MORGAN - good
Seth W Owen
 
A corporate risk management consultant is summoned to a remote research lab to determine whether or not to terminate an at-risk artificial being.



What have we here?  A mash-up of Alex Garland's Ex Machina and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner?  The premise is ripe for conflict and the logline hits hard.  But not hard enough.

“A corporate risk manager visits a remote research lab to interview and possibly terminate a misbehaving artificial being.”

We've gone from 24 words to 18.  A substantial saving.

“Corporate risk management consultant” is too heavy a train of though, so let's unhitch one word, leaving us with “corporate risk manager.”

I replaced “is summoned” with “visits” because the latter is active, the former passive, and regardless of how he came to be there the result is the same: he visits the lab.

“... to determine whether or not to terminate...” is too roundabout for my taste.  Hit hard and fast: “... to interview and possibly terminate...”  The revision brings two advantages.  First, it eliminates two words: seven down to five.  Second is the notion, and anticipation, that the consultant and the AI will interact face to face.  We might expect that of the original logline, but it's by no means a given.  Conceivably in the original logline the consultant might observe the AI from afar or simply analyze a mountain of log data to make his findings and his final decision.  This change puts that meeting in our minds and gets us thinking about conflict and struggle.  "To determine" is a cerebral activity; "to interview" is a physical action.

“... an at-risk artificial being...” I'm unsure what this means.  I took it to mean the AI is behaving in an unexpected way that makes it nonviable unless the problem can be corrected.  “Unexpected” as in displaying abilities or emotions beyond its programmed parameters.  But perhaps the author intended it differently.  Anyway, I revised it to “a misbehaving artificial being” which makes clear the problem – and the solution to the problem if the AI is to escape termination.  If the AI starts behaving in line with expectations, all will be well.  But we know, of course, all will not be well, not even close, because compelling drama happens when things very much do not go as expected.

BISMARCK - hmmm
Jared Cowie
 
As Britain struggles through the darkest hours of World War II, a naval officer, raw from the loss of his ship during the evacuation of Dunkirk, is thrust into the thick of the hunt for the Nazi super-battleship, Bismarck. Based on a true story.



Some terrific material to work with here.  The logline mostly works, but a burden of unnecessary verbiage makes it plod.  First, we unload “is thrust into the thick of the hunt,” with its unsightly tangle of cliches.  Next we reorder the clauses to remove the passive phrasing.

“Raw from the loss of his ship at Dunkirk, a naval officer joins the hunt for the Nazi super-battleship Bismarck as Britain endures the darkest hours of World War II.”

Around 45 words down to 30-ish.  Now the logline is responsive.  Now it can dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.  "Based on a true story" we can do without.  Sometimes that tag provides meaningful context, or it gives the reader a little extra incentive to commit.  Most times it makes no damn difference.  A compelling logline requires no wingman.

BEAUTY PAGEANT - aces
Evan Mirzi , Shea Mirzai

After they unwittingly get their daughters disqualified from the child beauty circuit, two warring stagemothers are forced to go head to head in an adult beauty pageant.



BOOM.  Evan and Shea earn the coveted “Imma let you finish but our logline is...” award.

Inciting incident, protag, antag, diametrically opposed goals (only one can succeed over the other), situational irony, baked-in conflict (“warring”).  Shut up, me, because we're done here.

Awesome job.  If you want to save a couple words, favor “must” over “are forced to.”

WONKA - hmmm
Jason Micallef
 
A dark, reimagining of the Willy Wonka story beginning in World War II and culminating with his takeover of the chocolate factory.



Darkening an already dark Willy Wonka?  Yes please.  But – and isn't there always a “but” – shy of a few extra details, I'm not quite convinced I should drop everything to read this.  That's the goal of every logline: slice into your reader's brain like a diamond-bladed shuriken, severing their every thought except the irresistible impulse to read your screenplay.

I bet Jason fashioned a terrific story between the covers, but the logline musters only tepid curiosity.  It's concise – bonus points for that.  I reckon I can compact it further.

“Willy Wonka's dark, untold story, from World War II until he takes over the chocolate factory.”

PLUS ONE - nope
April Prosser

Just out of a long term relationship and realizing that all her friends have married, Rachel discovers that her only remaining wingwoman is Summer, a loud and oversharing wildcard.



Interesting characters, catchy title, awful logline.  Until somebody releases the handbrake by giving us the “moving” in this movie, this logline isn't going anywhere.  The best we can do is trim.

“Out of a long-term relationship, Rachel realizes all her friends have married and her only remaining wingwoman is loud, oversharing wildcard Summer.”

Rachel confronting those facts could be the inciting incident or it could be the Act One turning point.  Every moment after that is unknowable and unguessable.  There is no story here.  But it's on the Black List so somebody liked it -- a lot of somebodies.  Pity none of the presumably entertaining story bleeds into the logline.

JACKPOT - hmmm
Dave Callaham
 
After a group of bumbling teachers win a large amount of money, their greed and incompetence put them on a hilarious path toward death and destruction.



This is a sales pitch selling the sizzle not the steak.   That's fine – so long as you can follow up with a real logline.

