Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?

[Ryan Elder]

Some are friends, some are beta readers. A lot of it, is why did a character make this decision, instead of that decision... things like that. I think a lot of the decisions make sense, once certain surprises are revealed about the characters later, but the readers don't want to wait for surprises, and assume there are plot problems before waiting for the reveals, to be told why, or at least I think...

[Brian Drysdale]

What they may saying is that your characters don't have a need, the thing that drives things along and the reason why they're doing things the way they do. This is more than they want to catch someone. In the story they may either fulfill this need or they won't.

It's Hannibal Lector in "Silence of the Lambs" fulfilling his need for a window with a view.

[Paul R Johnson]

Ryan one good thing to do is pick a movie that you really liked and then read the novelisation. Most are done by pro authors. Then read a novel that had the movie made from it. Two that stuck in my head were the novelised blade runner which explained some things is not picked up on in the movie. Go the other was with 2001 a Space odyssey. So much in the book d SF unplugged and skimmed over in the movie for obvious reasons. If you analyse what came out you can see the directors reasoning. You realise some bits as irrelevant and which are essential and because they did a good job you don’t notice. Exactly the same with Harry Potter. However Clive cussler’s Sahara Git a ham fisted job that wrecked the movie. Apart from the very basic plot points, the movie was terrible. Plot, casting, even the feel were a very poor job. Worth doing this with movies vs books.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, but I thought it wasn't a good idea to read books, if they have stuff in that the movie did not and just stick to the movies. I can try the Blade Runner one. I read the novelization of Mission: Impossible, the first movie, and it gave me a different perspective on some things. Makes me wonder if the writer changed some things around.

Well in my script I am told that the characters are not given enough motivation, but it's hard to give them more without the plot becoming ridiculous, so I have to figure out how to motivate my characters a lot, without the plot becoming over the top as a result.

[Paul R Johnson]

No that’s wrong. The script should provide foundation information for the audience. They can read clues, the semiotics, you don’t need to explain. If they have trouble at home, then a five second clip of them dissmissing the wife and slamming the phone down is all it needs. We know he’s troubled and that explains later behaviour. We don’t need the scene at home with the row. If a movie had a novel first it’s stupid not to read it, as I mentioned before. Jonathan frames deliberstrr et ly didn’t watch thunderbirds before he remade it and that was a mistake. Of course reading the book generates a perception but a good screenwriter diets this out. The director chooses to follow the screenplay totally or incorporates original novel background.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, well here's one example from my script. I want a group of police officers to get together and form a lynch mob, after an officer is murdered and the suspects get away, cause there is no evidence, cause they got rid of the forensic evidence at the crime scene.

However, I was told that one dead officer is not enough to motivate cop friends of his to for a lynch mob. They need extra motivation. So I thought what the character another character, who wants to see the villains get killed also, cuts off the head of the dead cop, before the body is found by police, and then mails it into the police station with a note saying it's from the criminal organization, taking credit it for it to spite the police, thus making the police believe it was them, and getting them all angry and riled up that their friends head was delivered out of spite.

So I was told this would work a lot better to motivate the lynch mob. But, I don't think that the character who wants the villains killed, would think of cutting off the head of the dead cop, in such a quick amount of time, before the police arrive though.

Maybe he could, but seems unlikely he would think of doing that, that fast. But maybe? That's one example, of how motivating characters, can make the plot too complicated, or too over the top, if that makes sense?

[Brian Drysdale]

Look at LA Confidential for an example of such a scene. There really needs to be a corrupt culture in the police for things to go that far out of control.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

Oh okay, well here's one example from my script. I want a group of police officers to get together and form a lynch mob, after an officer is murdered and the suspects get away, cause there is no evidence, cause they got rid of the forensic evidence at the crime scene.

The scenario doesn’t make sense because police don’t form lynch mobs. They might cover for each other, be corrupt but they don’t carry out personal vendettas as a group. There is no good way to present scenarios that don’t make sense. Like I said before you aren’t writing from experience you’re making up things.

[Ryan Elder]

Well that's just it though. How do you push characters to become bloodthirsty? I suppose I could rewrite it so that the cops decide to find some sort of evidence, and arrest them the honest way, but it just doesn't seem near as dramatic or high stakes though, as being manipulated into a murderous revenge.

[Brian Drysdale]

The cops need to be in a world where the audience believe it's possible eg a concentration camp. If you're talking about the mounties, forget about it, come up with something else.

[Ryan Elder]

I'm talking about an average police department, where I wanted some of them in the department, to become desperate and crooked by the criminal events, if possible.

[Brian Drysdale]

You're barking up the wrong tree, backhanders and general police corruption does occur, as does death by heavy handed restraint and shooting of innocent people out on patrol, but police lynch mobs are difficult to cover up in a modern western police station, they often have cameras all over the place, plus there's a police misconduct unit investigating deaths and the media all over it.

Modern Canada is the wrong place for this type of lynch mob, you need a dystopian society.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh yeah, I meant they would have to cover it up. The way I had it written was that they try to make it look like the villains were killed, cause they tried to shoot back.

[Brian Drysdale]

Sorry, I don't believe this incident in your modern story set in Canada. I accept a similar thing in LA Confidential because all types of police corruption happened then and the cover up culture was extremely strong. The modern mounties don't seem to have that type of reputation, so you'd be struggling to get traction with the audience, regarding a police lynch mob.

There are dark acts in sectors that should be whiter than white, hidden by institutional cover ups.

[Ryan Elder]

That's true I suppose it's more of a western ending, but is there anyway to have such an ending and make it believable in modern times?