Is this ending, possibly boring?

[harmonica44]

For my script, I was told before by other readers and writers that the felt the ending didn't work cause there was a legal plothole in the story.

Basically the evidence that the main character collects on the villain couldn't be used cause he wouldn't have been able to get a warrant to obtain the evidence legally. He recorded conversations and performed a search, both without a warrant or a wire tap order, so therefore it couldn't be admissible in court, when the villains were arrested.

That was the original ending. So I came up with a new one. In the new one the MC is surveying the main villain and follows him out of the city to in the middle of nowhere. The villain digs a hole in the ground and puts a bag in it. The MC calls for back up, and him and other cops dig up the bag to see what the villain buried. In the bag is leverage, he is using to blackmail his fellow gang members to keep them from possibly turning on them. The villain buries it in the ground, so if the police search his property with a warrant in the future ever, they will not fight it.

So the police have evidence on some of the gang members, and they use this to arrest those members, hoping they will cut deals to turn in the leader, as well as others. This is the new ending. It fixes the plot hole since the evidence is buried in the ground, in the middle of nowhere, and not on private property, which the police would need a warrant for.

So I feel this fixes the legal plot hole, but I was told the ending is boring and not taut or suspenseful for a thriller, even though it sort of works, plausibility wise. What do you think? Is their a problem with the ending, or does it sound like it is lacking in suspense or drama? Or what is more important? Drama or not having legal plotholes?

Thank you everyone for your opinions. I really appreciate it.

 

[WalterB]

Ugg, I mentioned Kanye and Taylor Swift lol.

That willsurely draw new traffic to IT

 

[WalterB]

Okay thanks. But if people care about the emotional situation, why were readers pointing legal plotholes then?

Probably because that is what they think is wrong with the story.
People always look for logic reasons if a story doesn't move them.
Or it really disturbs the flow: taking them out of the story.

Story is not only about filling the holes: it's synergy of actions and emotions.

Besides that: with what question did you send it to them to read?

 

[harmonica44]

If they were recorded with no expectation of privacy, then it is not a private conversation and it can be admissible.

For example, if talking in a cafe and the FBI has a wire in the napkin holder, there is no expectation of privacy because they are in a cafe. Even if they are whispering at a table.

In your own home you would think always expectation of privacy right?

It was recently brought up that Taylor Swift might sure Kanye for releasing their phone conversation. However lawyers pointed out, it was on speakerphone, and she knew it was. And other people were in the room. A doc was being taped as well, which is how it got recorded. There was no expectation of privacy, so she would have no case. Meaning if this ware a criminal case, it could be admissible.

There's ways you can make your idea work. ALL states have different laws as well as Canada. You can find the right location for this to work, etc. and work with no expectation of privacy, even if it appears private.

Don't worry over such details when dealing with the story as a whole. Get it hammered out and see if it works as a whole first.

Okay thanks. I was told by the police though, in my research, that a cop cannot record a conversation without a warrant, if he is not part of the conversation. I think in the Taylor and Kanye example, is Kanye was a part of the conversation. In my example, a third party is doing the recording, that neither the other parties no about, so it's not admissible, even if it were recorded in public, I was told.

But if I do not concentrate so much on the legal technicalities, here are a couple of endings I have going by emotion only:

It's a thriller story, of cops vs. a group of villains. The cops have had enough of the villains committing crimes, after a cop is killed. It's the last straw for a group of other cops. The other cops form a vengeful mob, or 'death squad', if you will and go after the villains with the means of killing them, after being pushed this point.

What the cops do not know is, is that the fallen officer, which they are avenging, was actually a corrupt mole, working for the villains. The villains killed him by accident, in a scuffle, to keep the mole from turning on them, since they suspected he was going to turn on them.

So the cops are out to avenge a fallen officer, not knowing he was working for the villain's in both endings. Here are the two differences between the endings:

1. The leader of the gang of villains decides that will a death squad of cops after them all, that has lost, and there is nothing more he can do to save the gang or himself. He decides to turn himself in to the honest police and take the blame for the crimes, saying that it was him who got the gang to commit all his crimes, and that it was all his fault, that the cop died, as well as the prior crimes before.

