My script is a low budget crime thriller, about a cop who is on the race against time to stop a kidnapping for the first half. He and the other police fail to stop it, and the crooks end up stopping him by doing things to ruin his career and consequently, his personal life, and marriage are effected. He wants to avenge himself and the crimes committed by them for the last half of the script, it becomes an antihero's journey. There are two endings I thought out for this.
The first one involves a corrupt cop who has a moral crisis when he feels that his actions, although unintentional, lead to everything going wrong, and he wants to get out of corruption and perhaps even do something about it if he can. He tries to get out of corruption and turns the tables on the crooks, to escape, but ends up being killed at the end of the second act. This starts the third act, and the protagonist, not knowing the other cop was corrupt or anything, feels that he now has to avenge this death of an officer too, and becomes more desperate in his revenge.
His wife wants him back even but he decides he is a man of principle and that this is more important, even if it costs him his life.
The second ending, is that the hero fails his revenge quest and gets killed at the end of the second act, and the corrupt cop, while trying to get out, feels even more responsible, after the hero dies. This compels him to take over for protagonist and finish his revenge to honor him.
Both endings have pros and cons as I see it. The third acts are both the same, the main difference is, is that in the first one, you are along for the ride with the protagonist, who is a more compelling character since we have been with him the whole time, and he was innocent and non-corrupt, when terrible things were done to him. So we may agree with more with his revenge.
The pro to the second ending, is that even though the corrupt cop taking over the third act, is not as compelling, since he started out corrupt, and therefore may be a somewhat hypocritical. However, killing off the protagonist, gives him more of a reason to feel guilty of his actions and feels he has to make up for them; even more so than if it were switched the other way around for the protagonist.
The protagonist, may blame himself for the other cop being killed, not knowing it was out of the cop's own corruption, but it's not as much of a guilt trip, compared to the consequences being the other way around. Another con to the second ending, is that the corrupt cop is only in six scenes prior to this happening in the plot, and he has no loved ones, such as a wife, to make him have to choose his path, where as the protagonist does, especially since the wife plays a part in the story's themes earlier, so I have to keep her for him.
However, audiences may feel the writer has cheated by having an antihero journey thriller, and killing off the protagonist, at the end of the second act. They may think "what was the point?", even though, it causes another character to be even more guilt ridden, and wanting to finish the revenge.
Also, the audience may not as convinced that another character would want to take over the revenge, to the point where he too would give his life for it, even if feeling responsible.
So I guess it comes down to what is more of a interesting ending. The first ending is more emotionally attaching, since we follow the protagonist the whole way, along with his wife, to guide him and become a theme in his decisions. The second creates a new spin of consequences, on the story for a lesser character, but one who only is in six scenes prior and is not needed otherwise, beforehand.
What do you think?
The first one involves a corrupt cop who has a moral crisis when he feels that his actions, although unintentional, lead to everything going wrong, and he wants to get out of corruption and perhaps even do something about it if he can. He tries to get out of corruption and turns the tables on the crooks, to escape, but ends up being killed at the end of the second act. This starts the third act, and the protagonist, not knowing the other cop was corrupt or anything, feels that he now has to avenge this death of an officer too, and becomes more desperate in his revenge.
His wife wants him back even but he decides he is a man of principle and that this is more important, even if it costs him his life.
The second ending, is that the hero fails his revenge quest and gets killed at the end of the second act, and the corrupt cop, while trying to get out, feels even more responsible, after the hero dies. This compels him to take over for protagonist and finish his revenge to honor him.
Both endings have pros and cons as I see it. The third acts are both the same, the main difference is, is that in the first one, you are along for the ride with the protagonist, who is a more compelling character since we have been with him the whole time, and he was innocent and non-corrupt, when terrible things were done to him. So we may agree with more with his revenge.
The pro to the second ending, is that even though the corrupt cop taking over the third act, is not as compelling, since he started out corrupt, and therefore may be a somewhat hypocritical. However, killing off the protagonist, gives him more of a reason to feel guilty of his actions and feels he has to make up for them; even more so than if it were switched the other way around for the protagonist.
The protagonist, may blame himself for the other cop being killed, not knowing it was out of the cop's own corruption, but it's not as much of a guilt trip, compared to the consequences being the other way around. Another con to the second ending, is that the corrupt cop is only in six scenes prior to this happening in the plot, and he has no loved ones, such as a wife, to make him have to choose his path, where as the protagonist does, especially since the wife plays a part in the story's themes earlier, so I have to keep her for him.
However, audiences may feel the writer has cheated by having an antihero journey thriller, and killing off the protagonist, at the end of the second act. They may think "what was the point?", even though, it causes another character to be even more guilt ridden, and wanting to finish the revenge.
Also, the audience may not as convinced that another character would want to take over the revenge, to the point where he too would give his life for it, even if feeling responsible.
So I guess it comes down to what is more of a interesting ending. The first ending is more emotionally attaching, since we follow the protagonist the whole way, along with his wife, to guide him and become a theme in his decisions. The second creates a new spin of consequences, on the story for a lesser character, but one who only is in six scenes prior and is not needed otherwise, beforehand.
What do you think?
