A collector for a bookmaker, two months away from starting a new life, has two choices, non negotiable; find and bring back a friend for his execution, or face life in prison. But, he chose option three.
- Status
Eh...sounds a little tagline-ish, to me.
I suck at loglines, so I really can't help you out.
However, I'm left with a few questions:
How is he "two months away from starting a new life?" As in, what happens in two months? Will he no longer be working for the bookie?
Why are these his only two choices? How will he go to prison if he doesn't bring back his friend to be killed?
Ending it with "He chose option three" is where it sounds too "tagline-ish." As compelling and dramatic as it may be, it makes for a cheesy logline.
I know you're onto something, and I know that you have the conflict very well laid out in your head, but it's not translating to the paper very well.
I suck at logs, but what I usually try to do is this:
Break down each Act into a one-sentence synopsis. Put these three sentences together into a long logline.
Cut the fat.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Now you have a logline.
HTH
I suck at loglines, so I really can't help you out.
However, I'm left with a few questions:
How is he "two months away from starting a new life?" As in, what happens in two months? Will he no longer be working for the bookie?
Why are these his only two choices? How will he go to prison if he doesn't bring back his friend to be killed?
Ending it with "He chose option three" is where it sounds too "tagline-ish." As compelling and dramatic as it may be, it makes for a cheesy logline.
I know you're onto something, and I know that you have the conflict very well laid out in your head, but it's not translating to the paper very well.
I suck at logs, but what I usually try to do is this:
Break down each Act into a one-sentence synopsis. Put these three sentences together into a long logline.
Cut the fat.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Now you have a logline.
HTH
Sounds too much like a third act spoiler to me. I think I'd leave it out.
The problem I see here is the difficulty in making this guy sympathetic. Not that it cannot be done, just that it must be overcome.
Some words could be cut:
Two months from retirement a collector for a bookmaker has two choices: Find and bring back a friend for his execution or face life in prison.
Two months from retirement a collector for a bookmaker has two choices: Find and bring back a friend for his execution or face life in prison.
and there is the logline. thank you very much, you have solved the long comes short conundrum
and there is the logline. thank you very much, you have solved the long comes short conundrum
making the character likeable is the easy part - writing the logline is the hard part.
when i sit down to right loglines,i literally have to fight myself to do it. i'm getting better at it though.
vig
when i sit down to right loglines,i literally have to fight myself to do it. i'm getting better at it though.
vig
You are welcome. I am glad I could help.
Isn't that the truth. It took me forever just to understand what a logline was supposed to accomplish let alone try to accomplish it.
Isn't that the truth. It took me forever just to understand what a logline was supposed to accomplish let alone try to accomplish it.
The latest logline has some punch to it, but I think it has the wrong tone and incorrect word usage..
"Two months from retirement a collector for a bookmaker has two choices: Find and bring back a friend for his execution or face life in prison."
Using words like collector, execution, bookmaker, retirement, sounds too formal for the world these characters live in. It almost sounds like Frazier wrote this logline. Fine for masterpiece theater but not for a film about a bookie and money owed.
At first glance it looks like the execution will be by the law because of the word prison being int he same sentence-- and not by a thug booky (note that I say bookie and not bookmaker which causes less confusion).
When you say collector for a bookmaker, I was thinking a guy who collects books from a specific manufacturer of books. It took a few seconds to register the true meaning-- he's muscle for a bookie.
Retirement is also a wrong choice. It gives me the feeling this guy is legit and has a pension plan or something.
Now, with all that said and knowing that this has that underworld flavor, I need to know a few things before giving you a logline that fits the film.
1. Is the collector retiring for age, or saved up money to start a new life away from crime?
2. What did the friend do? Owes money that the collector vouched for?
3. The bookie will execute the friend and why would the collector go to prison?
These are elements in your story that are of the most interest and uniqueness to a producer. This type of film will most certainly make people think of the Road to Perdition and on the surface your logline does little to convince otherwise.
"Two months from retirement a collector for a bookmaker has two choices: Find and bring back a friend for his execution or face life in prison."
