by The Judges

The Lost Kelly Gold

“When a search for Ned Kelly’s lost gold becomes a life or death battle, it is up to an introverted young Goth to stand up to the murderous local cop hunting them.”

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: “It seems highly unlikely that a Goth would leave the comfort of the city to go out bush hunting for some merely rumoured treasure. What compelling motive would he have to leave his apartment? How could such an incurable urbanite be naive enough to go chasing fabled pots of gold? The antagonist, at least, is effective. And the protagonist is nicely under-matched against him. A more credible protagonist would be some simple, young, honest farmhand who wants the gold to settle down with his town sweetheart. A corrupt cop certainly is a stark contrast against him.”

The antagonist, at least, is effective.

James: “Because the protagonist is so random in this scenario it feels almost like s/he was thrown in just to mix things up. The simple way around this problem is to change the way you have written the logline. Start out with what the Goth is doing out (presumably) in the bush. ‘When an introverted Goth is forced on a bush walk s/he discovers…’ then you can lead into her discovery of the gold and how s/he is the only one able to stop the murderous cop It’s always better to start with the inciting incident rather than the first major plot point in a logline.     ”

It’s always better to start with the inciting incident

And Death Rode With Her

“When a grieving medic with deadly powers resists induction into the horsemen of the apocalypse, she must battle the remaining three in order to save the world”

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: “The logline is almost camp as it is. Assuming that this is not meant to be a spoof, more clarity is needed here. A “grieving medic” is an interesting character to start with. Saying she has “deadly powers” is too vague. Some readers will lose interest just there. Then going on about the “horsemen of the apocalypse” brings the whole thing down to apparent silliness. As there is no clear connection between someone who is suffering the very personal experience that is grieving and a sweeping mystical battle that will shake the world.”

  A “grieving medic” is an interesting character to start with

James: “This logline suffers from giving too much away, which is remarkable as its only 27 words. With most good movies there’s going to be two goals for the protagonist. The first one takes up the first half of the film and the second one comes in at the mid-point; this one is an extension of the first. This logline gives away what that second goal is for the protagonist, to save the world. I think it would read much better if rather than having to battle the other 3 to save the world…’she must discover why she has been chosen to join this sacred order at the risk of creating world chaos’ or something like that.  By putting this in the logline rather than jumping right to her final goal it implies that there will be more to the film than simply a 2 hour fight sequence.

This logline suffers from giving too much away

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges

Judgment at Armageddon

“A scientist builds a satellite system that ends World War III; then must find a way to disable it to prevent another holocaust in the battle of Armageddon. “

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: This logline is a bit confused and circular, as it currently stands. A satellite system prevents WWIII yet needs to be disabled during some later world war? The why and the how is left too unsaid. Greater clarity is needed to prevent a reader from scratching their head and just moving on. Try “A new orbital guardian system is equiped with artificial intelligence that can swiftly cut short any explosive war. When the machine intelligence calculates that a small population is an acceptable loss, its inventor must turn against it.””

Greater clarity is needed to prevent a reader from scratching their head and just moving on

James: “The story line is a little confusing. You may need to add in some dates or something like ‘as a result of this satellite being built’. However apart from the confusion, this logline still possesses some strong elements. It has the protagonist, the first act is clearly laid out with a clear goal for the second act. I’m just curious as to whether there is an antagonist. Or is the satellite acting here as a pseudo-antagonist? Sorting out its clarity will definitely help improve the logline here.  ”

Is [there] an antagonist?

Remember the Malmo

“A small Texas border town fights for its independence from Mexico and the U.S. after an earthquake changes the course of the Rio Grande River and makes it an island.”

The judges’ verdict:

Paul: “You need to personalize it. Who’s the hero of the story? Is it the leader of the town? Someone needs to represent the parties involved on a personal level or we simply won’t care. Also, what are the consequences if it doesn’t gain independence?”

  Who’s the hero of the story?

Steven: “Interesting and different premise, certainly. Top marks for originality. But there’s the big hole of why would the former Texas town suddenly want independence. Being suddenly surrounded by water does not cut it by itself. Unless this town has a population of, say, far right survivalists and/or right-to-bear-arms types. (In which case this needs to be specified in the logline for the sake of clarity.)”

