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!

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Well I asked a person in litigation and she said that if a witness takes section 11, then they still have to give testimony, but will give be given immunity against being charged for self incrimination. So I wrote it that way cause I had to, based on what was told to me, if the law says you will have to testify but with immunity. Now even though she admits to committing the crime, since she cleaned up the crime scene, there is nothing to charge her with later. Tyler cannot prove it, unless the prosecutor wants to take her to trial based on his accusation alone, which he does not.

As for Wray's attorney questioning a witness without her attorney present, should I write it so that the witness, waves her rights to an attorney present, while being questions by a Wray's attorney?

And yes I have done a lot more writing since people's comments on here. I noticed that most of the criticisms were in the first half. Does this mean that the last half holds up better?

As far as the original idea about the main cop blackmailing the DA, I took that out long ago now. I am still having trouble building into the ending I want, and will have to do more police/legal research to get there. I know I've been told to keep it simple but since the law is very complicated, it is preventing me from keeping it simple. I am working with another screenwriter on it, and we have come up with some more logical endings, but I dunno, they just feel underwhelming, or like something is missing in the third act, albeit they are more simple and logical.

Do you think that it will be bad if I kill off the antagonists at the beginning of the third act, and the rest is just a a fugitive story from the police? If I do it that way, I can have a climax that may make more sense, but not sure if audiences will like the antagonists coming to their demise earlier than usual for a story.

 

[Sweetie]

Do you think that it will be bad if I kill off the antagonists at the beginning of the third act

By definition it wouldn't be the beginning of the third act. It would be the climax. You'd probably be then moving into a 4th act. It's not necessarily a bad thing. It's not what I'd suggest an inexperienced writer should attempt.

not sure if audiences will like the antagonists coming to their demise earlier than usual for a story.

Why not kill the bad guys at the end of act 1 as your point of no return and switch antagonists to be the boss of the bad guys? It's a complete re-write but it'll work a lot better. You'll then be able to mimic a workable man on the run structure and be able to hide a lot of the legal crap you're having issues with.

 

[harmonica44]

Perhaps. I already thought of an ending I am close to going with and building into that. The only thing is, though is that it's much more low key, and audiences prefer high stakes climaxes. Although if you want more realistic, a low key climax is more plausible. I may go with it as long as audiences do not mind the fact that the protagonist does not have as many obstacles to face compared to other thrillers.

I was also told by a couple of other writers, that I could use more twists in the plot, so that is something to be mindful of too, as this new idea has less.

Perhaps there is no logical way to build into the ending I want to have though with the current premise and characters, if the characters have go to go with certain rules, that you cannot develop them anyway you want. Perhaps I am just restricted to go towards only certain times of endings with the current premise. But as long as the audience does not mind more of a low key climax, compared to usual.

I was also trying to add in more suspense and action, cause I was told by one producer who said that it's very tough to sell a script that is over 40% dialogue. If that's true, then perhaps I need more action and suspense, and therefore, more obstacles and higher stakes...

 

[Sweetie]

audiences prefer high stakes climaxes

This is a perspective thing and is often taken out of context. The audience tends to need to care about the stakes. You as the writer is responsible for giving the audience that reason to care.

I could use more twists in the plot

Twists, plot points, reveals, reversals etc. It's likely. I kind of have a feel for your lazy style and it's likely that you will.

as this new idea has less

An undeveloped idea will have less plot points than a developed idea. You'll need to develop it. It's that simple.

as long as the audience does not mind more of a low key climax

Take The Usual Suspects as an example. The climax is the protagonist walking out of the police station. It doesn't get much lower key as that. It's still a fantastic climax. You need to pay attention when I say it depends on your execution. Save the world/life or death is not the only options for stakes.

I was also trying to add in more suspense and action

It's a cute idea. Done correctly it's great. Done poorly you have action for no reason and suspension no one cares about.

it's very tough to sell a script that is over 40% dialogue

The number is 41.82%, not 40%. Sheesh.

Laughable. Try explaining that rule to Sorkin, arguably one of the better screenwriters alive. His dialog ratio is probably closer to 70%. You'll probably find Tarantino dialog ratio is rather high.

If that's true, then perhaps I need more action and suspense, and therefore, more obstacles and higher stakes...

Perhaps. Why can't suspense be done with dialog?

