Despite McConaughey’s fantastic performance, the ratings turned out to be mostly right. As a screenwriter, I’m glad I still went, though. I always say we can learn as much, if not more, from films that aren’t perfect than from those that are. ‘Gold’ reinforced for me a very important lesson: heroes that don’t learn anything leave an audience unfulfilled.

First, a quick summary of the movie (skip to the next paragraph if you want to avoid these spoilers):

The hero in Gold, Kenny Wells (Matthew McConaughey) has inherited his family’s mining company, only to run it into the ground (pun intended). In a last ditch effort to save it, he teams up with a discredited gold prospector, Michael Acosta (Edgar Ramirez) to hunt for gold in the jungles of Indonesia. When they strike it rich, the company goes public and they all make a fortune. It’s peaches and cream for Kenny and his loving wife Kay (Bryce Dallas Howard) until the inevitable lure of women and money creates a rift between the money hungry husband and the salt-of-the-earth wife. But Kenny seems to get on just fine without her, until his biggest competitor convinces Indonesia’s president to nationalise Kenny’s company. Penniless, Kenny returns to his ex-wife only to discover she’s dating someone else. Bummer. In another desperate effort to save his company, Kenny and Michael agree to give Indonesia’s president’s son 85%. Everyone’s happy! That is until it’s discovered Acosta faked the gold results. There is no gold! The company fails, Acosta goes missing and Kenny is left with nothing again. Poor Kenny goes back to his ex-wife, AGAIN, tail between his legs, hoping for consolation. What he gets is a check in the mail from the AWOL Acosta for $84 million. Role credits.

First of all, kudos to Patrick Massett, John Zinman for even getting the story on the screen. Writing a screenplay is a heck of a lot of work, and out of the thousands that are written every year, very few get made. Forgive me for a little Monday-morning quarterbacking. My goal is to learn and improve as a screenwriter.

Ok, disclaimer out of the way.

On the surface, this ‘inspired by true events’ story is fascinating. I can see why the producers were sold on the idea. It embodies the American dream of the scrappy underdog who works his ass off, and builds a fortune from nothing. He gets knocked down, not once, but twice, and still ends up on his feet. The problem is, Kenny doesn’t come out of the storm having learned a valuable lesson that the audience can take away with them. He doesn’t change; he doesn’t arc — so I don’t care.

Now, not all heroes have to change. Matt Damon in The Martian didn’t change and people loved that. James Bond (traditionally) and most superheroes don’t change during a film and we know how much money those movies make. But this isn’t that kind of a movie.

This guy was a hard-drinking, chain-smoking man who was loved by a sweet wife and just wanted to save his daddy’s company. He gave his loyalty to a man he hardly knew and was betrayed. When he was rich, it was fun and he deserved it, but he went too far and lost the love of his life. These are all the ingredients you need to deliver an emotionally satisfying film – if only they’re properly arced – but they never are.

Had he confessed to the woman he loved that money wasn’t everything (hopefully in a non-cliché way), maybe then he would have deserved his reward. Had he unwaveringly believed in the partner they say betrayed him and NOT given him up to the feds, then maybe he would have earned that money.

Instead, we have a hero in the beginning of the film that believed in not giving up, but in the end does give up, and yet he gets rewarded anyway.  The money just falls in his lap.

And we’re kinda led to believe that his boomerang relationship with his wife will kick off again into happily ever after.

That’s not the kind of arc audiences want to see.

So my screenwriting lesson from watching ‘Gold’ was this: make sure your hero learns their lesson (unless they’re a tragic hero).

When they do, their reward will feel well deserved.

-Phil Parker

Phil Parker

Screenwriter Phil Parker has written screenplays for directors and producers around the world. His highly awarded spec script ‘The Third Bomb’ is currently under option with BAFTA-winning producer Sias Wilson. Phil also has many years of experience writing scripts for original content and promos at the BBC, where he won a coveted Global Excellence Promax BDA Award for ‘Frontline War’.

www.storiesbyphil.com

Joel Schumacher

An adolescent in the 1980’s, I felt as if St Elmo’s Fire, The Lost Boys and Flatliners were made just for my generation (and a bit for Kiefer Sutherland, too). Because of their relatively high concept, some of these medium budget movies had a massive impact, and director Joel Schumacher could just keep going on. He was given the Batman franchise with the Akiva Goldsman scripted Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, which weren’t necessarily great movies, but they still made their blockbuster budgets back. Well, just.

