Decided to start working on a feature and straight out the block is an issue since the story involves a group of friends.

At present, I have no single protag, rather they have individual stories, but I'm wondering if this is a mistake.

If you look at The Hangover, for example, I'm sure someone can say it is XYZ story, but it comes across as a group.

So, questions, if I don't have a obvious protag;

1) am I doomed to fail?

2) films with similar groups I should consider (eg in the seventh seal this is pretty much a group story, even if the eye catching story is that of the knight playing chess with death)

3) suggestions and articles

Thanks folks

It's nearly impossible to not have that one character who's above the others. Even in, as you said, The Hangover, the protagonist is Phil. There's always that one.

I think some will say you should have an obvious protag even in group stories.  Think American Pie, Jim is probably the obvious protag, but later you could argue Stiflers case.

There are plenty of films out there were groups have no obvious protag.  The Hangover as you said, well that's not obvious is it.  The Breakfast Club?

Something Superbad has two protags and I'm not sure which is the lead?

If the characters stand out individually I think you'll be fine.

I'm thinking all these horror stories - a group of friends goes somewhere... We don't learn who the protag is until later.
Cabin in the Woods perhaps.

Hey Bill!

Sounds like an ensemble may be the way to go...
Provided the individual stories impact each other.

Watch a few successful ensemble pics, decide for yourself!

Magnolia
The Big Chill
Crash

Damn near anything by Robert Altman!

Regards,
E.D.

The Fighter is on Netflix, and is an outstanding film. I have the script I think too.

The key thing is to have arcs in your characters. They have flaws, they grow, they change.

In The Fighter, the protag is the boxer, Micky Ward, but his older brother Dicky is almost equally a protag himself. Micky has to learn how to separate himself from his family's overbearing influence, to be his own man, but he has to do it in a way that he does not completely break away. He has to move out from under his brother's shadow.

Dicky has to see himself for the crack addict he is, a man living on past glory who is destroying those he loves with the way he lives. He has to free himself from this and learn that it's Micky's time now.

There are also pronounced arcs for Charlene, the girlfriend, and for the mother.

Keeping focused on one or two protags is usually best. Usually. Giving as many characters arcs you can gives the story depth.

Going to be short, I don't see a problem with it, at all.

Think of the film 'Crash' where they have multiple stories going on at once. In the end, they all join up, but even after that, the protag isn't exactly obvious. Not sure if this is what you were looking for...

Dan

Frostbite has 5 protagonist, 2 antagonist and one variable towards the end.  If you are clear enough, yes, it can be done to success.  It's not easy and if your software has dyad read outs to tell you how strong your characters are it makes it much, much easier... If you're working with FD or something it's gonna be an uphill battle to find that right balance.

I shouldn't post this but I will --



That is my dyad list for ALL of my main characters in Frostbite... Notice all of them are above 80?  Not easy to do.

A different question...do you need a protag? I just realized that there really isn't a protag in Them That's Dead, but it still works and is a great story.  

Them is a short, I think that's a different animal.

Let's check with our expert on shorts...oh, wait, that's you Pia!

Can you have multiple Protags and be successful?  Hell yeah, you can.  C'mon now.

Think about Pulp Fiction...Hell, think about any QT flick.

Sure, when it's all said and done, there will be 1 who has the most screen time, has the most lines, etc., but you don't need to worry about that now.

I hate to do it, but I'll actually agree with Khamanna - and horror is great genre to explore this with.  The "main" Protag is the Protag who happens to survive...the longest. Smart horror writers don't set up just 1 obvious survivor - cuz if they did, everyone would know damn well who will indeed survive.

As for the ever present and super important "arcs"?  Fuck 'em.  Who really cares?  Not me, man.  It really all depends on what kind of story you're trying to tell.

Just write an entertaining story and script and you're golden.

Quoted from Baltis. Frostbite has 5 protagonist, 2 antagonist and one variable towards the end.  If you are clear enough, yes, it can be done to success.  It's not easy and if your software has dyad read outs to tell you how strong your characters are it makes it much, much easier... If you're working with FD or something it's gonna be an uphill battle to find that right balance. I shouldn't post this but I will -- That is my dyad list for ALL of my main characters in Frostbite... Notice all of them are above 80?  Not easy to do.

dyad readouts? forgive my ignorance...

someone give me a quick explanation?

