There have been several genuinely smart and challenging questions recently about the role of the Stakes Character in Romantic Comedies.
I will revisit this later (really busy at the moment) but in the meantime this may help.
I think the idea of a Stakes Character is perhaps not well understood as it is used in a Romantic Comedy. It need not be a person who is a third party to the protagonists. It need not be an antagonist. In a Romantic Comedy it is what is as stake for each protagonist. What is at stake? Love. If the protagonists fail then they are left bereft, lonely and unfulfilled.
Let’s go back to what is meant by stakes.

In a nutshell, the stakes character is the character the hero has to rescue (in reality or figuratively – in a Romantic Comedy it is themselves they are rescuing – not the other protagonist).
The Stakes can be determined by reverse engineering your story – going back from the climax where it is apparent WHAT DECISION THE HEROS/PROTAGONISTS MAKE THAT RESOLVES THE External, Internal, Philosophical stakes. You really do have to know how your story ends and precisely what is resolved in Romantic Comedies.
That big decision is very often tied to a particular character. If you can place the External, Internal, Philosophical stakes for the hero in one character then that character is a running motif for the hero’s arc and stands for the dilemma at the start and the resolution at the end. However it is the arc that unfolds around the dilemma that is the STAKES ARC. So it does not have to be posited in a single character if that does not fit the story. It can be simply what is at stake for the character – or characters in a Romantic Comedy.
If you tie what is at stake (love) for the two protagonists to his or her ‘head – belly’ conflict (loss of love) (Unity of Opposites) you can see that the hero’s ‘flaw’ (needing the other person to be whole – but having to win the other person through love) is what is resolved through resolving the stakes.
However, it is true that a character who forces the hero to come to grips with that ‘flaw’ (or lack of wholeness) is also a stakes character. So it may be that the other protagonist in a love story can throw what is at stake (love – loss of love) into relief for the other protagonist and be the ‘stakes character’. Which may also apply to the other character so that each is the stakes character for the other – BUT it is not necessary to to do it this way. Why?
Well, ‘STAKES’ can be
External Stakes – The obvious, material issues at hand in the story (i.e. the surface plot).
Internal Stakes – The direct emotional issues the character faces (i.e. the love story – romance or bonding or healing).
Philosophical Stakes – The metaphysical crisis the character faces (i.e. the theme – the big story engine). So there are not only these stakes to consider but also the matter of issues.
1. Physical Issues – Surface, material conflicts that drive the plot. (External Stakes)
Someone is trying to stop the relationship from going ahead.
2. Emotional Issues – Inner conflicts that define the character arc. (Internal Stakes)
Hero is depressed, hates himself, regrets the past too much, longs for love.
3. Social Issues – Individual relationship conflicts and hero’s relationship to society in general.
(External and Internal Stakes)
Hero is lonely, doesn’t appreciate family or partner or potential partner, is unpopular; class and race conflict, etc.
4. Habitual Issues – Vices (and Virtues that become problems) that relate to the hero’s arc and
the theme, and also may be a plot driver (esp. sex & drugs). (External, Internal Stakes and maybe even Philosophical Stakes)
Maybe the hero is an alcoholic, drug addict, nymphomaniac, overeats, is extremely mean minded, hates dogs, is obsessive compulsive, etc.
5. Personality Issues –  Psychological issues (which will underlie other issues) that relate to the
hero’s arc and the theme. (Philosophical Stakes)
Hero is lazy, unhelpful, greedy, crude, angry, poorly socialised, bitchy, boorish, etc.
6. Belief Issues –  Hero’s cherished beliefs, challenging which defines the theme and broadly
defines the hero’s arc. (Philosophical Stakes)
Hero is racist, sexist, prejudiced, misanthropic, subservient / self-loathing, etc.
These issues that form the stakes for the protagonists in a Romantic Comedy occur in a time frame.
1. Past – Something from the past that is holding the character back. This is usually related to the
