. A radical behavior change indicates something is wrong. Sometimes that IS a plot device. Great oogley-moogley, Tom is really possessed by his sister's dead boyfriend's imaginary friend. If after the shift in plot the character returns to "normal" behaviors, it becomes suspect.

I have been trying to do that the last few re-treatments, but I honestly do not know if they are not, since others can see what I do not. I feel it's good to have a third person perspective.

And you've received it from multiple sources. As I remember, you asked if 2 of 5 positive reviews is enough. The problem is "What prevents you from accepting it?". Why do you question if you can trust the 3rd person perspective? There are only two ways out of that rabbit hole--(1) Sweetie's way (man up and write the script and live with the consequences) or (2) you find a professional to review your script. In the latter case, you need to consciously choose to accept what they say as gospel, at least initially, to set a baseline for revising your work.

There are plenty of script reviewers who will give you feedback from the full script. Knuckle down, get the professional feedback and use it to re-craft your script. Take the new/revised script and run it by those original five friends. Has the positive rating gone up? If it's not up as high as you want, ask yourself if you fully implemented all the suggestions or only ones you thought were helpful. A good script review may seem harsh but it can also be invaluable. The hard part is just toughing it out and accepting that everything they say is probably true. And it usually is in the beginning.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Actually even though I revised the script a few times since and wrote new treatments, I still haven't solved the problem in this part of the story, as to how the police get onto the protagonist's trail. I think I found a solution though, and need to ask some legal experts to see if it could happen that way in real life.

As for the whole idea about the protagonist framing the killers, but then having that backfire, and he comes up with a contingency plan to blackmail the prosecutor... I have thought new ways around it, like the newer ones I mentioned before, as well as a newer one today.

I just need some way for the cops to get on his trial to get the ending I want. However, I thought of a newer solution that is not so complicated and may not lead to illogical actions. However, that part of the plot will be much more simple and low key now. Basically the main character has a plan but it's not near as elaborate or big as the original.

In a lot of thrillers, the protagonist has a big elaborate plan and when that fails, he sets a contingency plan in motion. These plans are what make the story intriguing. I have a new plan for him and a way for him to possibly get caught by the cops, if it works, but I feel it's much more simplistic and low key now, especially since it's leading up to the climax.

But as long as simple and not much of a plan is okay for the protagonist, and audiences will not feel underwhelmed, and have expectations of a big plan. That way I may have an idea that makes sense for the plot, but at the same time, do not have to worry about it being too anticlimactic either.

 

[Sweetie]

Okay thanks. Actually even though I revised the script a few times since and wrote new treatments, I still haven't solved the problem in this part of the story, as to how the police get onto the protagonist's trail. I think I found a solution though, and need to ask some legal experts to see if it could happen that way in real life.

As for the whole idea about the protagonist framing the killers, but then having that backfire, and he comes up with a contingency plan to blackmail the prosecutor... I have thought new ways around it, like the newer ones I mentioned before, as well as a newer one today.

I just need some way for the cops to get on his trial to get the ending I want. However, I thought of a newer solution that is not so complicated and may not lead to illogical actions. However, that part of the plot will be much more simple and low key now. Basically the main character has a plan but it's not near as elaborate or big as the original.

You may be in a position where you cannot see the forest for the trees. You're spending all this time and energy chopping, shaping, watering and planting new trees when you're probably in the wrong forest to begin with.

I suggest taking a step back and look at the big picture. You may be trying to cross a river at a broken walkway. Instead of trying to fix that walkway, your best option may be to take a breather and recognize there's a working bridge/tunnel within walking distance. Work out what you really need to do. Be a writer. Come up with a great journey that still gets you to your destination instead of spending all your time trying to fix what may not be worth the effort.

I personally think you need to start writing simple stories. Learn write simple compelling stories before you start writing more complex stories. From where I'm standing, this is getting you stuck.

Often your best option is set your currently script aside. Start working on another script until your subconscious comes up with a solution and THEN return. Repeat if necessary.

 

[FantasySciFi]

... as long as simple and not much of a plan is okay for the protagonist, and audiences will not feel underwhelmed, and have expectations of a big plan. That way I may have an idea that makes sense for the plot, but at the same time, do not have to worry about it being too anticlimactic either.

1. The story is about characters not elaborate plans. If you create characters that your audience really care about, the plot can be simple or elaborate and still be successful. I can't stress that enough. Scripts largely succeed or fail based on character development. We, the audience, watch as events play out in the struggle between the protagonist and antagonist. Take sports. It could be watching players overcoming natural forces (antagonist): golf, bowling, etc. It could be human antagonists with one team against another. Who do you cheer for and why? Sometimes you like both teams but know only one can advance.

What I want to emphasize, is keep it simple and focus on your characters. "Sugarland Express" is a very straightforward plot while being a very complex study in human emotion. Story is about the characters first and the plot second. New writers often reverse that priority. Character wins out over plot in the beginning. That's why studios want to attach big name actors and directors. Plot is important but the audience associate more with the characters. Fixing plots is easy. Making characters feel real and believable requires more finesse.

2. You said you're looking to produce this yourself, simple plots are easier to finance. Unless you're very well connected to pull in the tens of millions of dollars that all the big budget films you mentioned have--Diehard, Mission Impossible, etc.--you need to be more realistic. It's good to think big, but in the end, match your writing to your budget. If you're writer, director and/or producer, you need to think about your resources.

 

[film_autre]

8 pages ... and you're all still trying..

