Strife
kbfilmworksSamurai
A young writer is on the run from a street enforcer sworn to kill himself if he fails to kill his victim.
Share
Have an account? Sign In Now
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Your villain “distinguishes” the logline, hence, overwhelms the writer. Ergo, like it or not, you’ve cast him as the main character in the mind of us who have read your logline. That seems to be the consensus impression. It’s not what you intend, but there it is.
You are certainly right that villains can be more interesting than the hero. Darth Vader is more interesting than Luke Skywalker. But how does the logline for the first film of the franchise read?
After a spirited farm boy saves a princess from an the evil henchman of a despotic Galactic Empire, he joins forces to destroy the Empire’s planet-annihilating Death Star.
The focal point of the logline is Luke, not Darth Vader.
Thanks for the comment Nicholas but why can’t the villain be more interesting than the hero? Thrillers depend on unusual villains. The hero always has an arc but why pitch the arc if the villain is what distinguishes the story.
I think the introduction of the idea that the villain will kill himself if he fails in his task makes him the more interesting character, but also makes it unclear at what stage it would be decided that he had failed? Like, will he hunt him for the rest of his life? Or is there some point or place the writer could get to that would mean, inarguably, that he had “won”?
Thanks guys.
A penniless young writer steals a suitcase full of ‘dirty’ money and struggles to escape from a street enforcer sworn to kill himself if he fails to recover the money and kill the writer.
So basically, the guy has a moment of madness driven by sheer poverty and finds himself at the point of no return because the enforcer is sworn to kill him even if he gives the money back. And the enforcer too is at the point of no return because he has to kill himself when his deadline passes.
I agree with Adam. Why is the writer running? I want to understand the life and death implications for both characters immediately.
It sounds to me like the writer just has to evade the killer for long enough until the killer performs the sepukku, and the writer will be home free? I suggest you rather up the stakes for the writer, and mention what his goal is ? beyond evading the killer and merely stay alive. Preferably something he must do and the killer getting him is the consequence if he fails.