******REMINDER – NOVEMBER LOGLINE SHOWDOWN COMING UP!******

We’re moving our normal Thursday deadline back a week due to Thanksgiving. So if you have a great logline and you want to compete in the Logline Showdown, send that entry in! You’re got until a week from Thursday.

What: November Logline Showdown
Send me: the logline for any script you have (features will take precedence over pilots but if you’ve got the best tv show idea ever, send it in)
I need: The title, genre, and logline
Also: Your script must be written because I’ll be reviewing the winning entry the following week
When: Deadline is Thursday, November 30th, 10:00pm Pacific Time
Send entries to: carsonreeves3@gmail.com

Okay, let’s get down to business.

I like superhero films.

The Marvels looking at their second weekend drop.

I do.

With one caveat.

They actually have to be good.

And I don’t think anyone in the industry has cared about making good superhero movies for a while. I think that they believe they’re trying their hardest. Nobody starts out trying to make a bad movie.

But over-saturation combined with the prioritization of message-over-concept has shot a poison arrow into Marvel’s magical money-generating organism and the damage is so severe that they can no longer continue with this strategy. Unless their goal is to hemorrhage every single money-generating artery in their body.

It’s long been known that opening weekends are not representative of how good a movie is. Second weekends are. Opening weekends are about concept and marketing. If you have a well-known superhero in a fun-sounding movie and a 100 million dollar marketing campaign, you are guaranteed a huge weekend, regardless of how good your movie is.

But second weekends are all about word-of-mouth. If people are coming back from the theater and bashing your movie or, worse, not talking about it at all, no one’s going to show up the second weekend. The Marvels had the biggest second weekend drop in Marvel history, with 80%. This, just several months after the previous Marvel film, Ant-Man 3, had the biggest second weekend drop (70%).

These are not good numbers. And I’m hoping that this is a wake-up call for everyone. I don’t think we should stop making superhero films. If that happens, I’m afraid the theatrical business might crumble entirely. But we should stop making second-tier superhero films. For example, the next Marvel entry – and the only one of 2024 – is Deadpool 3. That movie’s going to be awesome! Because it’s got a premier superhero at the helm.

It’s no secret why Batman and Iron Man started this movie superhero obsession. Their value had been established via millions of sold comics. So why should we be surprised when these smaller unestablished comic book heroes (Blue Beetle) don’t pull in the same amount of dough?

That’s what was so strange about The Marvels. The first film grossed a billion dollars. So you would think people would’ve shown up for the sequel. Why didn’t they? For one, the first film had a way better premise. This was back when Marvel was wisely exploiting sub-genres to provide templates for their screenplays. Captain Marvel was a buddy-cop movie. And using a younger Nick Fury as the other half of the team-up was a fun idea.

The Marvel’s biggest problem was that the concept was ill-conceived. Why are you downgrading your billion dollar superhero star for her sequel? That was a really odd choice. When people saw this trailer, they no longer saw “Captain Marvel.” They saw Captain Marvel playing second fiddle to the lowest rated Marvel TV character as well as the single most forgettable superhero in history. Who came up with that idea? If anything, Captain Marvel should’ve graduated to riding solo in her sequel. A billion dollars certainly earns you that, don’t you think?

Maybe they were concerned about Brie Larson’s likability. The Brie-ster is an odd duck. I think she has a good heart but she comes off socially uncalibrated so she’s got a bigger share of haters than your average celebrity. The girl who plays Ms. Marvel is certainly more likable than Brie. So I can see why they were able to talk themselves into putting her into a Captain Marvel sequel. But nobody knows who that character is!

And let me just say something screenwriting related, as it appears that everyone in the superhero business has forgotten about this. Rules are important. With superheroes, it is imperative that we know the rules of their powers. The more vague someone’s power is, the less we care about them. There are a couple of minor exceptions to this. But it is otherwise a hard and fast rule.

Spiderman, Batman, Superman. The most popular superheroes ever. What’s the concurrent numerical element? We know the rules behind their powers. And they’re simple. There’s nothing vague or unclear. Contrast that with Captain Marvel. Do you know what Captain Marvel’s powers are? I don’t. I certainly don’t know her biggest weakness. Which means she’s unstoppable? Is that interesting? And I know even less about the other Marvel girls’ powers. So you’re asking a bunch of people to show up to a superhero movie where we don’t understand any of the characters’ superpowers??!!

The new Hunger Games movie didn’t open much better than The Marvels (55 mil) but it cost half as much. So you have to consider The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes a mild success. But the film could’ve opened much bigger had it understood one of the core principles of screenwriting: A clear concept.

Are you seeing a theme here? Clear rules on the superpowers. Clear concepts. Clear clear clear clear clear clear clear. Too many screenwriters throw clarity out the window. They think they can jam in as many ideas and plots and characters as they want and it will all work out. That’s not how this works. Especially if you’re writing for the masses – you need to be simple and clear.

I bet I could ask 100 people, after they watched The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes trailer, what the plot was and 95 of them would have no idea. That’s a problem. I know it’s a nuanced conversation in that you’re working with IP and, therefore, are betting that people are going to show up due to their familiarity with that IP. But the super successful movies are not ones that only cater to their fan base. They’re the ones that break out and pull in the average moviegoer. And for those additional seat-butts, you need a clear story.

Look at how simple and clear the number 1 movie of the year was: Doll living in her doll world goes into the real world. That’s it. Fish-out-of-water. We understand it immediately.

As for the rest of the top 10, “Thanksgiving” did okay with 10 million. Mixing up horror and Thanksgiving is one of the stranger genre choices I’ve seen in a while. But hey! Some people went to see it, so cool. Oscar-hopeful The Holdovers is squeaking by. The highly-rated film is struggling to pull people in as it is only making $1800 per theater (for comparison’s sake, The Marvels’ per theater average was $2500). You can read my review of the script here.

But the film that’s really struggling is Taika Waititi’s, “Next Goal Wins” ($1100 per theater average). Here’s the thing with Taika. At heart, he’s a goofy guy. But he’s one of the few goofy writer-directors who’s earned a level of critical acclaim, especially with JoJo Rabbit. So we hold him to a higher standard. Therefore, when he makes his version of The Mighty Ducks, it all seems a bit juvenile. I think people are confused. They were hoping for something more from him.

But I just watched an interview with Taika and he doesn’t want all this serious stuff. He would prefer to goof around. If you’re Taika, I say go back to your roots and make another movie with Jermaine Clement. I can practically guarantee that it will be great. If you haven’t seen Eagle vs. Shark, do yourself a favor, cancel everything you’re doing today, and rent this movie. It’s awesome.

