Domains and Throughlines of Captain America: Civil War

[mlucas]

I guess we could say that it's not about which removal of a domain is more believable, but which one is more conceptually economical

For the Litmus Test, there's no need to worry about that either. To test whether the OS is in Activity you just say "what if all the problematic activities in this (overall) story stopped -- would there still be a problem?" No need to worry about how or why the activities stop -- you don't concern yourself with that at all.

The Litmus Test is actually super simple, and boils down to a yes or no question -- though sometimes you're not sure and have to answer "maybe". Usually it's because you're not clear on exactly what constitutes the throughline; you might be mixing it up with other throughline(s). (Either that, or the story your analyzing isn't complete -- c.f. Wall-E.)

For example, with The Usual Suspects I had a lot of trouble figuring out the OS and RS domains. Even though I'd correctly identified that there were two main characters, I still thought a lot of the manipulation was in the overall story. That's because I had trouble determining what constituted the OS in that film.

Did you and Greg want to try applying the Litmus Test to Captain America: Civil War? I need to watch it again before I can be of any help.

[Greg]

I'd certainly be willing to be part of that conversation if enthusiasm for this topic hasn't run dry yet. i think it would be particularly helpful to look at everyone's opinions on whether to sign or not and determine whether those are a source of conflict or a decision forced by an action or how they fit in from a Dramatica standpoint.

[Greg]

As I sit here rocking a child in the dark and thinking way too much about a Captain America movie, I was able to come up with the below.

Previously I could agreed more with the idea that everyone had a problematic Fixed Attitude about signing the accords. But now I'm using the Litmus Test and seeing how these attitudes are not the source of the problem but are about a problematic Activity.

It doesn't matter what any hero thinks about the accords. What matters is whether they sign them. Sign and you work for the gov't, but won't be arrested. Don't sign and you're arrested or retired. So it's not the attitude that causes anyone conflict bit whether they sign. I can see this as a Sign Post of Doing (signing) or of Obtaining (getting signatures).

The Avengers don't fight because of their differing attitudes, but because half are trying to arrest the other half. While Tony does some things that look like manipulation of other characters, it's story telling rather than a source of conflict for him or others. For instance lying to May to talk to Peter is simply how he Obtains Spider-Man. There is no conflict in it. He has some trouble manipulating Steve, but that's RS.

Figuring those things out seems to've made it a lot clearer to me how this can be an Activity OS.

[decastell]

To test whether the OS is in Activity you just say "what if all the problematic activities in this (overall) story stopped -- would there still be a problem?" No need to worry about how or why the activities stop -- you don't concern yourself with that at all.

I still can't wrap my head around the absoluteness of this notion; it makes preposterous solutions viable in a way that removes any possibility of a story in which the conflict is coming from fixed attitudes or manipulation, because by removing the activities, you remove the effects of the fixed attitude or manipulation, and thus it's irrelevant where those conflicts come from.

Imagine a story about alcoholism which results in all kinds of awful results because everyone refuses to believe that Father Ted could possibly be an alcoholic. Even though that's clearly a story in manipulation or fixed attitude, if you simply remove the problematic activities (e.g. Father Ted never takes a drink), then you've solved the problem.

If in To Kill A Mockingbird, we remove all the problematic activities, then we get rid of the trial, of people interfering with each other, . . . etc. Who cares if people are still racist at that point? Most anyone I know who's had to deal with systematic discrimination largely doesn't care what's in people's heads – it's the things they do as a result that creates the problem.

So to put this maybe more succinctly: can you explain how, in a story in which the source of the problems are not in an external domain but the manifestations are, that you would use the litmus test to arrive at an internal domain?

[decastell]

It doesn't matter what any hero thinks about the accords. What matters is whether they sign them

I'm open to the OS for Civil War being in Activities, but what you've written here gives an example of my confusion: almost every internal problem manifests through an external act. You're saying it doesn't matter whether people have a fixed attitude about the accords so long as they sign them. That's like saying it doesn't matter if someone is an alcoholic so long as they don't drink. Sure, they'd still want a drink, but that becomes irrelevant because none of the problematic activities we saw on the screen (driving, fighting, driving drunk) would take place anymore.

In Civil War, take away the problematic activities that we've seen on the screen and you still have aliens, monsters, and super-terrorists. If you say, well, we just take those away too, then you're defining a world that doesn't exist in the context of the movie: you're changing things that exit before the movie itself starts.