St Elmo’s Fire, The Lost Boys and Flatliners
were made just for my generation.

With Tigerland he entered more serious territory, and put Colin Farrell on the map as a lead actor. Its budget and shooting schedule would be a challenge for any indie director.

Schumacher has always been flexible in the material he picked. Teen angst, fantasy, war or thriller, he usually delivers a satisfying and cinematic result.

Joel Of All Trades

For more anti-hero examples, check out Joel Schumacher’s Phone Booth, a project that rested on Hitchcock’s shelf for a long time. With Schumacher at the helm, and favourites Farrell and Sutherland (only briefly) in front of the camera, the script was updated and delivered to the screen with dazzling style and dialogue, belying its humble budget. With Colin Farrell as yet another anti-hero example in the role of Stu Shepard, I have always found Phone Booth an inspiration, and a true celebration of audience-driven independent filmmaking.

I have always found Phone Booth an inspiration,
and a true celebration of audience-driven independent filmmaking.

Schumacher – now in his seventies – has remained agile, moving with the taste of the times. Some of his more recent credits saw him join the dignitaries on the directing stable of Netflix’ House Of Cards.

City Of Demons

In Falling Down (1993), recently retrenched defence worker William “D-Fens” (Michael Douglas) goes out of control on a sweltering day in L.A. It shows Schumacher just as comfortable shooting on the streets of New York in Phone Booth, as in the suburban sprawl of Los Angeles, where our anti-hero’s tragedy plays out. In fact this is one of my favourite nineties movies when it comes to portraying the city of angels, often using gorgeous long lens shots, against an ominous soundtrack. Only Michael Mann would top this two years later with Heat.

This is one of my favourite nineties movies
when it comes to portraying the city of angels.

Los Angeles may be cinematically sexy in this movie, it is surely not a happy city. Protagonists and antagonists all fight their own demons. Robert Duvall plays the proverbial fin de carrière cop, who will catch the baddy at the end. However, before the hero vs. anti-hero finale in the climax, he will pay a heavy price.

Falling Down starts from an interesting premise, in that the hero is not the protagonist. Central to this movie is the anti-hero of D-Fens, played by Michael Douglas, who turns in a landmark performance.

The Devil’s Advocate

D-Fens is the devil’s advocate. Why do we empathise with this anti-hero? Because he represents the disgruntled Angelino who is mad as hell, and he is not going to take it anymore. Only, D-Fens’ anger is of the not-so-pc kind.

In our movie moment, a Korean store owner refuses to break a dollar for his customer’s phone call, and D-Fens explodes like a nail bomb in slow motion. As his rage builds, D-Fens reveals his revenge strategy against this city… The poor dude won’t die at his hands. But he will suffer. While taking the shop down, D-Fens hurls insult after insult at the poor shopkeeper, who is hiding behind the counter.

The poor dude won’t die at his hands.
But he will suffer.

The shopkeeper, who now believes D-Fens is after his money, tells him to take it. D-Fens replies:

“You think I’m a thief? Oh, you see, I’m not the thief. I’m not the one charging 85 cents for a *stinking* soda! You’re the thief. I’m just standing up for my rights as a consumer.”

Plummeting Down

This is an important scene in the movie, as it feels like the first watershed in the anti-hero’s steep downward descent, referenced in the movie title.  The scene opens with the Korean topping up the till, proving he definitely doesn’t lack small change. However, he may be sick of customers entering his shop without buying. So don’t push his buttons… Which leaves us with the dramatic question for this scene: “Who of these two men is more p***ed off?”

– Karel Segers

[vimeo 120000828 w=900 h=389]

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

by Steven Fernandez

Some writers may try to defend the use of unheroic protagonists under the excuse of trying to be “gritty”, or “realistic”, or “un-American”.  Others may resort to the excuse of being intellectually “sophisticated” and/or post-modernist.  I say that excuses are all these rationales ever are.  And feeble ones at that!

In the first two essays of this series, I have decisively refuted all these standard excuses.  Go back and re-read those essays if you today think any of the standard excuses have merit.  In addition, I will repeat what I said in essay two:  Compelling stories come from making a stand.

