I could have very easily missed this. All these comments just sorta blend into one big ass comment.

From what I understand is the CQ is different for each individual. So the CQ can be anything. Right?

Can there be one main CQ and then have little ones along the way??? Therefore, many CQ’s.

Like DANCES WITH WOLVES — John Dunbar –

The CQ(for me) will he get his new post in the middle of B.F.E and get it up and running with military personel?

This slowly turns to… Will he find any sort of life out there? More specifically Indians.

He does. After that will he become friends with them — He does.

After that — Will he be able to speak their language, then marry the one white woman in the tribe, then get his journal that he CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT(that he has been living without for who knows how long — by the way).

To me the CQ is always evolving in this great film. Not only evolving but has a big one, then smaller ones.

Am I just rambling on here and not making any sense? Looking too much into it? That’s my fucking luck by the way…

In some of these great films(blockbusters — granted not specs) I see the CQ evolving into something else. Well… Even specs do this too.

My only comment is… Son of a bitch!

I really enjoy Leon the Professional but I can’t say his wound is that significant compared to certain other films but the surrounding treatment is so good.

I still think The Sting is one of the all time great films but no ‘great’ wound.

Same with Scarface really. I don’t think the wound is that ‘different’ or outstanding but just great characters and layers of personality.

For me wound is intriguing just like the human psyche is. You can have two people with similar backgrounds and one has forged ahead in life and the other pulls wings off butterflies. I guess it’s how we wrap that in the overall context of the film that may, or may not, draw an audience.

The films for me that shift the central question away from wound to pure action are ones like The Avengers. The Fiennes/Thurman version doesn’t cut it for me against the original but there is no wound there per se. I see these films like caricatures in a way. Watch the old Man from U.N.C.L.E films and you’ll know what I mean. :)

And, while Neo defeated Agent Smith at the end, this does not mean he has defeated the matrix. You should know this. As I’ve said many times, stating the obvious, Neo never once was concentrating on defeating the matrix in The Matrix. The goal for Neo was to find himself, and the grander goal was to survive on their way to Zion. That’s it. I’m not sure what movie you were watching if you don’t know this.

Morpheus’s goal is to: Reach Zion, find The One, and eventually defeat the matrix. However, the matrix-defeating goal began in Matrix: Reloaded, not the first Matrix.

Above in the last paragraph, I meant to say,

What would you say to your protaganist, if they walked in and ASKED you, “Where are you taking me?”

“The problem?

Making the central question important enough, dramatic enough, compelling enough to hold our interest through to the end and to ME, that’s the hardest part of getting the central question RIGHT.”

I’ve been working on my script for months, with a gut feeling that something was not just “right.” I started to feel like I was “pushing a rope.”

Now all along, I had a central question. But in my head kept churning a lot of the same thoughts and points written above. Then I realized my central question was not COMPELLING enough.

I’d venture to say, this should be the main focus of this “debate.” And to solve this issue, I’d say go to, or create, the BACKSTORY of your protaganist. Find out WHY your protaganist is so fucked up. What happened to him/her, years ago, that’s making them behave this way today? I bet if you dig DEEP into the life of your protaganist, you’re central question will begin to make itself obvious.

Of course a bunch of valid points are made above, but what makes up and drives your character’s heart is the main key (I think) to the central question (otherwise, why do you need one?).

I watched Finding Forrester three times this past weekend. A great line he “asks” of the aspiring young writer is “Where are you taking me?”

So, what would you say to your protaganist, if he/she suddenly walked in on you, while you’re sitting at the typewriter? Do you know them well enough to give an answer they will appreciate? And deserve?

Carlo,

Whoa , whatchu talkin’ ’bout. Of course, Neo’s trying to beat the Matrix and rescue Morpheus. That’s the outer goal and driving plot of the story. That’s what’s putting people in the seats.

Agreed the inner journey is him finding himself but you gotta have both. IMO

ps. Mike, You should check it out, classic Hero’s Journey.

The only real difference between Unk’s 4 Acts and Syd Field’s 3 — is a naming convention.

Structurally, the midpoint, is generally a large reversal — a high high or a low low. If you, as a writer think this reversal is big enough to change objective, than you have Four Acts. If not, you have Three.

But it’s still the same movie.

For example, ALIENS (yea! More James Cameron movies) has a very brutally bad MIDPOINT.

The marines get their butts handed to them by the Aliens.

Some may argue that this completely changes their objective — they decide to get the hell out of Dodge when before they were gung-ho. Some may argue, they just decided to kill them using a different tactic (blowing the whole place up) instead of hand to hand.

The point is — structurally its the same thing (whether you call it Four Acts or Three).