Screenwriting : Where do you guys get your antagonists from? by Nataly Kiut

I come up with the antagonist/villain based off the story, Nataly Kiut.

"How far do you personally go?" It depends on the story, character, and genre.

It's not about that, and no craft book should be saying as such.

Your story has a theme, and that theme is a thesis about life.

Your protagonist proves that thesis with their actions.

Your antagonist argues your antithesis.

So, if your theme is that you need teamwork to win.

Your hero proves this by going from working on their own to working with others.

Your villain further proves this by thinking only of themselves.

So, it's not about cruelty, torture, or anything like that. It's about belief systems and acting on them.

Maurice Vaughan,thank you for the advice! I still remember how shamelessly I asked for tickets to your film premiere

CJ Walley

I really love reading your comments — they always make me think.

The thing is… my protagonist is already feeding pufferfish toxins to giant manta rays so people will stop eating them.

So I guess I’m having a bit of an existential crisis

He’s basically an antihero.

And I keep hearing that’s kind of a “no-go” in traditional screenwriting… but for me, that’s just the most honest version of the story.

You're welcome, Nataly Kiut. I'll do my best to get you tickets.

Nataly Kiut, something like that really comes down to your targeted audience and who you can afford to lose. Antiheroes tend to work best in more cultish material where the audiences are more mature, honest, and open-minded about human complexity.

I keep in mind what I've learned in high school; that your antagonist doesn't have to be another character, it can be a force or concept that your character struggles with. For example, cruelty itself can be your antagonist, not simply a character that is cruel. Also having your protagonist be his/her own worst enemy is also valid. Basically, keep in mind that man vs man isn't the only conflict engine you can have, man vs self and man vs environment are also engines (often underutilised in my opinion).

That being said, it also depends on the story. If I'm writing a non-sci-fi/fantasy story, for example a drama, my antagonist can be someone who wants the best for the protagonist but not respect their wishes and dreams, and if it's one of my epic fantasy or sci-fi series, the antagonist can want to wipe out the entire universe or something even worse, or even can be a natural event that's nobody's fault and threatens everyone, human and god alike, equally.

I think a lot of craft advice gets taken too literally sometimes, and that can muddy things up.

Even something like Bluey applies pressure to its characters constantly — just in age-appropriate ways. If you replace “make it dangerous” with something like “make it interesting” or “increase pressure,” it becomes easier to see what the advice is actually pointing toward.

These are really just story progression markers.

You don’t have to literally try to kill your protagonist every ten pages. You just have to increase conflict.

A kid doing homework he hates reaches for cake. Gets icing on his fingers. Pages stick together. One page tears. Now he’s panicking. The situation escalates, but there’s no violence or cruelty — just pressure revealing character.

Conflict can be self-driven. It still moves the story forward.

I tend to think in systems, so for me this works because not every threat is physical and not all stakes are about winning or losing. Sometimes the stakes are simply damage control ... which outcome hurts less.

When we broaden the thinking beyond immediate danger, the work often becomes richer and more layered. Focusing only on external threat can flatten things.

PS: I deleted my comment by accident trying to edit it. Reposting the flavor of it.

I build them from their past experiences or greed

CJ Walley

That makes a lot of sense.

I think my story naturally leans toward a more mature, morally gray space. My protagonist isn’t “heroic” in a clean way — he manipulates an ecosystem to save a species.

So maybe I shouldn’t fight that and try to make him safer. Maybe the honesty is the point.

Thank you — this actually helped me breathe a little easier about it.

Banafsheh Esmailzadeh

I really love this perspective — especially the idea that the antagonist can be a force or a system.

In my story it might actually be the market itself, or human appetite, or indifference — not just one villain.

“Man vs system” feels much closer to what I’m trying to write than “man vs bad guy with a gun.”

Thank you for the reminder that conflict can be conceptual too.

Elle Bolan I really appreciate this — “increase pressure” instead of “add violence” is such a clearer way to think about it. That clicked for me.

