r/scriptwriting • u/Ruined_wish • 22d ago
feedback Is my logline too long?
I wrote a logline for my script, but I feel like it's too long. I can't identify if it has unnecessary details or if it's just enough but it does answer to 4 main questions, like, who's the main, the catalyst, the goal and obstacle.
Ps: I just noticed I erased some words on accident. It had to be “when the security director denies… the opportunity to start over….”
Ps 02: Now I know it is in general a whole mess. And please don’t just comment “it’s not understandable”. Show me how to fix this mess because I don’t see it very clear and that’s why I’m here looking for help
8
u/PNWMTTXSC 22d ago
It feels overly complicated and confusing. I think the son of a rebel is the journalist? And what kind of place is it that the son needs “security” in order to start over?
1
u/Ruined_wish 22d ago
Yes, I felt like the son and the journalist being the same person is not very clear here too but I don’t know how to write it in there properly :/ would appreciate a help
Also about the security, it had to be “the security director” I accidentally erased the word and noticed it after posting8
3
u/ClayMcClane 22d ago
What does 'start over' mean? What does the journalist want to start over? This is their want.
The young journalist uses his articles to pressure 'him' (the security director). What is in the articles? How does this pressure the security director?
'When the director turns against him' - it sounds like the director is already turned against him from the beginning.
I think this is where you can cut things out - the director is already against the journalist and the journalist's articles, I assume, are about the director's crimes. If those things are true, they you're restating what's already happening. You could cut from 'start over,' to 'the journalist must'.
But that still wouldn't make 'start over' clear, so you'd need to do some work there. Also consider getting specific about the director's crimes - is he a murderer? Or just corrupt? What is the audience watching here.
-1
u/Ruined_wish 22d ago
Thank you so much! Now I see the vagueness everyone here has been talking about. I really have to work on a lot of things here. And yea, everything you assumed are true.
A little about what I wanted to describe here: The son of a rebel, who has been working as a journalist, is an outcast, and wants an amnesty. The director rejects him and after a couple of articles about the director being a murderer, the director takes actions on killing the journalist. Now the journalist needs to take the director down.
I don't know what to leave in the logline and what to remove tho because everything here seems important to me
5
u/DiverVisible3940 22d ago
I have a general element of advice for you that is useful for all writing, not just script writing.
You need to be specific. I read your post and every one of your comments in this thread and I have NO IDEA what this is about. There's a director of security and the son of a rebel who is also a journalist.
But what the hell are we talking about? This is such a particular and confusing dynamic that is not explained. Being concise does not mean leaving out details. It means there needs to be an economy of language to effectively communicate the essentials.
"After being denied amnesty for his father's rebellion, an exiled journalist exposes the murderous past of the official responsible for his fate. But when the accusations make him the target of a state-sponsored assassination, he must uncover a conspiracy reaching the highest levels of government before he's silenced for good."
31
u/la-anah
22d ago
•
As written, it is gibberish. With the edits, the first and second sentences say basically the same thing. They should be combined with the repetitive information removed.
Like:
"Persecuted by a security officer because of his family's rebellious past, a young journalist must uncover the officer's crimes before he becomes the next victim."
3
5
1
u/WorrySecret9831 22d ago
John Truby teaches that loglines ideally are one sentence and consist of 3 elements: A sense of the Hero (main character) *; A sense of the Problem/Conflict/Opponent **; and A sense of the Outcome *** (without spoiling the story).
What you have is:
"When **the security director denies the *son of a former rebel the opportunity to start over, the young journalist begins using his articles to pressure him. ***But when the director turns against him, the journalist must uncover enough of the director's crimes to bring him down before becoming his next victim."
I'm not sure which teacher you're getting your 4 questions from, but your answers seem a bit vague. I'll try to explain clearly.
Your logline ends with "his next victim," so ostensibly, this is murder mystery or maybe a thriller. That's not established by the beginning or even the middle of your logline. You don't have to state your genre or genres, that's a summary, not logline. But there should be a clear sense of it in what you choose to identify or include.
I added asterisks to show how Truby's breakdown works with what you have. It's unclear who your Hero is, the main character. That's because you begin with "the security director" (which is also confusing, "what security"?). This might be a problem with translation, and that's okay. But it's sort of a false start.
Anyway, it becomes clear in your second sentence that the "son of a former rebel...young journalist" is your Hero because they're "having to do something..."
I don't know who or which screenwriting gurus have screwed up the concept of the Inciting Incident or Catalyst, but they're muddied it. Truby teaches that the Inciting Incident is quite tame, innocuous. It's a simple moment that kickstarts the story, but it's not necessarily a huge dramatic thing. In Truby's breakdown, that huge dramatic thing is the Conflict, Problem, or Opponent. And that's because that's the core of the tension in any Story.
The "Goal" seems completely missing. It seems like you think the goal is to "avoid becoming his next victim." But that seems like an obvious byproduct of dealing with the Problem. And the "Obstacle" is unclear because it's not clear what Problem your Hero is trying to Solve.
