By The Judges

KING OF HEISTS

“Based on the book King of Heists: The Sensational Bank Robbery of 1878 That Shocked America, written by J. North Conway. An unassuming man in the elite New York society assembles a crew that pulls off the largest bank heist in American history in 1878.”

Cameron: The purpose of a logline is to entice the reader and interest them enough so they’ll read the script. What we have here is a back story and premise to the idea.

So completely ignoring the first sentence, the logline is half way there; we have a Protagonist with a clear goal – to rob a bank. But why? Who exactly is the Protagonist, “an unassuming man” is vague and what’s his motivation for robbing the bank? The reasoning may be obvious if people know about the true event, but if they don’t, the audience has no reason to empathize with the Protagonist who simply appears to be a rich guy robbing a bank.

THE PAPER MAN

The true story of Matthias Sindelar, the Austrian footballer voted as the Sportsman of the Century and killed by Hitler’s Nazi party.

Cameron: Again, the theme of the week is ‘premise’ vs ‘logline’. The Paper Man is a premise line. If a reader has no knowledge or context for the story, an Australian Sportsman of the Century being killed by Hitler’s Nazi party makes absolutely no sense.

The key to this logline is what connects the Protagonist to the Nazi party.  Is Matthias involved in World War 2 as an enlisted soldier? This would clear up contextual confusion.

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.

By The Judges

TITANS OF PARK ROW

“Young William Randolph Hearst goes to war against an ageing Joseph Pulitzer as each tries to monopolize coverage of a mysterious homicide capturing New York’s imagination, birthing the modern concept of sensationalist media coverage.”

Tor Dollhouse: 

PROS
– A unique story.
– Clear goal.

CONS

– Passive protagonist elements. The real story would be better perceived from the murderer’s P.O.V.
– High budget/period piece.

With a few more re-writes, the writer could have addressed the underlying story problems that face this from being a knockout of a logline/story. The real concern is having the protagonist(s) observe the real story that if not handled correctly could be its own downfall. Hopefully the focus is put on the sabotage of each individual and their respective media outlets.

Nicholasandrewhalls: I don’t know who or what the protagonist and antagonist is/are … I assume reporters or newspaper editors? The name “Pulitzer” should probably give me some indication, BUT … let’s assume that I am the producer you’ve just pitched the script to … am I expected to go and look it up on Wikipedia, learn about the real people and events, before I can decide whether I think your story is compelling enough to read?

“Am I expected to go and look it up on Wikipedia… Learn about the real people and events?”

Also … unless I am a history scholar, I have no personal connection with these characters yet, so AVOID using their names. With the excpetion of writing an entry into an existing franchise, stick with CHARACTER FLAW and then one other identifier (FATHER / REPORTER / DETECTIVE / MENTAL PATIENT).

“Goes to war” would probably work, if I knew the “world” in which these characters operated. Media … but specifically newspapers? Does one character specifically try to block the other character out of reporting the event?

PESTE

“Following the outbreak of a virus that wipes out the majority of the human population, a teen documents her family’s new life in quarantine and tries to protect her infected sister.”

Cameron: The elements that work: clearly defined inciting incident, A protagonist in a contained setting with a clear goal which is also an impending dilemma – protect her sister and potentially infect others or give her up.

“A protagonist with a clear goal and dilemma – protect her sister and potentially infect others or give her up.”

What could help though, is to give the protagonist more of a description and give her a flaw which directly relates to her ability to form decisions based on the moral dilemma of protecting her sister. Maybe if the protagonist was naive, this naivety could be what gets the sister infected in the first place and it’s the naivety that the protagonist thinks she can protect her infected sister that puts others in danger.

Tor Dollhouse: 

PROS
– Strong visual event.
– Impending confrontation with close relationship.

CONS
– Doesn’t clearly specify use of found footage element.
– Lack of specific goal other than to survive.

