Lord of Strife
kbfilmworksSamurai
On the run from a determined street enforcer, a young Londoner will do anything and everything to avoid capture but the enforcer has pledged to kill himself in the event of failure.
Share
Have an account? Sign In Now
Still feeling slightly muddled; the focus shifts from the enforcer to the young londoner and back to enforcer. It just doesn’t “flow” as nice as one would hope. I’m not certain WHO your story is about.
Also, the way you’ve described the “young Londoner” … makes it sound like it could be any teen-to-twenty-year-old in London. As in, it sounds like you’re saying “When being chased by a determined street enforcer, just about anyone in the world will do anything to avoid capture.” It sounds like a general statement, not like you’re describing the actions of a specific character. As a follow on effect from this (the young Londoner being vaguely painted) it sounds like the protagonist of your story is the enforcer. I may be wrong, but isn’t your intent to make the young Londoner evading capture the protagonist?
The inclusion of the fact that the enforcer pledged to commit suicide in the event that he fails to kill his mark is superfluous, because (although interesting), the stakes don’t relate in any way to the goals or conflicts of the young Londoner.
I agree with much of what nicholasandrewhalls suggests; however, I would say that the suicide of the enforcer adds an important tension to the plot, one to which you should refer (should he be the main character), but perhaps more obliquely so that the reader is left feeling they know enough, but want more. So an alternate way to refer to it could be, “…with serious consequences should he fail” or something of that ilk.
In this iteration of the concept, once again, to my mind, the enforcer comes off as the character with the greater motivation, the more compelling situation. Why? Because the stakes of failure for the enforcer are higher: he must pay with his life. By invidious comparison, the young Londoner only has to elude capture.
Revised Logline (after a great deal of tears and heartache!): A penniless young Londoner steals a suitcase full of ?dirty? money and starts to realize he must give the money to a charitable cause to overcome a family stigma. But first he needs to defeat the fearsome street enforcer sent to track him down.
What is the penniless young Londoner’s character flaw or blind spot? ( I suppose it has something to do with the stigma, but what?)
At the nadir of Act 2, what is his epiphany? What does he need to learn about himself and/or life if he is to prevail against the enforcer?
Kbf, I think at some point you just have to go with your gut.
It’s obvious that you believe in the idea that one character would rather die than be captured and one character has pledged to kill himself if he doesn’t apprehend the first. That’s your hook.
Go with the logline attempt you are happiest with.
If I had any advice, (if this has not been written yet), set this in the eighteenth or nineteen century so it’s more believable that someone would throw themselves on their sword if they fail.
Because I believe that’s the sticking point, the idea that someone in this day and age would kill themselves over failure.
Hope that helped, good luck with this!
Hi dpg & richiev,
His flaw or blind spot? In a moment of weakness – driven by poverty – he steals the money.
What does he learn at the end of act 2 that helps him prevail against the enforcer? That he can make a difference with his life, overcome feelings of remorse for taking the money and getting a friend killed subsequently and shake off the family stigma – by giving the money to a charitable cause, knowing the consequences when the enforcer catches up with him. Fear of death is what exploiters hold over the exploited. By making a difference with his life he is able to conquer his fear.
Richiev, the story is written so the logline is a marketing tool. So, yes – like you implied – it needs a strong hook and needs to be concise and true to the story. But as the writer – naturally I can’t see the woods for the trees. Talking about believability? It’s a story and it only needs to obey its own logic – be true to it’s own world. And that’s true for all stories – even real life incidents. Certain real life stories may be so unbelievable even though they are actual fact, simply because real life does not need to justify itself. But stories require in-built logic in order for the audience to ‘suspend disbelief’. And thanks for raising the question – a lot of movies ignore story logic for the sake of third act thrills(Hollywood are you listening?).
You have written quite a few loglines, since there’s no consensus and the story has been written, go with the one you believe is the best.
Richie, sorry but I’m here to work on my logline by offering it for comment.
Hi kbfilmworks —
I think I understand where Richiev is coming from, in that, you have posted this logline quite a number of times, most have received a fair amount of feedback ( a couple I’d say have received A LOT), and too be perhaps a little brutal on the honesty side, I don’t think they have differed greatly on re-posts. Most of the feedback has been pretty consistent between commentators — so what Richiev is suggesting is that the ball might now be in your court…?
