Question about creating characters vs. plot.

[harmonica44]

I was reading The Anatomy of Story by John Truby, and he wrote that after you have come up with your premise, you are suppose to create characters to fit that premise. Afterwords, you are to pick the character that is the most interesting, and make that your protagonist.

However, I find it rather difficult to create characters based on having come up with the premise only. It seems to me, that I would have to create a lot more of the plot, before I knew which characters I needed to fill that plot. I would also have to create the ending first, so I know what characters are required to build towards that certain ending.

So I am wondering what you think of to creating characters, after coming up with the premise only, and not the climax and ending you want to build into yet.

For example, in one script I wrote, after I was finished almost the whole first draft and finished with a lot of the plot, I needed to figure out how the protagonist would locate the villain in certain situation. I then came up with a the method of him blackmailing a computer hacker to hack into the villains bank records and set up a whole plan to lure him out.

However, I was not able to come up with the hacker character, until after I had already thought of most of the plot. Before then, I had no reason to come up with the hacker character based on the initial premise alone.

So I am wondering how do you create characters after coming up with the premise only, and how do you decide which of those characters is the most interesting to make the protagonist, since you want to make all your characters as interesting as you can, and it's all relative to the viewer?

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks people. I already knew who the protagonist and antagonist were when I wrote a few drafts of the treatment, but now after writing a few drafts of the script, I had a few people tell me that the protagonist is run-of-the-mill, and is not a very flawed character in the beginning to get audiences hook.

So I thought I would follow Truby's advice and give him a flaw, but as a result it just feels shoehorned, I was told, cause there is a lot going on in the beginning and it would just be best to let the flaws and needs come in naturally.

I mean when you watch a movie like Fargo for example, Marge Gunderson, does not have a serious character flaw, which is causing her to act improperly towards other's in the beginning, does she? Like my protagonist, she is given a police assignment and does it, and her paying job, is primarily the motivating factor. Or does this example not count because Marge is not the protagonist and Jerry is? Or in Point Break, when Johnny Utah is given an assignment, he has no flaws in the beginning and his career is the motivation, rather than a flaw hidden within.

Other people I have shown drafts to though, say that the character is fine and that he acquires flaws later, and things heat up, and I should just keep it natural, instead of shoehorning changes. I can't really get a lot of general opinions on if the script is good or bad, some say the like it, some don't. And the reasons are always different. One of the readers told me that most movies are like this though, and there is no good movie, or bad movie, since the film industry, especially Hollywood, makes movies that can be considered really bad, but they still have fans, and make money, and movies that are underrated and have fans, but flop to others. There is no bad movie, there are just people who will like it and people who won't.

What do you think of that though? Is there an audience for my premise and I should proceed further? I know it's about the execution, but a lot of script readers, read the premise line before gaining interest in opening up the script, so will this premise line idea, alone, cause them to open it?

 

[Sweetie]

Do you ever feel like anything in your life works?

Hollywood, makes movies that can be considered really bad, but they still have fans, and make money, and movies that are underrated and have fans, but flop to others. There is no bad movie

Stop looking for excuses.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

A character's flaws can be anything that the character says or does that to other characters, and the audience, is considered annoying, frustrating, stupid, uncalled for, or even keeps the character in a weak position. It doesn't have to necessarily be a flaw that is dangerous to themselves and others for example.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Is the premise line, a good one though, to get people interested and I should continue with more drafts?

Also, another thing I have been told is that it is hard to know what the main character, and other characters as well, are thinking since there is no dialogue or explanations as to what they are doing. There are several scenes when characters have thoughts and make decisions when they are alone, so it makes sense for them not to say what they are doing. One reader told me I should take the same approach that Die Hard did, and have characters talk to themselves so the audience knows what they are thinking.