PS. 83.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[WalterB]

When you write 'rules' again, I suspect you are applying illinterpreted best-practices of which you ignore the unlogical nature, because you believe in rules.
When you write "as long as the audience doesn't mind", it sounds like you try to trick the viewer into accepting bad writing or at least try to find the boundary of lowest acceptible quality...

When you mention 40% dialogue, I wonder what they are talking about. Maybe you are a dialogue genious, we don't know. The saying goes: "show, don't tell."

High stakes or low stakes: what is realism anyway?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTlbulbVo8c

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. When I say as long as the audience doesn't mind, I mean I want to give them what they want. I actually found the ending of the usual Suspects to be not as great as everyone said, but this could be because I was told what it was beforehand.

When I say more action and suspense, I am trying to get a feel of what the average viewer wants. I showed the movie The Skin I Live In to a group of friends who are pretty much average viewers and they like movies which the majority likes. But they said the found the movie too talky and needed more suspense and action. So if they feel that way about that movie, then perhaps it's something to be concerned with. But I do agree, you want to make the audience care about it as well.

Die Hard for example, had more action than it needed. Like when John McClane could have realistically did what most cops would have done and shoot Kristoff right away, he chooses to pistol whip Kristoff, even though Kristoff has a submachine gun. They then fight it out, when McClane would have logically shot him. But they had McClane fight him instead of shoot him just for the sake of having a fight. We still would have cared just as much if he shot him instead.

I know my story is not like Die Hard at all, but I see in other movies, how they bend logic for the of suspense and action. I want to do the same thing, but not TOO MUCH. I think there still is a way to build into the ending I want. I just have to find a way to get there that works in the real world.

 

[Sweetie]

I am trying to get a feel of what the average viewer wants.

Why?

But they said

If they told you that Indietalk readers want you to kill yourself, would they be right? Would you do it?

The general audience cannot tell you how to fix a film as much as they can tell you how to fix a bridge. They can tell you whether they like it or not. When to put reasons why they don't like it, it's pot luck to whether they really know.

Do you go to your mechanic to cut your hair? Why would you go to people equally clueless for writing help?

Die Hard for example, had more action than it needed. Like when John McClane could have realistically did what most cops would have done and shoot Kristoff right away, he chooses to pistol whip Kristoff, even though Kristoff has a submachine gun. They then fight it out, when McClane would have logically shot him. But they had McClane fight him instead of shoot him just for the sake of having a fight. We still would have cared just as much if he shot him instead.

This is a good example of why you're having such troubles with writing. Your view and reasoning of the world is a a little off skelter.

I just have to find a way to get there that works in the real world.

Nope. No you don't. Not even close.

 

[Sweetie]

more action and suspense

I'll give you a tip. The word you're looking for is emotion.

 

[WalterB]

...............When I say as long as the audience doesn't mind, I mean I want to give them what they want...........................

Then say what you mean!
Not minding something is not the same as wanting something.
Not minding is very indifferent.
Wanting = desire.

 

[harmonica44]

Yes you are right. Thanks.

One thing that other readers have commented on, is that they do not like how the protagonist is able to form a lynch mob of vengeful cops, without these other cops having much introduction prior, to set up their sense of wanting justice. They say the other cops are not deep characters and just a plot device.

However, there are movies that do this. In Magnum Force for example, we have a group of vengeful cops that is not very well explained. In M, practically every homeless person in the city wants a piece of the killer they are going after, and the writers literally do not do anything to establish the homeless people's take on the revenge. They are just brought in as a plot device when needed without prior set up, accept for the blind man, but that's not really a set up for revenge hardly.

What do you think? Is it okay to have supporting characters commit a crime if they are not main at all, and just brought in after the tragedy occurs?

 

[Sweetie]

brought in after the tragedy occurs?

It's usually a bad idea to introduce characters after the first act unless they're insulated to the B story.

 

[WalterB]

It's a good script when it can stand on it's own. (Or the references are brilliant, but that is something completely different.)
If you have to use other movies as excuses for parts that seem not convincing, it's not standing on it's own.

 

[maz]

I would argue that the current "Golden Age" in television has led to movie audiences who are now much more accepting of dialogue-heavy drama - even in 'action' films.

Ultimately though, there are producers and moneymen who will try to hack up a script to make it more commercial - the writer's job is just to tell a good story with characters people care about, and tell it well. If you can do that, nothing else matters.

 

[FantasySciFi]

I thought of an ending ... though is that it's much more low key, and audiences prefer high stakes climaxes. Although if you want more realistic, a low key climax is more plausible. ... the protagonist does not have as many obstacles to face compared to other thrillers.

