Do the bad guys need to get what's coming to them?

[darrenm]

I'm currently having a bit of a problem with my ending. As it currently stands, the protagonist solves his problem and everything works out for him in the end. However, nothing bad comes of the bad guys who were plotting against him.

My rationale for this is threefold: 1) the protagonist is not the type of guy who would believe in revenge or be clever enough to achieve it, 2) the bad guys are cops who were doing what they were commanded to do by a superior (that the protagonist is unaware of, and therefore couldn't really get revenge on). 3) Part of the theme of the movie is police power and a lack of repercussions for their actions -- police being able to get away with things like this is part of the point.

Even with that rationale, though, it seems weird to me that the bad guys get off so easy without actually learning a lesson. Can this happen in a movie, or do the bad guys need to suffer for the audience to be satisfied?

[mscherer]

darrenm,

The BAD GUY gets away is not always a bad thing story/script wise. Think SEQUEL.

There are plenty of BAD GUYS who got away -- for awhile. Think Star Wars. Think Darth Vader. Not a bad thing at all.

Keep Writing!

[daveed]

Apr 30, 2010 10:49:25 GMT -5 darrenm said:

1) the protagonist is not the type of guy who would believe in revenge or be clever enough to achieve it

Why not? Revenge doesn't have to be violent. And if he's not "clever enough", what skills, abilities, does he have that helps him solve his problems? (If it's another character, then you may not have an active enough protagonist.)

2) the bad guys are cops who were doing what they were commanded to do by a superior (that the protagonist is unaware of, and therefore couldn't really get revenge on)

Then your real "bad guy"/antagonist is the superior officer. The subordinate cops are just agents of the antagonist to achieve whatever goals he/she has.

I think an audience has to feel some sort of satisfaction that the bad guy loses, even if it's just this round (as in Star Wars). Or at least the antagonist knows that the plans they put in in place to thwart your protagonist failed. It's not always about "learning a lesson", but about a form of justice that is true to the universe you created (one that matters to all your characters).

For Darth Vader, it was the knowledge that a scrappy band of rebel pilots blew up his ultimate weapon, and that the Rebellion will continue. His ultimate goal (destruction of the Rebel Alliance) failed. We know this, and more importantly, we know Vader knows this.

[darrenm]

Apr 30, 2010 13:19:08 GMT -5 daveed said:

Why not? Revenge doesn't have to be violent. And if he's not "clever enough", what skills, abilities, does he have that helps him solve his problems? (If it's another character, then you may not have an active enough protagonist.)

Revenge doesn't have to be violent, but it still means that you want the opposition to go through some sort of pain. The main character is too good-hearted to really seek that -- he'd be quite content with his freedom.

Then your real "bad guy"/antagonist is the superior officer. The subordinate cops are just agents of the antagonist to achieve whatever goals he/she has.

Yes and no. There is one subordinate cop, who is the most frequently seen cop, who is fully on board with the superior and perhaps even more into the scheme than the superior

I think an audience has to feel some sort of satisfaction that the bad guy loses, even if it's just this round (as in Star Wars). Or at least the antagonist knows that the plans they put in in place to thwart your protagonist failed.

I generally agree with you on this, I was just wondering if such an ending was actually necessary.