How are my first 5 pages?

[harmonica44]

It's for a screenplay I am writing and just wondering how my talent is so far, since it's only my third screenplay.

Please be brutally honest, I could use it, and wonder if it gives a good enough impression that it could be worth making.

I have showed it to a couple of professional consultants so far and they said that the structure is poor and the dialogue is too on the nose, but they didn't really give anything more since I did not hire anyone yet. I am wondering if there is any problems in my writing to concentrate on more specifically before doing so.

Let me know, and of course, let me know what you think of it in general. I did some rewriting so their may be some spelling errors after making recent changes, in which case I apologize for, but will correct them once I know what improvements should be made.

Thanks for your feedback.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Xsh5O2ZFssUFZsdWNzZ3VYYlE/view?usp=sharing

 

[maz]

So the gang is filming it for an entirely different reason than having something over Manning? This scene is confusing in the extreme!

I looked at the LTK video. It's a very simple scene which immediately establishes two characters and the dynamics among them. There is no comparison to your scene. These are supposed to be violent, competent criminals, but the way the scene is written they are some sort of Keystone Cops, with no sense of threat at all.

From my point of view, there's a guy who can't get it up (unsurprising considering who he's surrounded by) and a kindly figure reassuring him, and then they all run away for no reason when all they have to do is lock the door and not answer it. Is it meant to be a farce?

If you want to have that sort of instant action scene, you need a similar tension and threat, and a clear power dynamic between the powerful and the weak, rather than the kindly uncle thing you've got going on.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Yes they are filming the video as part of a bigger crime they are going to put into place. But they just figure let's get something over the new guy (Manning), while we are at it. That's what I meant when I said they are killing two birds with one stone. They want power over Manning, but it's also part of a plan of theirs.

I just figure, why not introduce Manning here? He's going to have to try to prove himself, but fail, and become a liability to them at some point for the plot to work, so if I do it here, then the story is killing two birds with one stone as well, rather than have him do harm to a different character later.

Okay so if I rewrite the scene so the crooks are smarter, not as panicking, and if I rewrite it so the cop is more logical as well, then I can make it an effective opening hopefully.

Also, would it be better if I did not write it so that Manning masturbates? I could just write it so that he pulls out a condom, but then pauses, and decides to step away, in shame. Would the audience still understand he has a moral qualm, and I don't need to explain the failure of erection? Would this come off as better?

 

[FantasySciFi]

Okay thanks. Yes Tyler is the main character, and it's an antihero type journey. Even though most of the story is told from Tyler's point of view however, the antagonist's plan is important. It sets up how Tyler becomes the way he is. Sorry if I mis-explained before. What I meant is, is that Tyler is the main character, but the antagonists plan is important cause it has a great impact on Tyler's development and goals.

It's kind like how in a movie like Seven, it's told from the two cops' point of view, but the plan is still an elaborate and big plan. In the movie Oldboy, it's told from a protagonist's view, but the villain still has an elaborate plan. The plan is still a huge part of the story even though most of the story is told from the protagonists point of view.

Okay but you're missing my point. The focus of your story is Tyler's descent. The elaborate plan is integral but not the focus. Maybe they have this elaborate plan, but it's the pursuit of Tyler by fellow officers and his pursuit of the gang that is the focus of the story. Why he's pursuing them is secondary. It could be many different reasons--they have a dirty bomb, kidnapped a politician's daughter, etc.

Now Manning is not the protagonist but he is around the 4th or 5th main character, and his moral flaw (although not all established yet in the first few pages), is a necessary in the story, cause it creates his motive to make a certain chain event of decisions which bring the story to a certain destination later. His role is required, but he also needs to have motive for it make sense as well. I can still develop Manning as a 4th main character, can I not? There are lots of movies where a 4th main character, has morally conflicted development, even though it's just so we understand why he does what he does, in order to bring the story to a certain direction.

Now you say that Tyler is the one who needs the moral flaw, and his is established later on in good time. However, Manning's moral flaw is established in the opening scenario, because mainly it presents an opportunity to show it then. You say that the protagonist is the one who needs the moral flaw, which he will have one come too later, but are other characters not allowed to have them, even if it's required to create motive for certain things to happen in the story?