The end is about the emotional resolution. I realize that's not an area you work well in but for most people, its the emotional satisfaction (or disappointment) with good (or evil) triumphing at the end. Action (high or low key) of the climax is what precipitates the conclusion where the character development payoff lies (emotional resolution). With your autism, that is a key point you need to understand. The climax IS NOT the conclusion or ending. It PRECEDES the ending.

The end of "Magnum Force" is not the explosion, it's Callahan re-affirming that he doesn't agree with police procedures but he's not a vigilante. If all you and your friends saw were the booms and bangs, you missed the major context of the movie.

I was also told by a couple of other writers, that I could use more twists in the plot, so that is something to be mindful of too, as this new idea has less.

Stupid writers, tricks are for kids. You only add twists when your plot sucks from the start. Then it helps distract the viewer from realizing what they've been sitting through is pure drivel.

Perhaps there is no logical way to build into the ending I want to have though with the current premise and characters, if the characters have go to go with certain rules, that you cannot develop them anyway you want. Perhaps I am just restricted to go towards only certain times of endings with the current premise. But as long as the audience does not mind more of a low key climax, compared to usual.

That's probably true which is why a major overhaul may be your best solution. You keep talking about the audience as if anyone is really going to want to watch this. You would be better served creating a logline and running it by everyone, not just your select group. See if it interests them. That will give you a far better idea.

I was also trying to add in more suspense and action, cause I was told by one producer who said that it's very tough to sell a script that is over 40% dialogue. If that's true, then perhaps I need more action and suspense, and therefore, more obstacles and higher stakes...

Bad advice. I've worked with producers, that statement is false. I can tell you that its your story that is your obstacle. If your friend is a producer, how much is s/he prepared to pay to make your script? How much does s/he think can be raised to put this on the screen? In the film business, advice is cheap and free. Money talks. If you have a decent, developable idea AND your friend is a producer, s/he can sit you down with a good writing partner. If they just want to get rid of you, they'll give you a pat on the head and suggest changes. So this producer doesn't want anything to do with your script. That should signal something to you. Your script needs to change in a big way.

When I say as long as the audience doesn't mind, I mean I want to give them what they want.

The story is not about the audience, it's about your characters. The film is for the audience. That's largely in the director's hands, not yours. Now some will confuse what I'm saying. If you write your script solely to market to the audience, it will read like commercial trash. If you are already on a production company payroll, that's one thing. SyFy loves turning out mutant bunny monsters. However if you are an independent screenwriter, the odds of selling this are extremely remote. I've just waded through a stack of various rip-offs of recent films. Their writers think "yeah but this one has a twist...". No, it doesn't.

When you write a script, you should be telling an engaging story with believable, likeable characters. If you do that, you will draw in your audience (which at this point is a potential producer, director, actor). Once you sell/option it, the producer and/or director will take over the production of the film aimed to pull in the audience. The scope of the shooting script will match the budget.

When I say more action and suspense, I am trying to get a feel of what the average viewer wants. I showed the movie The Skin I Live In to a group of friends who are pretty much average viewers and they like movies which the majority likes. But they said the found the movie too talky and needed more suspense and action. So if they feel that way about that movie, then perhaps it's something to be concerned with. But I do agree, you want to make the audience care about it as well.

If all you can raise to make this film is $12K, I can guarantee it will not have the action and explosions you see in all these films you cite "24", "Enemy of the State", "Dirty Harry", "Magnum Force", etc. You're the one living in a fantasy world.

Reality Check: These films have large budgets for many reasons--attached directors, actors and writers. The film you see is seldom the one which was written. A script passes through many hands. So for you to worry about what the audience thinks is shortsighted. Rather than just quoting scenes, you should delve into the history of the making of these films.

"Dirty Harry" went through various versions. The signature role originally being Frank Sinatra who later backed out but for whom the script was re-written. After him, it was offered to several others. Paul Newman declined but suggested they look at Clint Eastwood. Clint Eastwood's production company read the various scripts and decided to go with the original one. As he reportedly felt "[The rewrites had changed] everything. They had Marine snipers coming on in the end. And I said, 'No. This is losing the point of the whole story, of the guy chasing the killer down. It's becoming an extravaganza that's losing its character.' They said, 'OK, do what you want.' So, we went and made it." (from Wikipedia: Dirty Harry)

Die Hard for example, had more action than it needed. Like when John McClane could have realistically did what most cops would have done and shoot Kristoff right away, he chooses to pistol whip Kristoff, even though Kristoff has a submachine gun. They then fight it out, when McClane would have logically shot him. But they had McClane fight him instead of shoot him just for the sake of having a fight. We still would have cared just as much if he shot him instead.