Baltis, what software are you using?

Quoted from Dreamscale I hate to do it, but I'll actually agree with Khamanna - and horror is great genre to explore this with.  The "main" Protag is the Protag who happens to survive...the longest. Smart horror writers don't set up just 1 obvious survivor - cuz if they did, everyone would know damn well who will indeed survive.

Ridley Scott executed this brilliantly in "Alien."  

how many out there had Ripley surviving when this first came out? no way.

Quoted from Penoyer79 dyad readouts? forgive my ignorance... someone give me a quick explanation? Baltis, what software are you using?

See, I shouldn't have shown it...    

The character Dyad is very helpful in letting you know how fluid your dialogue and character interaction is.  A very amateur mistake, and I learned this from Adam Levenberg, is you'll have a character talking to another character -- but instead of letting the conversation flow, you're tossing in an action line before either of them talk.  This is bad screenwriting and too many people do it.  In these instances your script Dyad, if you have one, would be hitting on 40's and 50's and 60's... you might have 1 or 2 characters above 70 or 80 by default.  Maybe...  

To have all of your characters above 80 is very, very, very good.  It shows you know

1. How to keep a conversation moving.
2. To leave the clutter out.

The dyad is also good for scene strength -- Too many writers think they can craft a good scene, but a good scene isn't just about entertaining someone.  A good scene should have a beginning, middle and end.  Depending on how you mark your scenes within your software, you should have about 40 to 60 "Actual" scenes in your movie -- Not scene headers, but SCENES.  

The software will break those down and give you a % based on how well each scene followed the guidelines.  

glad i asked...thanks for answering. when it comes to screenplay writing - i don't even know what i don't know.

sounds like something i could really use.

are you using Sophocles?

I think it will be very difficult to have no individual or clear protag. I'm not saying it's not done or never has been but wait until you finish the script and then tell us if no one character is more important than the rest.

I think you'll find that while developing the story, a single story arc will come out that punches above the rest, concentrate on this aspect and there is your protag. I find that story's change while writing even if you did plan it all out with treatments, beat sheets and what not.

Examples have all been covered like QT films or something like Sin City which tangle a lot of smaller stories into one.

Groups of friends movies - well you can't beat Stand By Me or the Goonies but both had someone who was above the rest.

How about the recent Avengers which really has no clear protag as it's a team of superheroes or even the Brad Pitt flick Sleepers.

Good luck with it, Bill.

Hi folks,

Thanks for all that.

Yup, made my mind up. Whilst I will have several protag, a gang of friends, there will be a lead story, with character arc and a need for the underlying theme to be related to that arc. The others may change in some degree, just not sure how much etc

I am sure that Tarantino and others can pull off a story without lead, but for now I will stick to a bit more traditional.

Sounds like a good, practical decision, Bill. And don't forget, it's still good to give supporting characters their own arc when you can.

I'd even suggest giving any pets in the script a deep arc as well.

While you're at it, if there are any parents intro'd, make sure they have some sort of arc also - like maybe tie in an old war story, a drinking or drug problem, or maybe a side story of their everlasting search for an old flame.

If for some reason, you have to intro a waitress in a bar, don't feel bad if you decide to add a few pages about their pursuit of a college degree or their hardship at home.

Jeff, arcs don't mean you have to have some deep thematic or highly intellectual aspect to your story. It just means it gives your characters depth when they want something, have a flaw, have to learn something, experience growth.

Look at The Expendables, which is a pretty shallow movie. The Jason Statham character struggles with finding out the girl he left behind did not wait for him, and is with another guy. Is this important to the film? Yeah. It gives the character depth.

But it also contrasts with the Stallone character, which has hardened his heart. His journey is that he has to learn how to care again or risk "losing his soul", as Micky Rourke put it.

The arcs of both these characters play off each other. Take them out, and the film loses much of its emotional power(not that it has it that much, but just enough to entertain).

We're not talking artsy fartsy film festival stuff. But this is the stuff that makes movies work, even your basic action hero films.

It's ok to learn how to scratch just a bit below the surface. It won't hurt, I promise.

Kevin, do you think Statham's arc is the reason the movie was successful?  Do you think the vastly male action movie type really gave 2 craps about this?  I highly doubt it.