I was going to head out and see Saltburn this weekend, Emerald Fennel’s follow-up to Promising Young Woman, one of the best scripts I’ve read in the last five years. But the reviews scared me off. It seems to be hovering near 70% on Rotten Tomatoes. These indie movies cannot have sub 80% RT scores. They have to be at least close to the 90s. By the way, this is another Jacob Elordi movie. Elordi is the Australian hunk coming out of Euphoria. He was also cast in Priscilla. Common denominator with these two films? Female directors. The ladies love this guy. He’s primed to be the next big movie star. He and Paul Mescal are going to be fighting over those top leading man roles for the next couple of decades.

Have you seen any good movies lately, at the theater or on streaming? If so, share them in the comments! I’m always looking for something good. I rented Equalizer 3 this weekend and the Italian backdrop spices things up a little bit (what a fun opening scene). I would’ve preferred a faster-moving narrative but it was still solid.

Genre: Contained Thriller
Premise: A young diver heads deep into the ocean to try and retrieve his diver-father’s remains but in the process gets swallowed up by a whale and has the time it takes for his air to run out (roughly 2 hours) to escape.
About: The rights to this novel sold to Imagine Entertainment (Ron Howard) earlier this year. Novelist Daniel Kraus is best known for writing the novelization of “The Shape of Water,” which would go on to win Best Film, after helping del Toro come up with the original concept for his movie. Kraus has a keen eye for picking ideas that both have a level of depth to them but also contain the marketable elements that Hollywood likes. Maybe the coolest thing he did was, after George Romero’s death, completed his unfinished zombie book, “The Living Dead.”
Writer: Daniel Kraus
Details: about 50,000 words (roughly half of most novels)

When I first saw this sale, I thought, “This is the kind of project that would’ve sold as a spec script back in 2004.” It has that “strange attractor” (a man being swallowed by a whale with only 2 hours of air). It fits inside a cost-efficient marketable genre – contained thriller. And it’s not like anything else out there. It’s almost like the Gen-Z version of Moby Dick.

But, unfortunately, these days, if you want to sell something like this, you gotta write it as a book or a short story (ironically, “Whalefall” is both).

The book poses a unique adaptation challenge in that, despite this being a wacky idea, the setting is decidedly tame – we’re inside a stomach the whole movie. I like to place myself in the producer’s stomach for purchases like this and try and figure out what their plan is. Do they stay true to the contained nature of the story and keep it in the whale’s stomach the entire time? Or do they take advantage of the illustrious and unique setting, occasionally taking us outside the whale?

Jay is 17 years old when he loses his father, Mitt. But don’t feel bad for Jay. Jay haaaaaaaaat-ed his father. His dad was a diver and a drunk. He was one of those crusty opinionated dudes who was friends with everyone but would also get into a fight with those friends at the drop of a hat. And he wasn’t a good father. The few times he did pay attention to Jay, it was usually to scold him for being girly or weak.

Mitt got cancer and, instead of fighting it to the bitter end, he took a trip out to where he felt most comfortable – the sea – and simply plunged off the back of the boat, sinking to his demise.

For reasons Jay isn’t even sure of, he decides that he’s going to dive into that same area and retrieve his father’s remains. Jay is not as good of a diver as his dad. But because his dad forced him into so many dives as a kid, he’s good enough. So away he goes, with about 2 hours of air, all by himself. Not advised, by the way.

Not long after he starts diving, Jay sees a fantastical sight. A sperm whale attacks a giant squid! The sperm whale only has one animal it is predator to and that is the giant squid. The squid tries to get away and, in the process, grabs onto Jay. The whale then eats the squid and, with it, Jay.

Jay soon finds himself in one of the whale’s three stomachs. Luckily, the squid gets sucked into another stomach. But it leaves a trail of bioluminescence, which lights up the stomach he’s in. Thank god cause I don’t know how they were going to light this movie otherwise (quick movie fact: The flashlights in Titanic were the sole historically inaccurate element but James Cameron used them because there was no other way he could think of to light the final rescue scene).

As the whale dives deeper into the ocean, Jay must figure out how he’s going to get out of here before his air runs out. Along the way, he develops a close bond with the whale, who is dying himself. Jay begins to see some similarities between the whale and his father, which will allow him, should he not survive this, to at least find closure with his father.

I gotta say: this was one weird book!

For starters, every chapter was 1 and a half pages. I’m not sure I’ve ever read a book with chapters that short. It made for a faster read (almost like a screenplay) but it led to an unfamiliar rhythm that I had trouble adjusting to.

One thing I liked, though, was it placed the amount of air (psi) at the top of every chapter. So it starts out as “3000” and then, with each successive chapter, it goes down. So we know exactly how much air he had left.

I bring that up because sometimes writers will assume that the reader knows things that they don’t know. I’ve read versions of stories like this where the writer didn’t give any indication at all of how much air was left, clearly assuming we knew. So you wouldn’t know if the character was totally safe or at the precipice of dying. I always have to remind writers: “If you don’t tell us, we won’t know.” All the better if you tell us in a creative way, which Kraus does.

Kraus also knows he’s battling his own whale here in that the location is limited. So almost every other chapter is a flashback to some moment in Jay and Mitt’s life. There isn’t any real story to these flashbacks. They’re just meant to fill us in – hopefully create a better understanding of their relationship so that we care more about it being resolved.

The author additionally understands that, even in book form, where it’s easier to ignore dialogue, that he needs some sort of interaction in the stomach. So he creates the voice of the whale, who starts talking to Jay. The whale is the most interesting character in the book. There was something very sad about the fact that it was dying and knew it.

That connection Kraus builds between us and the whale helps lead to the book’s best scene, when a group of orcas attack the whale. They know it’s old. They know it’s dying. So they go after it. But we never see it. We only hear it from Jay’s point-of-view. And then, what happens, is this really cool rescue operation by a group of other whales.

Unfortunately, outside of that great scene (and the initial whale-squid attack scene), there isn’t a whole lot here. I’m not even sure if the setup makes sense. First, you establish that this kid hated his dad. So why does he want to find his remains? And second, what are the chances of diving into the ocean and finding the remains of your father? 1 in 500 million?  That never made sense to me.