Using words like collector, execution, bookmaker, retirement, sounds too formal for the world these characters live in. It almost sounds like Frazier wrote this logline. Fine for masterpiece theater but not for a film about a bookie and money owed.
At first glance it looks like the execution will be by the law because of the word prison being int he same sentence-- and not by a thug booky (note that I say bookie and not bookmaker which causes less confusion).
When you say collector for a bookmaker, I was thinking a guy who collects books from a specific manufacturer of books. It took a few seconds to register the true meaning-- he's muscle for a bookie.
Retirement is also a wrong choice. It gives me the feeling this guy is legit and has a pension plan or something.
Now, with all that said and knowing that this has that underworld flavor, I need to know a few things before giving you a logline that fits the film.
1. Is the collector retiring for age, or saved up money to start a new life away from crime?
2. What did the friend do? Owes money that the collector vouched for?
3. The bookie will execute the friend and why would the collector go to prison?
These are elements in your story that are of the most interest and uniqueness to a producer. This type of film will most certainly make people think of the Road to Perdition and on the surface your logline does little to convince otherwise.
Two months from retirement a collector for a bookmaker has two choices: Find and bring back a friend for his execution or face life in prison.
Here's what this logline made me think:
- Your collector is an old man who's approaching retirement age. If that's the case then no worries. If he's nowhere near retirement age but he's sickened by what he does and wants out of the business, I'd maybe try to say this instead.
- Who gives him the choice, who's the bad guy? The bookmaker? I'm guessing, the logline doesn't state or suggest who this might be.
- Does your protag have to find and bring back his friend and then execute him? Or is the bad guy, the bookmaker or whoever, going to do this himself or assign this task to someone else?
- Why should he face life in prison? What's he done?
...Am I being picky for the sake of being picky? Never. I just want to know more. If you agree that your logline might benefit from answers to some of the above, which are all questions, then how's about:
A debt collector wants out of the business he's grown to hate, but his ruthless bookmaker boss threatens to frame him for murder unless he finds and executes his best friend.
...Possibly that doesn't fit your story exactly, obviously you'll use whatever words you find useful and ignore the rest. What I was trying to do was highlight the reason for your protag's "retirement," pull his boss right into the story and underline the source of the fateful choice, and make the friend's execution a much more personal thing. For me, this approach has more "bite" while still including the story elements.
-Derek
Here's what this logline made me think:
- Your collector is an old man who's approaching retirement age. If that's the case then no worries. If he's nowhere near retirement age but he's sickened by what he does and wants out of the business, I'd maybe try to say this instead.
- Who gives him the choice, who's the bad guy? The bookmaker? I'm guessing, the logline doesn't state or suggest who this might be.
- Does your protag have to find and bring back his friend and then execute him? Or is the bad guy, the bookmaker or whoever, going to do this himself or assign this task to someone else?
- Why should he face life in prison? What's he done?
...Am I being picky for the sake of being picky? Never. I just want to know more. If you agree that your logline might benefit from answers to some of the above, which are all questions, then how's about:
A debt collector wants out of the business he's grown to hate, but his ruthless bookmaker boss threatens to frame him for murder unless he finds and executes his best friend.
...Possibly that doesn't fit your story exactly, obviously you'll use whatever words you find useful and ignore the rest. What I was trying to do was highlight the reason for your protag's "retirement," pull his boss right into the story and underline the source of the fateful choice, and make the friend's execution a much more personal thing. For me, this approach has more "bite" while still including the story elements.
-Derek
-----------------------
My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies.Ok, I see your point: Real people in the business discussing their operation won't sound any different from ordinary working joes: Unless you know what business they are involved in and what their euphemisms mean.
What we are writing for is the perception of these characters and the world we perceive them as inhabiting. I think there is a small part of us that thinks of gangsters as talking out of the sides of their mouths.
People do retire without hating the business, a muscle might retire younger when they begin to slow down, and gangs often control through blackmail -- They keep essential evidence of crimes past. Sometimes committing a crime, such as murder, and giving over the evidence to the gang is a requirement for membership.
A debt collector for a bookie is blackmailed by the mob: Bring his friend in for execution or (false?) evidence will be given to the cops implicating him in past crimes.
