Must hero always compete over goal?

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
I read (e.g. Truby) how good stories usually have the hero fighting with an opponent/antagonist over the goal. How often is this really necessary in stories? I don't really see this in mysteries, thrillers, and romcoms that often, or else I am missing seeing it. Sure-- Indian Jones and the Ark of the Covenant-- we see Indiana fighting over the evil archeologist (working with the Nazis) for finding the prized Ark of the covenant--but that is an action story. But with other genres, how often is such a fight with another human over a goal necessary, how often does it happen? Can the struggle by the hero for a goal (outer motivation, visible goal by end of story) be against a mystery, a dangerous world, the hero herself, etc?
 
Don't forget the classic conflicts -- there are four, and only one is man vs. man. Man vs. nature, man vs. machine, man vs. himself are all core conflicts. In those cases, machine, nature, and self are antagonists.

But I'd submit machine and self are actually vs. man (the builder of the machine, the hero himself), and also that in mysteries and thrillers, the opponent may be unseen, but it's still a man.

A story is about someone overcoming obstacles to reach a goal. The most fluid, unpredictible, and satisfying obstacles come from other people.
 
So you would agree a central human antagonist is not needed for a story to work? Other more minor humans as conflict sources along the journey, as well as non-human or institutional sources of conflict (I mean literally an instiution---business, university, hospital, etc), could work? As contrasted with a central key human antagonist.

David Jimerson said:
Don't forget the classic conflicts -- there are four, and only one is man vs. man. Man vs. nature, man vs. machine, man vs. himself are all core conflicts. In those cases, machine, nature, and self are antagonists.

But I'd submit machine and self are actually vs. man (the builder of the machine, the hero himself), and also that in mysteries and thrillers, the opponent may be unseen, but it's still a man.

A story is about someone overcoming obstacles to reach a goal. The most fluid, unpredictible, and satisfying obstacles come from other people.
Click to expand...
 
Any of those institutions are people. They do not exist as things themselves.

In any case, yes, the hero can be battling something other than a man. But it's usually more interesting matching wits with someone, rather than overcoming a dispassionate obstacle. Climbing a mountain, while challenging for the climber, isn't very interesting to watch.
 
I guess what I am asking is if the hero must battle a central opponent for the specific end goal, the prize. Or if human minor opponents, sometimes part of an institution, can be sources of conflict, can be a collective antagonist, but they are not battling for the prize, only impeding the hero's quest towards that prize? And what would be a couple of examples of such movies?

David Jimerson said:
Any of those institutions are people. They do not exist as things themselves.

In any case, yes, the hero can be battling something other than a man. But it's usually more interesting matching wits with someone, rather than overcoming a dispassionate obstacle. Climbing a mountain, while challenging for the climber, isn't very interesting to watch.
Click to expand...
 
I think, though there are sure to be exceptions, that if there isn't a central point of opposition of some kind, then it's pretty easy for the story to be unfocused. Not to say it will always be, but it's a pretty big risk.
 
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid -- seems like Butch and Sundance have a goal of simply escaping, getting away. Opposition is the posse or the Law in general that wants them. I suppose one could argue the goal that both fight over is B&S's freedome. But is there a central human antagonist?

But I do see what you are saying. Better to have a common goal for the hero and a human antagonist for maximum effect. In e.g. Silence of the Lambs, okay I see that Clarice the hero wants the same thing that the central opponent (Buffalo Bill) wants-- the human hostage in the pit (the innocent lamb). But in many horror or mystery stories, e.g.

But in


David Jimerson said:
I think, though there are sure to be exceptions, that if there isn't a central point of opposition of some kind, then it's pretty easy for the story to be unfocused. Not to say it will always be, but it's a pretty big risk.
Click to expand...
 
That's not really what I'm talking about -- I don't mean a central human point of opposition. I mean, it shouldn't just be a series of short, unrelated hurdles -- that's not a cohesive script.

Butch & Sundance are running from their phantom image of Lefors for a lot of the film. But I'd argue that their main anatagonist, their man obstacle, is a central figure -- their own nature.
 
Story is conflict.

Film stories are *visual* conflicts.

You might have a human antagonist or some force of antagonism (that is physical in nature - because we need to see it for it to show up on film).

Probably the majority of romantic comedies have a "Bellamy" - a character who is going to steal the one true love away from the protagonist. That might be Tim Robbins in HIGH FIDELITY or Cameron Diaz in MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING. Sometimes it's not a lover that is stealing the one true love, but a boss with a job that requires a transfer or some other *action* that will remove protag from love interest.

Here's the thing - the antagonist is the most important character in any script. They bring the conflict. Take a thriller, mystery, crime story - let's use CSI or LAW & ORDER TV shows just for the heck of it. Without the antagonist - the killer - there is no story. These shows are a hunt for the killer, who is clever at either escaping from capture and/or obscuring their trail. So we have kind of a cat & mouse story - but we often do not know the identity of the killer until the end. That doesn't mean they aren't there, and that the protagonist isn't battling to find them. But without the killer - the L&O cops or CSI:BARSTOW team are just sitting around playing cards. Without the antagonist - the killer - there is no show.

