Yes, mostly we don't root for the maniac - though sometimes audiences take the attitude that they want him to 'succeed' at least so there's another sequel because he's so much fun to watch (Freddy Krueger?). But yes, we are scared on the behalf of the victims etc. - but that's not the same thing as being particularly invested in the victims... I mean, we feel the fear through them, they express our experiences and our fears of the maniac etc., but it kind of depends on the genre or film. We care about the person depicted by Mia Farrow in Rosemary's Baby, but do we really care about any particular kid in a slasher movie (beyond experiencing terror vicariously through them)? I think that depends on the movie. So, for the kind of film where that matters, where it matters that we become emotionally invested, you may draw a more complex character. But for others, it's just a warm body - you don't really need to spend much artistic effort on a fully rounded character whose sole function is to get slaughtered. I mean, my suggestion to the OP is to make the second kind of a movie, where OP doesn't even need to start a thread like this because there is nothing to the "hero" character. I'm saying, for his purposes it would be easier and just as effective artistically to make the second kind of a movie - all about the maniac and the "hero" or "heroes" are just warm bodies.
Need some good plot ideas
- Thread starter trw_mavrik
- Start date
Yes, mostly we don't root for the maniac - though sometimes audiences take the attitude that they want him to 'succeed' at least so there's another sequel because he's so much fun to watch (Freddy Krueger?). But yes, we are scared on the behalf of the victims etc. - but that's not the same thing as being particularly invested in the victims... I mean, we feel the fear through them, they express our experiences and our fears of the maniac etc., but it kind of depends on the genre or film. We care about the person depicted by Mia Farrow in Rosemary's Baby, but do we really care about any particular kid in a slasher movie (beyond experiencing terror vicariously through them)? I think that depends on the movie. So, for the kind of film where that matters, where it matters that we become emotionally invested, you may draw a more complex character. But for others, it's just a warm body - you don't really need to spend much artistic effort on a fully rounded character whose sole function is to get slaughtered. I mean, my suggestion to the OP is to make the second kind of a movie, where OP doesn't even need to start a thread like this because there is nothing to the "hero" character. I'm saying, for his purposes it would be easier and just as effective artistically to make the second kind of a movie - all about the maniac and the "hero" or "heroes" are just warm bodies.
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
I don't know how anyone can feel fear through a movie character if they don't have an emotional investment in that character. In every movie like that, it's fairly easy to differentiate between the "killer fodder" and the main characters. We identify with them. We like them. We want them to escape the clutches of the killer. We may also, in some cases, secretly wish for the killer to get away, so we can see him again in sequels. But we still want the main characters to survive.
I don't think I've ever seen a story of any kind -- not a successful one, at least -- where I didn't get emotionally invested in the main character and want him or her to achieve their goal, and for the villain to be defeated.
I don't think I've ever seen a story of any kind -- not a successful one, at least -- where I didn't get emotionally invested in the main character and want him or her to achieve their goal, and for the villain to be defeated.
clang
Veteran
Don't use an Audi (or any other recognisable brand)! It's a lawsuit waiting to happen - what car manufacturer wants to see their product used to kill people? Unless the whole film is in some fantastical setting - e.g. I doubt any manufacturers were worried by their cars appearing in Mad Max Fury Road - or you have a professional legal team to sort out this kind of stuff.
I don't know, it seems to me pretty clear that fear is a visceral reaction, and you can experience it through a character viscerally, not necessarily because you have any emotional investment in that character at all, or "like" them and so forth. I mean, often you have horror films start with the maniac attacking a random person just introduced for that purpose alone, and about whom we know nothing, thus cannot invest any emotion in them, like them, etc. So you have a guy walking down a dark alley, or entering a dark nasty looking house, and through that character you experience the terror of walking down that dark corridor or what have you, and you jump up when the maniac suddenly leaps out from a doorway. In other words, while you do experience visceral fear/terror through the person, you're not really emotionally invested in them or have any kind of emotional relationship, liking etc. I mean, it's pretty common, seems to me. I feel it's the same when you are dealing with an ensemble piece of a group of victims, say college kids who go on vacation to a remote house and are killed off by a maniac - you may not necessarily have any particular liking for any of them... in fact, often there is the trope of not liking a given character, like usually it's the annoying cheerleader or sorority girl who gets killed first etc. - we still experience terror through her, but we actually don't like her!
In any case, my point was rather different. The OP asked for motivation for the "hero", possibly through a back story etc., because he felt it was beyond his ability to come up with something that could work plausibly. My point was, that you don't actually have to meet that challenge at all - because there is a completely legitimate way of making a movie work, where the hero is really just almost disposable cardboard character, and the main interest is in the intense emotions and cool sequences and moods of a charismatic or terrifying maniac. That completely solves the OP's problem - because the challenge is removed.
