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!

 

[Sweetie]

I was wondering what happened to you. What have you learned in your time away?

 

[mad_hatter]

Your cop sounds like a pretty corrupt individual himself. Are you sure he should be you protagonist?

Either way, both of these sound pretty contrived to me.

 

[harmonica44]

Yes the cop is corrupt himself but that's how I want the character to be, for everything to fall into place. But is there anything I can to make it less contrived?

I have been doing a lot of research such as reading books on forensics, to try to get ideas, of how what evidence I can use, where the evidence is doubtful, but not so doubtful, that you cannot count on a jury convicting at all. However, I have not been able to find much that would pertain to my scenario.

It seems I can go two ways. I can either have the cop drag carry the body away and escape, so the villains cannot dispose of it, and the DA says there is no evidence to convict. The cop then blackmails the DA into doing it, even though there is no evidence and the audience does not hear anymore and that's the only explanation they get, and that's enough for them?

Or I can have it so the cop frames gets the drop on the crooks, and forces them at gunpoint to plant evidence on the the dead body, thereby framing them, but forensics reveals it be an incompetent frame, and the DA sees through that, and will not prosecute.

Or perhaps there is a better route to go, but so far it seems I only have these two. Is there anything I can do to make it better? I was told there was a plot hole, that being that it's not worth the trouble to blackmail a DA, if there is not enough evidence to convict anyway. Perhaps I can write it so that there is enough evidence but the DA does not take on the case for another reason?

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

You could do research on real cases to see if there's any that match what you're looking for. Reading about the subjects of forensics is one thing but if you can read about actual cases you might find more specific information.

 

[maz]

Once again, you seem to be looking for ways to prop up a confused, contrived and dysfunctional story. Instead of trying to 'fix' an implausibility by introducing another complicated implausibility, why not just accept that your story is flawed, and start again?

Planning a story out in detail before writing doesn't work for everybody, but I think in your case it would be very useful if it can help you avoid this situation of constantly patching up your Leaning Tower of Implausibilty.

 

[laughingcrow]

If you imply what your antagonist did in the beginning, you'll have to dedicate time during the story, showing us who this villain is and what he does. Otherwise; it's clear you don't care much about him, so we shouldn't either. And if we don't care about, or fully understand who the villain is and why he does what he does or at least HOW he goes about his wrongful doings, then it just won't be a very interesting story. Understanding their motives is what makes for great villains.

Pick a villain from any of your favorite stories. At one point or another we see what they do and sometimes even learn why they do it.

I would say go back to the blackboard on this; get into the minds of your main characters and figure out the WHOs and WHYs of them, really raise the stakes. And then find a simple way to bring them together.

 

[time2focus]

Does he really have to plant evidence? I would have him black mail the DA. The DA says "Why? You won't win in court." His response along the lines of "Make sure "Such&So" gets the case. I've seen him/her win much looser trials." Honestly, if you ever seen a trial in real life a lot of it is performance by lawyers. I know you you're not in America so that can make a big difference but I don't think it's too far fetched that a flawed justice system can put some one away without much evidence. To me this sounds much simpler and realistic. Don't just consider/research the forensics side but also the judicial side.

 

[WalterB]

Make it italian
Although times have changed a bit since the 90s there still seem to happen incredible things in court

Everytime you ask this question (let's admit it: most of your script questions boil down to this 'imply or show' question), it sounds like you try to trick yourself out of a dysfunctional story that makes no sense.
You don't know what to do, because it still doesn't make sense.
Listen to Maz: his advice is sound

 

[FantasySciFi]

In my script
A. the villains kill a cop and the main character cop is angry about it and wants justice.
B. The district attorney does not want to prosecute, because there is not enough evidence against the villains

First, MURDER of a cop WILL ALWAYS lead to a trial. Every cop on the force will be working on this to bring the culprit(s) to justice. Sometimes at the expense of following procedure. No DA will hesitate to prosecute. Proposition B is your first flaw.

C. So the cop ends up blackmailing the DA into prosecuting the suspects.

Blackmailing a DA is STUPID if not done anonymously. Cops rely on the DA's office to have their backs. If done anonymously, the DA would likely call in favors from his friends on the police to find out who it is. If the DA took it to trial and it was leaked that he was being extorted, it would result in a mistrial. So the cop and DA would lose out again. So Proposition C is your second fatal flaw.

D. DA prosecuting an 'evidence-less' case, what's the point if a jury will not convict, right?
E. Basically the cop who is killed, is shot to death in a shoot out.