Kraus is clearly searching for this deeper emotional connection between Jay, Mitt’s death, and the whale, but, if I’m being honest, it’s hackneyed. At first, the whale starts talking to Jay. But then, the implication is that it’s not really the whale who’s talking. It’s Mitt. But then there are clearly times where it’s the whale again. It all just felt very convenient. It was Mitt when the author needed it to be. It was the whale when he needed it to be. Readers and audiences don’t respond well to writing conveniences. It may make your writing easier. But it almost always makes the story worse.

Kraus also tries to shove in an environmental theme. It was actually interesting learning about how much plastic whales inhale because of all the litter in the ocean. But we’re already focused on this whole other storyline so it didn’t feel organic at all and seemed to support the idea that Kraus was never really sure what he was writing about.

We all have this issue in the early drafts of our scripts. You’re not quite sure what your screenplay is about yet so you add a bunch of ideas and a bunch of themes. But that’s what rewrites are for, to weed out the stuff that is no longer relevant. I suspect that because this novel is so short as is that Kraus didn’t have the option to get rid of the environmental stuff because he couldn’t afford to.  It would’ve made a miniature novel even shorter.

Regardless of the fact that I didn’t love the execution here, I’m still intrigued to see what they do with the movie. It’s too unique of an idea for me not to be curious. Best case scenario, we could be looking at the next Life of Pi, which was a good movie.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: You have a couple of options when you do the death of a loved one in a story. Option 1 is that they really loved each other. Option 2 is that they had a contentious relationship. In my experience, option 2 is the better way to go, as was the case in this book. For whatever reason, if your two characters loved each other, it feels too much like a love-fest and therefore inauthentic, potentially even melodramatic. Whereas, if there was contentiousness between them, it feels more like real life. Also, there are more complex emotions involved in option 2, which tends to make the character who matters (our protagonist) more interesting. If our hero loved the person who died with all their heart, and that person loved them, then it’s just straight sad. There’s not a whole lot to do with “straight sad.”  I’ve seen option 1 work well for secondary characters, like Sean in Good Will Hunting. But not with primary characters.

It’s been many moons since I’ve last been enamored by a script. Or a movie, for that matter. It’s led me to question what the issue is. Is it everybody else?  Do people simply not know how to write anymore? Or is it me? Have my standards become too high?

I’ll tell you what I’m scared of. I’m scared of becoming that Scriptshadow commenter who hates every movie. If I can no longer enjoy the movies I watch or the screenplays I read, then there’s no incentive for me to continue doing this. I’m not interested in having a website that craps on everybody.  I want to spread LOVE!  Not be a hater-potater.

And yet Hollywood is doing everything in its power to lure me into a hate cocoon. I commend the Marvel marketing team for their Herculean effort to convince people that The Marvels is actually good. I’m assuming they sent Chris Hemsworth out to spend a day with every critic who gave this film a fresh score on Rotten Tomatotes.  But come on, Marvel has known for a year that they’re dealing the cinematic equivlanet of fentynal.  It’s insulting to sell us that this movie is actually watchable.

Then we get this new Ghostbusters trailer.  What is going on here??  It’s a movie about an ice villain???  Did they accidentally swap with one of Marvel’s scripts?  We’ll find out a year from now when Marvel releases Ghost Thor: Who Ya Gonna Call.

I haven’t even enjoyed the Star Wars offerings.  You know what’s sad (or awesome, depending on your point of view0?  One of the ways I wind down is watching Youtube videos of people watching the original Star Wars for the first time.  It’s so addictive seeing them experience this wondorous perfect movie for the first time ever.  And every time, without fail, they always get excited at the right moments.  They laugh in all the right places.  In a way, it’s like I’m watching Star Wars for the first time as well.

But these days, the serious Star Wars TV shows (Andor) don’t work for me.  The silly ones (Ahsoka) don’t work for me. That Madalorian episode with Lizzo and Jack Black very well may have heisted my soul and sold it on ebay for Yoda earings.

I haven’t even been able to enjoy the Oscar-hopefuls – Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon, Barbie – which are supposed to be the projects that actually put time and effort into their screenplays.

So I think about this question a lot. Are my standards for screenwriting so high, at this point, that they can no longer be met? I’m biased but I don’t think they are. Still, several things have happened in the industry that have really hurt screenwriting in the past decade.

One of the issues is we don’t have that central screenwriting teacher anymore. In the 80s and 90s, it was Syd Field. In the 2000s, it was Blake Snyder. But once the internet popped up, writers stopped reading complete books on how to write screenplays and, instead, piecemealed their screenwriting education together through online screenwriting articles. So they know certain things  (add conflict to your dialogue!) yet are totally clueless to others (how to build a compelling second act).

In addition to this, feature screenwriting moved away from singular protagonists trying to achieve a goal – the purest form of storytelling – to the “Marvel Ensemble” model where the writer is juggling 10 different protagonists and their subsequent storylines. Which isn’t normal! That’s not a typical story anyone would tell.

Then you have the rise of golden era television, with 1000 shows on TV, so that’s where all the writers went. And what does television promote? The never-ending story. There is no climax, which teaches screenwriters terrible habits. Cause if you don’t have to end your story, you never have to think about where your characters are going. And when those writers dip their toes back in the feature space, they bring that issue with them. Their narratives seem flighty and aimless because that’s the only kind of story they’ve had to write!

In other words, NOBODY KNOWS THE BASICS ANYMORE. They’re just making sh*t up as they go along. Yesterday’s script, which barely BARELY got a “worth the read,” is a good example. The theme of the script is messiness. The messier the better. That’s not good screenwriting. Good screenwriting requires focus and structure and planning.

So what I thought I’d do as we head into the weekend is remind writers of the basics. It’s not that hard. It really isn’t. But if you’ve never learned these things, then you’re probably writing a lot of weak-sauce material.

1 – Give us a likable character. Introduce your character in a way where we like him or her. Or, at the very least, sympathize with them. For example, if a woman’s husband of 20 years just blindsided her with divorce papers, we will sympathize with her. The reason this is so important is because nothing you do after your protagonist’s introduction will matter if we’re not rooting for them.

2 – Create a problem. A story cannot start until there’s a problem. This is the thing that jolts our protagonist into action. Think about it. If there’s nothing that forces your character to do anything, then they won’t do anything! You don’t have a movie if your main character isn’t doing anything. In one of my favorite movies from recent years, Parasite, the “problem” is very simple. The family is broke. They have no money. They need a solution.