For example, in Die Hard, when the cop played by Reginald VelJohnson, walks into the plaza building, looking around for criminal activity, he says "To hell with this", and then he turns around and walks out. John McClane also talks to himself so the audience knows what he is thinking such as saying lines as "Why the hell didn't you stop 'em John! Cause then you would be dead too!", and when he looks out the window to see the fire trucks coming he says "come on baby, come to papa", and then when the trucks are called off and they turn around he yells out "No! Turn the truck around!", or something along those lines, even though the men driving the truck, could not hear him obviously.

Or in Manhunter and the remake, Red Dragon, the Will Graham character will pretend to talk to the serial killer he is investigating, even though he is not actually in the room with him so we the audience know what he is thinking about him.

Should I take that approach so that characters will talk to themselves, so the audience will understand what is going through their minds, cause I would rather show then tell, unless I have to tell in these cases, without talking to one's self, coming off as possibly cheesy.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

It works really well in Die Hard because he's saying aloud what the audience may be thinking too. You have to remember that Die Hard was a unique action film at the time. It was 1988 and movies like Commando and Rambo: First Blood Part II for example, had come out earlier that decade and in those films the main character usually is able to singe handedly take on an entire army by themselves. So here comes Die Hard where you have a character who is just like anyone else. Sure, he's a cop but he's out of his depth in this situation, and he isn't invincible, he can get hurt, he can bleed.

So when you look at the dialogue example you used of John saying "Why the hell didn't you stop 'em John! Cause then you would be dead too!" you could say the audience was expecting him to just take them on but that expectation is turned on it's head and instead he states why he didn't do that, not only to himself, but it's meant for the audience as well (he's not breaking the fourth wall though).

A lot of scenes where characters speaking to themselves are very tricky and most are probably added on the day of the shoot depending on how natural it feels. So it's interesting to look into, but I'd be careful of falling into the trap of overusing it - so use it sparingly.

 

[WalterB]

That's the whole point of show don't tell: let the actions say something about the person. Let the way they look , dress, move say something. At the same time any other method can work.
So, again, there is no rule that is set in stone.
Things work when done right. The real question is: can anything be done right?

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. And I actually saw Die Hard first when I was a kid, and saw Rambo and Commando later, so I did not get that impression. Not that my script is an action movie of course, just using it as an example. But even other works, like Shakespeare's plays, had to have actors talk to themselves, and describe their thoughts and feelings, just so the audience could understand it, rather than facial emotion only. This was the reader's recommendation, that the characters were hard to follow since we cannot tell what they are thinking and I wrote it in the style, that it's written what you see.

However, she said that she read the script not in one go, and broke it up into sections to fit her free time. So she says that maybe it's easier to follow if you read the whole thing at once. But she and another reader, gave me some pointers on scenes I could make improvements to. So for the next people I show it to, I will make sure to ask them to read it all in one sitting if they can.

 

[Sweetie]

Finally h44 asked a good question.

It's mostly been answered in here, though while Phantom explained it a lot, there was a little piece that I think is missing from the analysis. Films often have a second character (cop stories typically have a partner to act as a buddy - Other movies can use a mentor character, best friend, boss etc). These characters often help externalize what's going on, help create conflict and externalize the motivations and challenge the belief systems of the protagonist. They don't have a buddy in Die Hard, so they chose to externalize it this way.

It's very different from a character talking to the audience, telling them what's happening, like in a voice over. Not that either method is wrong. Sometimes it's the most efficient way to tell the story. It's just a good idea to not use it as a crutch to turn your film into talking heads.

 

[WalterB]

Now I think about it: in Die Hard it is also a way to make the audience 'agree'.
"Yippikayee motherf#%$#!"
And the viewer thinks (or yells*) 'Yeah! Eat that!'
They see Bruce's character yell what they wish they could sometimes do.

(This is not a scriptwriting rule: it is just my observation on a different level.)

*)
I've watched movies on music festivals full of happy people: there the audience weren't watching in silence: they were reacting like they would to a concert. Really funny experience.