There is a notion in the film that expresses a reason to believe that Activities (or possibly Situation) is the problem (note that I'm not arguing for it here, just illustrating the point). When they're dealing with whether to sign the Accords, Vision theorizes: "Our very strength invites challenge. Challenge creates conflict. Conflict leads to catastrophe."

The filmmakers are telling us here that simply being a superhero (though you could argue in the context of the movie that what they really mean is acting in the capacity of. superhero) creates the villains. A similar theory comes up in Dark Knight at one point: Batman's very existence causes disturbed individuals to emulate him, thus giving rise to all the strange super villains.

Not sure if I've illuminated anything here, but it seems to me that the litmus test does require some sort of nuance.

[Greg]

absoluteness of this notion

I don't think this test is meant to be absolute. It's a way to help clarify the issue, but doesn't necessarily provide a definitive answer. After all, you could answer "if X is removed is there still a problem?" with "maybe".

it makes preposterous solutions viable in a way that removes any possibility of a story in which the conflict is coming from fixed attitudes or manipulation

And yet you seem to've shown that it also forces everything into Fixed Attitudes or Manipulations as long as no one has a problem with whatever is happening in the story.

Imagine a story about alcoholism which results in all kinds of awful results because everyone refuses to believe that Father Ted could possibly be an alcoholic. Even though that's clearly a story in manipulation or fixed attitude, if you simply remove the problematic activities (e.g. Father Ted never takes a drink), then you've solved the problem.

Hypotheticals are difficult. But looking at the above paragraph, I'd say the question would be "if Father Ted never took a drink, would there still be a problem?" And the answer could be yes. Everyone still has an unrealistic idea of who Father Ted is. If you take away his drinking, maybe this problem manifests itself in other ways. Maybe that specific story is showing how Father Teds drinking causes a problem for everyone, but if he never drinks then the problem becomes that everyone continues to place this man on a pedastal instead of realizing that he is just like everyone else.

The story needs to show that it's the internal issues causing the problems. If I were on the audience side of this movie, I'll admit that it might be very difficult for me to see it as an internal issue if all I see is the story focusing on the external aspects.

I'll come back later to address how I'm applying this to Civil War.

[Greg]

That's like saying it doesn't matter if someone is an alcoholic so long as they don't drink. Sure, they'd still want a drink, but that becomes irrelevant because none of the problematic activities we saw on the screen (driving, fighting, driving drunk) would take place anymore.

This is the part I meant to reply to earlier rather than the example you gave @mlucas (sorry Mike). What I'd say to this part is, what is the OS story about? If it's about everyone putting more policemen on the road and voting to become a dry county, then the alcoholic (we'll call him Father Ted again) not taking a drink would solve the OS problem, though he might still have an MC problem. Maybe his continued desire to drink is an illustration of a Bad judgment.

If the story is about everyone being embarrassed by Father Teds behavior and the way he keeps getting caught driving drunk and how they are trying to get him into AA, then Father Ted simply not drinking doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

If you say, well, we just take those away too, then you're defining a world that doesn't exist in the context of the movie: you're changing things that exit before the movie itself starts.

I don't think so. But let's try to narrow it down so we don't have to do that. Remember, Jim has said the accords are the Response to the Symptom of out of control heroes. So what's the real problem? I may be straying from Jims view here (and I only mention that because I have been trying to assume Jims view, straying from his view is probably a good way to be wrong) but let's say the problem is simply civilian casualties.

If aliens, robots and terrorists stop attacking, the problem goes away. It's as easy as that. Or if they continue to attack but civilians stop being made casualties, the problem also seemingly goes away. To your point, if people stop caring about civilian casualties, the problem also goes away. But the story appears to be about ending casualties rather than convincing everyone to accept casualties.

My explanation of how signing the accords is an Activity, then, is addressing the symptom and response rather than the problem, but that's okay. I think it's still a valid way to look at the story and the signing of the accords is what I specifically wanted to look at anyway.

But let's say everyone suddenly becomes okay with signing the accords and working for the government. The Civil War goes away, but there are still civilian casualties. It's just that the government is now dictating which issues the heroes can be used for and thus which casualties they can cause. To that I look at what I said before, that the story seems to be about ending casualties rather than accepting. But if the casualties stop, the attitudes about how to handle conflict no longer tear the team apart.

