Screenwriting : Do you build your story world around the hero… or the villains? by Dwayne Williams 2

Hey, Dwayne Williams 2. The text in your post shows up in the Stage 32 phone app but not the web browser. I'm guessing you wrote the post in the app, so you might need to edit the post in a web browser. That way, the text will show up for members who get on Stage 32 with a browser. You can edit your post by clicking the downward arrow to the right of your name, selecting "Edit Post," and reposting the text.

hi! I can't see the text on my smartphone.

I usually start with the protagonist, Dwayne Williams 2. I focus on the antagonist next, but sometimes I focus on the love interest, mentor, etc. I don't usually explore different protagonists before deciding who takes the lead. I go with the first protagonist I come up with. It's usually the right choice.

Arthur Charpentier Maurice Vaughan Appreciate the heads-up on the formatting. I went ahead and made the edit; it should be showing properly now. Let me know if it’s reading smoothly on your end.

Have you ever tried flipping it and starting with a main character who is a villain? Like, writing from that darker center just to see where the world bends around them? I’ve been experimenting with that lately.

It shows up in the web browser, Dwayne Williams 2. I've flipped it and started with the villain first. Mainly with Horror.

Yes, I can now see the text on my smartphone.

no, I don't come up with the antagonist before the hero. First, I think about the dramatic situation the protagonist finds himself in, and then I create the main villain.

Both...

I don't know if this is bad, but I usually don't think about that stuff as I'm creating the story and characters. I think I would if I was creating a story like Underwater by Brian Duffield where most of that story is told from the world and not just the characters.

It varies widely with the story. Usually I start with a premise (which is WAY easier to outline). But sometimes it's just a villain, or setting, or hero.

Maurice Vaughan Ahh yes, horror is such a perfect space for that kind of inversion, especially when the villain is more than just the source of fear, but also the emotional core. I’ve been doing that lately in sci-fi and action projects too.

Arthur Charpentier Interesting! That’s a solid foundation to build from, starting with the dramatic situation helps ground the stakes. Do you tend to develop the worldbuilding before shaping the main villain, or does the antagonist help define the world as you build it?

Mark Deuce Oh, nice, I like that energy. Very versatile. There’s something compelling about being able to shift gears and build from either side of the narrative. Curious, do you find one side usually pulls stronger than the other depending on genre?

Hey Tyler Schultz, thanks for sharing that. I actually think that organic approach can lead to some of the most authentic stories. I’ve been experimenting lately by starting with the villains first, then figuring out how the protagonist could possibly overcome them. It helps me raise the stakes early and build a more reactive world.

Spencer Magnusson Yes, I like that approach. I find it very traditional and honestly my go-to as well. It gives a strong structural foundation, and then I layer in the rest from there. Sometimes the cleanest paths really do open the most doors creatively.

@Dwayne Williams, Since the hero and the villain have opposing goals, creating a dramatic situation almost immediately leads to an understanding of who the antagonist should be.

and if you create the antagonist and his goal, motivation first. then it may happen that the hero was passing by and he was touched by the problems that the villain creates. in this way I pay more attention to the psychological aspects of the plot, because the hero must suffer. I don't care much about the mental state of the antagonist.

@Dwayne Williams, There's no point in delaying the creation of a hero, as the main focus of any film is for the protagonist to overcome their primary weakness in order to defeat the villain.

Arthur Charpentier Totally get where you’re coming from. I’ve found that starting with the world and antagonist first gives me a more pressure-filled environment for the hero to react to. The protagonist doesn’t feel like the center of the universe; they’re just trying to survive in it, which makes things feel more grounded.

It also opens the door for stronger franchise potential, since the world and its conflicts can support multiple stories beyond just one main arc. Have you ever tried that kind of structure?

Odd, but in 3 of my scripts that are action-based and have heroes and villains battle, I thought of the heroes first and then "who would be a good villain to challenge these people?" I imagined my heroes exactly as I wanted and then tried to push them to their limits via the introduction of a villain in my brainstorm.

Michael Dzurak Yeah, I’ve found that’s the go-to approach for action too, especially when there’s no horror, fantasy, or creature-based characters involved. But when I’m working in sci-fi, horror, or fantasy, I usually flip it.

Do you follow the same flow with horror, or is the hero first set up your main template across genres?

@Dwayne Williams, I understand your approach, and I think I know where it can be applied: in stories about people who get transported to another world.