There are movies where secondary characters also have flaws aside from the protagonist.

Now since the gang does not seem capable of an elaborate plan, what could I do to make the audience think they are?

What can I do to make Manning seem more important at this point? There are movies though where a character's first scene will have that character thrown under a bus, like Manning's first scene.

ALL CHARACTERS have STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES/FLAWS. Truby's advice is for new writers who tend to write cardboard characters, as you've done here. You need to do something that makes the audience have attachment for your protagonist. But more importantly, the big picture is developed from smaller glimpses. You don't just drop in a moral flaw on page 38. You've been introducing your characters and their foibles throughout.

You see a guy drop a couple bucks in the cup of a beggar in front of church. Later, you see the guy blow away another guy with no remorse. These two opposites say this guy is a bit more complex than just being a killer. As the story evolves we the audience learn about him.

Honestly, what do you think makes Tyler interesting to watch? So far, he's a guy filling up his car at a gas station who notices someone standing on a hill. He drives up and goes inside a house with a gun. He scuffles then chases them. Unfortunately, Tyler is a very cardboard hero. His actions don't seem based on hunches or reason but because the plot requires it. There are lots of ways to build interest by changing or adding to the scene. Tyler is unknown to the audience. He's not a household name like Superman, Sherlock Holmes or James Bond. You need to introduce him to the audience. The more important the character, the more development they need.

If you are leading with your antagonist, you need to make them despicable. If Henderson is your head villain, focus on him. Manning can be developed later. I'm not sure you need to have one big display for Manning. If he's flawed, it will show up over a number of incidents. Small examples that sum to a bigger picture of a morally conflicted individual.

For example, in the movie Licence to Kill (1989), in the villain's first scene it shows him bust through the door, and catch a woman he lusts over, in bed with another man. He gets mad and beats her. Now we have no idea who this villain is really, or who this woman is, yet the first scene, has him throw her right under a bus. So what did they do to develop these characters, differently even though there is nothing done with them previously?

How can I write my characters like that where it's okay to throw them under a bus, on their first appearance, like that type of movie?

In "License to Kill", the setup begins with the DEA being alerted to Sanchez' presence in the Bahamas. We shift to a groomsmen rushing to the church. A scene which feels decidedly un-Bond-like - until the the helicopter interrupts. We shift to Sanchez attacking a former lover with her new boyfriend. The brutality demonstrates that Sanchez is a cruel person by multiple acts. From the initial scene, we know that the bridegroom for whom Bond is the best man is head of the DEA and Sanchez is a big bad drug lord. The set up is completed when the plane is captured and the pair make it to the church. This eight minute intro has introduced the antagonist, the protagonist, and four supporting characters by showing their personalities and foibles. Little things like handling the wedding ring, exchanging hats, etc. that give a very personable sense of the characters. It sets up later dynamics since we know the girl will meet up with Bond again (genre device). This is good writing.

1. Bond is already a known character (protagonist).
2. We really learn to dislike Sanchez (antagonist) by how he treats people.
3. In the spy genre, there is always the "mysterious woman" who we learn more about (genre device). The audience is made to feel for her through her fear and loathing of Sanchez.

You seem to have serious difficulty understanding characters and plot issues. Your descriptions of scenes feel rather devoid of emotional understanding or of human behaviors. That can be a serious handicap. It's best in that case to find a co-writer who can balance your weaknesses. Maybe these will help explain some of the issues: bad plot writing, forced plots and flat characters.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Yes you are the right, the villains plot is secondary. It's needed to create a plot around Tyler's descent, but you are right.

In my original idea way back, I actually wanted to make Manning the main character, cause I thought he has a stronger plot arc to build interest on. He has a flaw from the very beginning as oppose to Tyler who gets his later once he wants revenge, after tragedy strikes.

But I thought if Manning is the one who has tragedy brought upon him and that if he took revenge it would be stronger, since he already has a stronger arc with the gang, before the revenge, if that makes sense. However I couldn't come up with a whole story to make Manning the main character, so I came up with a story for Tyler instead cause I was able think of a better ending that would work for him, where as I couldn't come up with one as good that would have worked for Manning as a protagonist.