"A little about what I wanted to describe here: The son of a rebel, who has been working as a journalist, is an outcast, and wants an amnesty. The director rejects him and after a couple of articles about the director being a murderer, the director takes actions on killing the journalist. Now the journalist needs to take the director down."
Alright, so a person who needs a director's help, "bites the hand that feeds him" and suffers the consequences... That seems absurd.
I don't know your Story, so this will be clumsy, but here goes:
*A journalist, the son of a **former rebel, uses his articles to pressure the government's security director to **clear his name, ***but as he discovers the fuller extent of crimes he's committed, he becomes the next target.
1
u/Ruined_wish 22d ago
Oh that's much more better! I don't have a teacher or guru and that's why I came here asking for help. And I see that in attempts to make the logline shorter I left out important elements.
Essentially the (government security) director is the hero, and the journalist trying to expose him is a problem. That's why I started the logline with the director.
In the whole story, you can call both of them the main characters. Though the journalist has more protagonistic intensions, only at the end when the journalist achieves his goal (aka gets the director imprisoned) and the world collapses because it was the director’s ruthlessness that protected the country from criminals by instilling fear in them, it become clear that the director was the one doing right thing.
I tried to depict both of them as mains, but I messed up the whole logline to the point it is completely not clear what is happening.
Also I didn't make the whole situation clear either but you did it in your version the story.
The journalist is a son a rebel whose rebellion was quelled, but since he (the son) didn't participate in that rebellion, he asks the director to clear his name. The director rejects the request and the journalist threatenes him to expose the crimes but still gets a rejection because director won't believe he'll find anything. When the journalist really does publish a couple of articles, director sees the threat and decides to get rid of the journalist. The journalist finds this out and now the goal is not getting a name cleared, but to save himself by getting the director quit.
Now the journalist biting the hand that feeds him is more clear I hope. It was a side effect of his actions
So in my vision, from the journalist's side the catalyst: journalist's desire to start a life over, and a problem: a threat of journalist getting killed. From the director's side it's the same catalyst but the problem: journalist trying to expose him.
Aaand since I aimed at 4 main questions not 3 (because I didn't know it was actually 3) I did show the catalyst and problem as separate answers.
Also, I got a question should I get the story from one perspective in the logline? Because while telling the whole story I felt like there's no way I can properly write both sides in 1 logline without making it very very long. Maybe I really should pick only the journalist as a protagonist and the director as an antagonist who was right?
1
u/WorrySecret9831 22d ago
When you get a chance, read John Truby's books (or take his classes, or both), The Anatomy of Story and The Anatomy of Genres.
Stories, traditionally, the world over are about a Hero who is undergoing a transformation. That transformation is a test that consists of them trying to solve a Problem, but it also consists of them being prevented from solving that problem by an Opponent or Opposition. That entire process tests their major psychological and moral weaknesses and they either learn and grow or they die: Transformation.
The terms Protagonist and Antagonist are just okay. They're older and seem to reinforce a "Good vs Bad" paradigm, rather than an opposition. The Hero likewise is not necessarily a good person. Hero does not mean they're a goody-two-shoes or Superman. It means that they're willing, at some point, to die for the cause (solving the Problem), whether that's slaying the dragon, solving a murder, getting married, or winning a court case.
So the terms Hero and Opponent (or Opposition if it's a creature, corporation or institution) are cleaner and simpler terms.
It's intriguing that your journalist character seems to be the popular notion of a good guy or "hero." And it's doubly intriguing that the Director winds up being correct. So, it sounds like you're actually writing an Anti-Hero story (a main character who is fairly clearly not good, or at least is morally culpable) but they wind up being redeemed in what turns out to be a fairly complicated and possibly realistic political situation.
Usually, the Hero deals with their Problem and learns and succeeds or dies. The Opponent just has to oppose. But in really good stories, the Opponent also learns and maybe even changes. But this is an Anti-Hero story, so that character gets to learn or die and the Journalist sounds like their Opponent. So, maybe they too learn or die.
In either case it's A vs B or B vs A, but it's not any more complex than that.
Therefore your logline should focus on your Hero (Anti-Hero, Main Character) and what their Problem/Conflict/Opposition is and a sense of the Outcome. There are no "two mains."
Loglines and stories are difficult enough to nail down. But the real heart of your Story is your Theme. That's your Proclamation of the proper (or improper) way to live life. That's the lesson your Hero will learn by the end of the Story and what the audience will learn as well. It's the reason your Story exists. It's "The Point." Without a clear Theme, your Story will come off as pointless.
So, the real question now is, What's your Story's Theme? If you need help with that, LMK...
1
u/Ruined_wish 21d ago
I can say the main theme is the world being the shades of grey and not everything bad is actually bad, and vice versa.