People often make the mistake of thinking that "well of course we need well-rounded characters with back stories!" because, well, that's just plum good screenwritin' son! And that's just wrong. The reason being is that different genres work differently. For example, if the main draw of a film is special effects, it's a spectacle movie, nobody much worries about the depth of the characters and how well rounded they are and the back story of everyone etc., because that's not what makes that movie tick. Think of the Transformers movie franchise - nobody gives a rip about the character arcs and back stories of infinite complexities to these precious heroes - people come to see the film for the amazing special effects, and the actors are there just so we can throw a skeleton of events over the entire thing which is just a thin excuse to show the cool machines. And that is a very successful franchise, as are a million others that work according to the same principles. Nobody ever asks about the "characters" the way they might in some drama. Same with certain kinds of horror genres or sub-genres - we watch those movies to get terrified and watch a horrible maniac do his horrible things... we come for - the gore! Yes, alas, we do - and we don't give a rip about the "characters" and their precious back story or some such drivel. Now, by no means all horror movies - just a certain (quite profitable!) sub-genre.
Bottom line, my advice to the OP is to think carefully about the genre - because by picking the right one, he can get around all those challenges he sees and not worry about some tedious character justification.
In any case, my point was rather different. The OP asked for motivation for the "hero", possibly through a back story etc., because he felt it was beyond his ability to come up with something that could work plausibly. My point was, that you don't actually have to meet that challenge at all - because there is a completely legitimate way of making a movie work, where the hero is really just almost disposable cardboard character, and the main interest is in the intense emotions and cool sequences and moods of a charismatic or terrifying maniac. That completely solves the OP's problem - because the challenge is removed.
People often make the mistake of thinking that "well of course we need well-rounded characters with back stories!" because, well, that's just plum good screenwritin' son! And that's just wrong. The reason being is that different genres work differently. For example, if the main draw of a film is special effects, it's a spectacle movie, nobody much worries about the depth of the characters and how well rounded they are and the back story of everyone etc., because that's not what makes that movie tick. Think of the Transformers movie franchise - nobody gives a rip about the character arcs and back stories of infinite complexities to these precious heroes - people come to see the film for the amazing special effects, and the actors are there just so we can throw a skeleton of events over the entire thing which is just a thin excuse to show the cool machines. And that is a very successful franchise, as are a million others that work according to the same principles. Nobody ever asks about the "characters" the way they might in some drama. Same with certain kinds of horror genres or sub-genres - we watch those movies to get terrified and watch a horrible maniac do his horrible things... we come for - the gore! Yes, alas, we do - and we don't give a rip about the "characters" and their precious back story or some such drivel. Now, by no means all horror movies - just a certain (quite profitable!) sub-genre.
Bottom line, my advice to the OP is to think carefully about the genre - because by picking the right one, he can get around all those challenges he sees and not worry about some tedious character justification.
rsbush
Well-known member
You've never seen 'Taxi Driver', 'A Clockwork Orange', 'Badlands', 'Lolita', 'Scarface', 'Bad Lieutenant' 'The Grifters', 'Monsters'? All the main characters in these films are bad people, all villains.
Last edited:
Batutta
Major Contributor
He's not really a hero but an anti-hero, and anti-hero stories work because you have a character who is not noble, doing something that isn't moral, but is operating in a world that is more corrupt and despicable than he is, which makes his actions against people heroic. Option 1 fits better with this scenario. We don't need to like the lead character, but we should understand him and find him interesting to watch. You should watch a movie called Blue Ruin. It's a really good movie and close to what you're going for I think. If you go with option 2, then it's just a slasher movie with a car. Tarantino did that with Death Proof already, and it was probably his least successful directing effort (although the chase sequences are great).
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
Okay, but in this case he's not killing people who have anything to do with the 'evil' that he's supposed to be fighting against. They're not automakers or involved with the creation of the environmental problems he opposes -- at least, no more so than most anyone else. He hates cars and wants them banned, but he kills what -- robbers, adulterers, or some other assorted 'bad people'? This has no direct impact on the people responsible for the evil he thinks he's fighting.
This would be similar to a character hating drug dealers so he decides to destroy them by killing drug USERS in order to dry up their market and ruin them financially.
Now if you're going with Option 1, then the audience can find sympathy for the guy to some extent. You make the 'rich kids' he kills off 2-dimensional and stereotyped as the 'evil rich'. It's shallow, but at least the audience can find a way to care about the main character.
Batutta
Major Contributor
I was referring to option 2 of the original post, not the later ideas.