FWIW: Your most recent iteration (in bold in this thread…) I think is longer than what it needs to be — we could banter all day about loglines of more than one sentence, but given your premise I really don’t think there is a need for two sentences — and If it was my film (without having read yours…) it would go a little something like this:
“After discovering a suitcase full of money a penniless drifter decides to donate it to charity, but to do so he must outrun a Yakuza enforcer under suicidal oath to get the money back.”
— at 34 words admittedly a tad long — but I hope it helps (here “drifter” is my take at his flaw — donating the money to charity gives him an honorable goal that should deal with that flaw… but again, I don’t know the full specifics of your film, so it’s just a stab in the dark).
Best of luck.
Thanks, Tony. But my understanding is that the function of this site is to ‘test and tweak’ loglines. Now, maybe you’re fed up with me testing and tweaking mine. In that case, why do you feel the need to post to the thread? Maybe you’re as compulsive as I am about improving my logline?
I think I am;
I think you’ve got a potentially killer movie on your hands. I can admit to throwing up the same logine in a few different variations myself, and it drove me insane. The reason I feel compelled to post is if I can help in anyway. I certainly never mean to offend. You’re logines have had a lot of traffic… Great advice and critiques from others, I just thought it was worth mentioning that there probably isn’t too much reason to stress about it as it might be down to personal taste… Your personal taste. Again, just to offer my take.
I won’t get sick of you posting… My last offering at a revision was what I would do if I was writing this film, to try to focus on the protagonist, his flaw, his goal, and what stands in his way. I didn’t offer it up to stop you posting, or anything like that, but to offer you what I thought was good outsider advice. You can take it or leave it.
Yes — I think you’re right, maybe I am as compulsive;)
I’m not ‘sick and tired’ of you posting, I’m sorry that’s what you got from my post. You mentioned when you posted your revised logline in this thread that it was ‘…after a great deal of tears and heartache!’, and I feel for you — I’ve certainly been there having re-posted the same logline on multiple occasions. It drives you freakin insane. In fact, I ended up ditching something that I’d been working on for… well… lets just say a long time. My advice only intended to help and to point out that there was a wealth of feedback out there and probably not a lot of reason to stress,as, it might… and I say might… come down to personal taste…. and with you being the author of the completed screenplay, your personal taste.
For what it’s worth I think you’ve got a killer movie there — as you’re kind of alluding to, I find it very intriguing — one of those stories I definitely find easy to see. But in regards to the logline, and your most recent revision, I thought I’d offer up my take on all you had offered up, as well as best use what others have suggested, in a revised logline — not to stick out my tongue and say ‘nhah nhah ni nha nha…’ but to honestly help — for I see potentially very good things from this film…
You had issues with the focus being too squarely drawn on the antagonist, which your most recent iteration deals with, but I thought I’d try to make the hero more sympathetic — he doesn’t steal the suitcase in my attempt — I don’t know if he steals it or not in your film or just comes across it — to me, just coming across it paints him more sympathetically, especially if he is penniless and then decides to donate it to charity… but then, if he steals it it gives the donation a greater depth and scope — especially given what he may or may not attempt to do to himself (?). Anyway — there’s a potential great journey there for this young Londoner, and personally think leaving the fact that the enforcer is under suicidal oath (or seppuku…) is an attractive thing.
Again, I’m sorry if you thought I was too harsh — best of luck.
And apologies on the double post… Bloody iPads.
Comments very much appreciated, Tony & Anonymous. So, now I know you know exactly how I feel about this logline. Yes, I think I’ve got a potentially killer movie, I’ve written the script and I’ve been pitching the logline with little success. In my mind, this means I’m not getting the logline right.
Now, I’ve pitched loglines before – for other scripts – and gotten a tremendous number of script requests even though the script was – shall we say, not a killer.
So, we all know the hooks in my story – they’ve featured in all the iterations you’ve been reading. But how do I get the best of them into a logline so I can get the script requested? So, that’s the struggle you’ve been witnessing. It’s not pretty but you’ve gotta know why you’re doing it and what you want from it.
I agree that the hook about the enforcer having to kill himself is very strong but hard to include in the logline for all the reasons we’ve been discussing through various iterations.