Now, your story won’t make a clear stand if your protagonist is wishy-washy or substanceless.  Why?  Because viewers will experience your film through the lens of your protagonist.  If your protagonist is flimsy or lacking in any praiseworthy qualities, then the viewer will be drawn to the conclusion that your film makes no real stand.  And they will conclude this even if you, as the writer, did in fact have a concrete stand in mind.If your protagonist is flimsy or lacking in any praiseworthy qualities, then the viewer will be drawn to the conclusion that your film makes no real stand.

 Viewers will experience your film through the lens of your protagonist.

A second important point about flimsy and unpraiseworthy central characters is that they are not likeable!  Which means that few people will truly enjoy your film when it screens.  And so word of mouth (which is always the best form of advertising) will go against your film.  Which won’t make your producer interested in your next film!

So the first requirement of any protagonist is that they have some praiseworthy qualities.  In short, that they are at least part-way heroic!  For anyone out there who is right now writing or rewriting a funded screenplay, I command you:  Stop perpetuating the local convention of having a loser or a dubious person as a protagonist!  You are not being either clever or “artistic” by doing that.  You, instead, are just fooling yourself.

The need to make your protagonist heroic should not be interpreted to mean that this character must be some saintly figure.  Nor does it mean that he or she must be some super-skilled person who can take on a CIA mission that has hopeless odds of success.  All it means is that the character possesses some virtues after all.  Even if those virtues are not immediately obvious to the casual viewer.  Let me give you three examples to make this point concrete:-

1) A drug-taking street girl might have a strong sense of social justice.  Perhaps she even participates in peace and environment rallies.  And she has this sense of justice despite (or, perhaps, because of) the grim and dire conditions she lives in.

2) A dismissed and shunned nerd-boy might have the inner qualities of courage, integrity, and chivalry.  And this fact might only be hinted at until, say, he rescues a cat being chased by grunt schoolboys.

3) A sexually confused young artist might sleep around and be minimally employed.  Yet, at the same time, he may have a selective code of honour where he, for instance, never deserts a friend in need.  Alternatively (or, even, additionally), he may possess a superb work ethic when it comes to his own art.  Such that he is prepared to do whatever it takes to deliver the very best of his painting talent to a client.

None of these characters are all-perfect.  Yet each have a heroic streak in them.  And this is exactly the way it should be with the protagonists that you, yourself, create in your own screenplays.

By the way:  None of the three characters, above, are either boring, superficial, or stereotypical.  Which smashes a preconception I have sensed from some local writers.  Namely, that virtuous characters are necessarily boring ones.

Apart from inner virtues, a protagonist should also have a goal that is engaging.  In fact, preferably a goal that is noble as well.  This is another aspect of the protagonist that Australian films typically fall flat about.

Apart from inner virtues, a protagonist should also have a goal that is engaging.

Too often in local films the protagonist has either no clearly discernable major goal, or a major goal that is lame.  For example, a male protagonist who just wants to camp out with his drinking buddies does not have a major goal worth speaking about.  Unless, I suppose, this goal is just his initial goal … A goal that will lure him into an impending upheaval that will happen at the campsite.

For the major goal to be engaging, it must be one that the protagonist must step right out of his comfort zone to attempt.  It also must be a goal that will be not at all easy for him to accomplish.  For example, a young man who is afraid of heights might briefly meet an attractive girl at some party.  After asking all his friends, he might discover that she is a skydiving instructor.  Suddenly the man has a taxing goal:  Will he succeed in pretending to be a skydiving student so that he can begin a relationship with her?

It is also advisable that the protagonist’s major goal is noble (or at least praiseworthy).  While I won’t go as far as to say that this is an unbreakable rule, I will point out that few protagonists elicit viewer sympathy more deeply than ones with noble intentions.  Even if those protagonists are seriously flawed, hopelessly misguided, or comically incompetent.

No matter how ‘corny’ you may think it is for a protagonist to have a noble goal, it is inescapable that viewers sympathise the most with such characters.  In contrast, the typical Australian film protagonist is an invertebrate bore.

To sum up, Australian feature film stories need to start presenting central characters that have some praiseworthy (if not noble) qualities in them.  Even if those qualities are not immediately obvious to the viewer.  On top of that, the protagonist needs to have an engaging major goal that will tax him or her.  And, again, it is preferable that this major goal is noble, or at least praiseworthy.

