• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

How do you write plot turns without coincidences?

I have thriller script written, feature length. I have finished the first half and the last quarter. All that's left is the bridge between the second act and the third act, pretty much. Basically I need to get all the key characters, in the same place at the same time for the climax. At least three key characters and additional ones, depending on how I write it.

However, I have suffering from writers block for months on this one, cause how do you get multiple characters in the same place without it feeling too coincidental or forced? I asked my friends and they said I should just embrace coincidence, as real life is full of them and it might make it more down to earth. But I disagree, and I think a lot of viewers will not like that in a movie, and find it unlikely in fiction, compared possibly to real life.

I have thought of several ways to get them all in the same place but none that feel like it is written to the best it can be. They all just feel arbitrary and coincidental, just to move things along.

Are there any sights or books that can help with me with writing, so I can finish it? Thanks.
 
Writer's block = impossible math. Trying to get 1+1 to become 3 won't happen even if you sleep on it.

Maybe you could have a mean outsider character trick them all to be there, just because he hates them all and wants to see them kill each other.
 
If you want these characters to arrive at the same place independently - there will be some level of unavoidable coincidence. (What I mean by independently is if they are not actively looking for each other - they all get there through different motives). It is more worthwhile to try and avoid making it appear forced - you do this in the set-up for how they arrive.

For example - say it's a post office. 4 characters, hatred - would kill each other as soon as they looked at them. One character may be heading straight tot he post office to post a letter. Another would be heading to his mother's, she would give him a letter. Another would be a postman coming in to collect the letters. And another would hear the fight from outside and walk in to see what's up.

This way - it is still a coincidence (as I think it has to be here), but that is at the back of the audience's mind - because it is much more dramatic - slowly unfolding that something big is going to go down at the post office.
 
give them all something in common
maybe they all like a stand up comedian.. sprinkle that throughout the story. the comedian eventually comes in and gives a performance in their town so they all go to see him
 
Yes they do not all know each other. One of them is looking for the 'macguffin', and that's his reason for going there. The second guy wants to kill the guy going after the MacGuffin, and finds out he is there, so that's his reason. The third guy wants to go after second guy and I cannot come up with any reason for him to know to go there, that doesn't feel forced, and have been trying to rewrite the whole scenario a dozen different ways for months, and too a few breaks in between, but keep ending up square one.
 
Last edited:
One of them is looking for the 'macguffin', and that's his reason for going there. The second guy wants to kill the guy going after the MacGuffin, and finds out he is there, so that's his reason. The third guy wants to go after second guy and I cannot come up with any reason for him to know to go there, that doesn't feel forced, and have been trying to rewrite the whole scenario a dozen different ways for months, and too a few breaks in between, but keep ending up square one.

Once again, you give incomplete information. What have you used to get #3 to the final destination? Why do you feel that they do not work?

And, BTW, maybe it's other parts of the script that make #3's arrival feel forced.

Maybe you have to rethink #3's motivations.

Maybe your set-up is wrong.



Just because you like something - even if it's really good - doesn't mean it's going to work. I've designed sounds for a scene and loved them, but they didn't work in the scene, or the overall context of the sequence of scenes or the entire film. Example; I created a sound for the (high speed) movement of a vampire. I created a white noise based sound on a soft synth. It was easy to manipulate using the pitch bend and mod wheel, the effects were also controllable via PB and MW. It just wasn't right as it didn't feel organic enough. I ended up using highly processed jet engine sounds. I had to redo about a dozen instances in the film.

I've produced songs/beats that started with a sound that eventually disappeared from the final product completely.

You can't fall in love with anything; you have to be able to "kill your baby."
 
Okay thanks. I will check out Hereafter. I don't mind making changes to the script to make this work. But I do want the premise of the story to be the same, and I want the ending for that idea, to be the same. The rest I can change accordingly, but do not want to change the characters around unless I absolutely have to, as I feel their motivations go with the themes I am trying to present.