The writer demonstrates an innate ability to deliver the story from their perspective but leads to a watered down logline that may cause issues with producers who are looking to check every element beforehand.

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.

By The Judges

MONSOON

“A dangerous love affair between a photojournalist and a black market smuggler set against the June 2001 massacre of the Royal Family in Nepal.”

Cameron:  What we have here is a statement of premise consisting of a time frame and a generalized arc between two characters but not exactly who the Protagonist is, nor clear goals or obstacles.

“What we have here is a statement of premise… not a logline.”

Though the story is based upon a true events, you can’t expect the reader to be instantly familiar with the event in question. How does the relationship between the photojournalist and black market smuggler impact or intertwine with the massacre?

Wilsondownunder: Who is the protagonist? The photojournalist or the smuggler? I assume journalist. Perhaps focus on the protagonist and tell us more about the relationship.

“What is the goal of the Protagonist?”

Immediately I’m wondering:

Why the journalist would want to be with someone working within the realm of the black market.

Why is it dangerous (aside from the obvious link to the black market and political turmoil) – who is the antagonist  making things  dangerous for this particular character?

What’s the goal of your protagonist – other than some good ol’ lovin?

Answering some of these questions in your logline will help the reader see your film in a snapshot.

THE LIGHTHOUSE

“William Van Alen’s building of the Chrysler building and the competition to be the first to complete the world’s tallest building.”

Cameron: Again, a statement of premise rather than a logline. The premise does gives the reader a Protagonist with a clear goal but is vague on the Antagonist front. Instead of “competition” ,which may be referring to a rival building company, focus on a single individual that represents the Protagonist’s greatest threat.

“For an Antagonist, focus on a single individual that represents the “competition” so the Protagonist has someone to play off.”

Also, the stakes. If William is unable to complete the building or lose, what happens? He may become bankrupt, become so obsessed that he may lose a love interest etc.

Wilsondownunder: William’s character traits and any potential flaws he had should be incorporated into the logline. While most people know what the Chrysler building is and it’s significance, you still want the story to sound compelling, rather than a recount of history.

“While readers may know the history of the Chrysler building, you still want the story to sound compelling, rather than a recount of history.”

Something along the lines of:

An obsessive architect destroys all that is good in his life as he becomes consumed by his desire to build the Worlds tallest building – the Chrysler.

Not ideal but focussing it on the character rather than the story adds an element of interest – as we already know the story.

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.

By The Judges

THE EEL

“An escaped convict is ensnared in a plot by a corrupt Sheriff to kidnap the young heiress to an oil fortune, complicating his quest for freedom.”

Cameron: Firstly, it’s going to be difficult to empathize with a convict unless he has been wrongly committed (which should be in the logline if that’s the case) and secondly ‘ensnared in a plot’ is a vague reference that could mean absolutely anything.

The second half of the logline involving the antagonist (Sheriff) and the task of kidnapping the heiress (clear goal) in order for the protagonist to gain freedom, works but could be clearer.

“Ensnared in a plot’ is a vague reference that could mean absolutely anything.”

So implementing the suggestions, the logline would look something like this:

“An escaped convict, wrongly committed (if he’s not, add a redeemable quality), must kidnap the heiress to an oil fortune, for a corrupt Sheriff in order to secure permanent freedom.”

FUCK MARRY KILL

“Three best friends return for their high school reunion intent on righting all the wrongs done to them in high school … by either fucking, marrying, or killing their tormentors.”

Cameron: Besides the unmarketable title, we don’t know anything about the three best friends, but giving them each an adjective or flaw would make the logline too long.

Is the focus of the film a multi-protagonist story with a shifting POV between the three, or do wee see the events of the film from the perspective of one of the friends? It’s always more difficult to write a screenplay with multiple protagonists because there’s less screen time to arc each character with equal effect.

“The protagonists’ seem down right psychotic which is bad news for the audiences empathy.”

