Follow-Up

A comment on a previous post got me thinking.

"mrmxy said...

Most of the time, coincidences are easier to swallow if they're negative; that is, if the perception is that they're not helping you (the writer). Like, if the bad guy is pointing a gun at the good guy's head and he happens to run out of bullets, you groan. But if it's opposite situation, you go "holy shit this writer is a genuis let's give him money". This is why I include gun fights in all my scripts. Even the ones set in the Stone Age."

And not just thinking about mxy's stone age gun fighters script (although that sounds awesome), but about why the point he raised about negative coincidences is so spot-on (I mentioned this in the comments for that post, but found it interesting enough to warrant its own post).

The reason why these negative coincidences work is that they Raise the Stakes. It's a universally accepted writing rule: Keep Raising the Stakes. Make things harder for your hero; put more on the line. Have Timothy Olyphant kidnap Bruce Willis' daughter just as Willis thinks he has the upper hand. That sort of thing.

In mxy's example of the villain pointing a gun at the hero's head and running out of bullets, the audience feels cheated because they've just seen the writer make things easier for the hero (and the writer him/herself). But if the hero runs out of bullets just as the villain discovers a loaded gun in the briefcase he just stole... exciting!

So if you ever find yourself skirting the edge of making things too easy for your hero, flip it. Make it harder, and the audience will be on side.

And I promise that's the last time I use an example from Die Hard 4.0.