I agree that the young Londoner kinda finds the case since it falls from a balcony along with a businessman and he just happens by and grabs it – like I’ve said before – in a moment of madness.
kbfilmworks:
What grabs my attention and imagination is not the guy’s coming to grips with the “family stigma” — whatever that means. I have no idea what that means. “Stigma” only confuses and distracts my attention from the main action. And it doesn’t solve what — in my mind — is a fundamental issue with the way you’ve configured your two main characters, the young man and the enforcer.
The MacGuffin (a la Hitchcock) in your story is the money, right? And the main action is the struggle of two men to have it. Where I perceive as a fundamental issue is that while both men want the money, they want it for opposite but UNEQUALLY compelling reasons (to me as a viewer).
My gut sense of your logline so far is that the enforcer seems to have a more compelling motivation to fight for the money than the poor young man. But for the story to work for me, the poor man has to want the money (for whatever reason or purpose) as badly as the enforcer does. The motives, the stakes involved for each character must be EQUAL.
What grabs my attention and imagination is the promise of your premise. That promise is an “obligatory scene”, a “high noon” showdown between the poor man and the enforcer over the MacGuffin, the money. I am expecting a “Thunderdome” scene: 2 men enter; one man leaves. The stakes involved for both are nothing less than life or death — anything less will be a cheat.
[BTW: Have you seen the American movie “Money for Nothing” (1993) starring John Cusack. It’s based upon a real event, a down on his luck, unemployed young man came upon bags of money that fell out of a Federal Reserve money truck — $1.2 million U.S. dollars. He decided to keep the money rather than turn it in, but complications ensued because of his character flaw…]
I think what I?m trying to pitch here is? the ultimate conflict? what happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object.
Let me riff off the character’s flaw in “Money for Nothing”. The cops have no idea who picked up the money. So if the man plays his cards right, no one will ever know; the money is all his. But his flaw is that he is a little reckless, too impatient to enjoy his good fortune. He’s not smart enough to figure out a way to enjoy the money without drawing attention. So, his character flaws doom him to get caught.
Now, I’m assuming in your story that the poor young man will rise to the occasion — the opportunity, the threat — that presents itself when he acquires the money. That is, he will discover survival skills he never knew he had. Latent strengths will become actual. If not, he’s dead meat by page 45, roll the credits. And that aspect of the story also intrigues me: how he grows stronger and stronger in order to meet the escalating danger presented by the enforcer who pursues him like a junkyard dog.
This is what makes the cable TV series “Breaking Bad” so successful: Over and over, the plot conspires to force the protagonist to dig deeper within himself, uses his wits to the max, marshal greater skill and cunning to stay alive. And in the process, the plot transforms him from a mild-mannered chemistry teacher to a ruthless drug-lord.
I still don’t understand what you conceive the character arc for the young man. But, fwiw, an arc similar to that of Walter White in “Break Bad” is what makes for compelling dramas. I’m not saying the young man has to arc like Walter White, from a meek, law-abiding citizen to a ruthless outlaw. I mean that your plot has to conspire to force the young man to find strength and abilities within he never knew he had.
It’s how Vince Gilligan, the creator of the series, conceived and pitched his story for “Breaking Bad”.
Spitballing off the top of my brain pan, here. Don’t know if it’s doing any good.
Regards.
Thanks, dpg. I’m gonna take a look at ‘Money for Nothing’. My protagonist does have a strong arc and he does discover hitherto unknown strengths as you mentioned.
What I’m really wanting to pitch is an escalating conflict that reaches a fantastically unexpected zenith and the two characters are both honourable and determined.
Now, when stated this way it makes the protagonist and antagonist seem equal – and the truth is – they are equal. Of course, this creates a problem with the logline because it breaks the mold.
So, I think I’m gonna settle for something close to my original logline – which may not be technically correct but nonetheless presents an intriguing proposition – at least that seems to be the consensus.
>>reaches a fantastically unexpected zenith and the two characters are both honourable and determined.
A “Mexican Standoff” moment of truth between the two adversaries?
>>Makes the protagonist and antagonist seem equal ? and the truth is ? they are equal. Of course, this creates a problem with the logline because it breaks the mold.