I will rewrite the opening, and try to make Tyler behave more logically as to how he discovers a kidnapping. Is their anything I can do introduce him in the beginning to make him better, though, rather than just a simple cop in the right place at the right time? As far as not needing to have a big display for Manning and that his flaws will show up later, Manning is only in six sequences so far, so I wasn't planning on having him display another one for later. Basically, he fails his test of devotion, and wants to leave the gang. The gang will not allow it, so he takes matters into his own hands and does something that causes a chain reaction of events, to get the plot to where I want it to go. However, since he is only in six scenes, cause he is only the 4th main character at best, I do not have a lot of time to give him other opportunities, to screw up for the gang here and there. If I write more scenes for him, that is more shooting and scree time, and I am trying to keep it around a 90 pages, and there is a lot more to cover with the protagonist.

My goal was to do what Licence to Kill did, and introduce the protagonist (Tyler), the antagonist (Henderson), the supporting characters (Manning and Sheila), and the other supporting gang members in the opening. I am going about re structuring the opening sequence now. Since Henderson's plan is a bigger plan for later and not just for testing Manning, do I have to mention that it's a bigger plan for later through dialog, in the opening? The audience is going to find out in the next sequence when the guy sees the video anyway, or so I thought I would wait for then, to surprise the audience. Or do I have to mention it right in the opening, but if I do that, the audience is going to know what is going to happen later, if that's better. The way I intended it was is that in the opening, the audience think it's a test for Manning, but then later they find out more, as a surprise. But is this bad, and I need to explain more of the plan prior to Manning's 'test'?

 

[FantasySciFi]

... [Manning] has a flaw from the very beginning as oppose to Tyler who gets his later once he wants revenge. ... I will rewrite the opening, and try to make Tyler behave more logically as to how he discovers a kidnapping. Is their anything I can do introduce him in the beginning to make him better, though, rather than just a simple cop in the right place at the right time?

You're taking Truby too literally. You want your main characters to be interesting and one's the audience can feel something for. We are all flawed, none of us is perfect. Can you think of some of your own flaws? What if you introduced one to Tyler?

I'm fairly good with watching what I eat but sometimes that cheesecake calls out and, in a weak moment, I succumb and devour it. Tyler can be aroused to suspicion by any number of close encounters leading up to investigating.

As far as not needing to have a big display for Manning and that his flaws will show up later, Manning is only in six sequences so far, so I wasn't planning on having him display another one for later. Basically, he fails his test of devotion, and wants to leave the gang. The gang will not allow it, so he takes matters into his own hands and does something that causes a chain reaction of events, to get the plot to where I want it to go. However, since he is only in six scenes, cause he is only the 4th main character at best, I do not have a lot of time to give him other opportunities, to screw up for the gang here and there. If I write more scenes for him, that is more shooting and scree time, and I am trying to keep it around a 90 pages, and there is a lot more to cover with the protagonist.

Character personality is ongoing not one time. What I'm going to tell you is the honest truth, I'd scrap what you've written and work forward from your new beginning. The first time you move to a new place, you follow the same path over and over. Then one day you take a slightly different road and find out how it connects to a road you know. Slowly you begin to map out in your mind how to get from point A to point B. One day you have road construction and you know how to detour to get back on the road you need to be on.

At this point, you know your basic story. Trust your instincts and write from your characters' viewpoint. It may take you on a slight detour from your previous routes but you know in your gut how to get where you need to go. That's at the heart of good writing.

In writing, I don't know how many scenes my characters will appear in until it's finished. You have two main (lead) characters -- protagonist and antagonist. You have several supporting characters. You may have incidental characters (day players) and extras (non-speaking). Every time a main or supporting character appears in a scene, they should be doing something that develops the audience's perception of them as a character. If Manning is in six scenes, we are seeing six different situations where he interacts. If he's not integral, then he shouldn't be there. This is a situation where you seriously need to evaluate how many characters are really needed and consolidate if needed. You're not writing scenes for characters. You're writing the story and observing which characters appear in a scene to move the story along. If Manning was that upset, he could rat them out in his second scene. The story dictates the pacing and scenes, not the characters.

