LOGLINE.IT - cross-posted comments and revisions

[Pitchpatch]

http://logline.it

Cross-posting my comments in this topic.

[Pitchpatch]

After joining the crew of an AWOL Confederate steamer, an idealistic medical student must survive the savagery of the ship's captain and crew in order to take part in the destruction of a Union whaling fleet in the Pacific Ocean.

by nicholasandrewhalls

-----

It’s unclear what the goals are. Who wants to fight the Union whaling fleet? The captain? The student? Both? Is the ship AWOL and headed for the battle or away from it? Does the student want to convince the captain to undertake the attack or dissuade him from it?

I’ll assume the captain went AWOL to go fight the whaling fleet, and the student joined for that very reason.

* “idealistic” — too abstract. Character flaws/strengths must be specific and grounded. In what way is the Student high-minded? I’ve selected one in my revision.

* “joining the crew” — TMI, unless it’s crucial to the LL

* “AWOL” — acronyms not a good idea in LLs.

* “Pacific Ocean” — TMI, unless it’s crucial to the LL

* “must survive the savagery” — conflict is way too abstract. Also, it’s a reactive/passive motivation, like a boxer trapped in the ring corner with his arms up to defend his body and face from his opponent’s flurried punches. As it stands, the central conflict in this LL is student versus the captain/crew. The attack on the whaling fleet is marginal. Conceivably, the story could end before the attack. If you intend for the attack to be a large part of the story then you need to weight your LL differently.

REVISED 1: “A pretentious medical student struggles to civilize the ruthless captain and savage crew aboard a rogue Confederate steamer on its way to attack a Union whaling fleet.”

That makes the student’s motivation active: he wants to teach these sailors how to be human again.

REVISED 2: “A pretentious medical student endures a ruthless captain and savage crew aboard a rogue Confederate steamer on its way to attack a Union whaling fleet.”

That’s the passive version that makes clear there’ll be no character arc for the captain and crew.

[Pitchpatch]

After being accused of murder, a naïve do-gooder secret agent seeks to prove her innocence and unravel the dark truth, only to find herself completely unequipped for life outside her sheltered world.

by Paul Clarke

-----

She’s a secret agent who exists in a “sheltered world.” What does that mean exactly? Because that’s the main conflict your LL present: fish out of water. She’ll face trials and obstacles directly stemming from her naivety and lack of skills in this new world.

“Accused of murder, a secret agent must prove her innocence.” There’s the core goal, the core question: will she or won’t she prove her innocence (which implicitly involves finding the true killer)? Now you need to clarify the conflict.

How have you personified the forces acting against her? Is there a single antagonist or body of antagonists? If so, give us a hint in the LL. As it stands, it’s too general in every respect.

For example, here’s a stronger, more specific LL tracking the same basic story:

“Accused of murder by her corrupt ex-lover, a wimpy bureaucrat at a spy agency must become a cunning field operative to find the real killer and clear her name.”

The corrupt ex-lover is the implied antagonist trying to frame her. Is the ex-lover the real murderer? Is the ex-lover covering for the real murderer? Is the ex-lover simply seizing the opportunity to pursue another agenda? Generally speaking, good loglines trigger a flood of follow-up questions. The reader wants to know more, wants to explore further along the path you cleared for them. Bad loglines raise questions about the core story, and they stop your reader in their tracks. Your LL won’t excite them because you didn’t give them the essential elements required to spark their interest.

Note the strengthened protag goal: no longer simply to “prove her innocence” but to transform from a meek bureaucrat into an effective field agent. I guess that’s what you aimed for with your LL, but it needs to be front and center, not buried in vague suggestion.

Conflict: the ex-lover; the agency; her inexperience in the field and all the complications that creates.

Just my thoughts. Good luck.

[Pitchpatch]

The memories of his last leave and a chance encounter with his lost love inspire a British Officer to survive the last months of War so he can return to England and live the life with her he always dreamed of.

by Greg Barnett

-----

Richiev is on the money.

My thoughts:

This is overall TMI, IMO (acronym much, Pitchpatch?). Like a pleasant but unexciting first date, you put it all out there, leaving no sense of mystery, no sense of intrigue. And we have no reason to call you tomorrow.

