I am rewriting a script. I have more theoretical answers so I am not posting this in SYW.
In ACT 1 I have choices, as present MC first or the root of the incident instead, - I think I have no problem there. MC and main antagonist are presented before page 15. They meet in a Museum and there is a clear scene where you can tell clearly how different they are.
From 15 to 25, MC has to "face the music" and take/admit action relating to the incident. From 25 on, he is on the "battleground."
Now we are suppossed to be in page 25.
MC:
-organizes his task in the west.
-negotiate with a tribe, gets job started
-Receives first antagonist, a preacher
-visit an abandoned mine, gets shot, learns the story of the miners who left the mine and populated the new town.
-meets main antagonist-he was the gunman.
-gest his job done, but is attacked
-buys a gun, a wagon
-tries to avoid a rebellion indians vs bluecoats
-is attacked again, this time for some indians
ACT 3
-Antagonist steals him the wagon. MC rides again to the mine, where the main antagonist is hiding. there are some shots, kills the bad guy.
-peace comes.
-MC returns home with his job done.
The paradigm of the good guy. Well, the question is simple: He seems to be more passive than active. But I´ve seen that in Western compared to other genres, action is more opposition. Is it? Open Range is an example, or Dancing WW. There is a clear motivation in the MC: to do a job. But he arrives to the "wrong place in the wrong time" - the antagonist wants the same that the MC, there is an Indian uprise and the is just in the middle. Bad luck. He is about to loose everything-also his job and prestige.
I would like to know what do you think. ¿Is this enough action?
and,
even the antagonist is acting, and only revealing late- Should there be a DIRECT confrontation of MC-Antagonist before ACT 3? I am using lots of exposition in the scenes they meet- the third time they meet face to face they use guns and the bad guy is killed.
Any other major failure in the structure?
In ACT 1 I have choices, as present MC first or the root of the incident instead, - I think I have no problem there. MC and main antagonist are presented before page 15. They meet in a Museum and there is a clear scene where you can tell clearly how different they are.
From 15 to 25, MC has to "face the music" and take/admit action relating to the incident. From 25 on, he is on the "battleground."
Now we are suppossed to be in page 25.
MC:
-organizes his task in the west.
-negotiate with a tribe, gets job started
-Receives first antagonist, a preacher
-visit an abandoned mine, gets shot, learns the story of the miners who left the mine and populated the new town.
-meets main antagonist-he was the gunman.
-gest his job done, but is attacked
-buys a gun, a wagon
-tries to avoid a rebellion indians vs bluecoats
-is attacked again, this time for some indians
ACT 3
-Antagonist steals him the wagon. MC rides again to the mine, where the main antagonist is hiding. there are some shots, kills the bad guy.
-peace comes.
-MC returns home with his job done.
The paradigm of the good guy. Well, the question is simple: He seems to be more passive than active. But I´ve seen that in Western compared to other genres, action is more opposition. Is it? Open Range is an example, or Dancing WW. There is a clear motivation in the MC: to do a job. But he arrives to the "wrong place in the wrong time" - the antagonist wants the same that the MC, there is an Indian uprise and the is just in the middle. Bad luck. He is about to loose everything-also his job and prestige.
I would like to know what do you think. ¿Is this enough action?
and,
even the antagonist is acting, and only revealing late- Should there be a DIRECT confrontation of MC-Antagonist before ACT 3? I am using lots of exposition in the scenes they meet- the third time they meet face to face they use guns and the bad guy is killed.
Any other major failure in the structure?