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!

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. But I can't kill off the wife because her living plays a part in the ending I want, after the revenge is taken. And the villains have no motive to go after the wife particularly.

 

[WalterB]

Okay thanks. But I can't kill off the wife because her living plays a part in the ending I want, after the revenge is taken. And the villains have no motive to go after the wife particularly.

LOL

Changing 1 thing can change everything
As it seems you can't fix it without changing, somethig needs to change

 

[Sweetie]

somethig needs to change

If you're going to change anything, why not change the writer first? /wink

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

Who are all the characters you have in the story?

 

[FantasySciFi]

Who are all the characters you have in the story?

If H44 told you, he'd have to hire Canadian ninjas to kill you. The number grows and shrinks.

When I put myself into Tyler's head, I see him being angry and out for blood, since he wants revenge for what happened

Tyler isn't angry all the time. There is a time 'before it happened'. The event hasn't happened yet when we first meet Tyler so there is nothing to make him want revenge. You need to start in the neutral state and work into the angry one. You need to show that transition for this to be a "journey".

...feedback I have gotten, the readers said they have trouble being convinced, that justice and honor is more important than leaving your wife.

Presuming you're married, is there a scenario where justice and honor would cause you to leave your wife? I'm asking about YOU IN REALITY, not about your story or Tyler. What would make you leave your wife? Not only would you have to violate your marriage vows, you'd have to violate your sworn vows to uphold the law. What would cause YOU IN REALITY to do that? Many police investigators will continue to work cold cases over the years working within the system.

When you say your readers/reviewers are 'having trouble being convinced', it means it's not something a NORMAL PERSON IN REALITY would really do. Would you run into a burning building to save your wife? Many people would like to believe that in that circumstance they would have the courage to do that. That's believable. Someone running into a burning building to turn off the air conditioner, probably not so believable.

It has to be credible to your audience. Note that in seeking revenge, he has also abandoned justice and honor since he is now abandoning his vows to uphold the law. Tyler would abandon both his vows to his wife and sworn duty because .... If you were a REAL COP and living Tyler's life IN REALITY, how would you answer that? You don't have an either/or in your story. It's an illusion you've created in your mind.

Maz's post is really helpful. In teaching writing, I often draw upon the DnD system to demonstrate character dynamics. In the end, Anakin had neither Padme nor the status of a Jedi (lawful good). In the end, Tyler has lost his justice, honor and his wife.

 

[harmonica44]

To answer the question, would I do what Tyler do, probably not, but then again I did not create the character based off me. The character is suppose to be mad and out for revenge. What are other people's reason's for wanting in movies. Look at 24, season 8. Jack Bauer wanted revenge on the villains, even though he knew that getting it would cost him to leave his own daughter behind. And he wasn't willing to shelf as a cold case to solve for later on in life.

So if audiences can believe that, then it's possible to create such a character. But I suppose I cannot use Jack Bauer's reasons for my character. I need to come up with my own that is perhaps more believable for mine. The character just needs to SNAP but he had to so convincingly to the audience somehow, and that an overreaction, is human.

When you say I don't have an either/or in my story, what do you mean by that exactly? What is DnD system as well? I've actually never played Dungeons and Dragons if that's what you are referring to. To answer the question Tyler would abandom both is vows to his wife, and sworn duty because

1. For his wife, he believes that a man's got to do, what a man's got to do, and a wife should understand that, because justice for the world, is bigger than the happiness of just two people, at the price of justice.

2. For his sworn duty, he has to come to believe that the system he swore duty to, is a hypocrisy that failed, and is beyond following.

Those are his reasons, do they make sense?

 

[Sweetie]

Look at 24, season 8. Jack Bauer wanted revenge on the villains

You gotta lay off the sauce. No wonder you can't write. You're smoking the shrooms while you're watching the tele... Alternatively, if you're not bent while all this is happening, it's time you booked yourself into the farm.

 

[maz]

To answer the question Tyler would abandom both is vows to his wife, and sworn duty because

1. For his wife, he believes that a man's got to do, what a man's got to do, and a wife should understand that, because justice for the world, is bigger than the happiness of just two people, at the price of justice.