Most movies have protagonists with "character arcs" - an emotional conflict that they are battling. So a movie story will usually be about a protagonist who is forced to resolve an emotional conflict (character arc) in order to resolve a physical conflict (the antagonist or force of antagonism). Indiana Jones is the most curious person on earth - he seeks the Lost Ark, but not for money or fame. He wants to know its secrets! That curiosity gets him in trouble again and again... as he races to get the ark before Beloq & the Nazis.

Here's another thing - movies can't have a dead conflict. If the conflict is over, the closing credits are on their way. So movie conflicts tend to be alive and evolvng and growing. There are *stakes* - something that will go very very wrong if the conflict is not resolved. An "or else factor". That is why you seldom see a traditional murder mystery on film - the victim is dead and isn't going to get any worse. You *do* see lots of serial killer movies, due to the or else factor. If we don't catch the killer, he or she or it will kill again.

So Indy must stop Beloq & the Nazis from getting the ark, or else they will use it to win WW2.

Indy gets the ark, it is taken away from him, and eventually he gets the chance to satiate his curiousity - he gets to see what is inside the ark. He has spent the whole film wanting to know this, wanting to look inside. But he has also learned that Marion is important to him... more important than the contents of the ark. And now he must deal with his curiosity - which gets him into trouble - in order to survive... and close his eyes and *not* see what is in the ark. Deciding not to see what's in the ark is his arc.

And the villains are hoist by their own petard.

JAWS without Bruce the shark? TWISTER without the twisters?

You need conflicts that can be seen - or they won't show up on film. Usually that's a human villain or some physical force of antagonism, but - because humans are emotional - there is also usually an emotional conflict that the protag is struggling with.

I just wrote an article for Script Mag about the conflicts in FIVE EASY PIECES and BOUND FOR GLORY - completely 70s films where the protagonist's nature is the problem, so *again and again* they have battles with people who try to force them to conform. In BOUND there are union goons, railroad cops, rich dudes who kick him out of their car in the middle of nowhere, radio station managers, and many people who physically fight with him. Also, you have that dust storm that forces him to move from Texas to CA when he has no money at all. Woody picks fights with everyone who doesn't see the world his way (same with Bobby in FIVE). These types of stories are all about the emotional problem ("character arc") thing - and the emotional conflict must be externalized into physical conflicts. Probably more fist fights in BOUND than in any two BOURNE movies.

- Bill
 
Last edited:
wcmartell said:
Story is conflict.

Film stories are *visual* conflicts.

You might have a human antagonist or some force of antagonism (that is physical in nature - because we need to see it for it to show up on film).

Probably the majority of romantic comedies have a "Bellamy" - a character who is going to steal the one true love away from the protagonist. That might be Tim Robbins in HIGH FIDELITY or Cameron Diaz in MY BEST

....

, and many people who physically fight with him. Also, you have that dust storm that forces him to move from Texas to CA when he has no money at all. Woody picks fights with everyone who doesn't see the world his way (same with Bobby in FIVE). These types of stories are all about the emotional problem ("character arc") thing - and the emotional conflict must be externalized into physical conflicts. Probably more fight fights in BOUND than in any two BOURNE movies.

- Bill
Click to expand...

Very nice posting, you get an "A" on this one.

Thanks!
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
I guess what I am asking is if the hero must battle a central opponent for the specific end goal, the prize. Or if human minor opponents, sometimes part of an institution, can be sources of conflict, can be a collective antagonist, but they are not battling for the prize, only impeding the hero's quest towards that prize? And what would be a couple of examples of such movies?
Click to expand...

brianluce said:
Just to make sure everyone knows, wcmartell is one of the web's best screenwriting teachers. He's also written a lot of produced features. A real treat that he's coming here now.
Click to expand...

I second that on Bill...

The antagonist can be ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO BE.

In your example above however, these minor human opponents SHOULD, in a cumulative way, represent some antagonistic force overall.

Unk
 
Last edited:
Rememer your films central theme, the forces of antagonism are not random but linked to the theme.

If you have more than one force of antagonism coming from different directions, with a different set of moral values - you get a very confusing script and the theme is lost.

So while your force of antagonism can be anyone or thing - and even change mid-point through a story form person to person, it all should come from the same moral standpoint. Think of antagonism more as an ideology threatening your protagonist and it's easier to keep track of it and make sure you're not diverging from your theme.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
I read (e.g. Truby) how good stories usually have the hero fighting with an opponent/antagonist over the goal. How often is this really necessary in stories? I don't really see this in mysteries, thrillers, and romcoms that often, or else I am missing seeing it. ...
Click to expand...
You're missing it.

"hero" wants X, another person (usually) or place or thing wants X, wants Y which would keep "hero" from getting X, or wants to keep hero from getting X.