Photo Credit: Antoine Hubert – Johan J.Ingles-Le Nobel – Adam Bailey

-Steven Fernandez

Steven Fernandez is a writer-director of short films and theatrical shows in Sydney, Australia.

He is currently writing Human Liberation – an epic novel and screenplay package set in mythic ancient Greece.

]]> https://www.thestorydepartment.com/why-protagonists-must-have-some-virtues/feed/ 2 21800 https://www.thestorydepartment.com/best-of-the-web-19-aug/ https://www.thestorydepartment.com/best-of-the-web-19-aug/#respond Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:06:19 +0000 https://thestorydepartment.com/?p=24558 Read more]]> Story & Structure

:: Why Good Description Worked for the Matrix but Didn’t for Matrix Reloaded
:: Screenplay Review – Cloud Atlas
:: Brandon Cohen – Finding YOUR Voice
:: Walt Disney/Touchstone ‘Titanic’ Coverage

Script Perfection

:: How To Make A Genre Movie – Infographics!
:: Is Your Hero Wrong?
:: Your Audience is Intelligent
:: 30 Indispensable Writing Tips From Famous Authors
:: Stephen King – “The thing is, they pay you the big bucks to finish.”

Pitching & Selling

:: So you want my Job: An interview with Screenwriter, Stephen Scaia
:: Top 5 Reader Questions, Answered by a TV and Blog Writer
:: Jane Espenson: There’s No Opinion Like Your Own Opinion, But Just How Good is Your Taste?

Best of the Rest

:: Cryptic Canvas: Find 50 Films in this Picture
:: Poorly Translated Subtitles from a Chinese Bootleg of The Avengers
:: Ang Lee’s ‘Life of PI’ will open the New York Film Festival
:: Take 12 Minutes to Listen to a Great Speech – Other People’s Money (1991)
:: Final Online-Only Trailer for Laika’s Must-See ‘ParaNorman’
:: Severe Writer’s Block (With Flair)
:: A Closer Look at Marvel’s New ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’
:: Advances in Technology Gives us More Freedom – Case-in-point: X-Men
_______________________________

With thanks to Jamie Campbell and Brooke Trezise.

Enjoy!

Karel

Jamie Campbell

Jamie Campbell is an author, screenwriter, and television addict.

Jamie is proud to be an Editor for The Story Department.

Her latest series Project Integrate is out now.

jamiecampbell.com.au

:: Create A Compelling Protagonist
:: Is Your Hero Wrong?
:: Are We Hardwired to Interpret the World Through Stories
:: Inception Breakdown
:: How To Write A Treatment
:: Some Winning Synopsis’s
:: ‘The Storytelling Animal,’ by Jonathan Gottschall

Script Perfection

:: 100 Exquisite Adjectives
:: Screenwriting Tip #1069 – Readability
:: Scriptcat’s Top Ten Questions For Aspiring Screenwriters

Pitching & Selling

:: Does Hollywood not Care about Scripts that are Bad and Unoriginal?
:: The Difficult Challenge of Media Alignment

Best of the Rest

:: The Dark Knight Custom-Made Batcave Theatre
:: Interview: ‘Klown’ Writers/Stars Frank Hvam & Casper Christensen
:: 10 Films to look out for at the Toronto Film
:: 8 Tips For Becoming a Good Warm-Up Guy
:: How They Write A Script: Wendell Mayes
:: Your Favorite Films from your Favorite Film Makers
:: More Your Favourite Filmmakers’ Favourite Films
:: Awesome People Reading
:: My Favourite Hitchcock: Rebecca
_______________________________

With thanks to Jamie Campbell and Brooke Trezise.

Enjoy!

Karel

Jamie Campbell

Jamie Campbell is an author, screenwriter, and television addict.

Jamie is proud to be an Editor for The Story Department.

Her latest series Project Integrate is out now.

jamiecampbell.com.au

_______________________________

With thanks to Sol.

Enjoy!

Karel

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Hauge claims the Inner and Outer Journey run in parallel. I think he’s right, with one small caveat.

A gorgeous Sunday morning in a Manly cafe with a view on the ocean. Perfect circumstances to switch off.