Loglines aren’t meant to showcase beginning, middle, and end. Save that for the synopsis, outline, and treatment. Typically, LLs describe the hook/teaser and the Act 1 turning point, maybe hint at the midpoint developments, and the rest should hang enticingly in the air, infuriatingly vague but ripe with potential.

So, let’s put the clothes back on your LL and only put out enough to whip the reader into a frenzy.

“Haunted by a lost love, a British Officer dreams of winning her again — if he survives one final mission during the last months of the War.”

Your LL suggests the the story focuses on what happens in those last few months as the War (WWI or WWII?) winds down. I’ve noted elsewhere: ‘to survive’ is a wimpy, vacuous motivation. Generality sucks the life from LLs.

We can tweak it a little by hinting at WHAT will try to kill him: one final mission. Hackneyed it may be, as story consumers we instinctively know final missions always goes awry and Very Bad Things happen to the protag. We know the hero will go through hell to get to heaven — his reward being the opportunity to start fresh with his lost love.

Like Richiev, I need a clear and present purpose to get me invested. If you briefly tease us with a unique and thrilling “mission” instead of leaving it generic, all the better: I’ll illustrate with an easy one:

“Haunted by a lost love, a British Officer dreams of winning her again… if he survives one final mission during the last months of the War: assassinate Churchill.”

BOOM! Are you kidding me? That raises so many delicious questions! Is she the one who wants Churchill dead? Is it the oppose: she’d revile him if she found out? Who gave him this traitorous mission? Why must Churchill fall?

See how a two-word reveal can kick your LL into the realm of high concept? Okay, so maybe your story doesn’t need such a gimmick. What you do need is a logline that bleeds excitement.

NOTES

* “return to England” — we know he’s British so we can leave it implied.

* “memories of his last leave and a chance encounter with his lost love” — both broadly brushstroked by “haunted by his lost love” or similar.

* What’s missing in the original LL: a sense of urgency and stakes; a suggestion of the specific problem he faces; a hint at how he will be tested by this story, what he must overcome internally to be the man he must be.

 
Best of luck, Greg.

[Pitchpatch]

An insecure self help guru is blackmailed into helping the newest super villain in town when he kidnaps the guru's girl friend.

by Adam Bernström

-----

I want to reinforce Karel's bullseye comments.

- "insecure self-help guru" feels too easy -- just slightly less so than "an introverted self-help guru."  It lives in the realm of "pacifist soldier" and "priest with a crisis of faith." These simply flip over the protag's strength to a weakness.  It can work, sure, but first impressions count against it.

How does the guru's insecurity exhibit?  Alcohol?  "A whiskey-soaked self-help guru is blackmailed..."  Women?  "An oversexed self-help guru is blackmailed..." (or maybe "A skirt-chasing self-help guru...")  That kind of thing.  Focus on how your protag manifests his insecurity and let the reader follow the thought to its logical conclusion.  The juxtaposition naturally leads the reader to weigh "oversexed" in one hand and "self-help guru" in the other and infer the protag's inner motivation.

- As Karel points out, the LL flow is backward.  That's due to several problems: the passive sentence construction, and the black hole where the protag goal should be ("helping").  Let's rearrange things back to basic SVO (subject-verb-object) and see what we've got to work with:

"A super villain recruits an insecure self-help guru by kidnapping his girlfriend."

That's pretty much all the original LL tells us.  With the sentence now active, we can see how it emphasizes the antag's motivation at the expense of the protag's.  Effectively, your logline's main character is the super villain!

So, we need to switch the balance, refocus on the guru.  For that we need to define what manner of help he's forced to give.

"To save his kidnapped girlfriend, a self-help guru must lead a rising super villain to an ancient artifact holding the power to enslave mankind."

Hey, I like the nuances in my superficial, off-the-cuff example.  The irony of a self-help guru -- somebody who teaches others to empower themselves, somebody who helps free others from their limitations -- sharing responsibility for ultimately enslaving them all.

As soon as you define "helping" -- i.e. the story spine -- the logline comes alive.

Cheers,
Pitchpatch

[Pitchpatch]

After a young heiress unleashes primal powers, she is visited by a mysterious stranger and learns she must take on interdimensional beings that want her dead.

