.
Share
Have an account? Sign In Now
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I disagree with your definition, in this film, of the main character.
Your definition – “…Protagonist-the character who has a goal, the goal which drives the story. In this case, is the terminator, and by extension, Skynet….”
Whilst you’re entitled to your opinion, I believe it stands in stark contrast to 99.9% of other people’s – which is indicative of it being wrong.
In the example you gave, according to your Terminator explanation, Darth Vader could be seen as the protagonist in Star Wars. His goal is to catch the droids so he can stop the rebels and bring order to the galaxy, in the process his troops kill Luke’s aunt and uncle and so he puts the story of Star Wars into motion – according to your logic he is the protagonist, however this is simply not true.
All antagonists in most stories have goals which they actively pursue, that doesn’t make them ?the protagonist of the story at hand. The Terminator is the antagonist, the main character, main point of view character and protagonist is Sarah, her ally and mentor is Kyle. The?inciting incident is The Terminator appearing in her time, her call to adventure is her flatmate getting killed, which forces her on the journey to fight the Terminator which she eventually kills.
This is a simple story that has very clearly defined characters, which leave very little room for debate on their nature and function in the story.
I propose the following logline for The Terminator:
After her flat mate is murdered?by a killer android a ditzy waitress must team up with a time traveling soldier sent to help her destroy the assassin.?
Dkpough1:
Thanks again for posting another challenging Classic film to logline. ?Once again, you raise important questions about the art & craft of loglines. ?
After reviewing both sides, ?and re-viewing the 1st 1/2 hour of the film, I am inclined to side with Nir Shelter on technical grounds.
However:
Sarah Connor’s roommate is not ‘terminated’ until 30 minutes into the story. So I would not consider that the inciting incident. ?Technically speaking, ?the inciting incident occurs ?around the 15 minute mark when the Terminator starts killing every “Sarah Connor” in the L.A. phone directory.
However:
I view this as a plot that literally hits the ground running, from the moment the Terminator lands buck naked in Griffith Observatory.?And it seems to me that ?whenever possible, ?describing the “sizzle” in a logline ?is more effective than describing the “steak”. ?I think that details of the “steak” of this story, ?what constitutes the inciting incident is, well, incidental.
So here’s my take:
A waitress must fight for her life when a cyborg assassin arrives from the future to kill her before she conceives the liberator-to-be of mankind in a post-apocalyptic world ruled by machines.
(32 words)
Notes:
“Conceives” ?rather than “gives birth to” because it saves 2 words; the same outcome is obvious
.
“Liberator-to-be” rather than “lead humanity in a rebellion” because again it’s shorter. ?And because it more clearly defines why the android has been sent back in time to?kill her. ?For the machines of the future, her son is not just another pain-in-the-oil-pan rebel — he represents their downfall, their doom. ?For them, preemptively eliminating him is a matter of survival. ?The machines are motivated.
“Post-apocalyptic”: the preamble of the movie establishes a post-nuclear war world ?of machine domination. ?Post-apocalyptic is the common shorthand to describe whenever/however our future is f####d.
By your definition of Protagonist, James bond is not the protagonist of any of his movies, the bad guy is the protagonist. The Villain is the one with the plan and sets events in motion and James bonds job is to stop the plan from happening.
So skynet has the plan but Kyle Reese, “come with me if you want to live” is set on stopping the plan. He is the one (like Jame Bond) driving the story.
Dkpgou1
I believe that you are adjusting?your own logic to fit different arguments without consistency.
You wrote about James Bond: “…The villian creates the inciting incident, whatever that may be in the multiple films, and then MI6 sends Bond to stop them. ?Bond?s goal drives the story?”
But also wrote about The Terminator: “…?Skynet trying to kill her is the goal which causes the conflict, Kyle Reese protecting Sarah?”
You’re simply choosing to define The Terminator’s objective as the protagonist’s goal instead of Sarah’s objective as the goal. I believe your statement of: “…The inciting incident of ?The Terminator? happens offscreen?” exposes something.
The inciting incident (which can be different to the call to adventure) needs?to happen on screen, and indeed in most good films it does. The fact that some related events took place off screen or in the relative past, doesn’t mean they are the inciting incident of the plot at hand. Using your logic we could define the inciting incident of Star Wars: A New Hope as being Luke’s mother dying, which in turn was the last event?that made Anakin?Skywalker turn to the dark side and made Ben need to hide Luke and Leia. With this kind of thinking it really only depends on how far back into the cannon of any franchise, or backstory of any single film, you want to go – but again it simply is not true.
This is all coming down to semantics – you, for what ever reason, ?chose to define for yourself The Terminator as the protagonist.?