The idea behind my project, "The Maid from the Past," is that a villain uses a time machine to kidnap the main character into the future in order to gain control of her family's valuable land. It can be argued that I came up with the villain before the hero, although they were created simultaneously. However, I started with the setting and then developed the characters' personalities.

The story is always in circumference to what is meant to be done. The characters are the workers, the script is the plan, but you as the writer is the voice to chisel the purpose on everyone. And if you do your job well enough everyone’s placement being in your project will serve its cause in the fashion suppose. So blueprint, what is your script here to say then relay it to motive as a story.

Dwayne Williams 2 I have tended to imagine my stories in the order of how it will be scripted, and I have, in my 5 scripts, intro'd the hero/heroine first so the villain just naturally came after. I've had a cold open in my action or horror scripts and use it to intro the the hero/heroine but the villain and/or evil stuff they cause is in that cold open even if the hero hasn't yet made the connection.

Arthur Charpentier I appreciate the clarity of your process. It fits well for stories that are tightly character-driven. What I’m exploring stretches more into large-scale genre worldbuilding—like in Alien vs. Predator, where the universe, species, rules, and threat are all built first, and then characters are placed into that already moving system.

In these types of stories, the protagonist doesn’t shape the world; they're shaped by it. The psychological tension and drama still exist, but it comes from navigating a landscape that was dangerous before they ever arrived.

The same goes for concepts like Godzilla, Independence Day, or Battleship; you often build the threat and ecosystem first, then introduce the human response. In those structures, the antagonist (or force) often defines the stakes early on.

Jermar Jerome Smith Beautifully said. That mindset is the foundation of real storytelling, purpose-guiding every piece.

I start with generally with the protagonist (My strong suit is family and animation) but once I get going on the antagonist then my two shoulder angels start competing for head space. Some days the bad shoulder angel gets me going then other days the good shoulder angel gives me juice. But in the end, the good guys always win.... because that's my genre! Great question Dwayne! And thank you for reading my long winded response!

Dwayne Williams 2 Unless I misread your post, I think there may be a slight conceptual mix-up that could benefit from clarification.

Worldbuilding is the process of creating the environment, setting, rules, and logic of the story world — essentially, where and how the story unfolds.

Character development is about creating the people within that world — their motivations, arcs, goals, and conflicts.

So while everyone approaches their process differently, technically, worldbuilding isn’t something you do around a protagonist or antagonist — it’s something you do in service of the story as a whole.

For example, what if you’re writing a film with no clear antagonist? Imagine a story about 100 people on a luxury cruise that suddenly begins to sink in the middle of the ocean. There may be no villain at all — just people trying to survive. You might have a protagonist who emerges as a leader, or it could function as an ensemble. But the world — the cruise ship, the disaster, the isolation — is dictated by the story, not by any one character.

If you begin with a macro-level understanding of what the story is about, that tends to guide both your worldbuilding and your character work, without needing to force one to shape the other.

In the recent series I just completed, interestingly enough, the antagonist is introduced before the protagonist — but that was a twist dictated by the story itself. While outlining the entire season, I already had a solid sense of who the core characters were on both sides of the conflict. Personally, it would be rare for me not to know who the lead is going in — but I’ve definitely found that some characters can turn out to be more important than expected as the story unfolds.

I build my stories around the protagonist first...then try to figure out why anyone is standing in his/her way and build on their story. I've been outlining a script and realized when I was done that my antagonist had no clear motivation and that we didn't know much about him. I had spent all my time on the protagonist, so started revisiting the antagonist at that point.

My recent fellowship taught me how vital it is to outline a feature. It has saved me so much time, grief, and frustration. It's in the outline that I can start to see who is leading the story vs. who should be leading the story. But I like your take on it also. It reminds me that we all have different processes and do what works for you.

G Robert Frazier Storybuilding is somewhat distinct from worldbuilding, but outlining is definitely a tool that can be used when building a story, and it's actually considered normal—if not the norm. The purpose of an outline is to map out the story arc. At this stage, you typically wouldn’t get into deep character development. So, if a character feels underdeveloped, it's more of a creative issue to address during the writing process, not something caused by the outline itself.

Writing without an outline, particularly for TV, while possibly feasible, can be really tough. A single season of TV could easily be 15-20 hours long, which is a much larger scale than a film that typically runs 1.5-2 hours. Without an outline, trying to write something of that magnitude could feel like torture, especially when things inevitably get chaotic—even with an outline.

