A couple take up rock climbing to work out their trust issues, but when they witness a murder half way up a 200 meter cliff, they become the killers next targets and must work together to get out alive.
FreeWillLogliner
A couple take up rock climbing to work out their trust issues, but when they witness a murder half way up a 200 meter cliff, they become the killers next targets and must work together to get out alive.
Share
It sounds thrilling and very visual
Is it a short story logline?
because it lacks the fuel for a feature length film
(It will however work good as a climax to some full length film on your mind)
Agreed with Wind.
The premise has potential but it needs to be expanded if it’s to work in a full-length film.
I don’t understand how taking up rock climbing will help their trust issues, why not just describe them as they are:
After a couple with trust issues go on a rock climbing trip they witness a murder and must rely on each other to escape the killer with their lives intact.
Still very lean on story. Maybe it would be better to relocate the story to a mountaintop in the middle of the wilderness so as to put them days away from civilisation. Rock climbing implies that they are on a cliff and just need to get down to the bottom.
“When they witness a murder halfway up a 200-meter climb, a couple with trust issues must work together because?if the killers don’t get them the mountain will.”
The logline sets up a couple with trust issues, then thrusts them into a situation where they must trust each other in order to survive.? Rock climbing is a fully adequate setup for a life or death situation.? What dramatic point is served by injecting a “daemon ex? machina”? that is, a? seemingly contrived, unforeshadowed complication in the form of a killer into the story?? A killer whose original intention is to kill someone else — not them.
It doesn’t ring true emotionally that they wouldn’t trust each other when? it’s a matter of life or death.? (The bonding power of shared adversity has been amply demonstrated by soldiers [and civilians] in times of war.) So it seems to me that the trust issue is somewhat of a red herring, at least in terms of the conflict in the 2nd Act — half or more of the script.?
Their survival isn’t contingent on their willingness to trust each other– trapped on the ledge, they have no choice in the matter.? IOW:? the matter of trust is not a true dramatic dilemma because it is a pivotal dramatic issue that doesn’t really matter when it should matter most.
Their survival is contingent on other factors external to their troubled relationship and beyond their control, like the killer’s intentions and marksmanship.
What is the story about anyway?
Great comments all! Lots of food for thought…
I guess the core of the story is the opposition of 4 central characters with very different relationships with?risk,? with climbing being a metaphor for more mundane risks and the need to trust both yourself and others in life. The characters are:
A) An inexperienced climber desperate to prove herself capable and trustworthy (both to herself and her partner)
B) Her boyfriend, an experienced climber who’s risk aversion and reluctance to trust people (due to past trauma) holds him back – including in his relationship with his partner
C) Their friend, an accomplished climber who appreciates the risks in climbing but doesn’t feel the need to go thrill seeking
D) A charismatic stranger who is a solo-climber through and a thrill seeker through and through – fully trusts themselves, but has no regard for others
A and B have obvious conflicts built into their relationship, which are played out in the way they climb together.
C and D represent different ends of the spectrum of attitudes to risk, and when D forces C into a situation that is unsafe (without consent) the inciting incident occurs.
In terms of fleshing out the narrative, I had hoped to develop and then play out a range of technical details relating to climbing so that the audience can fully appreciate the problems that develop and the ingenious ways A and B try to solve them
From what you describe, the main point of contention is not trust, it is working together.
in?Oblivion, the question?Are you an effective team keeps getting asked, your film is about the same question without explicitly pronounce it.
So the big question is can they work as a team?
Each one of them is asking the other, can we agree on a course of actions? can I trust you that you will not go and do your thing that will put me at risk? Can you act responsibly and stop taking too many risk? or in contrario can you stop playing so safe that in fact you froze and put us in more danger?
Cliffhanger has pretty much the same concept. As usual Michael Rooker stole most of the scenes. The movie is average but entertaining. However for a lot people its complete unrealistic portrayal of rock climbing can be very annoying. Please make sure that any action sequence are realistic. No long jump in snow and full mountain gear longer than Bob Beamon’s world record.
Freewill:
Thanks for the clarification of the ideas you’re playing with in the story.? Risk taking is substantively different from trust issues between characters.? Or characters trusting themselves.
>>> with climbing being a metaphor for more mundane risks and the need to trust both yourself and others in life.
Trust is necessary — but, really, is it sufficient?? You can trust yourself fully and fall to your death because your confidence is not backed up with commensurate competence.? Ditto if you place your trust in someone who doesn’t have the competence.
>>> an experienced climber who?s risk aversion
That strikes me as an oxymoron.? Because if he was truly risk aversive (as yours truly is), he wouldn’t be a rock climber.? And if he’s experienced, he would know better than to partner up with someone who lacked the competence and confidence to be a safe climbing companion.? No, not even out of love because that’s the kind of love that could get them both killed.
Risk taking should not be confabulated with recklessness.? The latter necessarily entails the former, but? the logic is not bidirectional: the former does not necessarily entail the latter.
Whatever, you have the issue of risk dissipated among 4 characters instead of concentrated on one.? To be sure, you are thinking along the right line by having every character embody a facet of the theme, positively or negatively.
But it is usually best if one character is the focal point character of the theme, the one who embodies the most important facet of the theme, who is also the natural alpha character of the group . IOW: it is usually best if the logline clearly designates a protagonist.
fwiw