Also, I still remember your bridge scene — it was incredibly strong and atmospheric. The sunrise and fog really stayed with me.

I had one tiny spatial question while reading (probably just me overthinking): where exactly were they standing on the bridge when it happened?

But emotionally — that scene hit hard. I still remember the feeling of

Nicholas P

Building the antagonist from their past or their greed makes a lot of sense.

I think I’m starting to realize mine might grow out of the economics behind the trade, not just a person. Still figuring it out, but your comment helps frame it.

This is a great thread!

Nicholas P,That actually connects a lot with what I’m struggling with right now.

The whole post was basically about that — how much of an antagonist comes from past experience, belief, or even illusion rather than pure “evil.”

I don’t naturally think in terms of villains or cruelty. My brain tends to default to empathy first (probably too much).

So instead of “evil people,” I’m trying to understand what someone is protecting, fearing, or losing.

Greed makes sense.

But sometimes it’s grief. Or pride. Or the need to survive.

That feels more human — and honestly more interesting to write.

I always get my antagonists from the world around me. The things that bug me / annoy me / make me irate are always the best inspirations for antagonists. At the very least, I have a lot to say about why they are evil!

I usually draw antagonists' personalities and traits from real crime documentaries on animals or humans. Criminal confessions, the backstories of real-world offenders, and what people noticed about them before and after things escalated are incredibly revealing. I also look at cult leaders and radical governments to create worlds around the protagonist.

Wonderful insights into creating your antagonist. Thank you!

I also struggle with "making someone bad" and often find the environment and external pressures play into how they behave. I find inspiration in the people around me, watching the news, documentaries, TV shows, movies, reading all kinds of books, and most importantly, creative conversations with fellow writers and film makers.

Brainstorming a character with people you trust can crack open a character in ways you may not have thought possible.

I think the most important thing is to make the antagonist the perfect thing to keep your hero from completing their arc (or if they have a flat arc then to keep them from changing the supporting cast.)

like if your character starts with say, self worth issues about their appearance and you want them to realize what’s inside matters more then go for an antagonist that goes to the deepest emotional extremes to keep your protagonist feeling like their physical beauty defines them -and everyone.

(side note, also a great way to go about it is to be sure the antagonist never learns the same lesson. so while they are trying to push this horrible ideal on the protagonist you also craft a way to make that exact belief the antagonists downfall.)

to address the question directly…

looking at it from this perspective then dark doesn’t always mean death, though it can. what it would mean is they use the protagonists weakness to drive the protagonist to some extreme moment where they have no choice but to face the truth and accept it or they can’t win the battle you’ve created in the story.

so it’s more about torturing your protagonist in context of what it is they need to do to win and grow as a person, as usually they can’t win unless they grow.

For your white sheep problem - just remember you’re purpose in telling your story is to inspire people in their darkest moments. even if just in the fictional moment you’ve led them to. you’re not beating up your protagonist - you’re showing the audience how to deal with the hardest thing they could ever fathom happening if they were in the protagonists shoes. in this way you are nothing like the antagonist, you are the bringing to the surface of the thing, the inspiration, that must happen in order to overcome this horrible ordeal your character faces. this thing that is happening in a small way to anyone who’s connected to your character.

how else can you show a way through the darkness than to first show us how dark it can really be?

Nataly Kiut, honesty is absolutely the point. We create art to express our truths about life.

Hi

John Montague

Your comment reminded me of Dogville — that intensity, the way moral complexity plays out, the darkness inside people.

In my story, the hero is in some ways his own antagonist. He’s a marine biologist trying to save giant manta rays, sabotaging the market in subtle ways. I could make him face extreme consequences — jail, even violence — but I wonder: is that always necessary?

Can the antagonist exist purely inside the protagonist, without cruelty or malice, yet still drive the story and create tension? That’s exactly the struggle I’m exploring.

Thank you for inspiring me to think about internal antagonists in this way.

Thank you, Pat Alexander! I agree — often the most vivid antagonists come from what personally touches us. Even if it irritates or angers, it makes them real.