They have the body of a cop. It would be hard to say nobody witnessed it. If he's dead by gunfire, then there are bullet holes and reports of gunfire. There will likely be blood evidence at the site of the shooting. So Proposition D is your third fatal flaw.

F. The main cop, also in the shoot out, then has to pretty much take the body, and escape with it,
G. so the crooks cannot have the chance to get rid of it.
H. Once he escapes he then puts the body somewhere, where it can be found, but wipes away his own evidence of being there.

If Prop. G is true, then by doing Prop. F the main cop has done what they wanted and basically created the alibi they needed. Boy was he dumb! Any forensic expert will be able to detect if a body was moved. Sounds like a scene from "Dumb and Dumber". All he had to do is pull a fire alarm or something to get anybody else into the area. Then he could flee after the criminals leave who don't want to be spotted. Proposition H is a fourth fatal flaw.

I. The cop who survived cannot testify himself cause he was not suppose to be there
J. But even if he said he was there, his testimony could legally be used anyway.

I'm not sure Prop. I is believable. He can't just be hanging with a friend when an incident goes down? He could have made an anonymous call to 911. Any citizen can bear witness, so I don't think Prop. J is particularly believable. Overall, together these are potentially major flaws.

K. I originally wrote it so that the surviving cop takes the crooks hostage at gunpoint and forces them to plant evidence.

All he'd have to do is have one of them shoot the body, drop the gun and leave. The weapon with fingerprints is now on the scene. So Proposition K introduces unneeded complications.

L. 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

How would they know? Secondly, in cases like this, law enforcement will throw every conceivable violation at the suspected criminals hoping that one sticks. Thirdly, they now have someone to pin the murder on. Cop killer case solved! "Justice" served. So Prop. L is a sixth fatal flaw.

M. 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.

the cop should stop while he's ahead. If he's so incompetent he can't frame the legitimate killers, then he's too stupid to frame a DA. This makes the rest of the story very hard to believe. It becomes a farce. Proposition M is the proverbial "nail in the coffin".

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?
​

Listen to her, she's right.

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?
​

I think you should scrap it and start over. The murder of a cop will always lead to a trial. It could be interesting to follow leads that strongly suggest this numbskull band of hoodlums and at the last minute, there's the twist it was actually his old partner whom he was blackmailing discovered by the DA's assistant. That's a very different story. As you've written it, it is, paraphrasing Maz, a "Leaning Tower of Impossibilities".

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Basically the cop was going to blackmail the DA by refusing to testify in a future case, and thereby not having the DAs back, and that's how the DA was going to give in. This is the third act though, so I do not know if I have to start from scratch and change the whole story. Perhaps just a new ending is in order. Is there any reason a DA would NOT prosecute the shooting of a cop? Let's start with that. How come in a movie like The Departed for example, when the police captain (Martin Sheen), is killed, the crooks got away with it, and no one was arrested? The cops are pretty sure it was Costello's gang who did it, and the gang could even be ID'd by the cops at the scene, since the cops got a good look at them. The gang didn't even had time to clean up the crime scene. So how come neither Costello or any of them were arrested and they got away with it?

 

[Sweetie]

Basically the cop was going to blackmail the DA by refusing to testify in a future case, and thereby not having the DAs back, and that's how the DA was going to give in.

Suspension of disbelief issue here. Why wouldn't the cop get fired from his job? The DA would get the cop fired in a heartbeat.

This issue is akin to the horror story problem for modern times. Why don't they simply call the police on their mobile/cell phone?

If you're going to continue down this path, you're either going to have to figure out how to establish why the blackmail will work in a way that the audience will believe. The MAD (mutually assured destruction) method may work.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks, that makes sense. Well I will restart from scratch then. As for what FantasySci-Fi asked, why doesn't the cop just make up an excuse that he was at a friend's house and heard shots. This would look to coincidental, the cop just so happens to have a friend that lives near the villains, residence, the one cop that happens to have a grudge near the villain. The whole thing would wreak of suspicion so the cop is just best pretending he was never there that night probably.

Under what circumstances can a cop killing not go to trial though? How come in The Departed, after the Captain was killed, no one pressed charges, and the cops were so hopeless about after, when they could have just arrested Costello, and gathered as much evidence as they could? How did something similar, work in that sense?

 

[Sweetie]

Under what circumstances can a cop killing not go to trial though?

The offender dies before trial.
Diplomatic immunity.
Offender was never caught.
Insufficient evidence.
A deal was made.

I'm sure the list goes on and on.