There’s a reason why it’s standard practice to request a series bible alongside a TV script. Networks and studios are looking to derisk their position in a project. A story without a clear outline signals huge risk. That said, I’ve heard of projects that were pitched purely as an idea to the right person, and before you know it, a pilot is ordered, then the full series is greenlit. So while there are recommended approaches, there are no real absolutes.

Love that balance Lauren Hackney, letting both “shoulder angels” drive the story sounds like a fun way to shape heartfelt, high-stakes animation.

That makes sense Kenneth George, and I appreciate how clearly you framed it. I think we may be closer in process than it seems. When you described the luxury cruise that begins to sink, the threat itself essentially becomes the antagonist; it shapes the environment, drives the conflict, and determines how the world reacts. So in that case, the world is built around the antagonist, even if it isn’t a traditional villain.

I’ve noticed that in genres like alien invasion or slasher films, this approach feels especially natural. The moment you imagine a UFO or a masked figure, the threat is already defined, and the world tends to grow in reaction to it. For those genres, I usually start with the monster or antagonist first, since the structure is often baked in. The protagonist tends to follow more of an industry-standard template, so for me, they come later. Curious — do you also think of the threat first in those kinds of stories?

That’s such a valuable insight Desiree Middleton. Outlining does bring clarity early on. I actually use a different kind of structure when I’m working on a trilogy or multi-part film — I treat the first film as the setup (Act 1 and part of Act 2), the second as the escalation (Act 2 continued and a lead-in to Act 3), and the third as the full payoff and resolution (Act 3). Curious what your take is on outlining a story across multiple films — have you worked with that kind of structure before?

I choose both, I let the vibe to lead me in the story as scenes goes it will dictate who shall take lead in that particular moment. We should speak; I'll like to network with you on a few projects I'm working on. Contact me here or @ EtsohaMed@Outlook.com Peace

Have you thought about making your villain the lead? Maleficent or House of Cards for example. This can sometimes lead your project to taking a compelling turn.

Dwayne Williams 2 The situation of a sinking cruise ship with hundreds of people onboard, followed by the ensuing chaos, represents the "conflict" of the story—a situational obstacle or threat opposing the protagonists. Typically, the antagonist in a story is a character with consciousness and intentionality. For example, imagine a creature in the water that spots the cruise ship and decides it’s a potential meal. It then intentionally sinks the ship to get to its prey. This creature would qualify as a conscious antagonist.

Alternatively, if one of the passengers orchestrates the sinking? This person might have a political opponent or business rival onboard and deliberately sabotages the ship to create an opportunity for murder. He could feign terror while secretly engineering the disaster, masking his true intentions. Again, this would be an antagonist with both consciousness and intentionality.

However, if the chaos is unprovoked and not driven by a conscious entity, the situation still creates conflict for the protagonists. In this case, while the antagonistic force might be nature or circumstance, the core conflict remains the catastrophe itself, rather than a specific antagonist.

Not every story adheres to the conventional, linear formula where there is a good guy, then a bad guy, and the bad guy is eventually defeated. Some stories don’t conform to this structure. In Hannibal, for instance, the lead character is the antagonist, and the protagonist is far less memorable. But in stories like this, execution is key.

This is probably unrelated to your post but the world isn't so linear. We often think we know who the good guys and the bad guys are. But do we?

Kenneth George Grateful for your thoughts, you're right that not every story needs a clear-cut antagonist, and the example you gave definitely explores that space.

Hey James L. Lytle III, thanks for reaching out. I respect your intuitive, rhythm-driven approach. It sounds like you let the story guide itself organically, which is a powerful way to uncover unexpected depth. I’d be open to connecting further.

Absolutely Ewan Dunbar I like taking that approach. Centering the villain can open up such a unique spin on the narrative. It challenges traditional structure and lets you build a world that bends around a morally complex lead. Always a compelling direction to explore.

Hey Dwayne Williams 2 - I'll paraphrase a line from an old musical "It's not where you start, it's where you finish." Ultimately, it's very difficult to make rules about process. Even established screenwriters change up their process from movie to movie. The one thing you cannot have a story without, however, is 'drama'... meaning 'action'/'doing' & the doing shapes the world, and the world in turn shapes a character's doing. Which is why you can feel free to start anywhere, really :)

The villains! (You can't spell Villain without AI)

Great point Sebastian Tudores, I couldn’t agree more. That line captures it perfectly. The freedom to start anywhere is what keeps the creative process alive and fun. Letting the story grow out of action and response is often where the most inspired ideas come from. I think your take is one of the best ways to spark dynamic, imaginative stories.