My goal was to ... introduce the protagonist (Tyler), the antagonist (Henderson), the supporting characters (Manning and Sheila), and the other supporting gang members in the opening. I am going about re structuring the opening sequence now. Since Henderson's plan is a bigger plan for later and not just for testing Manning, do I have to mention that it's a bigger plan for later through dialog, in the opening? The audience is going to find out in the next sequence when the guy sees the video anyway, or so I thought I would wait for then, to surprise the audience. Or do I have to mention it right in the opening, but if I do that, the audience is going to know what is going to happen later, if that's better. The way I intended it was is that in the opening, the audience think it's a test for Manning, but then later they find out more, as a surprise. But is this bad, and I need to explain more of the plan prior to Manning's 'test'?

1. The video was never shot, so there's nothing to show, especially since they leave Sheila behind. She's safe now, so is this supposed to shock him? At least in this version. It seems very lame if it's meant as a test. It would have been more meaningful if there had been only Manning and Henderson. Since Manning is masked, I'm not sure how that would be used to blackmail him.

There are no have-to's in writing your story. Some things make for better presentation and engage the audience. Films run the gamut of storytelling. There are multiple ways you could approach the opening that could be equally effective. I know I keep saying it but Keep it Simple. Simple does not mean boring or less powerful. In great scripts, the powerful scenes are simply/cleanly written.

2. If they're going to find out, why not tell them? What do you hope to gain by withholding the information? Did you read the "Five Plot Devices that Hurt Your Writing" link I included in my last post?

"Withholding vital details will make me sound more “literary”
This one took me years to get over. A lot of beginning writers abide by this strange belief that confusion is somehow complex, that by purposefully withholding essential information from a story we can make our work sound more “literary” by default. It doesn't work that way. "​

3. Don't refer to other films to justify your decisions. That was also in that post. Most writers cite "real life events" whereas you cite other films.

"But it really happened that way
Fiction critiques should never resemble a legal deposition, but if there’s one rebuttal writers will hear in workshops at one point or another, it’s this: “But it really happened that way!” It’s common for writers to borrow from their personal lives, but some confuse this to mean it somehow makes every related detail germane to the story being told, or simply because something actually occurred it lends the event a sort of storytelling immunity card. It doesn’t. "​

4. The other you seem to keep struggling with is working with characters.

"It’s my world and my characters can (conveniently) do whatever they want
I think every writer struggles with this one early on. We get to a point in our stories where we hit a snag, and the easy solution is to have our character perform a saving action that's completely divorced from his/her established characterizations, just because doing so will keep the plot moving."​

Again, you should re-write your script from the beginning working forward ignoring your prior work. It sounds scary but it's not. It doesn't mean abandoning all of your previous ideas. Let yourself be guided by your story but not rigidly chained to your former scripts. Your new one will be energized, shorter and require no retrofitting.

 

[harmonica44]

You're taking Truby too literally. You want your main characters to be interesting and one's the audience can feel something for. We are all flawed, none of us is perfect. Can you think of some of your own flaws? What if you introduced one to Tyler?

I'm fairly good with watching what I eat but sometimes that cheesecake calls out and, in a weak moment, I succumb and devour it. Tyler can be aroused to suspicion by any number of close encounters leading up to investigating.


Character personality is ongoing not one time. What I'm going to tell you is the honest truth, I'd scrap what you've written and work forward from your new beginning. The first time you move to a new place, you follow the same path over and over. Then one day you take a slightly different road and find out how it connects to a road you know. Slowly you begin to map out in your mind how to get from point A to point B. One day you have road construction and you know how to detour to get back on the road you need to be on.

At this point, you know your basic story. Trust your instincts and write from your characters' viewpoint. It may take you on a slight detour from your previous routes but you know in your gut how to get where you need to go. That's at the heart of good writing.

In writing, I don't know how many scenes my characters will appear in until it's finished. You have two main (lead) characters -- protagonist and antagonist. You have several supporting characters. You may have incidental characters (day players) and extras (non-speaking). Every time a main or supporting character appears in a scene, they should be doing something that develops the audience's perception of them as a character. If Manning is in six scenes, we are seeing six different situations where he interacts. If he's not integral, then he shouldn't be there. This is a situation where you seriously need to evaluate how many characters are really needed and consolidate if needed. You're not writing scenes for characters. You're writing the story and observing which characters appear in a scene to move the story along. If Manning was that upset, he could rat them out in his second scene. The story dictates the pacing and scenes, not the characters.


