During WWI, when British Intelligence discovers the German’s retreat is a trap, two young soldiers must venture across enemy territory to deliver orders halting an attack that would cost the lives of 1,600 soldiers
I debated about including the fact that one of the soldiers’ brothers was part of the company for the planned attack. It’s a good motivational point and adds personal stakes for a character. However, I’m not sure it’s necessary. It HAS to be “two soldiers” as a joint protagonist because of key events that happen in the movie (I’m trying to keep this spoiler free) and adding “including one of the soldiers’ brothers” adds six words and never, for me, increases the overall stakes… 1,600 is a lot. This mission would be identical without knowing the “brother-factor” and since the soldiers were ordered, rather than volunteered, I think it was merely a decision on the writers’ parts to add personal stakes for one of our heroes in an attempt to really hammer home the urgency and makes the heroes feel like they’re pushing the story rather than pulling. Without it, perhaps the soldiers would have been less motivated to go on such a dangerous mission so this puts them firmly in the driving seat… it’s not just orders and they’re proactive because of it but is it necessary in the logline…?
I look forward to your comments.