The elements here are way too vague to get a strong sense of story.  Bumbling teachers win money then funny, violent stuff happens.  That's interesting, but far from intriguing.  To sharpen the hook we must get specific.  For example, we have no idea how they won the money.  The title JACKPOT narrows the possibilities to casino, state-run lottery, something else?  Confusingly, we have no idea if the teachers stay united as they battle an external force or if they go up against each other.  Look how adding a few extra details makes a dull logline interesting.

“When a group of kindergarten teachers wins big at a casino, greed and incompetence turn them against each other until there can be only one winner.”

“When a group of music teachers wins big in the lottery, their greed and incompetence turn them against each other until there can be only one winner.”

“When a group of casino blackjack dealers take their employer for millions, their greed and incompetence turn them against one another until there can be only one winner.”

I AM RYAN REYNOLDS - nope
Billy Goulston

An inside look at the marriage, career, and mental state of 2010's Sexiest Man Alive.



Moving on...

CELERITAS - hmmm
Kimberly Barrante

When a missing astronaut crash lands forty years after he launched having not aged a day, his elderly twin brother helps him escape the NASA scientists hunting him. As the government closes in, neither brother is who they claim to be.



TV's The Twilight Zone leaned over to me and whispered: “That's my bit!”  This logline plays with hand-me-down toys, but there's a reason these toys get played with all the time.  The LL succeeds in laying a solid foundation then leaving the reader to speculate over possible story spines.  But it fails in some other ways.

We have an inciting incident, an overarching story question, the Act One turning point, a goal, the antagonists... and the LL has time left to nibble on a conspiracy.  It's a satisfying meal but it leaves an unpleasant aftertaste.  I'm not digging the disconnected statements: “government closes in” and “neither brother is who they claim.”  Who's the observer in that sentence?  Who discovers the brothers are not who they claim to be?  Do the brothers learn this about each other?  Is the government discovering this about the brothers?  What's our POV here?  How do we logically connect the two ideas?

There's another subtle problem impairing my enjoyment of this LL.  Is the elderly brother the protagonist or is it the astronaut?  The way the logline's written, the elder twin is the one who makes the decisions and engages in the most action.  Subject-verb-object.  Elder brother “helps” the younger.  That's the through-line the logline promotes.

We'll try it both ways, having settled on the brothers discovering each other's false identities.

Astronaut as protagonist:

“When a missing astronaut crash lands forty years later having not aged a day, he must escape the NASA manhunt, aided by his elderly twin brother.  Soon the brothers will learn neither is who they claim to be.”

That comma before “aided,” huh?  Story becomes its opposite when you remove it!

“When a missing astronaut crash lands forty years later having not aged a day, he must escape the NASA manhunt aided by his elderly twin brother.  Soon the brothers will learn neither is who they claim to be.”

The elderly twin brother is aiding the NASA manhunt?  Holy shit!  Okay, so let's firm that up, just for fun:

“When a missing astronaut crash lands forty years later having not aged a day, he must escape the NASA manhunt led by his elderly twin brother.  Soon the brothers will learn neither is who they claim to be.”

Whoa.  Intrigue!  Elderly twin hunting his returned younger twin.  I think I want that movie!

Elderly brother as antagonist:

“When a missing astronaut crash lands forty years later having not aged a day, his elderly twin brother must help him escape the NASA manhunt.  Soon the brothers will learn neither is who they claim to be.”

THE SHOWER - hmmm
Jac Schaeffer

At a baby shower for their longtime friend, the attendees suddenly find themselves in the middle of a different type of shower: meteors that release a vapor turning men into blood-hungry aliens.



A little wordy but otherwise this is a good logline.  Baby shower (the feminine) versus men transformed into bloodthirsty monsters (the masculine).  I like that clash of cultures.  Mainly what I'd like to see here is a focus on the protagonist instead of the group.

But first, here's a slimmed version of the logline:

“Attendees at a baby shower face a different type of shower when meteors release a vapor turning men into bloodthirsty predators.”

That sizzles.  We squeezed 33 words down to 21, losing nothing.  I subbed “predators” for “aliens” because can they be alien if they began as human?  Unless the vapor reengineers every cell in the victim's body, they remain to some degree human.  Sure, “alien” can be viewed figuratively in this context: the unnatural, the foreign, the outsider, the unknown.  For me, “predators” reinforces how the men are going after the women.  (It's reasonable to assume most of the attendees are women.)

Let's focus now on a protagonist instead of the group.

“Forced to attend a friend's baby shower, a stripper must get her pregnant host to safety when a meteor shower turns men into bloodthirsty predators.”

Oh snap!  Not just a premise now but a fully formed logline of 25 words.  The original tells us “meteors release a vapor turning men into blood-hungry aliens,” and we ask, “And?  That's the setup, now what's the story?”  The revision gives us specific contrast and conflict.  Stripper attending a baby shower.  Reluctant to be there.  Dealing with stigma, jealousies, and general bitchiness from the conservative ladies.  Shit goes down.  Tables turn.  Goal: get the host and her unborn (or newborn) baby through the ordeal alive.

Bump.