plot Which plot turn is more intriguing?

[harmonica44]

In my script a man creates a violent act of terrorism against those he feels have done society wrong. Of course the world is appalled but a lot of the public has agreed with what he is done and is on his side.

Now I want him to go free in the plot, which leads to more plot of course. There are two ways he can go free. One is he cuts a deal with the justice system and they will let him go, if he helps catches other terrorists who are connected to him.

The other is, is that since a lot of people are on his side, the jury just so happens to see it that way and comes back with a verdict of acquittal. I like the second one and think it may be more believable for a terrorist to be let off by a jury than by the system itself.

My friend, who read a lot of the script, likes the first idea, saying she thinks it's more believable to be let off by cutting a deal. I told her that it's more likely for a jury to let off a terrorist, than the justice system, because the system might think it would be really bad for PR relations. She responded by saying 'since when does the justice system give a damn about PR relations?'. I guess if you look at it that way, but which plot turn do you think would be more convincing or perhaps more intriguing, to audiences? Thanks.

 

[Zensteve]

since a lot of people are on his side, the jury just so happens to see it that way and comes back with a verdict of acquittal. I like the second one and think it may be more believable for a terrorist to be let off by a jury than by the system itself.

Better be one hell of a stretch for a jury to acquit an actual terrorist, regardless of motive.

Nevertheless, look up Jury Nullification. It sounds like it might be useful to your story, maybe.

 

[harmonica44]

Thanks. I know about jury Nullification and that's pretty much what it would be.

 

[Lucky Hardwood]

You could always have a hung jury. You would only need one juror to vote for acquittal and refuse to change their vote.

 

[Caidh Mor]

In my script a man creates a violent act of terrorism against those he feels have done society wrong. Of course the world is appalled but a lot of the public has agreed with what he is done and is on his side.

Now I want him to go free in the plot, which leads to more plot of course. There are two ways he can go free. One is he cuts a deal with the justice system and they will let him go, if he helps catches other terrorists who are connected to him.

The other is, is that since a lot of people are on his side, the jury just so happens to see it that way and comes back with a verdict of acquittal. I like the second one and think it may be more believable for a terrorist to be let off by a jury than by the system itself.

[...]

which plot turn do you think would be more convincing or perhaps more intriguing, to audiences? Thanks.

I think you might be looking at this the wrong way. Asking what the audience wants and pandering to it can oftentimes be felt in the writing itself. Reexamine your script, and evaluate what the core question of your story is, and choose whichever answer best pertains to your message.

The first turn strikes me as your character being swallowed up by the system itself, perhaps corrupted by the system that he was bypassing. If this is more central to your message, go for it.

The second turn seems more like his actions have inspired dissent among the people, who on some level have realized that bypassing the system can be more effective than being complacent within it. If this is central to your message, go for it.

As an alternative, to refresh your creativity a bit, and renew your direction, try scrapping both endings and writing a third off-the-cuff that is radially different from either. Sometimes this method can allow you an exit from your current paradigm, and give you a bit more insight into your world.

 

[mlesemann]

When I'm writing, and especially when I'm re-writing - I always try to remind myself that anything that's a "given" in my script is of m own creation. Which means it can be removed and/or changed.

My point: everything in your script can be changed.

 

[Traveler44]

Better he makes a deal with the justice system. The system has to make a deal with the devil and so does he, which means they're both caving a little bit and leaves room for a double cross on both sides. Distrust builds tension.

Good luck!

 

[dr stilly]

Your friend is totally right IMHO. But it's about suspending belief so whichever idea pushes toward a better story, pick that one and make it beleivable. A storyteller is a wizard who makes the impossible possible.

 

[rayw]

One is he cuts a deal with the justice system and they will let him go, if he helps catches other terrorists who are connected to him.

The other is, is that since a lot of people are on his side, the jury just so happens to see it that way and comes back with a verdict of acquittal.

The first is less implausible than the second.

I'm not super slick on the justice system, but I think the judge can easily overturn a jury's verdict if he deems it unreasonable.

However, what you can do is either:
A) have the (sympathetic) prosecutor deliberately "not play his A-game" thus allowing the defendant's attorney to win via the jury vote, or
B) the prosecutorial team and law enforcement simply couldn't gather sufficient evidence to convict (presumably because the defendant is something of a genius.)
The latter would be the better version for what I think your style tends to be, the former better for a Disneyfied/Adam Sandler film.



Alternatively, and I have no idea where this supposed trial is presumably within a feature length film, hopefully at the end, but you could have the jury acquit, the judge overturn their verdict, he receives the death sentence - and a hero's welcome in the pen.

Sequel: he breaks out or is broken out - by those sympathetic to him or to his previous victims!

 

[harmonica44]

Well I looked it up and the judge cannot overturn a verdict. The best the system can do is a new trial. The trial is at the end. But I will go with the other plot option if it's better.

 

[mad_hatter]

....a violent act of terrorism against those he feels have done society wrong....