Not if you’re me. I was pondering story structure. And suddenly I had this thought.

Think of a character’s journey as a journey of change. Nothing new so far.

If you look at both the Inner and Outer Journey of a film story as defined in terms of  ‘change’, you’ll see they are structured identically.

I remembered this review of HANCOCK, where the critic pointed out that early in the movie we realise Hancock is a character who needs redemption. He needs to change. Like Bill Murray’s character in GROUNDHOG DAY, Robert Downey Junior’s character in IRON MAN, Bob in THE INCREDIBLES or THELMA AND LOUISE. Or pretty much any hero in any successful movie. They’re all transformational.

In every movie with a character arc, first there is a more or less visible ‘need for change’.

In this first sequence of many successful films, we see the hero’s flawed behaviour. We understand: this character needs to change in order to find happiness, an emotional or psychological balance, to realise a full life.

Then the Inciting Incident happens. Almost always AFTER we understand the character’s inner problem, that ‘need for change’.

Pondering over this, I started mapping it out over the 3-Act time line and I came to an interesting conclusion: the character journey, whether it is Inner or Outer, has three stages:

1. the need for change (a situation of conflict)
2. the journey of change (obstacles and increased conflict)
3. the result of change (conflict resolved, new situation)

Let’s look how these three stages play out over the inner and outer journey:

INNER JOURNEY (that which brings change to the character’s behaviour)

1. the need for change: opening until inciting incident (halfway Act One)
2. the journey of change: from inciting incident until crisis (end Act Two)
3. the result of change: conflict resolved, new situation (halfway to end of Act Three)

OUTER JOURNEY (that which brings change to the world)

1. the need for change: inciting incident until end of Act One
2. the journey of change: from beginning of Act Two until Resolution
3. the result of change: from Resolution to end of movie

Stages 1. and 3. are much clearer in terms of their visible clues about the change. The second stage (mostly Act Two) is murkier. It is a gradual change, which is a matter of ups and downs, victories and defeats.

The 2nd act Inner Journey is largely defined by the mid point.

Because the Inner Journey is weaker in this act, the mid point (the “S” in the middle on the pic.) keeps the story in balance.

Let’s have a look what this would look like on the 3-Act time line:

The vertical lines are the act breaks, the crosses are Inciting Incident and Climax/Resolution.

So we can conclude the following:

Inner & Outer Journey are identical, only shifted in time.

The meaning of this timeshift is simply the following:

In order to get what s/he wants, the Hero must first transform.

It may not be a new view at story structure, but I haven’t seen this approach anywhere else.
Try it, it may work for you.

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Follow “StoryDepth” on Twitter and receive the news as & when we find it.

And don’t forget you can subscribe to our posts so you don’t miss any of this, ever.

• Every deserving screenplay ultimately finds a buyer
• A look at Paranormal Activity, a “claustrophobic classic”
• “Messy and awkward”: a script review of New Moon.
• Selling specs to Hollywood? Keep afloat with the 2010 releases.
• Emotions fuel the fire, turning your anxieties into good writing.
• Fake out? Fiction writers and the responsibility to your readers.
• Some advice: “Write what you know hurts.”
• James Berardinelli’s Turkeys of 2009
• Shane Black Confronts your fears: Interview
• The 5 S’s of Screenwriting
• Sony Pictures Classics: Scripts for your Consideration
• “How long does it take to get paid once you sell a screenplay?”
• The Verdict: Screenplay for download from mypdfscripts.com
• Stephen King plots sequel to Shining
• Have at least one spec of everything
• Oscar winning Pulp Fiction writer tweets from prison
• The Belgian that may dominate our cinemas in 2011 (and it’s not me)
• First Hobbit Movie Script Complete

And largely unrelated but too much fun not to include:

• Matrix goes Lego. Dodge this!
• Close Encounters of the Redneck Kind

With many thanks to Sol, who we’re wishing a safe return to New York!

Enjoy!

Karel

It is also the #1 movie I will never forgive myself for not seeing in the theaters at the time of release. It’s in my Top 10 of all-time favourites and a strong reference movie in almost all my story classes.

