Before I comment, let me first say that I am a screenwriter who ASPIRES to get paid, not just to write. My current occupation is SCRIPT READER, so despite my lack of professional success in my desired field, I feel like I can answer you and at least sound legit.

QUESTION: "Is it okay to have the antagonist drive the plotline?"

MY ANSWER: it's possible I interpreted the question differently. No, it's not okay for the antagonist of your script (provided that there is an equally as game PROtagonist) to drive the plotline.

I think what Scott was referring to was different than what you asked. Yes, sure it's okay for protagonists to REACT: most cop movies and chase movies do exactly that...

But as a reader, if the bad guy is the one who really OWNS the story, than A) he needs to have pathos (a la SAVE THE CAT -- which would in turn, make him a PROTAGONIST), or B) he needs to be a protagonist whose revelation at the end proves him to be diabolical (think Verbal Kint).

That's just my two cents and again, I don't know shit about getting my work sold...yet.

Good luck.

Z

@Bah Bahrbahrossa: You raise a good point to counterbalance the focus of my comments. In most mainstream commercial Hwood movies, it's the Protagonist who, as BB says, "OWNS" the story. They are (typically) the character with whom the viewer identifies the most, the character through whom the viewer primarily experiences the story. And, as noted many times here, most often it's the Protagonist who goes through the most significant transformation.

So back to Jeff's original concern: In theory, an Antagonist figure can have more screen time than a Protagonist, and the story can still be 'owned' by the P due to the viewer's interest in and commitment to the P's success.

That said, upon further reflection, if I had a situation in the prep-writing where I had a lot more scenes featuring the Nemesis than the Protagonist, I would use that as an opportunity to see if I couldn't dig a little deeper into the P character to see if there isn't something else there to explore. And if the plot feels totally dominated by the N, then look at a few of the key plot points and see if there isn't a way - not forced - where the P can compel the action.

Wunnerful wunnerful wunnerful!! (why am I quoting Lawrence Welk?!)

This is GREAT. This is exactly the information I needed to set my mind at ease AND to give me perspective, forest for the trees n' all that.

My "P" has far more scenes, that much is certain. It was merely, on a PLOT based timeline, the "N" was driver of those BIG MOMENTS that each act TURNS ON (though I found, thankfully, that my P's decision to TAKE ACTION when "all is lost" around p. 89 landed all neat and tidy on my PLOT timeline so all is well in that regard.)

Still, the dangers of letting my Nemesis get the best of me AND my script AND my Protagonist... well, Scott and Bah Bahrbahrossa (my new favorite Blogger handle!), your viewpoints are most helpful.

I feel like I'm on to something this time and I really don't wish to muck it up. Not that I'm "on to something" in that I think this script will be the next big thing or even SELL for that matter, just BIG in a sense that I'm on the verge of LEARNING SOMETHING critical.

An exciting time indeed.

Thanks guys!

In Speed, the antagonist (the bus) drives the story - literally!

This is an interesting question as it does bring a specific type of story to light.
I like to call it the
"Who Shall Stand in the Face of" story where you have a pretty terrible antag who strikes fear into all hearts.

This doesn't necessarily preclude a purely "reactive" protag but it does enable it. Most of these movies, if you look, start with the vicious actions of the antag.
And then the see-saw begins. Both character-dialogs attempt to win points with the audience - look at Hannibal - and with the fates.

It does fit well in crime sagas as the questioner noted with TDK since the antag is just trying to "make a living" and has already crossed the line so is in effect more vicious while just trying to maintain their "status quo."

It's interesting - I only saw BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID recently and all my life I figured it was a frothy romp set in the old West. In fact, while there's certainly a rompy frothy side to it it's actually a pretty dark story underneath it all - the protagonists basically have their necks in a noose (figuratively) from the get-go and we're just watching the noose slowly tighten for the whole movie, and the protagonists react and struggle fruitlessly. Like a lot of popular films from that era - THE PARALLAX VIEW is another example - I don't think it would get made the same way today - audiences don't like being told they're screwed no matter what they do.

After Hours is another great movie with a protagonist who is almost entirely reactive - partially because his Antagonist is pretty much everybody else in the movie.