- by jde

-----

It's unclear if the heiress unleashes "primal powers" in herself or in the world.  I'll assume the latter -- in which case it's also unclear if the unleashing is what opened the connection between our dimension and the other.

Your LL spine is:

"A young heiress unleashes primal powers and takes on interdimensional beings."

So let's build from there.  The protag is colorless, so lets add a flaw. Also, let's reinclude the antag's motivation:

"A spoiled heiress unleashes primal powers and now interdimensional beings want her dead."

I left out Mysterious Stranger because all it does is add a secondary character to the LL, which we can do without.

The LL overall feels weak, with several elements ambiguous or confusioning, which hurts comprehension.

I think the revision delivers everything you wrote (sans Stranger) in a smaller, punchier package.

Good luck!
Pitchpatch, 10PTT.COM

[Pitchpatch]

"Espionage is the weapon of choice, for husband and wife inventors of an algorithm that speeds up the design of life-saving drugs and the multinational corporation determined to suppress it."

- by kbfilmworks

----

Wait... Can I read that as a couple of guys who invent husbands and/or wives for a living?  Mwahahaha.  Or would that intention be written as "husband- and wife-inventors"?  "Inventors" is the noun, with "husband and wife" modifying it as a compound adjective, and "husband and wife" acting as one unit, so...  let's ask Google.

Plugging in "husband and wife team" (with quotes to trigger a phrase search) gives 43.1 million hits.  Searching on "husband-and-wife team" shows 43.4 million hits.  No clear winner from that slight margin.

Back to the topic.

Plenty of good elements, but too many general ideas packed into this LL.  Needs more specifity to create sharper pictures in our imagination.

protagonists: husband and wife inventors
antagonist: multinational corporation
conflict: espionage
prize: algorithm to speed up life-saving drug manufacture

"Husband and wife inventors" is fine, but suggests no conflict or intriguing relationship.

"Multinational corporation" is as generic as it gets.

"Espionage" covers such a wide range of possibilities that it in no way narrows and solidifies our understanding of the main conflict.

"Algorithm to speed up life-saving drug manufacture." I think this expression of your macguffin hurts your LL the most.  It raises too many questions that get in the way of us quickly comprehending the "prize".  It feels weak to me.  This isn't a life-saving drug; it's something that speeds the process of manufacturing life-saving drugs.  I mean, yeah, that's important.  But it's like being the Lone Ranger's sidekick: you're useful, but you're the expendable one in the team.  Here, we could throw away the algorithm and the life-saving drugs manufacturing will go on regardless, just at its previous slower pace.

First pass:

"Husband and wife inventors infiltrate the global corporation trying to bury their revolutionary work to speed the design of life-saving drugs."

Phew.  A mouthful.  Everything's there, but it trips over itself in the rush to deliver all the elements.  We'll fix that in a moment.

Note how "infiltrate" is a specific, highly suggestive expression of espionage.  "I am going to espionage your company" versus "I am going to infiltrate your company."  Which gives a more concrete understanding of the clandestine action about to take place?

I swapped out "multinational corporation" for "global corporation".  There's a subtle difference of course: a corporation becomes multinational the moment it establishes a second office in a country outside the first.  That doesn't earn the label "global".  But I don't think it matters here.  We want to suggest a powerful corporation with global reach and influence.  And we shave five syllables down to two for speedier comprehension.

Also I swapped out "suppress" for the grittier "bury".  The latter feels more forceful to me.

Now, to make the first pass flow neater:

"Husband and wife inventors infiltrate the global corporation that's trying to bury their revolutionary work on life-saving drugs."

I simplified the macguffin.  Is it important we know the macguffin is an algorithm?  I'd argue it isn't.  As I said before, for me, mentioning the algorithm weakens the LL.  I think what's important is that we know the milieu the story explores: life-saving drugs.

Adding "that's" eliminates the tiny possibility a reader will wrongly think "trying to" applies to the husband-wife team instead of the corporation.  We could juice "trying to" because it feels weak, no urgency.  In your original you used "determined", which is pretty good.  How about:

"Husband and wife inventors infiltrate the global corporation that's desperate to bury their revolutionary work on life-saving drugs."

I'm not thrilled about using "that's".  It feels clumsy somehow.