Interesting and different premise, certainly

James: I think that changing the order of the words here will make a huge initial difference. Try, “After an earthquake changes…a small Texas border town must…” this creates a nice cause and effect in the reading of the logline. Secondly this has to have a a central character. Every movie has at least one central character. If it doesn’t then don’t bother writing it. In the logline you have to highlight who he/she is and what her/his place in the story is.

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges

Ripper

“A promising young surgeon is appointed by the Queen’s Secret Court to eliminate an alien threat from the slums of London before it destroys the Aristocracy.”

The judges’ verdict:

Karel: “I LOVE IT! Only two things I wonder: Is there a character journey? “Promising young surgeon” sounds like a flawless character. Following from this: the logline as it is may or may not suggest a dilemma. Is ‘destroying the aristocracy’ a bad thing? This could be a story about the class of the classes and the surgeon may have reasons to allow the aliens to achieve their goal.”

Is there a character journey?

Geno: “I’m just slightly thrown by the mash-up of subject matter- the Queen, a doctor and aliens. They don’t seem to jive for me. if you have to explain it, it doesn’t work. You seem to have the right elements, but I don’t see the tie-in between them”

I’m just slightly thrown by the mash-up of subject matter

Steven: “Where this story has the most potential, I think, is an alternate-Earth setting (such as Steam Punk). Where the British Empire has continued on into a modern technology setting. Yet this same Empire anachronistically and stubbornly perpetuates old English traditions (such as colonialism, feudalism, racism, etc). In such a milieu, the reader could see that attacking the aristocracy would make a real difference to that society. This same milieu would be ripe with possibilities for political and social commentary as well (a potential bonus selling point).

Blood and Fire

“A brash missionary and a local gang must set aside their feud and defend their village against a violent drug cartel.”

The judges’ verdict:

James: “First of all I would try and emphasize the protagonist and little more. By simply saying “A brash missionary must team up with…” you’ve automatically made him the centre of the story (then throw him a nice flaw). Next there needs to be a clearer goal. With this the goal for the protagonist is clear, stop the cartel. With this kind of story though I think that you need to give the cartel a better goal, that is a reason for why they are destroying this town and in this the answer for why the town needs saving in the first place may appear.”

  I would try and emphasize the protagonist and little more

Steven: “Fundamentally, I see this as having legs. That two bickering rivals have to unite to face a greater threat has a classic story quality to it. The main thing that the logline lacks is a bit of atmosphere. A little more to imply either the tone of the film or to tell us a bit more about the protagonist. Mind you, “brash missionary” is an interesting and unexpected character description. Top marks for that!”

That two bickering rivals have to unite to face a greater threat has a classic story quality to it

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges

Works of Fiction

“A reclusive writer discovers the murders in her novels are becoming reality before they hit the shelves and must work with a suspicious FBI agent to find the killer and clear her name.”

The judges’ verdict:

Patrockable: “Stranger than fiction meets murder mystery! It’s an intriguing premise with all the right elements, including character flaw, goal and stakes. But how do we keep it under 25 words? Here’s my take: ‘When the murders in her novels become a reality, a reclusive writer must prove her innocence by finding the killer.’ ”

It’s an intriguing premise with all the right elements

Steven: “The fundamentals here are right. Clear stakes. Flawed protagonist. An interesting supporting character who has good reason to be supsicious of her. An interesting enigma: Copy-cating murders happening before any regular novel reader could know about them. The only thing I would suggest is to add to the protagonist’s apparent meekness. Making her elderly or disabled, for example, to enhance the apparent preposterousness of her being the killer herself”

An interesting supporting character who has good reason to be supsicious of her

Before Tomorrow Comes

“After returning to the present from a horrifying future he is responsible for, a disillusioned software developer must bring down the corporate giant he works for.”

The judges’ verdict:

James: “I’ll start off by saying that this is a clear logline. It has all those elements that make up a great logline, main character with a flaw, a goal, a clear inciting incident and a clear second act. However sometimes this just isn’t enough. When writing a logline for a high concept idea such as this one a little ‘flavour,’ needs to be added to help create the world and demonstrate what makes this so different. For example state what type of corporate giant it is he works for. This will help clarify the genre of the film. Also describe what is so terrifying about this future. Is his wife dead or is the world now controlled by giant lizards? Two very different scenarios that both fit into this vague logline.”