3 – The problem introduces the goal. Once you introduce a problem into your hero’s life, you’ve created the all important GOAL. Cause now your hero has to SOLVE THE PROBLEM. And needing to solve a problem is a goal. To use Parasite as an example again, the goal is to take over the rich family’s home.

4 – The goal gives you your stakes. The reason the goal is so important is because it needs to power you through your second act. If the goal is minor or flimsy, it won’t be able to achieve this. This is where STAKES come in. We have to feel like everything is on the line for your hero. If you succeed, you get everything. If you fail, you lose everything. In other words, the bigger the problem, the more impressive the goal, which means higher stakes, which means you have more power to drive the second act. And just to remind you, NONE OF THIS MATTERS IF WE DON’T LIKE YOUR HERO. Which is why getting number 1 right is so important.

5 – Throw obstacles in front of the goal – A goal, in and of itself, is boring. Where the excitement happens is when that goal is challenged. So you want to think of your second act as the “Goal-Challenging Section.” You want to throw a bunch of things at the hero so it’s hard for them to achieve the goal. The harder it is, the more we’ll enjoy ourselves. Cause think about it: how exciting is it to watch someone try to achieve their goal with only minor pushback? To use Parasite as an example again, the midpoint has this crazy psycho dude secretly living in the basement. Talk about a challenge. How do you take over a house when you have this other guy already living there?

6 – A challenged goal makes your hero stronger – The bonus of challenging your hero in their pursuit of a goal is that it BUILDS CHARACTER every time they overcome one of these challenges. And each time that happens, assuming you got the number 1 rule right, we will like your character even more. Cause we like people who take on obstacles and overcome them. You know your second act is working when our love for your protagonist is growing.

7 – Endings aren’t as hard as you think – A good ending is less about some inventive never-before-seen plot twist and more about your hero facing their flaw head on and overcoming it. The endings that stick with us have some sort of emotional catharsis. Again, you got to get number one right or NOTHING YOU DO in the third act will matter. But, if we like your hero, and we’ve seen them struggle throughout the second act, and they overcome their flaw in the climax (Rocky overcomes his self-doubt to go the distance in the championship match), that goosebump-laced rush will shoot through the reader. Always try and think of your climax as an emotional catharsis and not as the final piece to a plot puzzle.

These tips don’t cover everything, obviously. You still have to surprise us, make interesting creative choices, write good dialogue, have a couple of stand-out characters besides your hero. You’d also like to execute your story with a unique voice or a fresh angle in order to stand out from the pack. But if you follow the above seven tips, it’s really hard NOT to write a good screenplay.

As for whether I’m still capable of being impressed anymore, I already have 10 movies that are going to make my Best Movies of 2023 list. I already have 10 scripts that are going to make my Best Scripts of 2023 list. That’s 20 stories right there. Should I really be asking for more than that in one year? I don’t think so. That’s plenty. I guess I was hoping for more stuff to blow me away this year. But maybe that’ll come in 2024.

I offer feature screenplay and pilot script consultations – the best notes in the business.  If you mention this article, I will give you a $150 discount. Your script doesn’t have to be ready yet to secure the discount.  You can send it in at a later date.  Just e-mail me at Carsonreeves1@gmail.com.  Can’t wait to read your script!

What a weekend!

If there’s anything I learned, it’s that not even the best logline consultant in Hollywood can compete with a brain-trust of 100+ screenwriters. You guys killed it. I personally liked Katie’s…

A repressed war widow awakens naked in the snow on a military black site and must outwit her ruthless father’s vengeful soldiers when she realizes the carnivorous feline they are hunting is her.

And DG Burton’s best…

A repressed young widow awakens naked in the snow on a military black site and discovers soldiers have been torn apart, she has no memories of last night, and she’s being hunted by the Marines’ most ruthless general – her father.

Now if you could just come up with a logline to erase daylights savings time, I would pay all the money in the world to see that movie succeed! You certainly did better than the movies at this weekend’s box office. This was supposed to be the big Dune 2 opening weekend but the film, like many others, got pushed back because of the actors strike.

It’s so hard to promote a big movie when your stars can’t get out there and make headlines for you. I enjoy the backup plan – sending directors and writers out there – because literally everything they say is more interesting than what actors say. But you can’t deny the fact that, without actors to remind us that their movies are opening, the movies don’t seem as big.

Speaking of someone who’s a writer, director, AND an actor, Sly Stallone has been in the news a lot, with his docu-series premiering on Netflix. What’s interesting about Sly is that he should be one of the richest people in Hollywood. And yet the rumor is, he’s out of money. That’s why he agreed to this docu-series. It’s why he has that Kardashian like show about his family on Paramount Plus. The guy is hustling.

Most of this stems from the fact that he doesn’t own a single sliver of the Rocky franchise. You can’t really fault him for that. He notoriously stood strong when he made that Rocky deal, insisting that he be the star. Which, if he didn’t do, there’s a good chance we wouldn’t know who Sylvester Stallone was today. But he mistakenly didn’t obtain any of the rights to the film, which means he hasn’t gotten paid a single dime outside of his acting fee from the billion dollar franchise.

Still, the dude has 75+ IMDB credits. How are you struggling to pay your bills?? Seems like there’s some serious money mismanagement there.

The reason I wanted to bring up Stallone is that he recently revealed that his first draft of Rocky had a different kind of Rocky. Rocky was a brute. Rocky was a tough guy. Rocky beat you up and didn’t feel bad about it. It wasn’t until a lady friend of his read the script and cried to him that she hated Rocky because of how mean he was, that Stallone decided to change the character into the more lovable iconic character we know today.

His very first change, which was actually suggested by the friend, was that instead of beating up the guy who couldn’t pay his loan, he let him go. The guy even offers Rocky his coat to help pay but Rocky lets him keep it. From there, Stallone just paid more attention to how Rocky acted. He wanted him to be sweeter instead of meaner. As a result, an iconic character was created.

I wanted to highlight this because there’s this erroneous belief that you win “screenwriting street cred” by creating an unlikable character. But in this case, it is literally the thing that would’ve sent this movie down a path where we never would’ve heard of it, versus what it became, which is a billion dollar franchise.

And when we talk about likability, it doesn’t have to be like in Adam Sandler movies where the ten-cent screenwriters he uses have his character save 20 lives before he’s even reached the inciting incident to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE you love him. With Rocky, he’s just an understated nice guy who cares about people. He’s not over the top about it. That’s just who he is.

Remember that going forward. You don’t need to have your character save the world for us to like him. He can just be nice! It’s not complicated.