Or we could do an end run around that whole bit and present it as a fait accompli, which arguable bumps the stakes even more: the worst has already happened to the husband and wife, and the corporation thinks they've won.

"Husband and wife inventors infiltrate the global corporation that buried their revolutionary work on life-saving drugs."

That simplifies the story a whole lot, which might not be what you want.  But it sure does create a clean, direct through-line: infiltrate, steal the evidence of wrongdoing, expose the corporation and share the "revolutionary work" with the world.

Rereading your original LL, I see I missed the subtle connotation that both sides use espionage.  Not just the husband-wife team.  Reading it that way, it muddies the waters even more.  Sort of like loglining a MISSION IMPOSSIBLE movie as: "A spy and the agency that hired him use espionage against each other."

All right.  Let's put the loglines side by side and see how they compare:

ORIGINAL:

"Espionage is the weapon of choice, for husband and wife inventors of an algorithm that speeds up the design of life-saving drugs and the multinational corporation determined to suppress it."

REVISED:

"Husband and wife inventors infiltrate the global corporation that buried their revolutionary work on life-saving drugs."

Not done yet.  Earlier I said "husband and wife inventors" was too bland for my taste.  Let's throw in a hint of conflict between them.  The go-to would be "estranged husband and wife inventors" or "divorced", "separated", and so on.  How about:

"Newly married Husband and wife inventors infiltrate the global corporation that buried their revolutionary work on life-saving drugs."

That we're mentioning "newly married" in the LL implies it's important to the story, that somehow the fact they're newly married will lead to complications and conflict.  It might be the wrong choice, though.  It makes me think there'll be a comic payoff.  Obviously that's not the tone the LL author wants to present.

So I'll just bounce this one back to you, kbfilmworks.  Why is it important to this story that it's a husband and wife team?

Cheers,
10PTT.COM

[Tom & Jerry]

Why do you know own/run that logline.it site? That is right up your alley. Why did you not think of it first pitch patch?!

[Pitchpatch]

LOGLINE.IT has some kind of connection with thestorydepartment.com and Karel Segers:

Karel Segers is a producer and script consultant who started in movies as a rights buyer for Europe’s largest pay TV group Canal+.
Karel teaches, consults and lectures on screenwriting and the principles of storytelling to his 5-year old son Baxter and anyone who listens.

Based on the cross-pollination of links between the two, I'd say Karel founded both.

[Pitchpatch]

"A former Marines first day at Walmart is turned upside down when eco-terrorist capture the store and take his sister hostage."

- by Richiev

-----

First, a spelling pass (yeah, I’m THAT guy, sorry):

“A former [m]arine[']s first day at Walmart is turned upside down when eco-terrorist[s] capture the store and take his sister hostage.”

This LL touches all the bases with no excess blather (almost). Protag, antag, backstory, conflict, stakes, setting. Good job. Some suggestions:

- Is the marine doing security at Walmart or a regular-Joe job, like checkout operator? The “gap” (difference between what the protag expects to happen and what actually happens) is wider if he’s doing a mundane job unrelated to his former career.

- “is turned upside down” is unwanted filler. Let’s toss it and flip the focus onto the protag/marine to let him drive the story forward, instead of being acted upon:

“On his first day at Walmarts, a former marine must save his sister when eco-terrorists seize the store and take hostages.”

That hits all your notes and avoids the fluff of “turned upside down”. But honestly, your LL does the job already, Richiev. Go for it. Write what you know (Hooah!) and write what you don’t know: what would I need to do to save my sister if terrorists stormed my workplace right now?)

[Pitchpatch]

"A recovering alcoholic, teetering on the brink of relapse, uncovers a shadowy 12-step labyrinth of blackmail, human trafficking and murder while he probes the brutal death of his sponsor."

- by JayK

-----

“An alcoholic near relapse probes the brutal death of his sponsor and uncovers a shadowy 12-step labyrinth of blackmail, human trafficking and murder.”

[Pitchpatch]

"A gambling drug addict, struggles to reunite with his family while escaping an iconic resort’s sinister nightman with pious motives."

- by favila


-----

“On an island resort, a gambling drug addict searches for his family while pursued by a sinister nightman who punishes sinners.”

