1. Posted: October 9, 2019In:

    A disgraced winemaker sets out to exact revenge on the farmer he thinks sold him poisoned grapes.

    Mike Pedley Singularity

    As nicolesigaud has pointed out, there is no inciting incident in this version. Add the inciting inciting incident here and it's a step in the right direction. The inciting incident from your previous attempt: "When his celebrity drinkers die" played for comedy value could work really nicely. The onRead more

    As nicolesigaud has pointed out, there is no inciting incident in this version. Add the inciting inciting incident here and it’s a step in the right direction.

    The inciting incident from your previous attempt: “When his celebrity drinkers die” played for comedy value could work really nicely. The only thing I would suggest is to up the stakes:

    When he’s accused of manslaughter after an A-list celebrity dies, a disgraced winemaker plots his revenge on the farmer he believes sold him poisoned grapes.

    I like the addition of the police aspect because it adds a subplot and additional antagonistic elements that could be fun exploring. It also increases the motivation for the protagonist – not only is he trying to clear his name, he’s trying to stay out of jail.

    Out of curiosity, did the farmer sell him poisoned grapes? If so, why?

    See less
    • 0
  2. Posted: October 3, 2019In:

    During a solo expedition through the Australian outback, a lonely female scientist befriends a mysterious traveller via her long-range UHF radio, but things turn sinister when he insists on meeting up in the middle of nowhere.

    dpg Singularity

    Paul Clarke: I agree that a logline should not reveal the Big Payoff, even for a short.? The journey to that Big Payoff should stand on its own; that is, it ought to be interesting, compelling, dramatic in its own right.? A logline should describe the journey to a destination, not the arrival. A texRead more

    Paul Clarke:

    I agree that a logline should not reveal the Big Payoff, even for a short.? The journey to that Big Payoff should stand on its own; that is, it ought to be interesting, compelling, dramatic in its own right.? A logline should describe the journey to a destination, not the arrival.

    A textbook example is “The Sixth Sense”.? The Big Payoff, the Final Reveal is a whopper, one of the most famous in the history of cinema — but the dramatic journey is interesting, compelling in its own right.

    See less
    • 0
  3. Posted: October 5, 2019In:

    A recently engaged vain sports star is forced to compete in a drag queen competition. After a wealthy psychopath out bids him on an auction record breaking painting by a famous outsider artist.

    dpg Singularity

    Philipe Le Miere:I respectfully disagree.? You may have an interesting premise for a story, but I do not see a logical casual relationship between the defining characteristic of the main character, the inciting incident created by the antagonist and the plot problem.First of all, I haven't read abouRead more

    Philipe Le Miere:

    I respectfully disagree.? You may have an interesting premise for a story, but I do not see a logical casual relationship between the defining characteristic of the main character, the inciting incident created by the antagonist and the plot problem.

    First of all, I haven’t read about Aristotle’s Poetics; instead I’ve read? the Poetics.? Okay, several translations of the classic.? Murphy’s citation is from chapter 9 and I suggest the entire chapter needs to be read to understand the full meaning Aristotle discussion of necessary and probable causation in drama.? Context matters.

    Second, in the standard statement of a logical syllogism:

    All men are mortal (universal statement)
    Socrates is? a man? (particular statement)
    Therefore, Socrates is mortal (logical inference from the two)

    For the logical inference to be valid? the 2nd statement must contain an element that is a member of a universal set in the 1st term.? In this case? man is an? element of the universal set of men, right?
    Further the 3rd sentence and 1st sentence must share a common term.? In this case it is? mortal, the descriptive term to be logically deduced.

    Whereas in your syllogism:

    A straight vain sports star
    is Outbid by psychopath on expensive painting
    Therefore, he performs in a drag queen competition

    There is no element in the 2nd sentence that is a member of a universal set in the 1st term.? In fact there is no shared word or term tetween the 2 sentences.
    Furthermore, there is no common term that is logically deduced between the 1st and 3rd sentence.? Again, the 3rd and 1st sentence have no words, no terms in common. “Drag” in the 3rd sentence is not the same term and does not have the same meaning as “straight” in the 1st .? Rather the two are contrary terms.

    Ergo, I stand by my original statement.? A bridge of necessary and sufficient terms and logic are missing.? I take loglines at face value, at what they literally say, not what I think the writer meant to say.? Words I can read; minds I can’t.

    See less
    • 0