1. The video was never shot, so there's nothing to show, especially since they leave Sheila behind. She's safe now, so is this supposed to shock him? At least in this version. It seems very lame if it's meant as a test. It would have been more meaningful if there had been only Manning and Henderson. Since Manning is masked, I'm not sure how that would be used to blackmail him.

There are no have-to's in writing your story. Some things make for better presentation and engage the audience. Films run the gamut of storytelling. There are multiple ways you could approach the opening that could be equally effective. I know I keep saying it but Keep it Simple. Simple does not mean boring or less powerful. In great scripts, the powerful scenes are simply/cleanly written.

2. If they're going to find out, why not tell them? What do you hope to gain by withholding the information? Did you read the "Five Plot Devices that Hurt Your Writing" link I included in my last post?

"Withholding vital details will make me sound more “literary”
This one took me years to get over. A lot of beginning writers abide by this strange belief that confusion is somehow complex, that by purposefully withholding essential information from a story we can make our work sound more “literary” by default. It doesn't work that way. "​

3. Don't refer to other films to justify your decisions. That was also in that post. Most writers cite "real life events" whereas you cite other films.

"But it really happened that way
Fiction critiques should never resemble a legal deposition, but if there’s one rebuttal writers will hear in workshops at one point or another, it’s this: “But it really happened that way!” It’s common for writers to borrow from their personal lives, but some confuse this to mean it somehow makes every related detail germane to the story being told, or simply because something actually occurred it lends the event a sort of storytelling immunity card. It doesn’t. "​

4. The other you seem to keep struggling with is working with characters.

"It’s my world and my characters can (conveniently) do whatever they want
I think every writer struggles with this one early on. We get to a point in our stories where we hit a snag, and the easy solution is to have our character perform a saving action that's completely divorced from his/her established characterizations, just because doing so will keep the plot moving."​

Again, you should re-write your script from the beginning working forward ignoring your prior work. It sounds scary but it's not. It doesn't mean abandoning all of your previous ideas. Let yourself be guided by your story but not rigidly chained to your former scripts. Your new one will be energized, shorter and require no retrofitting.

Okay thanks, I read the five plot devices. My friend read my script and he said that Tyler's flaw can be that he broke the law by entering a lodge, with no 'probable cause', and he thought that was a flaw, but that would depend on how much the audience knows about probable cause laws at that point perhaps?

Also I know you say use real life, and not examples from movies. But I feel that when I write, that when it comes to structure, I have to use examples from other movies. Such as withholding information from the audience. In The Dark Knight for example, when Joker and this men rob the bank, one of them mentions that it's a mob bank. We do not know how Joker robbed a mob bank until later though, when he goes to reveal it to the mob. If it's important to show all the information up front and not withhold from the audience, then why didn't they just have Joker say in his first, scene, that he plans on extorting the mob?

I know I shouldn't go by other movies, when I am starting out, but I feel I am breaking all the movie conventions and rules I am use to by not doing so. Or even in Oldboy, the villains plan is not revealed till near the end, and the protagonist was figuring it out up to that point. But since the audience was going to find out anyway, why didn't they just tell us? Or why in The Usual Suspects, did they not just reveal from the start, who Verbal Kint really was, right in the opening? I just feel that there is nothing for the protagonist to figure out on his own, if the audience already knows everything before. I feel that it's fun to learn what's going on, with the protagonist, rather than know it all before. Am I wrong?

Sorry, I know what you mean now about having power over Manning. It doesn't really mean they have power over him by any means, but they do want to test him to see if he is right for the gang, and he fails. As for the video never being shot. A good portion of it was shot before, where the perps have their masks on, and show their hostage. One of them makes a speech into the camera, while using one of those voice scrambling devices, like the one used in Ransom (1996). You don't see the prior footage till later though. Again I feel I would be showing the same footage twice. Since other movies do not show the same thing twice, I feel that I do not have to either, but just so long as the audience is understanding what is happening, right? So perhaps the trick is to give the audience a better set up, rather than reveal the same things twice?

