character 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. Some scenes work moved around. In fact that is one of the biggest decisions, at least for me in screenwriting if you have two or more scenes, where you introduce character and situations, but it does not matter what order they are in. Then you have to decide on which order is best for overall flow. I have read some Hollywood scripts for research, and I noticed how scenes were originally written in different orders, but then moved around later in editing more likely, cause they felt it would flow better.

Well I could change a lot more of my script if I know what direction to go in, when it comes to changing certain parts. One person told me that they like the surprise twist that happens about one third into it, and said I should have that twist for the end, cause it might be cool to have it as a twist ending. I am open to doing that but that means I would have to change the remaining two thirds around completely, if I am to hold off on that twist. Basically the protagonist finds out an ally is really foe.

Nothing new in a thriller, but I wasn't originally planning on having that be a twist, until after a few drafts, and I realized, that the character has motive and opportunity to appear as an ally, until she is discovered, in order for the rest of the plot to progress to a certain climax. But if I have to keep the foe secret from the protagonist till the end, I would have to change almost all of the last two thirds around. Once the protagonist finds out that his ally is a villain, he pursues her for the reminder of the story. So I would have to write so that he has motive to pursue other villains.

But since he was the only reader who said that so far, I wonder if it's worth changing two thirds of a script around, just to save a twist for the end.

I will also take John Truby's advice and take more time to develop the love story, instead of just montaging it. I was thinking of developing the love story, while the plot is happening, so the audience does not have to be put on hold, wondering when the thriller plot is going to continue if I take longer breaks to develop the love story.

I could try to develop the love story, while the protagonist is working undercover. He is working undercover to get to know one of the criminals and has to hang out with the criminal. However, he accidentally runs into his love interest he started dating, and has to keep up his cover while with her. She knows about the whole thing and pretends to go along with it while hanging out.

But would a cop do that logically? If you are trying to get a criminal to incriminate herself, and your girlfriend shows up and says hey, you think you would just break your cover right then and there, to protect her no? Is this a do-able change, logic and motive wise, to give the love story more time? I know I talk about the main character should have a flaw, but as long as it's natural for him to want to risk that, and the audience still believes he loves her, rather than it being shoehorned.

Another thing is, two people told me is that after the protagonist is in scenes, he does not need to be in the opening. This is true, I put him in the opening so the reader has a hero to follow. However, the hero is just in the scenes, conducting the investigation with other cops, but does not need to be in those scenes. They said it would make more sense, to hold off on introducing him until his first scene of actual relevance, which is on page 18. Do you think that that would be too long to introduce the protagonist, if i wait till page 18 about? I guess there is no reason that he has to be in the scenes before then and it's mostly the villains doing their thing for the opening.

Do these sound like good changes, cause I can make them if so. The more I know is in the best interest of satisfying your overall audiences, the more direction I will know to go in, which could make changing the script more clearer, if that makes sense.

 

[Sweetie]

moved around later in editing more likely, cause they felt it would flow better

That'll be from testing, not feeling.

I could try to develop the love story, while the protagonist is working undercover. He is working undercover to get to know one of the criminals and has to hang out with the criminal. However, he accidentally runs into his love interest he started dating, and has to keep up his cover while with her. She knows about the whole thing and pretends to go along with it while hanging out.

But would a cop do that logically? If you are trying to get a criminal to incriminate herself, and your girlfriend shows up and says hey, you think you would just break your cover right then and there, to protect her no?

Why do you constantly ask questions without sufficient information? You need to provide all the relevant details of that story thread if you truly want the question answered. If you want better answers, learn to ask better questions.

Do these sound like good changes, cause I can make them if so.

What do you think? You know the story, we don't.

Do you think that that would be too long to introduce the protagonist, if i wait till page 18 about?

Typically yes. It's hard to have an inciting incident without the protagonist present, let alone already have the audience vested in a character they haven't met yet. This is once again, probably you just taking a good suggestion too far and turning it into mud.

I guess there is no reason that he has to be in the scenes before then and it's mostly the villains doing their thing for the opening.

Aaah hell, I'm sure you can take the protagonist out of the whole script if you try hard enough

 

[FantasySciFi]

But would a cop do that logically?

Nothing you've described has been logically developed. Why start now?

Another thing is, two people told me is that after the protagonist is in scenes, he does not need to be in the opening. This is true, I put him in the opening so the reader has a hero to follow. However, the hero is just in the scenes, conducting the investigation with other cops, but does not need to be in those scenes. They said it would make more sense, to hold off on introducing him until his first scene of actual relevance, which is on page 18. Do you think that that would be too long to introduce the protagonist, if i wait till page 18 about? I guess there is no reason that he has to be in the scenes before then and it's mostly the villains doing their thing for the opening.