ACT ONE

Prologue: The Glory Days & Wound (11mins)

00.00 TV interview: The Incredibles about their secret identities.
02.00 Mr Incredible called to the rescue, but saves the cat first.
04.30 Meets with Elastigirl on rooftop – “prior engagement”.
05.30 Bob saves man from suicide attempt, he’s not happy.
06.30 Bob stops Bomb Voyage, Incrediboy complicates matters.
09.00 Bob marries Elastigirl: she needs more than Mr. Incredible.
10.00 Superheroes are sued by suicidal: relocation program.

Sequence A: The Ordinary Life (9mins)

11.00 15 years later: Insurance clerk, warned to stop writing cheques.
13.00 After Helen sees headmaster, Dash told to be like everyone else.
15.30 Violet is shy. Always trying to be invisible. Boy looked at her!
16.00 Bob comes home, frustrated. Neighbour’s boy sees him.
16.30 Dinner: they all use their powers, Bob is not in control.
18.30 Robert reads paper: Advocate of superhero rights is missing.
19.00 Frozone calls: Wednesday, it’s bowling night.
19.30 Violet: What does anybody know about normal?

Sequence B: Secrets, Lies & Inciting Incident (14mins)

20.00 Frozone: What if we did what our wives think we’re doing?
20.30 Mirage: “He’s not alone”.
21.00 Fire rescue, escape into into jewellery shop, police catches them.
23.00 Helen: Uprooting our family to be a superhero is not good.
26.00 Boss cross: customers are experts, Bob has enough, loses it.
28.30 Boss in hospital. Relocator offers to help Bob & family.
30.00 Invitation from Mirage: Do great things. 24 hours to respond.
32.30 Lying to Helen: sent to conference. Accepting Mirage’s call.

ACT TWO A

Sequence C: Living the Dream again (12mins)

34.00 Mirage gives Bob instructions, he arrives on the island.
36.00 Bob fights the robot, terminates it. Mission accomplished.
38.30 Invited to dinner with Mirage; everything is delicious.
39.30 Montage sequence: Bob is loving the great new life.
41.00 Bob asks stylist E to repair suit; she will design new supersuit.
44.00 New assignment: Bob keeps lying to Helen.

Sequence D: Things are not what they seem (7mins)

45.00 Flying to island, nice to be back, Mirage. Briefing for 2pm.
47.00 Helen finds patched suit, calls Edna. You come in 1 hour I insist.
48.00 Bob’s meeting: I’m Syndrome, your biggest fan. You work alone.
50.30 Syndrome tries to kill Bob, he jumps in water.
51.00 Bob finds dead super Gazerbeam. “K R O N O S”
51.30 Tracers trying to find Bob: terminated.

ACT TWO B

Sequence E: Approach to Syndrome’s HQ (9mins)

52.00 E shows Helen her work: we are retired! Do you know where he is?
55.00 Removing the guards, going in.
57.30 Bob learns that the Supers are dead.
58.00 Helen finds out Bob left company, he’s  been lying.
59.30 Locator betrays Bob. Bob caught in Blobs.
60.00 E to Helen: go, fight, win!

Sequence F: Bob in the Cave / Family to the rescue (9mins)

61.00 Helen gets ready, Dash sees outfits. Calling Snug.
62.30 Helen & kids flies gov. jet, missile attack on approach.
63.30 Bob chained – Syndrome shows up.
67.30 Helen saves the kids. Get a grip!
68.30 Bob threatens to kill Mirage, doesn’t do it. S: You’re weak!
70.00 Helen to kids: use your powers. I’ll be back by morning.

Sequence G: FINDING BOB (9mins)

72.30 Mirage: Next time you gamble, bet your own life.
73.30 Helen goes into HQ, using her Elastigirl powers.
76.00 Dash: I’m gonna look around.
77.30 Rocket launch: Dash & Vi run.
78.30 Dash & Vi discovered. They have to run.
79.30 Mirage tells Bob his family is alive. Helen finds the two.

Sequence H: REUNION IN THE CAVE (7mins)

82.00 Dash runs & fights & runs.
83.30 Bob & Helen // Violet disappears, Dash to the rescue.
85.00 Family reunion.
85.30 S appears. Captures them, shows what the robots do. “I’m real”
87.30 Bob apologises, Violet releases them, escaping.

ACT THREE

Sequence I: Threshold Sequence (5mins)

88.00 To the rocket, Mirage helps
89.00 Frozone getting ready
90.00 Syndrome “saves baby” but can’t stop robot.
91.00 Incredibles arrive with bus.