Dwayne Williams, your approach is amazing. Real people's stories and actions give so many nuances for characters. Indeed — cult leaders and radical regimes create unique worlds around the protagonist.

Ingrid Wren, thank you for your insights. I completely agree — environment and external pressures shape behavior. Brainstorming with colleagues really reveals characters in a new way.

Nataly Kiut

I’m not an expert here, (or anywhere) lol, but

so from what I understand about people and the way they interpret story, the antagonist really needs to be something resembling an entity of it’s own. or so they say.

i know this is thought to be true of movies at this time, i assume books as well.

this was even a problem for the writers of “a beautiful mind” even though there are actual voices in the protagonists head. the audience needs an outside force of some kind to see the protagonist actually overcome someone/thing.

it’s possible you could come up with a way to do what you describe but to me the internal struggle is more about the arc, and only one thread of the story.

sounds like in your case (if you want) you could follow a kind of romance structure (with or without actual romance) where the antagonist is technically the other person in the relationship. sometimes then the protagonist may overcome their internal struggle in order to meet the antagonist on their level and become a team. idk if that’s a fit for you, just a suggestion. that would at least put an antagonist in your story that doesn’t need to be really cruel, since the story isn’t meant to be “protagonist vs armed murderous poacher”. lol

I think it would be hard to show the audience what the character is up against if it were all inside themselves.

I think about those I dislike. Corrupt people, liars, and so on. But I must also think about how the audience can relate to the characters. So I try to give also the bad characters some relations. For example, grandpa is an elderly professor while his grandson is head of the student organization, so even though they would gladly kill others, they care about each other. And then I also think about how it will be easy to cast an actor for that villain.

Hi John Montague

Thank you for your thoughtful and slightly self-deprecating “not an expert anywhere” comment — which, ironically, sounded very much like an expert reflection to me.

You touched on something that is genuinely difficult for me as a writer. I don’t naturally think in terms of “attack” conflict. In a fight / flight / freeze situation, I’m probably the freeze type. So creating a clear external villain — especially a cruel one — doesn’t come instinctively to me. I don’t easily imagine myself walking up to someone wounded and poking the injury just to see how much it hurts. And sometimes that makes it harder to write sharp confrontation.

But I think you’re right about embodiment. An audience needs to see what the protagonist is pushing against. Systems and myths are real antagonists — but they’re invisible unless we give them a face or a relationship.

I really like your idea about relational opposition. Not necessarily romance, but tension through connection. That feels closer to how I understand conflict — not as destruction, but as friction between people who each believe they’re right.

And yes — we’re all experts at something. Even making tea has multiple schools of thought. Story might be similar: different temperatures, different steeping times, same leaves.

Thank you for pushing me to think deeper about this.

Warmly,

Nataly

Hi Göran Johansson

Thank you for your perspective — I really like the way you think about giving even “bad” characters meaningful relationships. It makes them human, and that always makes a story stronger.

I agree that complexity makes characters more relatable, and your example about family bonds within morally questionable characters is very powerful. It reminds me that antagonists don’t need to be purely cruel — they just need to believe in what they’re protecting.

And your point about casting is interesting too — thinking about whether an actor would be drawn to the role is actually a very practical way to test the character’s depth.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. They’re very valuable to me.

Best,

Nataly

@Nataly systems antagonists are absolutely valid abstract antagonists. Institutions, societies... Narratives where there isn't one villain, but an entire force of them.

And don't forget... In a film about a spelling bee, the antagonist would be another smart kid just trying to spell words right. Antagonist doesn't always mean evil, cruel, or violent. Just the opposing force or entity.

Also, thank you for the kind words about my pages. I can't believe you remember that! That was months ago. As to that spatial musing... Haha, good question! And you know, that's one thing I struggle with in my drafts is spatial orientation. Very good eye!

Dear Nataly, nice that you liked my comment. Good luck. Think like this. Interesting good character is 80 % good and 20 % bad. Interesting bad character is 20 % good and 80 % bad. That makes them more relatable. About casting, participating in no-budget filming is a good way to find out what actors want to do.

