Nir:

95%+ of the time we are on the same page, the same paragraph, the same sentence on all matters related to writing a logline.? But this is an instance where I beg to differ.

First of all, I? think my version is a more accurate description of how the plot actually unfolds.? The inciting incident is most certainly not the computer achieving “self-awareness” — whatever that means.? The inciting incident is as I stated? ?the teen hacks into the system to play what he thinks is? only a war game and? unwittingly triggers the system to start planning? to “play” a real nuclear war.? The computer program is not self-aware;? the technical problem is that it is not able to distinguish between nuclear war as a game in virtual reality and nuclear war as a catastrophe in the real world.

And I do not think it accurate to describe the protagonist as naive.? Being initially ignorant of the system he is hacking into is not the same as being naive. The defining characteristic of the protagonist most relevant to the plot is cleverness — not naivete.? He is tech savvy, resourceful, thinks outside the box.

[I will resist the temptation to digress to discuss the question of whether the protagonist must always have a character flaw , a subjective problem he must overcome to solve the dramatic problem, achieve his objective goal. Except to say that in “War Games” there is no subjective arc on the part of the protagonist on which the plot pivots.? The teenager is, as they say in the trade, a steadfast protagonist.? There is, however, a pivotal character who does have a subjective arc, and that is the man who designed the computer. If he doesn’t arc, then the teenage protagonist won’t be able to save the day, save the world at the climax.]

Anyway, the teenager’s cleverness is both the cause of the dramatic problem in the 1st Act and , ironically, the cause of the solution in the 3rd Act.? It’s his? liability in the 1st? Act when he figures out how to hack into the computer program.? And? his asset in Act 3 when he figures out how to stop the computer program from going to war.? My logline features the character attribute that incites the plot — and finally achieves a positive resolution.

Finally, I? intentionally did not fully flesh out the logline according to the standard formula because, imho, the story hook is strong enough so that it is not necessary to conform to the standard formula.??The mission of a logline is to get people to read the script.? That is what the standard formula is designed to accomplish. That is also the mission of the story hook.??You can have a logline that perfectly conforms to the standard formula, but if it doesn’t have a story hook, then most of the time it’s DOA;? It’s not going to make someone want to read the script.

The ideal is a logline that conforms to the standard formula AND has a strong hook.? But if I can only compose a logline that has one or the other — but not both, I’ll go with a version with a strong story hook.? Every. Time.

Oh, and? I also wrote the version I did for the sake of brevity.? My original draft was:

A clever teenager hacks a military computer to play a nuclear war game only to trigger the computer into preparing to play a real nuclear war. Now he must find a way to stop it.
(35 words)

Yes, it could be stated as one l-o-n-g? sentence which would be one word shorter, but, imho, it reads awkwardly.? And it’s rather redundant.? It’s so implicitly obvious what his objective goal is.? This is an instance where I think readability trumps the general practice that the entire plot must be shoe horned into one sentence.

fwiw