Sequence J: INCREDIBLES vs. SYNDROME (8mins)

93.00 Robot attacks them.
94.00 Frozone helps. Bob has the remote control.
97.00 Taking out the robot.
97.30 Syndrome still around
98.00 New hope for the supers.
99.00 Kari (babysit) calls: thanks for replacement – S
99.30 Jack-Jack’s special powers. Bob throws Helen.
100.30 S in turbine / Violet protects them.

Sequence J: THE INCREDIBLE(S) TEAM (3mins)
101.30 3 months later: Tony & Violet / Dash comes close second
102.30 The Underminer: they all get ready to work together.

THE HERO’S JOURNEY

In a prologue full of beautifully dramatised exposition, we meet Bob, Helen, Frozone and Incrediboy. We learn about the role of the Supers and their fall – or Bob’s ‘wound’.

ACT ONE

The Ordinary World for Bob doesn’t start until after the prologue, “15 Years Later”. It is literally an ‘ordinary’ world and he has a strong longing to swap this life for something more exciting. This stage extends for two sequences, in which we see Bob’s boring day job as well as his exciting secret night escapades.

But he is a flawed hero. He lies to his wife and hates his job. He is blamed of not doing his fatherly duties. This Hero is ready for change.

The Call to Adventure comes with the message from Mirage, the Herald and Shapeshifter who seduces Bob into a adventure that promises exactly what Bob has been lacking in his life.

After hardly any Refusal, Bob crosses the Threshold and accepts Mirages offer. Again he lies to Helen, saying he’s off to a conference.

ACT TWO

The typical pitfalls of a second act are overcome by using a solid sequential structure and by interweaving Bob’s journey with that of his family. In the middle of the act sits a powerful Mid Point Reversal, which accelerates the Hero’s Inner Journey and gives his Outer Journey a new direction.

The first half of Act Two consists of a number of Tests for Bob, leading to his first assignment, which Bob completes effortlessly. So in a way this assignment can be seen as just another ‘test’ in the journey. Bob is loving his new life. But he’s still living the lie, so a reversal is looming. Going back to the island, he is to meet with with his employer but instead he is attacked by a robot and for the first time, he finds himself face to face with Syndrome, his Shadow.  It turns out he has created this shadow by rejecting (his need for a) Buddy. In order to resurrect as the transformed Hero, Bob will not only need to defeat Syndrome, but take on the very character quality Buddy/Syndrome represented: team spirit.

Although The Incredibles never FEELS formulaic, it ticks all the boxes of the Journey, including the almost cliche’d beat of the Mid Point: the Leap of Faith. To escape his enemy, Bob dives off the cliff (Butch & Sundance style) into the water below. Seconds later, the reversal is complete when he learns the full truth about Syndrome and the fate of the Supers by discovering the meaning of “KRONOS”.

The next sequence is a typical Approach to the Inmost Cave, i.e. trying to get into Syndrome’s HQ. There, Mr Incredible will face his lowest point when he is chained in the cave, first alone, then together with his family.

The traditionally melodramatic Ordeal scene is peppered with mild sarcasm,  when Dash cuts into Bob’s redemption speech and Helen says: “Shhht! Don’t interrupt…”

Brad Bird shows again how you can use a template like the Hero’s Journey and use it in an original way: the Reward is shown BEFORE the Ordeal, as we see on a big screen what Syndrome is up to. So the Incredibles know where to go and what to do once they’re out of their predicament. It makes the transition more fluid than in many movies, where the Reward magically – and quite randomly – appears immediately after the redemption.

ACT THREE

The Road Back ‘Threshold Sequence’ is a fully fledged chase sequence back to the Ordinary World, including running, flying and driving.Technically you can argue that this sequence belongs nor in Act Two (Special World) nor Act Three (Ordinary World) but I place it in Act Three because it happens after the Hero is ready to confront the Shadow. The race to the mainland is in effect the first action after the 2nd Act Turning Poing (PP2 or Ordeal/Reward).

Back on the main land, the family engages with Syndrome. The subplot of Jack-Jack and the babysit leads into the final showdown and Syndrome’s demise pays off the setup about the caped Super-costumes. Delightful.