Truby's being a bit absolute in his terms, but you must have a main character that wants something and they must endeavor to get it. That's what hold our interest, hooks us. But that's not enough, the thing has to be hard to get. So you must have an obstacle. If another person is the source of that obstacle then boom you have a very literal one for one interpretation of what Truby is on about. Look at MEET THE PARENTS. Stiller (hero) wants the girl's affections. Deniro (antagonist) wants to keep the girl, his daughter for himsefl / wants to keep Stiller from having her. Conflict.

But you have to have
CHARACTER THAT WANTS SOMETHING
SOME KIND OF OBSTACLE
the two of which lead to the most important element
CONFLICT CONFLICT CONFLICT

Truby is talking about Grand Argument or Classical Story telling but even in films that are ant-plot or are seemingly less plot and more character driven like SIDEWAYS, the basic principle applies. Giamatti(sp?) wants the girl, wants to be successful/ get published, wants a different life really. The antagonist - himself! It's the old "I'm my own worst enemy" scenario, or MAN AGAINST SELF.
Here's an analysis of SIDEWAYS, which talks a bit about Giamatti as protagonist / antagonist.
http://www.tysto.com/articles05/q1/20050308sideways.shtml

So there must always be a person that wants something and there must be obstacles thrown in their way to keep them from getting it. Whomever or whatever does the throwing is the antagonist whether that's a bad guy, a father in law, a mountain, the love interest, the person themselves, a math test, etc. That creates conflict which is essential to Drama, i.e., Comedy, Action, Horror, SciFim, seemingly plotless character pieces, etc.
 
David Jimerson said:
That's not really what I'm talking about -- I don't mean a central human point of opposition. I mean, it shouldn't just be a series of short, unrelated hurdles -- that's not a cohesive script.

Butch & Sundance are running from their phantom image of Lefors for a lot of the film. But I'd argue that their main anatagonist, their man obstacle, is a central figure -- their own nature.
Click to expand...

Dave,

Loved the sound video. I'd say that Butch & Sundance are running away from corporate world that no longer tolerates obstructions of the transfer of capital (train robberies). They are not pursued by individual characters, but by a super posse created at the behest of the Union Pacific Railroad and are finally destroyed by a national government, as opposed to a shoot-out on a dusty street. As to the four conflicts, I'd add Man against Fictional Wealth.
 
Thank you greatly, that helps clarify some things.

So for example take Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid--- B&S have a goal of making it to Bolivia (freedom from the posse); the posse wants to interfere with B&S's goal, even though the posse does not specifically want the same goal as B&S.

So-- if Hero wants X, Antagonist either also wants X (confict over Hero for obtaining X) or Antagonist wants to prevent Hero from getting X. Is that the gist of it?

Okay now what about mysteries-- e.g. a horror mystery (very applicable to one of my scripts), where hero wants X (solve what is behind strange happenings such as in a haunted house hero moved into). Where is the conflict until Hero's life (or someone Hero protects) is in jeopardy, how does Antagonist work to prevent hero getting X? (e.g. take the fairly recent horror film The Messengers -- although in that story I could see the Hero (family) wanting to start a new life in the new [haunted] farmhouse, perhaps the Antagonist is the murdered ghosts want to send the Hero/family away through fright, to protect them in a sense, but still the Antagonist acts in opposition to the Hero/family--does that make sense?).

I might come off like an idiot here, but trust me I have read loads of books on this, but it still comes off a bit confusing for certain stories. Most stories I find it very easy to spot the hero's goal, antagonist, antagonist's opposition to the hero's goal or wanting the similar goal. But when the books/gurus tout that Hero wants X and Antagonist wants X also, thus conflict over X, well I do not see that is some stories. But your explanation really helps gel it--i.e. that antagonist or opposition (perhaps non-human, but human is best, or at least the opposition must be visible to audience) might also wants X, or might simply just not want hero to have X.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Stanton, the director of "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E", points out in a recent keynote that his films don't have villains. It's one of the rules he set for himself. Darla and the dentist in "Nemo", the autopilot in "Wall-E", these are obstacles, not villains.

"Nemo" especially is an example of how you *can* have good story where there's nobody directly and consciously trying to prevent the hero from achieving his goal. Just goes to show that nothing is set in stone. :)
 
Right. You don't have to have a villain per se. Just an obstacle to the protagonist's achieving his/her goal that is big enough to engage the viewer.

In the "Frankenstein" story you could say it's the 'monster' that's the antagonist, but IMO it really isn't. It's Dr. F himself and his misguided ambition to bring the dead back to life. When it goes horribly wrong and the subject becomes a monster, it's really the Doctor's dream turned nightmare that torments him. The monster is just the manifestation of that, and is in fact itself innocent.

So it's really a psychological drama - a 'man vs himself' story - and that's what makes it such a classic IMO (in addition to being a good old-fashioned scare). The Jekyll/Hyde story is also essentially the same idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top