By The Judges

Devils At Play

[message type=”simple” bg_color=”#DCDCDC” color=”#333333″]”In the Soviet Union in 1937, a worker of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs finds a list of traitors, which he thinks is going to be his way out.”

Cameron: In the current logline we get a sense of time, place and a half baked goal. ‘ He finds a list of traitors, which he thinks is going to be his way out.’ Way out of what exactly? As Well as the stakes. Is there somebody after him or blackmailing/threatening his family giving the protagonist a limited time to hunt down these traitors?

”  Provide the source of antagonism with what’s at stake…”

If the Protagonist is looking for a way out, maybe describing him as ‘desperate’ and add the source of antagonism with what’s at stake if he can’t use the list of traitors to his advantaged, would suffice as a more compelling logline.

Nicholasandrewhalls: I think what you’ve got here is a time period and a setup: In the Soviet Union of the 30s, a (describe your protagonist’s flaw) government agent finds a list of traitors …

” What you don’t have is a goal.”

But what you don’t have, besides the vague “he thinks this is going to be his way out”, is a goal. Now that he has the list, what’s the plan? Does he want to expose it? Does he want to show it to his superiors to gain favour? Does he want to use it as leverage to blackmail them? Does he want to gain asylum with the Americans? Without the goal, the genre is unclear, as are the stakes.

Americatown

[message type=”simple” bg_color=”#DEDEDE” color=”#333333″] In a China-dominated near future, a former LAPD officer attempts to save his family from destitution in Los Angeles by working for a crime lord in the American ghetto within a thriving Hong Kong.

Cameron: What the logline has:

A clear story world where the Chinese government has spread it’s control on a global scale. A Protagonist in the form of an LAPD officer who is forced to work for a crime lord which is a good test of morals, cops are sworn to protect while criminals harm. But the reason why the Protagonist is working for the crime lord is a bit unclear.

“Having a cop  who is forced to work for a crime lord provides endless moral conflicts…Two opposite ends of the spectrum.”

If he’s doing it to protect his family who live in LA when the Protagonist and the crime lord are in Hong Kong, how is that a factor? I get that he could be doing it to send money back home, but what’s stopping the Protagonist from performing any other work that isn’t life threatening. In the screenplay, obviously there is a reason and it would add a sense of urgency if it were in the logline.

Nicholasandrewhalls: Like the concept, love the title … but …

The link between working for the crime lord and the safety of his family is unclear. How will working for the crime lord save 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.

The Judges (click for details)

by The Judges 

CLIVE

“After an accident causes a successful CEO to lose both legs, he is forced to re-evaluate his life and identity.”

Cameron: What the logline succeeds at is providing an inciting incident. We know in the Protagonist’s ordinary world that he is successful which implies he has it all and after this ‘accident’ he loses his legs and has some kind of personal and professional epiphany, through ‘is forced to evaluate his life and identity’. But the later is extremely vague.

“There is no sense of urgency or stakes.”

There is no sense of urgency or stakes. Being forced to re-evaluate one’s life and identity can mean anything.  Is his job on the line? Does he have subordinates gunning for his position? Does his wife/girlfriend leave him and is driven to win her back or find new love to rub it in her face? Specificity is essential.

JanCabal: Yes, the stakes are missing. Some goal or reason and it should be primal (death, family) like he is going to die, or perhaps the goal could be even a hero’s inner journey. Like he was reckless and since the incident, nobody counts his successful career anymore as he is an utter jerk. So he has to change or  risks loosing everything  he has left.

Like:

After a crippling accident, reckless CEO has to change the way he lived or he will loose his family and even his own life.

Cherries

“Three fathers learn of their teenage daughters’ pact to lose their virginity on prom night and band together to stop them.”

Cameron: A good high concept comedy, taking the usual  teen movie formula and telling it from the perspective of the fathers’. The multi protagonist story could be a problem if  each of the father’s aren’t uniquely defined and probably have similar characteristics to each of their daughters.

“The multi protagonists could be a problem if the three fathers are not uniquely defined.

The stakes are high but the urgency isn’t clear. How far off is the prom? It would make sense that the story takes place in a single night where the fathers race around trying to foil their daughters pact.

Richiev: This logline seems to be all there. It has the feel of over the top comedy and we understand the fathers goal.

I might add an adjective such as “Over Protective” and you could also change “band together” to “scheme” but overall we get a sense of the story from this logline.

Good luck with this!

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)