Nataly, I struggle with antagonists, too...most of my scripts have a "team" of antagonists instead of featuring a single baddie.

The opposing force in many of the things I've written is the Status Quo: Sexism, racism...anything/anyone upholding prevailing notions.

I just find it easier to pit a group of knuckle draggers against the protagonist(s) in a story.

When designing antagonists, I always return to Sophocles' Oedipus Rex and reread Truffaut's book of interviews with Hitchcock: "Hitchcock/Truffaut." It's a masterpiece for constructing antagonistic forces that aren't necessarily villainous, evil, or cruel. I highly recommend it.

Sometimes, I take the antagonist character from the real life, write it down and make a story of it.

Göran Johansson, great point. But I’ve just been reading about Ludwig Wittgenstein. I tried to read his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus — it’s difficult.

He came from an extremely wealthy family. He survived. But three of his brothers died by suicide. Three.

And I honestly don’t even understand where the antagonist is there. There’s no clear villain. Just a brutal reality.

Since I’m writing a thriller, I’m trying to understand something from a director’s perspective:

Is it stronger to oppose my male protagonist with a system — something structural and oppressive — or with a personal betrayal by a woman?

Where does the tension work better on screen?

Jim Boston

Jim, I relate to what you’re saying. Sometimes the antagonist really is the Status Quo — the invisible pressure of what is “normal.” When I first read Uncle Tom's Cabin as a child, I cried. The cruelty there wasn’t just a single villain — it was a structure. And my favorite song, Feeling Good by Nina Simone, always reminds me that liberation is deeply personal. Maybe that’s why I’m torn between a systemic antagonist and an intimate betrayal in my story.

Tania Cárdenas Paulsen

Tania, thank you for that recommendation. I love the idea of antagonistic forces that are not purely evil. I will revisit Oedipus Rex and finally read Hitchcock/Truffaut. That approach feels much closer to what I want — tension born from inevitability rather than cruelty.

Aleksandar Lahtov

Aleksandar, that’s very true. But I sometimes feel we rarely meet truly “evil” people in real life. Most antagonists are just wounded, fearful, or protecting something. That complexity is what I’m trying to capture.

Nataly, a good rule of thumb in filmmaking is to make conflict personal. So no matter how abstract the obstacle is, it is still represented by a human. So in a brutal structure, one person makes that brutal structure personal.

Göran Johansson. Wow. That’s a priceless piece of advice. Thank you.

“Make the conflict personal.”

That really shifts something for me.

So even if the structure is abstract or systemic, one human face carries it. One person makes the cruelty personal. That makes it playable. Filmable.

Maybe that’s the key I was missing.

I’ll try to build a clear line — for example, a betrayal by a woman that embodies the larger pressure. Not just “evil,” but a human choice that hurts.

Maybe this way I won’t end up writing… garbage

Thank you. This really helps.

Nice that you find my advice helpful. Good luck. And whenever you are in doubt. Post a question. Many here like to help.

Göran Johansson, Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

It’s actually an interesting observation — you’d expect this space to feel like a jungle, full of competition. But instead, people are supportive and encouraging each other. It’s surprisingly kind.

I’m grateful for that. And I’ll definitely keep asking questions.

Thanks bunches for raising the question about antagonists, Nataly!

Nataly Kiut I appreciate the kind words.

I see comment or two that make me question how I’m coming across. I want to be clear that I’m not trying to discourage you in any way- and you could come up with any story you want, and do so in any number of ways.

but.

(if you don’t want to hear my reasons I think you should have a single main antagonist I brainstormed a quick example of a non villain antagonist in the second section. hope you don’t mind. : ).