What we are writing for is the perception of these characters and the world we perceive them as inhabiting. I think there is a small part of us that thinks of gangsters as talking out of the sides of their mouths.
People do retire without hating the business, a muscle might retire younger when they begin to slow down, and gangs often control through blackmail -- They keep essential evidence of crimes past. Sometimes committing a crime, such as murder, and giving over the evidence to the gang is a requirement for membership.
A debt collector for a bookie is blackmailed by the mob: Bring his friend in for execution or (false?) evidence will be given to the cops implicating him in past crimes.
Two months from paying his debt back to his boss, a collector for a bookie is blackmailed into a job he can't refuse; find and bring back his friend for his execution, or face life in prison for a accidental murder ten years ago.
it is my assumption that loglines are supposed to offer up quesitons for the reader. like a cliffhanger.
thanks for the help.
it is my assumption that loglines are supposed to offer up quesitons for the reader. like a cliffhanger.
thanks for the help.
sorry, your assumption is wrong. the logline should be a clear understanding of what the story is about.
anyhoo, i have a problem with the connectiveness of his dilemma. either he brings back a friend for execution or he goes to prison for an old crime - does this mean if he brings back the friend then he will no longer have to go to prison? that makes no sense....unless by bringing back his friend the bookie will let someone else take the fall for the murder. and why would he do that?!
rewrite on!
anyhoo, i have a problem with the connectiveness of his dilemma. either he brings back a friend for execution or he goes to prison for an old crime - does this mean if he brings back the friend then he will no longer have to go to prison? that makes no sense....unless by bringing back his friend the bookie will let someone else take the fall for the murder. and why would he do that?!
rewrite on!
"that makes no sense....unless by bringing back his friend the bookie will let someone else take the fall for the murder. and why would he do that?!" nikee
how can that make no sense? what does that mean? those are the only two scenarios in the entire gauntlet of possibilities. are you kididing me. that's your answer, a snarky one at that.
how about YOU killed somebody. you work for me, i know you did it. Then i tell you, if you don't go find person 'A', for me, i'll turn you in.
and thats the start of the second act when our protag has to go find this person for his boss or he goes to jail.
the logine is supposed to elicit questions from the audience from a certain scenario, which plays out in the script.
like how does he find him , and what does he do when he finds him etc.. . i'd say those are components of a logline.
how can that make no sense? what does that mean? those are the only two scenarios in the entire gauntlet of possibilities. are you kididing me. that's your answer, a snarky one at that.
how about YOU killed somebody. you work for me, i know you did it. Then i tell you, if you don't go find person 'A', for me, i'll turn you in.
and thats the start of the second act when our protag has to go find this person for his boss or he goes to jail.
the logine is supposed to elicit questions from the audience from a certain scenario, which plays out in the script.
like how does he find him , and what does he do when he finds him etc.. . i'd say those are components of a logline.
Gee, don't you just love it when Nikee comes down from the mountain to shower us unwashed know-nothings with her infinite wisdom and valuable insight?
:|
Vig, I think that each time you post, you reveal information that will bring you closer to a great logline.
Your logline need only reveal three things:
1) the protag,
2) his/her goal,
3) and the antag (or antagonisitic force, if it's not actually a person).
It could also include a setup, if needed, to introduce the reader to an unfamiliar world.
In the last one you posted...
"Two months from paying his debt back to his boss, a collector for a bookie is blackmailed into a job he can't refuse; find and bring back his friend for his execution, or face life in prison for a accidental murder ten years ago."
...you're almost giving us too much of the wrong information while simultaneously not giving us enough of the right info.
You do give us the protag, the collector.
You give us the antag, the bookie.
However, your goal is rather long and nebulous. The way you have it written, his goal is to decide. Well, that's not much of a goal. Is the entire story about his struggle to decide?
Or, is the real story about the decision he made and the journey he must now take to fulfill the goal of that decision?
Is it really important, to the log, that you include that he's "two months from paying off his debt?" It seems like a minor story element, not part of the main plot. I'm not arguing against having it in there, I'm just playing devil's advocate to get you to look at it from another perspective. But, honestly, I don't think you need that setup in there.
