A script of mine got proofread and here's what the reader said.

[harmonica44]

She said she liked the ending, and it ends the opposite of how most action movies do. She said one thing she noticed was that how in some of the action scenarios, the characters have to throw logic out the window, just so the action sequence can happen, the way you want. She said that that's okay, though, and that most thrillers are required to do that. Is that good? Other movies have done that though for sure, not that I blame them, depending.

 

[PaulGriffith]

I think some movies require a character to make illogical decisions. Horror for example, running upstairs to get away or splitting up for no good reason.

Is she right, are they making weird calls? Or is she interpeting them as strange. Can you provide motivation for the action or can they take different action?

It's all hypothetical because I don't know what she read or what you wrote. Just some thoughts to consider.

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

Logic is not high on the list of action film requirements, but being really entertaining is. Personally, I look for internal consistency, which is not the same thing as being logical. Have you seen, for example, "Face/Off"? The film is internally consistent in its total disregard for logic.

 

[harmonica44]

True in Face/Off the story makes sense, but there are a few scenes of the two guys pointing guns at each other and talking instead of shooting, and illogical things like that.

Well in my final action scene, there is a dirty cop who wants revenge on a suspect who cannot be proven guilty. But instead of just waiting to cap him off, at a time where it's quite and no one is around, he just decides to try to do it, in a very public place, with already lots of police around cause of all the chaos. He also steals a large truck and uses it to mow the guy down in front of plenty of witness and his own fellow officers.

It could be assumed that he is so angry and frustrated that he just snaps, but three other cops go along with him, and actually attack all the good cops to prevent them from stopping their murder. Again all the had to do is wait till another time, when they wouldn't be caught. This happens twice throughout, and are mainly the two illogical parts to require the action scenes.

 

[Murdock]

Is the name of the movie Aristotles Fray?? Logic isn't that important to action. No one would live through that stuff in the first place, but they do in movies.

 

[harmonica44]

The proofreader wasn't complaining though, she was just saying that that made hard for her to follow and I had to explain it a bit. I guess that's a concern. How do you make an action scene illogical in order for it to happen, but at the same time, have the reader understand it, and that it's suppose to be?

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

Clearly conveying information in script format is an art form.

But I would say that one thing that really helps is to break up your action into single sentences separated by double spacing whenever possible. These single sentences will also suggest shots by indicating each moment's focus.

This will also encourage you to make your descriptions as sparse as possible. Shorter means easier to read, and also means you need to convey more info more clearly in a shorter space; which doesn't mean overly-simplified, but sparse, kind of like a hard-boiled detective novel.

 

[Synia]

I think as long as the decisions made are "logical" for the person at the time when the decision was made. back to the example of people running up stairs instead of out the door.

If they were suddenly scared by something and decides to run upstairs, that's fine.

If the killer of ghost or whatever said "I'll give you 5 minutes to think through where you wanna run" and THEN the character still runs upstairs, then that's just bad scripting

However, even in the second case, if the character has extremely low IQ, or some mental fixation, or fear of going outside and has never gone outside in his or her life, then the decision is fine again.

I'm not sure if this is what DirtyPictures meant by consistency.

 

[harmonica44]

Well I could have the character snap and decide to make a psycho illogical decision, but I need his associates to snap with him, if that works.

I tried double spacing my sentences in the action scenes, but the script went over 120 pages so I had to single space.

 

[Murdock]

Becareful and forcing something too much. What comes to my mind is: In 8mm at the end when Cage is confronting the butler(the butler did it). Cage has a monologue and the butler responds. Then out of nowhere the butler blurts of "You wanna know why!?!?" And there was n't reallly a set up for the question.IMO So I would be careful not to do thid with yourt action. Maybe build it up and give fdorshadowing that they will make a crazy decision.

 

[harmonica44]

Yeah I remember that scene in 8mm. The guy had to explain everything so the audience could understand it, is what you're saying, right?

Well is a cop wanting to all of a sudden kill! kill! kill! in front of everyone, cause there is no justice forcing it? No probably not, but is a few other cops go along with him after her goes mad, forcing it?

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

From what you describe, the way your scene might work is if you've created an environment in which we've seen that ALL of the cops are sick of the system for letting the bad guys go free. So then, if your main character acts out in public, and does what all of the other cops were already wishing they could do, then they would have a reason to join in, and you might be able to pull it off.

