Genre: True Story
Premise: To get the performance he demands for “The Shining”, despotic director Stanley Kubrick emotionally tortures relative newbie Shelley Duvall. When she refuses to play the victim any longer, Shelley uncovers dark secrets that may completely destroy the film — and her sanity.
About: This was one of our entries in the Halloween Logline Showdown. David Kessler has been a longtime Scriptshadow reader and powered his script, Minimata, forward over the years, getting Johnny Depp attached. The movie, about the devastating effects of mercury poisoning, has a 92% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Writer: Asher Farkas and David K. Kessler
Details: 113 pages
I’m still experiencing some PTSD from the key duplication fiasco which is why this review is appearing on November 1st instead of October 31st. I had convinced myself that Halloween was on Wednesday. Maybe it’s a good idea for me to not drive today. Clearly, I don’t know which way is up and which way is down.
Ironically, this is the best state of mind to be in while reading today’s script, seeing as our protagonist is being mind-f**ed by the greatest director in cinema history. Well, according to Stanley Kubrick, that is. The Kubster always had a little ego on him. Are you ready for this post-Halloween ride? Grab your set of backup keys and let’s find out.
It’s the 70s and Actress Shelley Duvall (awkwardly tall, crooked teeth) has been steadily moving up the actor food chain. Her rise is a true underdog story. She had no desire to be an actress and was randomly discovered by Robert Altman. As a result, she doesn’t train. She acts by instinct. That’s exactly why Stanley Kubrick wants her for his Stephen King adaptation of The Shining.
Shelley will have to leave boyfriend, singer Paul Simon, to go shoot in England for 4 months. Of course, that’s an optimistic estimation of the shoot’s length. With Kubrick, you have no idea how long a shoot is going to last.
When Shelley arrives on set, the intimidating Mr. Kubrick tells her that he likes to use a lot of takes and if she isn’t cool with that, she can be replaced. He also tells her that he chose her because he needed someone who could easily be broken. Confused by that comment, Shelley heads to her room.
It isn’t long before Jack Nicholson shows up. Jack looks like an old pro. Whereas everyone else is walking on eggshells around Kubrick, Nicholson rolls with it, seemingly unaffected by anything he says. Even Kubrick seems a little put off by this – that someone wouldn’t cower at his feet every time he walked in a room.
Immediately, strange things start happening to Shelley. After taking a shower, she finds a new script on her bed, despite her room having been locked. She says hi to Margaret, Kubrick’s secretary, who she met back in New York. But Margaret insists that she’s never met Shelley in her life. She starts getting phone calls in her room with no one on the other end. She tries to watch TV but, somehow, there are only horror movies playing. None of the other channels work.
On set, Kubrick puts her through the wringer. When she hasn’t memorized her lines (which he just sent changes to earlier in the day) he announces to the entire crew that they’re done for the day because Shelley couldn’t memorize her lines, embarrassing her. Kubrick brings the boy actor, Danny, in with his fake make-up bruises and throws them in Shelley’s face to get her to be more emotive during crucial scenes.
But the worst thing they do is they get Shelley a dog to cheer her up, only to then facilitate the dog “escaping” and then being brutally killed. Shelley witnesses the aftermath of the death and becomes inconsolable. She requests time off but Kubrick insists she keep working and thrusts her right back into a scene just hours later.
Then, of course, you’ve got the takes. We’re not talking 30 takes. We’re not talking 60. Or 90. We’re talking some time enduring over 100 takes! It is insanity. And Kubrick seems to revel in it. But will it break Shelley to the point where she’ll no longer be able to work? Or is there a light at the end of this tunnel? Great art must be suffered for, argues Kubrick. That saying will be put to the test.
Yesterday we talked about coming up with a movie idea and then deciding which direction to take it in. Do you take a movie about a group of people coming into a bunch of money in a goofy fun direction? Or a dark comedic direction?
Well, with today’s script, we actually get to see what it looks like when a concept is taken in two different directions. That’s because this idea was also explored by Colin Bannon in his Black List script, “Let’s Go Again.”
Bannon’s interpretation was different in a couple of ways. It threw us into the fire immediately. And it kept pounding us with the craziness relentlessly. It was the kind of execution that never gave you time to breathe. Kessler and Farkas’s version is more of a slow-build. It exists just as much in the spaces between the scenario as it does the scenario itself.
There are plenty of slow moments here. For example, when Shelley goes back to her room to prepare for the next day, Kessler and Farkas will stay there with her. Sit in her frustration.