2. For his sworn duty, he has to come to believe that the system he swore duty to, is a hypocrisy that failed, and is beyond following.

Those are his reasons, do they make sense?

They are the 'what' rather than the 'how' or 'why' that are involved in demonstrating or illustrating motivation. How has he come to believe those things? It makes for a much more interesting story if he originally held different principles, but they were tested by events and couldn't bear the challenge. Most people like to think they have certain principles, but then for most people they are never tested. It makes for a more compelling story for Tyler to start out as one of those regular people, and to show how he was corrupted.

Your challenge is how to show that transition - the fall from noble principles to cynical ones - onscreen in a way that moves the story along and is also not obvious exposition.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. But Tyler does start out as a normal non-corrupt cop. At least that's what I intended. He becomes tested later on in the second act, and from there he transforms. I think it's the transition itself that people find hard to swallow. Perhaps he is not pushed far enough and more innocent people have to die or something. First I started out only killing off one person for who to avenge, and now two. But I could rewrite a lot of it so the villains have motive to kill off more.

Whatever it takes for him to want revenge bad enough to go prison for it. And it has to be so bad, that he cannot believe, in solving a cold case on his own time, because that would mean he would have to bring the case to 'the system'. I have to write it so that it's so bad, that he thinks the system is broken on all levels, no matter how hard he tries. I don't think it's how he starts out that's the problem, I think it's that his transition is based on events that are simply not tragic enough. I mean in real life cops would not leave their spouses and get revenge just because two people died so I have to figure out what will do it, if that won't work.

 

[maz]

I would guess it has to be something that he takes personally or something which poses a direct threat to those he holds dearest (as in Breaking Bad). You don't want to kill of his wife - how about his parents? His children?

I still suspect that if readers are really not believing in the transition, that you're not allowing it enough time (screen time and story time) to show the how and why of the transition.

 

[FantasySciFi]

To answer the question, would I do what Tyler do, probably not, but then again I did not create the character based off me. The character is suppose to be mad and out for revenge.

Then that is why you fail with writing your character. If you can't even believe this is how YOU would act, then the audience won't believe it either. When does he get mad and want revenge? How do you lead up to that?

Look at 24, season 8. Jack Bauer wanted revenge on the villains, even though he knew that getting it would cost him to leave his own daughter behind. And he wasn't willing to shelf as a cold case to solve for later on in life.

Apples and oranges. There are seven seasons (about 140 episodes) of learning about Jack. Uh, Jack has reasons to be angry. Oh yeah, there's evidence and other people are chasing these villains too. So yeah, not many parallels to your story. You really don't understand the television and movies you watch.

When you say I don't have an either/or in my story, what do you mean by that exactly? What is DnD system as well? I've actually never played Dungeons and Dragons if that's what you are referring to. To answer the question Tyler would abandom both is vows to his wife, and sworn duty because

1. For his wife, he believes that a man's got to do, what a man's got to do, and a wife should understand that, because justice for the world, is bigger than the happiness of just two people, at the price of justice.

2. For his sworn duty, he has to come to believe that the system he swore duty to, is a hypocrisy that failed, and is beyond following.

Those are his reasons, do they make sense?

It means you need to do more research into human behavior and emotions rather than the law. You have an Asperger-like inability to read emotions accurately.
1. Do YOU believe #1? In this case, you need to make a damn good reason why justice equates to murder.
2. By killing for personal revenge, he abandons justice and honor. Just because he views it as a hypocrisy, that's not how the audience sees it.

Since he has abandoned justice, honor and his wife, he has nothing. Most of us realize the world is not always a just place. No, I'm afraid neither make sense.

As far as Dungeons & Dragons (DnD), you don't have to play it to understand the character typology. Read the link Maz provided and the associated links. You need to learn all you can about character development. Writing emotionally believable characters is hard for many writers. It's good to hook up with another writer who has that strength.

.... I mean in real life cops would not leave their spouses and get revenge just because two people died so I have to figure out what will do it, if that won't work.