 

[harmonica44]

But in The Departed there should have been plenty of evidence, no?

Well I will restart from scratch. Basically for my script the villains have to get away with murder, and the main cop wants justice and resorts to corrupt means in order to get it. Him going that far, gets him into trouble with his superiors, and they stop him from getting his revenge.

So basically that's the theme I want to end the script with. He wants revenge, and his superiors stop him. Perhaps I can still use the same thing, but go another way with it. But it seems that if the main cop wants revenge, he would keep it secret and his superiors would not find out, so that's where it gets tricky to make plausible.

I think I may have thought of another way to go. I was thinking back to the movie L.A. Confidential and at the end of that movie, the cops wanted to bury the case, out of fear of embarrassment. They didn't want their police captain being known as a city crime lord. Perhaps I can write the last two thirds of my script like that, that the police department will not press charges and bury it, out of embarrassment. But under what circumstances, would they have to be pushed in order to do that nowadays? Plus they would have to keep their own officers silent such as paying hush money or whatever it would take. Could I use this approach? It worked for L.A. Confidential, the only difference being that the crook is dead by the time they bury the case, where as in mine, he would still be alive.

 

[Sweetie]

But in

Don't care.

Basically for my script the villains have to get away with murder

You just have to make it work. It's as simple as that. If any of your audience goes, "Bullshit. I'm out of here" you've failed. No references to other movies will save you.

that's the theme I want to end the script with

Make it work. Part of being a writer is figuring it out. Learn to be a good writer.

I was thinking back to

Blah blah... Still don't care. Are you writing your movie or are you writing LA Confidential?

Could I use this approach?

A competent writer could. If you work out what happened to get to that point, fuck yeah you could. You, the writer, still needs to make it work. You need to analyze why it worked and why it didn't. Will it work for you? Who knows.

the only difference

Lookie here. You found out why it won't work for you.... You do have some common sense.

Figure it out.

 

[FantasySciFi]

Okay thanks.
A. Basically the cop was going to blackmail the DA by refusing to testify in a future case, and thereby not having the DAs back, and that's how the DA was going to give in. This is the third act though, so I do not know if I have to start from scratch and change the whole story. Perhaps just a new ending is in order.

B. Is there any reason a DA would NOT prosecute the shooting of a cop? Let's start with that. How come in a movie like The Departed for example, when the police captain (Martin Sheen), is killed, the crooks got away with it, and no one was arrested? The cops are pretty sure it was Costello's gang who did it, and the gang could even be ID'd by the cops at the scene, since the cops got a good look at them. The gang didn't even had time to clean up the crime scene. So how come neither Costello or any of them were arrested and they got away with it?

In the case of (A), testimony can be compelled of a hostile witness. Not testifying is not legally an option unless the cop wants to go to jail for resisting a sub poena or perjury. The DA has no reason to give in. That argument just wouldn't float.

In the case of (B), the story was not about a cop's death but about two moles. Your story is specifically about a cop's murder. When you make that the focus of your plot, it will inevitably lead to someone getting accused and lead up to a trial. Or the perpetrator is killed before that. It's part of the genre. In real life, murders will be followed until all the leads go cold. But in the case of a police officer's death, you have intense interest.

A. Okay thanks, that makes sense. Well I will restart from scratch then. As for what FantasySci-Fi asked, why doesn't the cop just make up an excuse that he was at a friend's house and heard shots. This would look to coincidental, the cop just so happens to have a friend that lives near the villains, residence, the one cop that happens to have a grudge near the villain. The whole thing would wreak of suspicion so the cop is just best pretending he was never there that night probably.

B. Under what circumstances can a cop killing not go to trial though? How come in The Departed, after the Captain was killed, no one pressed charges, and the cops were so hopeless about after, when they could have just arrested Costello, and gathered as much evidence as they could? How did something similar, work in that sense?

Actually, I was saying that in a neighborhood, someone would hear the shots and report it. Or the next day, someone would see evidence of gun play. I also said there's no reason two off-duty cops can't be going out for a beer when there's a robbery next door and they jump into police mode, calling it in. Being on administrative leave doesn't preclude a person from socializing with his co-workers off the clock. The audience doesn't know where the cop lives or where the villains live or that the cop knows the villain lives nearby. Though I never suggested that. All the audience cares about is that you make it believable.

