Okay, I'm seeing a trend with my writing: intriguing bad guys and average-to-boring good guys.
Think longer and harder about your hero's flaw and what he/she is struggling with *before* the bad guy shows up.
Remember - your hero can't just be sitting around waiting for the plot to happen. The plot must disrupt the hero's life, and if we don't see any significant struggle before that disruption, it will appear as though your hero is simply a boring person struggling with the plot.
my writing: intriguing bad guys and average-to-boring good guys.
I think villains are often more interesting than "noble" good guys. I referred to this idea in a comment about Armored:
"...an uncomfortable imbalance with strong and flamboyant villians (as good villians usually are)--Dillon, Fishburne--and earnest but dull hero (Nolasco). It muddled the issue of who to root for: colorful, even likable villians, or serious, boring hero." http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...817#post610817
In the old days, heroes tended to be noble...and a little boring. Think Gary Cooper in High Noon (actually, Gary Cooper in anything...). Recently, Denzel in Book of Eli.
Anti-heroes changed the formula (DeNiro in Taxi Driver; Eastwood as Dirty Harry and in spaghetti westerns; Gibson as Mad Max, and in Payback; Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces; Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon; Brando in Streetcar; the list goes on).
Villains can be more interesting because they do all the taboo stuff, often with great flair. The trick is probably to infuse the "hero" with some juicy neuroses and character flaws of his own and/or make sure his character arc is meaningful and difficult.
Okay, I'm seeing a trend with my writing: intriguing bad guys and average-to-boring good guys.
Anyone else deal with this? Tips to break the trend??
Great question, Chip, I'm dealing with this very problem on a script of my own. It's gotten to the point that I can't stand my lead character/protag. He 'as got to go.
I think villains are often more interesting than "noble" good guys. I referred to this idea in a comment about Armored:
"...an uncomfortable imbalance with strong and flamboyant villians (as good villians usually are)--Dillon, Fishburne--and earnest but dull hero (Nolasco). It muddled the issue of who to root for: colorful, even likable villians, or serious, boring hero." http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...817#post610817
In the old days, heroes tended to be noble...and a little boring. Think Gary Cooper in High Noon (actually, Gary Cooper in anything...). Recently, Denzel in Book of Eli.
Anti-heroes changed the formula (DeNiro in Taxi Driver; Eastwood as Dirty Harry and in spaghetti westerns; Gibson as Mad Max, and in Payback; Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces; Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon; Brando in Streetcar; the list goes on).
Villains can be more interesting because they do all the taboo stuff, often with great flair. The trick is probably to infuse the "hero" with some juicy neuroses and character flaws of his own and/or make sure his character arc is meaningful and difficult.
Actually, this makes a lot of sense. They must appeal to our dark side in a way. We can make them do the things we know we'd never be able to get away with. You think? I never realized how much psychology is behind screenwriting!
My first crack at a logline usually makes a great synopsis!
Also, if you want to see a great example of an outstanding antagonist-protagonist relationship -- go rent "3:10 To Yuma".
I don't know, in Yuma, I thought the antagonist was far more interesting than the protag. Christian Bale seems to fall into heroes rolls where the villains are more interesting. Dark Knight, Yuma, Public Enemies. He always seems shown up to me. That's another discussion though.
I think a great hero is made by humanizing the hero, but still giving him hero moments. And with these moments, we watch him or her grow in some fashion during pursuit of their goal. Die Hard to me is a great example. One of the best examples. Find these attributes in your character and you'll be successful.
I don't know, in Yuma, I thought the antagonist was far more interesting than the protag. Christian Bale seems to fall into heroes rolls where the villains are more interesting. Dark Knight, Yuma, Public Enemies. He always seems shown up to me. That's another discussion though.
I think a great hero is made by humanizing the hero, but still giving him hero moments. And with these moments, we watch him or her grow in some fashion during pursuit of their goal. Die Hard to me is a great example. One of the best examples. Find these attributes in your character and you'll be successful.
I have to agree.
Honestly I loved Christian Bale most in The Prestige, one of my fave films this side of the decade.
Who was the true villain in that film. Jackman or Bale? They both were...? Yes and no. I love how as the perception of the story changes, so does your perception on who truly is the "bad guy".
In my stories I try to paint both antagonist and protagonists as people we understand at the end of the day, no matter what vile or saintly acts they perform.
In the script I finished a bit ago, the villain is someone we see betrayed in the opening sequence and at the end we see him get revenge for this betrayal. And although he is in direct conflict with our heroes, I believe we still understand and sympathize with his character. Because his struggle (the villain's) is actually reflected in the journey OF the hero. Difficult to do but works really well if you can pull it off.
The hero and villain are really just dark parallels of each other. If you can show how and why your hero does not become the villain, BUT you still understand the villain's motives, that makes your hero's character arc immense and meaningful.
Comment