PS.
We can all learn from Shakespear, but remember: facial expressions in a play are less usefull than in a movie, because there is no close up. That's also why gestures in theatre are often more 'theatrical'. This way the people in the back can also see what is going on.
Like with everything: it can work when done properly.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. That's true about the close up. I think the real problem is is that I am trying to change too much of the treatment around. I will send the script about and then people will tell me what they liked, and what need to be improved, but the more I try to change it, the more it unravels. Once the structure is in place it seems that it should not be broken.

I have had this with previous scripts as well, the more you try to change them for improvement, the more the structure unravels. Perhaps I should just stick with the original structure and that's it. Or if I should take people's improvement suggestions, can you make a change without painting yourself into corners?

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

H44, ultimately it's up to you to take the advice you've received, both the good and the bad, and decide if you agree or not. If you agree then incorporate, if you disagree then ignore. Rewriting, restructuring - these are part of the territory.

 

[harmonica44]

For sure. However, I want to please the audience. A lot of writers, will just disagree with the audience, and they will not make changes to their scripts, but as a result, the scripts may not be as good, cause no improvements were made.

So I would like to restructure, but just need to learn how, without the story unraveling and not working the next time. But when everyone's advice is different, it's difficult to know what direction to go in. I will do what was recommended that you cannot montage love and try to develop the love story subplot better. I feel that putting in more time to do though, might put the main thriller plot on hold for the viewer, as I have to develop a love story as well. Just so long as they don't feel the thriller plot becomes too slowed down or on pause.

As for whether or not the character should talk to himself so the audience can tell his thoughts and decisions better, I guess it would be best not to have him to do that. It's not for the same reason as Die Hard.

Truby also says to take whichever character is the most interesting and change the premise so that it fits that character. I tried that but after trying to develop it and taking a second look, the premise is just not as workable as it was with the original main character. So I guess it's what's more important, the story being more interesting, or the main character within the story.

Plus there a lot of movies where the protagonist was not the most interesting character in the movie in my opinion, but that did not make them bad movies for me. It's just that the story wouldn't have worked the same way if they took the most interesting character, and made him/her the protagonist. I wonder if others feel the same.

But as for rewriting and restructuring, I am not really coming up with anything that is holding together as well as the previous structure, before making so many changes. I think that I should probably therefore, keep the previous structure and just take things like Truby, three act structure, Save the Cat, etc, as guidelines, rather than rules that do have to be necessarily followed, but mindful of, maybe.

 

[Sweetie]

A lot of writers, will just disagree with the audience

I'm glad you're not the kind of person to take some bullshit someone tells you and accepts it as gospel. I'm glad you think for yourself. (Am I supposed to put a smiley face here or not? I'm not sure)

but just need to learn how, without the story unraveling and not working the next time.

Don't be afraid of the end result not working. That's why you can continue doing more rewrites. As with everything, you'll get better with practice. It's hard to restructure without losing a lot of work you've already done.

Truby also says to take whichever character is the most interesting and change the premise so that it fits that character.

Where does he say this?

lot of movies where the protagonist was not the most interesting character

Star Wars for example?

as for rewriting and restructuring

Who really cares about the rules? Ask: Is the script great? If so, leave it. If not, identify what's broken and fix it. Repeat until you get a yes.

 

[Soundtrack]

I very much enjoy fish-out-of-water stories, so it's hard to imagine a character sourcing from the environment alone. Perhaps there's a little more leniency in the intent of that quote? For instance, could your character morph *into* someone that belongs in that environment, or could the character be such the antithesis of the environment and in *that* provide a kinship to the environment (someone so opposite that they somehow bring "balance" to the world you're bringing to life)?

I would explore outside that box a bit. May not be the formula for success necessarily, but I find such characters vastly more interesting.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. What do you mean by leniency in the intent of the quote?

In page 30 of the book, is where he says it.

Yes in Star Wars I thought that either Darth Vader or Han Solo were the most interesting characters myself, and not so much the protagonist, Luke.

As far as the script being great or not, I am not sure. I can show it to more people and see what they say. Every attempt I do to make changes that I think would improve it though, break the structure down and actually lead parts of the plot to become rendered illogical or just not working. One the structure is built, I cannot really make many changes without it unraveling. So I think it's about as great as it's going be, as far as the attempts go.

