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.
When a naively sentimental clown doctor is approached by an 8 year old cancer patient in the hospital a bond is made and he must find a way to make the boy smile and learn to not get attached himself.
Patch Adams was something of a pre-sold concept as it was based upon a true character. Some may view this a faux-copy-cat of the real person. It seems to me he shouldn't be a naively sentimental comical doctor. Not knowingly, anyway. At the start of the story, he should come across as the opposite.Read more
Patch Adams was something of a pre-sold concept as it was based upon a true character. Some may view this a faux-copy-cat of the real person.
It seems to me he shouldn’t be a naively sentimental comical doctor. Not knowingly, anyway. At the start of the story, he should come across as the opposite. His character arc would be to open up emotionally, to develop a sense of compassionate humor, perchance, in spite of, in defiance of all the suffering and death he is witness to.
And I also think that rather than have a casual introduction of doctor and kid, have a causal one. Such as (for example) the doctor meets the kid when he is called upon to consult on the case because the kid has a rare form of cancer that is the doctor’s specialty.
And the doctor’s objective goal would not be to make the kid smile. His objective goal would be to save the kid’s life. The smiling would be a bonus, an emotional payoff in the “B” story, the development of the relationship between doctor and patient, the emotional growth and bonding between them.
fwiw.
See lessWhen a naively sentimental clown doctor is approached by an 8 year old cancer patient in the hospital a bond is made and he must find a way to make the boy smile and learn to not get attached himself.
Patch Adams was something of a pre-sold concept as it was based upon a true character. Some may view this a faux-copy-cat of the real person. It seems to me he shouldn't be a naively sentimental comical doctor. Not knowingly, anyway. At the start of the story, he should come across as the opposite.Read more
Patch Adams was something of a pre-sold concept as it was based upon a true character. Some may view this a faux-copy-cat of the real person.
It seems to me he shouldn’t be a naively sentimental comical doctor. Not knowingly, anyway. At the start of the story, he should come across as the opposite. His character arc would be to open up emotionally, to develop a sense of compassionate humor, perchance, in spite of, in defiance of all the suffering and death he is witness to.
And I also think that rather than have a casual introduction of doctor and kid, have a causal one. Such as (for example) the doctor meets the kid when he is called upon to consult on the case because the kid has a rare form of cancer that is the doctor’s specialty.
And the doctor’s objective goal would not be to make the kid smile. His objective goal would be to save the kid’s life. The smiling would be a bonus, an emotional payoff in the “B” story, the development of the relationship between doctor and patient, the emotional growth and bonding between them.
fwiw.
See lessIdentiical Twins living in the Post-Apocalyptic Caribbean have their village attacked by pirates, one of them is taken and the village is destroyed; unable to make contact one devotes his life to saving his brother while the other slowly becomes identical to the very pirates that pillaged his town.
>>He?s going to know, but it?s not going to stop him from doing what he has to do to survive. My concern with this it that in the 3rd act, it seems to be a weak choice for a leading character -- even if he's the bad guy. (The pirate is the villain, isn't he?) A character might act to merely surviveRead more
>>He?s going to know, but it?s not going to stop him from doing what he has to do to survive.
My concern with this it that in the 3rd act, it seems to be a weak choice for a leading character — even if he’s the bad guy. (The pirate is the villain, isn’t he?)
A character might act to merely survive in the 1st Act, but during the course of the 2nd Act, he should grow through his character arc (for better or worse) to be able to act for some purpose other than merely to save his skin.
So that at the climax in the 3rd Act, he willingly risks all — including his life — for some cause, some purpose, or (strongest and best of all choices) to save the life of someone else (a stakes character or stake community).
See less