—-

I forget who said “there are no rules, but break them at your peril”. lol. I believe many pros would say you’re in uncharted territory If you can’t pin your antithesis on one thing, whether a person, or on a personified animal (like a certain shark we all know) etc.

you may find another way, but I can can see pounding my head against the wall trying.

every pro that I’ve heard speak on this says the audience wants someone to root against as much as for. it solidifies the struggle when the hero can rise above and somehow show -definitively- that they have overcome the problems you’re exploring in your work

I think if someone writes a story about a certain belief in society they are against, they will usually make one personified thing to show how much damage that belief can cause, as well as the solution to change it, and take it down, usually of course the protagonist already knows or learns that truth on the way.

Of course each angle of that truth can be explored through any number of characters, like everyone having a different view towards “hope” in Shawshank. (I admit that was pointed out to me on YouTube. haha.).

—— what I would do in your shoes——

my humble solution would be something like I have below, this just came to mind and I kinda went on and on. sorry. lol. but i think it’s a good example of how you could create tension with an antagonist who’s not really a “villain.”

what I would do if I was trying to avoid writing cruelty is think of it more like the antagonist is just wrong about what the protagonist is right about. but you do need to put the protagonist through hell.

don’t freak out though, this is how I really see that advice.

maybe the antagonist is just a person from a country that eats (manta rays?? I’m sorry I forgot and don’t want to scroll mid sentence. lol).

maybe the antagonist is just a guy or gal from a tribe that has eaten them since before recorded history? maybe they are the biggest reason the mantas are going extinct and the protagonist (miraculously learning their language lol) has to convince them their long held traditions will cause the manta s extinction very soon.

maybe their ways are grandfathered in, protected by a local government and the hero needs to convince them outright?

possibly helping them to realize worshipping them as gods and a source of food (and supplies) is destructive after all. this would put immense pressure on both of them as your hero slowly shows the tribal person what will happen if they continue, and could cause a lot of emotional tension as the hero convinces them, then on top of that, to tell their people, putting both of them in danger. no cruelty, just the threats (possibility of death) of changing the things that have been this way in their culture all though time.

—-example of putting your character through hell-

one specific (possibly bad lol) example: protagonist appears, sees the “antagonist” hunting near a beach and tries to approach them. antagonist is not happy an outsider is speaking to them at all, especially one who seems upset that he’s got a manta speared. he threatens them, won’t talk to them, runs away towards their tribe, protagonist needs to stop them before they get there or there will soon be lots of people who really don’t want them there… etc.

you don’t need to use that but we’re already in a tight spot. what will the hero do? pin them down, that seems iffy, but they care about the mantas. maybe the manta flops around and the hero has to fight the urge to yell in the antagonists face? we know them by now, they are a good person but they also love the mantas. so will they let their life be so much more complicated by the entire tribe knowing they’re here?? so a dilemma rises already. and one where you can show us who this character is…. what will they do? I want to know how they deal with this situation the writer has PUT them in. : )

and we’re off.

this is just my .02 based on what I hear you’re trying to accomplish. putting the screws to your protagonist doesn’t always mean you need to be sadistic. Just make circumstances they have a lot of trouble overcoming. they need to be in the worst possible place to accomplish their goal and find a way to do it anyway

you know, be sadistic. lol.

lol. I think I got my threads mixed up when I mentioned the manta rays. was that somebody else?? if so I apologize and I’ll let you know somebody around here is doing a story about manta rays going extinct.

haha. unless I dreamed it. but there’s the context of that wasn’t you. : (

Hi John Montague, yes, I do have giant mantas! And you’ve already written a new plot, which is a whole fantastic story. Here, your reflections and thoughts matter more than specifics. But yes — manta rays are fire. )

I don’t think antagonists have to be cruel — they just have to be consistent.

For me, tension doesn’t come from how violently I threaten the protagonist, but from how precisely I restrict their options.

You can escalate consequence without escalating brutality.

Sometimes the most powerful antagonist isn’t a villain — it’s a system, a belief, or even the character’s own contradiction.

Darkness isn’t measured in blood. It’s measured in inevitability.

Radoslav Isakov, That last line is incredibly sharp. Sometimes the most terrifying antagonist is indifference itself.