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.
An introverted bookworm returns to her country hometown to find that her younger brother is dating the girl who made her life hell in high school and they must work together to survive a zombie apocalypse.
Agreed with DPG. The finding a safe haven from the Zombies is the A plot, all the other interpersonal stuff is the B and C plots - but loglines are about describing the A plot.
Agreed with DPG.
The finding a safe haven from the Zombies is the A plot, all the other interpersonal stuff is the B and C plots – but loglines are about describing the A plot.
See lesssorry… just wanted to delete and couldn’t see how…
Loglinse are best structured on definitives as appose to probability. I suggest you not use such qualifiers as "?probably?" as this indicates to a reader that they need to make a choice in regards to the events in the story instead of being told what they are. As the others have noted, this needs toRead more
Loglinse are best structured on definitives as appose to probability. I suggest you not use such qualifiers as “?probably?” as this indicates to a reader that they need to make a choice in regards to the events in the story instead of being told what they are.
As the others have noted, this needs to be shorter and efficiently describe a single plot. However, you’ve actually specified that the second event is “?unrelated?” which is a problem. You can have a hand full of unrelated events in a film (especially in comedy – if they’re for big laughs), but these should be too few and far in between to make it into the logline.
See lessIn 1924 two British runners, one a determined Jew, the other a devout Christian, race against each other for Olympic gold.
Wish I was able to chime in earlier on this thread... DPG from memory we never reached an overwhelming consensus on this one. I think you're over looking, for some?reason,?Abraham's?grand obstacle to achieving Olympic gold - his obstacle is not Liddell, it's the Americans and namely Schultz. Even LiRead more
Wish I was able to chime in earlier on this thread…
DPG from memory we never reached an overwhelming consensus on this one.
I think you’re over looking, for some?reason,?Abraham’s?grand obstacle to achieving Olympic gold – his obstacle is not Liddell, it’s the Americans and namely Schultz. Even Liddell acknowledges?that the Americans are faster and better trained than he is.
The Americans are painted from very early on as the outright biggest threat to the English athletes winning gold, and are defined as the fastest men in the world. Abraham’s must beat them in order to take their place, and he must take their place in order to win gold.
What motivates Abrahams to hire Sam is the fact that the americans are professionally trained -?without Sam?he will never gain enough of an advantage to beat them.
Liddell’s story is really just the B plot in the film, sure it intersected with the A plot – Abraham’s story, but only to spur him on with a more immediate obstacle that’s closer to home. I’m not diminishing the importance of Liddell’s story in the film – it does take up a lot of screen time, but if you were to remove Liddell’s story the film still works when telling only Abraham’s story. More so, as you agreed with above, Abrahams has the most significant character arc of all in the film – he is the one who goes on a journey to become a better person.
No doubt this is an unconventionally structured film – it shifts dramatic points of view and lacks a clear inciting incident. However, it does (as Karel mentioned above) follow the hero’s journey very closely, and employs clear metaphors for character progression and sequence transitions. Abrahams the hero/protagonist clearly states his goal at the end of act one he also specifies how he will achieve it, at this point in the film he clearly crosses a threshold and marches bravely off into the distance.
While an argument can be made that there was no specific inciting incident, it can also be argued that the writer clearly indicated when act one ends and act two begins. It was Abrahams who ended act one, and he who stated the goal and action that will be pursued throughout the film.
See less