Is the goal really just to fuck, marry, or kill their childhood tormentors? The first question that comes to mind in the context of just the logline in regards to motivations, is why on earth would the protagonists’ want to fuck or marry their childhood tormentors? It may indeed make perfect sense in the screenplay, but the ham fisted approach in the logline makes the protagonists’ seem down right psychotic which is bad news for the audiences empathy for them.

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.

By The Judges

COME AND FIND ME

“When his girlfriend goes missing, David must track down her whereabouts after he realizes she’s not who she was pretending to be.”

Cameron: A succinct logline that introduces a protagonist with a clear goal and a sense of mystery. What it lacks though, is an antagonistic force or major obstacle for David to overcome.

“We don’t know the stakes, why ‘must’ he track down his girlfriend. What are the consequences if he doesn’t.”

Speaking of David, throwing  a character flaw  in the logline will give the reader at least a sense of who he is instead of just a name on a page. David may become ‘obsessed’ with finding and discovering who she really is. The simple mention of the word ‘obsessed’ allows the reader into David’s head space and we can start to imagine moral barriers he’s willing to cross in order to find his girlfriend.

Also, we don’t know the stakes, why ‘must’ he track down his girlfriend. What are the consequences if he doesn’t.

Richiev:  First; I would start with the word “After” instead of “when.” Not a big thing but it will help the logline.

Second; If you tell us a character “Must” do something, then you have to give us an “or else” otherwise the logline will seem incomplete.

Finally; if you tell us “he realizes she’s not who she was pretending to be.” It suggests other (more dangerous) people are searching for her well.

“If you tell us a character “Must” do something, then you have to give us an “or else” otherwise the logline will seem incomplete.”

That would give you an “Antagonist.” for your logline, Someone dangerous who’s standing in the way of your protagonist achieving his goal.

DON’T MAKE ME GO

“When a single father to a teenage daughter learns that he has a fatal brain tumor, he takes her on a road trip to find the mother who abandoned her years before and to try to teach her everything she might need over the rest of her life.”

Cameron: The logline succeeds at creating a sense of urgency with the Protagonist’s fatal brain tumour and a clear goal of finding a long lost mother,  but the second half stumbles into vague territory so much so that the reader can’t get a sense of what the film would look like.

“The second half of the logline stumbles into vague territory… the reader can’t get a sense of what the film would look like.”

“Teaching her everything she might need over the rest of her life.”  This is an extremely broad statement that could encompass any number of things. The logline also suffers from genre confusion because of the vagueness. Is this a straight up father daughter drama or a lighter ‘dramedy’?

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.

By The Judges

TRANSCENDENCE

“An epic love story set in a time where a dying scientist is able to upload his consciousness into the internet and, facing its global implications, must fight against the forces who are actively working against the existence of a singularity.”

Cameron: Firstly, describing anything as ‘epic’ is purely subjective to each individual. It’s better to cut down the word count and start with the protagonist, then intertwine how the protagonists’ love interest intersects with the ‘A’ story of the ‘forces’ trying to stop the singularity. This would better ground the personal stakes of the protagonist and create empathy in a global stakes story where the film could potentially become a series of shallow action sequences.

“A clearer Antagonist should be identified instead of the vague ‘forces'”

Also, a clearer Antagonist should be identified instead of the vague ‘forces’. Usually in stories where it’s “Man vs Authority”, the authority is represented by one key individual who embodies everything the antagonistic authority believes in.

Steven Fernandez: Firstly, the word “singularity” is too technical for a logline.  Most execs or producers are not Science-literate enough to know what this word means.  Much less make the vital connection between the conventional definition of this word and the concept of the world heading straight for a massive, radical, and irreversible change.

“The logline should pitch the story as one genre and stick with describing it in terms of that genre”

Secondly, there is an apparent genre conflict in the logline as what is initally introduced as a romance turns out to be some kind of cyberspace story roughly along the lines of “The Lawnmower Man” (1992).  While, technically, a romance could still exist in this setting, the logline’s emphasis on the cyber setting creates a clashing set of expectations to the reader.  At a minimum, a busy reader is likely to think this story concept is confused.  At worst, the reader, himself, may be confused!  (Either way, a really bad outcome.)