 

[mlesemann]

Okay thanks. I see what you mean. My friend read my script and he said that Tyler's flaw can be that he broke the law by entering a lodge, with no 'probable cause', and he thought that was a flaw, but that would depend on how much the audience knows about probable cause laws at that point perhaps?

His corresponding flaw (on a broader basis) would be that he doesn't believe that the rules apply to him. Show us that in small ways - he insists on a menu substitution when none is generally allowed; he jumps ahead in a line; he insists on a discount that he isn't entitled to...

 

[maz]

He doesn't need probable cause to enter that lodge (or more realistically, it will never impact on his investigation).

And there really does need to be some reason why he goes from filling up his car to seeing a man outside a lodge and assuming a crime is being committed. I've read the five pages a few times, and there is still no explanation.

 

[FantasySciFi]

Okay thanks, I read the five plot devices. My friend read my script and he said that Tyler's flaw can be that he broke the law by entering a lodge, with no 'probable cause', and he thought that was a flaw, but that would depend on how much the audience knows about probable cause laws at that point perhaps?

That's not the kind of flaw that Truby is talking about. Like MLeseman suggests, it's about personal behaviors. Yes, entering is a legal challenge to the legitimacy of his actions, but it's not a personality flaw. A personality flaw is like 'he cheats', 'he lies', 'he womanizes', etc. Human animal appetites with which the character struggles. Manning feels he's forced to do bad but wants to do good. In the same way, Tyler feels forced to do bad and believes he's doing good.

Also I know you say use real life, and not examples from movies. But I feel that when I write, that when it comes to structure, I have to use examples from other movies. ...

Actually, the quote I pulled says new writers use their personal real life for their ideas. And since it actually happened, believe it justifies how they write their story. My comparison is that you use other people's films and believe it justifies how you write your script. It doesn't work that way. There are other circumstances occurring that you haven't exactly recreated or could recreate to make that exact situation work. Just because it happened in a well known film, doesn't make it work for yours. Period.

If it's important to show all the information up front and not withhold from the audience, then why didn't they just...

Their movie set up is different from yours. They are much better at story development. They have more experience setting breadcrumbs. You choose.

I know I shouldn't go by other movies, when I am starting out, but I feel I am breaking all the movie conventions and rules I am use to by not doing so. ... I just feel that there is nothing for the protagonist to figure out on his own, if the audience already knows everything before. I feel that it's fun to learn what's going on, with the protagonist, rather than know it all before. Am I wrong?

The protagonist is NOT the audience. Suspense is when the audience knows something the protagonist doesn't. A mystery is when the audience is learning with the protagonist. You can work either way, but the way you've written your story, you need to reveal some clues to the audience why this is happening.

I love "Columbo". There are lots of stories where you already know who did what. The fun is watching how the detective unravels the case. It is one style of storytelling. It's okay to break movie conventions. To be honest, I've never found a new writer who has broken a convention by simply writing. Where previous generations were influenced by plays, this generation is media absorbed. The conventions have been imbedded in your brain since youth. Just write your story. You'll be surprised.

... Again I feel I would be showing the same footage twice. Since other movies do not show the same thing twice, I feel that I do not have to either, but just so long as the audience is understanding what is happening, right? So perhaps the trick is to give the audience a better set up, rather than reveal the same things twice?

Exactly. Though repeating a short snippet can also be a useful tool when done well.

 

[WalterB]

..... I just feel that there is nothing for the protagonist to figure out on his own, if the audience already knows everything before............

Yes, it is a known phenomenon that children talk, yell and even respond to a screen.
But here is a little secret:

Spoiler

the screen can't hear you

.
So, if you already know who did what: you can't tell the protagonist.

 

[maz]

One other thing: who has called in the two-oh-seven (I had to look it up). Who is reporting a kidnapping when Sheila is in her own property? And if she has been moved from one of her houses to another, then why?

If it's just a coincidence that there happens to be a despatch call for a possible kidnapping just as Tyler looks up at a lodge where a crime is taking place then there are neither enough faces nor enough palms in all the world.

 

[harmonica44]

That's not the kind of flaw that Truby is talking about. Like MLeseman suggests, it's about personal behaviors. Yes, entering is a legal challenge to the legitimacy of his actions, but it's not a personality flaw. A personality flaw is like 'he cheats', 'he lies', 'he womanizes', etc. Human animal appetites with which the character struggles. Manning feels he's forced to do bad but wants to do good. In the same way, Tyler feels forced to do bad and believes he's doing good.