 A little ‘flavour,’ needs to be added to help create the world

Patrockable: “Intriguing. Two suggestions: What is the horrifying future? Describing this would really help flesh out the stakes. And can the goal be reworked to make the genre clearer? “Bringing down the corporate giant he works for” could mean action, sci-fi or political drama.”

Describing this would really help flesh out the stakes

Steven: “A tauter and more effective rendition would be: “An alcoholic and disgraced software developer is abruptly shown [or taken to] the horrific future his greatest work will be instrumental in creating. Shocked by this revelation, his last candle flame of idealism must overcome both his self-doubt and the giant multi-national that now owns all his work.”

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges

Untitled

“When a policeman’s family is kidnapped by a sadistic crimelord he must kill a rival crime boss to save his family.”

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: “More is needed here to hook interest. For example, is the cop the rival crime lord’s brother, or even son? (That would work well with the sadism trait.) Or is the cop an ex CIA or infiltration expert? (Which suddenly makes sense why the cop has been chosen over the regular goons.)”

More is needed here to hook interest

Patrockable: “Strong sense of genre. Cool goal. And high stakes! But the main character’s a bit bland. He needs a flaw. Also, something to consider: maybe not a cop? It might be too easy for a cop. Could we make him a librarian? A data analyst? Making it hard for the hero spices up the story. (Although it might mess with the sense of genre!) And very lean.”

The main character’s a bit bland

Sheep among Wolves

“When a privileged naïve young woman is attacked by an enraged lunatic accusing her of assassinating his wife, her sheltered world comes crashing down around her with the possibility he may be right.”

The judges’ verdict:

James: “This has the right idea but is just far to wordy. 25-30 words at the most is all that a logline should be. This one tries to use every adjective possible to describe the characters. The problem with this is that we go into the film with our minds already made up, this means that the characters never really stand a chance to develop in our minds. Secondly a goal is needed. The opening is good, we have the inciting incident but there’s know real indication of where the story will travel in the next act. After the first plot point is given away try something like …”She must then prove that this is not the case before (he goes to prison for murder?)’ Just a thought. ”

 We have a clear protagonist with a flaw.

Steven: “Bad choice of words here. And inefficient in other parts. For example, instead of saying all of “privileged naive young woman” you could just say “debutante” or “debutante princess”. Instead of labelling her attacker immediately as an “enraged lunatic”, create sympathy and credibility for him by first describing him as “a man whose wife was murdered”. If the reader is first told his motivation, then we will not so quickly dismiss his rage and desperation. Readers (including execs) are not interested in plain lunatics. But they WILL be interested in someone driven to ‘mad’ measures for a good and understandable reason. Always treat your characters with respect. Even supporting characters.”

Always treat your characters with respect

Patrockable: You’ve created an interesting main character and antagonist, but she needs a goal! And what are the stakes? It’s bad to be attacked, but what is the danger after? Does the antagonist continue to threaten her? Will the police arrest her unless she proves her innocence?”

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges

Matter of Time

“When an accused murderer claims that her friend time-travelled, a famous psychiatrist turned writer starts questioning his beliefs and rationality”

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: “This is a really muddled and confused story here (and not in any sophisticated “Inception” sense). Most execs would reject this just because of the muddle. Furthermore there is nothing in the logline to suggest that the accused murderer is not plain nuts with her claim of a time travelling friend. Really bad start making this potentially a story about loonies all round! The psychiatrist/writer is a completely redundant character. The accused murderer has enough questionable sanity, so why introduce this third person?”

There is nothing…to suggest that the accused murderer is not plain nuts

Karel“Who is the main character?  An accused murderer: if she is innocent, we will have sympathy and she could be the MC? Her friend? if there is someone time-travelling in the story, this is likely the most interesting character and perhaps should be the MC. A famous psychiatrist turned writer: if he “starts questioning his beliefs and rationality”, you’re probably in dangerous territory. The audience doesn’t like main characters (thinking they’re) going mad, unless they figure out quickly that they are NOT and start doing something about what is really the issue. ”

Who is the main character?