What mold? Don’t protagonist versus antagonist situations work best when they are, in effect, mirror images of each other? Isn’t a hero defined by the villain he does battle with? And vica-versa?
True, but when I present them as equals the antagonist seems to appear more interesting than the protagonist. I think this is because the protagonist is a more complex character and it’s harder to present his motivations – which are several and cumulative and not a single powerful easily-stated motivation like the antagonist.
And because the enforcer is more interesting than the writer – respondents have said who is the protagonist? You may recall, this was one of the first comments in regard to my first posted logline.
Revised logline: After discovering a suitcase full of money a penniless drifter will do anything and everything to avoid capture but the street enforcer sent to hunt him down has pledged to kill himself in the event of failure.
See? The antagonist seems more interesting than the protagonist. Personally, I can’t see what’s wrong with that. I don’t see it mentioned anywhere in any of the texts I’ve studied about loglines and I’ve studied many quite recently.
>>The antagonist seems more interesting than the protagonist
Yes, that’s been my standard response.
Is the enforcer’s vow voluntary or compelled? That is, does the boss demand it or did the enforcer offer it unsolicited? In either case, why?
Is the enforcer’s vow voluntary or compelled? It’s not exactly a vow – it’s a personal honour code and it’s voluntary – offered without solicitation.
The enforcer is a total professional but he has a very peculiar modus operandi. He even looks different. He only wears red and black, has blood-red eyes and a lot of scar tissue – all over his body – and we learn during the course of the story how it all came about.
I mention all this to explain that he’s a very unusual person by any standard. But he’s not insane or retarded and he does not have super powers. He’s not even a big man. He is selfless, loyal and incredibly focused. And so, the honour code is very much part of his character and is reflected in all his actions.
Why? The enforcer owes his Boss a debt of honour. And such a debt means the person owed has a lien on the debtor’s life – within limits of course. So, when the Boss himself comes under threat he reminds the enforcer of the debt of honour – which basically means that his life is on the line – giving him the utmost motivation to recover the money.
Yeah, you’ve got a problem. You’ve conjured up an antagonist much more interesting (just to look at!) than the protagonist. Your protagonist seems to need a makeover.
In fiddling with your logline, it occurred to me to describe the young man as a “street-wise grifter” or a “street-wise hustler” and the enforcer as a “gang enforcer”. “Street-wise grifter/hustler” connotes a strength, an ability to survive by one’s wits on the mean streets by manipulating and conning others. And concurrently a flaw: he’s not honest, doesn’t play by the rules.
fwiw.
>>when the Boss himself comes under threat
How so? How does the young man’s theft by opportunity threaten the Boss?
Is there a stakes character? That is, someone whom the protagonist must fight for? He may not want to at first. But the plot conspires to make him become a paladin.
You mentioned earlier that he comes to realize he needs to donate the money to charity. That’s good, but a charity is a bloodless, faceless institution. It works better if there is a specific person who will benefit from his donation to the charity.
This is the way the good-guy role is played out on screen. The protagonist may be fighting to save the whole world, all 8 billion minus, but there are always one or two or three people –primary stake characters– to whom the camera can cut to for anxious reaction shots: a defenseless lover, a helpless child, a poor widow.
I’m not convinced the antagonist can’t be more interesting than the protagonist.
I am convinced the protagonist can become more interesting than the protagonist. He has the more compelling journey: he has to undergo the greatest transformational arc to merely survive.
Terminator comes to mind. He gets top billing, the title character; he’s vastly more interesting than Sarah Connor.
But he’s the villain.
Sarah is the immediate stake character and there is also a future stake character, her unborn son. She has the biggest arc of transformation, from powerless victim to empowered guerilla fighter.
Your working title is: “The Lord of Strife”. Who does that refer to?
Exactly. This is what I’ve been saying. The protagonist does have a compelling arc – from a penniless writer and drifter to a hero – all that good stuff Joseph Campbell wrote about. And, he discovers hitherto unknown characteristics as a result of the conflict. The Lord of Strife is a character in a fable that appears in the scrip and relates to theme.
I’m very much interested in comparative mythology and Joseph Campbell- who I know you must be familiar with – you studied Classics – right? And you know that updating myths and fables is very popular right now. So that’s why your Terminator reference was so to the point.
kuramo bay:
I am familiar with Campbell, Jung and others. Do you have in mind a particular myth to serve as a template for your story?
