By The Judges

THE AUTOPSY OF JANE DOE

written by Ian Goldberg & Richard Naing

“A father / son mortician team try to uncover the cause of death on a Jane Doe. The more they uncover, the more mysterious and terrifying their world becomes.”

Cameron: What the logline has: Father/son relationship dynamic, a goal to discover the cause of death on a Jane Doe and hints at supernatural elements that will provide an antagonist force. Though ‘mysterious and terrifying their world becomes’ may be considered vague, it provides enough of a hook to flip past the scripts title page. But it treads a fine line between hook and vague.

Also, if there is a conflict dynamic between the father and son, hinting at that conflict would add depth to the protagonist’s in the logline.

INK AND BONE

written by Zak Olkewicz

“When a female book editor visits the home of a horror writer she finds that all of his creations are holding him hostage.”

Cameron: As the logline stands, the only thing we know about the protagonist is that she’s ‘female’ — not much to picture there. How about stating her character flaw or a defining trait that will effect how the audience can picture her reacting to the inciting incident of finding this horror writer with his creations holding him hostage.

Speaking of inciting incidents, that’s the only thing that the remainder of the logline actually achieves. I know, the goal is kind-of implied, most likely it’s ‘escape the house of horrors with herself and the writer intact’, but stating that in the logline wouldn’t hurt or bloat the logline either.

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.