Please list some instances when the MC (not protagonist) is in the Action/Obtaining quad. I’m getting confused about Protagonist role vs MC perspective. Is it if the MC is focused on obtaining something but everyone else in the story is concerned about a stagnant issue regarding their Future and not about obtaining something? So does this mean the Protagonist is not interested in obtaining, but only in the situation? Survival of a situation, or getting out of a situation seems like obtaining.
Climate Change is a-coming. The Protagonist wants to avert a terrible future by warning everyone that they’ve got to move inland and start growing GMO wheat. The MC is a wanker who just wants to hoard money and use the legal system to kick his neighbor out of his bunker.
The bobsled team is headed to the Olympics. The coach/protagonist is worried about his legacy. A young hothead MC, just kicked off the track team at Duke, struggles to win a spot on the team.
3 Likes
What I mean by this is : The MC and Protagonist are the same player. But what if the protagonist is in Future and the MC in obtaining? Same player. How can an obtaining goal not be part of the OS?
Opposite (with OS Obtaining) I can see it like this: Peter Parker wants to figure out a new life with his newly discovered powers (Situation-Future) while at the same time Spidey wants to rescue the city from the terrible Venom (Activity:Obtaining).
A sitting senator worries that his district might vanish after the census (Protagonist/Future) so he engages in insider trading to make bank (MC/Obtaining).
1 Like
So how “big” are Future situation conflicts versus Obtaining conflicts? Action movies are generally Obtaining, right? Are any action movies OS Future?
I would assume that volcano or asteroid movies are Universe. Maybe Godzilla or Alien Invasion movies?
I don’t know that it has to be “big” – it’s more about where the focus/source of conflict of all the characters is.
Not an action movie, but Pride and Predjudice has this arrangement. From the family’s perspective, the problem is their situation – no sons, so the girls need to marry well in order to have a good Future.
The Fugitive is a the classic example – as explained by Jim in this article:
apprehension of Dr. Kimball or his eventual permanent escape would fail to return equity. The unjust label of wife-murderer would continue to persist.
Shawshank is similar.
On the other hand, Braveheart is a good example of a “big” conflict with an OS in Future/Obtaining.
2 Likes
This is probably off-topic at this point, but it’s worth remembering (not for you @didomachiatto but for anyone new who comes across this thread) that often the best way to figure out a throughline is to look at the other throughlines, especially the dynamic pair. I was thinking about this …
and how that means the RS must be in Mind … and I instantly had a memory Keira Knightly at the end of the movie:
You mustn’t tell anyone. He wouldn’t want it. We misjudged him, Papa. Me more than anyone in every way. Not just in this matter. I’ve been nonsensical. But he’s been a fool about, about Jane, about so many other things. But then, so have I. You see, he and I are…he and I are so similar. We’re both so stubborn.
Talk about a multi-appreciation moment! Not only a “you-and-I” scene but also one that spells out the RS throughline.
(Sorry for the digression…time for me to stop stalling and get back to Nanowrimo 
).
2 Likes
You can do it!
1 Like