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I actually I think I thought if a way to tie everything up in the end which may work. It's really simple too. I will ask other's opinions and see if they agree. So when you people write, how do you know what you're character will do, and will not do? I always thought that if I create the character, I can develop him to do what I want. But how do you know what is natural or unnatural, even if you attempt to develop a character, to go down a certain path, even though it may be a crazy path?

Basically I want to know my characters, just as well as the audience, especially when the audience says that that character would not do something they did. One person I got feedback from said the one part they did not believe is that a cop would try to get revenge, and ruin their lives. Why would you want to go to jail, just because you are angry and want revenge? She may have a point? When it comes to writing the antihero, how can I make this more convincing to the reader?

 

[FantasySciFi]

So when you people write, how do you know what you're character will do, and will not do? I always thought that if I create the character, I can develop him to do what I want. But how do you know what is natural or unnatural, even if you attempt to develop a character, to go down a certain path, even though it may be a crazy path?

You play the role as if you were the character. Being a screenwriter means being part actor and part director. If you were Tyler and were a cop, what would you do? That's why actors will often spend time with people who live their roles. If I want to play a cop, I get permission to ride with a cop for a day. Experience his life if possible. If not, at least have him talk me through his day. Present him a scenario and see how he would react. If you model your character and his/her reactions off of real people, it will be more authentic.

It sounds like you have a few police friends who you can run ideas by. If they say, "I'd never do that" then take them at their word. Instead ask them what might they do. Now you have a legitimate (aka logical) action. Now you can change the obstacles in the environment. Changing the environment of a plot is less jarring than changing a character's actions to secure the result you want. But be careful.

If Tyler needs a gun, for instance, and he looks over and sees a gun under the table, that's a bit too convenient. If Tyler needs a gun, spots a thug with a gun staring off, it might prompt him to get up and try to grab the gun. There will be a scuffle but it's okay for Tyler to get the upper hand. It's okay for things to be easy on occasion but generally the hero has to struggle to succeed, at least a little.

In other words, you don't abruptly change the character, you change the path to guide the character where you want him or her to go. As he makes the trip, his character will change and be shaped so that less prodding is needed. If you can put yourself in his shoes and ask yourself what would I do as Tyler, you can write Tyler. If not, you find someone who's similar to Tyler and find out what they'd do. Of course, you're asking Tyler to go down a darker path than most people will go. So at some point, you need to go it alone. Then you need to be able to become Tyler yourself to take him down the dark path. A good writer is often a good actor or has multiple personalities.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. When I put myself into Tyler's head, I see him being angry and out for blood, since he wants revenge for what happened. But I am still told in feedback from others, that they have trouble seeing a cop taking revenge, instead of relying on the system, even if you have to wait a few years for the case to come through. So I feel that my thoughts on Tyler, and knowing my character were corrected by others, but that's still how I see him. Could I be imagining him wrong, when I am inside his head?

 

[Sweetie]

Rabbit hole... Enjoy your trip... Alice.

 

[maz]

For viewers to believe that a 'good' character is going down a dark path, they have to be able to empathise with the reasons and progression that lead them down that path. It can be one big thing that happens, or a series of little things, but they have to grind the character down. The tricky part is that you have to show all this on screen, without being too on-the-nose or obvious about it.

Have you seen Breaking Bad? The main character's fall in that show is so well done that a large part of the audience is still rooting for him even at his darkest points (I know I was). That's because all the backstory and legwork on the character (from writers, actor and directors) was so effective and efficient in the first place.

Here's your trope, by the way: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ToBeLawfulOrGood

 

[arrodiii]

But I am still told in feedback from others, that they have trouble seeing a cop taking revenge...

Are they saying this about just Tyler or about cops in general? If its just Tyler, its possible that the way Tyler is written doesn't evoke the emotions of anger and out for blood as you think they do. If its cops in general, you might try and write the cops to be blatantly corrupt in a few scenes to give the cops in your script an easier chance to look like they would.

Why not just have someone _____ one of your cops (when introducing them) in order to get the cop angry and then have the cop do _____ in order to exact revenge on the person who angered him? Maybe it will work better if the cop was _____ while the person angered him.

Going off of something that FantasySciFi mentioned earlier, it is hard to get a full concept of this script since you have hundreds of posts on it, scattered throughout the past few years. There is a tidbit here and there, but not all in one spot so it's hard, at least for a member like myself who hasn't really logged on in a while, to fully understand what it is that you are fully asking or what your script is about as I haven't read all of your nearly 5,800 posts.

I understand that you have a beginning and an ending that you want to use though have no middle. Getting from point A to point B has many options. This is your script so your characters can get to point B in a car, boat, jet, by foot, or whatever other means you want. That part is up to you and only you. Though if your characters are attempting to ride a sailboat across a desert in search for a swimming hole on their way to point B because your ending will not work without the sailboat, the swimming hole, and the sand from the desert, then there are some problems that you might want to work out before calling it a final script.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. That info helps. In Breaking Bad though, the protagonist has cancer is going to die. He is at the point where he has nothing left to loose since he is going to die, and that fuels his desperation. Where as my protagonist has to choose between his life, and wife, or whether or not to get revenge on the villains, and go to jail for the rest of his life after. So perhaps mine is a tougher sell, and some feedback I have gotten, the readers said they have trouble being convinced, that justice and honor is more important than leaving your wife.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

Kill off the wife character at the hands of the villains so that he has no choice but to get revenge on the villains.