If he doesn't appear until page 18, he's not the protagonist, he's just a supporting character. Sounds like you've identified the wrong premise. The story follows the protagonist. Who ever is the main attention in our first five pages is your protagonist. If that's your criminals, so be it. Now you need to make your story follow them. At page 18, he may appear as the antagonist, the person working against your protagonists.

And don't respond, "Okay, thanks. Well, I really want him to be ...". If that's the case, you need to re-write the script with him as the focus starting in the very beginning. It's not just a matter of moving scenes around, it's a matter of developing the story around him. And before you start "Yeah but I really want to focus on the criminals because in the movie ...", I don't care what they did in that movie. You're not that writer and the circumstances for that story are unique to it.

Your criminals are the protagonist as in heist/cat burglar films OR your sadsack detective/cop is the protagonist starting page 1. I keep coming back to this because you can't fix plot or structure until you know who the story is following. And from what you've said, it's the criminals. Which means, putting all your efforts into the cop is misplaced. The majority of a movie is not about the villain/antagonist but the heroes/protagonist. And by your admission, the cop is the "villain" and the criminals are your "heroes".

What would have made the Nottingham film interesting was telling it from the Sheriff of Nottingham's ("villain") point of view. It was re-written as a drab retelling of "Robin Hood". However, once the choice is made, you can't shift in the middle.

Do these sound like good changes, cause I can make them if so. The more I know is in the best interest of satisfying your overall audiences, the more direction I will know to go in, which could make changing the script more clearer, if that makes sense.

To be clear, let's use an example that most of us are familiar with--Superman. Hopefully seeing it from another angle will give you some perspective.

We're writing a script about Superman and midway, it becomes the Lex Luthor story. Let's make some translations of what you proposed above. Then you get info that maybe you need to have Lex Luthor fall in love with someone close to Superman, like Lois. And so Lex's girlfriend walks in and sees Lois. So is Lex supposed to tell her not to be jealous because he's just trying to get info on Superman? He's being nice to Lois and finding that he's actually falling in love with her.

As a twist, a third of the way in Lex finds out that fellow millionaire Bruce Wayne hates Superman too. Lex shares that Superman has a weakness. Great twist since Lex doesn't know Bruce is actually Batman. Now I'm thinking, maybe we should move that to the end of the movie since people like twist endings. Anyway, Lex ends up having to decide between love (Lois) or honor (defeating Superman) because Truby says it can't be both. Truby also says they always choose honor but rarely choose love, so we decide that Lex should get Lois in the end.

Now I need your help, H44, I have a problem with my plot. Lex knows that Superman is going to do some kind of good deed but he can't figure it when or where. Everyone seems to be against Lex. He knows he needs to stop Superman though, cause it will protect thousands of people. I worked it out so that Lex blackmails an MIT computer genius to hack into Wayne Enterprises' computer systems to get leads on all the Hall of Justice members. I just don't know if he'd do this. Is this logical? I mean, why would he think to hack Bruce's company? Any ideas where I should go with this? I mean, I think I can make Bruce hate Superman if Lex can plant DNA evidence or something that he gets from Lois. Do you think Lex would do that?

I'm not sure who my protagonist is. I mean, I don't really bring Lex in until page 18, but he's my hero character. It starts off with Superman saving the planet from an asteroid, an invasion force from Zeta Gemini Seven and getting a cat out of a tree. But I did have Lex standing in the background of a radar room scene watching the approaching asteroid. So I guess that Lex is my protagonist but he's not doing anything. I guess I could move scenes around. Is that alright? I mean, I really want to have Superman doing things to help people too. He's part of the Justice League. Maybe bring in Wonder Woman or the Flash? I mean originally I was going to have the Justice League fight a gang in the bank but I'm not sure I can get that many people together. And a friend said we shouldn't use guns but Flash and Superman are faster than bullets and Wonder Woman has her bracelets so that's not a problem. So they can get away. Penguin gets killed and everyone blames Lex Luthor though it was an accident. So he's kicked out of the Evil League. Lex wants to make it look like Superman did it.

But I have a problem with my story. If Superman is off stopping the asteroid, how is he responsible for the accident? I though maybe Lex plants a fragment of the asteroid by the collapsed building making it look like Superman was to blame. But how would Lex get a fragment? Maybe Bruce's corporation found chunks in Africa. Do you think that is something Lex would do? I mean in the animated series, "Batman" Wayne Industries is always collecting meteorite fragments. And in Superman IV, they used his DNA to create a new supersoldier version. My only problem is my script is already 182 pages. Maybe if I cut out the scene with Superman saving the cat? I was thinking may letting the cat fall. That would be a character flaw. But Superman is the antagonist not the protagonist in my story but it would be a twist.

