Screenwriting : "The most common [problem in a… by Michael Whitton

Agreed. Being proactive is essential to a character.

And, if you want to have a great, memorable protagonist in an action/thriller you need a great, memorable antagonist. Best example: "Die Hard."

Totally agree with that, Jim.

Kind of an oxymoronic statement, isn't it? A PROtagonist should be ACTING, not REacting. The protagonist drives the story.

A reactionary protagonist might be acceptable at the start if becoming a person of action is part of his or her character arc; however you'll have to convince viewers the story's going in that direction early on or you risk losing them.

Absolutely! I could not agree more. I miss the wonderful heroines of the older films. They had spunk, drive, something to truly admire and be excited about. Any more I am often bored with protagonists.

You could go too far the other way. If a protagonist is too pushy or brash, an audience might start rooting for the bad guy. I think it must be said that character is revealed through the protagonist's particular reaction to adverse stimuli from the antagonist. The bad guy starts the fight.

This reminds me of Amadeus. The story is 'told' by Salieri, the villain who hates Mozart. We see his indignation, his jealousy and his sense of having been rejected out of hand by God. At times I found myself wondering whose story it was and concluded that Mozart was the tragic reactionary protagonist. Salieri's character was all the more sinister for being so very human--and so very wrong. A buddy story with a twist (of the proverbial knife.)

Jim, you forgot Martin Riggs!

yea, you've gotta have an underlying series of threads pushing the character (and the plot) along, and taking the audience along with them. otherwise it's just a bunch of explosions and a lot of shouting for 90 minutes.

What's wrong with "The Expendables" Matt? LOL!