Do I need a setting for my script?

[harmonica44]

It's a thriller I am writing to do as my first feature. It's about terrorists going around wreaking havoc, trying to put fear into society and the government, for their cause. Normally a movie like this would be set in a big city such as New York or Washington, but I do not live near cities near that big, and had no idea where I would set it. It has to be a big city with big government though.

I was thinking it could be any city USA, without naming the place. Or would audiences of this type of plot and genre require a setting, in order for the movie to come off as professional enough? What do you think? Thanks.

 

[harmonica44]

A bit of both. I know what you're thinking but almost every serious thriller movie is illogical and far fetched. If you watch movies like Cellular or 16 Blocks, for example, the villains in that do things that are obviously dumb and would get them caught, but somehow get away with it, and escape being thought of as suspicious. Until the end of course. So I figure if Hollywood can do it all the time and make successful movies out of them, does mine have to be so realistic, to that point even? Serious thrillers are not realistic, even The Dark Knight for example, they had to make the cops somewhat stupid, just to keep the movie from being over.

 

[Firm1]

A bit of both. I know what you're thinking but almost every serious thriller movie is illogical and far fetched. If you watch movies like Cellular or 16 Blocks, for example, the villains in that do things that are obviously dumb and would get them caught, but somehow get away with it, and escape being thought of as suspicious. Until the end of course. So I figure if Hollywood can do it all the time and make successful movies out of them, does mine have to be so realistic, to that point even? Serious thrillers are not realistic, even The Dark Knight for example, they had to make the cops somewhat stupid, just to keep the movie from being over.

Yeah, but no one remembers those movies. They're a dime a dozen in Hollywood and are made by people who are really good at making films but bad at telling an unforgettable story. The difference between the iconic filmmakers who become household names versus every other established director is their stories and more often than not, those stories are grounded by reality, even if they're set in a fantasy World.

The Dark Knight was a bit fantastical but considering its Batman, a story that is by default far-fetched, its extraordinarily realistic. In fact, its probably about as realistic as you can make any super hero movie. What makes Nolan the king of Cinema these days is the fact that he grounds all his movies on reality, regardless of how unbelievable they are. In a real way, this creates a direct connection to the audience who can sit here and say, "I understand Bruce Wayne" instead of "This is Batman, so I have to accept the crazy costume and whatnot".

The same principle can be applied to this movie you're trying to create. If the audience has to force themselves to accept the unbelievable, then its not good. But, if you can convince them that this is very well possible and under certain conditions, likely and when they can truly understand how the individual psyche can rationalize such brutal acts of violence, then it connects the good and bad guys to the audience. It allows them to see the true face of humanity and show them that yes, they in fact can turn into the very characters in your movie. Then, its like watching your friend or cousin go down a dark path rather than some stranger in a far-fetched world. Don't you see, by adding realism into your movies, you're fixing the age-old problem of disconnection. Now, your audience won't just be seeing the movie vicariously. They'll feel the movie as well.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks, makes sense. What about a movie like The Chaser (2008) or Fargo (1996)? Fargo went on to win best picture and the criminals in that movie were less logical, than the criminals in mine, and that was suppose to be set in a very real world. I feel that I my crooks are more realistic than the Fargo ones. As for The Chaser, it was suppose to be set in a real world, and the characters in that movie were suppose to be, realistically illogical and irrational, if that makes sense.

Now I know what you're saying that people will not take the law into their own hands as long as their living conditions are still high, but what if these people operated out of pure principal, and out of principal, felt that they had enough and they were not going to let it go on out of their own sheer strong beliefs?

 

[Firm1]

Okay thanks, makes sense. What about a movie like The Chaser (2008) or Fargo (1996)? Fargo went on to win best picture and the criminals in that movie were less logical, than the criminals in mine, and that was suppose to be set in a very real world. I feel that I my crooks are more realistic than the Fargo ones. As for The Chaser, it was suppose to be set in a real world, and the characters in that movie were suppose to be, realistically illogical and irrational, if that makes sense.

Now I know what you're saying that people will not take the law into their own hands as long as their living conditions are still high, but what if these people operated out of pure principal, and out of principal, felt that they had enough and they were not going to let it go on out of their own sheer strong beliefs?

Then, they will only be a small group and the audience will hate them and think they're stupid and foolish. Not saying the movie will suck. Just saying that from a logical standpoint, no one is going to support them. That's why you either have to make the rationale mind boggling or make the setting right so that their actions can be justified. Making your character's rationales corky seems like a better way to go than to just have them be against the government. Everyone's against the government. So, then what makes them different?