Two Protagonists with different goals...is this fraught with danger?

J

JT Ryder

Member
I have been reviewing a script which contains two protagonists the first appears to be the main character but then a second protagonist is introduced later in the story in act two. Each of the characters have different goals but are brought together by a chance meeting. Turns out the protagonists are related (father, daughter (illegitimate)) Even with this commonality neither of the character arcs blend to realising the same desire/motivation. It seems to tear the script in different directions as there doesn't seem to be a single motivation to the film.

I realise many films have two protagonists eg Lethal Weapon but both of their primary motivations are the same.

It rings major alarm bells but I need some valid justification for a rather major directional change to the core story.

Has anyone experienced this and should it be avoided...are there any rules/guides?


Cheers
JT.
 
Without seeing the script it's hard to say, off hand I don't see any reason they'd need the same motivation/desire, but at the same time the story should allow for some common ground, most likely late in the third act -- something, somewhere, should simultaneously resolve the two goals. The mere fact that it's father and daughter, by itself doesn't seem to be enough. There should be more.
 
I agree with Brian. It's hard to tell without reading the script myself. But having two protagonists going in different directions isnt inherently a bad thing.

If maybe it just seemed like they weren't jetting for the same goal, then had some twist of a climax showing how both goals, whether they were the same or different, or maybe just seemed different, get resolved. That could work depending on the rest of the script.
 
Just avoid coincidence later in the story, in order to keep the events of the film in the hands of your protagonists, and keep in an active story (not passive). If you deus ex machina them together in the third act climax, Robert McKee will kick you in the head
 
thanks for the feedback guys.

that made me laugh Hans...classic! No, fortunately its not my story and I'll pass on McKee's kick if that is the outcome.

Can any of you suggest any films that have this scenario?
 
I'm gonna double down on this, I'll say it's better, arguably, that the two characters have differing motivations.
 
Brian can you elaborate? eg. example film where it worked as a reference.

I am struggling to think of a film where this occurs. The only one I can think of is Magnolia where there are several separate stories, each with their own protagonist which are then knit together at the end...and each of the stories come to a conclusion by films end.

JT.
 
JT Ryder said:
Brian can you elaborate? eg. example film where it worked as a reference.

I am struggling to think of a film where this occurs. The only one I can think of is Magnolia where there are several separate stories, each with their own protagonist which are then knit together at the end...and each of the stories come to a conclusion by films end.

JT.
Click to expand...

My point would be that two people seeking different goals with different motivations creates conflict and is thus more dramatic. Maybe ZORRO? Zeta-Jones and Banderas had differing motivations yet the two character lines were gracefully fused and also loaded with conflict. Even STAR WARS had multiple characters with different motivations, Luke, Leah, and Hans all seem to be after different things for different reasons. Eventually they all get on the same page. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, again, a lot of conflict in the Ranger company, they all were forced into an external journey (finding Ryan) but there were multiple agendas and motivations.

SPOILER ALERT FOR POST #13
 
Last edited:
Pitch the idea so we can get a handle on what you are jabbering about ... Maybe they are not in fact two protags at all ... More often than not its best to have as much conflict as possible on all fronts otherwise you bed for static which in dramatic terms is the kiss of death and that usually stinks LoL

DogDay
 
Last edited:
Do you have Robert Mckee's book "Story" and the famous Syd Field's "Screen Play"?

I think Mckee would say that two protagonists are ok as long as the controlling idea in consistent between the characters, but both have their own variation on the theme. Although I think he would agree that in most cases the characters should be introduced in Act One. Often introducing a character later in the story (if not part of a subplot) is what bad writers do because they don't know what to do with the main plot, so here come new characters to move the story along.

Which character plot is the main plot? Which is a subplot? Or is you story a Multiple Plot script? What levels of conflict does each character experience (Inner Conflict, Personal conflict, extra personal conflict)? (In a "good" story each character should have all three). Whats the inciting Incident of the main plot and where does in land in regards to the second character entering the story? Act two would indicate he/she enters too late.

It a little complicated unless you have the books, but read chapter 9 of Story again.

Here are some good excerpts from story that might apply.

"a subplot may be used to contradict the controlling idea of the central plot and thus enrich the film with irony."

"Subplots may be used to resonate the controlling idea of the central plot and enrich the film with variations on a theme. If a subplot expresses the same controlling idea as the main plot, but in a different, perhaps unusual way, it creates a variation that strengthens and reinforces the theme."

"When the Central plots inciting incident must be delayed, a setup subplot may be needed to open the storytelling." Such as in Chinatown and Casablanca.

Then again, I'm no expert. If you feel its weird when reading then the audience probably will too while watching.
 
Most screenplays have only one inciting incident, the first plot point that happens once the main characters are established. Introducing a pivotal character in Act 2 is probably a mistake, but it could be tempered by an act one hint of some type.

The real tie in has to be the inciting incident. The single event that really starts both plot and subplot moving. The subplot can be (and usually is) based on a derivative of the inciting incident. On page 12 a bank gets robbed and the Cop must find who did it (main story). During the robbery a clerk gets killed, and his wife seeks revenge (sub plot off of the same incident).

Of course, subplot(s) should have a reason for existing, it must tie back in to the main plot to effect it's outcome (or at least have the ability to effect the outcome). Watch 'No Country for Old Men' to see how unsatisfying a movie is when these guidelines are not adhered to. The Tommy Lee Jones subplot does not effect the outcome, why is it there? The Woody Harrelson character is introduced late and killed off quickly, pointless. Its almost like the writer(s) came up with a great 60 page story and needed to stretch it out. A beautifully shot stinker of a story (just my opinion).

The absolute touchstone for a multiple-plot storyline is Casablanca. Do a google search and you'll come up with volumes written on it. Casablanca and Chinatown are buy and study films, we should all own them.

Good Luck,

Bob
 
Bob...

Have you seen Marathon Man? What would you consider to be the Inciting Incident ( II ) in that film? And who does it impact on which Plot Line;
Main Plot ( MP ) 1st, Sub Plot ( SP ) 2nd, etc.

Which Character is the Protag?

Is there a difference/distinction between A Protag and A Main Character in your opinion?

What would you consider to be the 1st Plot Point ( PP ) in that film?

I am assuming you have seen it ... I ask because I think you have brought up some really important insights concerning II & SP and I would like to hear more from you if you have the time.


Cheers,


DogDay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top