Shifting focus from the movie world over to the TV world, I stumbled upon the latest trailer for a Marvel TV show. It’s a show called, “Echo.” Before I get into my thoughts on the trailer, I know one of the writers on Echo (who’s an AWESOME writer by the way – one of my favorite unknown writers out there). I am not blaming him or any other writer who gets hired to write a Marvel show. I would cash that same check in a heartbeat.

My problem is more with the state of TV in general. Cause when I saw this trailer, I didn’t feel anything. There’s a woman. She had a tough childhood. Now she’s some sort of fighter as an adult. There’s an intensity behind the presentation of her story and it looks totally fine. There’s nothing wrong with this show at all. But it doesn’t stand out in any way. It doesn’t MAKE ME WANT TO WATCH IT.

Echo is a symbol for where the TV industry is today. We’ve gotten to the point where it’s nearly impossible to stand out from the pack. If Marvel, which can afford to put 100 million dollars behind a show like this, can’t get anyone excited about watching it, where are we? We are in the most saturated TV market ever where every show feels the same in the sense that there’s nothing exceptional enough that you actually label it a must-watch.

This begs the question: How do you write a TV pilot in 2023 that stands out? Is it even possible?

As far as I can tell, there are several show-types that get interest. The most prominent are the IP shows that have passionate fan bases. I’m talking Wednesday on Netflix or The Last of Us on HBO. These are useless to aspiring screenwriters, though, because we don’t have access to those properties.

Then you have the high-concept stuff, like Squid Game, Yellow Jackets, or Stranger Things. These are super-expensive but, if you can come up with one, they’re great because they’re the only ideas that can compete with those IP properties. Unfortunately, their cost scares a lot of potential suitors away.

And, finally, you have the word-of-mouth shows, the shows that become hits because of how incredibly well-written they are. I’m talking about the White Lotuses, the Successions, and the Bears. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to strategize around writing one of the greatest shows ever. So it’s yet another arrow we can’t add to our quiver.

But there is one final category which, I believe, is the one that best gives an aspiring screenwriter a shot at writing a show that stands out. And I call it, “The Voice Show.” No, I’m not talking about spinning chairs and overly charming country singers and golden tickets. I’m talking about a show that demonstrates your unique voice. Some recent examples would be Fleabag, Euphoria, Atlanta, Severance, and Beef.

There’s something unmistakably unique when you read these pilots and it’s not as difficult to pull off as you may think. Having a distinctive voice boils down to identifying what it is about how you see the world that’s unique and leaning into that as aggressively as possible. If I’m a Korean-American man who suffers from anger issues, that’s a great starting point for leaning into my voice. Which is how “Beef” was conceived. That show is less about the story than it is about its creator. And how that creator, Lee Sung Jin, sees the world.

The second ingredient to writing one of these shows is to be weird. To be awkward. It’s fine to cover your everyday existence in these shows. You just can’t do it in an expected fashion. Every interaction Fleabag gets into in her show is awkward. There’s one point where she’s in a job interview and inadvertently propositions the interviewer, then is forced to backtrack. We’re all weirdos deep down. We have weird thoughts. We get in weird situations. LEAN INTO THAT WEIRD. That’s how you’re going to make your pages read different from everyone else’s.

The third ingredient to these shows is to take from your own life. You should be using your own life to power all of your writing, of course. But it’s especially important in this type of script because one of the easiest ways to stand out is to chronicle things that nobody else has seen before. And since your unique experiences contain a myriad of specific moments, you want to mine those moments as much as possible. In Fleabag, that heartbreaking Phoebe Waller-Bridge miscarriage dinner with her sister was, supposedly, based on real life with someone she knew.

The final ingredient to writing these shows is to be achingly truthful. When you’re writing big Hollywood movies, you’re often a slave to the plot. You have to have that big twist at the midpoint for example, so you dance around in your mind for a few days until you come up with that twist. You don’t do that here. You lean into the truth. If a character in the throes of drug addiction is confronted by her friends and family, you better have that drug-addicted character act truthfully. That approach led to one of the best episodes of Euphoria when Rue was confronted and she did what any addict would do in that moment. She RAN.

There has to be an element of rawness and realness on the page to truly stand out from the pack. And, unlike movies, which work better within the construct of sexy concepts, TV is more about character and, therefore, more conducive to this sort of writing. By the way, I’m not saying you can’t succeed by writing the next CSI or the next Stranger Things. All I’m saying is that if you want to write something that has the best chance at standing out from all the other scripts that these production houses and studios read? The Voice Script is the number one way to go.

Do you have one in you?

Today, we’re going to do something different. With loglines being such a hot topic on the site, I thought I’d take you through a recent logline consultation of mine so you can see the thought process I go through when I develop a logline.  This logline comes from a frequent contributor to the site, David Laurie, who came to me with his logline for, “She’s Got Claws.”

To give you some context, I have two logline consult options. The first is a basic option ($25) where I give you a single e-mail analysis of your logline, a 1-10 rating, as well as a logline rewrite.  These are great if you haven’t written the script yet and you just want to know if you’ve got a good movie/show idea.

David ordered the deluxe option ($50) which is mainly for writers who have already written their script  and need the best logline possible for querying purposes. The deluxe option gets you as many e-mails  as it takes until we get your logline right.

I’m including David’s consult because most of my clients get what they want after 4 or 5 e-mails. But David doesn’t mess around.  He gets into the nitty-gritty.  And, you know what?  I’m glad.  Because if we have to push it to the absolute limit to get a good logline, I’m willing to do it.

If you want a deluxe logline consultation, I’ll give you a $10 discount if you mention this post.  E-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com. Okay, settle in and buckle up.  Let’s get to the consult!

**********
Original e-mail from David Laurie

I am struggling with She’s Got Claws’ logline.

Although the script is pretty damn tight IMO.

It’s a monster movie. Basically a werewolf movie but my spin delves wayyyy back into legend. The Nephilim are an enhanced superhuman/ubermensch race mentioned in the Bible. Some translations have them as part animal.

So in my prologue, DNA extracted from a young girl in wartorn Afghanistan, is used for a serum that brings out the animal closest to your true self via a werewolfy transformation.

In the case of meek, buttoned-up, no-make-up-no-hair-products war widow HOLLY, who’s been put-upon all her life, this creature is a powerful, majestic and extremely savage LIONESS.

She wakes on a snowy roof in a rundown Alaskan town, naked and bloody, with no memory of what happened. Surrounded by soldiers hunting a wild animal that escaped and has killed several men overnight.

