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.
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.
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 yourselfRead more
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
See lessA 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.
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 cRead more
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?
See lessAfter a lovesick flight attendant and the wife of a doppelganger of a famous actor becomes pregnant by him, he sets out to convince them to share a home with him.
This version is a more interesting concept of a marital triangle.? However, now it's not clear to me who the protagonist is, the stewardess or the husband.? ?Frankly,? it seems to me that this version makes the the husband the central character.? He's the one who drives the story, who creates the ceRead more
This version is a more interesting concept of a marital triangle.? However, now it’s not clear to me who the protagonist is, the stewardess or the husband.? ?Frankly,? it seems to me that this version makes the the husband the central character.? He’s the one who drives the story, who creates the central dramatic dilemma by suggesting a co-living arrangement.? He’s the one with an objective goal: to have a living arrangement convenient for him.
And he is certainly the most interesting of the three.
So who is the protagonist?? And what is the story really about?? What theme are you trying to explore?
See less