[decastell]

I don't think this test is meant to be absolute. It's a way to help clarify the issue, but doesn't necessarily provide a definitive answer. After all, you could answer "if X is removed is there still a problem?" with "maybe".

Yes, so if we have two or even three viable domains in which the answer comes out as "maybe", we need a means to reduce down to one. If the heuristic for doing that isn't believability or viability, then what is it?

And yet you seem to've shown that it also forces everything into Fixed Attitudes or Manipulations as long as no one has a problem with whatever is happening in the story.

Yes, my answer suffers from the same problem in terms of the litmus test. In essence, if all problematic Activities stop, then you've always removed the problem, just as if nobody cares about what's happening anymore, you've removed the problem. So we need something else with which to differentiate between "sure, in theory" answers versus, "this concretely reflects the story on the page"

Maybe that specific story is showing how Father Teds drinking causes a problem for everyone, but if he never drinks then the problem becomes that everyone continues to place this man on a pedastal instead of realizing that he is just like everyone else.

Except that if he never engages in problematic activities (such as drinking), then it really isn't a problem that they put him on a pedestal. Imagine you have an incorrect opinion of someone and your friend says, "but they're a terrible person". You ask for proof, and they can't name a single bad action that person's ever done. Why would you credit that there was any problem?

Again, I'm not trying to say that therefore the litmus test doesn't work, or that every problem is in Activities, or anything else; I'm simply using these as illustrations that without some way to contextualize what problematic means within the distinctly bound universe established by the story, or alternately, without at least having recourse to the notion of "believability", I can't see how to identify the domain.

[Harsylka]

But other supervillains, aliens and terrorists are not the purview of this film. That is a projection outside of the scope of this film. If your point about the Fixed Attitudes in the film is correct, and the Fixed Attitude being around the Accords then how does it apply to every character in the story?

[decastell]

what is the OS story about? If it's about everyone putting more policemen on the road and voting to become a dry county, then the alcoholic (we'll call him Father Ted again) not taking a drink would solve the OS problem, though he might still have an MC problem. Maybe his continued desire to drink is an illustration of a Bad judgment.

If the story is about everyone being embarrassed by Father Teds behavior and the way he keeps getting caught driving drunk and how they are trying to get him into AA, then Father Ted simply not drinking doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

Asking what the OS story is about is kind of the same thing as asking what domain its in. I agree with you that if we know that Father Ted's problem is desire and he's not engaged in any problematic activities that affect others, and he's the MC, then the MC domain is going to be in something else – and maybe we can identify that by going one level up from problem and looking at which issues most closely encompass the problem of his desire (for example, if Father Ted hates himself because he's a priest and yet constantly desires alcohol and thus feels he's a fraud, then probably his issue is Sense of Self which puts the MC domain in manipulation.)

If the story is about everyone being embarrassed by Father Teds behavior and the way he keeps getting caught driving drunk and how they are trying to get him into AA, then Father Ted simply not drinking doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

Actually, it really does solve the problem. How can people be embarrassed by Father Ted's behaviour if he never drinks and thus never gets into trouble?

Remember, Jim has said the accords are the Response to the Symptom of out of control heroes. So what's the real problem?

That's assuming that everyone actually thinks the symptom is out of control heroes. Steve thinks the symptom is innocents are dying because of supervillains. That's a different thing. We can ignore the perceived symptom of those on the other side of the civil war, but I'm not sure how we just decide to do that.

I may be straying from Jims view here (and I only mention that because I have been trying to assume Jims view, straying from his view is probably a good way to be wrong)

The implication of this is that the measure of whether one analysis is correct and another is wrong comes down to Jim's arbitration. That's fine, and you're right – going against his analysis is likely to end up with the wrong answer. But my problem isn't that I don't accept Jim's expertise or that he's right, it's that I can't find the means to arrive at the same answer. Agreeing with his position when I can't arrive at it myself isn't applying the Dramatica model, which means I'm not able to use it for my own writing.

If aliens, robots and terrorists stop attacking, the problem goes away. It's as easy as that. Or if they continue to attack but civilians stop being made casualties, the problem also seemingly goes away. To your point, if people stop caring about civilian casualties, the problem also goes away. But the story appears to be about ending casualties rather than convincing everyone to accept casualties.

The critical part of this paragraph is, "the story appears to be" – as you rightly point out, everything before it in the paragraph is pretty much irrelevant, because the challenge is to identify what the story appears to be about. The litmus test, in this particular case, isn't getting me there, because we disagree on what the story "appears to be about".