Instead, the logline should pitch the story as one genre and stick with describing it in terms of that genre.  Even if the actual script happens to be deep and multi-layered.  (Readers don’t want confusion!)

As for the logline’s description of the ‘cyber story’, specifically:  It is a little interesting, but it could have all been rendered much more effectively.  For example, instead of telling us about vague and unspecified “global implications” and equally vague “forces” acting against the protagonist, greater sharpness and vividness could and should have been applied.  Such as, “He discovers a sinister conspiracy that threatens global privacy and his one true love.”  (A description that is more specific and more clear about what the stakes are, yet still does not reveal everything.)

ALMANAC

“A group of high school kids discover how to time travel, but fail to recognize the potential consequences.”

Steven Fernandez: Firstly, not giving the reader any hint of what the “potential consequences” are is a big failing at two levels.

At an overt level, failing to hint the consequences leaves the story only half-told.  Will dinosaurs start rampaging down the main street?  Will history be changed and so the present radically altered?  Will loved ones be lost in 420 BC?  Or what?  If nothing else, being more specific about the consequences makes the stakes in this story so much clearer and more vivid.  (And clear and vivid stakes are what readers want!)

“Being more specific about the consequences makes the stakes in this story so much clearer and more vivid.”

At a subtle level, failing to hint the consequences leaves the tone of this story far too open.  For example, if one of the “consequences” is that Ted will fail his science porject, then it is immediately clear that the story is a comedy.  While if ancient demons will be freed, then that straighforwardly implies a horror.  And so on.

Apart from all that, it would have helped if a couple of adjectives were used to describe the protagonists.  Are they ‘nerds’?  Are they ‘jocks’?  Or are they regular guys?  Anything that gives them some kind of distinction or individuality would help the reader begin to care about them.

Cameron: The ‘High school kids’ could use some adjectives and maybe have the focus on one member of the group as an anchor for the story, a POV character, with a flaw to overcome ( if there is a single POV character). The second problem is ‘consequences’. It’s cool to keep the twist (if there is one) a secret until you read the script, but we as the audience at least need to know the main problem our heroes will be facing and the stakes involved.

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.

By The Judges

Sweet Virginia

“A former rodeo star unknowingly starts a rapport with a young man who is responsible for all of the violence that has suddenly gripped his small town.”

Cameron: The protagonist in the form of the rodeo star, develops a relationship with a troubled young man who has been antagonizing his small town. This logline is more or less the inciting incident of the story and is vague in regards to a goal and antagonistic force.

“The logline  only serves as the inciting incident to the story and is vague in regards to a goal.”

SydneyPaul:  This tells us the potential for conflict, but really leaves it at that. So this ex rodeo star and the youth strike up some kind of relationship, and the youth is responsible for violence….then what? What kind of violence? What is the clash? Is it whether rodeo star can steer youth away from crime or whatever?

” The logline tells us the potential for conflict, but leaves it at that.”

Some of this vagueness should be clarified if possible.

The Judge

“A successful attorney returns to his home town for his mother’s funeral only to discover that his Alzheimer’s-stricken father is suspected of murder and must represent him in court. The ordeal becomes an emotional journey that makes him a better man.”

Cameron: The biggest problem with this logline is the second sentence. It doesn’t need to be there. The sentence states that there will be an emotional journey and the protagonist will evolve as a man because of it. Some sort of emotional journey no-matter how minuscule or almost non-existent, is a given in any film.

“The conflict is clearly defined and is a true moral dilemma.”

What works is that the conflict is clearly defined and is a true moral dilemma. An attorney son defends his Alzheimer’s stricken father who may have committed a murder. The stakes are high. If the son discovers his father is guilty,  his personal life and professional life which relies upon stretching the truth if necessary, would be strained if not torn apart. Does the son protect his father no-matter what?

