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

Is this ending, possibly boring?

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.
 
Okay thanks. But in order to start with the blueprint, there has to be evidence that will work on bringing the villains down...............

Even with that evidence thing in place, there are so many other ways to make it end in a less boring way than you are planning to.
You just don't see the many possibilities.
But we have no clue about your script: we only get descriptions of snippets to react to.
Maybe the ending isn't the problem, but the prelude to the end (2nd act). No one knows...

The problem is probably you really want a certain ending and you have been looking for a legal construction to make it work and now you have a tunnel vision, believing the ending should end like you wrote it, while there is room around the key elements to add drama/tension.

The MC can be right about his suspicions AND the villain can do unpredicted unconvenient things as well. It just takes some flexibilty to truely explore it before dismissing it. In your mind the MC would never wait untill V leaves again, but the MC doesn't know how long V wanted to stay, so V can surprise MC with leaving before the MC has his 'pieces' in position. Like I said: V could just have forgotten something from his car. It could be as silly as a bottle of whiskey.... I don't know.
In real life people can and do improvise.

And I still won't agree with your idea of a stake.
Stake is NOT that the MC will do anything to get the villains. That is more character/motivation.
A stake is that he has to get the villains to prevent X/avenge Y/clear Z/whatever: something has to be at stake for him, besides him not succeeding. Otherwise it isn't a real stake. Catching bad guys is his job describtion...

Like in Return of the Jedi (spoiler!)
Luke Skywalker's stake was not that he has to defeat the emperor.
The stake was that the Rebel Allience and his friends' lives are in great danger (at stake!) if he doesn't defeat the emperor.

You confuse what needs to be done with what is at risk.
 
Last edited:
Even with that evidence thing in place, there are so many other ways to make it end in a less boring way than you are planning to.
You just don't see the many possibilities.
But we have no clue about your script: we only get descriptions of snippets to react to.
Maybe the ending isn't the problem, but the prelude to the end (2nd act). No one knows...

The problem is probably you really want a certain ending and you have been looking for a legal construction to make it work and now you have a tunnel vision, believing the ending should end like you wrote it, while there is room around the key elements to add drama/tension.

The MC can be right about his suspicions AND the villain can do unpredicted unconvenient things as well. It just takes some flexibilty to truely explore it before dismissing it. In your mind the MC would never wait untill V leaves again, but the MC doesn't know how long V wanted to stay, so V can surprise MC with leaving before the MC has his 'pieces' in position. Like I said: V could just have forgotten something from his car. It could be as silly as a bottle of whiskey.... I don't know.
In real life people can and do improvise.

And I still won't agree with your idea of a stake.
Stake is NOT that the MC will do anything to get the villains. That is more character/motivation.
A stake is that he has to get the villains to prevent X/avenge Y/clear Z/whatever: something has to be at stake for him, besides him not succeeding. Otherwise it isn't a real stake. Catching bad guys is his job describtion...

Like in Return of the Jedi (spoiler!)
Luke Skywalker's stake was not that he has to defeat the emperor.
The stake was that the Rebel Allience and his friends' lives are in great danger (at stake!) if he doesn't defeat the emperor.

You confuse what needs to be done with what is at risk.

Okay thanks. Well if the MC doesn't succeed the villains will just keep on committing more crimes and more murders in the future may result. Does that count as a steak?

As for the villains returning to the buried evidence, I might be able to think of a reason why and keep an opening mind. But what is the pay off to him coming back? Sure the MC is on a time limit but what is the pay off to the villain returning? I don't mean the villain's reason for returning. Perhaps I can come up with one. But what is the pay off to what will happen if he does return, and when he does?
Well I feel that if the MC does not get evidence on the villain, then I will have painted myself into a corner because the MC does not have a good reason to go after the villains then. It seems that if I don't have admissible evidence beforehand, than the MC is painted into a corner. That is why I have trouble seeing an ending happen without evidence, cause it leads to a corner painting it seems.


I can write it so that the MC goes after the villain, and maybe kills them to stop them, out of revenge, to stop the villains from getting away with more crimes in the future. However, the MC's superiors are going to ask him why he killed the villains. He is not going to have an answer.

At least with the buried evidence, he had a reason to after them before things got bloody. But if I take away the evidence, and just write it so that he goes after them without any, then he doesn't have any excuse to tell his superiors when they question him.
 
Last edited:
Nobody says to take away the evidence.
Are you sure you read everything in a calm pace. It really looks like you are replying to something else than what people have written.

Btw, steaks belong on a BBQ ;)
 
Oh are you saying that I should just make the evidence discovery more exciting then, but still keep it perhaps then?

I actually know how I wanted for my original ending, but I kept not being able to work around a possible plot hole. If you have the ending that you think is best for the character revelations and the theme, but you find that plot wise, there may be a plot hole, should I choose put the plot first, or the character themes?
 
Last edited:
Oh are you saying that I should just make the evidence discovery more exciting then, but still keep it perhaps then?
................

Did you read any of this?
Or did I just type to the wind?

More than once I think I offered ways to make it more exciting and finally you see it?

You can't really read then?

Make the MC conflicted about what to do first before he makes his choice to call for backup.
Maybe he follows the villain deeper into the woods first so see where he is going. (A cabin.)