Dkpough1:
Here’s my less-is-more definition of a protagonist. A definition from the point of view of the screenwriter, the one who is the author/creator of the character:
The protagonist is the primary character in the plot whom the screenwriter intends the audience to root for.
Do your really think James Cameron wrote the script for “Terminator” intending for the audience to root for either Skynet or its cyborg assassin?
Compare/ contrast with “Terminator 2: ?Judgement Day,” where Cameron wrote the Terminator as a character?he intended the audience root for. ?(And did they ever!)
In the spirit of open discussions I like these kind of threads.
On a side note, I would argue that writing a logline from the antagonist’s point of view is a great exercise that can help a?writer devise a better set of obstacles for the protagonist, however this isn’t quite the same thing.
Either way, short of repeating previously posted comments, I’m not sure what else can be said.?
Dkpough1:
I read the link you referred to. ?And I understand why the the poster would argue that although Sarah Connor is the main character, the Terminator is the Protagonist.
He has a point. ?The Terminator is introduced with an objective goal. ?In contrast, ?Sarah Connor ?is introduced without an objective goal other than making ?living, earning tips. ?Now, that would not automatically qualify the Terminator to be tagged as the protagonist. ?Because it’s quite common for the protagonist to have no particular goal or quite a different goal until the inciting incident.
However, in “Terminator”, ?Sarah Connor does not lock into an objective goal after the inciting incident, nor by the end of the 1st Act, per the standard plot formula. ?All she does is react by fleeing. ?Her only goal is immediate: stay alive. (Objective goals are proactive and take a longer view.)
Nor does she embrace an objective goal when Reese informs her of her destiny, well into the 2nd Act. ?She only finally accepts her destiny, locks into an objective goal at the end of the story.
So, although it takes longer for her to do so, she is the only person in the film with with a character arc, the only one who grows, changes. ?That is a defining characteristic of a protagonist, btw. ?So by that criterion, how does the Terminator qualify to be the protagonist when he undergoes no character growth? ?His purpose and motivation remains the same throughout the movie.
Once upon a time, I was hung up on definitions. Because I came to screenwriting from computer programming where definitions are precise, specific, binary. ? But screenwriting is not a science, it’s an art — nothing is binary, everything is multivalent and fuzzy. ?I finally came to accept the reality that in the arts definitions tend to be inconsistent, even contradictory across paradigms.
So I treat terms like ?hero, protagonist, main character as tools, not rules. ?I have assembled my own private toolbox of terms. ?They work for me. ?But I do not insist that others use my toolset. ?Every writer has to acquire his own.
And no matter how you want to define her role, the story is about her. ?She has to have top billing in the logline. (Even though the cyborg gets the title role.)
fwiw and regards
1]Just because some one else says the Terminator is the protagonist doesn’t make it so. ?
2] Just because Sarah doesn’t (initially) fill the bill for however one defines the protagonist does not mean that, ergo, the Terminator must be the protagonist.
Yes, the Terminator is pursuing an objective goal. ?As all antagonists should.?
And so is Reese. ?His objective goal — the mission given to him by the future John Connor– ?is to save Sarah ?from the Terminator so that John Connor can have his future. ?In your schema, why couldn’t he be the protagonist –a heroic one? ?After all, he makes the ultimate sacrifice a hero can make.
3] Stories have points of view (pov). ?If “Terminator” were told from the sympathetic pov of Skynet, ?then, yes, the Terminator could be the protagonist.?But that’s not the pov ?the story takes. ?James Cameron wrote from the sympathetic pov of humans, not cyborgs.
I appreciate the time and thought you’ve taken to explain your ideas, and I sympathize with your frustration with my answers. ?But our points of view just don’t align, don’t converge on this film. ?That happens. So it goes.
regards
All writers will?eventually develop their?own definitions and labels, most noticeable in writing teams by the way, and as?noted previously definitions are not ‘hard and fast’ they are malleable. However, if you do wish to work with other professionals – producers, executives or directors, you will?need to be able to make clear references and use the same terminology as they do. In this instance I believe that the?terminology proposed in the original post will conflict with that used by most other people, and what ever logic is?employed to explain it will not serve a purpose in the long run.
The character definitions that we’re discussing fall under the umbrella of archetypes in the hero’s journey. These are widely recognised and heavily documented conventions, and would benefit most writers as analysis tools, yet in the original post there is a blunt rejection of these conventions.?Therefore, aside from not being able to communicate clearly with other professionals, you miss out on the benefit of using a tested tool set.
Again, use what ever definition you want, but bear in mind that it may not necessarily work when used with other people.?As story telling in general and film making in particular are collaborative efforts, ask your self – is this serving a purpose?