In a brief Elixir-sequence, Dash finally  gets his chance to shine and Violet shows her regained self-esteem. In the final scene of the movie we see how the Incredibles will continue their lives.

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

As much as I loved it for its characters and situations, my first screenplay turned out to be 132 pages long, twelve pages over the 120 page limit for screenplays.  I knew that I had to cut it down to size and began the editing process.  I came to the conclusion that I was trying to throw too much into one screenplay.  As an excited amateur, I tried to stuff all these ideas I had into 120 pages, and it wasn’t going to work. I also found that many elements of the story weren’t working together.  I was trying to force a lot of situations that just didn’t seem all that natural.

DO I NEED FRANK?

One thing I noticed in particular was my struggle to close a character’s storyline.  His name was Frank, and he was supposed to be ultimately revealed as a figment of the protagonist’s imagination, a fractured creation of his mind due to the trauma of the experiences we see him go through.
I found it wiser to question whether or not I needed Frank. He was something that I fumbled with, something that just would not fit.  It was in my issues with Frank that I realized something important.  Frank may have been memorable, but he was extraneous to the overall plot.  He was a shortcut to explain certain things about the protagonist.  I had taken the cheap way out.  And because of that, ultimately Frank was cut out of the screenplay, and the story reworked.  The lesson that I learned here: All characters must exist for a reason, and a good one.

So, to elaborate on the topic of those who inhabit the world you are creating for an audience: my expertise is in the creation of unique and interesting characters.  These characters are fueled by my real life observations of all the people around me.  By simply opening up my eyes and ears, I overhear little tidbits of conversations of real people who are leading real lives, all with very authentic and genuine emotions.  I like to think that each individual is just that: an individual.  I find out what makes them unique, what drives them to do the things that they do.
In learning these things about a person, you can create a character in the same way.  Use your imagination.  Why does your protagonist do the things he does, why are those emotions in his heart?  Keep asking yourself why.  In the same way that you get to know a person, become very intimate with your character.

THE ROUNDABOUT WAY

Great characters are not all a good screenplay needs.  As great as I was at introducing quirks and writing a unique voice for each of my characters, my screenplays often lacked a strong structure.

I’m a very verbose and structureless person.  And it’s reflected in my writing and my screenplays.  Considering that it’s in my nature to tell stories in a way that are rather indirect and in a roundabout way, changing my writing style was one of my greatest challenges.  If you asked me how to get to the Trump International Hotel in Manhattan, I’d probably tell you that you could go take the D train to 59th St-Columbus Circle stop.  I know this because I used to work the area as an outside salesman.  You get up from the station, and look north.  Across the street and down a block is a store that I made my first sale for that company.  And boy, let me tell you, it was quite a thrill.  From that day on, I decided that I would become the best salesman ever and learn to close 90% of the time.  That’s how I ended up coming across this book entitled Influence, which I bought on Amazon.  Did you know that Amazon has some of the best prices?  You can even get free shipping and…..

And somewhere along the way, I’d forget to tell you precisely how to get there.  Though you’d end up with a great story about my experience as a salesman, you’d also probably be thinking, “Okay…well, that’s great, but how do I get to the hotel?”

The same goes for your screenplay: each moment in your screenplay must be moving towards something.  Your screenplay may have great character depth, but if those characters have no clear direction, your audience will become uninterested and bored as they watch you wander around with the hero in a disjointed fashion.  As such, you have to create a compelling and dramatic story.  Remember to ask yourself, where am I going with this scene?  Does it enhance the drama?  What does it show the audience?

A screenplay is not just pages and pages of dialogue taking place in various locations.  Nor is it simply a pair of talking heads.  It is the blueprint for a film, the culmination of dramatic story telling and compelling characters.  It is an emotional experience.  It is cinema.

INT. LUANNE’S APARTMENT – DAY

Later that day I meet up with Luanne and tell her about my dream.  I am a little hesitant to tell her about the extended hug.  But I tell her everything and lay it out for her, shot by shot.  As I finish recounting my dream to her, she replies with a sophomoric, “Ewww…”  I was right: she’s not very sensitive.  I make a mental note: if I ever need an insensitive and unfeminine figure in my screenplay, I’ll look to Luanne.

-Terry Ip
Self-styled perennial student of film working towards a career with a pension.

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!