core emotional and philosophical issues in the character’s arc.
2. Present – Something recent affecting the character RIGHT NOW. This stems from both the
character flaws created by the past issues, and the character’s current situation.
3. Future – Something that will catch up with the character down the road. Emerging from the
character’s past and present flaws and issues comes the final showdown within the character that
defines the culmination of the arc.
Why is Contour so helpful in resolving these issues into scenes in a screenplay? In a nutshell Suffering, Sacrifice, Jeopardy, Sexual Tension, Signs and Portents should happen at five critical points in any film – even a Romantic Comedy. It is not as simple as saying that each character can be the stakes character for the other. It is a lot more complex than that. Which is why Contour is so helpful in setting up your Romantic Comedy – if you understand the basic ideas of ISSUES and UNITY OF OPPOSITES.
Put it in Contour. At the Inciting Incident you give the character a real problem the audience can not figure out ahead of time. Then the First Act Break, then the Mid Point Setback, then the Second Act Break, and at the Second Act Reversal. Contour does that pretty well. In a Romantic Comedy the ‘problems’ are relationship problems and they hinge on three sets of stakes and six sets of issues. So many permutations and combinations to work with. Heck, you can even have a stakes character if you want to!
Jeffrey has a very useful set of examples to illustrate the idea.
    It seems to me that love stories are often played in one of three ways: The Hero is the stakes character (WHEN HARRY MET SALLY), the Antagonist is the stakes character (FORREST GUMP), or there’s actually a real stakes character (the son in SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE).
    Regardless of the model, for love stories to work, both partners must actually serve as stakes characters…they both desperately need each other. And often the "bad" guy isn’t a person but the main obstacle to our lovers being together. So the good guy vs bad guy over stakes at the end can be highly modulated: Forrest vs Jenny over Jenny’s life; Sam vs the distance between Seattle and Baltimore over Annie (even though his son is triggering the stakes by flying to NY); Melvin vs his OCD over Carol in AS GOOD AS IT GETS.
He goes on to observe that:
    In romantic comedies, someone’s life has to be "over" if the romance fails. These are the stakes, and the person who will suffer the most in a real way by the lovers not getting together is the stakes character of that story.
    In SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, Sam doubts that he’ll ever find anyone as perfect as his dearly departed wife. We see that Annie is that person (even having certain qualities that Sam described about his wife, including the ability to peel an apple in one long strip!) The filmmakers clearly show us how "broken" Sam and his son’s lives are. Even if Sam were to find someone perfectly nice (which he has) she still isn’t magical like Annie would be. Additionally, Sam’s son, Jonah, is never going to feel like he has a mom again with anyone except Annie.
    So, even though Sam, Annie, and Jonah would be basically okay if Sam and Annie don’t meet and marry, Their lives wold be "over" in the sense that the opportunity for true, deep, magical love will have passed them by. But Jonah is real stakes character, because he’s a kid and the least resilient. So, Sam and Annie are meant for each other which means that their happiness is at stake if they don’t meet, but Jonah’s an easily understood stakes character (both emotionally physically).
    In THE WEDDING SINGER, even though Robby and Julia are perfect for each other and Robby’s heart has been horribly broken by his ex-girlfriend, because Julia is engaged to a total jerk, she is the stakes character.
    As I write this, it occurs to me that one could also explore the relationship between metamorphosis stories and love stories. In BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the Beast is living under a curse. In these stories, the spell that breaks the curse is always love. In love stories, it’s almost as if our lovers are living under a curse (Sam, Robby) and by getting the right person to fall in love with them, the curse is broken.