The leader decides to communicate with the death squad of cops somehow, to come to a truce, asking that if him turning himself in, will be enough to stop any more blood shed on the cops part, since it the cop's death was his fault. The rogue cops consider this and allow him to take the blame for everything as part a of truce.

However, the fellow gang members, do not trust the leader turning himself in and taking all the blame, trusting him not to eventually cave and cut a deal. It does not sit well with them so they go after the leader and attempt to take him out. The death squad of cops, have to decide if they should protect the leader, and allow him to turn himself in, since he is a crook willing to surrender, and you do not get that often. Or they can decide if they should just let the other gang members kill him. But the gang members end up shooting at the cops to try to kill their leader, and the cops end up shooting and fighting back. Most of the gang dies as well as a lot of the police, accept for the main character cop, who regrets forming the death squad.

The gang leader also regrets turning himself in as it got most of his men killed. He can now refute his surrender, telling the honest police, that he did no such thing and surrender and it will be the rogue cop's word against his. So he feels that his surrender accomplished nothing, since it didn't save his fellow gang member's lives, but got them killed. That is the first ending, here is the second:


2. The gang is desperate and knows that the rogue cops are after them, and feel they have to do something to save themselves. In this ending though, the gang does evidence on the dead corrupt cop. They were using it as leverage on the cop, should he decide to turn. But they still have it, and have it hidden somewhere, just in case they needed it, and haven't gotten rid of it yet.

So the gang decides to turn over the leverage evidence to the police, knowing that the rogue cops who are after them, will come across it. They will then see that their fellow officer friend, who they are trying to avenge, was one of 'them', all along, and they therefore, will be disgusted and not want to avenge their friend anymore. The gang turning over this evidence on the dead cop, will deter the vengeful cops' course of action and take away their revenge motive.

However, what happens is, it that before the gang can turn over the evidence to the honest police, the rogue cops find the gang, as they are preparing the evidence to be delivered. They kill the gang out of revenge, but legally make it look like a police sting operation gone bad, and make it look like police self defense. But a lot of the rogue cops are killed as well in the revenge quest. During this violent shootout and fight, the villain tries to plea with the cops saying he will turn himself in as well to save the rest of his men, but it's too late, and he cannot save them in time, and regrets, having gotten them all killed, which was not his attention, similar to the first ending.

As the remaining rogue cops that are alive, along with the honest police who arrive after, go through the evidence recovered from the investigation of the sting gone bad, the police find out that their friend they were avenging, was one of the gang all along, and then regret that the revenge, thinking it wasn't worth it to get men killed, when their friend was a mole. This is different from the original ending, where they wouldn't get any proof that their friend was a mole from the villains.

But in both endings, the gang leader, who is the main villain, tries to save the gang and, but ends up getting them killed, and regrets it in both, after surviving in both.

So which ending do you think sounds better? I thought about combining both but I don't know if I can since the villain's motivation is different. Turning himself to save his me and taking all the blame is not something he would do, if he had evidence on the dead cop, to deter the rogue cops from taking revenge in the first place, right?

So maybe I have to pick between the two then. What do you think?

 

[indietalk]

He recorded conversations and performed a search, both without a warrant or a wire tap order, so therefore it couldn't be admissible in court, when the villains were arrested.

So get the warrant? Or is that part of the conflict? Maybe he taped them and it is not admissible, but someone was following him, and recording (video+audio) him recording the villains. Maybe a reporter that was looking for dirt following cops, or looking for a scoop. So the cop's tapes are out, but the reporter's tapes are (would be) in, but he won't give them up. The cop knows they exist but the reporter denies it, as he wants to scoop the story and is not done tailing cops. Or maybe there is something illegal or immoral he did on the tapes (the reporter).

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Mainly a judge would not give him a warrant though, cause I was told by the police in my research that there is not enough evidence, and that getting a wire tap order, is a really tall order, that requires evidence prior.

 

[indietalk]

Use Patriot Act.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. But don't you need some prior evidence to initiate the patriot act as well?

 

[indietalk]

The whole idea of the PA is they can do what they want but you'd have to throw in a suspected terror element. No "evidence" needed.

