A modern adaptation of Shakespeare?s Julius Caesar, told from the cutthroat, conniving, and competitive world of a woman-ran Software Company.

Hey guys. I wrote the script and hated it so now I am in the revise/rewrite process. The plot has even changed. The story that I'm trying to tell now is a film that depicts the 24 hours prior to Brutus deciding to join the conspirators.

I've made alterations to my original logline to try and have it properly depict the new storyline.

"In this prequel to Julius Caesar, Marcella Brutus vacillates between devotion to her deceased mother?s corporation and affection for the megalomaniacal executive hell-bent on becoming its peerless leader."

Should more changes be made? Should I scrap the original and start completely over? Or should it all just be more simple?

Your thoughts and opinions are appreciated and needed!

BTW - thought the title was clever

Late entrant on this disucssion. As a logline it worked fine for me. We all know JC. And your logline tells us what's different.

Valentin,

I regret and apologize for provoking a distraction from our mutual objective goal which is to discuss the canny art and craft of loglines. I don't argue with your facts on the history of the tech industry, only your spin on the facts. I don't see it that way. So it goes.

In contrast, I almost always agree with your postings on loglines. I continue to look forward to your ideas and insights.

Regrets and regards.

As one who worked for 25 years in IT, I know that it is the case.

You have to remember that at the times both companies started, they was not a market for an independent software house. Mainframes ruled and Big computer manufacturer would not have allowed competition on their own machine. You were either working for an university doing research, working for of the hardware giant (IBM, DEC ...) or were a small consulting firm developing ad hoc solution that sometimes involved both software and hardware. Smart consulting firms then leveraged a contract and commoditised a specific development into a generic product that they could resell multiple times. Because they were small, they were not viewed as a threat by the big manufacturers. Also because of their size they were not invited on the giant contracts, but by selling a packaged software, they were able to target ALL the medium sized clients. That is exactly what happen with ORACLE and Microsoft.

Both responded to invitation to tender by a specific organisation. In both case, the buying company did not understand the importance of the project and badly worded the contract. In exchange for a reduced price, the consulting firm were allowed to keep the product of their efforts. Both Microsoft and ORACLE then used the money generated by that initial contract and adapted the product to a more generic usage.
Larry Ellison used his contact in the defense department to get contracts.
Taken from oRACLE wiki page.
"Larry Ellison and two friends and former co-workers, Bob Miner and Ed Oates, started a consultancy called Software Development Laboratories (SDL) in 1977. SDL developed the original version of the Oracle software. The name Oracle comes from the code-name of a CIA-funded project Ellison had worked on while previously employed by Ampex.". SDL now called ORACLE was a CONSULTING company.

Microsoft was paid by companies to help them with some problems. That is the definition of a consulting companies. Most of their solution ended up being software related, however their very first contract by Bill Gates and Paul Allen was both software and hardware. MS-DOS was developed under a contract awarded to them by IBM. IBM were so clueless that they did not write in the contract to keep EXCLUSIVE intellectual property rights on the operating system. For a while an IBM and a Microsoft version of DOS existed. IBM was then rumbled a second time by Microsoft with the development of OS/2. They paid for it but Microsoft used the money to developed Windows 3.0 and Windows NT. Officially OS/2 2.0 died in 2006, but it had been dead for a while.

>>>Microsoft, Oracle were initially consulting companies.

As one who worked 20 years in IT, I KNOW that is not the case.

Leaving aside any question with regard to the type of products/services the company provide, you have not answered my question on parody. Is it a parody or a reactualisation of a the play? If it is a parody, then what is it a parody of? What is the target of that pique of humour?
You mentioned that most roles would be played by women. What is the theme, message you want to convey? Is the fact all roles are women important to the overall story?

IBM, Apple, DEC, HP, Sun Microsystems were primarily hardware company. Software was just an add on to generate more sales of hardware. The same way Android is primarily a way to generate more internet search and advertising revenue to Google.
Microsoft, Oracle were initially consulting companies. They were managed by people smart enough to see an opportunity where nobody else saw one. They commoditised their services into a software product. That makes them the giant they are today. Oracle is now back to mostly be a services and consulting company. Services that are based on the software. The same way SAP business model is based on the services provided around an application suite.

I don't think the nature of the company's business will ever actually be mentioned in the script. It's mostly back store for me.

In present day, the company develops software and phone application. However, back when it was ran by the grandmother the company focused on different forms of instructional technologies. I'm not sure that they were in even the computer game, but I have imagined them working on tape recorders, and color televisions. And just adapting to the marketplace to ensure longevity. When VCRs were the hot thing that's what they made, when CD players became popular that's what they made, now that cell phone apps are hot that is what they make. Technology changes over them and the company changed with it.

