Antagonist, Protagonist, Nemesis and Mickey Mouse

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Antagonist, Protagonist, Nemesis and Mickey Mouse

    Okay. Can someone please illustrate how assigning such labels actually makes a better script?

    I've never really referred to any of my characters in such terms. Of course I've heard of them. But I just don't use them. So you're telling me that if I do, I'll write a better script? I myself don't think it matters.

    Prove me wrong. Cause if you do, I'll be a better writer.

    How and why?

    Don't use metaphors. Don't use analogies. Just spell it out.

  • #2
    Proving you "missing something."

    Unless your goal is to sit around and write the world's greatest screenplays that will be found after your death under your collection of porn, in a cardboard box, at the back of your closet, at which point they will be recognized for the genius works that they are and turned into film (which at this point will all be digital) where each will earn over a trillion dollars in their opening weekend (and not just 'cause inflation) and you will win several posthumous Academy Awards, then it is important for you to be able to talk about film. And talking about your characters, calling one a protagonist, or an antagonist or whatever, [except Mickey Mouse he's Trademarked and been more or less retired for several years] is going to be helpful.

    And this applies to many different definitions of words. You don't need to be a professor studying Joseph Campbell, but read some of his work on mythology. You do need to know grammar, but you might be able to get by with what you've already learned.

    There's more to screenwriting than simply writing screenplays. A guy here who goes by the name creative exec talks often about the business side of screenwriting.

    Comment


    • #3
      re

      Thanks for not answering the question.

      But while reading your post, I had to turn around to see if there was a hidden camera in my room. Cause you were 100% on the money!

      Comment


      • #4
        .

        "Okay. Can someone please illustrate how assigning such labels actually makes a better script?"

        assigning such labels doesn't make a better script. but perhaps understanding the distinctions between these character types and the dramatic purposes they serve, helps you write a better screenplay.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: .

          Ditto what has already been said. The exact label or term doesn't matter, though it does help when trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with a producer or exec when discussing the script that you use a common language, what matters is that you understand the difference between the functions the characters serve in the structure and advancement of the story.

          Comment


          • #6
            GREATwarEAGLE,
            Based on your reply to pantalone, you still don't get it. It's not about establishing a common reference so people can talk about the story. Don't dismiss the importance this easily.

            violentcases has a better answer. I would add: ... and actually translating those distinctions to the page ... makes for a better screenplay.

            It's not enough to understand it. You have to do it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Think of it like this: antagonist = badtagonist, protagonist = goodtagonist.

              Comment


              • #8
                Antagonist, Protagonist, Nemesis and Mickey Mouse

                Antagonist, Protagonist, Nemesis and Mickey Mouse
                And thank you for not understanding the question.

                Did you know that Jackson Pollack knew more about the human form than DaVinci?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Antagonist, Protagonist, Nemesis and Mickey Mouse

                  From what I hear about working with Disney, Mickey Mouse is always the antagonist.

                  What The Hell, I Have No Career Anyway

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Antagonist, Protagonist, Nemesis and Mickey Mouse

                    These are more theoretical terms. You dont state in in your script. You know it.

                    PROTAGONIST- hero, but does not always have to be the hero. just someone who strives towards a goal. for example, The Great Gatsby. Nick was the main character, but Gatsby was the protagonist.

                    ANTAGONIST- villan. Person who directly opposes the protagonist.

                    NEMISIS- Not the real villian, but does not help the protagonist to his or her goal. Think Gollum from Lord of the Rings.

                    I'm not even going to touch Mickey mouse.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Antagonist, Protagonist, Nemesis and Mickey Mouse

                      Knowing the terminology does not help you write a better script... But I find it establishes a commonality that makes reading posts by Deus, CE, etc. etc. much easier to apply to my writing.

                      And that has made a world of difference.

                      theturnaround

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Antagonist, Protagonist, Nemesis and Mickey Mouse

                        Huh?

                        If it weren't for these implied charcter types I could not even make an outline, much less keep my idea going forward.

                        This provides a chance for me to breakdown my characters, what each one's goals are in the story and how/what they do to achieve them.


                        Mickey Mouse is......is that another term I should know? Is that a secondary character, or supporting?


                        Protag/Antag/Nemesis/Secondary.....these are the ones I use.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          greatwareagle

                          assigning labels will do nothing to improve a script. creating clear cut antagonists and protagonists will. that you have never referred to any of your charactrers in such terms is irrelevant. i don't believe anyone is telling you that if you call a character the protagonist or antagonist you'll write a better script. if they are they're mistaken. you may label any given character in any way (as in 'this character, tom, is the protag) and it changes the script not at all

                          your post is, as are so many, poorly written. your thoughts are unclear. you express yourself in muddled terms. you are, unfortunately, an average writer. that is, to have unclear thoughts and express one's self in muddled terms as you do is, unfortunately, status quo.

                          i'm not sure if i've proved you wrong or not as it's difficult to ascertain what your point is - are you saying there is, or should not be, any such thing as a protag or antag, or are you saying that no character in a screenplay should be labelled as such? or are you saying the theory that such a thing as a protagonist or antagonist exists is incorrect? not sure.

                          now, i have managed not to use metaphors or analogies and just spelled it out. but i'm sure i haven't made you a better writer. how am i sure? well, just call it a hunch. hope this helped


                          zilla

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            re

                            TwoBrad Bradlley wrote:

                            â€It's not enough to understand it. You have to do it.â€

                            My gut reaction to this was - how can one do something they donâ€TMt understand? But then I thought, well, I breathe air, and I donâ€TMt necessarily understand how the body handles oxygen. So he may have a point.

                            UserName wrote:
                            â€Think of it like this: antagonist = badtagonist, protagonist = goodtagonistâ€

                            Yeah I know. But thatâ€TMs a generalization. You can have a story where thereâ€TMs no bad guy. And good and bad are often subjective terms.

                            Kojled wrote:
                            â€i'm not sure if i've proved you wrong or not as it's difficult to ascertain what your point isâ€

                            Youâ€TMre right. I realized afterward that I wasnâ€TMt very specific. I guess cause I donâ€TMt use the terminology, I was just curious how, in any way, was it so useful. Theyâ€TMre optional reference terms.

                            Kojled also wrote:

                            â€your post is, as are so many, poorly written. your thoughts are unclear. you express yourself in muddled terms. you are, unfortunately, an average writer. that is, to have unclear thoughts and express one's self in muddled terms as you do is, unfortunately, status quo.â€

                            I thank you for addressing that. Something I should work on. I guess Iâ€TMm in the habit of writing in fragments and donâ€TMt like to be too literal. But it does lead to confusion sometimes. But I think that if my posts are poorly written, it would make more sense to say Iâ€TMm less than an average writer and below the status quo.
                            &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
                            Pantalone wrote:
                            â€Did you know that Jackson Pollack knew more about the human form than DaVinci?â€

                            Johnny Carson voice - â€I did not know that.â€

                            Pantalone also wrote:
                            â€There's more to screenwriting than simply writing screenplays. A guy here who goes by the name creative exec talks often about the business side of screenwriting.â€

                            Iâ€TMm not interested at the business side. Maybe in the future. There are plenty of creative people out there who find success without business savvy. But like I said, I might get into it more in the future

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: re

                              Iâ€TMm not interested at the business side. Maybe in the future. There are plenty of creative people out there who find success without business savvy. But like I said, I might get into it more in the future
                              There are maybe half a dozen idiot savants. I'm not talking about business savvy. You don't need an MBA. I'm talking about relating. I'm talking about writing for a market. Of course, what do I know. I bet you could get Anshutz to make an R-rated movie.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X