But let's say everyone suddenly becomes okay with signing the accords and working for the government. The Civil War goes away, but there are still civilian casualties. It's just that the government is now dictating which issues the heroes can be used for and thus which casualties they can cause. To that I look at what I said before, that the story seems to be about ending casualties rather than accepting. But if the casualties stop, the attitudes about how to handle conflict no longer tear the team apart.

Forgive me for poorly paraphrasing this, but I'm reading it as: the story is in Activities because if we remove the activities the problems go away, except that we won't actually get rid of the activities, which is okay because people's problematic attitudes about how superheroes should be governed will go away.

Again, I'm almost certainly twisting your words here, so show me the error in my interpretation of what you wrote, but as it stands, it kind of reads to me that the thing we're going to get rid of is the problematic attitude towards how superheroes behave.

[Greg]

Regarding the need for a more objective way to determine throughline arrangements, I'm in agreement.

Regarding the litmus test, again, it's not perfect. But what I've found works best is a combination of what I see on screen and what I see as authors intent. Being an audience and not an author means I can't KNOW the authors intent. And that's the problem I feel you're getting at, more or less.

Looking at the example of Father Ted again. If Fixed Attitudes are the source of the problem, then it shouldn't matter whether Father Ted drinks or not. Even if Father Ted doesn't drink, either people know he used to drink and still have an issue with him being an alcoholic or even the mere suggestion that he could be an alcoholic stirs up controversy. If not drinking truly removes the conflict everyone experiences, then I don't see how anyone's Fixed Attitudes are the source of the conflict.

[Greg]

we disagree on what the story "appears to be about".

I know there's hundreds of posts at this point where you discuss it, but for clarification, can you explain once more what you see the OS as being about? Something short like "ending casualties" will do.

[Greg]

Z

Forgive me for poorly paraphrasing this, but I'm reading it as: the story is in Activities because if we remove the activities the problems go away, except that we won't actually get rid of the activities, which is okay because people's problematic attitudes about how superheroes should be governed will go away.

Actually the way I meant this was if the attitudes about signing the accords went away, the conflict between the Avengers would go away, but the Activity of dying civilians would still be present. Only it would be the gov't picking which activity would lead to civilian casualties rather than the Avengers. Maybe that makes a little more sense.

[decastell]

Regarding the litmus test, again, it's not perfect. But what I've found works best is a combination of what I see on screen and what I see as authors intent. Being an audience and not an author means I can't KNOW the authors intent. And that's the problem I feel you're getting at, more or less.

Actually, I think Jim's updated stance on this is the right one: it's the author's message – the one that we end up with on the screen regardless of their original intent. The challenge, of course, is methodically interpreting that.

If Fixed Attitudes are the source of the problem, then it shouldn't matter whether Father Ted drinks or not. Even if Father Ted doesn't drink, either people know he used to drink and still have an issue with him being an alcoholic or even the mere suggestion that he could be an alcoholic stirs up controversy.

Agreed. So we could envision a movie where everyone is miserable and anxious because of their belief (fixed attitude) or the suggestion (manipulation) that he's an alcoholic. The problem comes in that most movies or books would manifest this anxiety in some external way and if we remove those external activities, then the problem again appears to go away.

Of course, most movies aren't so strict in one direction or another that everything we see in the OS is either internal or external. To Kill A Mockingbird is rightly assigned an internal domain for the OS, but pretty much everything we see going wrong on the screen in the OS looks like an external activity.

I suppose the bottom line is that for the litmus test to work sufficiently to be practicable, then you need to be able to take ten people who've both seen the movie and had sufficient training (i.e. read an article or sets of articles or whatever) and have the majority of them come up with the same answer as Jim or Chris or Melany (assuming the three of them would have the same answer.)

I know there's hundreds of posts at this point where you discuss it, but for clarification, can you explain once more what you see the OS as being about? Something short like "ending casualties" will do.

Well, this is precisely the problem: I can see reasons for it to be in at least three of the domains. Having rewatched it again a couple of nights ago, my instinct now is that the simplest way to describe the problem is: "Superheroes are being manipulated into fighting each other."

Thus I'd probably put the OS in manipulation at this point. However I can certainly see the argument for activities and if I had to find the "root cause" (not a Dramatica term, of course), it still seems to come from fixed attitudes.

