by Cameron Pattison · Showrunner · 1,295 pts
1,036 views
Already a member?
"Challenging an aging Joseph Pulitzer as each tries to monopolize New York's fiery imagination about a mysterious homicide , Young William Randolph Hearst gives birth to the modern concept of sensationalist media coverage."
I think these are roots for a good movie that can be told from many POV:
- An inciting incident: a mysterious homicide in New York
- Two heros/antagonists
- Two flaws : inexperience, age
- Two advantages : youth, experience
- One shared goal : monopolize New York's fiery imagination
- One shared stake : the win
This is just a duel.
Hi Alex - Thanks for your feedback! Did you know there is a section on this site that explains what the components of a good logline are? It's here: https://loglines.org/howto
. Saves you from having to copy & paste the guidelines. :)
Also - minor detail - we spell "inciting incident".
Hi Alex - Thanks for your feedback! Did you know there is a section on this site that explains what the components of a good logline are? It's here: https://staging.loglineit.com/howto
. Saves you from having to copy & paste the guidelines. :)
Also - minor detail - we spell "inciting incident".
PROS
- A unique story.
- Clear goal.
CONS
- Passive protagonist elements. The real story would be better perceived from the murderer's P.O.V.
- High budget/period piece.
With a few more re-writes, the writer could have addressed the underlying story problems that face this from being a knockout of a logline/story. The real concern is having the protagonist(s) observe the real story that if not handled correctly could be its own downfall. Hopefully the focus is put on the sabotage of each individual and their respective media outlets.
One difficulty with this story is the stakes. What is Hearst at risk of losing if he fails?
Not his fortune. William Randolph Hearst was heir to the greatest mining fortune in American history; it took him almost his entire life of 88 years (he died in 1951) to spend it all and go bankrupt. The money he flung into his newspaper war with Pulitzer at the close of the 19th century was chump change.
So what the Scheherazade factor in the story? What is there for the audience to wonder and worry about?
One difficulty with this story is the stakes. What is Hearst at risk of losing if he fails?
Not his fortune. William Randolph Hearst was heir to the greatest mining fortune in American history; it took him almost his entire life of 88 years (he died in 1951) to spend it all and go bankrupt. The money he flung into his newspaper war with Pulitzer at the close of the 19th century was chump change.
So what the Scheherazade factor in the story? What is there for the audience to wonder and worry about?