IMO, these all important arcs are way over-rated.  I like how Pia puts it usually, just wroite your story and chances are if it's a decent to good story, all these things will be included even though you honestly don't give a crap about them.

I've seen movies with ensemble casts...but for example ...what if you are writing a rom/com. There are sort of ...two protags if you think about it. I've seen many like this that I can't really say one is more important than the other. Also, it's weird but in a rom/com sometimes the antag is not necessarily another person.

Am I way off base here?

Jeff, these things are in movies, and they don't just spontaneously appear there.

Look at Star Wars. Han Solo has to learn how to not be self absorbed, and he's certainly not the protag. He has an arc.

Statham's arc is not THE reason in Expend, but it's part of it.

Most of this stuff the viewer does not consciously think about. But the writer has to. That's his job.

I feel like at this point you are being stubborn about this part of writing because you have the idea that thinking about these things either means one is conforming to some formula, or is trying to craft a Canne's Film Festival script.

When you realize that this stuff is in every film, it will only help your work. Would you agree conflict is critical to film? Well, learning how to set up your characters with conflicting goals/desires/needs, and the path they take to achieve them(arcs) is crucial to conflict.

It's the hardest thing to master, but we have to try.

Quoted from leitskev Jeff, these things are in movies, and they don't just spontaneously appear there. Look at Star Wars. Han Solo has to learn how to not be self absorbed, and he's certainly not the protag. He has an arc. Statham's arc is not THE reason in Expend, but it's part of it. Most of this stuff the viewer does not consciously think about. But the writer has to. That's his job. I feel like at this point you are being stubborn about this part of writing because you have the idea that thinking about these things either means one is conforming to some formula, or is trying to craft a Canne's Film Festival script. When you realize that this stuff is in every film, it will only help your work. Would you agree conflict is critical to film? Well, learning how to set up your characters with conflicting goals/desires/needs, and the path they take to achieve them(arcs) is crucial to conflict. It's the hardest thing to master, but we have to try.

Kevin, I was going to quote various lines here and respond, but decided it's not worth the effort.  I do want to say a few things though.

You say that the stuff we continually disagree on is something that the viewer does not concsiously think about, but it's the writer's job to.  Why?  Why would the writer have to worry about something that means little to nothing to most viewers?

I think that's my point in a nutshell.  The only reason you and others like you believe this to be true, is because your gurus have pounded it into your head and told you that you must, so you feel you need to.

And this could be why numerous critics pan movies that think outside this box.  Could be a reason that most horror movies get such a bad rap.  Sure, most deserve it, cause they do indeed suck, but it's not due to the lack of main Protag character arc or pet/parent arc.

This stuff is not in every film.  Sure, maybe you or Balt or the like could read way into something and find something that relates to all of this, but again, why?

Why can't a scrpit/movie just be a fun ride?  Entertaining?  2 hours to take your mind away from all the stress we deal with on a daily basis?

It can...and more should.

Horror needs to be horrorific.  Comedy needs to be comedic.  Drama needs to be dramatic. Mystery needs to be mysterious.  Thriller needs to be thrilling.  Action needs to be action packed.  It's really quite simple if you want it to be, or let yourself write it that way.

Your goal as a writer is to entertain...plain and simple.  If you feel the need to shoehorn in some arcs and imagery, go for it, but don't continually tell peeps that their scrpits suck because they don't have a strong character arc or the like.

It's a really interesting post. In lieu of a character as a protagonist, it's surely the story, plot or a theme assuming the role.

Guess that depends how slippery we think the definition of protagonist is.

Jeff, who is my guru? I've been writing less than 2 years, and only one person mentored me: you.

So first of all, thank you.

Second of all, get off this constant reference to gurus. There aren't any. I've never taken a class. I've read a few books, who hasn't?... but I don't keep them under my pillow. I read them once, moved on.

I don't think you really read my posts. Not only have I said this before, many times, but I made clear above, this IS about entertainment. I am not talking about a film making a point, or achieving something intellectual.

Let's take horror. The purpose is to horrify people. Well, to do that, you want the audience to care about the characters. To be effective at that, those characters should be 3 dimensional so they seem real.

To make them 3 dimensional, there are things that help. Give them a goal, give them a flaw. This is what is meant by creating an arc. Make them have to learn something. Put them through a trial of having to overcome objectives.