Actually, the quote I pulled says new writers use their personal real life for their ideas. And since it actually happened, believe it justifies how they write their story. My comparison is that you use other people's films and believe it justifies how you write your script. It doesn't work that way. There are other circumstances occurring that you haven't exactly recreated or could recreate to make that exact situation work. Just because it happened in a well known film, doesn't make it work for yours. Period.


Their movie set up is different from yours. They are much better at story development. They have more experience setting breadcrumbs. You choose.


The protagonist is NOT the audience. Suspense is when the audience knows something the protagonist doesn't. A mystery is when the audience is learning with the protagonist. You can work either way, but the way you've written your story, you need to reveal some clues to the audience why this is happening.

I love "Columbo". There are lots of stories where you already know who did what. The fun is watching how the detective unravels the case. It is one style of storytelling. It's okay to break movie conventions. To be honest, I've never found a new writer who has broken a convention by simply writing. Where previous generations were influenced by plays, this generation is media absorbed. The conventions have been imbedded in your brain since youth. Just write your story. You'll be surprised.


Exactly. Though repeating a short snippet can also be a useful tool when done well.

Okay thanks. I see what you mean. I love Columbo as well, and will try to take more of that approach.

And to answer Maz's question, your right, the opening as to how Tyler gets onto the villain's case sucks. I never was able to come up with a strong opening, but mainly I wanted the villains to get off in court later. In this case Tyler stumbling upon it by accident, and then the defendant using probable cause as a defense. I will rethink the opening and try to come up with a better reason for Tyler to enter.

Also when it comes to reasons not to call for back up, I will not think of other movies and try to come up with my own entirely. Perhaps for this situation his reason is that he is kind of embarrassed if he were to be wrong, so he does not want to call unless he sees something to confirm his suspicions first?

 

[FantasySciFi]

Okay thanks. I see what you mean. I love Columbo as well, and will try to take more of that approach.

And to answer Maz's question, your right, the opening as to how Tyler gets onto the villain's case sucks. I never was able to come up with a strong opening, but mainly I wanted the villains to get off in court later. In this case Tyler stumbling upon it by accident, and then the defendant using probable cause as a defense. I will rethink the opening and try to come up with a better reason for Tyler to enter.

Also when it comes to reasons not to call for back up, I will not think of other movies and try to come up with my own entirely. Perhaps for this situation his reason is that he is kind of embarrassed if he were to be wrong, so he does not want to call unless he sees something to confirm his suspicions first?

I really don't think you need the gas station scene. My hint would be to have him camping or fishing in the mountains. You can use that time to show his human side as a fisherman. The police band plays in the background. When he hears the report about a stolen vehicle, he doesn't think too much about it. It starts to rain so he heads back to town. As he drives by the lodge, he sees a vehicle that matches the description. He then stops at the lodge and claims his cellphone is dead and asks to borrow their phone. The guy at the door and tells him they don't have a phone or cell service. That's when Tyler moves off until Sheila screams. Then Tyler goes into police mode. Goes back to his car to get his gun. He tries calling but there's no cell service. While he does that, the scene inside the house can take place.

Make Tyler seem like a real person, maybe struggling because he's a klutzy fisherman (a 'flaw'). A close-up of the inside of the car at the police radio might also reveal a gun and badge (a 'breadcrumb' that he's a cop). He might case the place and try to call but have no cell service. Show real conflict that he can't call but wants to (this builds credibility). However, glancing through the window, he might see her tied to the bed and the guys getting rough. That could prompt him to snap into action (The audience fully supports his acting).

In this case, Tyler feels more real. He acts more professionally. When I wrote this, I thought what would I do as Tyler.