So it cycles back. What would it take for YOU to want to leave your spouse and seek revenge IN REAL LIFE? And if the bad guys keep taking lives, the system will not sit on its hands but would side with Tyler. They might get off for one murder but for several, that would make the plot unbelievable. Good luck.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. So basically I have to write the character based on myself then. I did not know that from the beginning. Every character I wrote was never based off me I felt. But if that's what I have to do... If I actually wrote the dialogue so he actually says 'Even if I work on the case for the rest of my life, the system just wouldn't accept it, so there is no hope', do you think this would help the audience see it that way? It would probably take more than dialogue of course, but would that help?

When you ask 'When does he get made and want revenge on How do you lead up to that', what is it exactly did I make confusing or not clear before? He is getting revenge for the two cops that are killed, and the kidnap victim who has suffered. I will look up the DnD links.

As far the villains getting away, with several murders, this is why I cannot have this happen. The villains only get away with two murders at the most I figure. That has to be enough for Tyler to want revenge, because if I write it so that they kill off several people, then I agree, it will be unbelievable. So Tyler has to motivated by two murders at the most.

As for killing for personal revenge, meaning justice and honor are abandoned, as the antihero he does not see it as revenge. He sees it as justice, in his own way. It's kind of like how when an armed bank robber, is getting away, the cops will still shoot at him if he does not surrender, and there is no other alternative to stop him from getting away. Tyler sees it that way. He is killing them to prevent them from committing future crimes, the way the police see it, when they shoot an armed fleeing felon, who won't surrender.

That's how he sees it. And yes I believe #1. I do believe that a man's got to do, what a man's got to do, even if a spouse may not understand depending on how big the crime is, that must be resolved. The only part I do not believe perhaps is him solving the case on his own time for years to come. I know I cannot use other stories as examples, but is their anything I should keep in mind when making the antihero character make sense? You say I have to develop him emotionally convincingly, but if murder is not an option for the antihero cause it's not what I would do, should I just make the antihero do what I would do? I guess if it were me, I would just take pictures of the villains committing a crime, and post them on the internet and slander them to the public so everyone knows who they are. Should I write the ending like that? Would audiences like that ending even? You said before that audiences have expectations that the villain should be wacked at the end, so would this be a good thing?

 

[WalterB]

H44, don't forget: a transition is not a flick of a switch.
It means that moral boundaries get pushed more and more. Everytime there is a reason for the next step.

A decent into darkness needs to be motivated.

{Off-topic}

...............You have an Asperger-like inability to read emotions accurately.
...................

You do know H44 admitted he has some autistic thing going on?
(I guessed it long before he said it.)

 

[harmonica44]

Yes I do, not Aspberger syndrome, but autism. But I still feel like I want the script, develop my skills and get better. I even wrote a whole new treatment that I think is much better than the ones before, with a lot of the story gone back to the drawing board and rewritten from scratch.

Well I mentioned the new ending to a couple of people who are helping me write it so far (one of them has written his own short films before), and they both say that the new ending is way too underwhelming. The idea of Tyler sending in pictures to the net slandering the killers is not enough, and something more suspenseful and intriguing should happen for sure. They say even if the old ending may be far fetched, for Tyler not minding going to prison, at least it was exciting and dramatic in comparison. But since sending pics to the net and media, with slander is what I would naturally do as a person, how can I make that ending work better, if it has potential? Now that I have suggested an ending, that is what I would do, I have the two people helping me, say it sucks more now, as a result.

 

[WalterB]

It's not about what you would do, but how it is plausible that a character does something.
FantasySciFi asked you what it would take to make you do something, but it doesn't mean the character should be like you.

Emotional truth can be not logical.
Just like in romantic comedies the characters often make stupid decisions, because they are afraid, shy or jealous (often the audience knows it is unnessacery, but for the character it makes sense to behave like that).