You're asking a bunch of filmmakers legal questions. You need a legal advisor. It's like asking about drinking and driving laws on a muscle car forum.

 

[WalterB]

...............You need a legal advisor.......

Or a story that works.

H44, how many years have you been trying to fill the legal holes now?
I feel like you are trying to fix something in the end of the story, while that doesn't seem to work out.
Maybe you need to change something earlier in the story.
Or maybe some of us gave us a good solution, but we can't tell, because you still think we can really help with so little information.

 

[harmonica44]

Well I was thinking of setting the story in Canada, where I live, and we don't have a patriot act. I have been asking a cop, and the said that the only way that will work is if the evidence, is buried in the ground, so that way they can get around a warrant to search private property.

Basically I already wrote out half the script about, and in the plot the villains get off in court for lack evidence. But the paradox is, is that if they get off, no new warrants can be issues, because they got off. They are considered not guilty, so that means no search warrants, or no wire tap orders, to be able to continue after. That is mainly the legal problem, and having evidence buried in the ground, seems to be the only way to fix it, I was told by a cop.

But I was able to fix the loophole with the evidence buried in the ground, or so I thought. But if that is boring perhaps it could use some tweaking.

 

[WalterB]

....................But if that is boring perhaps it could use some tweaking.

Nobody can tell whether that is boring or not, because nobody read the script.
Maybe the only boring thing about it is how you tell it.
The fact that evidence gets buried isn't boring in itself: context and emotions can make it boring or thrilling.
(Something I tried to illustrate earlier with the sneaky footchase where the MC almost got caught, running through the woods trying to get the evidence, panicing, the relief they got it, rushing to get out of sight before the villain returns VS. the villain buries the evidence)

Just like driving a car can be boring or not.

What are the stakes for the MC in the end?

 

[mad_hatter]

If that is your ending, as you've written it here, then yes, it sounds boring to me.

Who's actually read your screenplay? Have the people telling you its boring actually read it, or are they basing it on what you're telling them?

Also, why are you continuing to post on the writing forum referring to your screenplay as a "story"? Why are you not telling the people there that it's a screenplay you are writing? It's as if you're trying to hide the fact... Novels and screenplays are two completely different animals. If you told them it's a screenplay you're writing, you may get different (and, most likely, more appropriate) advice.

 

[harmonica44]

Basically the stakes for the MC is how far he will go in catching the villain, which ends up being too far and his character revelation is that he realizes that the ends did not justify the means in the end. Even though he is using evidence as a basis to go make an arrest, the MC has manipulated the whole situation and gets other cops killed because of it. So that is the stakes I was planning on for the MC.

As for the villain returning, the villain doesn't have a motive to return though. Basically once he gets what he needs from the bag, he is going to use it, and then get rid of it later. There is no reason for the villain to go back though. Oh by story, I meant a screenplay story pretty much. Sorry I am just use to using the word story. I have been reading a screenwriting book, and it keeps using the word story, and I am rubbing off on it. I will try to say script.

Basically just people I know have read it, but I haven't finished it yet, since there are gaps I am trying to fill. Perhaps once I do that, it will read better as a finished product maybe. Just not sure how to finish it yet.

 

[WalterB]

Basically the stakes for the MC is how far he will go in catching the villain, which ends up being too far and his character revelation is that he realizes that the ends did not justify the means in the end. Even though he is using evidence as a basis to go make an arrest, the MC has manipulated the whole situation and gets other cops killed because of it. So that is the stakes I was planning on for the MC.

So there is no stake left at this point in the script, because allthat happened before this moment, right?
No time pressure. No risk. No danger anymore.
Only the need to fix things?

(BTW, it could be language, it could be semiotics, but "how far someone will go doesn't sound like a stake to me, it just sounds like the result of a stake to me." Like: how far will he go to steal her heart/stay out of prison/catch the bad guys/win the Olympics/get the job?
The state is what is at risk/the motivation, not the action the get/prevent it.
IMO, that is.

As for the villain returning, the villain doesn't have a motive to return though. Basically once he gets what he needs from the bag, he is going to use it, and then get rid of it later. There is no reason for the villain to go back though..........