SydneyPaul: This is fairly wordy…the second sentence in particular is mostly unnecessary (the ordeal makes him a better man is pretty much the arc we would assume).

Should the attorney be ‘successful’? If he was, we might be more inclined to think he should be able to deal with this ordeal, so the struggle would not be so great. Perhaps it might be more of a challenge if he was a ‘struggling’ attorney? Or perhaps he is a ‘selfish’ attorney and the ordeal gives him perspective about the importance of family?

“This is fairly wordy…The second sentence is mostly unnecessary.”

Here is a suggestion which may have some use:
“When a struggling attorney returns home for his mother’s funeral to find his Alzheimer’s-stricken father is suspected of her murder, he must wage the case of his life to save his family – and himself.”

Also the title seems strange – it’s not about the judge is it, it’s about the lawyer and/or the case. Perhaps it could be called “The judgement” or…..?

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.

by The Judges

THE OUTSKIRTS

“After falling victim to a humiliating prank by the high school Queen Bee, best friends and world-class geeks, Mindy and Jodi, decide to get their revenge by uniting the outcasts of the school against her and her circle of friends.”

Steven Fernandez: Despite the lack of streamlining in the logline, the fundamental story concept ought to really work. As it incorporates the classic motifs of rebellion and misfits uniting to overthrow a tyranny.

“A more sympathetic description of the two girls would be far better. For example, “bookish intellectuals””

I do, however, question the use of the phrase “world-class geeks” here. As it creates a put down affect on the two protagonist girls. And so undermines reader empathy for them. A more sympathetic description of the two girls would be far better. For example, “bookish intellectuals”, or “shy wallflowers”, or “uber technophiles”, or “obsessive hobbyists”, or whatever.

Finally, the logline could do with a bit of sharpening. For example, instead of the clunky “against her and her circle of friends” at the end, the ‘closer’ could simply have been “against the in crowd”.

Cameron: What the logline has:

Protagonists the the audience can empathize with due to an Antagonist that has caused them “pain” in an inciting incident.

The goal of the story is established: to get revenge. Although that could be considered vague as the tone of the film could be taken the wrong way. Revenge could mean  ‘murder’ or a ‘counter prank’. I’m assuming that it’s the latter but some could see otherwise.

Also giving the protagonists a flaw in the logline (something that will hinder their goal)  would be an additional obstacle and conflict.

STOCKHOLM, PENNSYLVANIA

“A young woman, kidnapped when she was a kid, returns home to the family she barely remembers and struggles to feel ‘at home.’”

James Michael: Although the structure is all sound and most of the elements are all here, there’s something a bit off about this logline. Maybe its because it’s a little vague.

Firstly, although you have given us the protag, i think for a story like this she needs to have a flaw (having been kidnapped there’s an infinite choice of them. Obviously one thats suited to the idea of struggling to reconnect with the family would suit best).

“When this flaw is worked out,  it will make it easier to give her a clearer goal”

When this flaw is worked out I think it will make it easier to give her a clearer goal. I think that a clear goal is the most important thing in a logline. It lets the reader know i) where the story is going and ii) what the genre will be. I think that just saying ‘struggles to feel at home’ isnt quite enough.

If there isnt a clear goal you could instead state what her main obstacle is instead. In this perhaps her flaw is making her family have a hard time accepting her and she has to over-come this before she can ‘re-join’ the family?

Steven Fernandez: While the basic story concept should work as a moving drama, the logline fails to sell the concept as it is too terse and a little dry. Instead, careful attention should have been paid to create a vivid and stark sense of what the young woman is going through. If the right words are chosen here, then the reader’s empathy of the woman can easily be ‘clinched’. For example, “A teenaged girl remains haunted by nightmares, and subject to volatile mood swings, when she returns to a family she hardly remembers. Her abduction since childhood leaves scars that will test both herself and her family.”

