• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Which ending for my script is better?

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?
 
hey man, so let me get this straight you have the main cop, lets call him Jerry and the Corrupt cop Tom. '
So this is your story from what i understand.
Jerry is an honest cop with a family, he is portrayed as one of the good guys, who doesn't take bribes, helps the community. in the department there is also this corrupt cop, who really doesn't care for work named Tom.
Ending one:
As Jerry is trying to figure out who kidnapped the girl, and is getting closer Tom for money/fear tells the bad guys that Jerry is close, and they decide to kill the girl. This loss is a heavy burden on Jerry and affects his personal life, but he is still determined to find the bad guys, at which point the bad guys decide to kill Jerry. Tom finds out about this and realizes that there is more to life then money, decides to prevent this from happening and tries to stop the crooks. Tom get's killed, Jerry thinking that Tom got killed because he came close to these bad guys, just gives him that extra motivation and determination goes off and finds the bad guys and kills them. In the end, his wife misses him and wants him to come back, but he feels betrayed by her actions of leaving him in the first place and decides to move town and start everything off with a new list.

Second Ending:
Getting close to kidnappers, they make a quick decision to kill the girl, and run, but that doesnt stop Jerry, who is hot on their tale. They set up a trap for him using Tom as a puppet. When they get Jerry in the trap they kill him, at which point Tom realizes that he is being used and that everything he once believed is now gone, decides to avenge Jerry and starts his career over again. He goes out and kills the bad guys to make him self look like the good cop (Departed, except no Mark Walberg)

Both stories have been done before.
This girl gets kidnapped and Jerry is doing everything he can to find her. He hasnt seen his family for days as he is searching and following up leads, and at every turn he is assisted by Tom. Once the girl is found dead, The internal affairs look into Jerry and his off duty detective work. He get suspended as there investigation is underway in terms that it was his action thats led to the girl being killed. That's when he has a personal crisis and turns into the anti hero
At the same time, Tom who only did everything for money for various reasons (drug addiction/ owed money gambling problem,etc) sees that his actions are the result of why this simple kidnapping has gone wrong, and feels that his corporation is what led to the killing of the girl. So he decides to change his life, and that's when he turns.
 
Yes basically those are the two endings. I never saw it as the same as The Departed though, as Tom has a lot to feel guilty for in his life of crime, where as the Walberg character was portrayed as a low abiding cop, prior to the revenge.

Even if the ending has been done before or it sucks, these are the two endings that the script has been written to build into. Originally I was going to go with the first ending, back when I wrote the treatment, the second one just came to me as an after thought, after writing this 5th draft of the whole thing.

If both endings have been used before, but yet it's all about the execution, does one sound better than the other?
 
Okay thanks. I didn't see it as the same as every other film since the protagonist dies before the third act, since it's unusual. The first one is more predictable cause he lives till the end. But if that's the better one than I will go with that one.
 
protagonist dies before the third act

By definition, he cannot be the protagonist. A protagonist is someone who the audience shares the story with. If he's dead part way through, the audience can no longer share the story with him. Most of the time you'll fail in satisfying your audience. This is a huge problem, at least in my book. There are work arounds for this issue, but you seem to have troubles grasping simple concepts. I don't think you're ready for the lessons in rule breaking.

It's part of the reason it's the worst of the options you posed. I don't get why you don't figure out a good option instead of picking the best of two bad options.

I'm not saying stories cannot be told this way, but this is amongst your early pieces. It's usually best to stick closer to the typical expectations of the audience and gain experience with those stories before you try to break the boundaries of typical cinematic storytelling. It's akin to crossing the 180 degrees line. It's fine if you know what you're doing and you're doing it for a reason, but you're running in blind.
 
Okay thanks. Let's not call him the protagonist then. Let's call him the character with the most screentime, or something. As far as dlmade saying it's a twist that has been done before, I thought that since it's been done a lot less compared to the first option, then it would be less cliched. The first one I have seen more in movies.

However, if these two options, suck, I think it may be a little late to change the third act, unless I change most of the first two. But since I was planning on this being the last draft, before I send it out for feedback, I thought I would go with one of these two third acts, first, and then get feedback on the whole thing.

I don't really have any better ideas for a third act, since the first two already build into it. But if I think of any, I will ask. But for now, I think I will wait till I have already received feedback on the whole thing, unless there is a third act that would for the first two, that I am missing.
 
Last edited:
Let's not call him the protagonist then. Let's call him the character with the most screentime, or something.

So you're going to give your protagonist less screen time than another character? Say what? See what I mean about not understanding the basics? If you want a disjointed piece of crap that will only be suitable as a time sink, continue as you're going.

As far as dlmade saying it's a twist that has been done before

Where has it been done before? Where have they killed off the character who has the most screen time at the end of the second act. Unless you're aim is to be a failure, don't include films that failed.

would be less cliched

Whether it is cliched depends on you, the writer. Write cliche crap and you have a cliched mess. Structure is about satisfying audience expectations.

I think it may be a little late to change

I told you ages ago (about 4 threads ago) that you were writing a turd. Now you're trying to polish said turd. A polished turd is still a turd.

