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

Does a love interest, have to be part of the main plot in this case?

I am writing a script, and asked some for feed back and one person who read what I had so far, said he said that the love interest character was a cliched trope. Basically it's a crime thriller where the main character is a cop going after dangerous villains, and he has a love interest, that is sort of hos moral compass, when it comes to going too far, and what not.

I was told that she is a cliche because she has nothing to do with the actual plot, and there have been so many thrillers movies, with the love interest that has nothing to do with the actual plot. Two examples, I can think of where the love interest is not part of the plot, but a moral compass, that are similar in genre are Heat (1995), and Bullitt (1968).

But do you think it's a cliche that cheapens the character or the story in any way, because of it?
 
Just how many scripts are you writing?


If she is, as you say, his moral compass, and in any way influences his decisions through words, action or non-action then she is part of the plot. Ask yourself if she were not in the story, would your main character make all the same exact decisions, behave the same, dress the same and so on? If the MC wants to go right, but the love interest nudges him left, then she is part of the plot. Or sub-plot.

Also, if, as you say, she is his moral compass, I am going to assume (as I always do with you) that the audience knows this because of some interaction and dialogue. There must have been some exchange to make this apparent. This particular love interest in this case is called a foil character, a character used as a sounding board for other characters so they have someone or something to talk to to express ideas, concerns, info-dump, etc., and not have to do it by talking to themselves.

Along the lines of an imaginary friend we, the audience, can see.

aw
 
A great example of a foil is in 'Cast Away', 2000 with Tom Hanks. The ball, Wilson, provided someone/something for Hank's character, Chuck Noland, to talk to. By doing so the audience was able to 'listen' inside Chuck's head. His fears, his lonleness, ideas and so on. Take Wilson out of the mix, and see what happens to the film and MC.

By the way, Wilson is listed in the cast credits of the film.


Chuck also talked to the drawing he made in the cave, and to himself (I made fire!), but we best remember Wilson. Ask yourself, was Wilson really part of the plot?

aw
 
Okay thanks, Cast Away is a good example. Yeah mainly the main character's love interest is his sounding board, but I was told by a couple of people, that it's become too much of a cliche in movies, for female characters to be sounding boards for the main character, rather than being given more steaks in the story.
 
Lol, yeah I really hate it when the chicks don't get enough steaks.

A cliché is just that if you write it that way. Rework it into something dynamic and original, and integral to the story. If a story is stongest with a male lead and a female foil, then go with it.

We saw snippets of this in 'The King's Speech', 2010, via the peripheral children and teacher's wife. Needless to repeat here how that film did in the awards season!

Let me read what you have so far.

aw
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. I can leave it as is then, and have her be the main character's sounding board. I am filling in some gaps in the second act, and then I can send it out, if that's okay.

Since we are talking about it, I would like to ask a question on the second act, if that's okay. Basically it's a thriller, where the MC brings down the villains and wins in the end, but I am not sure how to approach him bringing them down for the last half of the script.

Basically I know what I want to happen, I am not just not sure HOW. There are two approaches I can use. One is the MC has a theory on how to beat the villains that will work, but it's just a theory, and he doesn't know all the facts and is just theorizing and hoping. So he risks his life (and other people's lives, which is a flaw of his), based on a hopeful theory, which turns out to be right. The reason why I want it to turn out to be right, is so he can win get the villains in the end. But this approach raises possible questions to the audience such as:

1. Would he really risk so much based on a theory, although it's obsessive?

2. What are the odds that he turned out to be right and it his risky plan thereby worked in order to have the villains lose?

The second approach is where the MC learns all the facts ahead, and knows almost everything, and has built the puzzle. He then is able to take a much more calculated risk, but it's more calculated and so he would be more likely to take the risk, cause the final outcome is much more predictable to him. The disadvantage of this approach is, that even though the risk and predicted outcome are more believable or plausible to the audience, there is less mystery for the MC, cause... He knows so many facts ahead of time now, to help.

Which approach do you think is better?
 
Last edited:
I`d suggest you try to get something more special from this "love interest" plotline, than just "ok to leave it". Maybe try to question the real feelings character has, and play with some darker motives to spice things up, or maybe a crossroads thing. As a viewer, I always enjoy films that don`t take anything for granted, and even if "love interest" is there, it means nothing on its own.

-
 
(Does a komma, has to be in the title?)
:P

It's your story.
We can't judge it without script.
For 2 reasons:
1) a summary is never really complete and gives a general idea: this will generate general replies which will be hit and miss, because we don't kno everything.
2) you have a track record of leaving out vital info in a lot of your questions, so we might even be trying to answer the wrong question.
 
Back
Top