Actually the way I meant this was if the attitudes about signing the accords went away, the conflict between the Avengers would go away, but the Activity of dying civilians would still be present. Only it would be the gov't picking which activity would lead to civilian casualties rather than the Avengers.

No matter what you do, the movie tells us there's still going to be civilian casualties. So what does solving the inequity really look like?

[jhull]

Imagine a story about alcoholism which results in all kinds of awful results because everyone refuses to believe that Father Ted could possibly be an alcoholic. Even though that's clearly a story in manipulation or fixed attitude, if you simply remove the problematic activities (e.g. Father Ted never takes a drink), then you've solved the problem.

And

Asking what the OS story is about is kind of the same thing as asking what domain its in.

What a story is about is not an indicator of the source of conflict within that story.

This is a huge mistake many people make when working with Dramatica. Domains are about inequities, not about stories.

Alcoholism is not a problem–until you, as an Author, make it a problem. You make it a problem by showing some kind of inequity.

In the above example of “Father Ted never takes a drink”, you state that the problems manifest in Activities. Well, if they do, then yes–stopping those activities would resolve the issue.

Everyone refusing to believe the Father Ted is an alcoholic presupposes some kind of inequity. There is no inequity within that statement from a Dramatica point-of-view.

If in To Kill A Mockingbird, we remove all the problematic activities, then we get rid of the trial, of people interfering with each other, . . . etc. Who cares if people are still racist at that point? Most anyone I know who's had to deal with systematic discrimination largely doesn't care what's in people's heads – it's the things they do as a result that creates the problem.

The activities of the trial and of people interfering with one another are not shown to be problematic in To Kill A Mockingbird, so removing them wouldn’t make a difference. The racism is shown to be problematic, so yes, removing that would resolve the situation.

Of course, most movies aren't so strict in one direction or another that everything we see in the OS is either internal or external. To Kill A Mockingbird is rightly assigned an internal domain for the OS, but pretty much everything we see going wrong on the screen in the OS looks like an external activity.

Because it’s a movie. Everything is externalized.

What everything looks like is not what Dramatica is concerned with. Dramatica is concerned with identifying the inequity shown to be motivating problems within the various perspectives.

In Civil War, take away the problematic activities that we've seen on the screen and you still have aliens, monsters, and super-terrorists. If you say, well, we just take those away too, then you're defining a world that doesn't exist in the context of the movie: you're changing things that exit before the movie itself starts.

Aliens, monsters, and super-terrorists are not problematic in and of themselves, especially within context of Civil War–the narrative in question. The activities of super terrorists are problematic. It all comes down to presupposing conflict without it actually being shown.

Yes, so if we have two or even three viable domains in which the answer comes out as "maybe", we need a means to reduce down to one. If the heuristic for doing that isn't believability or viability, then what is it?

And

Well, this is precisely the problem: I can see reasons for it to be in at least three of the domains. Having rewatched it again a couple of nights ago, my instinct now is that the simplest way to describe the problem is: "Superheroes are being manipulated into fighting each other."

You reduce it down to one by successfully arguing the other three Domains at the same time. You can always make an argument for one Domain at one time. It’s when you do all four at once that you quickly figure out which one is the “right” one.

Yes, my answer suffers from the same problem in terms of the litmus test. In essence, if all problematic Activities stop, then you've always removed the problem, just as if nobody cares about what's happening anymore, you've removed the problem.

Super simple example of a litmus test for a Fixed Attitude:

In Doubt you can remove all the kid touching and there would still be a problem: the nun’s belief that the priest was touching a kid. Kid touching is not problematic in the narrative of Doubt, the belief that a priest is guilty before facing trial is.

You have to look at the narrative presented, not what you think is personally problematic.

No matter what you do, the movie tells us there's still going to be civilian casualties. So what does solving the inequity really look like?

What’s going to be is not problematic, what is problematic is problematic. What’s going to be problematic may be problematic for the characters, but it’s not problematic as far as the story is concerned.

There are civilian casualties. Stopping innocent people from dying is the Goal setup to resolve that inequity.

[Greg]

I may be straying from Jims view here (and I only mention that because I have been trying to assume Jims view, straying from his view is probably a good way to be wrong)

No matter what you do, the movie tells us there's still going to be civilian casualties. So what does solving the inequity really look like?