You have the power to give him a reason. You are the writer.
I just made up 1) a sneaky foot chase (to build tension), 2) a diversion with 2 bags (to add confusion and panic in the MC later), 3) a cabin the villain walks to (I have no idea what is there), 4)that the villain comes back (I don't know why, but it adds time pressure).
I just did that with my imagination.
Did he just visit someone in the cabin?
Did he bring something there? (Something from the bag maybe? Making it possible for one of the gang to almost get away in the end... more tension!!!)
Did he just check something out?
Did he forget to bring something?
Did he have a meeting?
Did he just want to sit in the rocking chair for a moment and contemplate life?

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. But the villain is going to meet with others. So wouldn't it be more exciting for the MC to get them all at the same time? If he waits for the main villain to return, the buried evidence, then the villain is going to split up from the other villains. Isn't it more exciting for the MC as well as other cops to have a stand off with all the villains at the same time, rather than waiting for them to split up?

And I was told before to not let the characters make forced decisions and to have the decisions be natural. I feel that even if I do give the villain reason to come back, it will still be forced. There is just no reason. Plus the MC suspects the villain is going to go meet the others, that the evidence in the bag may time them too. So isn't it best to go nail the villain with the others, all at the same time, and that is more exciting, then waiting for them to split up?

And no, the MC coming to his revelation and regretting getting cops killed does not happen before finding the evidence, in the ground but after. The evidence is used as a set up to get to that moment, so the police have a reason to get evidence, and then have a reason to go get all the others, and get killed over it.

 

[WalterB]

Okay thanks. But the villain is going to meet with others. So wouldn't it be more exciting for the MC to get them all at the same time? If he waits for the main villain to return, the buried evidence, then the villain is going to split up from the other villains. Isn't it more exciting for the MC as well as other cops to have a stand off with all the villains at the same time, rather than waiting for them to split up?

Are you writing the script to excite the characters in your script???

          MC
     Quick they are all in there!

        COP 1
    OMG! That is so exciting!

       COP 2
   Thank you, H44! This is such a thrill!

What if the MC is NOT waiting for the villains to split up, but it just is what happens while waiting for backup?
Like a little plan falling apart, demanding the MC makes a quick decision.

And I was told before to not let the characters make forced decisions and to have the decisions be natural. I feel that even if I do give the villain reason to come back, it will still be forced. There is just no reason.

Here we are at the fringes of discussing the nature of free will and forced decisions.
I ask you: how is staying there not a forced decision as it is a device to get all the crooks in 1 place?
Why does the villain have no reason to return?
Did you ask him?
Maybe the meeting was already over.

What if it was so far into the forest that the MC had to wait quite a while for backup.
Just when he learns backup is almost near the spot where the evidence is, the villain walks out and starts to walk back. The MC has to run to secure the evidence without letting the V (villain) know. If the V knows, everyone will disappear for sure.

Plus the MC suspects the villain is going to go meet the others, that the evidence in the bag may time them too. So isn't it best to go nail the villain with the others, all at the same time, and that is more exciting, then waiting for them to split up?

Why do you think it is more exciting to hit all the flies in one blow?
Why do you think that it is more exiting that the MC's suspicion was all correct?

(I can't judge it: I have no script.)

And no, the MC coming to his revelation and regretting getting cops killed does not happen before finding the evidence, in the ground but after. The evidence is used as a set up to get to that moment, so the police have a reason to get evidence, and then have a reason to go get all the others, and get killed over it.

So, the cops getting killed is just a consequence.
It has nothing to do with stakes, unless he must do something to prevent it. It's just a consequence of possibily bad or reckless decision making. Unless your MC is a twisted genius that wants to create cop killers so he can execute them in a chase. In that case he would set his fellow cops up to be killed in action.

BTW, how fast do you think they know what kind of evidence they found so they have a reason to go after the gang? (I don't know what the evidence is...)
Maybe they need to process it to make sure the won't have a mistrail (again)?

 

[harmonica44]

Well even though the evidence needs to be processed, I was told by a cop in my research, that the evidence was enough probable cause, to arrest them all in one place, while waiting for a warrant to come through.