Like for example, two years ago I wrote a script that is about terrorists seeking revenge on the government. My filmmaking collaborator and DP at the time, didn't like the premise and said it was too unconvincing, saying that Americans do not believe in terrorism and just wouldn't strike at their own government realistically. Maybe one, but not a team, he thought.

He said he wanted to rewrite the treatment of my script, so it was more believable. I told him if he wants to, sure, give it a shot. He then gave me a new treatment and the premise was now about a guy who is seduced by the wrong woman, and she screws up his life and blackmails him to her advantage. So basically we now went from a premise like V for Vendetta, to Fatal Attraction, which is a completely different premise altogether. The only thing that remained the same were the main characters' names. It gets to the point where if you change so much around, it's not the same story anymore and you might as well just write a whole new script and make a different movie.

Basically what I mean is, I will make changes but I do not want to have change the story, theme, or premise around entirely.

I know I left out information but at this point, after rewriting it several different ways for months, I am up in the air as to what happens before this point. I know what I want to happen in the first half and that won't change, but do not know where to after all with any of the characters to get this point. But I am open to changing what I have to, as long as the characters do not change from what was established about their motives, in the first half. But I can certain littler things that happen in the plot around.


Basically what happens is this, that I need to make work: Character A is a criminal who works for Character B. He wants out, and tries to find away to be rid of his boss, B. He finds out from keeping tabs on his boss, that there is a Macguffin, which is evidence that can incriminate both of them. He wants to get the macguffin and see if he can use it to his advantage, like blackmail for example. Perhaps remove the evidence from the macguffin that incriminates him, and then he can use it to incriminate his boss only.

Character B, the boss, knows about the macguffin and has it kept in a safe place for his use later. But it's not safe for long. He has to find out that character A will be there at a certain time to claim it. He has to find out right away, so that he does not have time to go claim it before character A can get to it. He has to find out in a nick of time, to arrive there at the same time, so to speak.

Character C, is a man who's life has been destroyed by character B. Character C wants revenge, and has to find out where B will be at that time. So when he goes to find B, he finds the macguffin as well. So this is my dilemma of getting all three of them in the right place at the right time.

What if character A thinks to himself, "hmmm, character B, my boss, may have a macguffin of evidence that would incriminate him, that I could use to my advantage. But how do I find it? What if I called character B on his cell, and tell him that I know where he keeps his evidence that will incriminate him and if he wants to see the evidence again, he better come get it now, before it's too late". Then that will cause character B, to panic and go after it. He will then go after it in his car, and I will follow him, to it. That way he will take me to the potential evidence that I need to blackmail him, and I can then snatch it"

This could be one way to get character A and B in the same place. A just calls B, and sends him into a panic, causing B to take him right to the macguffin that he needs. Is this so crazy it could work for a plot, or is it too far fetched?
 
Last edited:
Maybe give C a reason to ask A for help to take revenge on B. C visits A, who isn't there. C is told that A just went to this one location. Meaning C would show up because he looks for A.
 
Other movies that have accomplished this are Crazy Stupid Love, Valentine's Day and Love Actually. The relationships that bring about the eventual meeting are setup in Act I not Act II so you'll need to rework Act I.

Alcove Audio is right, you're probably going to have to kill parts of Act I you love.
 
I will make changes but I do not want to have change the story, theme, or premise around entirely.

My wife likes to crochet. She does some astoundingly complex patterns. (I sometimes wish I could wear some of the stuff she makes.) But there are times when she's 18 inches into a pattern and realizes that she dropped a stitch 11 inches back. She has to unravel all the way back to the dropped stitch and start over, otherwise it doesn't end correctly.

The fact that you have writers block is an indication that there may be something wrong with your story arc, or there is something wrong with the way you are thinking about it and/or approaching it. You're trying to force square pegs into round holes.