And, if you're blackmailed, it's usually implied that you don't refuse whatever it is that the person doing the blackmailing is telling you to do.
You give us information like this, that maybe we don't necessarily need in the logline, but you leave out pertinent information like:
"how about YOU killed somebody. you work for me, i know you did it. Then i tell you, if you don't go find person 'A', for me, i'll turn you in."
Your log, as it is now, doesn't necessarily clearly spell out that the bookie knows that the protag did it and that he's threatening to turn him in. This needs to be included, or better alluded to. As it stands now, you may think that it is implied but, if it is, it's done very vaguely which makes the inference on the reader's part quite difficult.
"and thats the start of the second act when our protag has to go find this person for his boss or he goes to jail."
See, THAT'S your goal...at least as much as you've told us. But, is it really his goal? Or, is his goal to kill the bookie? Or, get the bookie arrested somehow? Or, is it really just about him finding the friend and turning him in?
As I said, though, your logline isn't giving us the goal. It's giving us the initial decision.
Change it to the goal.
I'd say that's true to a certain extent. The logline SHOULD make the reader ask questions like: "What happens next?"; "How does he do it?"; "What's the bookie gonna do?"; "Will he turn his friend in?", but NOT questions like "What the f-ck is going on here?"; "What the hell's the story?"; "Why the hell am I supposed to care?"
No offense, but your log right now might lend more to someone asking those last questions, not the first ones.
However, with each post, you are getting closer to a really good, tight logline.
Give it another go.
HTH
When a bookie's collector, about to fetch his Mum from oversees, is blackmailed by his boss to hunt down a friend, he must choose between bringing him back to certain death, or spend life in prision for a murder he didn't commit.
the goal of my protag from the jump is to fetch his Mum from scotland.
i kind of like this one. man, this is hard.
vig
the goal of my protag from the jump is to fetch his Mum from scotland.
i kind of like this one. man, this is hard.
vig
I see what you're saying, Vig. And, I kinda see how this all falls into place. However, I'm not sure if getting the mom out of Scotland (or where ever) is the immediate story goal.
Think of it this way: In Die Hard, John McClain's original goal is to reconnect with his wife. Then, boom, a bunch of terrorists take over the building. Thus, his immediate goal is to defeat the terrorists, because externally they are an immediate threat to everyone's lives, but they are also keeping him from his wife.
How would you write the logline for Die Hard? Would you include the bit about him reconnecting with his wife? Would you spell it out clearly or merely hint at it?
I haven't read your script, so I can't tell you what is or isn't needed in the logline, that's why I haven't really taken a stab at it. However, the way it is now, it seems that it would make more sense for his mother's life to be threatened, compelling him to hunt down the friend. Pay the debt with your friend's life or your mother's. The prison storyline seems a bit out-of-place/superfluous, to me.
However, I know you're a good storyteller, so I imagine it probably works in the script.
Okay, I'm gonna just make something up, NOT to tell you what the logline should be (because I'm just gonna pull it outta my ass), but just to show you the type of style/format/structure you should look for when crafting your logline.
In order to repay a gambling debt to a powerful bookie, a man is forced to choose between his mother's life and his best friend's.
Okay, that one sucks and isn't very compelling, but do you see where I'm going with it?
Think of it this way: In Die Hard, John McClain's original goal is to reconnect with his wife. Then, boom, a bunch of terrorists take over the building. Thus, his immediate goal is to defeat the terrorists, because externally they are an immediate threat to everyone's lives, but they are also keeping him from his wife.
How would you write the logline for Die Hard? Would you include the bit about him reconnecting with his wife? Would you spell it out clearly or merely hint at it?
I haven't read your script, so I can't tell you what is or isn't needed in the logline, that's why I haven't really taken a stab at it. However, the way it is now, it seems that it would make more sense for his mother's life to be threatened, compelling him to hunt down the friend. Pay the debt with your friend's life or your mother's. The prison storyline seems a bit out-of-place/superfluous, to me.
However, I know you're a good storyteller, so I imagine it probably works in the script.
