I sent my screenplay to a writing consultant and he gave me several pointers of things to change, and there were three particular things that stuck out me.
1. There is a scene where a deposition is going on and a defense attorney is asking a witness questions pertaining to his case, in front of the prosecutor, and other characters connected to the case. Later it is revealed to the reader that the defense attorney and the witness are in collusion together with their own plan to defraud the whole case, so to speak. But he said that the deposition scene is not necessary. It is true that the story makes sense without it. However, I thought that it may add to the twist. Basically the reader sees it and thinks that the defense attorney is meeting the witness for the first time and is asking her questions did not know before. Then you find out that he did know, or have a strong idea, and it was just for show. But he says that the twist will make sense when revealed without that scene, prior. Which is true.
I feel that the scene assists the twists and makes it more of a surprise possibly. It's kind of like how in a movie like A Perfect Getaway for example, there is a scene where the husband and wife couple are talking about two serial killers on the loose and they say that they were picked up by a security camera. They then look at the security camera picture but cannot recognize them with the low video quality. The wife says to the husband, "they could be anybody". Later the audience finds out, that the couple are the killers and they were talking about themselves. They were worried about being recognized. Even though they could have cut this scene, and the twist still would have made sense, it adds to the twist, by making it more of a surprise for later I feel. That is what I was trying to do, unless I did it wrong perhaps, by having a deposition scene to assist in the twist for later?
2. The main character is out for revenge. He tries to get on the villain but fails and an innocent person is killed. He then learns that revenge is wrong and violence begets violence, and he decides to stop the errors of his ways. Then later when things get real bad, he goes full force into revenge mode and gets it, not caring about anything more. The consultant said that there is no point in a character going 180 degrees in learning a lesson, then going back to full 360 again.
Another example, is the main character leaves his gf, and then takes her back later, when he realizes it was wrong to leave her. But he says it was unnecessary because what's the point of going 180, only to come back 360 again, if that makes sense. I am going by what he says.
3. There is a character who is a corrupt cop working for the gang of criminals. He says that it's way too unlikely that a gang would recruit a cop into their organization. He also says that it's too big of a coincidence that that same cop, happens to work in the same precinct as the main character. He also said that the cop is an unnessary character that is in the story for too long. He starts out there from the beginning and is killed in the at the start of the 3rd act, which creates a series of consequences that build into the ending I want. However, he says I can get to those consequences in the other ways. He says that plotwise, the corrupt cop is only necessary for the first act, because of what he does that is important for the rest of the story. After that I should have the corrupt cop just leave. Not have him get killed, or have him leave the country or anything. I should have him just leave the story as in no more scenes with him and he is completely forgotten about, after the first act. If he outlives his necessity to the plot, then I should just have no more scenes with him from there forward, and the reader will be okay with that because lots of characters leave stories after the first act or second, if they are not necessary anymore.
However, since this is a corrupt cop who is a mole in the same precinct, are readers going to wonder too much what happened to him? Are they really going to be okay with that? Will they wonder if he got caught or just went free for the rest of his life, and does care? What do you think? Thanks for your input, I appreciate it .
1. There is a scene where a deposition is going on and a defense attorney is asking a witness questions pertaining to his case, in front of the prosecutor, and other characters connected to the case. Later it is revealed to the reader that the defense attorney and the witness are in collusion together with their own plan to defraud the whole case, so to speak. But he said that the deposition scene is not necessary. It is true that the story makes sense without it. However, I thought that it may add to the twist. Basically the reader sees it and thinks that the defense attorney is meeting the witness for the first time and is asking her questions did not know before. Then you find out that he did know, or have a strong idea, and it was just for show. But he says that the twist will make sense when revealed without that scene, prior. Which is true.
I feel that the scene assists the twists and makes it more of a surprise possibly. It's kind of like how in a movie like A Perfect Getaway for example, there is a scene where the husband and wife couple are talking about two serial killers on the loose and they say that they were picked up by a security camera. They then look at the security camera picture but cannot recognize them with the low video quality. The wife says to the husband, "they could be anybody". Later the audience finds out, that the couple are the killers and they were talking about themselves. They were worried about being recognized. Even though they could have cut this scene, and the twist still would have made sense, it adds to the twist, by making it more of a surprise for later I feel. That is what I was trying to do, unless I did it wrong perhaps, by having a deposition scene to assist in the twist for later?
2. The main character is out for revenge. He tries to get on the villain but fails and an innocent person is killed. He then learns that revenge is wrong and violence begets violence, and he decides to stop the errors of his ways. Then later when things get real bad, he goes full force into revenge mode and gets it, not caring about anything more. The consultant said that there is no point in a character going 180 degrees in learning a lesson, then going back to full 360 again.
Another example, is the main character leaves his gf, and then takes her back later, when he realizes it was wrong to leave her. But he says it was unnecessary because what's the point of going 180, only to come back 360 again, if that makes sense. I am going by what he says.
3. There is a character who is a corrupt cop working for the gang of criminals. He says that it's way too unlikely that a gang would recruit a cop into their organization. He also says that it's too big of a coincidence that that same cop, happens to work in the same precinct as the main character. He also said that the cop is an unnessary character that is in the story for too long. He starts out there from the beginning and is killed in the at the start of the 3rd act, which creates a series of consequences that build into the ending I want. However, he says I can get to those consequences in the other ways. He says that plotwise, the corrupt cop is only necessary for the first act, because of what he does that is important for the rest of the story. After that I should have the corrupt cop just leave. Not have him get killed, or have him leave the country or anything. I should have him just leave the story as in no more scenes with him and he is completely forgotten about, after the first act. If he outlives his necessity to the plot, then I should just have no more scenes with him from there forward, and the reader will be okay with that because lots of characters leave stories after the first act or second, if they are not necessary anymore.
However, since this is a corrupt cop who is a mole in the same precinct, are readers going to wonder too much what happened to him? Are they really going to be okay with that? Will they wonder if he got caught or just went free for the rest of his life, and does care? What do you think? Thanks for your input, I appreciate it .
