Reprobate
Nicholas Andrew HallsSamurai
After the legalization of marijuana leads to a dishonest pot-dealer receiving a huge tax bill, the de-motivated must become motivated before he can lead a one man crusade against a clean-cut district attorney to have the drug 're-criminalized'. (Am VERY interested in hearing some alternate titles for this. The punnier the better!)
Share
Many pot head characters have found their way to the audiences over the years; Cheech and Ching, Bill and Ted, Wayne and Garth (though very subtle about it), even Shaggy and Scooby (again very subtle about it).
So the the pot character comedy genre seams rather viable. Potentially in this case, because more countries are now ratifying legalization around the world, this concept has a timely relevance.
The logline has a few problems in it though here are a few problems with the logline’s technicalities and conventions;
Firstly the MC is referred to twice with different descriptions “…a dishonest pot-dealer…” and “…the de-motivated…”. This can be confusing so best to stick to one description for the reader to follow.
secondly it is too long and needs to be re written with more economy, there are too many adjectives and actions that could be done without.
Secondly about the story;
If the MC is a drug dealer and a dishonest person who’s goal is financial gain I would find it very hard to empathize with him or her. I think a different character flaw would serve better here and a better goal one that perhaps serves a greater cause for the community at large (from the MC’s point of view).
According to the current draft the inciting incident is receiving of the bill not the legalization. The first event that needs to be mentioned and there after focused on is the the bill.
However this raises too many questions that put the premise in doubt. Laws are not passed retrospectively and here the logline implies that the former illegal activities the drug dealer undertook had been monitored accurately enough by the authorities for a tax office to generate statements about his activities.
If so wouldn’t he had been arrested before the legalization? Also aren’t most if not all drug deals paid for in cash how would a tax office monitor his income?
I think the bigger and and more logical inciting incident is the legalization this would help solve these problems.
Hope this helps.
Many pot head characters have found their way to the audiences over the years; Cheech and Ching, Bill and Ted, Wayne and Garth (though very subtle about it), even Shaggy and Scooby (again very subtle about it).
So the the pot character comedy genre seams rather viable. Potentially in this case, because more countries are now ratifying legalization around the world, this concept has a timely relevance.
The logline has a few problems in it though here are a few problems with the logline’s technicalities and conventions;
Firstly the MC is referred to twice with different descriptions “…a dishonest pot-dealer…” and “…the de-motivated…”. This can be confusing so best to stick to one description for the reader to follow.
secondly it is too long and needs to be re written with more economy, there are too many adjectives and actions that could be done without.
Secondly about the story;
If the MC is a drug dealer and a dishonest person who’s goal is financial gain I would find it very hard to empathize with him or her. I think a different character flaw would serve better here and a better goal one that perhaps serves a greater cause for the community at large (from the MC’s point of view).
According to the current draft the inciting incident is receiving of the bill not the legalization. The first event that needs to be mentioned and there after focused on is the the bill.
However this raises too many questions that put the premise in doubt. Laws are not passed retrospectively and here the logline implies that the former illegal activities the drug dealer undertook had been monitored accurately enough by the authorities for a tax office to generate statements about his activities.
If so wouldn’t he had been arrested before the legalization? Also aren’t most if not all drug deals paid for in cash how would a tax office monitor his income?
I think the bigger and and more logical inciting incident is the legalization this would help solve these problems.
Hope this helps.
I think the premise has the makings of a deliciously dark comedy/social commentary. I suggest refocusing the character as a loveable rebel/rascal (Like “Smokey and the Bandit”). A trickster for whom legalization has taken all the joie de vivre out of rebelling against convention and normality. Legalization.
And who might be his political allies? The special interests who have lost the most because of legalization, have the most to gain by re-criminalization: law enforcement agencies and the prison system. Legalization has deprived them of a lot of “business”, which means they have to cut budgets and staffs. Big Pharma, too, because legal pot is competitive with some of their drugs.
Run — don’t walk — with this concept, nicholasandrewshalls! I think it’s a winner.
