Will this come off as cheap to an audience?

[harmonica44]

In my script, I am thinking of writing it so that the hero, who is a cop tailing the villains, hoping that it will get him connected to other further leads. He is following them on his own time, and it's a personal thing rather than following orders. He does this for a number days, and then follows the villains, watching them as they go into a building, but does not go inside, of course, cause he does not want to expose himself.

When the villains go inside, they do meet up with the exact leads, that the cop was hoping he would be lead to. However, the cop, waiting outside, does not know this and gets bored of waiting after a bit, and thinks screw it, and leaves. He just missed the big incrimination he has been waiting for that would have taken him to the next big level in the case.

The audience may see this as suspenseful and think 'he just missed them!', in a good way, or they may think it was cheap of him not to wait. Cause after he takes off, he devises another plan that goes wrong and ends in tragedy. This can also be seen as a strength or a weakness, depending on what the audience thinks of his decision to take off out of impatience beforehand.

Does it come off as gimmicky, that he just misses the incrimination he was looking for? Or does it feel unnatural or unnecessary since he would just go and devise that other plan, either way, and the villains would meet with their leads either way, cause it's necessary for the plot? Does it seem like that maybe just missing the leads, earlier in the movie, takes out some of the mystery and build up, as oppose to not?

Plus I am intending it so that the reader will feel that 'all is lost' at this point, and the good guy has nothing, but will they still feel that if the good guy just misses them and does not know it?

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

It would be more suspenseful if he waited a bit and then followed them inside, being careful not to alert them to his presence. Once inside the building he could be slowly walking up some stairs and there's a creak from one of the steps. One of the villains hears this and is about to investigate when the other villain taps them on the shoulder and tells them "We're late as it is forget about it. It's probably a cat or something".

When he realises they're not coming down, he can let out a sigh of relief. He resumes creeping up the stairs, manages to get to the door, and tries to listen in on the conversation. Once the meeting is over he hides around the corner in a corridor until the villains leave and go back down the stairs.

After that...up to you. But just a suggestion.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. However, they already know they got a rogue cop, who has a motive against them, so at that point, they would definitely want to investigate a noise probably. But that does sound like a good idea, if I write it right, I will consider it. Thanks!

Does it come off as gimicky though, since it's a missed opportunity and the story would be the same without it, or does it contradict with the all is lost feeling, since the cop still got close?

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

Maybe the cop could be interrupted by an emergency or urgent situation, something meaningful and needs to be dealt with properly and can't be put off until later. That way there's a valid reason why he would leave early instead of just doing so because he wasn't patient. Unless you want his lack of patience to be a character flaw, in which case if you haven't already, you would need to make it clear to the audience that he has issues with patience early on so it comes back to bite him later.

 

[harmonica44]

Oh okay. I just had it in mind that got impatient because he has tailing them for his own time for a few days and so far, hasn't seen anything out of the ordinary with them. But if he is called to something else, I could write it that way, if that's better.

But at this point I want the audience to feel that the villains have gotten away with their crimes and are going to commit the next one, without being able to be stopped. Will they get that feeling if the cop just missed the leads, or will come off as gimmicky, if that makes sense?

 

[Sweetie]

come off as gimmicky

I hate your choice of words, but yes, you could end up with a problem for a different reason. The characters actions must be motivated by his character. His inner motivation. His desire. If this action isn't motivated the audience may be pulled out of their suspension of disbelief. This is where you're likely to run into problems.

Think it like this: 5 street smart teenagers are outside the house of where a known axe murderer lives. "Oh look, our phones don't work. Lets go in and say hi to mr axe murderer and see if he kills us" or "He's trying to kill me, of course I won't take this opportunity to escape and/or call the cops". Unless you establish the why they wouldn't do a reasonable course of action, having a character do an unmotivated action that most wouldn't do can cause problems.

If you do what you're planning well, it'll increase suspense. Do it wrong, and you ruin all the hard work you've done. Whether it works will probably depend on everything that happens previous seeing you're going against usual police methods.

Rule of thumb: You can use a coincidence to get your protagonist into trouble, don't use it to get him/her out.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Well if him getting impatient cause he is tired of getting nowhere for the day, is not enough, than I could write it so that he has to leave for a different reason, like maybe get back his job.

That is a good rule of thumb. However, in this case, the coincidence does not get the hero into trouble. It's just there for intrigue. Even if he did not end up tailing the villains that day, and was not in the scene at all, he still would execute his riskier and more desperate contingency plan anyway, because he is already tired of following them around without it going nowhere anyway. So if a coincidence does not lead to trouble and is just for the sake of suspense or intrigue, is that still good?

 

[Sweetie]

I could write it so that he has to leave for a different reason

You could and probably should.

So if a coincidence does not lead to trouble and is just for the sake of suspense or intrigue, is that still good?