James: I can see what you tried to achieve here, which is a good thing. The only real issue is that it’s come out sounding muddled and confused. My first suggestion is leave the psychiatrist out of it. Mention that he needs to prove his sanity and leave it at that. Try and concentrate on the protagonist and the antagonist (the time-traveller I assume?) Give the accused murderer a goal, to prove that she didn’t kill anybody. Her stakes? Prison and possibly death. When in doubt with a logline stick to the classic, Keep It Simple Stupid.

Horn of the Leviathan

“When a Fire-Demon from his parents past kidnaps his fiancé, a timid hydrologist must locate a mythical artefact and uncover its power before the Devil kills his lover and unborn child”

The judges’ verdict:

James: “It’s fun (and a relief) to say that this is actually a very good logline, as far as they go. We have a clear protagonist with a flaw (he’s timid). We have the antagonist, the demon. We have a clear goal for the protagonist, to locate the artefact and kill the demon/devil. And what’s even better is that he’s been given some serious stakes, the death of his finance and unborn child. Not only does it have all these factors, but it’s written in a clear manner. It gives us the inciting incident and indicates what will happen in the second act without giving the story away. Well done.”

 We have a clear protagonist with a flaw.

Steven: “The logline need not mention either the parents or the Devil (Satan?) unless they add dramatic tension to the pitch (which they don’t here). Keep the logline taut by just mentioning the conflict between the hydrologist and the Fire Demon. (Nice contrast between the elements of water and fire here, by the way.) So, to revise: The Fire Demon has kidnapped the fiance and intends to kill her. The hydrologist has got to get the artefact to rescue her. Simple, dramatic, high stakes – that’s what execs want to read!”

Keep the logline taut by just mentioning the conflict between the hydrologist and the Fire Demon

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges

Double Trouble

“A young intern faces a double dilemma when he discovers medical fraud by a colleague and realises that the victim is his own despised father.”

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: “There is potential here but the scenario needs to be more dramatic. For example, that an experimental medical procedure is being trialed and the despised father is slated to be a test subject. For even greater dramatic potential, there could be a second patient – say, some chronically ill kid – who needs this treatment as well and there is not enough of the vital key drug for both of them”

The scenario needs to be more dramatic

James “This one reads like half a logline to me. One thing that I always come back to in loglines is the lack of goals given to the main character. In good stories the goal often changes around the mid-point of the script. This changed goal doesn’t need to be included. What does need to be included is his initial goal. Does he want to prove that it isn’t actually his father? Does he want to find a way to get his father off the hook? We don’t know and because we don’t know than this loglines doesn’t work. ”

What does need to be included is his initial goal

Dinosaur Train (Ep 8)

“A lovable T-Rex has fun at the two legged Theropod Club with his friends, making his winged Pterosaur sister feel out of place at the meetings until she joyfully joins in.”

The judges’ verdict:

Karel: “What is the main goal here? Does the T-Rex want his sister to join the Club? But what are ‘the meetings’? Why is it important that she should join? Is she isolating? A character having fun doesn’t really promise me any interesting drama. Is this really what is going on? It reminds me of the dreadfully boring first act of Wolf Creek, where the characters were also ‘having fun’ for about 30mins.”

 A character having fun doesn’t really promise me any interesting drama.

Steven: “There is no real story here. The sister must have more than just wings for the reader to feel anything for her. Is she fiesty? Freedom-loving? Artistic? Perhaps her flying ability has enabled her to see other lands that the others can only imagine? Secondly, why would she settle for “joining in” rather than, say, carving out her own hobby or flying her own way? Surely there is more dramatic potential in her ‘going it alone’ than just joining some boys’ club! Where is there any challenge in her simply being allowed in?”

There is no real story here

Phyllis: “Cute, but confusing. If this is a series it needs more detail to really engage. Dinosaur tales have been done to death so your spin needs to be incredibly entertaining. There’s an audience for jurassic stories, still – children (little boys especially) are totally fascinated by this world – so give them something fantastic. Being original with a world that’s 90 million years in the making is your challenge. But if you’re passionate enough about your story, you’ll do it.”

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges

Prison Actually

“After falling for the woman who defrauded his company, a now bankrupt playboy hatches the perfect plan to win her heart: he’ll bust her out of prison.”

The judges’ verdict:

Paul: “I think this could make a good story. It has many desirable elements. There’s the irony of having a playboy (I’m assuming he’s a bit of a player) falling in love. And that she’s the very woman responsible for him being bankrupt. He has a clear goal, break her out. Obstacles, a prison is designed to keep people in. And stakes, he could end up in jail himself if he’s caught (a possible comedic ending?).”