Seriously? Your perceptions of human behavior are flawed. The entire point is that John McClane is a good cop. A boy scout type character that kills as a last resort. That's NOT PART of his PERSONALITY. That's why you have difficulty as a writer, you don't understand the importance of character development. John McClane is "lawful/neutral good" while Dirty Harry is "chaotic/neutral good". You can refer here for more explanation.

I know my story is not like ... I see in other movies, how they bend logic for the of suspense and action. I want to do the same thing, but not TOO MUCH. I think there still is a way to build into the ending I want. I just have to find a way to get there that works in the real world.

It's called 'character development'. If the audience believes in the character, they will more readily suspend logic. I want you to be successful, but you need to realize that this is the area where you seriously need to re-direct your attention. Your script will never amount to anything if Tyler and the other characters continues to be paper characters taped to straws and bounced around in front of the camera. No producer will want that kind of script.

The amount of action is LARGELY BASED on budget for the films you describe. There is a reason that Tarantino didn't show most of the action in "Reservoir Dogs". With $35K to start, you can't stage a realistic looking heist. With a budget of $28M ("Die Hard") you can do more. And a lot of those decisions, if you read the history, were made by the director and producer, not the writer.

One thing that other readers have commented on, is that they do not like how the protagonist is able to form a lynch mob of vengeful cops, without these other cops having much introduction prior, to set up their sense of wanting justice. They say the other cops are not deep characters and just a plot device.

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

However, there are movies that do this. In Magnum Force for example, we have a group of vengeful cops that is not very well explained. ...

On the contrary, we learn a great deal. The focus is on the protagonist (Harry Callahan) and how he must navigate and survive the antagonists ("vigilante cops"). Your autism is filtering out important information about character behaviors, emotions and development. You see what they do but without understanding the whys that the rest of the audience sees. I'm advising you to get with a co-writer who doesn't have this perceptual filter.

... [the writers] just brought in as a plot device when needed without prior set up, accept for the blind man, but that's not really a set up for revenge hardly.

Again, H44, your autism is kicking in. The murder is killing kids in "M" (1951). The public wants an arrest. The cops are putting pressure on everyone. Every hobo is considered a suspect. The normal status quo between "normal crime" is being upset. The criminals (which includes the vagrants) want this killer caught so they will stop being harrassed. That is the whole crux of this movie, the crimes are so horrific that it is interfering with criminal activity. EVERYBODY, criminals included, want to catch and stop this murderer so life can return to "normal".

Good writers do not just bring in plot devices. Writing is purposeful and always has set up that motivates moving to the next scene. The fact that you are unable to perceive it does not mean that it is not there. Do you perceive the air until the wind blows?

What do you think? Is it okay to have supporting characters commit a crime if they are not main at all, and just brought in after the tragedy occurs?

No. There has to be a motivation for them to join in. So far, you summary doesn't provide sufficient motivation to justify it. In "M", that motivation begins to develop from the very beginning of the script as the manhunt and suspicions mount. If you can't perceive that and all you see is the action, then you need to get a co-writer who can perceive it.

I think you have some ideas that could be developed but it will require a deep understanding and ability to perceive human emotions and behaviors. From your descriptions of known movies, your autistic traits filter out the human elements which are essential to understanding the story and plot elements. There is a lot of build up that you miss and behaviors you misinterpret as illogical when they follow the true emotional logic of the character. From that perspective, I can see why you want more action and your characters behave like puppets. Adding more action and twists will not strengthen your story. Story is more about characters than plot.

I know that all this sounds like what Morbius told Neo, that what he thinks is reality is just an illusion. What you are seeing and writing based on your perception is a flat version of a richer reality that most of us perceive. It would explain your fascination for crime genre where action predominates over human emotion. But by simply trying to add plot actions and justify them based on what you've seen in other films, you miss the mark.

 

[Sweetie]

You only add twists when your plot sucks from the start.

Depends on what you mean whether I'll agree with you on this one.

You would be better served creating a logline and running it by everyone, not just your select group. See if it interests them.

This advice is golden. He should already know this, but has ignored it.

The others, you make a lot of good points.