Does this kind of thing makes sense for your script?

 

[indietalk]

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

I prefer realistic flicks even for action, and make sure you don't treat your audience as ignorant, if it is not fantasy or science fiction, the average moviegoer isn't going to suspend disbelief just because it is a movie, unless it is truly absurd or a specialty niche.

 

[harmonica44]

From what you describe, the way your scene might work is if you've created an environment in which we've seen that ALL of the cops are sick of the system for letting the bad guys go free. So then, if your main character acts out in public, and does what all of the other cops were already wishing they could do, then they would have a reason to join in, and you might be able to pull it off.

Does this kind of thing makes sense for your script?

Yeah this makes sense and that's kinda how I wrote it, although even though one guy goes along with it, he is doing it out of intimidation, and is reluctant, but still doesn't stop his crooked cop associates from committing chaos.

 

[harmonica44]

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

I prefer realistic flicks even for action, and make sure you don't treat your audience as ignorant, if it is not fantasy or science fiction, the average moviegoer isn't going to suspend disbelief just because it is a movie, unless it is truly absurd or a specialty niche.

Well you see this is what I mean. Should I throw logic out the window if some people say I shouldn't have the audience suspend disbelief? I mean there is a limit as to how much you wanna throw out but does what I describe require suspension of disbelief? I guess just so long as you can buy the other cops going along with being inspired by a spur the moment act of psycho revenge rage, then that's fine, and the proofreader was right about it being okay.

 

[indietalk]

Well you see this is what I mean. Should I throw logic out the window if some people say I shouldn't have the audience suspend disbelief? I mean there is a limit as to how much you wanna throw out but does what I describe require suspension of disbelief?

I like films so realistic, I don't even like it when they throw dialogue in to explain things to the audience because I know that's what it's for and it takes me out of the film... this is bad example but...

"I'm going to call the FBI."

"Yeah, calling the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a good idea."

That kind of dialogue is all over the place, and I like it when the don't do that, and I know what they're talking about, and if I don't, oh well, those two obviously do, and would never talk like that, so it is much more realistic.

So I am not the best to ask because even that bothers me.

 

[Aaron M]

I think some other's put it pretty well - as long as it adheres to the logic of the film world.

"If the killer of ghost or whatever said "I'll give you 5 minutes to think through where you wanna run" and THEN the character still runs upstairs, then that's just bad scripting"

that actually sounds like a fascinating premise. A killer who gives his victims time to think out their escape.

 

[SiCurious]

that actually sounds like a fascinating premise. A killer who gives his victims time to think out their escape.

Saw?

EDIT: Although Saw might not be a great example, as the Jigsaw Killer sets the rules for the victim's escape. It would be cool to make a movie where the victim could define the rules, like a dark version of Home Alone. Or maybe a situation where there are no rules, and it leads to a true battle of wits between the killer and the victim.

 

[Murdock]

Saw?

true

 

[harmonica44]

Saw actually didn't follow any logic in my opinion. Like it went too overboard with illogic.

SPOILERS FROM SAW -- DO NOT READ FURTHER:



I only saw the first. But in the first, they never explain why the killer gave the two kidnap victims, tapes in envelopes. Then he disguises himself as a dead body holding a tape recorder. Why not just give them the tapes already in the recorder, ready to play? What if they couldn't reach the tape recorder, then what?

Then they finally find a bullet and the gun that goes with the bullet. Why not have them find the gun and the bullet, already together, ready to go, along with the tape recorder. The killer also says that the blood surrounding him is poison, and wants one guy to poison the other with it. But if the blood was that poisonous then why didn't the killer die, from lying face down in it.

And they never explained that why is it that the killer already had everything ready to go for his previous killings in the flashbacks, but for his latest crime, he likes to keep all the pieces of equipment separate, not knowing if his victims will even find them. He could have done the crime in a much shorter amount of time, but only for his last killing in the movie, does he want to have everything take an illogical amount of time.

Sure maybe it's good to throw logic out the window to make a chase scene happen, every now and then, but Saw had too much throughout, and there wasn't even any pay off to throwing the logic out the window in my opinion, anyways. So I don't know if it's okay for Saw to go that far with it (some critics panned it for that), but most thrillers don't.