I understand about wanting to maintain your basic premise. But you HAVE to change the some aspects of the story. Perhaps there's something wrong with your "blueprint," how you build the story around your basic theme/premise. Maybe there is a flaw in how you are working the relationship between A and B. Maybe it just needs a small tweak; maybe it needs a major overhaul.

And maybe C needs a complete rework. Instead of C knowing B destroyed his life maybe C's story arc is to find out who destroyed his life. That leads him into all sorts of investigation and the discovery that B is the culprit; once he "finds out" then he can embark upon his campaign of revenge. That leads to his discovery of the MacGuffin, but he has to continually play catch up, pushing the pace before B is out of his reach or C is out of time (or whatever), which leads to his appearance at the climax, where B is "out in the open" without his walls of protection.
 
What if character A thinks to himself, "hmmm, character B, my boss, may have a macguffin of evidence that would incriminate him, that I could use to my advantage. But how do I find it? What if I called character B on his cell, and tell him that I know where he keeps his evidence that will incriminate him and if he wants to see the evidence again, he better come get it now, before it's too late". Then that will cause character B, to panic and go after it. He will then go after it in his car, and I will follow him, to it. That way he will take me to the potential evidence that I need to blackmail him, and I can then snatch it"

This could be one way to get character A and B in the same place. A just calls B, and sends him into a panic, causing B to take him right to the macguffin that he needs. Is this so crazy it could work for a plot, or is it too far fetched?

It is pretty crazy, but at least one highly-rated major TV show used almost exactly this conceit to get to a particular plot state, so audiences seem OK with it. I don't like it, because I like to believe people aren't quite so gullible, but then I've never had my life/liberty hanging on whether I believe a call or not; maybe I would be exactly that guillbile :)
 
Which TV show was that? I would be interested in seeing that episode. I guess now that I think about other thrillers, a similar thing happened in 8mm (1999).

As far as changing the first half goes, I don't know if there is much I could change that would help. Basically character B, sends his henchmen to kill off people he wants revenge on. They are going around doing this for the first half. Character C is a cop, and he is investigating it, trying to beat them at their own game. He gets in the way, and Character B frames him and his evidence he gathered on the case. His life is destroyed and he wants to reclaim it, get revenge on character B, or at least get him behind bars, and make things right.

Character A is not a very main character in the first half. We know he develops moral qualms about what he is doing when his boss decides to take the revenge route, and by the end of the first half when character B has won, and gotten away with his crimes, A is conscience stricken and wants out. But he's only in a few short scenes so far in the first half. He is established and developed to that point, but not near as main of a character.

After B gets away with his crimes, then A comes into the picture more as he wants to discover this macguffin and use it as his way out. The macguffin is evidence that B has on his men in case any of them turn against him, that he has kept locked away. However, I do not want my villain coming off as TOO gullible, cause he was already smart enough to get away with his crimes, and contaminate the evidence without leaving a trace, in the first half. So for him to become gullible in the second has to be convincing, if I write it that way.


So I am not sure what I can change about the first half though, that could really make a difference since the macguffin is not introduced until after, and C is not as main of a character who doesn't do as much. If I added more subplot with him, that would make the script longer, and it's already too long for what I want, and I am trying to cut down.

Perhaps changes can be made in the first half that would effect, the second? Cause after the villain wins, the story shifts into trying to get him again, so it seems that there is not much that can be changed in the first half that would help anyway.
 
Last edited:
the macguffin is not introduced until after,and C is not as main of a character who doesn't do as much. If I added more subplot with him, that would make the script longer, and it's already too long for what I want, and I am trying to cut down.

Perhaps changes can be made in the first half that would effect, the second? Cause after the villain wins, the story shifts into trying to get him again, so it seems that there is not much that can be changed in the first half that would help anyway.


The MacGuffin is usually introduced at the very beginning.

From Wikipedia:

In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation. The specific nature of a MacGuffin is typically unimportant to the overall plot. The most common type of MacGuffin is an object, place or person; other types include money, victory, glory, survival, power, love, or other things unexplained.