I'm off duty relaxing fishing. I listen the reports to make sure I don't miss something big. I hear about the stolen car but it's peripheral. When I'm driving back I notice the same make and model and it rouses my curiosity. No crime, so I don't come in guns blazing. It's all good until I hear a scream. Now I want to check it out. I see a woman in danger, I need to help her. So I go back to get my gun and call for back up. Damn, no cell service on the mountain. If I don't act, she could be hurt. I only saw two or three. Okay, I have a hero complex, I'm going in.
​

That's the kind of thought process that I'd follow. Being a hero, however, has its dangers which Tyler quickly finds out. Notice how I try to keep it very simple and true to his nature. Don't make it easy for your hero. Don't make it impossible to resolve without a miracle but similarly the drama comes from his having to overcome some obstacle. Hopefully that gives you some idea how to proceed. If you work forward, I think you can honor your idea while making a more realistic and engaging script.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. However, one of the goons needs to get captured but the rest get away. Later at the trial, I want the crook to get off though, probably cause Tyler had no probable cause. It's a really good idea, but if he sees matching car descriptions and a woman tied up in the window with guys getting rough, then it will definitely be probable cause. I may have to tweak it.

 

[maz]

Okay thanks. However, one of the goons needs to get captured but the rest get away. Later at the trial, I want the crook to get off though, probably cause Tyler had no probable cause. It's a really good idea, but if he sees matching car descriptions and a woman tied up in the window with guys getting rough, then it will definitely be probable cause. I may have to tweak it.

OK, I think I'm entering the twilight zone now (possibly the same one this script is set in, where criminals have a reasonable expectation of privacy to break the law wherever they are), so I'm going to step away from this thread...

 

[FantasySciFi]

Okay thanks. However, one of the goons needs to get captured but the rest get away. Later at the trial, I want the crook to get off though, probably cause Tyler had no probable cause. It's a really good idea, but if he sees matching car descriptions and a woman tied up in the window with guys getting rough, then it will definitely be probable cause. I may have to tweak it.

Yeah, okay. I'm working on a feature crime script for a director that shoots in June. I understand budget issues. I can see that you are making changes to your story and that's good. However, because the bad guys are perpetrating a sexual assault and kidnapping, it would automatically invoke 'probable cause' even if Tyler didn't know about it at the time. Short of burning down the lodge, there's a lot of evidence that could convict them. If the goon is caught at the scene, he's going down. So yeah, you'll need to tweak it. Yeah, I'm sure you can come up with a better way to make it seem more realistic as to why Tyler would want to investigate or want to enter the house. Good luck.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. How does kindapping automatically invoke probable cause though, if the cop does not have any to begin with? I mean Dirty Harry (1971), when Harry broke into the villain's house, the case was thrown out, even though he found evidence to a murder (the rifle). So if murder does not automatically invoke probable cause, then how does kidnapping? I also wrote it so that the villains burned down the lodge before, but I decided to scrap that because that too, is grounds for probable cause.

I read that if a cop performs a search without probable cause though, that the evidence found will be inadmissible. This is why I chose probable cause, cause then none of that evidence could be used.

 

[FantasySciFi]

... I mean Dirty Harry (1971), when Harry broke into the villain's house, the case was thrown out, ... that the evidence found will be inadmissible. This is why I chose probable cause, cause then none of that evidence could be used.

It's the victim's house, not the villain's from your description. Second, even it if were Henderson's, having the victim present makes it an active crime scene.

In the case of Dirty Harry, there was no way to say that Harry hadn't planted the evidence. Nor could it be stated that the rifle was fired by the villain. In that case, a search warrant would be needed based on suspicion. In Dirty Harry it was NOT an active crime scene. It was NOT the victim's home. Good luck.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks for the input . What if I wrote it so that Tyler is on duty, on regular traffic patrol, and pulls somewhere over. After Tyler gives him a citation, for whatever traffic reason, the driver gets lippy with him. Tyler does like the lip, so he decides to search the car without probable cause, just to spite the driver back.

He finds the kidnapped woman in the trunk. Now would the evidence be inadmissible in this case, cause he had no probable cause, or is their an exception cause it counts as an active crime scene?

 

[mlesemann]

What if I wrote it so that Tyler is on duty, on regular traffic patrol, and pulls somewhere over. After Tyler gives him a citation, for whatever traffic reason, the driver gets lippy with him.

Thus truly qualifying him as the dumbest criminal on record.

Plus all he (cop) would have to say is that he heard her banging on the trunk (whether he actually did or not) and that's good enough reason to search the car.