I don't really have any better ideas for a third act, since the first two already build into it.
if these two options, suck, I think it may be a little late to change the third act

That is a huge pile of bullshit. This is an great example of you taking rubbish out of context. This all started when you misinterpreted some teachers writing rules some months back. You've painted yourself into a corner, like a baby with a potato peeler. You don't even know if you're doing a tragedy or a revenge flick. You haven't worked out your structure, let alone be close to a last draft. By the sounds of it, you've got a poorly executed 60 page first act (probably actually only half the first act since this character dying sounds more like an inciting incident), no second act and a third act which, at best, belongs in another script. If you think you should spend a lot of money and a lot of time making this, you deserve the pain that follows.
 
there are plenty of films which have the protagonist killed, and in his case if the story follows the two cops then they are both Protagonists and both main leads. So if he wants to ""fool" the audience in to falling for one, and then playing on the emotion that it was the other one, that's fine.

Samuel L Jackson although not the greatest film was killed half way in Deep Blue sea
Kevin Spacey in L.A Confidential, was killed before last act
Travolta in Pulp Fiction. Was killed in the third act, start of the 4th
Joe Brody in Godzilla, he wasn't main character but trailers and hype build it up that he was going to be in till the end.
Cyclops in X-men Last stand, was one of the main characters...
etc,etc,etc
Its nothing new, but for some reason you script sounds to much like Departed, Pride and Glory, Brooklyn's Finest, Training Day, Serpico, King streets, etc.... But less interesting as we don't know the details.

Get your friends or other script writers who you or who you trust to read it and nit pik it.
Or start writing another film from scratch, but incorporate what you want from this one, in to the new one.
 
Okay thanks. I won't kill off the protagonist then. I will stick to the original ending, and have him live all the way through. I haven't seen Brooklyn's Finest, King Streets, or Pride and Glory. I saw the others, but did no have those in mind when I wrote it. I don't think it's anything like Training Day. In Training Day, there was no corrupt cop wanting to turn good, who the good cop felt guilty of, for being killed, or vice versa. In The Departed, it's got that same thing sort of, but in The Departed the Walhberg character was successful in his revenge, where as my character is not, and it leads to a different ending. In Serpico, well Serpico never wanted to take revenge on anyone really.

As far as to whether or not it's a revenge flick or a tragedy, can't it be both? The guy wants revenge, which ends in tragedy. Can that not work?
 
Last edited:
............. I saw the others, but did no have those in mind when I wrote it.................

Doesn't mean you can't be influenced / inspired by them on a subconcious level.
There is even scientific psychological research about this thing that makes people absorb/steal ideas and later believing that it was original :P

A while ago I wrote a short idea that after reading it made me think of 'The brothers Grimm' and 'Dragon Heart'. I even googled to check the Dragon Heart plot to be sure. And yes, some big similarities and some big differences.
:lol:

It happens all the time...
 
That's true, I could have thought of it subconsciously. Basically when I was planning out the script, I needed a dead body to turn up, that would put forth certain events in motion for the third act. The kind of events that a dead cop would consequent in. So I needed to create a cop character to fill that death, and that's what I came up with.

As far as this being an inciting incident, I did not mean for it to come off that way. The inciting incident happens in the first act, if going by three act structure, and this is more of a 'Act II climax', or 'Act II Turning Point', as it's referred to in three act structure. Does it come off as an inciting incident, cause it's not strong enough, for it happen that late in the story, or it feels like it should be in the beginning of a story, or something?

Also, is it really bad to use something that has been done before, if I intend to do it well? One of my favorite movies for example is The Last Samurai. You could argue that the filmmakers copied Dances with Wolves, but a lot of people don't really care, cause they thought it was executed well. Or should I avoid cliches, no matter what, just to be safe?
 
Last edited:
there are plenty of films which have the protagonist killed

There is, though I think you'll struggle to find a successful movie where the protagonist was killed at the end of act 2. I'm not talking a main character (part of the crew, the mentor etc), the protagonist.

Samuel L Jackson although not the greatest film was killed half way in Deep Blue sea

I haven't seen the film. Is it safe to assume it felt like it fell apart once the protagonist died?

Travolta in Pulp Fiction. Was killed in the third act, start of the 4th

These are exceptions to the rule. While I'm not in total agreement that the John Travolta is the protagonist (I think it's one of those odd films where the protagonist isn't given the most screen time - The Bruce Willis character), I would agree that Travolta gets the most screen time, which usually shows that he's the protagonist. Pulp Fiction wasn't one of those typical structured films. It's so hard to use it as a frame of reference for most things.

Samuel L Jackson although not the greatest film was killed half way in Deep Blue sea
Joe Brody in Godzilla
Cyclops in X-men Last stand
Kevin Spacey in L.A Confidential

All good examples of characters dying within a film, but there's problems with these films being listed as examples of protagonists dying before the third act.

