Using stolen prediction software a cocksure hacker makes a fortune in sports bets, but when it predicts his death within three days, he must find out how he dies without dying in the process.
KnightriderMentor
Using stolen prediction software a cocksure hacker makes a fortune in sports bets, but when it predicts his death within three days, he must find out how he dies without dying in the process.
Share
I was thinking of adding two or three words about the Antagonist at the end: …he’ll be murdered in three days, by the mysterious group behind the software. Or is it better without?
I’m just copyediting.
A cocksure hacker steals Determinism , an advanced simulation programme that predicts future events. Initially using it for self-gain, he soon discovers that, unless he can change his own fate, he?ll be murdered in three days.
The logline is too wordy, and the plot is unclear.
What is the inciting incident?
Is it his discovery that his future is in danger? If so, what exactly does that mean? Will he die? Lose his job?
As this?is the event that starts the story, it needs to be described clearly.
The majority of the detail in the logline can be cut, to make way for descriptions of his actions.
What does he actually do in order to save his own life? This action will constitute the majority of act 2, and needs to be clear for a reader and a writer when working on the script.
Also, as his is a self centred goal, that came about as a result of his own self interest in the first place, is there a greater good he could be fitting for? Perhaps he needs to stop the force, be it what it may, that puts him in danger from endangering others.
I think it’s a cool concept.
My take:
A hacker makes a fortune in sports bets from a stolen simulation program that predicts the future only to discover he has three days to defeat the program’s next prediction: his own murder.
(33 words)
He has a 1 in a 100 chance of defeating the program’s prediction– because all forecasting is based on probability not certainty. ?And that probability factor creates more dramatic tension, more uncertainty as to how the story will play out. (If it were a 100% certainty not a 99% probability, then there’s nothing he can do. ?He’s predestined to die. ?End of story.)
Come to find out, the programming is predicting the consequences of his character flaw, his selfishness, his greed. ?Like Scrooge in ?”A Christmas Carol”, who is given a glimpse of his dismal demise and the consequences of his character flaw on the lives of others. ?And he is given one last chance to change the future by changing himself.
Can the hacker redeem himself in time to beat the odds?
Best wishes. ?This has the makings of a film I would like to watch.
“A hacker makes a fortune in sports bets from a stolen simulation program that predicts the future only to discover he has three days to defeat the program?s next prediction: his own murder.”
I like dpg’s version. It also addresses the first thing I noticed in the logline, which is that you used up more words to name the program. Just the description is good. As in all cases, if a name only has significance in your story, leave it unnamed in the logline. (For example of a case where naming it would be fine, saying ‘Christmas’ rather than ‘a holiday’. Which also applies to character names)
The logline has a basic flaw – no action is described.
What does “…three days to stop its next prediction…” actually mean?
He gets the program and runs it, makes a tone of money, then he discovers he will be killed – this only brings you up to about 20 minutes in the film, but what happens for the rest of it?
There are many films in which the main character, one way or another, discovers they are going to die, but the bulk of these films focuses on their subsequent action.
The logline should focus on his goal and murderer as appose to his morbid discovery.
Do you mean “cheat his *way* through life”?
The description of him needing to find the killer?as his goal definitely helps. However the kill or be killed paradigm is, by no stretch of the marination, original in story telling in general and films in particular. I wonder can you give him a peculiar job, personality quirk?or condition?of existence that would make the fight more interesting and his action clear?
Here is an example of what I mean:
In the film In Time the MC knows, beyond a doubt, how long he has to live. This is a condition of his existence, a “world rule” if you will, we know this as we experience with him his mother’s death due to the same rule?of that world’s reality.
But! It’s not just the limited time span due to the “world rule” that the story focuses on, rather the class separation in society that?determines who gets access to more time and who dies. Therefore the MC had to infiltrate a high society of rich people to steal?more life time, he was a (spoiler alert) Robin Hood of sorts – his main action is clear.
In your story you have the setup for the problem, but little explanation of how the problem will be solved. The main character needing to find and kill another person to save his own skin doesn’t sound interesting enough in 2016 as a premise, it needs an additional layer and an original action.
Also the concept runs the risk of making him unlikable, sure he wants to survive, but is the program 100% guaranteed to have an accurate prediction?
In the military it was drilled into us that we must take all necessary action to stop a genuine and immediate threat to human life, whether in the field or in civilian life. Our commanders would go on to emphasise first that the threat must be genuine, and only then explain what necessary action means.
Point is, your MC has a mostly accurate program telling him how he will die, but it isn’t a “world rule” for him that the prediction is indeed genuinely 100% true. Perhaps best if he investigates his future murder, and only after finding evidence that it is going to happen does he take action.