Hero's GOAL delayed (off the radar) in Act IIb ?

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
I have a story plotted out where the protag's external goal is stated at the Turn into II, meets obstacles in IIa, but then at Midpoint the story takes a new spin where pursuing that goal becomes almost impossible due to a new circumstance that causes the story to shift to secondary goals of romance and the hero's need goal; then the main goal is resolved in Act III.

Is this legit? Can I get away with it? How many other films do this? I was watching Sahara the other night (Mathew MacConaughey and Penelope Cruz) and it seemed to me his quest for find the Civil War gold lost on board a metal ship that escaped out to sea (opening hook) gets almost entirely lost during much of the film as his goal shifts to helping Penelope and her epidemic issue, rescuing her from bad guys and being chased by bad guys in extended boat chase scenes with guns blazing, explosions, etc. So how successful can a story be if that main goal gets put on the backburner while secondary and new goals take front stage? In contrast to stories where the main goal at Turn into II occupy the entire movie, much clearer (Taken, for example)?
 
Er, are you talking about a MacGuffin? Because that's what the ship and the gold in Sahara pretty much are. If yes, then a lot of films do it. Whether or not you can 'get away with it' depends more on your ability as a writer than if it's been done before.

Sahara is another one of those critically derided films I happen to really like.
 
vcassel said:
Er, are you talking about a MacGuffin? Because that's what the ship and the gold in Sahara pretty much are. If yes, then a lot of films do it. ...
Click to expand...

I suppose that could be it, good point! A romcom typically has two goals for the protag-- some external goal, and the romance goal (Will she/they get together romantically?). The false main goal could in fact be a MacGuffin to carry the story, to carry the real external goal and the romance goal. Great insight Vcassel! Thanks!
 
Last edited:
vcassel said:
Sahara is another one of those critically derided films I happen to really like.
Click to expand...

Oh, man...I'll have to hang this over your head for all eternity. That movie was hilariously bad...unless you're talking about the Bogart Sahara, which is pretty awesome. I wouldn't take any storytelling lessons from Sahara, Randall, only examples of what you should not do.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
I have a story plotted out where the protag's external goal is stated at the Turn into II, meets obstacles in IIa, but then at Midpoint the story takes a new spin where pursuing that goal becomes almost impossible due to a new circumstance that causes the story to shift to secondary goals of romance and the hero's need goal; then the main goal is resolved in Act III.
Click to expand...

A better example other than Sahara might be Back to the Future. Marty gets sent back in time. He spends the first half of the second act trying to find Doc Brown and find a way back home. Doc forms a plan to send him back in a few days during a lightning storm, so Marty has to hang out. But then a B story happens when Doc learns that Marty prevented his parents from meeting and may soon not exist. The rest of Act 2 is Marty getting his parents to fall in love again, the goal of getting back home on the backburner until this B story is resolved.
 
Batutta said:
Oh, man...I'll have to hang this over your head for all eternity.
Click to expand...

You can add Terminator 3, Superman Returns, and The 13th Warrior to the list of flops and critical failures that I was really entertained by. Hey, I like what I like :tongue:
 
vcassel said:
You can add Terminator 3, Superman Returns, and The 13th Warrior to the list of flops and critical failures that I was really entertained by. Hey, I like what I like :tongue:
Click to expand...

I'm not offended by any of those, even if I think they are so-so...but Sahara...yikes.
 
Batutta said:
I'm not offended by any of those, even if I think they are so-so...but Sahara...yikes.
Click to expand...

I have to say watching Sahara a number of days ago (second time, already knew the story, ending), I turned it off somewhere in the midst of the extended chase sequence of boats in the river and guns blazing-- because I had nothing to CARE about NO STAKES CHARACTER; Matthew M. was superman, ripped muscles, no worries for him, so why was I watching that scene? I didn't care about anybody so I shut it off. Now the scene with Penelope C. in the well, darkness, possibly in danger of getting shot by the rebels-- that I cared about. Lessons to be learned from that I think.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
I have to say watching Sahara a number of days ago (second time, already knew the story, ending), I turned it off somewhere in the midst of the extended chase sequence of boats in the river and guns blazing-- because I had nothing to CARE about NO STAKES CHARACTER; Matthew M. was superman, ripped muscles, no worries for him, so why was I watching that scene? I didn't care about anybody so I shut it off. Now the scene with Penelope C. in the well, darkness, possibly in danger of getting shot by the rebels-- that I cared about. Lessons to be learned from that I think.
Click to expand...

What I remember hating about it the most was that the way they found the treasure was mostly by accident and coincidence, first when a soccer ball happens to roll into a cave with a map, and then by explosions created during the climactic battle. Lazy, lazy writing.
 
Batutta said:
What I remember hating about it the most was that the way they found the treasure was mostly by accident and coincidence, first when a soccer ball happens to roll into a cave with a map, and then by explosions created during the climactic battle. Lazy, lazy writing.
Click to expand...

I lost track of the whole quest for the Civil War gold as the movie got under way-- I wish that HAD been the quest, the goal. But as was already proposed in this thread, I think the quest for the gold might have been a MacGuffin, so yeah I think it could have been written better. But with Matthew for the ladies and Penelope for us guys, I guess the producers figured the story was somewhat irrelevant, that eye candy, guns blazing, and boat chases would suffice.
 
I mostly like the buddy movie side of it between McConaughey and Zahn. I also like Macy as their dubious boss. I thought is was pretty good, likable casting all the way 'round.
 
vcassel said:
I mostly like the buddy movie side of it between McConaughey and Zahn. I also like Macy as their dubious boss. I thought is was pretty good, likable casting all the way 'round.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed it, generally speaking, don't get me wrong; I mean I had Netflix send it to me, I wanted to see. I was just likely in a moody way that day when I stopped watching it. But I did think the boat chase scene sequence with guns blazing was too long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top