And John Truby says the main character has to have a flaw. Now Lex Luthor doesn't really have a flaw. I guess I could make him yell or something at his assistants. Is that a flaw? Does he have to punch them? Truby says it has to be violent. Also I tried to use a three act structure but I don't think it works in my script. Of course, in "Kill Bill" they use flashbacks. Maybe I should do that? Lex Luthor could be in school with Superman but not know he's Superman. Like in "Smallville". Do you think that would work?
-------------
As Sweetie has suggested piling shit on shit doesn't make a castle, just a dung heap, which may be a castle for dung beetles but not for most people. The scenario above just gets more and more absurd. Largely because it lacks focus and direction. This is drawn in parallel to the information you've shared with us about your story over numerous posts.

In all seriousness, you should sit down with your story. Decide who is the protagonist and start from scratch, hard as it may be. You can't change crap into gold. As you start your story fresh you can pull in elements from your previous work. But trying to make changes from the existing script will be an endless waste of time. You don't know who your focus is--Lex Luthor or Superman in this uncertain tale of good and evil. You've put in too much time screwing it up so that its plots and structure are a horrible mess. The yarn you were spinning is now a balled, knotted tangle that can only be fixed with scissors.

You have some good ideas but they would be better applied from a fresh start when you can fully develop them without the restrictions that now shackle your writing.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. However, there have been movies that do not show the protagonist till later on. In From Russia With Love, James Bond does not appear until about 17 minutes and 55 seconds into the movie, if you count the title sequence in the timing.

But if it's not a good idea under most circumstances than I will not follow their advice and introduce the protagonist earlier on. As far as not knowing who the protagonist is, I did know originally in the first few drafts, it's only after that I was told that my protagonist was run of the mill, and that other characters were more interesting, and I thought maybe I should take Truby's advice and make someone more interesting the protagonist, if that's how others felt about the character.

But it seems that the more suggestions for improvement that are given to me, the less focus and direction I have cause I do not know where I would be going with these new suggestions. I understand when people tell me I should do this or that instead, but do not understand what direction to go, when rewriting a whole script around those suggestions. Like for example, when one reader told me I should take the twist that occurs one third into the movie, and have that be a twist in the climax, I need to know what to do for the remaining two acts, since the plot has now been sent in a completely different direction. I think I just need to show the original draft around, before taking any other reader's advice, and try to get much more specific feedback, in which I know where to go with the whole script, rather than just changing one thing here and there, and having the rest of it not work as a result.

 

[FantasySciFi]

Start with who is this story--YOUR story--about? The cop or the criminals. If you want this to be about the cop, then that's where you need to begin. Remember you are not writing "From Russia with Love". Was that written in one sitting? No. Read the description on Wikipedia gathered from multiple sources:

" The original screenwriter was Len Deighton, but he was replaced because of a lack of progress.[8] Thus two of Dr. No '​s writers, Johanna Harwood and Richard Maibaum, were returned for the second film in the series[4] Some sources state Harwood with being credited for "adaptation" mostly for her suggestions, which were carried over into Maibaum's script.[8] Harwood stated in an interview in a Cinema Retro that she had been a screenwriter of several of Harry Saltzman's projects; and her screenplay for From Russia with Love had followed Fleming's novel closely but left the series due to what she called Terence Young's constant rewriting of her screenplay with ideas that were not in the original Fleming work.[9] Maibaum kept on making rewrites as filming progressed." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Russia_with_Love_(film))​

The film was being written and re-written even while being filmed. Citing finished films as examples of screenwriting is flawed. Visual lead in is the director's purview. You should never confuse what-you-see with what-was-written.

Go with your original story before it was changed. Just realize that you need to be clear on who the audience and the story is following. If you want this to be about your cop, that's where you need to start the story. If you want to focus on the criminals, then that's where you need to begin. It's okay to lead with the criminals as your antagonists, but the bulk of the focus needs to be the cop in the first 20 pages or so. You need to make clear what the story is about. Some small crisis needs to occur and get resolved. That's what triggers the shift into the second act where things heat up. Now you can develop your two story lines--the cop romance line and the cop/criminal investigation line. Things go from bad to worse. That leads to a high stakes move that transitions to the third act. In the final act, you resolve the issues and bring things to a conclusion. The ultimate decision is the girl or revenge. Which ever he chooses will lead to regret. Good luck.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

H44, I think you might also need to focus on one thing at a time. Maybe take your protagonist and write up a detailed bio of them. You can do this with all your characters, no matter how big or small their role is. Then with that information formulate a treatment. I don't know what pre-planning you did for this but if you haven't gone into the detail I've suggested, maybe try that as a fresh tactic.

