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

The 34th Battalion

The judges’ verdict:

Karel: My question: what makes this movie different from every other war movie? What is interesting about the characters? If there is no central character – God help me, I cannot remember a local film that managed this satisfactorily since Lantana – then why does it need to be a group? Will their friendship be torn apart? And what value(s) or theme(s) are at stake?.”

 What makes this movie different from every other war movie

James: “The inciting incident (the death toll) isn’t an event and therefore can’t be measured or drawn out on a page. This is the first mistake. The logline attempts to create some drama “a group of friends must chose…” but then the logline goes on to tell us what their decision is by stating that they fight in battles. There is no need to add this extra bit of information. It would be better to outline who the main character is and what his goal is (maybe he has to survive and make it home for some reason?) At the moment the goal is too short term, they’re intent on fighting in the war. There needs to be a long term goal to keep the audience interested for when they do ship off to war (as we know they do). ”

Untitled Project

The judges’ verdict:

Geno: “As a logline, it’s missing most of the elements, except of course, the genre, which was clearly stated (unnecessarily so). No sense of protagonist, antagonist, goal, obstacles, stakes, etc. Basically, just a TV guide entry The writer needs to learn the basics of a logline, and the Australian Film Project board, or whomever is funding this stuff, needs to improve their standards a bit. If the logline is this bad, I cannot imagine what the script is like..”

As a logline, it’s missing most of the elements

James: “I could sit here and drum out a list of all the things that this logline is missing. No main character, no goal, no inciting incident etc. Giving your story a setting isn’t enough to create interest in the script. We know enough about the Cronulla riots to be aware that this will clearly be about racism. There’s no need to put that in. I’d rather know whose point of view this event is from. Is it someone involved in the riots or simply an on-looker who becomes affected some way. These are questions that need to be answered in the logline before a script is even attempted.  ”

 No main character, no goal, no inciting incident.

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)