OK - I'm lost again. I thought I made sense of your system.
Let's look at something very simple - perhaps one of the old Sherlock Holmes stories.
The viewpoint/narrator character is Dr Watson.
The Protagonist is Sherlock Holmes.
Every great story has a Main Character through which we the audience experience a story. They are more than simply a Narrator or Viewpoint Character as they have deep personal issues that are tied thematically to the problems everyone in the story deals with.
You are saying that either:
1. Dr Watson must
have a deep personal issue that is tied thematically to the puzzle in the story -or-
2. Sherlock Holmes stories are not great stories --
I can see that having the Viewpoint/narrator character having a deep personal issue that is tied thematically to the issues of the story is a powerful technique.
But you seem to be arguing that since, in your belief, this technique *MUST* be used for the story to be classified as 'great', you define the 'Main Character' as being the viewpoint character by definition !
This makes no sense. Imagine if I argue that all great cars are rear wheel drive, so I choose to define 'drive wheels' to be 'rear wheels' for all cars - no matter how the car is configured.
Could you imagine me having sensible conversations about all cars?
Look at the silly snippet I suggested. As you point out, if you are in a meeting and starting to talk about stories, you can't use basic phrases like 'Main Character' until the script is entirely finished with all themes worked out!
You have to have everything basically complete before you can decide who the 'Main Character' is !? So I can't see how this naming convention or technique could be useful for developing stories.
Just to explain it .. can you show us one of your scripts (or just point me to the DVD) that you've developed using this system? Maybe then I'll be able to understand it.
(PS: And you haven't answered the most basic point - you are using a phrase that is already commonly used and giving it a different hamster. If you have a new hamster , then give it a new name.)
(PPS: According to my definition, 'Hamster' is a word for a concept very similar to 'meaning'. I hope this shows how confusing these conversations about the hamsters of words can be!)
(PPS: On a serious note, one interesting thing that struck me while trying to understand your system is that having the viewpoint & protagonist character as being separate used to be the norm - look at Sherlock Holmes for example. Much of the literature from that period was from the POV of some mundane clerk who happened to witness something mysterious happening to SOMEONE ELSE. Instead of inviting the reader/viewer to imagine being the hero, they were basically inviting the reader/viewer to imagine being the boring sidekick ! It's definitely an different literature style.)