Where screenwriters learn the form and logline their screen ideas.
Short Film – The Night Guard
"mffr, you are killing it! But still there absolutely is potential in this story if you make it more ACTIVE and pimp up the stakes. So not losing his job and keep providing for his family is PRIMAL - and that is good - (Save the Cat) but not PRIMAL ENOUGH to keep the audience interest these days. For me the main problem is that the logline does not show character grows. The protag has to take things in his own hands and save the day (the cat) We wan't to see a one legged hero (slowly getting) in CONTROLE... For starters:
** 4 star Houdini **
A dishonorable discharge war hero returns to his degrading old job as a night guard at a (high stakes facility) only to find his family held hostage there by a(n) (old enemy {being a kickass antagonist(s) ) who threaten(s) to behead his loved ones (one by one) if he does not pay a ridicules amount of ransom money (within an absurdly short time) without leaving the facility" The (antagonist) will learn not to fuck with a resenful former 4 star general.
Once again: why do you want to tell a story about failure, a story with an unhappy ending? About a man who through no fault of his own loses his job? (It wasn't his fault that he needed surgery, was it?) What's your dramatic point (other than life is brutish, short and unfair)?
And further: he may be in denial about the severity of his injury. But isn't it also the case that if he weren't in denial, if he didn't believe he should return to work, he will be fired for not showing up?
So if he thinks he's well enough to return to work, he's going to lose his job when he does. And if he doesn't think he's well enough to go, he's going to lose his job when he doesn't.
So, he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. No matter what he does, he's going to be fired. Right?
Ergo the alleged "character flaw" seems irrelevant to the outcome of the man's struggle. With or without "the character flaw", he's fired, doomed, f###ed!
But in drama a character flaw is not irrelevant to the outcome, it's germane, it's pivotal to the outcome of a character's story. If a character lacks the flaw, then there would be a different outcome.
But, to repeat, the outcome of this story seems to be independent of his "character flaw". No matter what he does, he loses his job. Which means it doesn't seem to be a character flaw germane to the plot.
All that his "character flaw" seems to determine is the circumstances -- HOW he's fired, not WHETHER he's fired. But shouldn't a character flaw determine WHETHER as well as HOW?
Why do you think it is a bad ending ? If we're able to show that he is not being able nor will he be to catch the burglars, why wouldn't that be a good cinematic end visual ?
As to the main character being cocky or arrogant, wouldn't the audience relate to him given his motivations (keeping his job in order to provide for his family) ? Perhaps he doesn't need to be cocky, but confident at least - as if he was lying to himself, trying to believe that he can get the job done. That way his inner journey would be going from being confident to being in despair, being in denial to realizing his fate.
And as to the inciting incident, this would be the night in which a figure of authority who is not usually there comes with the sole purpose of evaluating him and his colleagues and determine who to let go based on their performance.
To sum it up (with the changes):
Main Character: poor night guard
Flaw: in denial (believes he can do his job despite the pain in his leg)
Goal: to keep his job
Obstacle: pain in his leg
Antagonist: burglars
Inciting Incident: this is the night in which a figure of authority who is not usually there comes with the sole purpose of evaluating him and his colleagues and determine who to let go based on their performance.
Inner Journey: being in denial to realizing his fate
What do you think ?
Once again, thank you for your help.