I always feel like the scariest moments happen in the build up which is why I was appreciating this version of the idea so much. Especially when you’re talking about someone going crazy. The entertainment comes from her and us wondering if she’s really going crazy. When Shelley comes out of her shower to find the latest draft of the script on her bed and her hotel door still locked from the inside, we’re freaking out because it’s all happening in real time.
I just remember with Bannon’s script the insanity was being beaten over our head twenty times a scene. There was never a time in that script where we could breathe.
Another advantage of slow build-ups is they create an evolution in the story. We start slow, then get medium, and eventually ramp up to fast. So each section of the screenplay feels different. Whereas if you start off fast then stay fast the whole time, the entire movie feels the same. Most scripts need variation. People don’t like when you stay in one gear for an entire 2 hours, no matter what gear it is.
So then the answer is: “always take your time,” right? Not necessarily. Movies do favor urgency. Plots tend to work best when they move fast. So starting your movie in media res is a perfectly reasonable creative choice. Also, studios and audiences tend to like faster-moving stories. It’s less work for them.
Here’s something that might help you decide which is best for you. The better the writer you are, the more you can take your time. Good writers understand how to keep things entertaining when the story is moving slowly. Average writers fall apart when they try and do this. So, if you’re someone who doesn’t think of yourself as a master of suspense or a wordsmith, it may be best if you keep things moving quickly, as it’s easier to camouflage your writing deficiencies.
Maybe that’s why I enjoyed this script less when it hit its fast-paced second half. There’s something about descending into insanity that doesn’t jibe with the way I like my entertainment. I like my screenplays with structure. I like to feel that the writer has a plan and that we’re moving somewhere with purpose. Descending into insanity doesn’t work well with that approach. And I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying I personally don’t like it. At a certain point you’re just going nuts over and over and nothing’s really changing.
Another quibble I had was that Farkas and Kessler are cheating. They’re sneakily straddling both sides of the fence. They want the intellectual property advantages of referencing the real people and real event that make up this story, while also making things up when they wanted to. I’m guessing that massacring a dog to get a better performance out of Shelley Duvall didn’t happen.
It’s not a huge deal but one of the cool parts of watching a movie like this is you can say, “Wow, I can’t believe that really happened. That’s nuts!” You can’t do that here. You have to concede that that heart-stopping scene may have happened… or may have been totally made up. To me, that’s a bit of a cheat. I think they either should’ve stuck to the truth or did what Bannon did (invented fake characters then used the Kubrick-Duvall situation as inspiration).
Of course, the movie goes full-on super-psycho in its last 20 pages, letting us know this is complete fiction. And I probably would’ve enjoyed it more if I was right there with all the Shining references. I can tell David and his writing partner have seen the movie 50+ times. I’ve only seen it twice so and both viewings were a long time ago. So I didn’t get the references that I’m sure Shining super-fans will love. For this and the reasons I stated above, Scaring Shelley didn’t quite make it to “worth the read” territory for me. But I’ll tell you what. If you’re a Shining fan, you’ll probably love this.
Script link: Scaring Shelley
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Keep us in the loop. In a movie like this where it’s taking place over a series of months (that’s how long the shoot is), it’s a good idea to tell us WHERE WE ARE IN THE SHOOT. For example, every once in a while, include a title card that says, “Day 45,” which is what Kessler does here. Because, if you don’t do that, you have no idea where the reader thinks they are. You might be on day 90 of the shoot but the reader thinks you’re on day 10. So you guys are experiencing two different films. I just read a consult script where this exact issue occurred. It was a time loop script and I thought we’d looped 50 times. After talking to the writer, it turns out we’d looped 2000 times. So I said to him, “You have to tell us that (or at least strongly hint at it). You can’t just assume we’ll know.”
Genre: Comedy
Premise: Ten years after a group of girlfriends bet on which of them would be the last to get married, their adult lives and relationships are completely upended when they discover the $80 they drunkenly invested in Bitcoin
is now worth $5.2 million.
About: We’ve definitely got the best name of all the Black List writers with this script: Daisygreen Stenhouse. Stenhouse writes with Liv Auerbach. Both are new enough to professional screenwriting as this is their first notable script, which finished on last year’s Black List with 6 votes.
Writers: Liv Auerbach & Daisygreen Stenhouse
Details: 97 pages
Anna Kendrick for Skyler?
You’ll have to excuse me if I sound a little off-kilter today. About a year ago I lost the back up set of my keys and unfortunately, the remaining keys all say “do not duplicate” on them so I’ve spent the last year putting off getting a new back up set since I knew it would be such a hassle.