 

[Sweetie]

there have been movies that do not show the protagonist till later on.

Of course there are. Tens of thousands of movies are made every year. There's lots of bad movies out there. You need to make a decision. Do you want to follow the path of stupid decisions or do you want to give yourself the best chance of success.

In From Russia With Love, James Bond does not appear

Oh, you forgot to mention that you're writing for a large successful franchise. Do you not understand the different context between your script and this movie from over 50 years ago?

I think I just need to show the original draft around

I think that's an awesome idea. One of your best. You are making sure those readers get the correct first impression of you. They can get the true H44 experience.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I did not write a detailed bio of the main character. I thought that things like where he was born, who is parents, are, and things like that are superficial traits, IF they do not have anything to do with the premise or theme.

What I wrote for the main character, is that he feels sorry for the villains, because the villains are considered inferior by society and they are getting revenge because of it. He feels sorry for them cause he is mr. perfect; popular in his social life, able to have a family, and a good career as a cop.

So it's his own perfection that causes him to feel ashamed of himself, compared to them.

However, I was told by another writer that he has no flaw because of this, and it's not until about half way through the story that he starts to feel this guilt so he perhaps has a run of the mill cop character arc for the first half, like I was told.

There is one other character I was thinking of making the main character since readers thought he was more interesting in the first act, and that is a character who is a member of the villains' group, who feels guilty and leaves, and becomes a fugitive from them and wants to help stop them, not only to save himself, but because he comes to believe it's the right thing to do. I was told that this character is more interesting and I suppose after rereading my script, he does overshadow the protagonist for the first act.

I could make him the main character, but that means I would have to cut out the current main character, since I would not have as much time to develop his backstory in a subplot, compared to the second character who I would cause he does not require as much time to develop, which is why he may seem more compelling when he is introduced.

Should I change the main character to the one who appears more interesting in the start, or does the current main one sound like a better idea?

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

You might be able to turn this into a buddy cop type thing. If you have one of the criminals defect, he could go to the police to cut a deal with them that requires him to give them all the information he knows in exchange for his freedom, and they assign your main cop character to be his watcher, and through the relationship you can show the flaws that they both have.

Or maybe that's for another story you could do separate from this one.

 

[harmonica44]

Well the story I currently wrote does not have them spend a lot of screen time together. Basically if the former gang member, came to become the main character's buddy and help him, than the cop would know who the villains are too quickly, where as it's a mystery case for him to solve.

Actually, you may have pointed out a plot hole in my script, which I didn't see before. He doesn't go to the police till closer to the end, when things really start to heat up, and it's life or death for him. He didn't want to go to the police before cause he was in fear of his life, and he also did not want to get into trouble by the police. Even though he wants to stop the gang, he doesn't want to go to prison either. However, he could just cut a deal for his freedom. Is this a plot hole, that he does not want to go to the police for the first two thirds, since he could just make a deal for freedom?

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

A plot hole is something which doesn't make sense compared to something that happened earlier. For example if your character is a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat, and you have a scene where he gets into an argument with someone about his decision to be one, if all of a sudden in the next scene or later that character is eating meat, it's a plot hole because there hasn't been an explanation shown for why he's going against his beliefs in being a vegetarian.

 

[harmonica44]

That's true. Perhaps this is just an illogical decision of the character then? Which of these characters should I use as the protagonist? Is it possible to tell at this point?

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

Well an experiment would be to take the other character, and rewrite the entire screenplay except from his perspective. Give his story a beginning, middle, and an end. Once you've done that, and you can even do it in flash card form, or something similar even if it's just scene outlines, see how it feels from their perspective.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I am doing that and here's what I conclude. Making the second character the protagonist does make for a possibly stronger protagonist, especially for the first act, since he has much more of a bang to start with, given him betraying the gang and all, in the first scene, compared to the cop, who starts out as more run of the mill, doing his assignment he is given for the day, nothing more so far.

So I can see how the second character being the protagonist is off to a stronger start. However, if I do this, this means that that same cop who is on their trail, is reduced to a character with much less screen time, and I feel that makes him even more run of the mill for a subplot character. But I guess it's better having a run of the mill subplot character as oppose to a protagonist who starts out that way.