“While the basic story concept should work as a moving drama, the logline fails to sell the concept”

Secondly, a hint of some kind of external antagonist would help to make this set up more cinematic. Fortunately, not a lot extra needs to said to create the right impression. For example, “Then she must go to high school for the first time.” (I am assuming this is a personal drama, rather than a thriller, which is why I leave out the option of the abductor(s) returning to try to re-take the girl.)

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.

by The Judges

MIDNIGHT AT NOON

“On the run after robbing a bank during the great depression, two brothers find themselves trapped in the harsh region known as the Dust Bowl where a ruthless killer hunts them down.”

Steven Fernandez:  The ruthless killer makes for a great antagonist but his linkage with the bank robbing brothers is left tenuous. How does the killer know about the brothers and what is his motive for hunting them? Simple desire for the loot does come to mind, though this is a mediocre motive. Better would be a motive along the lines of him recovering the money for someone else. Whether it be on behalf of the bank, or on behalf of some wealthy landowner. (This makes the killer look like a professional, which makes him appear even more chilling.)

“It would also help that we are told something redeeming about the two brothers.”

It would also help that we are told something redeeming about the two brothers. For example, that their home was repossessed, or that they were thoroughly swindled. (Swindled by the landowner would be particularly good here.) Being hunted by a ruthless killer provides some audience empathy potential, but being compelled to rob a bank out of dire necessity provides so much more.

As it stands, the logline is acceptable at a basic level. But it would sell the script more effectively if the two aspects already mentioned were addressed.

Cameron: Giving the two brothers redeemable qualities and empathetic reasons for committing robbery in the first place is key to making this story work. Aside from that aspect, a strong story world obstacle is established with the protagonists’ out of their element  and the stakes are clear with a defined antagonistic force.

THE KILLING SPREE

“Heartbroken after being dumped by his long-time girlfriend, a guy’s best friends devise the perfect plan for his recovery and teach him how to sleep with as many women as humanly possible.”

Steven Fernandez: The last element described here (ie the plan to sleep with heaps of women) brings down the whole story to the lowest of the low level. While there is always a market for broad comedy, it is a shame that this story had to include the low element. For, without it, the story could really work and engage a far bigger audience.

Wanting to ‘get back’ at the girlfriend is great. Ruining her reputation would be even better. Doing either with the help of friends is perfectly workable. But why did the recovery or revenge plan have to be so crass? Why could not the plan, instead, be exposing some embarrassing secret about the girlfriend and/or toppling her from some high social pedestal? The crass element is this concept’s greatest flaw. It is a giant let down.

“There’s no clear antagonist here. (Problem!)”

Secondly, there’s no clear antagonist here. (Problem!) If the girl is particularly smart, or has a powerful father, that would be enough to enable the reader to see that the buddies are in far a tough time. But nothing is stated in the logline to suggest much opposition to the plan. (Significant flaw #2.)

Cameron: The way the logline is worded, it sounds less like a movie and more like an internet web series. It comes off as simply being about a guy who gets laid over and over for 90 minutes. I’m assuming there’s more to the story than that, such as guy falls in love with one of the girls he’s trying to play,  so why not allude to that in the logline?

So the “heartbroken” bit does create an empathetic resonance in the audience because we’ve all experienced that, but the last half of the logline wipes away any empathy the audience had.   It could work if it were structured differently, for instance, Protagonist sleeps with as many woman as possible in order to/and struggling to forget the love of his life. This way the protagonist ( in the logline at least) doesn’t come off as an ‘American Pie’ clone.

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

THE HOOVERVILLE DEAD

“Set in St. Louis in the 1920s, washed up baseball player Will Cosgrove is a private eye with his older brother Ross. When Ross goes missing, Will stumbles upon a deep secret that the disease taking over the town is not quite what it seems and a mob boss turned Governor will do anything to keep the town’s secret from being revealed.”