Stakes Characters in Romantic Comedies

John August has a nice post on Rethinking Motivation:

In film school, we were taught to look at character motivation as the combination of two questions:

1. What does the character want.
2. What does the character need.

He redefines it as: “Why is the character doing what he’s doing?” “you need to be careful not to stop at the first easy answer”.

I think this is a great way to look at motivation and replaces one of the core questions in Where’s Your Story. Even if the audience doesn’t know why the character is doing what they’re doing. It’s definitely important for you, as the writer, to know why.

Screenwriting | Ninja vs Penguin – Part 2

THE FORMULA
“When a TYPE OF PERSON has/does/wants/gets A, he gets/does/tries/learns B, only to discover that C now happens and he must respond by doing D.”
The “A” statement is the ORPHAN statement.
The “B” statement is the WANDERER statement.
The “C” statement is the WARRIOR statement.
The “D” statement is the MARTYR statement.
The formula is a promise to the audience. Contained in this short formula (60-80 words) is the full scope of your story from start to finish.
For example:
HOME ALONE – When an under-appreciated boy is accidentally left behind by his family when they leave for a European vacation (ORPHAN), he must learn how to take care of himself and be the man of the house (WANDERER), only to discover that his house has been targeted by bumbling burglars whom he thwarts several times before realizing that they know that he is alone and that they are coming back (WARRIOR), so he must now single-handedly defend the house (MARTYR).
JAWS – When an aquaphobic Sheriff is confronted by the horror of a great white shark attacking the beaches of his new island community (ORPHAN), he tries unsuccessfully to get the town leaders to take the threat seriously (WANDERER), only to discover that the shark has become territorial and he must now charter a boat to go destroy the shark himself which he does (WARRIOR), ultimately leading to a battle between himself and the almost supernatural beast (MARTYR).
TITANIC – When a poor artist wins a ticket to America on the Titanic, he saves the life of a beautiful society girl who is trapped in a loveless engagement (ORPHAN). The artist and the girl spend time together and fall in love (WANDERER), only to discover that the Titanic has hit an iceberg and is now sinking. The artist must get the girl away from her fiancé and off the ship to safety (WARRIOR), however she refuses to leave without him so he must figure out how to save both of their lives (MARTYR).
Strongly suggest that you get Contour and just start using it.

Seeking to understand how to boil a new story to its ‘pitchable’ essence.

Injecting subtext into a scene can be quite difficult, and it definitely takes more work than just writing the scene in a straightforward fashion. But it is absolutely worth the extra effort.
WRITE VISUALLY—SEE THE ACTION
Once again, a problem resulting from writers not being sufficiently able to visualize the scene. This usually manifests itself in the “talking heads” syndrome. The writer places two people in the scene and has them spout dialogue at each other (the dinner table being a favourite “location” for this sort of thing).
The result is often boring and static scenes, especially when their purpose is primarily expository. The writer doesn’t consider how the characters interact with their surroundings, or how the dialogue can provoke physical reactions (standing up, sitting down, turning away etc.). If you want irritate a director, piling on these “talking heads”-scenes definitely is the way to go…
Visualizing the scene can make it more active and effective, and automatically increase the possibilities for adding subtext.
This includes placing it in an interesting location, giving the actors an activity during the scene, and even trying to set up interesting shots and transitions in the script. No guarantee they’ll be used – but they may inspire the director to lift the scene out of the ordinary.
This applies to ALL scripts; from big budget blockbusters to the most humble soaps – where applying this technique is often essential.
DO NOT TREAT THE CHARACTERS AS PROPS
Characters don’t exist in a vacuum. They don’t disappear into thin air just because

they’re no longer the focus of attention. You should always give your characters an “inner life.” Why are they there? What’s their emotional state—or how does this evolve during the scene? What’s their goal?
Answering those questions will reduce the number of times in which a character starts reciting dialogue on cue and lapses in limbo when his/her immediate function has been played out in the scene.
Of course, this becomes a bigger problem when you’ve many characters within a scene; some of which have only a small function although their presence is required for plot reasons.
It can be very hard to keep track of seven or eight people and give all sufficient exposure, especially when you work within the constraints of episodic television. However, it’s important you make an effort because actors will always notice this and complain—and justly so.
THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING STRUCTURED
Structure is far more than act breaks and plot points. Structure is at work in EVERY SINGLE SCENE of your script.
A scene has to have shape. It needs a goal. An objective that needs to be achieved. And obstacles which prevent this.
Failing to provide this will result in aimless and dull scenes. If you provide too many objectives, on the other hand, they often get in each other’s way. This confuses the issue and leaves the scene a shapeless mess.
You need to have the scene objectives clearly in mind and decide beforehand the order in which they’ll be dealt with. Only thus can any sense of order, and therefore structure, be brought to big and complex scenes.
It’s important your scenes have room to evolve and reach a climax.
If you start a scene on a very high note, whether conflict or comedy, it will be almost impossible to top.
If one of your characters start a quarrel with a killer reply, the rest of the scene will turn out to be anti-climactic or repetitive. If you open a scene with a big laugh, trying to top it may lead to very strained humour.
The solution in this case is often simple. Move your opening gag to the end of the scene and build it up using the old “rule of three.” The audience remembers the big pay-off. Not the way in which it was reached.
Another level on which structure is important is, surprisingly perhaps, character.
Character IS Structure. Your characters need room to develop. It’s important not to have them hit the same note over and over again. Too much intensity can make them very irritating.
Structure is at work in every part of your script. All the time. The more attention you pay to it, the better the chance your script will work as desired.