If I make the defector the main character do I have to write flashbacks as to how he became part of the gang and how much he has seen of their activity, how much he knows? Because that is extra scenes, and I do not want to write extra scenes and locations than compared to in the original script, since I am writing on a budget of locations I have. If the guy explains to another character a brief history of what he got to be with them, is that good enough or do I have to show it?

However, if I make the cop a subplot character (cause I need the police to be on the villain's trail), it's very tricky using this character since his role has now been changed in the story. I am not sure what do with him now, and make him fit into the twists and turns that occur now. I could have him team up with the cop, cause that will solve a lot of problems and the story would go in direction that would work a lot better. However, the original story had a triangle of characters against each other. One end of the triangle had the cop, one end had the villains, and the other end has the defector against both sides. If the defector and the cop team up, then it's no longer a triangle of battle and more like a straight line. So perhaps that takes away a layer by changing the protagonist.

 

[Sweetie]

lol, here we go again.

/popcorn

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

Well what if when the criminal first joined the gang he was present on a job and while the job was successful, because he was kinda like a rookie, he made a mistake of some kind. But you don't need to show this. Fast forward to the present time in your story, the criminal is given a job to do and this one is with a new recruit, and so you could have one of the other gang members make a joke referring to the mistake made when he was a rookie himself, and they laugh it off. That would make it obvious he's been with them for a long time and would have to know a lot about them after all these years.

Making the criminal the protagonist will naturally take a lot of focus on the cop character away because you'd be building up the criminal character in the mind of the reader.

As for the criminal teaming up with the cop, if you've written the criminal well and the reader has some kind of attachment to them, then they would want to see the criminal join forces with the police to save his skin. So you could still have him team up with the cop, and it's then through their relationship you start to show more of the cop character's personality as well.

If you want to keep that triangle you could make it so that after the cop and the criminal have found some kind of respect for one another, the gang decides to try and make it up to the criminal and give him an option that could save his skin and be square with them. So then the criminal has a dilemma - does he trust these guys enough to accept or is he dedicated now to getting the gang arrested so he can have a new life as a free man, free from being labelled a criminal? The gang of course would be just saying this to try and get him and kill him, so they're lying.

But then you could have the criminal pretend he will accept their offer and when he gets the information for the place to meet, he brings the cop with him and they have back-up.

Just some food for thought.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I wrote it so that he is a rookie anyway, so that works. But for the later part, actually this is kind of coincidentally how I wrote it in the new scene sequence . But it still seems more like a straight line plot to me and less of a triangle, because the cop and the defector come together to meet the gang. So we got the two of them on one side, and the gang on the other. Where as a triangle plot would have them all come together separately, not together, wouldn't it?

Should I keep the cop character as the protagonist though, or does the defector sound more compelling based on what I have said? I don't even know if it's worth rewriting it, until I know if I should keep the original one or not? Or is it that only I can know that? I am just at a loss of what to do, since everyone's opinion is different so far.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

It really depends on how you view the cop character, and what you would like to do with the character because if he's going to be a cliche cop character, then following him as the protagonist will get boring for the audience.

I'd look at both characters and do a side by side comparison in terms of their pros and cons, and see which one seems to have more pros than cons, and then go with that character as the protagonist.

 

[FantasySciFi]

Or is it that only I can know that? I am just at a loss of what to do, since everyone's opinion is different so far.

Only you can know that. Every change you make is a re-write. Opinions are a dime a dozen, unless you pay a consultant then the rate is considerably more than a dime. Your script has to appeal to you first. If a suggestion make sense to you and you think, "Whoa, that is a cool idea", then incorporate it. If not, just ignore it. You can't please everyone. However you do need to please yourself and like your own script.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Well if pick the defector as the protagonist than his pros and cons change, because his role in the story has changed. He now has a whole story to tackle, rather than just a few scenes in a subplot. If I take the protagonist, and make him a side character, than his pros and cons change, since he will have a completely different role now.

I think the pros and cons are the same to be honest, and either one of them can fit the protagonist, just the character development will have to change a lot. The only thing that remains the same, is the characters starting point, in which case is stronger, if I pick the defector. Since perhaps only I can know this my instincts tell me to pick the defector cause I was told me has a much stronger start, compared to the unintentionally more generic cop. After reading my first act again, I can see how the defector captures more of a interest and the audience will keep thinking about him, even though he is only in two scenes in the first act.

So perhaps I should make him the protagonist and see how readers will react since they would expect to see more of him probably, than there is. As far as hiring a consultant goes, it's hard to know if a consultant's opinion will be the majority of audience's too. Perhaps I will hire one depending on who is out there and there past history with other movies.