Holly must evade the soldiers, seek clothes, refuge and help. She soon realises the animal they are hunting is her. And the General in charge of the hunt is her father. And the rundown town is an abandoned army facility, now a blacksite. Rumours of locals going missing have been piling up.

Holly has never changed before. It is new. She knows the answers lie in the blacksite. Obvs. She would prefer to run away but the Alaskan Spring Thaw has blocked all the roads out of town. And she can’t get over the idea that her own family is involved.

So it’s an empowerment story of a woman facing up to her family, who despite being human, are the real monsters (maaan).

There’s a budding romance in there amid lashings of dark humour and super gory violence.

Tonally I am going for An American Werewolf in London eats Memento

It is pretty funny but it’s NOT a comedy. It reads as a tense, urgent, psychological thriller. As per usual for me. Lots of running around, bullets and biting heads off. The dark gallows humour matches the life-or-death situations.

What is less usual for me is the plot is pretty simple. Woman is hunted. Escapes. But turns tables and seeks out the hunter. Doesn’t like what she finds. Gets mad. Gets even. Pulls a lot of heads off. Learns to live with it.

I started a little debate yesterday on the topic of WHAT IS SCARY?
with a side of Is SHE’S GOT CLAWS a HORROR movie?

I was knocked by your #1 rule of Horror. Three scary scenes. I wondered: are the set pieces scary enough?

I have since pumped them up.

But does that make it A Horror Movie? It’s a tense, violent jump-scare-tastic monster movie with a dark emotional undercurrent, so, after a crisis of faith, I have decided yes, of course it’s fucking Horror.

But my logline is not cutting it

So. I am currently at

On a desolate Alaskan military base, a timid war widow transforms into a savage lioness. Waking up as her old self, she must uncover who did this to her and why (and if it can be reversed) before it happens again.

previously….

A timid young war widow, who awakens naked on a snowy roof at dawn with soldiers shooting at her, has to figure out who she is and what the hell happened to her last night. Fast.

All help gratefully received

David

**********
From: Carson Reeves

Title: She’s Got Claws
Genre: Horror/Thriller
Logline: A timid young war widow, who awakens naked on a snowy roof at dawn with soldiers shooting at her, has to figure out who she is and what the hell happened to her last night. Fast.

Analysis: Okay, you know with me, I’m always trying to simplify your ideas. You tend to go very in-depth, which is good in theory, but I think you would benefit from simplifying things down.  Of your two loglines, the second one is better, as it creates a more urgent dramatic situation.  But I would love to get the father connection in there. As soon as I read that, it made the scenario sound a lot more interesting. I don’t love the adjective “war widow.”  Does that mean her soldier husband died?  Or does it mean she’s also a soldier herself? It’s more interesting if she was a soldier herself.  Either way, I would like to start the logline off, and the protag description off, a lot cleaner.  Which leaves something like this…

New Logline: A were-lion, who awakens naked on a remote military black site, learns that she slaughtered five people the previous night and she’s being hunted by her bloodthirsty military commander father.

**********
From: David Laurie

Hey

thanks for this

War widow = husband died in Afghanistan. I’m not crazy about the term either.

Here’s how the story rolls out.

It’s a mystery and Holly peels back the layers to find the simple ugly truth.

So the logline KINDA has to hold a lot back, which is why I based it around the set up.

The REVEALS shift Holly’s understanding of what went down, of her father/family but mostly of HERSELF.

She’s not a soldier. She’s not much of anything. No kids. No job. Which is her realisation.

When  her father, the General, shows up with Marines, she assumes he’s to blame for her transformation

Reveal #1 her husband PETER was not dead at all – but he is now – as of last night

Reveal #2 her soldier sister, IVY, is not in the Middle East, She’s been working on weaponizing the Afghan changeling DNA with Peter. Living on the black site – not one mile from Holly – for 2 years

reveal #3 The General had sponsored the program but Peter and ivy have gone wayyy off the reservation so he showed up to shut them down

reveal #4 last night Ivy kidnapped Holly and tortured her to force Peter to kill the General. Peter took the changeling DNA, went on the rampage and HE killed all the men in the night

reveal #5 Holly injected herself with the Changeling DNA to go after Peter and stop him killing her father.

reveal #6 Holly killer her own husband and no-one else

At least, until she woke up and the soldiers came after her

So, on awakening, the truth was: she had only killed one person and for a good/justifiable reason

Title: She’s Got Claws
Genre: Horror/Thriller

cool

Logline: A timid young war widow, who awakens naked on a snowy roof at dawn with soldiers shooting at her, has to figure out who she is and what the hell happened to her last night. Fast.

Analysis: Okay, you know with me, I’m always trying to simplify your ideas.

yep

You tend to go very in-depth, which is good in theory, but I think you would benefit from simplifying things down. 

deffo for the logline
I feeeeeel like it’s a simple story.
But it’s a false narrative
It starts on a number of wrong assumptions and clarifies/builds to a final reveal

Of your two loglines, the second one is better, as it creates a more urgent dramatic situation.

yep

But I would love to get the father conneciton in there.

yep

As soon as I read that, it made the scenario sound a lot more interesting.

yep
that’s the thing
Holly is boring
Her military family is all horrible, one way or another – she is the, um, white sheep of the family.
and the story is her drilling down into her fuckedup family

I don’t love the adjective “war widow.” 

same

Does that mean her soldier husband died? 

yep

Or does it mean she’s also a soldier herself? It’s more interesting if she was a soldier herself. 

I disagree
i think it’s more fun pitting the dowdy, dull civilian up against cops, Marines and mercenaries

only she has a secret advantage, being a “werewolf”
which she is not thrilled about

Either way, I would like to start the logline off, and the protag description off, a lot cleaner.  Which leaves something like this…

New Logline: 

A were-lion, who awakens

DO YOU THINK HUMAN AGAIN IS IMPLIED?
I WRESTLED WITH THIS

naked on a remote

GONNA  SWITCH remote FOR ALASKAN

military black site, learns that she slaughtered five people the previous night

SHE THINKS THIS IS THE CASE
BUT IT WILL TURN OUT NOT TO BE
BUT THINKING IT MAKES IT A BIT EASIER WHEN SHE KILLS TEN MORE

and she’s being hunted by her bloodthirsty

HE’S MORE TERRIFYING EMOTIONLESS HARDASS THAN BLOODTHIRSTY

military commander father. 

