Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
After stealing millions from a ruthless Las Vegas casino empire, two estranged biracial twin brothers flee back to New York hoping to rebuild their lives, only to discover their parents are dead, their childhood home is gone, and the violent syndicate they betrayed is hunting them through a city that no longer has a place for them.
This is a situation; not a story. You have the first sequence of an 8-sequence feature. How will they cope with the situation? What is the goal that will drive this film? And how do the twins differ in character? Otherwise there would be no reason for a dual-protagonist film. The setup is strong, wiRead more
This is a situation; not a story. You have the first sequence of an 8-sequence feature.
How will they cope with the situation? What is the goal that will drive this film?
And how do the twins differ in character? Otherwise there would be no reason for a dual-protagonist film.
The setup is strong, with classic heist-and-flight bones and a clear setback structure: the brothers steal, they flee, they discover loss waiting for them.
The two-protagonist choice may work dramatically if the estrangement gives them an internal arc to play against the external hunt.
Where the logline gets uncertain: we know what’s happened to them, but not what they DO about it. “Hoping to rebuild their lives” is internal, and after the triple discovery the brothers become targets rather than agents.
“A city that no longer has a place for them” is the kind of theme line that sounds good but tells us little and “biracial” is doing work only if the brothers’ mixed heritage is central to the syndicate’s hunt or to the New York they’re returning to; if it’s flavour, replace it with a word that names a psychology.
See lessLogline: After killing each other in a muddy ravine on Guadalcanal, a Japanese soldier and an American Marine awaken as unwillingly tethered ghosts and spend decades protecting the grandson born from their families’ impossible union—bickering across wars, cultures, and generations as they search for redemption and peace. Genre: Primary: Historical Fantasy Drama Secondary: War Drama / Supernatural Family Saga
This is a fresh and highly dramatic premise. Excellent! The two protagonists makes it complex, but not impossible. The structure works: two protagonists, a catalyst, an action, a conflict, a theme. But "unwillingly tethered" is a little clunky as an adverb-plus-adjective pair; "tethered against theiRead more
This is a fresh and highly dramatic premise. Excellent! The two protagonists makes it complex, but not impossible.
The structure works: two protagonists, a catalyst, an action, a conflict, a theme. But “unwillingly tethered” is a little clunky as an adverb-plus-adjective pair; “tethered against their will” or just “tethered” reads cleaner.
“Search for redemption and peace” is the theme rather than something we can watch; if both ghosts are chasing an internal state, we don’t get a visible goal to follow.
The character descriptions tell us their armies but nothing about who these men are; what kind of soldier each one was would tell us how the bickering plays.
The genre stack reads overdetermined (primary and secondary, three or four labels), and a single tonal cue inside the logline would do the work without needing the disclaimer below.
But the story is genuinely fresh: enemy soldiers who killed each other on Guadalcanal becoming tethered ghosts to a shared bloodline they didn’t know they’d share is a strong premise, and the bickering across decades has real comedy potential alongside the drama. What’s missing is the specific stake. Why are they bound to him? What happens if they fail? And what makes the union “impossible”? A concrete stake and a concrete reason would replace the abstract “search for redemption” with something we can watch.
See lessWhen the Sheriff of Sweetwater, Mars stumbles on a plan to destroy the town to make room for an illegal worm farm, he and his friends have to defend the town from destruction by a megalomaniac Soybean Magnate.
The structure works: we know who, what's at stake, who's against him, and what he has to do. Where it gets clunky: "destroy" and "destruction" come back three times in close range, and "destruction by a megalomaniac Soybean Magnate" is a passive construction; flipping it to "from a megalomaniac SoybRead more
The structure works: we know who, what’s at stake, who’s against him, and what he has to do. Where it gets clunky: “destroy” and “destruction” come back three times in close range, and “destruction by a megalomaniac Soybean Magnate” is a passive construction; flipping it to “from a megalomaniac Soybean Magnate” picks up the pace.
See lessThe character description tells us his job but nothing about who he is as a person (“languid sheriff” or “self-centred weather man” would tell us how he behaves before the story even starts.)
The place names don’t earn their space either; a descriptor of the town and its world would tell us more than “Sweetwater, Mars” does. But the story is fun: an off-world Western with an illegal worm farm and a Soybean Magnate as antagonist places this on a sci-fi comedy shelf you can already see.
What’s missing is the sheriff’s personal stake. Defending a town reads generic until we know what he has to lose. And “megalomaniac” is the lazy version of the villain; a specific quirk on the Soybean Magnate would make him memorable.