To me, this implies a lot of people will have died. If your terrorist is proven guilty (you almost imply he doesn't try to get away with it. Is that right?), regardless of his motivations and whether or not the public agree with him, I'd have a hard time buying him being aquitted at all.

Your first option is more plausible, but in my mind, he'd get maybe a few extra perks in exchange for information. He wouldn't be let go.

....I want him to go free in the plot, which leads to more plot of course....

So is this the end of the film, or what?

 

[harmonica44]

Yep it's the end I think. I have the climax down, but not sure about the resolution. If the first one is more plausible and also more interesting I'll go with that.

 

[arrodiii]

Well I looked it up and the judge cannot overturn a verdict. The best the system can do is a new trial. The trial is at the end. But I will go with the other plot option if it's better.

Actually, depending on where you are a judge can overturn a jury verdict - at least in some states in the U.S..

Additionally, I don't think that it is plausible that he will be able to cut a deal with the judicial system after committing an act of terrorism, especially in a post-9-11 world. Additionally, you have to think about the possibility (in your world) if the officials presiding over the judicial proceedings are elected officials or if they are nominated by others. This will determine how their actions will play to the public.

As for your second theory, I guess I am still skeptical that a majority of the public deems his act of terrorism to be acceptable regardless if they feel that he shouldn't be punished for them. But it is your world so if your public is so forgiving for committing terroristic acts, why not do something in the realm of Sleepers and have the DA intentionally throw the case so that the terrorist can go free and everyone is happy?

 

[harmonica44]

Well the DA and the judge, are not main characters and I don't have a lot of time for their motives and reasons to develop. They are in fact, just in that one scene. My script is already long enough, and I have to cut it down. So I was thinking that having it so that a lot of people are on the terrorists side, would imply to the audience, the reasons why he was acquitted.

 

[Firm1]

Now I want him to go free in the plot, which leads to more plot of course. There are two ways he can go free. One is he cuts a deal with the justice system and they will let him go, if he helps catches other terrorists who are connected to him.

The other is, is that since a lot of people are on his side, the jury just so happens to see it that way and comes back with a verdict of acquittal. I like the second one and think it may be more believable for a terrorist to be let off by a jury than by the system itself.

Personally, I wouldn't go with neither. Why? Its because both aren't grounded to reality. The first scenario suggests that the justice system would actually make a deal with a terrorist who presumably killed a bunch of innocent people. That would never happen in a million years. They might be willing to reduce his sentence to life but they wouldn't just let him walk away.

The second scenario isn't grounded to reality either because the conditions are not set up to create that level of support for a terrorist. This guy is extreme and a large number of any given population will never side with an extremist unless the circumstances were dire enough.

If you're going to make this work you need to set it to a different time period, either in the past or future. If you make it in this time period, you'll make it too unbelievable. Set it in the future or past and have the conditions be really extreme. Harsh climate, bad economy, oppressive government, etc. Otherwise, you won't have people siding with the guy.

My advice is to read about the regulation movement that occurred in the Piedmont Region of North Carolina right before the Revolutionary War broke out. That really explains how societies can go from order to chaos and how a civil society could simultaneously support a government and a terrorist group.

Good luck!

 

[harmonica44]

Well I don't want to set it in the past or future, because of budget. Trying to write it for what I can shoot now. Perhaps four years into the future I can set it. The justice system has let people walk before. There was a big scandal a few years ago, about a cop who shot to death, an unarmed person and there was no evidence of the person being a threat to anyone at the time, yet it didn't even go to trial. I realize that is on murdered person as oppose to a couple of dozen though.

 

[Firm1]

Well I don't want to set it in the past or future, because of budget. Trying to write it for what I can shoot now. Perhaps four years into the future I can set it. The justice system has let people walk before. There was a big scandal a few years ago, about a cop who shot to death, an unarmed person and there was no evidence of the person being a threat to anyone at the time, yet it didn't even go to trial. I realize that is on murdered person as oppose to a couple of dozen though.

Right, but that was a cop and one person. Not Tim McVeigh. And, I guess if you want to make it set in our time period, you'll have to come up with an alternate World type thing, like have WWIII erupt or something. All I'm saying is that if you have it set right here, today with the same exact conditions that we see today, you could possibly make a movie where he has a very small following of people but to get a large number of society supporting him like he's V for Vendetta? That's just not believable.

You could just put it on the backburner until you get yourself in a better position to make the movie, though.

 

[harmonica44]

Well the terrorist in my script is a cop though, if that helps, and he was going after gangsters.

 

[arrodiii]

...the terrorist in my script is a cop...

 

[Firm1]

Well the terrorist in my script is a cop though, if that helps, and he was going after gangsters.

Interesting. So, he's basically a good guy who commits a terrorist attack against the government and/or gangsters and is being put on trial for it? That sounds pretty cool.

I guess in that case, I would do the one thing you would never expect to see in a movie. Having him go undercover is good but its been done before. It would be interesting to see a large number of people supporting him. The trick, though, is to come up with something he fought for that everyone can resonate with. And, it has to be powerful enough to invoke actual public support. If its something personal to the main character, it might not be believable. Good luck.