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.
The survival of the British Monarchy is at stake as Queen Elizabeth II struggles to deal with the death of Princess Diana, a woman she loathes but whom the public idolizes.
>>How is the British Monarchy?s ?survival? threatened?By a loss of popularity such that Parliament might vote ?for a national referendum ?to abolish the monarchy, convert Great Britain to a republic. ?That was what ?Queen Elizabeth II feared; that's the?way the stakes of the the story were fraRead more
>>How is the British Monarchy?s ?survival? threatened?
By a loss of popularity such that Parliament might vote ?for a national referendum ?to abolish the monarchy, convert Great Britain to a republic. ?That was what ?Queen Elizabeth II feared; that’s the?way the stakes of the the story were framed in the 2006 film. ?(Which was based upon the the public reaction and fallout from Princess Diana’s death in 1997.)
“Deal with” is indeed vague. ?Basically her strategy for “dealing with” Princess Di’s death was to ignore it, refuse to even make a pretense of sharing the nation’s grief.
Maybe something like:
The survival of the British Monarchy is at stake as Queen Elizabeth II refuses to join in mourning the death of Princess Diana, a woman she loathes but whom the public idolizes.
(32 words)
It’s a negative ?goal, the wrong strategy. (And ?a logline can be about a character who strives for the wrong objective goal — as long as the character has a goal!)
In contrast, the objective goal of her Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is to nudge, cajole, and finally “advise” her that she must officially mourn Prince Di’s death, attend her funeral. ?(The Oscar nominated?script is well worth studying as an example of how to work out a complicated working relationship and role reversal.)
So, I suppose the logline could be written from his pov, where he has a positive goal, the right strategy.. ?But, as usual, monarchy pulls rank and gets the top billing.
See lessThree days before Armageddon, a drug addicted lawyer struggles to be free from his addiction, his friends and his day job .The devil has marked him, he has made a claim .To survive the Dreadful war he has to beat him at this final hour.
Yes, clumsy. ?And confusing. ?The character has 3 ?objective goals: ?kick drugs; dump his friends; ?quit his job. ?Well, which one is it?(And why must he dump his friends and/or quit his drug to save his soul?)
Yes, clumsy. ?And confusing. ?The character has 3 ?objective goals: ?kick drugs; dump his friends; ?quit his job. ?Well, which one is it?
(And why must he dump his friends and/or quit his drug to save his soul?)
See lessWhen his estranged sister is found dead, a drug addicted private investigator teams up with an android police detective to solve the mystery why she ordered an AI to kill her.
At 31 words, this is a much better logline. The private investigator is in the driver's seat of the plot, as he?should be, and the stakes are personal, not just professional.I'm presuming that the AI murder takes place in a world where Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics are coded into?AI's programming,Read more
At 31 words, this is a much better logline. The private investigator is in the driver’s seat of the plot, as he?should be, and the stakes are personal, not just professional.
I’m presuming that the AI murder takes place in a world where Isaac Asimov’s laws of robotics are coded into?AI’s programming, the first law being “a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to?harm.” Which certainly would deepen the mystery. ?Assuming that to be the case, I reworked to something like:
In a futuristic world, a private investigator drug must partner up with an android detective to solve?the mystery of why and how his sister induced an AI to override its programming and murder her. (36 words)
“In a futuristic world”: To obviate the possibility of some logline readers tripping up over the concept before?they’ve read all the way through, I think it is prudent to make explicit what is implicit.
“Drug-addicted”: ?Optional. The dramatic?reason for a character flaw is to ?raise dramatic tension in meaningful relation to the ?dramatic problem, in this case the murder, and to the protagonist’s objective goal which is to solve the mystery.
By meaningful relation I mean that ?the flaw is, in some respect, 1] a symptom of the overall dramatic problem AND 2] theme AND ?3] the flaw will frustrate and defeat the protagonist’s purpose ?unless/until he overcomes it. ?Point 3] means that it is implicated in the end of 2nd Act “Darkest Hour” crisis: either he finally ?kicks his habit or else he is doomed to fail.
“Estranged”: Keep it in the story, of course, but is it really essential for the logline? Really?
While the standard formula is to lead with the inciting incident– and that usually is the best way– there are good?reasons for occasionally tacking it to the end. One reason is economy of words. “When his estranged sister is?found dead, ” and “why she ordered an AI to kill her.” overlap. Another reason is to improve word?flow, avoid an awkward reading experience.
Finally, the twist in this logline is not that the man must partner up with an android, but that his sister?persuaded an AI to violate it’s programming and kill her. And twists work better at the end than the beginning of a sentence; the?logline sort of ends with a ?punch line.
Anyway, I think you have a strong concept. Best wishes with your writing.
fwiw.
See less