I think the premise has the makings of a deliciously dark comedy/social commentary. I suggest refocusing the character as a loveable rebel/rascal (Like “Smokey and the Bandit”). A trickster for whom legalization has taken all the joie de vivre out of rebelling against convention and normality. Legalization.
And who might be his political allies? The special interests who have lost the most because of legalization, have the most to gain by re-criminalization: law enforcement agencies and the prison system. Legalization has deprived them of a lot of “business”, which means they have to cut budgets and staffs. Big Pharma, too, because legal pot is competitive with some of their drugs.
Run — don’t walk — with this concept, nicholasandrewshalls! I think it’s a winner.
I agree with both posts above — the premise has a lot of promise — but the logical issues raised by Nir would need to be dealt with. Dpg’s take loses the logical issues, delivers the juicy part of the story, and also makes a subtle yet potentially powerful twist as describing the hero as a pot HEAD as opposed to DEALER… more potential for dramatic and comedic depth, imo…
ATM your hero has two goals — he must “…become motivated” and must “lead a one man crusade against a clean cut district attorney ….” — it’s too spoon-fed — set him up as lazy/ unmotivated through his character description and then you only need to tell us that he must “lead a one man crusade against etc etc etc…” Let the audience join the dots…
Best of luck with it — as Nir said, lots of examples of great pothead MC’s, they make great MC’s because they are immediately flawed through the fact they have a dependency on an drug … Their is something about themselves that they are hiding from through the use of the drug (any drug…) — and typically are their own worst enemy as they keep f#cking up, their problem is self inflicted — ripe for good drama even if the film is full of laughs…(take Bill Murray’s character in The Life Aquatic as an example…)
Regards.
I agree with both posts above — the premise has a lot of promise — but the logical issues raised by Nir would need to be dealt with. Dpg’s take loses the logical issues, delivers the juicy part of the story, and also makes a subtle yet potentially powerful twist as describing the hero as a pot HEAD as opposed to DEALER… more potential for dramatic and comedic depth, imo…
ATM your hero has two goals — he must “…become motivated” and must “lead a one man crusade against a clean cut district attorney ….” — it’s too spoon-fed — set him up as lazy/ unmotivated through his character description and then you only need to tell us that he must “lead a one man crusade against etc etc etc…” Let the audience join the dots…
Best of luck with it — as Nir said, lots of examples of great pothead MC’s, they make great MC’s because they are immediately flawed through the fact they have a dependency on an drug … Their is something about themselves that they are hiding from through the use of the drug (any drug…) — and typically are their own worst enemy as they keep f#cking up, their problem is self inflicted — ripe for good drama even if the film is full of laughs…(take Bill Murray’s character in The Life Aquatic as an example…)
Regards.
I think this idea has legs for sure but one key thing that dpg kinda brought up- believability. How can you convince the audience that this guy could actually succeed in his efforts to re-criminalize pot?
He would have to have some strange bedfellows for sure, which is kinda of the irony I’m sure you wanted to explore, but how would this guy, as the poster child for the movement, gain the support of the people with clout he would need?
Big Pharma, police chiefs and conservative politicians aren’t going to stand on a stage with a drug dealer, no matter how bad they want the same end goal. Those people need to think he is something other than what he is….
So, I wonder if the greatest humor is actually in a slacker hippy drug dealer having to convince an evangelical town mayor he is a respectable citizen in order to get the support he needs to re-criminalize pot and reestablish his responsibility-free lifestyle?…. but of course the slacker hippy ARCS and learns to be responsible along the way, with some cool twist at the end. 🙂
I think this idea has legs for sure but one key thing that dpg kinda brought up- believability. How can you convince the audience that this guy could actually succeed in his efforts to re-criminalize pot?
He would have to have some strange bedfellows for sure, which is kinda of the irony I’m sure you wanted to explore, but how would this guy, as the poster child for the movement, gain the support of the people with clout he would need?
Big Pharma, police chiefs and conservative politicians aren’t going to stand on a stage with a drug dealer, no matter how bad they want the same end goal. Those people need to think he is something other than what he is….