Then yesterday somebody told me that the whole “do not duplicate” thing is not legally binding. You can go to any hardware store and they’ll ignore it, copying the key for you! When the HEEEEEELLLL did this happen?? I feel like my whole life has been a lie. I apologize to the writers of this script as this world-changing view made it hard to concentrate on any other matter than not duplicateabitable keys.
22 year old Skyler, an aspiring sports agent, is a Duke student who makes a bet with her seven best friends – the main ones being Willa, a lesbian hopeless romantic, Frankie, a super slut, Nisha, a “posh narcissist,” Jules, the “no filter” girl, and Poppy the hippy – that whoever gets married last wins the pot of money.
They’re all going to put in 10 bucks. For some reason, there’s a bracket involved, like a tournament. But it doesn’t really make sense since nobody is actually playing against each other. It’s whoever marries last wins. So that was a little confusing. But anyway, at the last second, they decide to throw the pot of money into this new thing called “bitcoin.”
Cut to 10 or so years later and Skyler, who’s frustrated about still being an agent’s assistant, goes to check the bitcoin pot only to find out it’s now worth 5 million dollars!! She tells her friends and insists that they stick to the competition agreement. No sharing. The only two people left besides Skyler are Willa, who’s way too passive on the dating scene, and Frankie, who has only ever said she’ll marry Tony Hawk.
Thus begins Skyler’s secret plan to speed up Willa’s dating life and somehow convince Tony Hawk, who’s already married, to marry her friend. She figures if she can get this money, she can quit her bigoted agency and start her own company. Meanwhile, Frankie starts secretly hanging out with Skyler’s fiancé, Mark, encouraging him to pop the question to Skyler as soon as possible. Who will win out and force the other to marry first? That is the 5 million dollar question!
This script opens up an interesting discussion about what to do when you’re faced with two different paths for your chosen concept. Because one version of this concept is a fun silly Hollywood comedy. But that’s also the less interesting version of the concept.
The more interesting variation is the dark comedy version where people get nasty when they realize how much money is on the line. Maybe they even start killing each other. Unfortunately, that version is a lot less marketable. Look no further than the difference between Bridesmaids and Bachelorette. Both movies covered bridesmaids in a comedic fashion. But while one was a megahit that became a part of popular culture, the other is nearly forgotten.
However, what you’ll note is that the writer of the dark comedy version of the idea, Leslye Headland, went on to have a cool career that involved making shows like Russian Doll. Her darker comedic voice made her a “cool kid on the block.” And the thing about becoming a Hollywood cool kid is that you always get invited back to the cool kids’ table where you can pitch your latest cool project.
The people who write movies like The Man From Toronto or Me Time don’t get that courtesy. They’re actually some of Hollywood’s most discriminated-against writers (is “comedyist” a thing?) because broad comedy is thought to be the hackiest of all the genres. Then again, you don’t really care about that if you’re clearing 750,000 dollar checks.
In the end, you have to decide what is more organic to you. What are you better at? Also, what do you want to be? Do you want to make fluff yet buy a house in Hancock Park? Michael Bay once famously said, “I make movies so I can buy Ferraris.” If you want to be that kind of screenwriter, I have NO QUALMS with that. But you have to be willing to sacrifice some artistic integrity and be okay with a few sneers when you walk past the cool kids table.
Okay, about the script.
It’s working under a problematic structure – namely, it’s being dictated by a negative goal, and negative goals are hard to pull off. What’s the difference between a negative and positive goal? Well, a positive goal would be that all these girls are trying to get married as fast as possible because the first person who gets married wins the money.
That’s not this movie, though.
Each person is trying to AVOID getting married. That’s a negative goal. Now, why would that be a writing problem? Because it’s easy to not do something. You just don’t do it! It’s simply not as compelling as doing something. Also, negative goals are really bad at pushing the plot forward.
Today’s writers try to circumvent this with some sleight of hand. The negative goal is turned into a positive goal by having Skyler try and get her unmarried friends married. So now Skyler technically has a positive goal that makes her active. But it still doesn’t solve the issue that Skyler, herself, doesn’t need to get married. So then where’s the drama? Where’s the suspense? I suppose that by Skyler being active and getting her friends married, she receives the money faster. But I don’t know if I care about that. I mean am I really going to be in the theater, on the edge of my seat, saying, “Oh man! I really want Skyler to win this money as soon as possible!”
You know how when a writer uses a double negative in a sentence, we, the reader, have that hiccup while reading it? It takes you an extra second to understand the meaning of the sentence. That’s this script in a nutshell. You constantly have to remind yourself why people are doing what they’re doing because it’s all reversed. It’s not a clear easy-to-understand goal.
