Question about the first third of my script. (SPOILERS FROM OTHER MOVIES)

[harmonica44]

This is not the script I talked about before, this is a script I wrote before but still have been unable to come up with a first third. But this is the first act I want, but unlike most action thrillers, it's a lot more random. Here goes:

The main character witness the villain commit a crime and must hide and get away. Then the time skips to months later, and the villain and hero meet by coincidence. The hero does something to piss the psycho villain and his gang, off, and they attack him. The hero ends up killing one of them, and the gang plans three attempts on his life, but fails each one, for reasons I won't get into. The good guy just is trained and finds ways to elude them. Then more characters are introduced and the real plot starts, and everything is not so random and adds up.

However my first third starts with not only an unlikely coincidence, but a coincidence that doesn't really pay off, since the good guy and villain don't even remember each other from before. I originally wrote so they did remember, but I had to go in different directions later, for the rest of the story. And after the random coincidence, the whole four attempts might feel repetitive. After the second act starts, though it's an interweaving plot of crime where everything comes together and pays off. But I feel my first third may be a bit weak. I like it though, because it can be good if it is made well. Randomness can be good that way.

The movie The Hurtlocker for example, had a few scenes, which had nothing to do with the main plot, such as the sniper action sequence, or the subplot involving the kid which didn't really have an ending. Same with the movie The Warriors, where there was no real plot that came together. It was just a gang that had a series of random attacks, that was repetitive, and one not related to other for most of the movie. So can randomness be good, if it's well written?

 

[FantasySciFi]

Same with the movie The Warriors, where there was no real plot that came together. It was just a gang that had a series of random attacks, that was repetitive, and one not related to other for most of the movie. So can randomness be good, if it's well written?

While I think the movie has some problems, I disagree that the attacks are unrelated to the movie. The concept was that here was a group trying to survive unbelievable odds, framed for a violent act which they didn't commit. This is a similar to many war movies with the soldiers trapped behind enemy lines trying to get to back to their own side.

The main character witness the villain commit a crime and must hide and get away. Then the time skips to months later, and the villain and hero meet by coincidence. The hero does something to piss the psycho villain and his gang, off, and they attack him. The hero ends up killing one of them, and the gang plans four attempts on his life, but fails each one, for reasons I won't get into. The good guy just is trained and finds ways to elude them. Then more characters are introduced and the real plot starts, and everything is not so random and adds up.

However my first third starts with not only an unlikely coincidence, but a coincidence that doesn't really pay off, since the good guy and villain don't even remember each other from before. ...

I'm not sure that the hero wouldn't recognize the villain if he feels he must escape and hide. If this is a psycho villain, would he stop pursuing a witness to a crime? I suspect that the villain would take it in stride the first time that he would meet up with the hero, underestimating him. The hero and villain both attend a social event which leads to recognition and identification that puts the hero on a collision course. I might have a flyer for the event that they'll meet early on inconspicuously.

Good luck with the first third.

 

[harmonica44]

While I think the movie has some problems, I disagree that the attacks are unrelated to the movie. The concept was that here was a group trying to survive unbelievable odds, framed for a violent act which they didn't commit. This is a similar to many war movies with the soldiers trapped behind enemy lines trying to get to back to their own side.



I'm not sure that the hero wouldn't recognize the villain if he feels he must escape and hide. If this is a psycho villain, would he stop pursuing a witness to a crime? I suspect that the villain would take it in stride the first time that he would meet up with the hero, underestimating him. The hero and villain both attend a social event which leads to recognition and identification that puts the hero on a collision course. I might have a flyer for the event that they'll meet early on inconspicuously.

Good luck with the first third.

The villain did not know who the witness was, and did not see his face in the dark, so when the witness gets away, it's for good, since the villain has no idea who to look for. And yes the hero and villain do meet later at an event of sorts, but I do not want the hero to recognize him or vice versa. I want them to have no remembrance of it.

And in The Warriors, the gang was encountering attacks by gangs they would run into at pure randomness, who did not know of what was going on before. The one gang knew who the warriors were, and all, but the others gangs were unaware of what happened before, and they were just pure random attacks unrelated to the main plot.