It depends. WHAT were you thinking and WHY?

he still would execute his riskier and more desperate contingency plan anyway

Would this violate the convenience rule? He just coincidentally has a plan in place that covers what went wrong?

he is already tired of following them around without it going nowhere anyway

Don't cops do this already?

 

[harmonica44]

You could and probably should.



It depends. WHAT were you thinking and WHY?



Would this violate the convenience rule? He just coincidentally has a plan in place that covers what went wrong?



Don't cops do this already?

I thought that would be an intriguing coincidence, nothing more. Kind of like how in some movies, the hero, totally passes the villain, while looking for him and does not even know it, but they never do find out that they were both there.

It's not that he coincidentally has a plan in place, he just forms a plan be after. Not a coincidence, just a new plan since he's not getting anything from tailing them over and over.

Cops do tail crooks already, however, the police cannot follow them 24/7 so he is doing it in his free time.

 

[Sweetie]

It's not that he coincidentally has a plan in place, he just forms a plan be after. Not a coincidence, just a new plan since he's not getting anything from tailing them over and over.

Cops do tail crooks already, however, the police cannot follow them 24/7 so he is doing it in his free time.

So how does this all fall into place? What's your plan to make it work?

 

[WalterB]

Phantom said it: give him a reason to leave: an emergency.
Even more trouble: sneaking in and then the emergency gets radio'd in: he now needs to get out not only to the emergency, but also to make sure they don't see him...

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Actually after going over the whole script I do not want him to find the building. If he finds the building all he has to do is find out who owns the building, which will make him catch on to who is behind things too fast. I am going to write so that he follows the villains, but looses them in the streets, before they get to the building. Because at least that way, he won't know what building plays a role until later.

However, I still wonder if it comes off as pointless as to why the hero should follow the villains, if the villains lose him, and it goes nowhere, just for the sake of suspense in the moment, since he is going to put his next plan into effect regardless of whether or not he follows them that day of their meeting or not.

But then again, wasn't there a scenario used like this in The French Connection when Popeye Doyle lost the villain on a train, and then had to restart again? Or do I remember that wrong?

 

[FantasySciFi]

However, I still wonder if it comes off as pointless as to why the hero should follow the villains, if the villains lose him, and it goes nowhere, just for the sake of suspense in the moment, since he is going to put his next plan into effect regardless of whether or not he follows them that day of their meeting or not.

If the later event resulting in tragedy will happen regardless of this event (failed snooping), then you must ask yourself do I really need this scene at all. And from your discussion above, it sounds like you're just inserting it for the audience. You already said your script is running long, this is one scene that Truby and others would suggest can be cut.

Where lots of professional screenwriters differ from new writers is that they're constantly asking themselves, "Should I cut this scene?" rather than "How do I make this work?". There is a place for both questions but the bottom line is that every scene must be relevant and driving the story forward.

From your description, the cop enters the scene with limited information and leaves the scene with the same. Nothing has changed except time--his and the audience's--has been wasted in anticipation. You need to think like your character. If you were the cop who is pursuing this on your own time, are you going to give up? What would cause you to leave? Some of this requires set up in advance. Every change to a script ripples out, like tossing a pebble in a pond.

Let's say, he's there and casing the building. His cellphone rings and he has a text message. It's from his wife, "WHERE ARE YOU? Jane's recital is about to start?" He mutters shit under his breath. He looks up and sees the office light on as he holds his parabolic mike. He's conflicted then angrily packs up the stuff to drive to his daughter's recital.

First, you need to set up the conflicts beforehand. Make it evident that he and his wife are in a strained relationship. She needs to pressure him about the recital and his duty as a father. Jane should probably ask him if he's coming. Now you've put pressure on his character. Second, his obsession to pursue these criminals to the neglect of his family IS a character flaw. It's evolved naturally. Third, you need to have the consequences. He arrives just in time or slightly late. Something his spouse points out.

If he just looks down and see at text and leaves, with no set up or follow through, this would fail. All of us who are parents have found ourselves in similar situations, so to avoid it being cliche it must be a natural development. If you haven't done that development or elect not to, then you should cut the scene altogether.

You already know he's going to do the later event. You don't need a useless filler. Everything needs to be tight and meaningful. The risk you run by including it is that you water down his character. The cop now appears weak willed where you want your cop to come across as resolute, stopping at nothing to solve the crime. It's also that persistence which can be a character flaw since it comes with a price.

Rather than try to fix a non-rewarding scene, I think it would be better to cut it. Maybe in a preceding shot having him pouring over various files, drinking coffee. Maybe that's when he notes the building information. Then jump ahead to your next scene with the criminals meeting in the building. The audience learns what they need to know. Having the cop tail them and then leave is a waste. Just my thoughts.

 

[maz]

Surely if he's tailing people on his own time, without police authorisation, anything he finds out is liable to be torn down in court, isn't it?

 

[harmonica44]

Most likely. But his goal is to stop them more, than worry about if they will be convicted. He would rather stop future murders from happening, even if it means that the evidence cannot be used later.