The Judges are back! Recently we ran the First Draft Contest with our friends of Circalit in the UK. Weekly on Thursdays we publish the loglines from participants of the contest and the Judges give us their considered feedback.
by The Judges
If you have an opinion on any of these synopses or the feedback from the judges, please share it with us in the comments below. Please keep the discussion constructive. Even if your first instinct may be subjective, try to give us as objective a reply as possible. The idea is to all (that includes us, judges) learn from the exercise.
Relics is an action adventure story about a psychiatrist
who is pulled into a biblical conspiracy by a
secret organisation that is collecting relics
in order to clone Christ.
The judges’ verdict:
Dave: “There is a clear story here though a psychiatrist is a job, not a description of a character. Also, why is a psychiatrist getting mixed up in religion? The genre is obvious and I don’t think that it needs to be spelled out, the words ‘conspiracy,’ and ‘secret organisation,’ do enough to set the scene. For me personally I am not interested in biblical history and I don’t know what types of relics the psychiatrist is looking for, but the concept does intrigue me. Despite this, I don’t know the antagonist or who is conspiring against him. I think it would be much better to at least allude to the bad guys as this log line does not state what he’s fighting against.”
“…I don’t know the antagonist or who is conspiring against him. I think it would be much better to at least allude to the bad guys as this log line does not state
what he’s fighting against.”
Nina: “This is an interesting premise but it needs to be fleshed out. What does it mean for humanity to have a clone of Christ? How, at all does this challenge the belief system of our Hero? Once we understand this then give us the goal of our hero including the stakes and obstacles.”
“…give us the goal of our hero including
the stakes and obstacles.”
Adrian: “It is interesting to me that the protagonist is a psychiatrist, rather than an archaeologist or an historian for example, which would be a more obvious choice. This gives the story a more interesting dynamic. Although I’d like to have a hint of the nature of the relationship the psychiatrist has with a member or members of the organisation that led her/him to be entangled in the conspiracy.
‘2 x 3’
“Keithy is jobless, wifeless and hopeless.
He blames his teachers.
Now it’s their turn to be taught a lesson.
The judges’ verdict:
Steven: That fact that (presumably adult) Keithy ‘blames his teachers,’ dismisses his apparent maturity. It is almost as if it is no wonder he is wifeless! It is hard to care about this ‘man,’ when he hardly acts as a man. Better that he is either a schoolboy still, or- even better – that he is seeking revenge on his former high school bullies during a 10year school reunion.”
“…It is hard to care about this ‘man,’
when he hardly acts as a man”
Karel: There may be a story hiding behind the guise of this logline but the writer has competently hidden it. Rather than “He blames his teachers” I’d like to see “His teachers are to blame”. That way, we believe Keithy may have an acceptable reason for his revenge.
Dave: “He blames his teachers- this sentence shows us that he does no take responsibility. A vengeance story is driven by the characters goal to take something back, but here I could only see it going from bad to worse. He is punishing someone who are not necessarily to blame. There is no clear antagonist and if we were to watch it, we as the audience would not know exactly who IS to blame. He does not seem a likeable person either, jobless, wifeless and hopeless does not an inspiring character make and I’m not sure if i’d like to spend time watching someone who is ‘hopeless.'”
“There is no clear antagonist and if we were to watch it, we as the audience would not know exactly who IS to blame.”
Nina: This could be a comedy, a horror or a psychological thriller. With this many options open, the writer should give us a clear summary of the story.
So what is your verdict? Would you want to see these films? Why (not)? Did the judges get it right? How would you improve the synopses/loglines and what do you feel might improve the stories behind them?
Please give us your opinion in the comments at the bottom of this page.
The Judges (click for details)