Screenwriting : To kill off or not to kill off? That is the question. by Stefano Pavone

Stefano Pavone

To kill off or not to kill off? That is the question.

Hey, guys.

I've been novelising one of my stories (which I might readapt into a screenplay or outsource it to another writer as part of a challenge or competition). I'm having trouble writing the ending, specifically whether or not to kill off my main character - again (he dies near the end of the first act before getting resurrected RoboCop-style, albeit with nanomachines, giving him Deus Ex-like augmentations (multiple vision modes, speed enhancement, a neural interface allowing him to hack into computers wirelessly with his central nervous system, etc.), which are actually causing his body's cells to necrotise the more often he uses them, much like a cancer). I'm not sure whether to have him die again for good (albeit exposing a deadly conspiracy) or have him survive by virtue of his partner and friend saving his life with an emergency operation. Those in the Writers' Room will have a bit of an idea about which story I'm alluding to. Problem is, I've kind of grown to like the character, since he reminds me of, well... me (albeit with my more proactive traits amplified). Any advice would be greatly appreciated. :)

S.

Maurice Vaughan

Go with the ending that works best for the story, Stefano Pavone.

Chase Cysco

That’s a tough one! I totally get growing attached to a character, especially when they feel like an extension of yourself. If his death would serve the story in a powerful way, it could be a bold choice to let him go, especially if it ties everything up neatly. But if you see more potential for growth in him or think his survival could lead to a new, interesting direction, saving him might be the way to go. Maybe think about what would leave the biggest impact on the audience or open up possibilities for future stories. Either way, sounds like a cool concept!

Arthur Charpentier

Death is defeat.

Daniel Silvas

Stefano Pavone I would recommend that you take a hard look at your theme. Does his death satisfy that theme like a Greek Tragedy? Are we as an audience supposed to have an arc with the protagonist? If his arc is satisfied for the story, I say you spare him because we need that hero. If we as an audience are supposed to learn something from his death, then you have a clear answer.

Jason Mirch

I would say if he is dying for something greater than himself it is noble and you should consider it. It needs to serve the story - not just be a tear jerker of an ending. If you have come to love your character hopefully the audience will love him too, so if he sacrifices himself it could be very moving. Main characters have died in films before so it is not a new plot point, but done well could be very cool way to end.

Sallie Olson

Endings need to be satisfying. If the MC dies, it should serve some purpose that the reader will be okay with. They don't have to LIKE it, but they do need to be able to accept it. Whether he lives or dies needs to make sense and NOT feel like the author is gratifying his own attachment to, or vindictiveness toward the character.

It's hard to be more specific without knowing the whole story, but it sounds like one in which you could save the character at the end, but just barely, just in the nick of time, or even revive him after death and somehow orchestrate it so that dying again was necessary to be able to save him. (perhaps dying was the only way to shut down the technology so it could be removed, because trying to remove it while he was alive caused it to defend itself by harming him?) But trying to figure out how to save him/remove the technology should be a thread throughout the story that's seemingly impossible, otherwise it won't come off well.

Mike Boas

What’s the theme? How does the character’s death (or survival) reinforce that theme?

Stefano Pavone

Themes, Mike? Oh, boy, brace yourself. :) The main major one is the social yin-yang of doing the right thing versus upholding democracy, while other minor themes include weaponisation of information, political and moral corruption, perversion of democracy and the futility of mandatory conformity. On one hand, I feel his second death (remember, he's already died once and been revived with augmentations) could be the ultimate middle finger to the powers-that-be - on the other hand, it could be a bit TOO predictable, killing him off twice, so his survival could also be him getting a break after all the shit he's endured throughout the course of the story (getting conscripted into a rebel alliance, finding out his first girlfriend dumped him for her career, his second girlfriend losing her - and his - baby, how the rebels were in cahoots with the media and authorities the whole time, and how his friends have died for nothing).

Mike Boas

Thanks Stefano. Try to boil down your theme to a statement. “Doing the right thing vs upholding democracy” tells me the conflict, but not the theme.

The message your movie is saying to the audience — that is the theme. What do you want the audience to walk away with? The theme is the thesis you’re trying to prove, and the movie makes the case for both sides of the argument, with a conclusion at the end.

So the theme might be: doing the right thing is more important than upholding democracy.

Or the opposite; sometimes upholding democracy is more important than doing the right thing.

Where do you stand as the author? What do you want the audience to believe at the end? Does the character learn that lesson? He lives. Does he fail to learn the lesson? He dies.

Third option: he learns the lesson, but at that point, he can only win with a noble sacrifice. He dies to prove the thesis true.

Other topics in Screenwriting:

register for stage 32 Register / Log In