 

[Sweetie]

Yes in Star Wars I thought that either Darth Vader or Han Solo were the most interesting characters myself, and not so much the protagonist, Luke.

Exactly.

One the structure is built, I cannot really make many changes without it unraveling.

Oh, the joys of unstructured writing. You've painted yourself into a corner and now you've got to do some real work to get out of it.

 

[WalterB]

.............

Yes in Star Wars I thought that either Darth Vader or Han Solo were the most interesting characters myself, and not so much the protagonist, Luke.
............

True, the adventure more or less just happens to Luke AND he needs to be more or less a boring saint to become a jedi, while Darth Vader is scarred and evil and Han Solo chose for his lifestyle (which paints him a little bit into a corner, lol)

 

[harmonica44]

How exactly do you write a complicated plot with twists and turns without painting yourself into a corner? In the movie industry for example, a lot of producers will want to change parts of stories or change endings. But how do you change an ending, when the rest of the plot has been built into that ending? Some movies will decide to shoot a new ending, after the whole movie has already been shot. So how does one do that even, without the plot unraveling.

It seems that a screenplay is like a stack of building blocks put together. Pull one out, and the whole plot falls down.

I have no problem redoing the whole thing, but so far everyone who has read it cannot give me advice on how to change the whole story. So I think I have to keep the story as is, cause it was the best structure I could come up with. But I know there is a way to make changes and have them work, since producers have done it, even after the movie was shot.

So Sweetie says it is unstructured. I wrote several treatments till I get the best one, with all the scenes in sequence. I used that as my structure for writing later drafts with dialogue. So how do you change structure, once it has been built?

 

[Sweetie]

How exactly do you write a complicated plot with twists and turns without painting yourself into a corner? In the movie industry for example, a lot of producers will want to change parts of stories or change endings. But how do you change an ending, when the rest of the plot has been built into that ending? Some movies will decide to shoot a new ending, after the whole movie has already been shot. So how does one do that even, without the plot unraveling.

So let me get this straight... you want to know how to change the plot without changing the plot? Do you even read the drivel you post?

You want to know how to get out of it? I answered it before? You should try reading sometime. "now you've got to do some real work to get out of it."

So Sweetie says it is unstructured.

It's my educated extrapolation after wading through your never ending drivel about specific non-plot orientated shit. If it smells like and looks like shit, it's probably shit.

So how do you change structure, once it has been built?

The same way you change everything else. By changing it.

So I think I have to keep the story as is, cause it was the best structure I could come up with.

Maybe it's time to get someone else to run with it if you're incapable of making the story work.

 

[WalterB]

Every scene is a building block that connects to the next one.
If your first scene and last scene are directly connected in a way that neither one can change without changing the other: then maybe you wrote a very predictable story

How they do it?
Terry Gilliam was told to change the ending of Brasil. He didn't. But he could have done it easily, just by changing a few shots in the end.

A script is a chain of events.
If the hero turns left instead of right, that choice will lead to a different result, without changing the past.
It is like hiking.
You can go back and take a different direction somewhere which will lead to another finish or another route to that same finish. It doesn't change the route before you changed directions AND while the finish might be the same or different: it always makes sense how you got there.

I think your problem is that you can't think logically. Sorry, but you seem unable to solve a problem once you think something has to be done a certain way. (And too often those thoughts appear to be based on the wrong assumptions as well, making it even harder to apply logic.)

Let's try this:
take a pile of post-its.
Write1 scene on every post-it. Write it in short, preferrably just give it a number, a title and short discription that says what the most important event and outcome is.
(3
Losing trace.
Pete follows car, but loses them in traffic. Returns home in bad mood.)

Put them in the right order.
Now you can play around.
Does it make sense or does it get better by changing the order of 2 or more scenes?
What if you leave a scene out? Does it still make sense?
What if you change 1 scene? Does what follows till make sense? If no: what would?

That's how you can make changes without losing overview.