Is it okay to only introduce your Antagonist in Act 2?

[Jon-Luke]

I've been working away on my outline and have been shuffling scenes around to try and make the story flow well and to keep the audience involved and interested and the way things are working out it looks like my Antagonist will only make his appearance in act two, after the indispensable incident takes place. Is this acceptable, or should the antagonist be introduced in act one?

I could introduce the antagonist earlier but then he will have to have a scene in isolation from the hero, I'm worried that this may lesson the impact of the hero's journey as the audience travels with him... But on the other hand the audience would be aware of the danger that the antagonist presents when the hero meets him and that may be good thing.

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

[Kosh]

I've been working away on my outline and have been shuffling scenes around to try and make the story flow well and to keep the audience involved and interested and the way things are working out it looks like my Antagonist will only make his appearance in act two, after the indispensable incident takes place. Is this acceptable, or should the antagonist be introduced in act one?

I could introduce the antagonist earlier but then he will have to have a scene in isolation from the hero, I'm worried that this may lesson the impact of the hero's journey as the audience travels with him... But on the other hand the audience would be aware of the danger that the antagonist presents when the hero meets him and that may be good thing.

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Is the antagonist hinted to or mentioned in act one? How far into act two does he appear?

[stuckupmyownera]

I think there are circumstances where you could get away with it, but ideally you should introduce him earlier.
I had a problem like this, and I solved it by starting with a scene introducing the antagonist. The action was relevant to the plot and introduced the threat straight away, but still kept a lot of mystery surrounding him. But then, this wouldn't work in all circumstances either :D

[mario_c]

When you edit your script you can move a scene that establishes the antagonistic character to earlier in the script. You should tease the reader/audience a little with just enough information. Jackie Brown is a good example of this (or any Elmore Leonard story).

I have a similar situation in my action spec. The audience knows through act 1 our hero(ine) will have to do battle with some real bad guys to get the prize, but first she is established clearly along with her new partner in crime, who she hates for now. Is it that kind of situation?

[nmstevens]

I've been working away on my outline and have been shuffling scenes around to try and make the story flow well and to keep the audience involved and interested and the way things are working out it looks like my Antagonist will only make his appearance in act two, after the indispensable incident takes place. Is this acceptable, or should the antagonist be introduced in act one?

I could introduce the antagonist earlier but then he will have to have a scene in isolation from the hero, I'm worried that this may lesson the impact of the hero's journey as the audience travels with him... But on the other hand the audience would be aware of the danger that the antagonist presents when the hero meets him and that may be good thing.

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

It isn't uncommon to introduce the antagonist in a prologue that defines or foreshadows the danger that he poses and then, having brought him "on stage" and defined that menace, you can dispense with him for a time, having impressed the menace he embodies on the audience's mind.

NMS

[Jon-Luke]

Is the antagonist hinted to or mentioned in act one? How far into act two does he appear?

At this stage he's not hinted at in act one... as things stand he should appear about three or four pages into act two.

There is a prologue, but the it does not feature the actual antagonist it features one of his kind and the effect that this person has on the real world. I'm hoping that this is enough information make him immediately appear dangerous when the hero meets him - I'm hoping that the vehicle of what the audience imagines is far worse than anything you can show them. But perhaps this is being too vague.

There is a scene in Oliver Twist (the one directed by David Lean, not Roman Polanski) where someone is beaten and instead of the beating Mr. Lean shows the audience the dog trying to get out and we hear the beating. Its a very effective scene where the perception and effect of the violence is far more heartrending then actually seeing it.

[WriteKnight]

It sounds like your prologue introduces the 'threat' that your antagonist represents? "There are vampires in this world..." and then in ACT 2 "I am the LORD of vampires..." Is that what youre hinting at?

Sure, establishing the nature of the danger, the threat, the impending doom early in act 1, then the personified version of that threat, that could work.

[Jon-Luke]

Thanks WriteKnight,

You have pretty much summed up the basic theory.

[LIVIN]

I think it is perfectly acceptable if done correctly (like most anything) and I think it's actually been done quite a lot.

[zeprosnepsid]

Yeah, I think this is fine, but as noted your antagonist should be 'present' in the first act, even if he or she isn't physically present.

For instance, in the movie Seven you meet the antagonist very very late, but he's present the whole time.