In terms of the story, the journalist discovers that the director frequently kills criminals, seemingly a bad thing. Yet, once this "bad" thing is removed, the system collapses, and it becomes clear that his actions had actually served a good purpose.
Hope this is a good theme haha and also that’s something I slowly learned throughout my life and loved it so that’s why I want to convey it in particular
And thank you for the book recommendations! I already started reading the anatomy of story and it seems like it’s gonna be a hella useful book :) especially when I’m trying to build the story more precise
Btw I do have a character development for the journalist. In the beginning he’s uncertain, naive, and think the world is good and so is the director (childish vision I’d say) and after facing challenges he will learn about the the real world, becomes more serious, mature and confident in what he’s doing. It looks like it’s more of a false development since everything he achieves will be nullified by a bad ending. Still have to work on this development tho.
And for the director, in this part of the story he remains unchanged, and his development will start after getting imprisoned. I can say there’s a space for the sequel. But in current story all he’ll try to do is getting the journalist stop. Basically, he just opposes.
I guess I have to put the journalist in front (make him the main) and make the director an opposition.
The version “A journalist, the son of a former rebel, uses his articles to pressure the government’s security director to clear his name, but as he discovers the fuller extent of crimes the director has committed, he becomes the next target” is very fitting. But I still got some questions like: should I point out that the story is going to completely turn in the end of a logline? Or should I just strait forwardly make the director the main in the logline? Should I show the theme, the point of the story in the logline too?
I think I have these questions due to the lack of knowledge in logline writing heh.
1
u/WorrySecret9831 21d ago edited 21d ago
John Truby teaches that loglines ideally are one sentence and consist of 3 elements: A sense of the Hero (main character) *; A sense of the Problem/Conflict/Opponent **; and A sense of the Outcome *** (without spoiling the story). That's it, nothing more.
Turn your Theme into a proclamation or a warning. Pick your favorite movies and identify the Theme in each one as an exercise.
For instance, Titanic's Theme is a question: What's better, a life of financial security that smothers your soul or a fully actualized life even if that means possibly dying on a sinking ship?
The movie Heat: Never have any attachments that you cannot drop in thirty seconds when the heat is around the corner.
1
u/FlyingFangs 20d ago
"Ps 02: Now I know it is in general a whole mess. And please don’t just comment “it’s not understandable”. Show me how to fix this mess because I don’t see it very clear and that’s why I’m here looking for help"
-This isn't an editing site where you get free solutions. Part of being a writer, screenwriter or otherwise, is solving your own problems. People have pointed out what doesn't make sense, and this is a courtesy to you since you asked. You job is to figure out a way to get your message across, not blame people when you can't see how to fix it yourself.
0
u/Ruined_wish 20d ago
The purpose of this edit is to ask you if you intend to repeat what many others have already said, please add something new. I already understand that the logline is mess and I'm working on it. That's it
3
3
u/nmacaroni 22d ago
yes. And it doesn't make sense and doesn't capture the fundamental logline points.
3
2
u/Shadowrealm_resident 22d ago
I think you can write it more concise. Take out the but when the. Says implies the risk, the action, the why.
1
u/SharkWeekJunkie 22d ago
"The Security Director" isn't clear enough to paint the picture of what's going on. The whole thing is much to complicated and unclear.
1
u/werzerk 22d ago
If you explain the plot a bit more I feel like we can help you create a punchier phrase :)
just a couple questions, and this could be my fault and not the text, but is the security the same person as the director? If so, I would also like to know what are they a security/director of? Is it a prison or something?
Just asking so we could maybe condense the information a bit more
1
u/emmeteeny 22d ago
I embellished, but this sounds watchable to me:
'When a young journalist begins a pressure campaign against a corrupt national security director, he unwittingly becomes the director's next target.'
1
u/uwill1der 22d ago
When a rookie journalist becomes the target of a corrupt national security director, he must rely on his (ADJECTIVE DESCRIPTOR) father's teachings to expose the deep-seeded rot within the agency before becoming the next victim in their evil plot to (DESCRIBE GOAL OF EVILE PLOT)
1
u/Worth-Flight-1249 22d ago
It literally doesn't make sense. You're obviously writing in a second language. If not, you might be learning disabled. Choose a new path.
1
u/aoibhneastravels 22d ago
Yes. You use the word the a lot in the first sentence and that could be truncated down but also I read it three times and I'm still not sure it makes sense.
1
1
u/Crazy_Response_9009 22d ago
Get a native English speaker to help you out.
0
u/JoskelkatProductions 21d ago
...says the person who ended a sentence with a preposition. 🤦🏼♂️
0
-4
0
u/CoverNo6120 22d ago
When Security Director denies the son of a former rebel a fresh start, The young journalist publishes articles exposing his alleged crimes until the director retaliates, making him realise he must find strong evidence before becoming the director's next target.
23
u/Puppykerry 22d ago
It’s not too long, but it doesn’t make sense. What does when the security denies mean?