SO maybe
A were-lion, who awakens naked on an Alaskan black site, learns that she’s being hunted by her brutal military commander father, in connection with a string of corpses discovered last night. 

BUT
for me that feels like Holly has the upper hand, being a werewolf. So that’s not good

This is why I wanted to start with the meek/timid/dowdy shizzle

A timid woman, who awakens naked on an Alaskan black site, learns that she’s being hunted by her brutal military commander father, after fifteen men were slaughtered last night.

so does that imply werelion?

I get the clean THIS IS A WEREWOLF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT opening
but the reality is in pitching this story to any exec, there’s no way it’s not preceded by THIS IS MY SPIN ON A WEREWOLF STORY

also the anatag gets 4 words
and the protag only 2

A timid widow, who awakens naked on an Alaskan black site, finds she’s being hunted by her brutal military commander father, after fifteen men were slaughtered last night. 

THOUGHTS?

**********
From: Carson Reeves

Well, it comes down to: Do you want to tell the reader what the movie is about?  Or do you KIND OF want to tell them what it’s about, but build the logline more around mystery?  My experience is that it’s better to tell them what the movie is about.

**********
From: David Laurie

hi

Well, it comes down to: Do you want to tell the reader what the movie is about?  Or do you KIND OF want to tell them what it’s about, but build the logline more around mystery? 

that, as you can imagine, is 100% my instinct

the story is a mystery
but I feel there is plenty of (literal) meat on the bones at the outset

My experience is that it’s better to tell them what the movie is about. 

I know, I know and I suspect you are right. It will open the logline up to more people getting it

what about?
A timid young widow awakens naked on an Alaskan black site to find she’s being hunted by her military commander father, who thinks she’s the creature who slaughtered fifteen men last night. 

From: David Laurie

for me that last one builds nicely
but the implied question is
is she that creature
and
the answer, right off, is yeah, she probably is
and with a little thought, you get to she’ll probably be OK if she’s some kind of monster

**********
From: Carson Reeves

Everything and the kitchen sink version:

The reserved widow of a recently deceased soldier awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site where she is being hunted by her relentless officer father, who believes she’s responsible for the slaughter of fifteen men last night. 

Edible version:

A startled woman awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site where she quickly learns she is being hunted by her high-ranking general father, who believes she’s responsible for the slaughter of fifteen soldiers last night. 

**********
From: David Laurie

The reserved widow of a recently deceased soldier awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site where she is being hunted by her relentless officer father, who believes she’s responsible for the slaughter of fifteen men last night. 

yep

Edible version:
as in high?   (ho ho)

A startled
!
woman awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site where she quickly learns she is being hunted by her high-ranking general father, who believes she’s responsible for the slaughter of fifteen soldiers last night. 

another problem is that the phrase ‘General father’ sounds weird so

A timid young widow awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site where she quickly learns she is being hunted by her high-ranking father, who believes she’s responsible for the slaughter of fifteen soldiers last night. 

I think it’s either

A timid young widow awakens naked on a remote Alaskan black site, to find she’s being hunted by her high-ranking father, after fifteen soldiers were slaughtered last night

OR

A timid young widow awakens naked on a remote Alaskan black site, to find she’s being hunted by her high-ranking father, who thinks she’s the creature who slaughtered fifteen soldiers last night. 

**********
Carson Reeves

I’m having issues with the word “timid” as it’s an adjective that sounds very small for a story with such high stakes (and high body count). ‘Timid’ is an adjective you would use in a comedy.  That’s why I’m trying to change it.

I’m a little worried that with “Alaskan black site,” people aren’t going to know what you mean.  That’s why I put “military” in there.

Thoughts?

**********
David Laurie

Deffo onboard with military
I put it back in too
And took out remote
Cos Alaska

Timid is accurate
And I hope IRONIC

A female sergeant wakes up and is accused of 15 murders…

Is not as cool as

The last person you’d ever suspect wakes up…

A timid young widow awakens naked on a remote Alaskan military black site, to find she’s being hunted by her high-ranking father, after fifteen soldiers were slaughtered last night

From: David Laurie

Also
You classed it as
Horror / Thriller
Which I think is accurate.

But I worry that, for a werewolf, it is a step too far away from Horror as a main genre.

I guess that is the bed I wrote for myself.

Btw, there’s no silver bullets etc
Instead it’s science based, DNA, CRISPR technology

**********
From: Carson Reeves

Okay, if you’re standing firm on “timid,” I will concede.  :)

We need a better way to describe the father.  “high ranking” doesn’t work.  Can you give me his exact military title and his job outside of this movie?  The wording of “After fifteen soldiers were slaughtered last night” feels a little too casual.

A timid young widow awakens naked on a remote Alaskan military black site to find that she’s being hunted by her high-ranking officer father after fifteen of his soldiers were slaughtered by a mysterious creature.

**********
From: David Laurie

Okay, if you’re standing firm on “timid,” I will concede.  :)

Yay

We need a better way to describe the father.  “high ranking” does’t work.  Can you give me his exact military title and his job outside of this movie? 

He’s a general
Based at the pentagon and charged with weapons development

The changeling DNA is being developed as a biotech weapon, supersoldiers type thing

Ivy, her sister was running the project but has gone nuts and is churning through “volunteers” and burning the bodies

The wording of “After fifteen soldiers were slaughtered last night” feels a little too casual. 

Ok

The number needs to feel “significant”

A timid young widow awakens naked on a remote Alaskan military black site to find that she’s being hunted by her high-ranking officer father after fifteen of his soldiers were slaughtered by a mysterious creature.

See
I like that
But I can hear the message board pedants saying that the last bit is not directly linked to the first
Even tho, to my ears, it is

**********
From: Carson Reeves

Maybe we need to move some things around to make it sound smoother…

After waking up naked and confused on a secluded Alaskan military site, a reticent young widow discovers she’s the prey of her high-ranking officer father, who’s pursuing her following the slaughter of fifteen soldiers by a mysterious creature.

***********
From: David Laurie

hmmmm

I thinnnnk that’s a bit unwieldy, maybe a clause too many

I trimmed the one below to

A timid young widow awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site to find she’s being hunted by her father, a DC General, after fifteen of his soldiers were slaughtered by a mysterious creature.

I think the a Pentagon General or a DC General  is less bumpy and more organic
plus it has:
ironic underdog protag
overmatching antag
violent monster mystery
hunted  which  implies a call to action

From: David Laurie

his flows a little better
A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find she’s being hunted by her father, a DC General, following the slaughter of fifteen soldiers by a mysterious creature.