The MacGuffin technique is common in films, especially thrillers. Usually the MacGuffin is the central focus of the film in the first act, and thereafter declines in importance. It may re-appear at the climax of the story, but sometimes is actually forgotten by the end of the story. Multiple MacGuffins are sometimes derisively identified as plot coupons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin


C is not as main of a character who doesn't do as much.

Then eliminate C altogether or intertwine him more deeply. If C is just a "tack on" he's pretty useless to moving the plot along; get rid of him. If C is important to the confrontation at the climax then his motives need to be made more clear and more important.

It sounds like you need to re-examine the story arc and motivations of the characters.
 
Last edited:
Well C is the main character completely though, and is still pretty important because C is killed when he tries to get the macguffin, and his death causes other characters in the script to do things, that would not be done, if C is not killed. So C is still very important for the climax and ending to play out how it was intended. If I get rid of C, I have no first half, since he is in almost every scene and the story is all about him. And plus I don't see how I have to change characters motivations around. The motivations are solid. I just have to come up with a scenario, in which they all end up in the same place at the same time. It's not about motivation, it's about situation. I realize motivation is part of that, and I can change the motivations around somewhat, but I do not think they have to be change entirely into different characters. Doing that will feel more forced than what was intended in the original premise.

Check out this scene from Infernal Affairs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN7zJBjZgHU

In this movie, the writers were able to get three groups of people to meet in the same place at the same time. The first group being the undercover cop and his captain, meeting to talk. The second group being the gang of thugs who want to kill the undercover cop. And the third group are the cops who are tailing the police captain, who are sent by the same man who sent the gang. I know the clip doesn't show it all, but it's reminder to anyone who has seen the movie, that it has a scenario where three parties meet, that I am talking about.

The writer got three parties to be in the same place at the same time, without having to the premise. In fact you could still use a lot of the first half, and keep it the same. So how do you write like that where you can make it happen, without having to write a script to an entirely different movie with different characters and story pretty much?
 
Last edited:
But you changed your mind again. You went from:

C is not as main of a character who doesn't do as much.

all the way to:

C is the main character completely because C is killed when he tries to get the macguffin, and his death causes other characters in the script to do things...

Make up your freakin' mind!



My opinion still holds - you probably need to rework C's story arc and motivations so you can get him there.

See, here we go again; everyone offers suggestions and all you do is say "No I can't, because..."



And about your "Internal Affairs" example... How deeply have you studied the script. Not watched the film, studied the script. Does getting the three parties together make sense to you? Do you think it makes sense to the audience? Not anyone else's opinion, yours. Let's hear what you have to say. Really exercise your brain cells.
 
Sorry I rewrote that cause I meant to say that A is not as main of a character. I meant A, but wrote C by accident, my bad. And yeah Infernal Affairs makes sense. Okay I will not say I can't, I will try to rewrite it, and try not to make the script too much longer. There is one solution that may fix all this. There is another character I could invent for the plot, character D.

D is an informant who does work for the police, and happens to infiltrate himself further into the gang. He happens to meet the boss and find out some things that are useful in finding out where the macguffin is for character C.

However, is it okay if D tells C how he infiltrated and got all the info, that is required for the plot. I don't want to actually have to show D, do all this cause it would take more scenes to write, and I am trying to cut down. So can D just tell C, or could this come off as cheap, and I need to show the whole process in scenes. It can work for me, but it feels too convenient, like an informant came along like a miracle, and knows all this stuff and is able to pull all the info out of his hat so to speak.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps an exercise you can try is working on a new draft of the screenplay incorporating new ideas you have and the suggestions you've been given on this forum, not worrying about length of the script for this new draft but just as a way to have two drafts to compare - the one you have now and a new one. You could think of this new draft as a "what if" draft where you play around with the story. If you don't like this new draft you can always go back to the previous one.
 
Back
Top