- Interesting to contemplate if the protag is a gambling drug addict or a drug-addict gambler. Kind of a chicken-and-egg situation. Did the gambling lead to drugs or the drugs to gambling? [Ah, I see you answered this in a comment, favila.]

- Wasn’t sure what kind of resort you intended. Anything with enough isolation will do.

[Pitchpatch]

"An ex-marine turned assassin, reconsiders his occupation when he finds out he has a sister: A detective that's hot on his trail."

- by Timothy1

-----

Yours: “An ex-marine turned assassin reconsiders his occupation when he finds out he has a sister: A detective that’s hot on his trail.”

- Which comes first: discovery he has a sister or learning there’s a cop hot on his trail?

- dpg pointed out the problem with your LL. “What’s this movie about?” “It’s about an assassin reconsidering his occupation.” “Thank you. NEXT!” :-)

- We don’t need the info about him being an ex-marine. It doesn’t matter — not as is. The story through-line is him learning he’s got a cop hot on his heels, the kicker being she’s his sister.

How about:

“An assassin goes to war with the detective hot on his trail, then discovers she’s his long-lost sister.”

Let’s rerun the “What’s this movie about?” test: “It’s about an assassin who goes to war with the detective hot on his trail.” “Okay, tell me more…”

- So, this raises many questions about why the family bond matters and what happens AFTER the familial discovery. That seems to be the real story here. The familial reveal feels to me like an Act One turning point, because it’s the thing that generates the most conflict, the hardest decisions. The revised LL as it stands can’t describe a full story arc, because if the reveal comes at the end then we’ve just vented any intrigue our LL had. Using the elements you provided I can picture a story shaping up like this:

“An assassin finds out the detective hot on his trail is his long-lost sister. To avoid a lethal showdown they agree to work together to hunt down his ex-marines cop-killing boss.”

Boom: trigger, protag, antag, situation, motivations, stakes, probably a ticking clock or two. All from turning “reconsiders his occupation” into a clear, tense goal.

[Pitchpatch]

"When Paul, a lonely high school student, starts seeing his negative emotions manifest in the form of people he will have to confront the greatest enemy of all: himself."

- by KnowledgeKnight

-----

YOURS: “When Paul, a lonely high school student, starts seeing his negative emotions manifest in the form of people he will have to confront the greatest enemy of all: himself.” (29 words)

I’ve taken some liberties and extrapolated some plot details that seemed to fit:

“When a lonely high-schooler’s negative emotions come alive, manifesting as new students, he must vanquish each and face the inevitable boss fight — against himself.” (25 words)

- We don’t need his name.
- In the original, having his emotions manifest as people doesn’t seem a particularly bad thing. What do the embodied emotions do? Must he defeat them or reconcile/befriend them?
- Sounds a bit like SCOTT PILGRIM V. WORLD
- The revision implies our lonely protag finds his solace in gaming.

[Pitchpatch]

"When viciously harassed during an online game, reticent Kara befriends a nice-guy who comes to her defence, but as she begins to suspect his dark motives Kara must expose him before the game becomes fatal."

- by Krispy Kitchen

-----

Too dense. Let’s break down the story elements –

1. Kara viciously harassed during an online game
2. Kara befriends her rescuer
3. Kara begins to believe her rescuer has sinister motives
4. Kara must expose him before the game turns fatal

– and tick off the typical logline elements:

1. Protagonist – Kara
2. Antagonist – Nice Guy
2. Protagonist’s internal problem – too meek
3. Protagonist’s external problem – she’s the only one who knows his sinister plans and, presumably, she needs proof to convince others
4. Stakes and ticking clock – if she doesn’t act, the game will turn fatal
5. Conflict – weakly hinted at via “must expose him”.

So we’ve got most of what we need for an effective logline. The story spine — the path the story will chart — is “Kara must expose him before the game becomes fatal.” That’s your story bedrock.

One thing begging for clarification is the game itself. With “the game” undefined we have nothing to frame our expectations. Is this an online MMO? An ARG?

Is this a movie you’d go see?

“A timid gamer girl falls for the man who saved her from vicious online bullies. When she learns he’ll use a live-action alternate reality game to kill for real, she must stop him — and the only way is to play.”