>>>software company have only existed for 30 years.

There are a few that are older than that -- very few [Microsoft 1975, Apple 1976; Oracle 1977 come to mind]. And as I allude to earlier, the only computer tech company that I can think of that has been passed down from one generation to the next is IBM, and then only for 2 generations, father & son.

So, I think Valentin makes a valid point about the credibility of a software company being that old, let alone a major one run by women.

So, if I understand correctly, the script will stop before Cesar's assassination.
So your script is about the plot to convince Brutus and his/her internal struggle to reconcile his/love respect for a mentor and the need to betray and kill him/her, at least symbolically in your script.
That's a very different theme than the original play.

Margin Call has some very powerful scenes on the subject of integrity and loyalty.
Up in the air has some scenes about connection and lack of emotional attachment necessary to strive in business.

You stated that it was a parody, but a parody of what? What is your script making fun of? Is it a parody of business jargon buzz word? Is it a parody of Dallas, Dynasty and other TV shows extolling the virtues of unbridled greed and corruption?
Reading your posts, I see more a new adaptation than a parody. Change of settings and gender inversion could be done in a very serious tone. Power play in the boardroom can be fascinating.

Regarding the activity of the company, software company have only existed for 30 years. How are you going to make it believable that it was created by her grand father. If she is on the board, she must be at least 21 years old, a company created or at least completely modernised by her recently deceased father/mother sounds more plausible. The company may also be the victim of her parent divorce. One is forcing the sale of the company in order get his/her share of the company in cash.

I am all in favour of writing about things you are more comfortable. However in a short, you also need to maximise the emotional impact. Writing on a bunch of 30 years old, well educated, Silicon Valley developers at risk of losing their job does not have the same resonance than 50 years blue collar being made to feel obsolete. In the movie Wall Street, the fact that the target company is an air line is irrelevant. It could be a truck company. The only thing important is that Budd's father is a honest blue collar union man on the verge of being con out of his pension.

I?m planning for the short to be about 30-40 minutes. As far as how the script is going to correlate to the play, it runs from Flavius and Murellus quieting the celebrators to the morning that Decimus arrives to Caesar?s house to convince him to come to the senate.

Just as DPG and I discussed this short is closer to being a parody than a direct adaptation. Because I?m focusing on the story before Caesar?s death, there is really not much action to depict. The play is just really a foundation for my story, the walls that I will build are much different from the walls built by Shakespeare. I care about the people, their personalities, and their character motivations.

It?s only a software company because, I have a tendency to write what I know. I think dialogue would be less convincing if I were to do an aviation or drilling equipment company. Also, I think that the software aspect holds the story to its modern form.

In mapping Rome to the company?I?m still working on that lol

How long is your short going to be?
If less than 30 minutes, you have to really cut through the play. If you are going to remove so much plot points from the play, you may be better off starting from scratch. I am not even sure that the play would be recognisable. Personally I would condense the action to a single board meeting. See how "12 angry men" did it.
Also you have to make the financial aspect of the company personal. Very few movies have successfully transmit that aspect. Wall Street did, but its sequel did not. Margin Call moved away to become a person drama about Stanley Tucci's character. Rather than a software company that is a very recent activity, make the company an old American industrial company. Like an old Aviation, tractor, lift or specialist drilling equipment company.
To map Rome to the company employees, imagine a small town relying exclusively on that factory for jobs. Cesar want to delocalise the job. Brutus want to keep them local and reduce the margin. Cassius in fact trying to negotiate a deal with a corporate raider that will line up his pocket but ultimately destroy the factory and the town.
I am all in favour to have an all woman cast, but be careful with your dialog, as it could quickly turn into some kind of bitching fest. Gordon Gekko is remembered in Wall Street (despite being the villain), however Meredith Johnson of Disclosure never reached that same appeal. Unless you have an actress of the level of Glenn Close who can deliver dialog such as in Damage with consummate ease and belief, over the top bad dialogued women villain can become ridiculous.

A subtle change, but so much better!

Or:
"A melodramatic parody of Julius Caesar in which Marcella Brutus vacillates between devotion to her deceased grandfather?s corporation and loyalty to the megalomaniacal CEO hell-bent on selling it."

[Other than IBM, how many IT companies have been around for 3 generations? Or ever will be?]

>> didn?t plan on including Octavian

There goes the ironic payoff.

Is blood really thicker than water? Is the devotion to the company started by her grandfather more important than her devotion to her friend?

Actually since it's a short I didn't plan on including Octavian.