So, I wonder if the greatest humor is actually in a slacker hippy drug dealer having to convince an evangelical town mayor he is a respectable citizen in order to get the support he needs to re-criminalize pot and reestablish his responsibility-free lifestyle?…. but of course the slacker hippy ARCS and learns to be responsible along the way, with some cool twist at the end. 🙂
Of course, it’s not credible, rational.
And neither is this: a washed-up, depressed newscaster announces to his news audience that he’s going to blow his brains out on air. How believable is it that a national TV network would keep him on the air?
But Paddy Chayefsky teased out the outrageous consequences that followed from that absurd premise into the most intelligent, savage and prescient commentary on commercial TV ever made: “Network”.
Of course, it’s not credible, rational.
And neither is this: a washed-up, depressed newscaster announces to his news audience that he’s going to blow his brains out on air. How believable is it that a national TV network would keep him on the air?
But Paddy Chayefsky teased out the outrageous consequences that followed from that absurd premise into the most intelligent, savage and prescient commentary on commercial TV ever made: “Network”.
Forget believable, engage the audience.
Your movie could be a mix of “Pineapple Express” and “The Campaign”.
What if your pot head is selected by the special interests as the front man of their campaign. He may genuinely want to re-criminalize drug, and with their help he may suddenly succeed.
You just need to find a reason why they would want him as the front man.
May he is an accidental hero, he saved the life of a kid on live TV and the kid made him reject drugs.
Maybe he was caught swearing against drugs on a YouTube video, how they have ruined his life. Due to a mix up, People thought he was against the legalisation of drugs as a question of principle, when in fact he has just received his tax bill and was thinking how legalisation had ruined him and was taking the fun out of it.
Forget believable, engage the audience.
Your movie could be a mix of “Pineapple Express” and “The Campaign”.
What if your pot head is selected by the special interests as the front man of their campaign. He may genuinely want to re-criminalize drug, and with their help he may suddenly succeed.
You just need to find a reason why they would want him as the front man.
May he is an accidental hero, he saved the life of a kid on live TV and the kid made him reject drugs.
Maybe he was caught swearing against drugs on a YouTube video, how they have ruined his life. Due to a mix up, People thought he was against the legalisation of drugs as a question of principle, when in fact he has just received his tax bill and was thinking how legalisation had ruined him and was taking the fun out of it.
I think that with this premise it is not about making it believable rather plausible. Pineapple Express was far from believable but was perfectly plausible and its that connection to plausibility that made it’s naturalistic performances funny and the premise fun.
Otherwise the story goes into farce territory, which is fine, but from the sounds of the logline this was not the intention.
However if farce is the idea, then any structure will do really. Chich and Chong building a car out of hemp to smuggle it into the US from Mexico was pretty much a farce that found it’s own audience many years ago this could perhaps work now days as well.
I for one prefer a comedy that is hilarious because it is in touch with reality. The beauty of well crafted comedy is that it provides grounds to critique real life and allows us to say things that we other wise can’t.
I think that with this premise it is not about making it believable rather plausible. Pineapple Express was far from believable but was perfectly plausible and its that connection to plausibility that made it’s naturalistic performances funny and the premise fun.
Otherwise the story goes into farce territory, which is fine, but from the sounds of the logline this was not the intention.
However if farce is the idea, then any structure will do really. Chich and Chong building a car out of hemp to smuggle it into the US from Mexico was pretty much a farce that found it’s own audience many years ago this could perhaps work now days as well.
I for one prefer a comedy that is hilarious because it is in touch with reality. The beauty of well crafted comedy is that it provides grounds to critique real life and allows us to say things that we other wise can’t.
Others have misconstrued what I was aiming for but I think you get it Nic, yeah? Of course there are all kinds of outrageous concepts in film and tv, but every world you build has to have its own rules to make it believable within the context of that world. I’m not saying every story has to be rooted in real world facts as we know them… good grief (eyes rolling)
Others have misconstrued what I was aiming for but I think you get it Nic, yeah? Of course there are all kinds of outrageous concepts in film and tv, but every world you build has to have its own rules to make it believable within the context of that world. I’m not saying every story has to be rooted in real world facts as we know them… good grief (eyes rolling)