These two things are related. I wasn't suggesting that Jims is the only word that matters. I was suggesting that I was maybe about to be super extra wrong. Why would I say be saying that? Because if the problem is that casualties are unavoidable, then I didn't know what to pursue or stop pursuing to solve that. I was looking at a solution of not pursuing the bad guys anymore. That was an uncomfortable message to accept so I purposely avoided bringing it up. However, Jim refers in another thread to "The pursuit to resolve that inequity by Stopping the Avengers", and that certainly rings true of the story presented (at least with me). So we'll go with that, the solution to unavoidable casualties is to pursue the stopping of the Avengers.

"Superheroes are being manipulated into fighting each other."

Jim already spoke to this in the other thread as well, i believe, but my question to this would be what conflict is generated by being manipulated? I already spoke to how I saw Tony as manipulating his way to talk with Peter Parker but without causing conflict. That's only one example, though. Can you explain how manipulating or being manipulated is specifically the source of conflict for anyone?

[Greg]

The problem comes in that most movies or books would manifest this anxiety in some external way and if we remove those external activities, then the problem again appears to go away.

I get the feeling that what we're looking at here is more a failure in adequately exploring the issue rather than a failure of the storyform. But hard to say. If a problem of Fixed Attitudes is fully explored, the problem shouldn't appear to go away entirely because you removed activities.

[decastell]

The activities of the trial and of people interfering with one another are not shown to be problematic in To Kill A Mockingbird, so removing them wouldn’t make a difference.

It's been a while since I saw the movie, but when you're learning about the actions people are taking as a result of their racism, doesn't it look like the activities are problematic?

Framed a different way, as you say, a thing is only a problem if its shown to be problematic, so two movies could have the same scene of an assassin shooting an innocent man and killing him. In one, it might not be problematic, in the other it is. Without making the victim somehow a horrible person, how might one show that the killing isn't problematic? Alternately, what is required to show an activity as problematic?

Because it’s a movie. Everything is externalized.

This makes perfect sense – thanks.

In Doubt you can remove all the kid touching and there would still be a problem: the nun’s belief that the priest was touching a kid. Kid touching is not problematic in the narrative of Doubt, the belief that a priest is guilty before facing trial is.

Totally makes sense.

You have to look at the narrative presented, not what you think is personally problematic.

This I understand, but a good axiom to have nonetheless.

What’s going to be is not problematic, what is problematic is problematic. What’s going to be problematic may be problematic for the characters, but it’s not problematic as far as the story is concerned.

There are civilian casualties. Stopping innocent people from dying is the Goal setup to resolve that inequity.

Sorry, but I'm having some trouble parsing this, especially in the context of your assertion that Zemo is the protagonist: Zemo's goal is not to stop innocent people from dying. It's to destroy the Avengers from within as revenge for his dead family. Those aren't the same thing.

You write: "What’s going to be is not problematic, what is problematic is problematic."

I'm generally unclear on what this means, but on the surface, my statement that innocent people are still going to die if Zemo's plan is enacted or if the accords are accepted is not about "what's going to be" – it's about the fact that the problematic deaths that are happening will continue to happen. Achieving the story goal you've ascribed to Zemo won't remove the thing we've been shown to be problematic.

[jhull]

Sorry, but I'm having some trouble parsing this, especially in the context of your assertion that Zemo is the protagonist: Zemo's goal is not to stop innocent people from dying. It's to destroy the Avengers from within as revenge for his dead family. Those aren't the same thing

You’re absolutely right. The Goal isn’t to to stop innocent people from dying. That’s the Consequence already in place. The Goal is to Stop the Avengers.

In my zest to address everything I mixed the two. I hope this is clear now.

[jhull]

It's been a while since I saw the movie, but when you're learning about the actions people are taking as a result of their racism, doesn't it look like the activities are problematic?

No, because the actual act of trying someone is not shown to be problematic. Prejudicial racism is.

so two movies could have the same scene of an assassin shooting an innocent man and killing him. In one, it might not be problematic, in the other it is. Without making the victim somehow a horrible person, how might one show that the killing isn't problematic? Alternately, what is required to show an activity as problematic?

Easy. Just look at the Doubt example.

You make the story about a group of individuals who believe the assassin is a murderer and force an investigation into his supposed guilt based on that assumption. Doesn’t matter if he’s killed or not or if he’s currently killing. What is shown to be problematic in that story is someone considered guilty based on hearsay.

To show the activity of killing problematic, have the assassin systematically kill every last one in that group.

That would be a different story.