Do I tend to overthink things in filmmaking?

[Josh Bass]

Youre completely missing the point of what I was trying to say. Scrap or at least shelve the whole idea/movie, start over with a brand new simple idea/script that has nothing to do with the serial rapist/cop thriller.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, but every time I try to write new scripts, the budget always goes up because when you try to develop a story, things have to happen, and it's hard not to let the characters do those things, without causing the story to become illogical. It happens every time I write, and characters do not know they are in a movie, so they cannot make decisions to stay within a budget, without it being illogical or noticeable.

Or there are times when the characters do not have to make decisions that will cost more money, but then I find it not as compelling, or interesting and figure if I don't find it dramatic or compelling, to save on money, than neither will the audience. But they say that horror movies are easier to do on a lower budget but how is that when stunts cost more money?

[Josh Bass]

I dont know what to tell you on that one. It comes down to imagination.

The writer(s) of Tape and Coherence (movie I linked to above) and Primer managed to do it. Im sure there are countless other examples.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, good point. I guess I am betting at writing physical thrillers where characters have to escape physical danger, more than psychological danger. Perhaps the physical danger stories are the strength of my imagination.

[Brian Drysdale]

You don't need to set your story in the US. In your case, you may end up having Canadians trying to do American accents, which will depend on how good your actors are. There are a wide range of accents in the US.

If you're relying just on guns for the logic in your story, you're lost up a col de sac. Some of the most brutal scenes in films don't have any guns, they're the easy way out. Lots of crime doesn't involve the use of any guns.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, well if I set it in Canada, a lot of people including the police have guns here too. But let's say I write so the villains commit their crimes without any guns. The police are still going to use their guns to go after the villains, and I want the villains to try to fight back and resist arrest and escape to make it more dramatic. But would the police not use guns in Canada, in such situations?

It's just that in the script, the protagonist as well as supporting characters are police officers, and if they do not use guns, especially the main character, well then the audience is going to think it doesn't make sense of for them not to, won't they, even in Canada?

Maybe I am missing something here. You say lots of crime does not involve guns, but how do you prevent the police from not having guns, if they are going into situations where they will be attacked by the villains? This is what I am having trouble understanding how to write.

One movie I can think of where the police do not use any guns when going after a serial killer is The Chaser (2008). But is there a reason why they were able to make it work in that movie, that I can implement perhaps? Or what if I wrote it so that the police do not have any guns, even when they go into dangerious situations, and like The Chaser, just don't bother to address why they don't bring guns?

[Brian Drysdale]

The cops here carry guns, but they don't always use them.

It depends on how they're used dramatically, they can be an easy way out. Cops can also use them inappropriately, which can bring other ramifications for charterers. .

In "The Bridge" Saga, the Swedish female protagonist detective has what appears to be Aspergers and she has a gun, it gets fired occasionally, However, it's also used for dramatic effect, she doesn't allow her Danish partner on the case to use a gun in Sweden because he's not allowed to be aimed there. There's an instance later where she's forced to confront her keeping to rules when told to take a gun in Denmark while doing a raid without support,

There's a SWAT type team that gives them support on police raids, but guns are rarely fired by them.

Just firing guns isn't dramatic, there has to be more to it.

Serial killers are a mixed bunch and you don't always need a gun to arrest them.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, well for example I wanted the villains to suffer a dramatic death, by the police at the end. Kind of like the death you see at the end of Bonnie and Clyde (1967) for example, or something of that sort.

But, would the police give the villaims a death like that, if it meant beating them to death, with their hands or batons, instead of using the guns? I guess I just that the guns would be more dramatic of a death.

But let's say you do not need guns to arrest a serial killer. In movies, they always use guns though. For example in the movies The Silence of the Lambs and Seven, when the SWAT teams go into, what they think are the killers homes, they are aiming guns as they go in. Why didn't the SWAT team just choose to come unarmed then, if they do not need them? If I write it so that a team of police goes in unarmed, when it be believable, compared to movies like The Silence of the Lambs or Seven, where they had guns?

[Brian Drysdale]

SWAT squads go in armed, that's what they exist for.

The job of the police is to bring people to justice, not to kill them for revenge. Currently, the news has instances where suspects have met their deaths by other means. There's a story behind the real Bonny and Clyde, their characters and the world that they lived in. They are the protagonists, not the cops in the film.

There has to be another level to the deaths, since you don't have the budget to do a visceral scene like "Bonnie and Clyde" Unless the gunshots can be seen ripping something/people apart you won't match that scene, beating with blunt instruments comes closer, as demonstrated by Joe Pesci in a number of films. .

There are movies in which they don't use guns to arrest real life serial killers.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, it's just in every movie I've seen besides The Chaser here they always use SWAT to go make the arrests.

Plus I didn't think I needed more Gore to try to to do a dramatic death scene like Bonnie and clyde. I thought I could still have the deaths but without more gore, unless I need the gore?

[Brian Drysdale]

Maybe it's more interesting if the the key cop characters have to make the arrests. After all it's these people who the audience have invested in, not cops covered with body armour.

You shouldn't use examples which have lots of bullet hits on the characters and the vehicle they were sitting in, if you don't wish to use gore. After all the characters being ripped apart by bullets is central to how these people died both in the movie and even more so in real life.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh well I meant the example as in what happens, not how I intend to show it if that makes sense?

The thing about using the main cop characters, is that I didn't think it would be believable, if they went to make the arrest without back up. For example, in the movie Manhunter, the main character goes with back up. I just thought it would make the main cops look dumb, if they didn't bring any.

[Brian Drysdale]

It's story telling, you put the main character(s) into a position where they;re forced to do it without back up. The SWAT team may runaround the place, but your main hero needs to do the final show down.

An example is in "The Bridge" final showdown, where Saga Norén, the female Swedish detective, goes alone to face down the villain who has her detective partner in the middle of the bridge between Sweden and Denmark. The bridge is sealed off at either end, but the SWAT teams are no where near,

This is what heroes tend to do, they may have had a commando squad , but it's James Bond who finally faces down the villain, although sometimes he gets saved by the bond girl, who has a reason for revenge, Dirty Harry did the job without a SWAT team.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Film making is a creative process that takes flexibility. At every turn in the process it reveals you handcuff yourself with rules and preconceptions. Your ideas are primarily derived from big budget movies.

There is too long of list of examples in this genre where there is no need for guns, gun fights or large supporting cast. To name a few: Sherlock both the British and American series, Wallander, Endeavor... The detective doesn’t need a gun and most of time is spent with a solitary lead character perusing inquires.

There are so many possibles to write it in a way that works for a low budget that still would be exciting but you seem incapable of seeing past your narrow vision. You’d be better off working at a government job that has specific rules and regulations to follow.

Mindless mainstream action movies which you seem to be modeling your movie after rely on all the things that low budget film isn’t good at. Mainly all that action (gun fights, car chases, fights and special effects). Not understanding your limitations and the realities of producing a movie is the consequence of living inside a personal passion project bubble.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, I never thought of the script as an action movie script, but more of a suspense thriller, which happens to have physical confrontations in it, at certain points.

I could cut out the physical confrontations and cut them short, but then script will only be about 70 pages long, since the confrontations take up about 20 pages. So I woulld be 20 pages short of the what a screenplay is expected to be, since they say do not go under 90 pages, if that's true.