He has a clear goal, break her out

Karel “It sounds like there’s a good story in there but I’m not getting it completely. I can see what Act 2 is about: he’s trying to get her out of prison. But where does the story really start? With the fraude – or the falling in love? Romantic films need to give the heroes plenty of opportunity to share the screen. Is this the case here? I understand that she is going to be in prison for all of Act 2, while he is on the outside… May be a problem.”

I can see what Act 2 is about…But where does the story really start?

Steven: “A far more compelling story would be this man having an office affair with this woman while she is still employed by his company. Then, despite his first intentions, he falls in love with her. And THEN she runs off the company’s money. Thus forcing him into having to make a heart-wrenching decision about what he truly values in life – love or money.”

Suprise

“A frazzled man’s secret lives are set to collide when he discovers his wife has invited everyone he knows to his surprise 40th birthday.”

The judges’ verdict:

Paul: “An interesting idea. Could be a good start. But the real hook is what the different lives are, and how they are incompatible. It should be something we haven’t seen before, hopefully dripping with irony. Also, I don’t like ‘frazzled’. That’s a very temporary emotion rather than a characteristic. He would be frazzled because of the impeding chaos at the party. But that doesn’t define who he is. Give us something better.”

 The real hook is what the different lives are, and how they are incompatible.

Phyllis: “Superficially this story smacks of a Woody Allen-esque comedy of errors, but I sense an insidious quality to this logline. Is this your intention? Has the wife discovered this secret lives and this is her way of unravelling his world in a very public, embarrassing fashion? Why is he frazzled? This feels like only half the story – half a logline. We need to know more.”

This feels like only half the story – half a logline

Karel: The promise of this movie is based on a secret we are not let in on. This never works. What should the viewer expect to see in Act 2? Is this a comedy? Then what is our hero’s main problem during Act 2? What does he try to achieve or prevent? We need to know more.

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges

Unititled

“Embarking on a mission to save his people from a terrible famine a young tribe leader must defeat his demons, both real and imagined, in order to restore peace and destroy a new dictatorship created by his once trusted second in command during his absence.”

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: “At a minimum, the logline should paint something interestingly different about this tribe. Like, for instance, that they actually had high technology not long ago (say, a couple of generations back). Or even that they have consciously shunned technology for some philosophical or religious reason and are not at all “primitive” in their understanding of their world (for example, they may still have scientific understanding).”

At a minimum, the logline should paint something interestingly different

James: “I often say that in a logline you have to give your protagonist a clear goal. Something that he wants to achieve by the end of the movie. Ironically this logline has given us too many goals. We have his goal to stop famine. But then we have his goal to destroy a new dictator and then his next goal to bring peace to his people (who I thought were in famine?). What this reads like is the entire storyline, squashed into a logline. In movies goals do change and adapt, this is good. A logline doesn’t need to have all of these however. Remove the other goals and concentrate on the famine. That should make this a little clearer.”

This reads like is the entire (movies) storyline, squashed into a logline

Karel: “I sense real potential in this story. The former ally turning against the hero is a powerful premise. Also there are several major obstacles to overcome: famine and a villain. The famine is the backdrop, much like the war in a war movie. The real drama is between the characters. However by putting the famine upfront in the logline, you’re weakening its dramatic power.

So one issue is the order in which you reveal the story information. The story really starts when the dictatorship is installed, which is only mentioned towards the end of the logline. I like when events in a story are revealed more or less (chrono)logically in the logline. That way it makes sense while we’re reading it and we don’t have to re-read too often.

I like when events in a story are revealed more or less (chrono)logically in the logline

“a young tribe leader must defeat his demons, both real and imagined” is the heart of this story and logline. Two problems here: 1) the ‘imagined demons’ refer to the character fears/flaw/weakness. In that sense, the statement is generic because pretty much every hero in every great story has to defeat their inner demons. 2) the real demons are at first not specified, then later in the logline you clarify it is in fact his second in command.