Whenever you have goal issues, you’ll have stakes and urgency issues. Cause your goal dictates your stakes and urgency. There is zero urgency here. The only urgency is Skyler’s impatience. It doesn’t matter if she gets the money today or four years from now, she’s still going to get it.
Even still, the objective we’re after takes so long to complete (a wedding that officially eliminates a contestant) that we don’t feel any tension from the situation. Skyler is trying to find a girlfriend for Willa. Let’s she say she does. Now we have to wait a year for them to get married and we can cross Willa off the list? That’s not how movies work. Movies work in tight timeframes. We’re talking weeks. We’re talking days. That’s the timeframe you want to be working with. Especially in comedy, where things need to move fast.
The writers do display some creativity. For example, the movie starts at a Duke basketball game and the announcers of the game break the 3rd-and-a-half wall and start commentating on our group of girls instead. That then becomes a running theme throughout the movie where sports announcers will narrate the latest developments with the girls.
I like it when writers think outside the box so I appreciate this. But, at the time same, when I see this sort of thing, I tend to think that the writers are trying too hard. Sort of like, “Look at me. I came up with this clever thing. I’m so clever.” Unless it feels soooooo organically ingrained in the writing, I can’t help but label stuff like this “try hard.”
One of these days, I’m going to write an article about where the line is when it comes to acceptable sloppiness in comedy. I think today’s concept is too overbearing and not believable enough. I mean, let’s be honest. Wouldn’t these girls just split the money? They’re all friends. None of them are greedy. So for them to go along with this ancient bet thing feels forced. And if you don’t believe in that premise, nothing in the movie will work, since all the dramatic tension is dependent on you caring about the bet.
But is that my fault? This is comedy. Shouldn’t I loosen my grip a little bit? Why am I being so anal about every part of the script being airtight? Would a family really drive their dead grandma around on the top of their car as they did in National Lampoon’s Vacation? Probably not. And yet that movie is a classic.
But, for me, there’s way more loose than tight here. I’m fine with a little sloppiness in comedies. It can actually help the comedy at times. But if I don’t even believe that what’s happening would happen, it’s hard for me to invest emotionally. And if I’m not invested emotionally, it’s hard for me to laugh. I’ll chuckle. I’ll have a few of those surface-level laughs. But for those deep uncontrollable laughs, the screws have to be way tighter than they are here.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: The one thing this script gets right is that the money represents something. Money is always a far more effective tool in a screenplay when it represents something important to a character. In this case, we establish Skyler’s desire to get promoted to an agent. That way, when the windfall of money enters the equation, she becomes obsessive about it, because it means she can finally quit her job and start her own agency, something she’s dreamed of since she was a kid.
So much good in this month’s newsletter. So much good! I’m pretty sure I discovered the elusive sci-fi project that Tarantino has been looking for. I’ve got a script review that’s going to help everyone here who becomes a 7-figure studio screenwriter in the future. I announce next month’s Logline Showdown theme. I compare this year’s two big Oscar hopefuls. Which one is better!? I talk about the secret to being able to write long screenplays (and all screenplays, for that matter). I’ve got a bonus question in this month’s trivia question to make a script consult even cheaper. And I ask if Michael Mann is having a Mannessance.
Unfortunately, being forced to work all weekend on my newsletter has wiped me out. So there will not be a Monday post. Therefore, I’ll talk about Five Nights at Freddy’s right now! The movie made 78 million dollars – something nobody expected. But the bigger question is: is there a conspiracy to take the movie down? The film got an A- Cinemascore, a near impossibility for horror films. Yet it’s only getting a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes. Something is fishy here. As far as all the money the film’s making, though, I think it’s pretty clear. This movie has a HUGE built-in video game audience. The orignal video game was always cinematic so this made sense. It does put the spotlight on video game adaptations because now we have an official trend. Last of Us. Super Mario. Five Nights at Freddies. They finally figured the video game adaptation thing out. It only took them 25 years. So expect a lot more of these in the future!
If you want to get on my newsletter list, e-mail me at Carsonreeves1@gmail.com.
Big upset in Logline Showdown history as Last to Live gets its shot at a Scriptshadow review!
Genre: Horror
Winning Logline: When six influencers perform a stunt that inadvertently kills the daughter of a cartel boss, he forces them to undertake a deadly series of their own YouTube challenges. SAW meets MR BEAST
About: Last to Live pulled off the biggest upset in Amateur Showdown HISTORY. It wasn’t even chosen by me to compete in the original 7 winning entries. But when Alex placed his logline in the comments, it immediately started getting attention, with commenters saying they’d vote for it over the original entries. So I added it to the mix and, what do you know, it won! Congratulations, Alex.