Don’t know where I got this, and I haven’t done it, but it sure makes sense to me!

On individual index cards, write down ten different professions, ten locations, ten obstacles and ten goals. Shuffle each of the four packs, and pick one card from each. Write the opening scene of a screenplay based on these four elements. Repeat at least three times. Add to the decks over time, and come up with ideas for new decks: villains, time periods, love interests, etc. Use whenever you’re having trouble coming up with a new story idea, or as a warm-up writing exercise.

Great screenwriting how-to tips from the Net!

Hello DVXusers,
If you’re having trouble outlining your screenplay or, more specifically, plotting out the character-driven events with all-important reversals, revelations, twists, plants & payoffs, etc., then you might find the following recommendations by H.P. Lovecraft helpful.
Although geared toward writers of novels and short stories, his points are nonetheless helpful for screenwriters.
1. CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. Prepare a synopsis or scenario of events in the order of their absolute occurrence—not the order of their narration. Describe with enough fullness to cover all vital points and motivate all incidents planned. Details, comments, and estimates of consequences are sometimes desirable in this temporary framework.
2. NARRATIVE ORDER. Prepare a second synopsis or scenario of events—this one in order of narration (not actual occurrence), with ample fullness and detail, and with notes

as to changing perspective, stresses, and climax. Change the original synopsis to fit if such a change will increase the dramatic force or general effectiveness of the story. Interpolate or delete incidents at will—never being bound by the original conception even if the ultimate result be a tale wholly different from that first planned. Let additions and alterations be made whenever suggested by anything in the formulating process.
3. THE VOMIT DRAFT. Write out the story—rapidly, fluently, and not too critically—following the second or narrative-order synopsis. Change incidents and plot whenever the developing process seems to suggest such change, never being bound by any previous design. If the development suddenly reveals new opportunities for dramatic effect or vivid storytelling, add whatever is thought advantageous—going back and reconciling the early parts to the new plan. Insert and delete whole sections if necessary or desirable, trying different beginnings and endings until the best arrangement is found. But be sure that all references throughout the story are thoroughly reconciled with the final design. Remove all possible superfluities—words, sentences, paragraphs, or whole episodes or elements—observing the usual precautions about the reconciling of all references.
4. SECOND DRAFT, LATER DRAFTS & POLISHING. Revise the entire text, paying attention to vocabulary, syntax, rhythm of prose, proportioning of parts, niceties of tone, grace and convincingness of transitions (scene to scene, slow and detailed action to rapid and sketchy time-covering action and vice versa… etc., etc., etc.), effectiveness of beginning, ending, climaxes, etc., dramatic suspense and interest, plausibility and atmosphere, and various other elements.
5. AND FINALLY. Prepare a neatly typed copy—not hesitating to add final revisory touches where they seem in order.
The first of these stages is often purely a mental one—a set of conditions and happenings being worked out in my head, and never set down until I am ready to prepare a detailed synopsis of events in order of narration. Then, too, I sometimes begin even the actual writing before I know how I shall develop the idea—this beginning forming a problem to be motivated and exploited.

Great screenwriting how-to tips from the Net!