Back to “Money for Nothing” for a moment. The movie didn’t do well at the box-office and the story never engaged my sympathy for the protagonist. Pity in the worst sense of the word, yes — because the kid was such a schmuck. I felt sorry for him; I did not feel sorry with him.
I was unable to root for him because 1] He was only trying to keep the money for himself. Consequently, 2] There was no overarching virtue or principle at stake; 3] There was no stake character either, someone who needed the money –like for an life-saving operation.
(In contrast, the protagonist in “Dog Day Afternoon”, also based upon a real event, wants the money so his boy-friend can have a sex change operation. Misguided, to be sure, utterly weird in that time period — but at least he had a motive besides mere greed.)
4] There was no epiphany — he didn’t learn a damn thing other than (maybe) he was too stupid to pull off the heist.
Okay, I’m old school. (Aristotle is my screen writing guru.)
So what’s at stake for your protagonist besides the money?
What is there about him that would make me care whether he succeeds or fails, lives or dies?
Hi dpg and Kuramo — just to again add a couple of cents into the kitty…
Without knowing the full story — I’d say the redemptive element to the young Londoner is his choice to donate to the charity — that’s the whole kit and kaboodle to me. It comes down to that choice: he is ‘penniless’ (and may or may not be a grifter/ thief) then SOMETHING causes him to not use this money for himself, but to donate it. That’s huge. The placement of this decision in the timeline of the story is vital (as well as the event the pushes him in the direction of this choice), and in my eyes the whole film would rest on it. This is what compels me to the story — not the enforcer. If the story looked at his dilemma of the choice it could be really engaging.
For some reason I’m reminded of a film that wont probably seem comparable — but FWIW, take a look at ‘The Blues Brothers’… two vice riddle dudes (and we get a huge list of their vices from the Nun at the orphanage at the start…) ‘see the light’ and decide to get the band back together to perform a gig that will keep the orphanage operational — they have almost the entire Illinois Police department on their trail (as well as a very pi**sed off Carrie Fisher with a freakin flame thrower, as well as the Fu*$in Illinois Nazi’s…), and despite some very close calls actually pull the whole thing off — yes they get caught and go to prison, but the orphanage is saved (and they get to perform a rocking gig in prison!) … They can succeed because.. “We’re on a mission from God.”
dpg — your points on ‘Money for Nothing’ are bang on — for whatever reason though I LOVED that movie… I really wanted him to get away with it (maybe cos I saw it as a young teen and the fantasy aspect was cool…), but in the end he doesn’t — it’s a tragedy… he babbled his mouth off about it (Pride again???) meant to use it for selfish means and never accepted the virtuous side of the thematic premise… Something that his Father confronts him with when the cat is out of the bag — a sure fired ticket to NOWHERE!
AndbBest of luck Kuramo ? I think it?s almost there; my final thoughts would be to include his goal to donate the money to charity, to include the fact that the enforcer is under suicidal oath (it just gives it something that differs from films of the same ilk?), and try to fit it in one sentence.
Good points, Tony, about the “The Blues Brothers”. They’re on a mission from God. All is justified, all is forgiven.
Re: “Money for Nothing” If the protagonist had been totally down on his luck, homeless or threatened with eviction, starving, it would have mustered more sympathy from me. But he was living with his parents who did not resent him doing so — he had a safety net.
Hi dpg & Tony,
I don?t think I can include anything to do with the protagonist?s plan for the money in the logline. Why? Because ? like we all agree ? it doesn?t match the antagonist?s motivation. It forces readers to make judgments that reflect badly on the script.
The protagonist’s motivation regarding the money is cumulative and no single element can be taken in isolation. Therefore it can have no place in the logline.
Actually, I don?t think it wise to say anything about the money at all. Why? Because it’s simply a MacGuffin. A conflict this extreme can?t just be about money. dpg raised this point in his last post. And the truth is ? it?s not about money. It?s about being honourable ? being true to one’s self.
Now I also don?t think I should use the word honour in the logline because it means different things to both characters. It’s an abstract concept. It means different things to different people.