Writer: Alex Munro Webb
Details: 88 pages
I’d seen this logline before and I told Alex – “This is a movie.” The reason I didn’t originally include it in the showdown is that the “mob boss” element felt a tad disconnected from the rest of the logline. I just wasn’t sure if people were going to like that mob part. It turns out I was DEAD WRONG. Which goes to show, there’s still an element of subjectivity to all of this.
This is why you want to get your idea in front of as many people as possible. Cause even if your idea is only getting a positive rating from every 2 out of 10 people, that’s still 2 people for every 10 that want to read your script. I deal with a lot of down in the dumps writers who complain that their logline isn’t getting any traction. I’ll ask them, “How many people did you send it to?” And they’ll reply, “Four.” Four?? FOUR!!?? That’s it????? I have to remind them that this is an overwhelmingly “no” town. Even the top dogs get told “no” more than they’re told “yes.”
Case in point, Guillermo Del Toro. One of the most beloved filmmakers of the last 20 years. Guy’s a superstar. What did Lucasfilm tell him about his proposed Jabba the Hutt movie? “No thanks. Kick rocks, sucka.” Or David Fincher with his sequel to World War Z. Paramount said “Uh-uh,” to David Fincher! And Brad Pitt! For a sequel to one of their most successful properties!
Don’t get caught up in all these “Nos.” You need the “Nos” to get to the “Yes.”
With that in mind, it’s time to review the Halloween Logline Showdown winner!
Funzee is a 24 year old mega Youtube personality. He’s like Mr. Beast but mean instead of nice. But the guy does have an eye for what grabs eyeballs. We meet him as he’s setting up his newest video, the “Buried Alive” challenge. His crew will each be buried alive in a coffin and the last one to demand release wins.
We meet Funzee’s crew through Funzee reminding the viewers who everyone is via infamous embarrassing videos from their past. 24 year-old Tivity, a gorgeous young girl who has lost a lot of weight, is the star of the operation. She always seems to get the most attention. And she’s the least excited about this challenge. She keeps begging their producer, Lenny, not to do it.
You then have meek Mouse, 22, who’s secretly in love with Blush, a girl who wears excessive amounts of make-up to hide her Melasma skin pigmentation disorder. You’ve got Suede, an airhead “Chad” who can barely spell his own name. And you’ve got 24 year old Cinnamon, Funzee’s ultra-competitive girlfriend, who’s secretly sleeping with Suede.
After we meet all the contestants, the challenge begins and due to a number of factors (mainly, piped-in oxygen and a lighter), the inside of Tivity’s coffin becomes a raging fire and she burns to death.
This essentially ends their channel. But several months later, another Youtube personality, Mike, tells them he’s got the ultimate collab video to bring them back. The desperate team heads out to meet Mike at a remote location, only to get gassed and wake up on an island with a deranged virtual DJ informing them that they will now take part in a number of challenges inspired by their own videos and that one person will die in each one. Last one standing gets to live.
These challenges range from being covered in honey while kept in close proximity to a large nest of Executioner wasps, being held above a pool of super-acid during a lie-detector test, and being placed in an obstacle course with killer dogs. It becomes clear that Funzee is willing to do anything to win. But will he underestimate his meekest team-member?
A big reason why I think this script won was because its concept is so current. I see so many dated horror concepts – movies that could’ve come out 30 years ago. And while that’s all well and good if the writer executes the hell out of their premise, there’s no doubt that a horror concept that feels fresh has a better chance at grabbing Hollywood’s attention.
Overall, I thought Alex did a pretty good job capturing this world. Funzee is a perfect amalgamation of Mr. Beast and early Logan Paul. He’s got that douche-canoe way about him that makes you want to slap him across the face. And his mannerisms and speech patterns definitely mirror the characters he’s inspired by.
I also liked how Alex mixed up the challenges so that some were just about the physical, while others, such as the lie-detector test, taught you something about the characters in the process. For example, we learn why, in Suede’s own logic, why he chose to deceive his friend, Funzee, and be with Cinnamon. It was a fun way to get into the characters’ heads and really understand them.
Now, as you know, I put a lot of stock into how a script opens. Because a script that opens well is more likely to be good than a script that doesn’t open well.
I keep going over this opening sequence and I’ve concluded that it hurts the script more than it helps it. I understand what Alex is doing. He’s setting up each of his characters. And he’s doing so in a clever organic way. When Funzee introduces one of his team, he does so with an embarrassing clip from their past. These clips not only tell us who the characters are, but they set up their flaw. For example, that Blush is self-conscious about her melanoma skin.