Also, conflict is important...for entertainment. To create conflict, characters need to have conflicting goals. To keep these goals aligned in conflict, it helps to give them conflicting arcs.

Now...get things right. PLEASE. Before you post a response, please review what you write and make sure it's accurate. I have done a lot of reviews on this site. And I have never told someone their script sucked. Or anything even remotely like that.

Are you mixing me up with yourself? Are you projecting?

I ALWAYS try to give the writer suggestions and ideas how to strengthen the script. They may be bad ideas, I am an amateur, but they are honestly and constructively given. Will you withdraw your statement that I "continually tell peeps that their scripts suck"? Because you know this is nothing near the truth.

Pepper the script with substance, but do it in moderation... Nothing is worse than something forced upon you.  If your character doesn't bend the spoon with his mental powers after he's spent the entire movie trying to advance those powers -- Fine, whatever.  Save it for the sequel, or chalk it up to him just being a flawed individual... That's his arc.  He was flawed and he worked and worked and worked on being better and he's still flawed.  We can't say he didn't go nowhere in the script or his character didn't "advance".  He obviously did, he just didn't advance into the level he wanted to -- That level being the level of bending spoons with his mind.

So for every high arc there is an equal and negative low arc that can still be considered an arc.  

I agree with you Jeff, some characters you create should just be there to advance the other characters and they do not need war stories, drug and alcoholism or wife beater syndrome to make them stand out.

I have to agree with Kevin here.

Jeff,

You're saying all writers need to worry about is making an entertaining script and everything will be fine. That's like saying "just make sure you have a great story and then you will have a great story." Al you are doing is generalizing what it takes to make a great story.

As Kevin said, everything needs conflict. Not just the main conflict of the story, but a scene needs conflict and characters need conflict. They conflict isn't always external, and not every background extra needs it, but the people the story is about and other major players need to instill conflict into the story. You can't just make a character who wants to save the world and is perfect and strong and expect people to be on the edge of your seats when they know he has to prevail because he is perfect.

No one would watch Mad Men if Don Draper was just a great guy who is nice and great at everything.

Superman is perfect is most ways (minus the whole kryptonite thing) but he still struggles with the woman he loves.

Conflict is a part of life and, while they may be out there, I doubt there are many successful movies out there where the major characters don't have internal and external conflicts.

Denying the existence of arcs and calling it "writing a an entertaining story" is fine, but it's the same damn thing.

Kev, 3D characters do not necessarily need some shoehorned conflict to make them interesting, engaging, or just affective.

I did not intend on you or anyone thinking that you trash scripts.  Period.  What I meant was that in your advice and suggestions, it almost always involves some kind of arc, or shoehorned character trait or situation, that is not what makes scripts and movies work.

It is my belief that when we read a script or watch a movie, we should not try to reinvent it.  We should merely note what works and more importantly, what doesn't work...and why.

Things that don't make sense are the killer of most scripts and movies.  Characters who don't act, speak, or react like humans is a killer.  Situations that just don't compute, like piss poor setups, destroy a script instantly.

If you literally read a script and your only complaint is that a character doesn't have enough conflict working against him, or doesn't achieve a powerful and important arc, or the like, to me, is ludicrous.

What I'm saying is that there are so many much more important aspects that jump off the page or the screen.

Felipe, you're saying in jest what I'm saying for reals.  It may sound stupid or naive, but I tend to break things down to their smallest and most simple components, and when you do that, you sure as shit don't worry about your character's arcs and their shoehorned conflict.

Balt, you rock.  Hope you're recovering.  I just started working out again, after a year layoff. Damn, have I been sore, but it's the good type of sore.  The muscles are remembering, and I've already dropped 10 pounds.  Keep us up to date on Frostbite!!!

Sometimes, Jeff, when we read a script it's not easy to identify what exactly the problem is. All we know is that there seems to be something not working, and we do our best, constrained by our own ideas of course, to discover the problem.

When people read my scripts, there are times when all of the readers seem to stumble over a certain part of the script, but yet each has a different explanation of what they think the problem is. Cumulatively, this still helps me, even though no one hits the true problem right on the head. I usually come up with a solution no one envisioned, but their comments were critical in helping me identify what I think the problem was.