In (A), if a friend cop takes out your main cop for a drink to console him. The bar may happen to be on the seedier side of town but that's where the strip clubs are (yeah, the cops are human). It so happens that the knucklehead gang is rough housing a liquor store nearby. Guns go off. The two run in. Even though off duty, they draw their weapons. In the course of trying to intervene, good cop gets killed. Now there are various ways to proceed but I'm not here to write your story. Taking the rap for being there is far less incriminating or ludicrous than dragging the body to another location. He could run in find his friend dead and simply run off. Though there are clever ways to handle it, my advice is to keep it simple.

In (B), the police all know it was Costello and his gang. So when Sullivan kills Costello, the blood debt is paid. The police praise him. A cop killing will not go to trial if the killer is dead. More importantly, this story's genre wasn't about law enforcement but espionage with moles and double agents. The espionage genre translates equally well to fantasy if you consider all the intrigue in Game of Thrones. When writers talk about genre there are certain plot elements that are consistent and sometimes required. A law enforcement genre is a procedural drama. You saw the movie elements but not the underlying plot skeleton. It doesn't work for your story because you suggest it's a procedural/crime drama not an espionage drama.

I know the agony of starting over but you've created a Rube Goldberg script which doesn't work because the elements don't connect and the marbles keep rolling off onto the floor. Patching it only makes it worse. Planning is an important element of writing mysteries and crime dramas. All stories really but particularly when you need to carefully connect one plot element to another. Trying to go back after the fact is difficult. Plot changes ripple forward and backward. I don't think a Houdini writer could escape the conundrums you've written as it is.

For (B), if you invoke a trial, you are not dealing with espionage. You cannot use "Departed" as a template. If a cop is killed, either the killer is brought to trial or is killed. This is related to one of Polti's 36 plot structures related to "kin death". The police are a fraternal order. It applies to war films, gladatorial films, etc. If the killer gets off (mistrial, found innocent, charges dropped, etc.), the expectation is s/he'll get whacked in the end. Justice must be served. Even in "Departed", they both get killed, presumably by other operatives.

Genre rules allow the audience to understand what's happening. If you follow the rules, then you can imply certain things. If you break the rules, then you must show them and justify why you broke the rules so as not to alienate your audience.

Here's what I take away from your story--

They killed his friend. He wants them to pay. But he's hiding his buddy's body because he wasn't supposed to be with him. He didn't just call the police and leave an anonymous tip. Then he goes back takes the real killers hostage, makes them further mark the body with spit and stuff. And despite the fact they really killed him, the police won't arrest them because they think they're too dumb. Though they had contact with the body and didn't report it already which makes them accessories to a murder which they really did commit. But because the police don't believe them, the DA thinks they should ignore the evidence too though a murder was committed and they're the most likely suspects. And somewhere along the line, someone extorts an ex-felon computer hacker to break in and look at computer records. So the cop who took the body now has to force the DA to file charges by blackmailing him by not testifying on another case. And the DA agrees to that even though he could compel him to testify and have the cop arrested on extortion charges leading to federal prison time. The same cop who kidnapped people, moved a body from a crime scene and tampered with a criminal investigation that would have led to an earlier arrest with additional felony charges over his head. The DA complies and loses everything--wife, family, job, etc. The cop has a change of heart. Somehow, he has to make a hard decision at the end between honor or the girl. And he breaks from genre to choose the girl.

As an audience member, it's a baffling hodge-podge that is unsatisfying. It's not a War film because he didn't simply kill them or call in backup immediately. He's not heroic. It's not a Crime film because you don't follow procedure. He doesn't show discipline. It's not an Espionage film because the characters are all true to their casting. There are no spies. It's not a Detective film since he falls for the girl and breaks genre expectations. This is a perfect example of why understanding genres and their plot elements are important. You can't simply mix and match, choosing themes you like from different movies. Like mixing too many paint colors, you don't get a rainbow, you get a muddy grey brown. A skilled artist can load a brush and get that effect, but it takes practice.

It's time to stop muddying your script. Time to pull out a clean canvas and start fresh. Decide on your genre, your main character and your story. It would be more interesting to use a Perry Mason approach where you have the DA bringing the men to trial. But as it looks grim, new evidence arises that puts the focus back on the cop. Before you write, lay it out. Be clear who the main character is. Keep your premise/logline posted where you can refer to it. When talking about Truby, you told us that the cop was the main focus and the premise was "In pursuing 'mentally challenged men', the 'detective' becomes the victim (persecuted by society)." Do you see how you can remain true to a genre (Legal/Detective film)?