When he learns the backup is almost at the bury spot he sees the villain coming out of that cabin again: making it a race against the clock to run back and excavate the stuff and put the dirt back so nobody would see the evidence was collected.
To make it even worse: the villain buried 2 bags on top of each other. The first one is filled with actual garbage or magazines full of naked girls, lol, I don't know. But it makes the MC look silly, since he for some reason missed that detail: he had to hide, because he made some noise, while the villain was hiding the evidence.
In a haze of panic he starts looking around for more fresh dirt but there isn't. He knows time is ticking: the villain will return soon and he doesn't want him to know he was being followed. In the mean time the cops 'congratulate' him with the fine 'evidence' he collected.
In a moment of dispair he continues to dig in the existing hole, only to discover the first bag was a diversion.
Now he has to put the the bag with the magazines back, much to the dismay of the other cops who were enthousiastly and jokingly examining the found 'evidence'.
Just in time they all get out of there.


blablabla.

Things work when things work.
I'm not saying the Columbo thing is a bad thing in itself.
All I said was that if people start wondering about how long the movie still is, your movie must be boring.
The other thing I said is the way you described your ending with a villain burying something indeed seemed a bit boring. Where is the emotion in that? What is at stake for the MC while the audience thinks the villain is peacefully burying the evidence?

It seems you are so caught up in finding a legal contruction to make your ending work you forgot that movies are about emotions.

Any kind of twist can be a good twist in the right context.
Any kind of scene can be a great scene in the right context.
In the wrong context they are either boring or make no sense.

You keep on mistaking context for rules.
Someone says: that doesn't work.
You say: but in TITLEofSOMEMOVIE it works, was that wrong then?

No! It works when it works!

Just make something short, maybe it will enlighten your view on how everything depends on everything. Maybe then you will also realise that you will never get a complete solution from IT because your question was never complete to start with.


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?


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.



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?


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

Code:
          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.


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.



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.)



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)?

Even with that evidence thing in place, there are so many other ways to make it end in a less boring way than you are planning to.
You just don't see the many possibilities.
But we have no clue about your script: we only get descriptions of snippets to react to.
Maybe the ending isn't the problem, but the prelude to the end (2nd act). No one knows...

The problem is probably you really want a certain ending and you have been looking for a legal construction to make it work and now you have a tunnel vision, believing the ending should end like you wrote it, while there is room around the key elements to add drama/tension.

The MC can be right about his suspicions AND the villain can do unpredicted unconvenient things as well. It just takes some flexibilty to truely explore it before dismissing it. In your mind the MC would never wait untill V leaves again, but the MC doesn't know how long V wanted to stay, so V can surprise MC with leaving before the MC has his 'pieces' in position. Like I said: V could just have forgotten something from his car. It could be as silly as a bottle of whiskey.... I don't know.
In real life people can and do improvise.

And I still won't agree with your idea of a stake.
Stake is NOT that the MC will do anything to get the villains. That is more character/motivation.
A stake is that he has to get the villains to prevent X/avenge Y/clear Z/whatever: something has to be at stake for him, besides him not succeeding. Otherwise it isn't a real stake. Catching bad guys is his job describtion...

Like in Return of the Jedi (spoiler!)
Luke Skywalker's stake was not that he has to defeat the emperor.
The stake was that the Rebel Allience and his friends' lives are in great danger (at stake!) if he doesn't defeat the emperor.

You confuse what needs to be done with what is at risk.
 
Okay thanks. I read it all before, sorry. I am just contemplating...

My original ending was to have the MC take revenge on the villains, but the main villain begs the MC, not to kill him and offers to take the blame for the other gang members saying it is his fault. The other gang members, while honored that his boss is willing to take the fall, do not want the MC bringing him in. So they attempt to shoot the MC, and then MC ends up killing the other gang members, while waiting for back up. Back up arrives and kills the rest, and the villain goes through the revelation of realizing that he has gotten his fellow gang members into worse trouble and that he couldn't save them which he wanted to. And then he is arrested.

But there is a plot hole in the this ending in that the MC cannot bring the villain in technically, since he cam there to kill him originally before changing his mind. So he had to reason to go there to almost kill him legally, to drive him to the point of surrendering. Legally therefore, the villain turning himself and taking the blame, wouldn't legally work.

So I am wondering if I should go with the original ending, even though there is a plot hole, but nevertheless is may be more exciting than the evidence in the ground idea. What do you think?
 
Ever play the game of telephone? You are trying to write that way.

Pick the ending you like best, it's your story. You can't write a story asking at each step what to do. This website is here to help but it has to be stressful and confusing and it makes you look like you are not even behind your own idea. Get behind it, write it out, come back, let us see (if you wish).

I have a feeling this is not over. :lol:
 
Okay thanks. Well I after coming back to the after a while, I want to go with the evidence buried in a ground ending.

However, I was told it was a plot hole, cause the villain wouldn't be stupid enough to keep in the ground, where someone else could accidentally find it. The reason I had for him to keep it buried in the ground, so if the police ever got a search warrant to search his property or his computer, they wouldn't find all the leverage on everyone.

But I was told it was a plot hole and it makes no smart sense for the villain to do that, especially since he has been smart all along, so it's inconsistent. But at the same time, in order to get caught, he has to slip up somewhere.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
I want to go with the evidence buried in a ground ending.

:clap:

Congrats you have made a decision!

Oh wait. There's more. Oh no, more doubt. No, I am not falling for that anymore. YOU have made your own decision. Stop right there, and write it! Stop worrying about what everyone else says or you will either a) never make a film or b) have to credit the 1,228 people that actually wrote it online for you!
 
People that back themselves and put themselves out there are the people who get stuff done.

You can spend months agonising over whether an ending is right or wrong, or whether there are too many plot holes... or you can go out there and make your damn movie.

Don't forget - the next movie you make will not be your last unless you make it your last.

If Spielberg agonised over every minute detail over his short films, he may not have even gotten to making Amblin.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top