How about: This melodramatic parody of Julius Caesar, sees Marcella Brutus dithering between her devotion to her deceased grandfather?s corporation and the megalomaniacal CEO who is hell-bent on selling it.

Of course, the one who wins in the end is the young upstart, Octavia(n), the "kid" the old pros fatally underestimate.

Yes, I suppose that is is a parody.

I want to create a logline that basically says the ambition of two women, leaves someone broken and torn in the middle.

I'm even thinking of changing the title.

The short is about Brutus. It's like Brutus' choice. She has to decide between friendship or that she loves. The company that her family helped built. Cassius and Caesar both are minor characters. The story is about the choice the Brutus has to make.

It's a difficult choice; love, loyalty, or legacy.

Is it a parody? The conceit of your story seems to be adapting Shakespeare's play about political infighting among men in ancient Rome to political infighting among women in a modern software company.

Parody or not, either the conceit hooks interest or it doesn't.

How about: When the ambitious desire for complete control of a software company comes to a head, a war between power and devotion explodes into the professional fatality of Caesar and the internal lamentation of Brutus.

@Valentin
The company is in Rome, New York. The CEO is Caesar. Brutus is the protagonist and she is trying to stop Caesar the CEO from selling the company that her grandfather helped to create.
This is a short, and I was more interested in converting Caesar from ancient times to modern times. Brutus is the main character, because the story is mostly about her conflict over her feelings for Caesar and her obligation to uphold her grandfather?s legacy.
I know that Caesars role is very short in the play. It?s short in my film as well. Just because the focus is solely on the relationship between Brutus and Caesar.
Ever major role was written with a woman in mind. Gender is such as big theme of the other adaptations of Caesar so I wanted to make the men weak and the women the epitome of strength.
Mark Anthony is Caesars executive assistant. Cassius is on the board and she doesn?t want Caesar to sell the company, but only because it will interfere with her own personal gain.

@DPG
Caesar was my choice because I was a history major who also had to take a lot of Latin classes. It?s the most interesting story to me. The choice Brutus has to make. It?s tough, but he does it. I thought it would be interesting to see how that would play in modern times when it seems that loyalty and integrity are things of the past. I wanted to know if a character like Brutus could exist in today?s corporate America.

@LukeRamsden
Julia is the name. Julila? is a typo. Caesar was an overly ambitious yet ultimately successful general and dictator. Brutus was an intelligent yet idealist man who chose the security of his country over his love of Caesar.
I thought that I would be interesting to take those characters, and characteristics and through them in the world of today.
There?s no big underlying principle that I want to convey. I just want to take these characters from history, and Shakespeare and see how they play in a corporate setting.

Also - subpoint, and off topic. The title, 'Julila Caesar', is that a typo? Is it meant to be 'Julia Caesar', or is Julila a name I've just not heard before?

When transferring Shakespeare into a contemporary corporate setting, it's worth keeping in mind that Kurosawa did something with The Bad Sleep Well, a retelling of Hamlet.
I suppose there would have to be some relevance or resonance that the story of Julius Caesar specifically provides that make the project worthwhile.

It's an interesting idea, and I like the idea of the major characters being women (for a change). But similar to what Valentin asked, not only how, but why map this particular Shakespeare play to modern times? What's the point you are trying to make, especially with recasting the major characters as women?

And why "Julius Caesar" rather than, say, "Coriolanus" or "Titus Andronicus"? Or "Richard III"?

Transferring a play into a different settings is quite often a good way to reactualise it. However it needs to fit the world. How do you map Rome to a company? Who does the CEO map to?
Is she the protagonist? What is she trying to achieve? Who is trying to stop her from achieving her goal?

In Shakespeare's play Cesar is a minor character, Brutus, Cassius and Mark Antony are much more prominent. So does the woman play the role of Cesar, a noble CEO but ultimately flawed in not refusing the signs of betrayal by her treacherous associate and board members? Is she Brutus the only honest member of the board who want to actually save the company and it's employees? Is she Cassius in a Gordon Gekko in skirt kind of character? Is she Mark Antony, an opportunist who turn up once the deed has been done?

Also Julius Cesar play may not offer the kind of resolution, current movies require. You could adapt to a bittersweet ending, ultimately she is fired but the company and her vision of the company survive. However I personally believe that King Lear is a better choice to adapt in the modern settings of the fight between children of a company mogul.

I recommend writing a logline to pitch the premise of Julius Caesar. As it's written at the moment, it's relying on the fact that the reader is familiar with the Shakespeare play (or the actual history). And whilst you don't want to assume that people aren't, you can't take it for granted that they are.