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.
Los Angeles, 1956. An ambitious prosecutor wants to know why the police were so eager to close the file on the suspicious death of a wealthy businessman. When his off the books investigation uncovers a link between that case and the murder of a young prostitute twenty years earlier, both his career and his life are endangered.
Again, I think you need to consider where the prosecutor stands in the assembly line of the sausage factory that is the law enforcement/judicial process. Normally, the case would only come to the attention of the prosecutor if the police file charges accusing someone of the crime. The paperwork willRead more
Again, I think you need to consider where the prosecutor stands in the assembly line of the sausage factory that is the law enforcement/judicial process.
Normally, the case would only come to the attention of the prosecutor if the police file charges accusing someone of the crime. The paperwork will land on his desk and he is supposed to prosecute a specific defendant.
If the “files are closed” on the case, doesn’t that mean there is no defendant to prosecute? Ergo, no paperwork to generate to land on the prosecutor’s desk, no reason for the case to come to his attention, no reason for him to get involved?
So wouldn’t it more likely be the case that the police frame someone, that the prosecutor is under pressure to prosecute the case with all deliberate speed, rush it to trial and a guilty verdict? But he comes to realize the case leaks like a sieve, that the defendant is being set up to take the fall?
Is there any particular reason why the main character has to be a prosecutor? If you cast him as a detective, the procedural problems are solved.
Even better might be to cast him as an L.A. County sheriff detective rather an L.A. city police detective. Why? Because the chief of police is appointed while the numero uno Sheriff of the county is elected. The father could be grooming his ambitious son to run for the job, succeed him when he (shortly) retires. That could be the specific personal stakes for the son.
And historically, given the nature of the local politics, it has been easy for the Sheriff to handpick his successor, hard of the city chief of police to pick his. (No B.S.: check out the history.)
Another issue with your premise is that in 1956, the chief of police was William Parker. Are you aware that he made his reputation a reformer who cleaned up and professionalized a corrupt department? Well, movies take liberties with the facts, but implicitly, if not explicitly, you are sullying a legendary figure. However, if a Hollywood studio is willing to put serious money behind your ‘revisionist’ history, why sweat over small details like that?
But consider that in “L.A. Confidential”, set in the same time frame as your story [coincidence?], the “Parker” character does not have his hands tainted by corruption. James Ellroy, who wrote the book from which the movie was adapted, thoroughly researched the period, knew better. Which is why the book — and movie — work so well.
fwiw
See lessLos Angeles, 1956. An ambitious prosecutor wants to know why the police were so eager to close the file on the suspicious death of a wealthy businessman. When his off the books investigation uncovers a link between that case and the murder of a young prostitute twenty years earlier, both his career and his life are endangered.
Again, I think you need to consider where the prosecutor stands in the assembly line of the sausage factory that is the law enforcement/judicial process. Normally, the case would only come to the attention of the prosecutor if the police file charges accusing someone of the crime. The paperwork willRead more
Again, I think you need to consider where the prosecutor stands in the assembly line of the sausage factory that is the law enforcement/judicial process.
Normally, the case would only come to the attention of the prosecutor if the police file charges accusing someone of the crime. The paperwork will land on his desk and he is supposed to prosecute a specific defendant.
If the “files are closed” on the case, doesn’t that mean there is no defendant to prosecute? Ergo, no paperwork to generate to land on the prosecutor’s desk, no reason for the case to come to his attention, no reason for him to get involved?
So wouldn’t it more likely be the case that the police frame someone, that the prosecutor is under pressure to prosecute the case with all deliberate speed, rush it to trial and a guilty verdict? But he comes to realize the case leaks like a sieve, that the defendant is being set up to take the fall?
Is there any particular reason why the main character has to be a prosecutor? If you cast him as a detective, the procedural problems are solved.
Even better might be to cast him as an L.A. County sheriff detective rather an L.A. city police detective. Why? Because the chief of police is appointed while the numero uno Sheriff of the county is elected. The father could be grooming his ambitious son to run for the job, succeed him when he (shortly) retires. That could be the specific personal stakes for the son.
And historically, given the nature of the local politics, it has been easy for the Sheriff to handpick his successor, hard of the city chief of police to pick his. (No B.S.: check out the history.)
Another issue with your premise is that in 1956, the chief of police was William Parker. Are you aware that he made his reputation a reformer who cleaned up and professionalized a corrupt department? Well, movies take liberties with the facts, but implicitly, if not explicitly, you are sullying a legendary figure. However, if a Hollywood studio is willing to put serious money behind your ‘revisionist’ history, why sweat over small details like that?
But consider that in “L.A. Confidential”, set in the same time frame as your story [coincidence?], the “Parker” character does not have his hands tainted by corruption. James Ellroy, who wrote the book from which the movie was adapted, thoroughly researched the period, knew better. Which is why the book — and movie — work so well.
fwiw
See less?In the future, when only pockets of civilization have survived a worldwide famine, one young nomad will have to overcome prejudices and allegiances if he is to learn the four lessons that his dead guardian tasked him with pursuing as his dying wish.?
Why does he have to learn 4 lessons? What does fulfilling tasks given to him by a dead man have to do with his living/surviving in the here and now? (The objective goal of the protagonist should face the future, not the past.) What's at stake? What does he stand to gain by learning, stand to lose byRead more
Why does he have to learn 4 lessons? What does fulfilling tasks given to him by a dead man have to do with his living/surviving in the here and now? (The objective goal of the protagonist should face the future, not the past.)
What’s at stake? What does he stand to gain by learning, stand to lose by not learning?
And who — not what — opposes him? “Prejudices and allegiances” are abstractions. They need faces; they should be embodied in an antagonist.
See less