So what I?m left with is strife or contention which is what the story is really about when you boil it right down. It’s about an escalating conflict taken to the zenith. Think, The Terminator or Highlander – and you’re in the ball park.
Here?s the IMDB plot summary for The Terminator: A robotic assassin from a post-apocalyptic future travels back in time to eliminate a waitress, whose son will grow up and lead humanity in a war against machines.
How do we know who the protagonist is? Well, the protagonist is the good guy. A robotic assassin cannot be the good guy in context with a waitress. Alright? Who is more interesting? The antagonist. Who has the stakes? The Protagonist.
Revised Logline for Strife: A fearsome street enforcer with a pledge to kill himself in the event of failure is sent to hunt down a penniless drifter who will do anything and everything to avoid capture to protect innocent lives.
The stakes? 1) The enforcer’s life. 2) The protagonist’s life and the lives of innocents.
Where is Jean-Marie when you need him? Watching Tennis at Roland Garros, no doubt.
I like the idea of eliminating the money from the logline. It simplifies the story concept.
How about:
A fearsome street enforcer pledges to kill himself if he fails to kill a penniless drifter who seeks personal redemption by defending innocent people from the enforcer’s boss.
28 words versus 36 for the revised logline. And it gives the drifter a motive for wanting to defend innocent people. (What is his dog in the fight?) Thus, a two-fer to invoke sympathy and rooting interest.
kbfilmworks:
One angle of the concept that appeals to me is the ironic polarity: The enforcer: a man with noble virtues in service of an unrighteous cause (the Boss). Versus the drifter: a man with no noble virtues (initially) in service of a righteous cause (defending the innocent).
Hi kb,
I was just gone do the shopping for the next week.
I’m back!
What is your solution? I’ll give you the problem. 🙂
Hi fellows,
The Lord of Strife is a tarot card:
http://www.psychic.com.au/psychic-tarot-card-five-of-wands.html
“The Five of the Suit of Wands will more likely than most, mean that there will be arguments, trials, and struggle, and success will only be achieved after much striving.
The Five of Wands or the Lord of Strife card indicates the struggle, strife, conflicts and discords that we often encounter in the achievement of our goals. This card comes up when a person is unhappy and sad because he is facing several handicaps in executing his projects which may relate not only to his business but may also involve personal relationships.
This card also suggests that nothing can be achieved by entering into argument for argument sake. Often this situation arises because of our tendency for rashness and loss of self-control, which further engender more problems than solutions.
The Lord of Strife card also appears when we are in a state of inner conflict, which arises when we look for easy solutions through immoral acts and are troubled by the voice of our conscience.”
I read what follows to complete my opinion.
JM
I think this is the good line. The three major points are:
– a duel
between
– a man with noble virtues fighting for a unrighteous cause
and
– a man without noble virtues fighting for a righteous cause.
Subsidiary question : does their arcs bring closer or join?
Excellent, Dpg. More dynamic opening lines…pledges to kill himself if he fails to ‘capture’ though – not kill – his aim is to get the money back and them kill…
I think I’ll keep… who will do anything and everything to ‘evade’ capture to protect innocent lives.
I think this way is true to the story
Hi Jean, missed your comments and analysis. But I guess you found us too boring!
Without noble values fighting for a righteous cause (the drifter) and with noble values fighting for an unrighteous cause(the enforcer). When you frame it this way it makes me think of Akira Kurosawa and films like Yojimbo and Seven Samurai. And the mythic qualities that allowed them to be transposed onto A fistful of dollars and The magnificent seven.
Do their arcs bring them closer or do they join forces? No, it’s like Highlander. ‘ There can only be one’.
Revised logline: A fearsome street enforcer pledges to kill himself if he fails to capture a penniless drifter who must evade capture to protect innocent lives.
What about these?
“A fearsome noble enforcer and an evasive penniless drifter confront each other up to death for the possession a big bundle of dirty money wich could save innocent lives” (29 words)
or with reference to London:
“A fearsome noble enforcer and an evasive penniless drifter confront each other up to death in London slums for the possession a big bundle of dirty money wich could save innocent lives” (31 words)
N.B.: I don’t understand very well the difference in the use of “wich” and “that” in English.