But it does two things that I don’t like. One, it’s all backstory. It’s exposition. I’m just not a huge believer in overriding your opening act with exposition. I would rather be experiencing entertaining scenes where something interesting is happening. The other problem is that it’s 12 pages long. I asked Alexa what the percentage of 12 out of 90 was, and she told me, “13.3%.” 13.3% of your movie is an opening exposition scene.
Sometimes the things that technically make sense for your screenplay aren’t the things that are best for your screenplay. Because, in the end, it’s about pacing. It’s about keeping things moving fast enough with entertaining enough scenes that the reader will want to keep reading. Also, there’s plenty of opportunity later on, with our master of ceremony’s ability to access old video clips, to go into each character’s backstory then.
Luckily, Alex rebounds with the first set piece (“Buried Alive”). The death of Tivity is truly shocking (she gets trapped in a coffin on fire and burns alive) yet Alex manages to tell it in a way that keeps it entertaining, which is important for a movie like this. It can’t be so realistic and awful that we want to stop watching. I just wish it could’ve come on page 7 as opposed to page 20.
Alex understands that this is not a leader group that’s easy to like so he makes a clear decision to build likability into the underdog characters of Mouse and Blush. The two are both in love with each other but don’t have the confidence to admit it. While I liked this creative choice in theory, it doesn’t quite work in execution because they’re so on-the-nose. Mouse, in particular, has zero shades of gray. He’s meek. He’s scared. He’s in love with Blush. And that defines everything about him. So when he sticks up for her in a crucial moment late in the script, I cringed more than cheered. It’s the part of the script that needs the most work.
I waffled back and forth on what rating to give Last to Live. Cause I do think it has these weaknesses that hold it back. But, in the end, I truly believe this is a movie. It even does what few horror scripts are able to accomplish – stick the landing. A smart young horror producer would snatch this up ASAP. It’s the kind of script that wouldn’t be difficult to whip into “production” shape as it’s mostly about bringing a teensy bit more realism to the characters and getting the absolute most out of these set pieces. This could be the next Becky.
Script link: Last to Live
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: I don’t like when you can easily deduce which character is going to die next based on how much effort the writer has put into them. We know when writers pay certain characters more attention. So we know those characters are going to last longer. It was so easy to figure out who was going to die next here. As hard as it is to do for the writer, it’s a good idea in these movies to kill off at least one character early who we, in no way, expected to die.
What I want my trick-or-treat bag to look like…
You knew it was coming.
It’s time, once again, to piece through some of the loglines that didn’t make the cut for Halloween Logline Showdown and discuss why they didn’t make it. When it comes to loglines, there are some common mistakes that are made. But the most common is that the writer doesn’t know how to structure the logline. So it feels more like a wandering thought than a movie with direction. As always, you can get help. I do logline consults for $25. E-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com.
In fact, the logline that won the voting last week, Last to Live, was one I helped the writer with. Well that’s not fair, Carson! You’re just rewarding people for buying your service! Actually, no. I did not include Last to Live in the showdown. It was only after Alex posted it in the comments and started getting a lot of positive reaction that I retroactively placed it in the competition. The point is, you want to put your best foot forward. Let’s find out why these other loglines didn’t make the list so that you can improve your own loglines moving forward.
Title: The Hot Kills
Genre: Slasher
Logline: In the sweaty, sultry summer of 1982 in New York City, a tight-knit gang of punk rockers on their way to an underground show are stalked by an obsessed killer.
Analysis: There’s something to this idea. But it struck me as one of those “almost there” concepts. I even wrote the writer and told him there was something missing. You always need at least one element in your logline to stand out. Something original. Cause that’s the thing that separates your script from all the other scripts. What’s the stand-out element here? 1982 New York City is more original than modern day. But is it enough to get me to read the script? The punk rockers? Yeah, that’s sort of unique. But again, there are shades of gray to this stuff. It’s never as simple as “good element/bad element.” Sometimes an element is decent but if it’s not paired up with a bigger element, it may not be enough to strike the potential reader’s interest. Then you have the ending. “Obsessed killer” is such a boring way to describe the antagonist. But the real real REAL problem here is the dynamic. You have four punk rockers, who, from my knowledge of punk, are usually pretty tough guys. And ONE KILLER??? Why would these guys be scared??? To make a horror movie work, your hero has to seem outgunned, not have the clear advantage.
Title: Tomb
Genre:Horror
Logline: When desperate thieves who yearn for a fresh start discover a fountain of youth in a house where a gruesome crime occurred, they must escape before terrifying wrathful ghosts trap them forever.