Deep Blue sea: Isn't Carter Blake (Thomas Jane) the protagonist? (I haven't seen this film, so it's just a guess)
Godzilla: Wasn't Joe Brody son the protagonist?
X-Men: Isn't Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) the protagonist?
LA Confidential: Isn't Ed Exley (Guy Pearce) the protagonist? (I don't remember the film, so someone else may need to pipe up here)

If we go by this, we might as well add Star Wars with Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi dying before the third act.

Turning Point

You don't see the problem with this? It's not a turning point for the protagonist. It's the final ending point in his story. You can do it with other characters and this is what is often done, but killing off the protagonist?

Does it come off as an inciting incident

A character dying can be used for many things.

The Hurt Locker killed off their named actor (Guy Pearce) very early on in the film, part of the reason was to disrupt the audience. The director (Kathryn Bigelow) didn't want the audience to feel that any character was safe to help increase tension.

To me, if you're going to kill off what the audience may perceive as the protagonist, you need to do it early so they can regain stories perspective from the real protagonist. A misdirect of the protagonist that lasts 2 acts is a likely disaster. If we are to agree that the Travolta character is the protagonist, then Tarantino pulled it off. So it is possible. Are you as good as writer as Quentin Tarantino?

revenge flick or a tragedy, can't it be both? The guy wants revenge, which ends in tragedy. Can that not work?

It cannot be structurally both. They have a difference structure that don't really mesh. There's nothing wrong with borrowing elements from one structure and put it into another if it fits. You can have a revenge flick that ends in tragedy (the protagonist dying), though what you've described in the earlier pieces isn't a revenge flick, it's a tragedy (the hero's journey in reverse). You've then switched formats at the end. It can really confuse the audience. A story typically needs a beginning, middle and an end in a congruent way. While you can do it, you don't understand what you're doing, and you're likely to fail. It's like putting unleaded and diesel petrol into the same gas tank and wondering why it just doesn't work.

Probably the best example that comes to mind is of a locally made movie called Daddy's Little Girl by Chris Sun. Watch it if you can get your hands on it. It switches from a crime drama to a torture porn flick about half way through. I hope you see what I mean.

As I said, go make your story. 2+ years down the track and bags and bags of money later, we'll see whether you're the genius who cracked the code or whether you're among the tens of thousands who broke the rules and lost.
 
Okay thanks. I thought that I was telling a theme based story, rather than a character based story and that by doing that, the Act II turning point was for the theme and not for the character so much. But I will not go with the new ending then, and keep the character alive till the end. Therefore, the Act II turning point will be for him.

As for switching from tragedy to revenge, don't other movies do that though? The Departed is a good example. It's a crime drama, about an undercover cat and mouse game, which ends in tragedy (two of the main cops dying), and then it becomes revenge afterwords. Tombstone (1993), was about Wyatt Earp trying to bring the villains to justice but after he failed, which resulted in tragedy for him, he then wanted to kill them all for the third act, since there was no better way. What did those stories do differently, that meshed the two better?
 
Last edited:
As for switching from tragedy to revenge, don't other movies do that though? The Departed is a good example. It's a crime drama, about an undercover cat and mouse game, which ends in tragedy (two of the main cops dying), and then it becomes revenge afterwords. Tombstone (1993), was about Wyatt Earp trying to bring the villains to justice but after he failed, which resulted in tragedy for him, he then wanted to kill them all for the third act, since there was no better way. What did those stories do differently, that meshed the two better?

Your question tells me that you don't understand the difference between what you've been asking and what you're asking now. On top of that it shows that you don't understand the basics of writing and you're not ready for the exceptions to the rule.

Next you'll tell me Star wars is a revenge story with Luke blowing up the Death star as payback for killing his buddy Ben. From memory, Tombstone is a story about duty, not revenge. I just don't remember the Departed, but I think it'd be a safe bet that you've misinterpreted this film too.

I thought that I was telling a theme based story, rather than a character based story

This is an example of your lack of writing knowledge and/or lack of intelligent independent thought. I cannot think of a way that you can write a tragedy without it being primarily about character. I suppose it's possible, but the film will lack any empathy from the audience.

Act II turning point was for the theme and not for the character so much

If you kill the character off, it cannot exactly be a turning point for a character that is dead. Just because that is the case, doesn't make the other automatically right. It can mean you've made a grave mistake. Just because you can only see two options and you can see one is wrong, doesn't make the other automatically right.

Deep blue sea is a monster flick, the real star is the killer sharks. So it still works after sam jackson died.

The problem is H44 is going to quote you as a writing rule now. He's probably for cinematography and Foley too. Probably to his mechanic too.

/Oh look. Squirrel
 
I gave example of where the big names die

That's about as relevant to the conversation are naming cars that have been crashed in thriller films. Why waste my time nonsense?

as some one wrote to create more tension and have the audience guessing who is the Protagonist of the film

You're kidding right? I hope you're not quoting me.

The director (Kathryn Bigelow) didn't want the audience to feel that any character was safe to help increase tension.

Oh wait, you are. Seriously? How did you get "have the audience guessing who is the Protagonist" from that? Next time, try reading with your eyes open.

You and H44 deserve each other.
 
Back
Top