Okay, I'm gonna just make something up, NOT to tell you what the logline should be (because I'm just gonna pull it outta my ass), but just to show you the type of style/format/structure you should look for when crafting your logline.
In order to repay a gambling debt to a powerful bookie, a man is forced to choose between his mother's life and his best friend's.
Okay, that one sucks and isn't very compelling, but do you see where I'm going with it?
Noah, you keep saying three things (here and on DD). But there's a fourth that needs to be included in the logline. I think you know it instinctively, you're just not spelling it out.
So I'd modify your list just a bit to include:
1) the protag
2) his/her goal + the stakes
3) and the antag (or antagonistic force, if it's not actually a person)
So I'd modify your list just a bit to include:
1) the protag
2) his/her goal + the stakes
3) and the antag (or antagonistic force, if it's not actually a person)
Well, duh. But, no.
Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't make me wrong.
I don't think forced-in "stakes" NEED to be or even should be included. It's not usually necessary.
Because, if you actively try to include "stakes" in the logline, then your focus is drawn away from clearly defining the other/real three main facets of the logline (protag, goal, antag force).
If the protag's goal and the antag force are CLEARLY DEFINED, then the "stakes" are obvious.
Presenting the antag as the obstacle (which implies including his/her agenda) to the goal implies "stakes."
It must be clear that the antag/antagonistic force is an obstacle to the major (omitting subplots) goal. Then, "the stakes" are obvious.
It's a lot like writing the actual script. Many writers tackle a weak Act 2 by trying to "pad" or "stuff" more scenes into it. They see (most times, erroneously) the problem with a weak second Act to be the result of underwriting. However, in most cases, the problem actually lies in Act I and the original setup of conflict. Act I is not clearly designed and laid out, therefore Act II suffers. So, padding Act II treats the symptoms and not the cause.
It's the same with writing loglines. When a writer thinks his/her logline is "drab" and "needs more conflict," he/she will usually try to "pad" it by injecting "the stakes."
However, this is the wrong approach, IMO. If you have clearly defined the other three elements, then "the stakes" (meaning the root of the conflict) will be implicit.
If you have to worry about throwing in the "stakes" to make the logline "better," then your real problem lies in a sloppy job of defining the other three elements, either in the log or in the story itself.
I totally disagree. Well, somewhat, anyway. And, btw, just because I've made two similar posts on two different boards recently due to there being two similar threads on both boards, don't try, by saying things like "you keep saying three things (here and on DD)...," to make it sound like I'm selling snake oil.
Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't make me wrong.
I don't think forced-in "stakes" NEED to be or even should be included. It's not usually necessary.
Because, if you actively try to include "stakes" in the logline, then your focus is drawn away from clearly defining the other/real three main facets of the logline (protag, goal, antag force).
If the protag's goal and the antag force are CLEARLY DEFINED, then the "stakes" are obvious.
Presenting the antag as the obstacle (which implies including his/her agenda) to the goal implies "stakes."
It must be clear that the antag/antagonistic force is an obstacle to the major (omitting subplots) goal. Then, "the stakes" are obvious.
It's a lot like writing the actual script. Many writers tackle a weak Act 2 by trying to "pad" or "stuff" more scenes into it. They see (most times, erroneously) the problem with a weak second Act to be the result of underwriting. However, in most cases, the problem actually lies in Act I and the original setup of conflict. Act I is not clearly designed and laid out, therefore Act II suffers. So, padding Act II treats the symptoms and not the cause.
It's the same with writing loglines. When a writer thinks his/her logline is "drab" and "needs more conflict," he/she will usually try to "pad" it by injecting "the stakes."
However, this is the wrong approach, IMO. If you have clearly defined the other three elements, then "the stakes" (meaning the root of the conflict) will be implicit.
If you have to worry about throwing in the "stakes" to make the logline "better," then your real problem lies in a sloppy job of defining the other three elements, either in the log or in the story itself.
To clarify:
When I said that there are three parts to a logline, I was boiling it down to basics.
If you clearly define the antag (or antagonistic force) then you have to put forth his agenda. If his agenda (by agenda, I mean what makes the antag the antag) is not clearly defined then it will be unclear why he/she/it is the antag/antagonistic force.
