Female Security Guards coerced into helping commit a massive terrorist attack are torn between protecting their loved ones and National Security.
izzibellaLogliner
Female Security Guards coerced into helping commit a massive terrorist attack are torn between protecting their loved ones and National Security.
Share
In future please post revisions of the same concept in the original thread. It’s a better way to track the evolution of a concept, and provides a better overview of the comments already given.
The fundamental logic at the base of this concept seems flawed.
Once a person admits to being a terrorist they lose all credibility, as such nothing they say can be trusted – cooperation of any kind is inexcusable.
Don’t you think it might be difficult to evoke audience admiration or empathy for 3 women who believed the terrorists weren’t telling a bad joke and didn’t have the wits or moral integrity to report them?
Whatever, that still leaves 1 woman to qualify as the designated protagonist around whom an audience might rally and root for.
Are the terrorists holding their loved ones hostage? ?IOW: how are the security guards exercising emotional extortion over them?
?Whatever, I am still unclear how the scales of the predicament are evenly balanced. ?How their dramatic choice constitutes a true dilemma. (To be a true dilemma, the scales must be evenly balanced.)
The moral predicament presented to the women seems to be: ?let tens of thousands of strangers die or a few , their precious loved ones. ?How equal are those choices?
The emotional agony of being confronted by such horrific choices would be excruciating, of course. But how likely is it that their feelings will exonerate them in the audience’s mind ?for choosing the greater of 2 evils, for opting to cooperate in order to save their precious few, the lives of thousands of others be damned? ?How likely is it that an audience would accept anything less than that despite their feelings, they do the right thing; ?they do what heroes are supposed to do and opt ?for the lesser of 2 evils, for the greater good and refuse to cooperate?
They need the security guards to help get the material into the football stadium. ?They believe that the terrorists will spare their lives as three of the females were romantically involved with three of the terrorists prior to finding out what they did for a living. ?They’ve been truthful to the women, never lying even when asked what they did for a living…they said they blow things up.
Thank you for asking these questions, it helps me to make sure that the plot of the script makes sense.
I have a couple of questions about the credibility of the whole premise.
1] Why do the terrorists need the security guards to execute their dastardly deed? ?Why can’t they just do it themselves?
2] Why would the security guards believe that the terrorists would spare the lives of their loved ones? The terrorists obviously have no compunction about killing untold numbers of other innocent people. ? How is it possible for the guards to believe the lives of those they love will be spared by these ruthless, heartless fanatics if they play along?
I can comprehend the dilemma the plot tries to place the security guards in, but right now it ?seems more contrived than credible.
Just saying.
What happens if they don’t stop the attack? How would I re-word it if they HAVE to follow along with the plan in order to save the lives of their families? It’s a matter of would you let strangers die in order to save the lives of your loved ones.
Thank you for all the feedback. I will try to make it more precise as to what the storyline is trying to convey.
What Knightrider said about focusing the story on ?a singular protagonist with a clear proactive goal. ?And clearly defined stakes: ?”massive terrorist attack” is too vague to convey the magnitude and urgency of the threat.
I get more of a sense of a Designing Principle vibe from this, rather than a logline. It is missing a Protagonist and a clear goal. Generally even in team or group movies there is a character that is the protagonist who we track the arc of change.
E.G. Avengers Age of Ultron Tony Stark arrogantly believes he can single handily solve the worlds problems driven by his fear of invasion, by the end he is saying they’ll defend the Earth together.
So, focus on the character that will go through a change, and will represent theme to some degree. Then go from there, for example, When her team are coerced into committing an act of treason, an insecure ?prison guard must regain her confidence and lead her team in stopping an attack they inadvertently put in motion.
That might be a little long, but it has a defined goal and a character. Hope that helps.