Thoughts on John Truby's screenwriting structure.

[harmonica44]

I read the book John Truby's The Anatomy of Story for the third time now (a recommendation thanks to some members on here!). It's a good read for screenwriting, and I have been trying to apply it to my own screenplays.

One of the structure details that he talks about is that he says that about three quarters into the script, the main character should reach his/her lowest point, and then figure out what he was missing all along and figure out how to reach his goal.

However, I find this be to kind of curious and contradictory. If the MC is suppose to reach his lowest point three quarters in then how is the MC suppose to recover and dig his way out of the hole, when he is that far in, with only one quarter of the story left to go?

If the MC has reached his lowest point that far into the story, then it will take much longer than one quarter for him to be able to recover from the deepest point, cause the deeper you go into the hole, the longer it will take to find your way out.

So isn't three quarters in far too late for something like to happen, if you are to only have one quarter left to go to get him out, and wrap everything up? What are your thoughts on this part of his story structure?

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks.

Truby also talks about how the most interesting character in the story should be the main character. But do you think that this should always be? The script right now that I am writing is about an MC who has to figure out a mystery crime plot.

But I feel that all the other characters, that the MC comes across while figuring out the mystery are more interesting than he is. At least they are more morally flawed and conflicted.

Since the MC is the one figuring out who all the people behind the crime are, all those other people, are more flawed and conflicted than the MC is as a result.

So if this is true, that the MC should be the most interesting character, how can I make that so, when all the twists and surprises, cause for all the other characters, to have bigger flaws, and therefore, more interesting?

 

[maz]

I think if you're spending enough time with your antagonist so as to make them more interesting than the MC, then perhaps what you actually have is an antihero and a better candidate for MC? It certainly makes sense to put the most interesting character in the narrative spotlight.

 

[harmonica44]

Perhaps... But if I make the antihero antagonist the MC, then there are far less twists and surprises, cause the good guy detective, is figuring out a mystery, where as the antihero antagonist, already knows pretty much everything.

So what is more important in a mystery thriller type plot that builds on surprises? Is a more flawed character important, or is telling the story from the mystery and surprises point of view? Plus even if I make the antagonist the MC, the detective still has a mystery to figure out, which means he will get the most screentime in order for the audience to see how he solves it. So wouldn't the mystery solver, be inevitable to have the most screen time therefore?