Sending pictures to the media can be underwhelming, it can also be a proper ending (

Spoiler

Enemy of the State ends like that after the villains are neutralized, so the top crook can be exposed

).
Often that device is used to either take down a powerfull public (political) figure or to make the world aware of something very important, while in both cases the enemy is to big for the hero to defeat alone.
Sometimes those pictures only surface after the hero has died. In a way he gets his revenge from beyond the grave: he died trying, but outsmarted the bad guys and girls anyway.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. In my first script drafts, the main characters plan was originally to get pictures, or video in this case, since everyone has a digital video camera nowadays. However, this plan backfires in his face, which is what resorts to him snapping and killing later. But I could just use that ending if it's better. But you are right it's not about what I would do per say, I just need to make the killing more believable.

If thinking that the justice is broken will not be enough for the audience to accept, then I need think of a reason that works for them, as to why he goes that far.

Romantic Comedies are a good example. I actually do not like a lot of them because I find that the characters treat each other like crap for the whole movie, and somehow fall in love at the end, instead of wanting to punch one another in the face. I actually thought that the plot to The Proposal (2009), was completely unbelievable, but my friends bought it at the time. In that movie: SPOILER


Sandra Bullock's character blackmailed his employee, Ryan Reynolds into marrying her, otherwise she will fire him. Later Ryan Reynolds is told that if he is marrying her so she can be an American citizen, that he will be charged with fraud, and serve jail time. However, Reynolds gives in and takes the risk cause he does not want to be fired. But Isn't being fired from a job, better than being charged and convicted of fraud?

Now the writers somehow made this believable for a lot of viewers, even though it's illogical. Not that I can use this for my story at all. But perhaps I can play by the same rules in writing. You have to sell the character's decisions to the reader, even if his/her decisions are not the smartest?

I even intended my protagonist to not be a very bright character. He becomes angry, foolish, and his decisions lead to his own destruction. However, I do not want the audience to think he is an illogical complete idiot that cannot be understood. In case I didn't mention it before in the ending of the original drafts, after failing to expose the crooks to the public and the plan goes awry, another innocent person is killed as result, and they got away with it. This causes the the protagonist to know he will be charged with felony murder or manslaughter, or something of that sort and the cops are now onto him and will stop him from trying to get the villains within any other means of the law. So he figures since the damage has been done, I might as well just kill the crooks, since trying to expose them was not accepted by the system, even after another person was murdered as a result, and they got away with it, AGAIN.

Can I make that decision of his work convincingly for the audience, or absolutely not?

 

[WalterB]

That's why the 'descend into darkness' takes place step by step.
Often the hero has to be 'seduced' or forced to take the first step. Allowing himself more liberties than his morals actually gave them.
By doing so, he can discover how 'easy' it is to put his morals aside: the end starts to justify the means. Or the first step proofs to be be quick sand: sucking him further into moral decay. (Or a combination of both.)

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. But don't I already have that though? The taking of the videos of the villains then going to the media with them, is the first step. The after that goes wrong and some one is killed, I originally chose for him to plant evidence at the murder scene, to frame the villains. Which is the second step. I then wrote it so that the framing fails, and the DA sees it as a frame. So Tyler chooses to blackmail the DA, into taking the evidence that he is taking for granted, and go to trial with it. That's the third step.

I took out the DA blackmail and planting evidence though, since I was told it doesn't make sense. But I can still write it in the next treatment that he tries exposing them through video footage first. But after that goes wrong and someone is killed, and he is blamed for it, he then tries one last chance to find proof of their guilt by stealing a certain macguffin. But the macguffin gets away and one of the villains accidentally is killed in the escape. Now that the cops are still after him for the death, and now a new death on top of it, he then says screw it if I go to jail, I might as well take their lives too, since I am going anyway. This is the fourth step.

Is four, not enough steps to get there, and I need more? Is that the problem?

 

[maz]

Okay thanks. But don't I already have that though? The taking of the videos of the villains then going to the media with them, is the first step. The after that goes wrong and some one is killed, I originally chose for him to plant evidence at the murder scene, to frame the villains. Which is the second step. I then wrote it so that the framing fails, and the DA sees it as a frame. So Tyler chooses to blackmail the DA, into taking the evidence that he is taking for granted, and go to trial with it. That's the third step.

