Logliner
Posted: 2019-10-05T13:59:03+10:00 In:

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.

–

Share

    Post a review

    You must login to add an answer.

    To see everything,

    4 Reviews

    1. Logliner

      its an interesting set up. but i would leave out the recently engaged, its too many things to describe him. sounds a bit clunky. i would also like to know what the mid point reversal would be?

      • 0
    2. Samurai

      So the sports star doesn’t like being dressed up like a drag queen I gather.? The psychopath is basically saying, “If you want your little painting, you gotta be a drag queen, buddy!” just because he likes humiliating people for fun?? I think the logline needs some hint of a reason why the *vain* sports star would endure that just for a painting.

      • 0
    3. Singularity

      There’s a misslng bridge of causal logic between the 2 sentences.? The logline says nothing about the man who outbid him saying he will give the jock the painting if he dresses in drag.

      And others’ mileage may vary, but I’m finding it difficult to suspend disbelief:? I would think vanity would make him not want to dress in drag, even to obtain the painting.

      And why is it necessary to say he’s recently engaged?? What does that have to do with the dramatic problem?

      • 0
    4. 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 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.

      • 0