The Order
When a self-centered youth's family is captured by an invading army, he trains as a knight before setting out to rescue them. As the kingdom teeters on the brink of collapse, the fate of both his family and kingdom depend upon a single decision. (Improved – hopefully)
Share
Hello,
I’m sorry to say that it seems to me that most of what have been said about the old versions still applies.
“When his family is kidnapped by an invading army, a brave boy trains as a knight to rescue them …”.
Then I think you have to make clear what happens. A choice is a matter of 5 seconds, even if it is the choice between family and country, so you can’t even mention it in a logline, where you should tell the main pillars of the plot instead. We see the kidnapping and the goal to rescue the family, the motivation to train as a knight, then the knight go to war and fights, and then? What is the specificity of the war? Try to focus about what happens not about the very last ending.
I wish you the best to improve your logline,
The thing is, the decision is a culmination of the events, which initiates the climax of the story. What do you mean by the specificity of the war? The protagonist rarely takes part in the war until the climax.
Thanks for your help!
The way the logline positions the plot points now makes the family getting captured the reason he trains as a night. This makes for a clear cause and effect relationship between the inciting incident the main action and the goal.
However at the end of the logline this clarity is taken away when the logline indicates he may not pursue the goal he set out to initially. This is not a change of approach rather a last minute change of goal better to indicate in a logline a single plot which means a single goal.
The dilemma whether to defy the knight’s order he trained in or save his family is not central to the plot it is a minor blimp that will (or should) account for no more than 2 minutes of screen time at most. Or else the story is a different one to the one in the logline.
Hope this helps.
I agree with Nir Shelter. It’s a story plus to have a compelling dilemma. But while the dilemma may be a high point of the story in terms of dramatic tension, it’s a relatively small part of the story in terms of the page/screen time. A logline should sell the sizzle of the overall journey, not a single moment.
Well, there are indeed films where the main character is in a war from beginning to end and at the end we just have the “battle”, which in terms of screenwriting terms is the moment where the hero directly fights the main villain (and we have this kind of battle in so many movies that are not war movies). If your story is not this kind of war movie it’s ok – so maybe the training is what the second act is about. If it’s so, then you should describe a little the training in the logline since the training represents at least half of the movie.
Of course, there has to be a climactic battle scene with a cast of thousands and lots of CGI eye candy.
If the 2nd Act is mostly training for the big battle scene, then the training must put his life is in serial jeopardy. He must survive a gauntlet of tests where there are high stakes in failing. Like death. And each test should be more difficult — escalating tension and suspense.
So by removing the fact that there is a decision from the logline, could the “two” goals be written as one? Such as:
“When a self-centered youth’s family is captured by an invading army and the fate of the kingdom hangs in the balance, he must defy his nature and take the oath of a knight in order to rescue them.”
Thanks for all the input.
Better, but…
If he’s self-centered to begin with, why would he rescue anyone? Wouldn’t a self-centered kid, by nature, be inclined not to come to the rescue of anyone, including his family? Isn’t that part and parcel of what it means to be self-centered?
And if he does flip, does a 180, starts acting selflessly as a result of the inciting incident, then it would seem that his character arc is more or less complete by the beginning of the 2nd Act.
A character flaw is a dramatic gimmick to create and heighten suspense. How? By linking it to the objective goal: the character can’t achieve his goal if he doesn’t overcome his flaw. The dramatic purpose of the flaw is to create doubt, uncertainty as to whether the character will succeed.
The flaw works as a dramatic device to the degree the answer to the question comes as late in the story as possible, certainly no sooner than the end of Act 2. But if the question has already been answered by the beginning of Act 2, then what is there for the audience to worry about in terms of a flaw?
I see what you mean. I’m trying to get across that he ignores the plight of those around him and is fixated only on his goal, and that he has to overcome this in order to save his family. Perhaps if I described him as “callous”? Could I not leave it up to the reader to assume that the only people he cares for are his family?
Thanks.
Yes it’s getting better!
I agree that “self centered” is not good – it’s difficult to connect to the character.
What do you think of:
When the family of a pacific youth is captured by an invading army, he must take the oath of a knight in order to rescue them.?
In fact in a movie there is always an internal conflict (like overcome his nature) and an external conflict (beat the enemy) – I think you’re supposed to put only the external conflict in the logline.
I like pacifist better than callous. In the context of war, its seems to me that callousness is an asset, not a liability. It might not make him a better person, but it makes him a better fighter.
Thanks for all the feedback and advice! I really appreciate it.