I don't go into a script read looking for anything but for the story to work for me. I don't care if there are act turns or where they are, how many protags there are, or whether there is a theme. It's only when things seem to come off the rails for me that I start looking for an explanation. And I might not hit the mark, but I'm trying. The bottom line in those cases is that the story is not working for me.

A lot of these things I am talking about you don't want to look at because you think it's some ivory tower type artsy fartsy stuff. But it's not. Flaws, conflicting goals, lessons learned...these are in most films. You might not recognize them, especially when they are done well, but they are there.

I watched Tucker and Dale the other night. Great movie, a riot. And these things are built right into the script. Dale's flaw is he is insecure and unassertive, wants to please others too much. He has to learn how to stand up for himself in order to get the girl.

There's no need to make it deeper than that. Dale's lack of assertiveness creates comical conflict with Tucker and with the girl. Dale wants others to accept him, Tucker wants to be left alone to fish. Even in a film like this, they build in a flaw and an arc which fuels a good chunk of the story and bonds the audience to Dale.

Learning how to do these things helps us write scripts. That's what most of us are here for.

Quoted from Dreamscale Felipe, I need you to p*ss on me.

Sorry, buddy... Not into that kind of stuff.

Kevin, my friend, I'm sure this could go on forever back and forth.  I truly despised Tucker and Dale.  I gave it every effort to get throgh it and finally gave up, long before it was over, but I will say again, what I said earlier:

This flaw and comflict that you brought up in their characters is not the reason why peeps liked the movie.  Period.  I can't speak for the writers, but I highly doubt they were concerned with infusing these things into their scrt, or the characters.

It's ont a movie to be taken remotely seriously.  It's an all out gross out parady of horror films.  It's a comedy.

Felipe, I'm not sure what your fake quote is even supposed to mean, or if it's supposed to be funny or some sort of insult, so I'll just ignore it.

Not an insult. I don't think we're ever going to fully agree because we are essentially saying the same things but calling it something else... So instead of responding, I just decided to form a ridiculous sentence from your words.

Quoted from Felipe Not an insult. I don't think we're ever going to fully agree because we are essentially saying the same things but calling it something else... So instead of responding, I just decided to form a ridiculous sentence from your words.

I call it pulling a "Stevie", as he's the one who first started dong these "quotes".

No problem, man.  I agree we probably are saying the same thing but using different words to state it.

You know, it's actually possible that even Kevin and I are somewhat saying the same thing,even though he'll probably vehemontly disgaree with that. I guess it simply comes down to going about the same task in a different way...and there's nothing wrong with that.

You still don't get it, Jeff. I guess I'll let it go after this.

This has nothing to do with taking Tucker and Dale seriously. That's why I used that film as an example. What I am saying is that these little conflicts are what make even completely non-serious films like Tucker entertaining. It's all part of the character interplay.

I'm not sure why you don't get this, but this is film 101. Even I get it, so it must be pretty basic stuff. You're in one corner, and pretty much the entire film world is in the other. I guess as long as they have jaeger in your corner, it's still a good time. Maybe I'll visit for a shot.

Kevin, how can I let it go with your last post, saying "I just don't get it, and it's film 101"?  I can't.

I'll try again.

These arcs and this conflict you continually refer to is something that is or should be inherent in pretty much any remotely interesting or entertaining "anything", including real life.  It's beyond film or story 101, as it pretty much ahs to happen or your story will be flatline.

What I am opposed to is shoehorning in such things because you (or others) feel it has to be there or is lacking based on what you're rading or watching.

And let me go another step further - by shoehorning, I'm simply refering to adding unnecessary arcs or conflicts...unrealistic or unbelievable arcs and conflicts.

Your example of Tucker and Dale is basically comic sketch characteristics that play off each other and add humor (to those who find this type of thing humorous).  That's it...nothing more, nothing less.

I always overlook such obvious things because they are ont important - to me.

You go out of your way to look for them and point them out, even.  When you talk of 101 such stuff, don't you realize that it doesn't even need to be mentioned?

And here is how you both agree.

You both know these things are there, and Kevin even said he only focuses on these things when, upon receiving feedback, he finds people are having problems with the script. He analyzes those things to fix the script that was previously "flatlining."

You both agree for the most part. You just don't see it.