 

[arrodiii]

Okay thanks. Well I asked a person in litigation...

I thought that you said that you were never able to speak to attorneys because they were only interested in speaking about a case with you? In any event, I don't know if you understand what litigation is. In the BAREST of bones, it is a dispute that will be handled through the court system. This includes a HUGE amount of different areas of the law (environmental, family, intellectual property, tort, personal injury, etc.). Though this is all civil, NOT CRIMINAL. You really need to speak with a criminal attorney because that is what this is about, a criminal case.

...she said that if a witness takes section 11, then they still have to give testimony, but will give be given immunity against being charged for self incrimination.

I am unsure of this. From my brief reading of the sections, section 11 is intended to make sure that an accused person is not forced to testify at THEIR own trial. This is different from what you have which is a witness testifying at another person's trial.

Now even though she admits to committing the crime, since she cleaned up the crime scene, there is nothing to charge her with later.

Even if it's true that no evidence is found (except for Tyler's accusation and statement that it happened), it appears that section 13 would be able to kick in if she were charged because her testimony (that she did rape Tyler) will be used to impeach her (presumed) defense and plea of not guilty.

As for Wray's attorney questioning a witness without her attorney present, should I write it so that the witness, waves her rights to an attorney present, while being questions by a Wray's attorney?

No, that is not how it works. She could waive her rights to an attorney if this were a CRIMINAL proceeding against HER. But since Wray wants to see what she is going to testify to (which would have been covered in a deposition) there is nothing for her to waive her rights to.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Way back when I wrote it I was able to get advice on the one legal question, but none of the rest. The person wasn't available to give me much back then, and have been looking for others. Section 11 does apply to witnesses though. I read that it applies to anyone who would be incriminating themselves and a witness can take it.

As for the lawyer questioning Sheila, I was told by a cop that it has happened at the station once in a while on a case, and as long as the witness is okay with it, they allow it, and the witness can just say they don't have an attorney, and do not want one when answering questions. Whether this is legal or not, it goes on according to the cop I asked.

I also asked him about the Die Hard situation, and it was him who said that it was McClane who was being illogical. He said that when you are going up against a man with a submachine gun, most cops know that your gun is meant to be shot, not for pistol whipping the armed man in the head, when he can shoot you at any moment. He said he would have blown him away, right away, so I am going by his police logic. But if you look at real news stories, they do not approach gunmen and pistol whip them in the head, trying to wrestle the gun out of their hands.

As for the cops wanting to form a lynch mob, Manning's death was suppose to be the motivation. It's not like I intended them to have no motivation. However, I am writing a new climax, where the protagonist, as part of his plan arranges to have the cops bust the gang in a sting operation. That way, their motivations may not be so brutal. Will that be more believable, motivation wise?

As far as section 13 goes, since she erased evidence of her crime, she is never charged with raping Tyler, and therefore, section 13 will not come into place, cause she has no charges to plea not guilty to.

When I saw I thought of putting more action in, I did not mean gunfights and explosions. I did not mean things I could not afford. What I meant was action like one of the villains lurking around dark corners, and someone has to find him before he or she is killed at any moment. Kind of like the hide and seek action scene at the end of Silence of Lambs for example. Things like that I was planning on doing in my budget.

I have a writer helping me with it now. She writers her own novels, and not screenplays. But she is lending a good hand. She and other people would probably agree, does not by Tyler's snapping into insane revenge mode. She says that if Tyler had a lot more pressure on him to carry out the revenge it would be better, and right now I am working with her on a climax where he has a lot more pressure put on him. He pretty much has to have nothing to lose in order for it to believable she says, so I am going to try to come up with a third act where that would happen.

Although, it makes me wonder if the end should justify the means to have such a climax. I mean if you need to have your protagonist be put through such utter brutal unrelenting chaos and destruction just so his snapping would be believable, it makes me wonder whether or not it's worth the climax, if I have to put so much of that in for him beforehand. It feels unnecessary for the story, but I guess if you want him to snap in the third act, I guess it is necessary. Just not sure if it will go with the rest of the story. But I will come up with something to have happen for him for it to be believable.

One of the reasons why I wanted him to have other cops help out with his revenge, because I myself find it not believable that the protagonist could take on 10-15 armed men by himself. I know he's a trained cop but even real cops loose out to bigger numbers. I guess I just believe the whole lynch mob idea, over the one man army idea, and thought the audience would find it more convincing if he had assistance. But if that's less believable, I could make him one against all.