Analysis: This is one of those loglines where, immediately after I read it, I had to go back and read it again to fully understand it. That’s a bad sign. I don’t think the logline is bad. I just think there’s a bit too much going on. You have thieves who, presumably, are robbing a house. That’s one element. They discover a fountain of youth. That’s another element. A gruesome crime. Third element. Wrathful ghosts. Fourth element. And maybe even a fifth element since the ghosts want to trap them there forever. That’s a lot going on and I just think it could’ve been simplified. Also, something about this fountain of youth isn’t gelling with wrathful ghosts for me. I’m sure it makes sense within the context of the script. But in logline form, they don’t naturally work well off each other. One idea to make this concept better would be to organically link the protagonists to the concept. For example, if these were desperate 70-year-old thieves, now the fountain of youth feels more relevant. As constructed, the idea doesn’t feel cohesive enough.
Title: BASKEL VILLAGE
Genre: Horror
Logline: A young Marine and his badly burnt little Brother have been sent to Baskel Village, Maine for treatment. Tunnels under this abandoned ski town have a miraculous way of healing ghastly wounds if one can walk through them three times. A secret government facility has been set up to help soldiers accomplish this feat except… No one has ever made it through. A CURE FOR WELLNESS meets BARBARIAN with a dash of INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE.
Analysis: I wanted to include this one despite it being such a beginner logline because a lot of writers are making similar mistakes. At most, your logline should be two sentences. It should never be three. And 97% of the time, it should be one sentence. That mistake alone dooms you. But also, you’ve got too much going on here. Figure out what the real hook is and build your logline around that. The “hook” seems to be these healing tunnels. So write one sentence centered around healing tunnels. “Two badly injured marines try and make it through the infamous Baskel Tunnel, which is said to have incredible healing powers, if you can make it to the end…” Even cleaned up though, I don’t see enough of a marketable concept here. It feels too obscure. Oh, and never reference a movie that did poorly at the box office (Cure For Wellness) when pitching your material!
Title: No Body Recovered
Genre: Thriller/Mystery
Logline: Following a police raid on his homeless encampment in rural Oregon, a wounded man, desperate to find refuge and start his life anew, agrees to stay with a local fisherman — unaware that his new host harbors ulterior, sinister motives…
Analysis: The first part of this logline sort of caught my interest. Again, I want to emphasize that the acceptance or rejection of a logline occurs on a scale. It’s not always “DEFINITELY YES” or “DEFINITELY NO.” Oftentimes, I struggle with how much I like an idea. In the end, I simply ask, “Do I want to open the script?” If the answer is yes, I know that there’s more good than bad. So this starts out good. Homelessness is very topical on the West Coast right now. But then we take a hard left turn into this fisherman, who comes out of nowhere. That was jarring to me. How are we all of a sudden in a fishing movie? Remember, you started out in “rural” Oregon. No lakes or oceans have been mentioned (I’m imagining trees). But the nail in the coffin was “ulterior sinister motives.” These are platitudes and they mean nothing to script readers. You need to be detailed. You need to tell us what the motives are if you want us to request the script.
Title: Give It Your All
Genre: Horror
Logline: When a German fitness guru returns from the dead and curses his laziest ex-clients to walk forever without rest, two of his fangirls must overcome their cult-like brainwashing to save their hexed pregnant friend before the baby arrives.
Analysis: The first mistake here is not including “Comedy-Horror” as the genre. I mean, I’m hoping to death it’s a comedy. Cause if you’re starting your logline out with, “When a German fitness guru returns from the dead and curses his laziest ex-clients to walk forever without rest…” and it’s not a comedy? You are living in a different reality than the rest of us. But even if the comedy label was clearly assigned, this script does a 180 in its second half that feels completely detached from what had been set up. People, the elements in your logline have to organically connect. If we’re in rural tree-laden Oregon, why are we all of a sudden hanging out with fishermen? If we’re dealing with a demon German fitness guru who’s forcing his clients to run, why are we all of a sudden dealing with a pregnancy? Sometimes I don’t think writers are able to see their loglines objectively. Cause if they did, they’d clearly see that these two halves are not connected. They sound like two different movies.
Title: Not Alone
Genre: Horror (Found Footage)
Logline: A contestant on a popular survival competition show goes missing and when her footage is recovered, it’s revealed that a strange breed may have turned her into prey.
Analysis: I’m trying to come up with an acronym for loglines like this. I’m favoring, “2VNC,” which stands for Too Vague Needs Context. A “strange breed” is so vague I’m not even sure what to do with it. A strange breed of what? Aren’t there hundreds of thousands of animal breeds on this planet? And then you have this rather mundane climax. “Turned her into prey.” It feels way too basic. Again, you need that standout element that’s going to sell your concept. Maybe the ‘breed’ part of this logline is the standout element, if it’s some cool unique monster. But that needs to be included in the logline if you want people to request the script. You can’t hide it.