**********
From: Carson Reeves

We’re getting close.  What I’m trying to do is link the first section with the “mysterious creature” so it doesn’t sound like it’s coming out of nowhere.  If she’s just naked, does that tell us enough?  That’s why I was going with, “naked and confused,” to imply that something has just happened to her and she’s scared and doesn’t know what it is. But I don’t like having two words there since it makes it longer.

The only other thing that bothers me is the dad’s occupation.  It’s the clunkiest part.  I wish we had the perfect descriptor there.

A timid young widow awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site to find she’s being hunted by her father, a decorated army general, after fifteen of his soldiers were slaughtered by a mysterious creature.

From: Carson Reeves

Okay, let’s give it a day. I find that it’s easier to find the path when you’ve had some time away from the logline.  But we’re definitely closer.

**********
From: David Laurie

OK agreed

I’ll let it sit

did you see the one i sent a minute ago
it flows better
A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find she’s being hunted by her father, a DC General, following the slaughter of fifteen soldiers by a mysterious creature.

**********
From: Carson Reeves

I think it’s a little better.

**********
From: David Laurie

re your points below

A timid young widow awakens naked and confused on a military black site in Alaska to find herself being hunted by her father, a DC General, after fifteen of his soldiers were slaughtered by a mysterious creature.

I like find herself for the same reason I like awakens

i think confused is implied.
who’s NOT confused by waking up naked in snow on a secret base?

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a DC General, after fifteen of his soldiers were slaughtered by a mysterious creature.

i like
awakens naked
after fifteen
and I especially like
fifteen of his soldiers
cos it seems like he cares more about his job than her
which he does

From: David Laurie

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a DC General, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a mysterious creature.

torn apart is more ANIMAL

From: David Laurie

military
DC General
soldiers

seems like overkill

I’d be inclined to use MEN instead of soldiers but that is a bit sexist
so if we keep soldiers, we can lose military

**********
From: Carson Reeves

I think I like “slaughtered” more than “torn apart.”  It sounds more visceral and violent.  But if you love “torn apart,” it’s fine.  I don’t like “DC General.”  Every time I read it, I wonder exactly what it means.  Like Washington DC? Then why is he in Alaska?  I’m sure it makes sense but you can’t take chances in these loglines.  Everything has to be as clean as a surgery room.

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a mysterious creature.

**********
From: David Laurie

I think I like “slaughtered” more than “torn apart.”  It sounds more visceral and violent.

Her killings are very visceral
She tears soldiers heads off more than once
I soldiers being slaughtered  could be achieved with an AR-15
Torn apart sounds more claws and teeth to me

But if you love “torn apart,” it’s fine.  I don’t like “DC General.”  Every time I read it, I wonder exactly what it means.  Like Washington DC? Then why is he in Alaska?  I’m sure it makes sense

I agree
I also am not keen on the commas around it, fucking up the flow

but you can’t take chances in these loglines.  Everything has to be as clean as a surgery room.

I hear you

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a mysterious creature.

I like this.
It’s accurate and it hits the tone.
it’s 35 words which is on the edge of acceptable; but I think it has maybe 3 too many polysyllabic words
which fu**s the flow a bit

the closer it is to a haiku the better, right?

I also don’t really like mysterious in loglines
like: this is the time to tell us the mystery

A timid young widow awakens naked on a black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after his men were torn apart by an unseen creature.

thoughts

From: David Laurie

Good morning/evening btw

On an Alaskan black site, a timid young widow awakens naked and finds she’s being hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after his men were torn apart by an unseen creature.

**********
From: Carson Reeves

I definitely don’t like the re-shaped version of the logline. Let’s stick with what we’ve got.  I think the below is very good.  Only quibble, like you, is “mysterious.”  I think it works but could probably be better.  “Unseen” is too weak a word for this scenario.

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a mysterious creature.

maybe…

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a nightmarish creature.

**********
From: David Laurie

I definitely don’t like the re-shaping version of the logline. Let’s stick with what we’ve got.

ok

think you missed one of my emails  just now.

this loses a bunch of syllables but stays true

I think ‘she’s being hunted’ is punchier/more active

I quite like unseen, and in the story, the general has not seen what his daughter becomes.
Anyone who sees her, dies
(until she makes friends with a cop, whom she spares yadda yadda romance budding)

A timid young widow awakens naked on a black site in Alaska to find she’s being hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after his men were torn apart by an unseen creature.

A timid young widow awakens naked on a black site in Alaska to find she’s being hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after his men were ripped apart by an unseen creature.

A timid young widow awakens naked on a black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after his men were torn apart by a ferocious creature.

**********
From: Carson Reeves

I would put “fifteen” back in there.  And I would put “soldiers” back in there.  Both give the situation more weight.  So…

A timid young widow awakens naked on a black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a ferocious creature.

**********
From: David Laurie

do you not think finds she’s being hunted is better than finds herself hunted

*********
From: Carson Reeves

how would “finds herself hunted” look in actual practice?

**********
From: David Laurie

fair warning, I am a bit of a grammar Nazi. My mum was an English teacher
so
I thinnnnnk
finds she’s being hunted means the hunt is under way, which it is
and
finds herself hunted is flappy enough to mean the hunt might start later in the story

*********
From: Carson Reeves

Yeah, but you also have to take into consideration how it reads and sounds within the context of the logline. It sounds better, in my opinion. And when I hear “finds herself hunted,” I think the hunt is happening right now.

*********
From: David Laurie

OK
might be just me being fussy

I concede it flows better

So

A timid young widow awakens naked on a black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a ferocious creature

it’s definitely one of those, this is the set up not the story loglines but the setup IS the story and the whole movie is a hunt, one way or another

I think saying his men, rather than soldiers, implies a sort of paternal concern for the chewed-up guys, which is relevant
annnnnd it shortens/smoothens the last clause
but
it takes the original three army terms down to one
so
maybe

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his men were torn apart by a ferocious creature.

I am into this version. You?

**********
From: Carson Reeves

Yeah, I liked the way you phrased “men” in this last one.  It works for me.  I think we’ve got it. :)

**********
From: David Laurie

yeah

I agree

thanks man

pleasure doing business

*****END OF EXCHANGE*****

And there you have it! Here are the old and new loglines!

Old: A timid young war widow, who awakens naked on a snowy roof at dawn with soldiers shooting at her, has to figure out who she is and what the hell happened to her last night. Fast.

New: A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his men were torn apart by a ferocious creature.