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.
During WWI, when British Intelligence discovers the German’s retreat is a trap, two young soldiers must venture across enemy territory to deliver orders halting an attack that would cost the lives of 1,600 soldiers
I debated about including the fact that one of the soldiers' brothers was part of the company for the planned attack. It's a good motivational point and adds personal stakes for a character. However, I'm not sure it's necessary. It HAS to be "two soldiers" as a joint protagonist because of key eventRead more
I debated about including the fact that one of the soldiers’ brothers was part of the company for the planned attack. It’s a good motivational point and adds personal stakes for a character. However, I’m not sure it’s necessary. It HAS to be “two soldiers” as a joint protagonist because of key events that happen in the movie (I’m trying to keep this spoiler free) and adding “including one of the soldiers’ brothers” adds six words and never, for me, increases the overall stakes… 1,600 is a lot. This mission would be identical without knowing the “brother-factor” and since the soldiers were ordered, rather than volunteered, I think it was merely a decision on the writers’ parts to add personal stakes for one of our heroes in an attempt to really hammer home the urgency and makes the heroes feel like they’re pushing the story rather than pulling. Without it, perhaps the soldiers would have been less motivated to go on such a dangerous mission so this puts them firmly in the driving seat… it’s not just orders and they’re proactive because of it ?but is it necessary in the logline…?
I look forward to your comments.
See lessWhen a disgraced bodyguard is hired to transport a smarmy hitman to the Hague, the two have one weekend to outsmart, outrun, outgun, or evade, every assassin in Europe, and that’s if the two doesn’t shoot each other first.
I think it's really important to add the 'witness' element as, without it, we have no idea why every assassin in Europe is after them and that, to me, is the I.I. - the bodyguard being hired is just par for the course, it's only when the bad guys show up that everything changes. "When a ruthless dicRead more
I think it’s really important to add the ‘witness’ element as, without it, we have no idea why every assassin in Europe is after them and that, to me, is the I.I. – the bodyguard being hired is just par for the course, it’s only when the bad guys show up that everything changes.
“When a ruthless dictator sends a plague of assassins to kill a material witness, a disgraced bodyguard must protect the smarmy hitman who is the only one with the balls to testify against the tyrant in 48 hours time.”
I’ve taken out the “if the two [don’t] shoot each other first” since, in my mind, the obvious “odd couple” pairing is enough to suggest that conflict. I’ve framed it more from the bodyguard’s perspective simply because the title is “The Hitman’s Bodyguard”. I don’t think we need to know that they’re heading to The Hague, or that it’s set in Europe, I think the plot remains the same either way.
The thing I like about your logline, that I’ve tried to replicate in mine, is I can immediately tell that it’s an action, thriller, comedy.
See lessOn a quiet morning, a reformed and long-retired heavy-equipment repo man is visited by a former friend and associate to answer for a violent incident that happened decades ago.
We don't need to know that it's a quiet morning. It doesn't make any difference to the story. As Richiev said, what is the main story? Present day or flashback? Is he a reformed and long retired criminal? The phrasing makes it sound like he has long since retired from being a repo-man. Why a repo-maRead more
We don’t need to know that it’s a quiet morning. It doesn’t make any difference to the story.
As Richiev said, what is the main story? Present day or flashback?
Is he a reformed and long retired criminal? The phrasing makes it sound like he has long since retired from being a repo-man. Why a repo-man anyway? What bearing does that have on the story?
This is just the inciting incident as it currently stands. The protagonist (assuming the repo-man) has no goal. How is he going to proactively push the plot forward? What’s he going to do when this guy turns up?
See less