If you have to force your character to make an unusual choice, then you need to stop and go back. Choices, actions and decisions need to be natural. Don't come at it with the attitude "Well, if s/he doesn't do this, then plot won't work." The big news is, if that's the case, the plot wasn't working beforehand either. Plots follow natural patterns. If you need unnatural actions, the plot is flawed. Go back and make the right choice and play it forward. Usually a more natural connection back to your intended path arises without forcing.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Were you saying that before in your example, that the cop should lie and say he was at a bar with his friend, as his alibi, or are you saying that he should actually be there with him and it's the truth? The thing, is that if he is with his friend in reality, and then the gang they happen to have a grudge against, happen to be committing a crime near by, it just feels too much like a convenient coincidence, as oppose to the cops using their skills to find them. As long as the audience does not see it that way, and it works.

In the treatment I did not lay it out specifically enough. I just wrote it that the cop frames the gang for the killing and that be blackmails the DA, etc. I need to write the treatment much more specifically, before writing further drafts. You also said blood and the gun would be found at the crime scene if the cop forced the villains to leave a gun. But the villains would just clean up the crime scene and get rid of the blood, gun and body. I could write it so that the cops get there right away, but if I do, this makes the villains escape less plausible, because the have to get passed road blocks, police dogs, etc. But I will rethink it.

I was curious as to what you said about breaking genre expectations by having the cop fall for the girl. Is that really so bad? In Casino Royale James Bond chose the girl in the end and decided to retire from his job as a result even. Did that work cause it was the spy genre, and not the detective genre?

I just think that there shouldn't be a golden rule that the cop must not fall for the girl UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, if that's what you mean. When you say the DA complies and looses everything, wife, family, job, etc... why would the DA loose everything just because he took a case to trial with insufficient evidence?

Also you say that in movies with this kind of scenario, like The Departed, where the cop wants justice for his friend, the expectation is that the killer gets wacked at the end. I didn't really want to use the wacking ending cause I thought it was cliched. That's why I thought of blackmailing the DA, cause I have never seen that done in a movie before, so I thought it would be more original, rather than just simply go sneak off and kill the killers. I will rethink the story, but I do want him to do more than just simply kill the villain. The villain can die, I just want the plan to be more original and different.

My friend who read it said that I should write it so that the cop who is killed should kill himself instead, being driven to suicide by the gang of crooks. This will compel the main cop to want revenge, for the friend being driven to suicide, and no charges are brought, because it was a suicide. However, if someone is driven to suicide by a result of crimes committed by the gang before, wouldn't that still be considered 'felony murder' and charges can still be brought? I recall an episode of NYPD blue where a felonious crime was committed against a woman, and afterwords, she went into a severe depression and killed herself. The crooks where then charged with felony murder cause she 'died as a result of their crime', as they put it. So perhaps that idea will not work...

When you ask if I see as to how I can remain true to a detective/legal film, what is it do you mean exactly?

Also when talking about Truby, he also says that a writer should come up with his ending, close to after coming up with the premise. That way you can build into your ending. That's what I have been doing everytime I restart, and try again, but it seems I every ending I come up with that I think is the best, I cannot build into it, without a character having to do something unnatural to get to it. Do you think that maybe Truby's approach is not always the best, and I should just have my characters act naturally, as they go, and whatever ending happens as a result, happens...? That's a black and white way of looking at it, but perhaps I am being too grey area, which is what's leading to all the unnatural motives.

 

[Sweetie]

I cannot build into it, without a character having to do something unnatural to get to it.

Perhaps you're building a bad ending.

maybe Truby's approach is not always the best

Did you finally read what I said a few months ago?

perhaps I am being too grey area, which is what's leading to all the unnatural motives

Have you considered, since you always seem to need hand holding to even do the simple stuff that writing just isn't you?

 

[harmonica44]

Well right now, since I have to wear a lot of the hats, being the writer is one of them, cause no one else is writing it. Until I can afford to purchase other scripts, I am stuck with practicing my writing, and getting better.

When I write a treatment, or outline, I will show it people and ask them if they think it works. Most of the time, they say they are not sure, and would have to see the script written in full, dialogue and all, in order to get a sense of the characters' behavior.

So I feel I have to write a script all out in full, in order to get an opinion on if it works from others, rather than them being able to tell me at the treatment stage. Is there anything I can do to make people see the holes or character flaws in the treatment before hand, without having to write out several complete scripts, in order for others to know if it holds together or not?

Another thing is, is that it's often difficult to tell if a character is being unnatural or not, cause since I create the characters, I am free to make them as insane or unreasonable as I want. So I believe them based on how I created them to be that way. Because of this, it's hard to know where my limits are.