I took out the DA blackmail and planting evidence though, since I was told it doesn't make sense. But I can still write it in the next treatment that he tries exposing them through video footage first. But after that goes wrong and someone is killed, and he is blamed for it, he then tries one last chance to find proof of their guilt by stealing a certain macguffin. But the macguffin gets away and one of the villains accidentally is killed in the escape. Now that the cops are still after him for the death, and now a new death on top of it, he then says screw it if I go to jail, I might as well take their lives too, since I am going anyway. This is the fourth step.

Is four, not enough steps to get there, and I need more? Is that the problem?

Again, you're listing the 'what', instead of the 'how' and 'why' of the descent. Those are the important things, and what you need to show (not tell), and on which you need to sell the audience.

One of the most important traits of a writer is empathy. You (and readers/viewers) should be able to say "I may never do what this character does, but I can fully understand how he/she's reached the point." Viewers often respond to protagonists caught in terrible dilemmas with words such as "There but for the grace of God go I." The emotional turmoil (if not the causes) are familiar, shared, human.

Even though most people have never wanted vengeance on a gang of sadistic murderers, most people will have been in a situation where the desire to right some wrong, or to make sure that someone feels consequences for their misdeeds burns brightly - however relatively minor the reasons might appear (maybe an office squabble, or even a schoolyard experience).

Most viewers have that empathy, which is why these descent stories work for protagonists (and sometimes, why they don't, but I'm terrible at remembering specific examples!)

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. But I honestly do not see the 'how' and the 'why' as missing. I wrote 'how' the steps occur, and how they go wrong, did I not? And the 'why' is because none of the steps he takes work, and every attempt he makes is screwed over by either the system or bad luck of fate.

So isn't that the 'why' in each step? I just don't see how the 'why' is missing. The why is, is that he is angry of every attempt he makes causes something to go very wrong, and he is put in more trouble because of it. Isn't that a 'why'? The 'why' is, is that the villains have gotten away with murder twice, and that every attempt at exposing them, he has made failed, and has only proved that their is no other option left other than revenge. How is that not a 'why'?

Another thing, my friend who is helping me write it, says that I take too long at making decisions and we just need to get it done and move on. He says that I rely on others too much. The reason why I do that is that I want to make sure it make sense. When I talk about the story to other people, such as on here, the story is capable of being picked apart for plot holes, and debunked for unrealistic behavior incorrect law and police procedure. But he says that every story in the history of the world is debunkable. You can pick apart any movies, especially thrillers, and always say "well the character could have done this", or "why didn't he/she do that?", or "what was he/she thinking, the idiot!"

Every movie has that and there is not one movie where you will find complete sensible behavior, and every movie has at least one plot hole, no matter how small. Every movie you can pick apart or debunk, he says. And there is no way you can write the perfect story, that every one will accept. He uses the movies Oldboy, and Cell 211 as examples. They are two of my favorite movies of all time, but he says that he found the human behavior in those movies to be unrealistic and logic is thrown out the window. Yet a lot of people like those movies and it doesn't make them bad. Some people buy it, some people don't, and that's how all movies are, he says. Just because 2 out of five people bought into the script before, does not make it bad.

He says I should just keep that in mind, write it, pitch it, and move on. Do you think that's true though, or does every story have to hold together on every possible level? Perhaps the different is, is that it's okay for movies to not have everything hold together as long as you have empathy for the characters.

I was told I had trouble conveying it. How can I convey empathy without dialogue? If the protagonist explains too much about how he feels and what he should do, it might come off as preachy or too on the nose. So when it comes to describing the 'why', without dialogue, how can I convey the why? I have described the emotions you see, as if it were on screen, in the script, but if that's not enough, what else can I do to convey, the why?

Another thing is, is that cops in real life, are willing to leave their marriages a lot. They will get into a situation like say a shootout, and get killed. Thus choosing a career in which called for them to leave their spouses. If a cop is okay with leaving their spouse by getting killed, in in the interest of getting the bad guys, then why is not believable for the audience, that a cop is willing to go to prison in the interest of getting them?