Maybe we can remove “the possesion”:
A fearsome noble enforcer and an evasive penniless drifter confront each other up to death in London slums for a big bundle of dirty money wich could save innocent lives?
“Whoever speaks in primordial images speaks with a thousand voices;
he enthrals and overpowers,
while at the same time he lifts the idea he is seeking to express
out of the occasional and the transitory into the realm of the ever-enduring.
He transmits our personal destiny into the destiny of mankind…”
— C.G. Jung
IMHO, it could go either way. Depends on your theme. Come to find out they two sides of the same coin or…?
[Two sides as in the drifter is the incarnation of the enforcer’s shadow and vica-versa which is why initially they hold each other in such mutual contempt.]
Pretty good, Jean. My last revision is 24 words long and exactly true to the story. You’re at a disadvantage – but only because you haven’t read the script.
dpg:
The drifter as the incarnation of the enforcer’s shadow? Hmm. Interesting. I’ll give it some thought. It is an unusual relationship. There is a key moment when the enforcer saves the drifter’s life – on a point of honour.
Forces greater than the two individuals have set them against each other. So, they are only fulfilling their destiny. They are doing what their biology wants them to do.
I think this is a great idea
>>[Two sides as if the drifter is the incarnation of the enforcer’s shadow and vica-versa which is why initially they hold each other in such mutual contempt.]
+
>>The drifter as the incarnation of the enforcer?s shadow? Hmm. Interesting. I?ll give it some thought. It is an unusual relationship. There is a key moment when the enforcer saves the drifter?s life ? on a point of honour.
Forces greater than the two individuals have set them against each other. So, they are only fulfilling their destiny. They are doing what their biology wants them to do.
Reads fine. Captures my attention and makes me interested. By the way, are you a Golden Dawn fan or a member?
Hi Phoenix, thanks. Golden Dawn? I went and googled it. A bunch of right wing Greek extremists who hate immigrants? No offence taken. Or is there another GD? Why do you ask? Does my logline suggest a GD influence?
OK, horses being held. So, you’re referring to the far less popular GD who were involved in mysticism and Aleister Crowley was a member, etc? And this is to do with the Lord of Strife title? Jean-Marie mentions the Tarot somewhere in this thread. OK, so going for a sensible response now? I’d say something about Jungian archetypes and the collective unconscious. I think dpg knows more about all of this.
Enforcer for a ruthless mobster, or for an occult and secret society. Whatever turns over your crankshaft.
However, if you go with the latter, than I suggest that what the young man steals is a briefcase containing musty papers with cryptograms, maps, whatever that lead to a treasure trove of hidden wealth or a great secret .
So he’s in a race against time to solve the riddle as well as save his life from the enforcer. The enforcer’s stake is to defend to the death, if necessary, his sacred oath to maintain the society’s greatest secret.
That may require a major retooling of your story. But Hollyweird seems to have a weakness for stories with a mystical, occult angle. The angle can be leveraged into a sequels, franchises (See “National Treasure”, “The Da Vinci Code”)
fwiw
Thanks, dpg. You’ve got mad story skills. What I have in mind for the script is a micro-budget indie film. Hollywood is way beyond me right now. I wouldn’t know where to start. Besides, aren’t two Hollywood studio gods predicting doom?
>>aren?t two Hollywood studio gods predicting doom?
Their doom, perhaps, as a new generation of junior gods storm Mt. Olympus. Who knows? The only constant in Showbiz is change.
Anyway, your premise keeps growing on me [like the man-eating plant in “Little Shop of Horrors”] 🙂
Best wishes
Don’t know if this has been mentioned because I haven’t read all the comments, but two issues strike me about your logline:
1) how and when does the assassin decide he’s failed
2) the Young Londoner simply has to hide out and wait for the assassin to kill himself
EdgeWriter is right although maybe add that the person on the run finds out that the street enforcer is related to him/her and feels sympathetic??, let’s himself get captures to avoid death to the enforcer.
Not sure but hope this helps
If the Antagonist vows to kill himself there is no Movie.
As above said there has to be some connection, change of heart that makes it an option to change direction.
Why does he have to out run this Enforcer…..What about the boss?
Thanks for your feedback. Switched Order. Chiseled Vocabulary. Added Verbose. 🙂
Cheers 😉
Needs to be more concise.