Title: Doomsday (Pilot)
Genre: Conspiracy Thriller
Pilot Logline: Five years after the United States and Russia engaged in a nuclear war, a freelance journalist seeks the aid of a former White House Communications Director in proving a vast conspiracy behind the decision to launch the warheads.
Analysis: This is a good example of the importance of seeing challenges down the road before you start writing a script and deciding whether those challenges are worth it. Cause when you read this logline, it doesn’t make sense. “Five years after the United States and Russia engaged in a nuclear war, a freelance journalist…”. No no no no no. There is no freelance journalist after the United States and Russia engaged in a nuclear war. There is NOBODY after the United States and Russia engaged in a nuclear war. And definitely not five short years later. But let’s just say that the writer has a good reason for why society still exists after a superpower nuclear war. Maybe only 3 or 4 nukes were launched, for example, before they were able to stop a full-out nuke launch. Well, unless you can easily explain that in your logline, you’re never going to get any requests. Cause everyone’s going to react the same way I did. “How is there still a functioning society after the U.S. and Russia engage in a nuclear war?” If you don’t have a plan for how you’re going to answer the tough questions your specific idea creates, it may not be worth it to write the script in the first place.
Title: Dark Frost
Genre: Horror
Logline: A crowd phobic woman becomes the lone winterkeeper at Glacier National Park in order to escape society, but must fight her way back to the world when a pack of nocturnal creatures emerges from the mountains, determined to kill every living thing in their path.
Analysis: This logline starts out clunky right away. “Crowd phobic.” It’s an unappetizing way to describe your protagonist. The idea itself isn’t bad. But when it comes to concepts like these, I’m looking for clever connections between the elements. I don’t like when the elements feel isolated from one another. We have this winter-centric National Park backdrop for a horror film. So my mind is in “cold” mode. Then we have “nocturnal creatures” as our main antagonists. So we’ve gone from a story that seemed like it was going to focus on the unique element of cold, and just threw in some night creatures? Where’s the clever connection? In the Vin Diesel movie, Pitch Black, the nocturnal creatures were a more organic part of the story because this planet only experienced night once every hundred years. So when night unexpectedly came and the nocturnal creatures arrived, it felt like one cohesive narrative that had been carefully set up. This does not feel like that.
Title: Night at The Morgue
Genre: Horror / Comedy
Logline: A female med student on her first night on the job at the morgue, befriends a ghost. The vampires, werewolves, zombies and tentacled Cthulhu monster who attack her that first night insist that ghosts aren’t real.
Analysis: I get quite a bit of entries like this one, where I don’t even know what I read, to the point where I’m not sure how I would critique the logline. Besides the confusing premise, where’s the conflict? It sounds to me like this script follows a med student sitting at a table with her monster friends for 90 minutes and they tease her for seeing a ghost. I’m not sure how that’s a movie.
Title: THREE BAD SEEDS
Genre: Thriller
Logline: A teen orphan and her two friends invade the home of the man she believes got away with murdering her mother ten years ago and try to coerce a confession out of him.
Analysis: I wanted to finish off by critiquing one of Brett’s entries. He’s always such a cool positive guy that I wanted him to know why this didn’t make it. Simply put, there’s no special attractor here. There’s a personal element, as the protagonists are confronting the person who murdered one of their moms. But it’s just not an original enough setup to get me to request the script. I know Brett also submitted his fumigator entry. The reason I haven’t picked that one for any of the showdowns is because when I think “fumigation,” I think comedy. And the script is always pitched as straight horror (or thriller). Brett, get the 5 logline evals for $75 deal and I’ll tell you which script you should write next. For that matter, if any of you are tired of sending loglines out that never get script requests, it may be that you’re picking weak concepts. Figure out a great concept BEFORE you write the script and then you can write the script knowing that, when you finish, people are going to read it. 5 loglines for $75 deal is live for the weekend. E-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com.
Look, picking a good concept is hard. That’s not a mystery. Even when we learn the difference between good and bad ideas, we still fall in love with unmarketable movie ideas because we have some personal connection to them, making it hard to be objective. Just make sure you’re all getting feedback, preferably BEFORE you write the script, not after.
Join me tomorrow for the winning logline script review: When six influencers perform a stunt that inadvertently kills the daughter of a cartel boss, he forces them to undertake a deadly series of their own YouTube challenges. SAW meets MR BEAST