Cameron: This logline suffers from information overload, and when you have to read something twice, three times even, that’s bad news. This is more like a brief synopsis than a logline. Information, such as “set in St. Louis and washed up baseball player” are redundant when the key aspects of the logline should be Will’s flaw in relation to his occupation as a private eye and how that effects his brother going missing and the forthcoming search for him.

Also, the wording of Will discovering the town is plagued with a disease and the stuff with the mob boss turned Governor make it feel like two different films. Better wording of what Ross has to do with the Governor and plague would better tie these stories together.

Steven Fernandez: One aside: I hope this is not yet ANOTHER zombie film! (I meet plenty of zombies in real life.)

Firstly, the word usage is inefficient here and the logline could do with some real sharpening. For example, a much more interesting opener would be: “A private eye’s brother is missing in a town ruled by a crime lord. A town that is crippled by a mysterious plague.” (Telling us about 1920′s St. Louis, as well as Will’s baseball past is all froth by comparison.)

“Will’s key flaw should have been described in terms that relate directly to his private eyeing… how does his weakness compromise how he is today?”

Will’s key flaw should have been described in terms that relate directly to his private eyeing, rather than his past. It’s okay that his failed baseball career is the root cause of his weakness, but at logline level, how does his weakness compromise how he is today? For example, he could be simply described as a “disillusioned private eye”, or cynical, or alcoholic, or whatever. With such a quick description, the baseball past could be left for the script to reveal rather than the logline.

On the plus side, the implication of causation between the mob boss and the disease is interesting and a little different. Mind you, the logline could have worded this linkage far more effectively. For example, “As Will tries to track down his brother, he discovers a secret about the plague that the crime lord will kill him for knowing.”

The combination of spreading disease and a criminal governor makes for a meaty plot well worthy of a feature. If only the logline was written better to sell this quality …

HIBERNATION

“A wrongly convicted inmate volunteers for a hibernation experiment in exchange for one day of parole every five years, which he uses to prove his innocence and search for his missing daughter across an increasingly futuristic landscape.”

Steven Fernandez: On the face of it – just going by the logline – this concept completely does not work.

Most critically, instead of a ticking clock, we have a time dilated one. The protagonist has only one day after every five days to prove his innocence and to try to find his daughter? Even leaving aside a host of logical problems here, this set up makes no dramatic sense within the confines of a single feature. This might (might) work as a TV series, but is too haphazard a plot to work as a feature.

A more feature-feasible set up would be either the daughter is on ice (perhaps slowly dying), or the wronged prisoner is subjected to bouts of accelerated aging (or even both).

“Even leaving aside a host of logical problems here, this set up makes no dramatic sense within the confines of a single feature.”

If the writer’s original intention was to tell some cryogenic time travel story, then having the daughter living in real time is problematic as a motivational device. She can hardly hold her breath waiting for him every five years!

The closest this concept could come to a feature-feasible story is for the daughter to be alive and available while the protagonist attempts to prove his innocence before she dies of old age and/or before the world he cyclically wakes up in becomes too alien for him. Mind you, even here the reward to the hero becomes small and diminishing over time. (If the daughter is missing, she might as well be dead, given the protagonist’s one-day constraint.)

This story fundamentally appears to be seriously wrongly conceived. It’s hard to believe a quality script underpins this.

Cameron: Key aspects of the logline: An empathetic protagonist (wrongly accused convict) a HUGE obstacle ( 24 hours to live free every 5 years) and HIGH STAKES goal (his daughter is missing).

The overall story presented is HIGH concept but it’s a high concept that draws attention to itself along with a huge flaw: His daughter isn’t really in any iminante danger. We, the audience, might be in the convicts POV and only see every five years, but the from the daughter’s POV, she’s simply living her life.

“The overall story presented is HIGH concept but it’s a high concept that draws attention to itself along with a huge flaw.”

The script may well possibly address this issue logically and in an interesting way, but the way it’s presented in the current logline, it simply highlights a massive story flaw.

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)