In the chaotic, deadly days after Pearl Harbor, the War Dept. seeks technically skilled and experienced divers to help with recovery of ships and personnel. Two Chief Divers are called forth, both with intimate knowledge of their ship and crew, the USS Arizona.

Alas, unlike the earlier iterations, this version conveys no sense that the divers have a personal stake in the effort. ? They are just following orders.

And if you are seized by the desire to pin needles into a voodoo doll with my name on it, I don’t blame you. ?For I seem to have put you in a double bind where you’re darned if you write a logline focusing on their subjective motivation and your darned if you write one focusing on their objective task.

The problem with their task is that it is no different from that given to the other divers. ?No doubt the work was hard and at times hazardous. But what was so heroic about what these two men did that stands head and shoulders above what others were doing to salvage the ships? ? The logline doesn’t distinguish their labors from the others; they are not given a unique assignment requiring more heroic effort than that given to the other divers.

The various iterations seem to be trading on the name of Pearl Harbor for the story hook. ?But we are almost 77 years removed from the event. ?Almost all the people who knew exactly where they were on December 7, 1941, who had an immediate urgent stake in the consequences are dead. ?Most of the audience have no personal connection, hence, no emotional investment in that event.

The passage of time has discounted the emotional value of the name, of the event to a contemporary audience. Nor have Hollyweird suits forgotten ?how well the 2001 movie, “Pearl Harbor”, directed by Michael Bay, a master of disaster, did not do at the box office. (Check out the box office at IMDB.)

What story angle have you got that’s better than the one Michael Bay worked with, that has a promise of better results at the box-office than his?

That is not an unfair question to ask because of the subject matter. ?I don’t sense that this is a small budget movie. ?Because of all the practical sets that would have to be built, all the CGI , the cast of 100’s (at least) to recreate Pearl Harbor before and after the attack, the story has the potential of ?a high 8 digit or even a 9 digit price tag to make.

“Pearl Harbor” cost $140,000,000 ?to make in 2001. ?Adjusted for inflation that amounts to $198,000,000 in 2017. ?So even, if you’re story comes in at 1/2 of Michael Bay’s budget, that’s still about $100,000,000.

And then there’s an additional cost of the $75,000,000 to $100,000,000 to market it globally. ?These days, big ticket movies make their money back in overseas markets. ?And just what is the story hook to sell this movie in Japan? ?Or China for that matter, the biggest international market of all?

fwiw