I just think it's more exciting to have a stand off with all the villains rather than one at a time. That is just what I think. Plus I want to bring the script to an end. If I write it so that the villains split up, then the script will take longer to finish and it's time to bring it to end I think, at this point.

I guess I am talking too much about the consequences of the steaks. The steak is is that the MC is willing to do what it takes to bring the villain down, even if it means stepping outside the law, since the villains keep getting away and not getting caught. In the two endings, in which I asked which one is better, those two endings may explain the steaks more.

As for having the MC's suspicion to be correct, I want the MC to bring the villains down, and for the MC to come out on top. Therefore, his suspicions have to correct for this to happen.

As for how is staying there not a forced decision, do you mean how are all the villains ending up in one place, not a forced decision? Basically the MC manipulates the villains into all meeting up in one place, and this happens after the leader goes to get evidence from the ground. But the MC does not want to miss his opportunity to get them all at once, and wait for them to split up. If he waits for them to split up, he will consider that missing an opportunity. But in many movies, the hero gets the villains all in one blow in the climax, and I think the reason why that is, is cause it leaders to a bigger fight/stand off in the end.

I could write it so that the villains are about to split up while the MC is waiting. But the MC is not the type to let this happen. He will keep them together while waiting for back up, even if it means taking a risk, cause he does not want them to split up.

As for the villain walking back to the evidence, the MC has tricked and manipulated the villain into going to get the evidence, and leading the MC to it. But the villain has no reason to put it back, or go back. In my two ending examples, that I gave before, ending #2, is the reason why the villain goes to dig evidence out of the ground. I cannot think of a reason as to why the villain would go back after. Here is ending #2:

2. The gang is desperate and knows that the rogue cops are after them, and feel they have to do something to save themselves. In this ending though, the gang does evidence on the dead corrupt cop. They were using it as leverage on the cop, should he decide to turn. But they still have it, and have it hidden somewhere, just in case they needed it, and haven't gotten rid of it yet.

So the gang decides to turn over the leverage evidence to the police, knowing that the rogue cops who are after them, will come across it. They will then see that their fellow officer friend, who they are trying to avenge, was one of 'them', all along, and they therefore, will be disgusted and not want to avenge their friend anymore. The gang turning over this evidence on the dead cop, will deter the vengeful cops' course of action and take away their revenge motive.

However, what happens is, it that before the gang can turn over the evidence to the honest police, the rogue cops find the gang, as they are preparing the evidence to be delivered. They kill the gang out of revenge, but legally make it look like a police sting operation gone bad, and make it look like police self defense. But a lot of the rogue cops are killed as well in the revenge quest. During this violent shootout and fight, the villain tries to plea with the cops saying he will turn himself in as well to save the rest of his men, but it's too late, and he cannot save them in time, and regrets, having gotten them all killed, which was not his intention.

So basically the evidence that the villain uncovers from the ground, is because the MC manipulated him into going to get by putting fear into the villain, that him and other rogue cops were out to kill him. When the villain removes the evidence, and then puts the rest of it back, the MC can then dig it up and use the rest of the evidence, to get a warrant, or so I was told by a cop, if it's found in the ground.

You said that you don't like how the MC's suspicions were correct, or that in this case, his manipulations of the villain worked out. But the MC sort of has to predict what the villain will do correctly, in order to win, doesn't he?

 

[indietalk]

You're dissecting this so much you're losing sight of the story. A good story can work in any genre or time period. Focus on your story, details later.

You're trying to build a house from the ground up and you're worried if the front door hinges should be bronze or nickel. Blueprint first!

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. But in order to start with the blueprint, there has to be evidence that will work on bringing the villains down. Shouldn't the detail of admissibly evidence, be in the blueprint of the plot itself, so the plot will hold together, rather than having such an important detail be the front door hinges?

I thought that the key piece of admissible evidence, should be the blueprint and not the door hinges, cause that is the one part of the plot that will bring the rest of it to a close, no?

 

[mad_hatter]

Honestly, in my opinion, if you can't figure this out for yourself you should think about writing something else. I don't understand how you can possibly have painted yourself into a corner like this. If you can't make it work, why don't you do something different? Either that, or change this story at the point where you've begun along the path that's ended up in this hole...