Reset Your Life

“There is a company that can reset your life. If you don’t feel like you have succeed in life you can just reset your life”

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: There is scope for this kind of film to have some interesting – even philosophical – themes that could be explored. Such as “be careful what you wish for” or some message along the lines that being able to constantly reset your life is not real or genuine living. What the logline really needs is to flesh out who is contemplating resetting their lives and hint at what unexpected consequences their ‘resets’ will trigger.”

 What the logline really needs is to flesh out who is contemplating resetting their lives

James: “As a basis for an idea, this works quite well. It’s actually pretty high concept. As a logline however it fails. This is a tagline, not a logline. We need a main character who is resetting his life. We need the reason he’s doing this and what he hopes to achieve (his goal). We need stakes, some urgency perhaps and if there’s room a bad guy for us to hate. With an idea like this it can be hard to create the world and the character in 25 words. I would suggest mentioning the character, what his goal is and then stating that ‘this is possible with the company (insert name here) who specializes in resetting lives. But this creates a problem when…’. And then you’ll have a nice, clear logline with a high concept idea.    ”

We need stakes, some urgency perhaps and if there’s room a bad guy for us to hate

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges

Model Behaviour

“Jordan Rhodes is an honest detective investigating the heinous murder of a leading talent agent. As he delves into a melting pot of beauty, ego and violence, the stakes are raised when the killer distributes horrific crime-scene photographs to the press, thrusting a reluctant Jordan into the spotlight in a city where everybody wants to be famous.”

The judges’ verdict:

Phyllis: “This premise has promise. Reluctant celebrities in this age of FAME? Really? Interested to see how this character will be drawn. And I have a question… is this story based on the recent murder of a real-life female Hollywood publicist? Truth is definitely stranger than you know what… Good, solid concept here”

 Interested to see how this character will be drawn.

Steven: “It sets up a nice protagonist versus his environment conflict. The protagonist being the only one in his town who is unassuming and not out to be a celebrity, despite the fact that he lives and works in a fame-obsessed city. That works at a deep level. In this sense the killer/villain could work as the protagonist’s shadow, as the killer is clearly desirous of causing a sensation (in contrast to the hero’s low-key nature). There is even a suggestion here of the hero having to make a personal transformation to catch and defeat the villain”

It sets up a nice protagonist versus his environment conflict

James: Apart from the length this is a solid effort. It gives us a protagonist. He has a flaw that contrasts nicely with the world that he lives in. It has the inciting incident, one which conflicts with his flaw (honesty). My main complaint is this logline falls into the classic problem of over-description. ‘A melting pot of beauty, ego, violence…etc’  This isn’t really needed. It may help to create the world but more could be done with these words. He has his goal, now what are his stakes and is there any urgency behind them? If this can be added in than we will have a much better logline.”

A Perfect Story

“Bella from the Planet Kabbalore is caught up in a civil war on the planet Delta 5. After a request from Delta 5’s Governor Zelack, the President of the New Commonwealth sends a rescue party, consisting of NSPA Agents and Commonwealth Search and Rescue teams. Their ship is attacked and the party crash lands and are left for dead on a planet which is occupied by intelligent undead and enemy soldiers”

The judges’ verdict:

Steven: “The viable story thread here is one of interstellar law agents having their ship attacked and forced to crash land on some primitive or hostile planet. A planet well removed from civilised space. Forget the zoombies and definitely the first two sentences of this logline are clunky and turgid. Call them star law agents, say, and then get on with the dramatic part of the story. Don’t encumber the reader with a dissertation on their departmental names.. ”

 The first two sentences of this logline are clunky and turgid

Geno: “This needs an “extreme logline make-over”, so you can start by deleting everything up until “Their ship…” This is where your story starts. Identify your protag; I assume it’s Bella. Who is she? What is the protag’s goal? Getting out of a civil war? She has to have more of a goal. The obstacles? Zombies. The stakes? Losing her life, and failing in her other goal, as yet unknown.”

Identify your protag…. Who is she? What is the protag’s goal?

Phyllis: ” If this scriptwriter takes the conventions of the zombie genre and subverts them, a unique and compelling narrative could emerge. It’s an ambitious task, but not impossible. And the logline [is] too complicated. Keep it simple and strong, identifying the protagonist, her goal and ultimately what’s at stake – the intelligent undead should be the icing on the proverbial pudding.”

If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The objective is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.

So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?

To read the full reviews and those from casual visitors, go to www.loglineit.com.

The Judges (click for details)