Take that really crappy logline I threw together earlier:
"In order to repay a gambling debt (GOAL) to a powerful bookie (ANTAG), a man (PROTAG) is forced to choose between his mother's life and his best friend's." (ANTAGONISTIC FORCE/ANTAG'S AGENDA)
No one said that the antag and his agenda have to be side-by-side in the logline, but they are really two parts of one whole, a whole that MUST be very clearly defined within the logline.
A better term might just be "antagonistic force" because, to me, that implies BOTH the antag AND his agenda (what actually makes him/her/it the antag).
Clear as mud now?
When I said that there are three parts to a logline, I was boiling it down to basics.
If you clearly define the antag (or antagonistic force) then you have to put forth his agenda. If his agenda (by agenda, I mean what makes the antag the antag) is not clearly defined then it will be unclear why he/she/it is the antag/antagonistic force.
Take that really crappy logline I threw together earlier:
"In order to repay a gambling debt (GOAL) to a powerful bookie (ANTAG), a man (PROTAG) is forced to choose between his mother's life and his best friend's." (ANTAGONISTIC FORCE/ANTAG'S AGENDA)
No one said that the antag and his agenda have to be side-by-side in the logline, but they are really two parts of one whole, a whole that MUST be very clearly defined within the logline.
A better term might just be "antagonistic force" because, to me, that implies BOTH the antag AND his agenda (what actually makes him/her/it the antag).
Clear as mud now?
loglines
loglines are always tough for me. This next rewrite should tighten the story and flush out a great logline. Everything's a work in progress.
Blackmailed by the ruthless Boston bookie he collects for, a Scottish fugitive must find then escort his con man friend to his certain execution or face a murder rap in his native land.
loglines are always tough for me. This next rewrite should tighten the story and flush out a great logline. Everything's a work in progress.
Blackmailed by the ruthless Boston bookie he collects for, a Scottish fugitive must find then escort his con man friend to his certain execution or face a murder rap in his native land.
Re: loglines
That's the best one so far, except you need to change the period between for and A into a comma.
Oh, and lowercase the a.
I've meddled enough.
Over to DoneDeal now.
Tootles.
That's the best one so far, except you need to change the period between for and A into a comma.
Oh, and lowercase the a.
I've meddled enough.
Over to DoneDeal now.
Tootles.
Re: loglines
all of this can be boiled down in one word (given by another poster) "blackmail" - i didn't make the assumption in your logline and that's why it didn't connect with me. it wasn't a snarky remark. it was the kind of "questions" that i suggested you don't want from your logline.
rewrite on!
all of this can be boiled down in one word (given by another poster) "blackmail" - i didn't make the assumption in your logline and that's why it didn't connect with me. it wasn't a snarky remark. it was the kind of "questions" that i suggested you don't want from your logline.
rewrite on!
Re: loglines
Blackmailed by the ruthless Boston bookie he collects for, a Scottish fugitive must find then escort his con man friend to his certain execution or face a murder rap in his native land.
Hell, why didn't someone who knows the story write this in the first place? Works for me, character, setting, conflict, genre all squeezed neatly into one sentence.
-Derek
Blackmailed by the ruthless Boston bookie he collects for, a Scottish fugitive must find then escort his con man friend to his certain execution or face a murder rap in his native land.
Hell, why didn't someone who knows the story write this in the first place? Works for me, character, setting, conflict, genre all squeezed neatly into one sentence.
-Derek
-----------------------
My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies.Re: loglines
lol, dpat. thanks everyone for their help, and for my brother who swooped down and pulled me from the fire. i was thinking of changeing escorting to BRING BACK.
i think it can be better, but it sounds pretty good.
noah, scripter, dpat, nikee, writing, joe, and the crew, salud.
vig
lol, dpat. thanks everyone for their help, and for my brother who swooped down and pulled me from the fire. i was thinking of changeing escorting to BRING BACK.
i think it can be better, but it sounds pretty good.
noah, scripter, dpat, nikee, writing, joe, and the crew, salud.
vig
- Status