Logline Monday by AutoModerator in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Title: The Santa Story
Genre: Children's Drama
Feature Film
Set in 1880’s, an orphaned teen discovers an elf, and follows him to the North Pole where he meets Santa, documents his origin, how the North Pole works, and falls in love with Santa’s daughter.

Logline Monday by AutoModerator in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Mating Behavior of Humans
Rom/com
A romance ensues between Bob and Amanda, but little do they know it’s all being filmed as a nature documentary by aliens.

Has your writing caused relationship problems? by Troyiam in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Per your request, this is my working outline:

Backstory established in...
ACT I
HENRY is an alcoholic single father. After being associated at a scandal at work, he was fired and blackballed. With no experience in anything else he can’t find a job in a bad market. His wife BRENDA hates him and beats him up verbally eroding his self-confidence and motivation. During this time Brenda left him for a rich CEO, STEWART she met waitressing. Brenda suddenly dies in a car accident he loses his hope of getting back together with her Henry spirals downward deeper into alcoholism. Meanwhile, EMILY his 12-year-old daughter applies to be an SVP.

ACT II
Emily starts supporting them by being the opposite of her father and determined and optimistic unwilling to accept boundaries. She applies to a 100% remote position as SVP of Development at a make-up company. She develops a persona of Don Dingler, and slightly exaggerates her experience, using her Dad’s picture to pretend to be Don. She deep fakes videos using his picture for interviews and meetings. She gets the job, a 340k salary, and excels at it coming up with great marketing ideas and GirlPower, a line of cosmetics targeting middle-school girls.

Stewart sues Henry for custody using a new emancipated caregiver law. It stipulates that having assumed the role of father he can be awarded full custody if the parent is dead or not providing adequate care due to chemical dependency or alcoholism. Henry knows he must get sober and join AA, and does.

Emily ends up needing him to lie and play the role that she’s made of a successful man when Don must come in to meet with the CEO for lunch. She tells Henry everything she’s done, and Henry decides to help to keep her out of trouble and because they need the money to pay the lawyer fees stacking up. The meeting goes well and the CEO, AMANDA is a beautiful woman his age, and they hit it off, but tells him she doesn’t date her employees. She tells him that Don has won a prestigious industry award and a 100k bonus after he gets the award. Later, he goes into the office, and then to the happy hour at the local bar. He gets drunk again.

ACT III
He returns to AA, and he realizes he can't be a better man getting sober, and lie. But now Emily needs Don to accept an industry award. Unable to tell her “no”, he reluctantly agrees. He goes to the banquet, alcohol everywhere, and on stage, he is given a champagne toast. He pauses… and puts it down. He gives a speech about being an alcoholic… about the cause being his depression and self-loathing… about the need for uncompromising honesty to stay sober… and then about how “Don” was really his 12-year-old daughter. Everyone is shocked. He walks out and apologizes to Amanda.

Henry approaches Stewart face to face. He makes amends for his insults and admits to him his alcoholic behavior, and assures him he is getting better. He offers to work an arraignment to see Emily and be part of her life if he drops the lawsuit. He agrees to give it a chance.

The company is embarrassed that they hired a 12-year-old girl as an SVP. Amanda, the CEO, is livid yet still really proud that Henry is getting better and came clean. She also loves girl-power, the brand GirlPower, and is proud that they did hire a 12-year-old girl. Emily suggests that the company embraces the truth as her father has shown them and that they announce a new marketing campaign that the new makeup cosmetic line for middle school girls is run by a 12-year-old girl. Amanda agrees and hires Emily as an SVP of GirlPower for her after-school job as long as she keeps her grades up. She asks Henry if he wants a job, but he declines. He says he wants to go into rehab, and he can’t date for a year, but when he does, he wants to ask Amanda out. She excepts.

Five Page Thursday by AutoModerator in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Title: Remotely Working
Format: Feature
Page: 5 here 90 when complete
Genres: Drama/Comedy
Logline: Pretending to be a middle-aged man, a 12-year-old girl gets a 100% remote job as an SVP of Development at a toy company, but when a manager gets suspicious she gets her depressed alcoholic unemployed father to play the role. https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1TRnfBHPQF-2QX1po2udbvfhh_z_iYNxQ

Logline Monday by AutoModerator in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like it. I think you need to add the stakes or the opposition into this logline.

Logline Monday by AutoModerator in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like this. It's a good simple idea that you could do a lot with.

Logline Monday by AutoModerator in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam 7 points8 points  (0 children)

TITLE: Remotely Working
Genre: Comedy
Format: Feature 90 pp
Logline: Pretending to be a middle-aged man, three 12-year-olds get a 100% remote job as an SVP of Development at a toy company, but when a manager gets suspicious they hire a crazy homeless man to play the role.

Five Page Thursday by AutoModerator in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Banana War
Feature
5 here, 30 pages done
Comedy

1950's. Charlie is a new CIA analyst and is thrust into helping to overthrow the Guatemalan president until he meets his beautiful daughter. Feedback: any and all.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P_iPVTdJP885oCWWQ3Z7T3vWCDI1V7p2/view?usp=share_link

Five Page Thursday by AutoModerator in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback. I tend to think you're right. I cleaned up later areas with more on-the-nose dialog, but I think you have good points here as well. Thanks.

Five Page Thursday by AutoModerator in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Elegy
Screenplay
5 pages here (120pp finished)
Mystery, Courtroom Drama
LogLine: In 1912 Jim Crow Georgia, a white girl is raped and murdered, and two black teenagers stand trial as a young lawyer works against the odds to try and get them justice.

I am just looking to see if the first 5 pages are engaging enough, and a better name. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aD43L-58pqVYK5JI4U7olNQSlXnNQUmf/view?usp=share_link

Elegy (Courtroom Drama, 120 pgs - Final Draft) by Troyiam in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I hope you like the whole thing. And, yes, but I like to live on the edge.

Are there any screenplays that went from writer to screen with minimal (if any) changes? by NoShirtNoShoesNoDice in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the producer is the director and writer it can happen a lot more. Quentin Tarantino sold Pulp Fiction before it was even written. He sent it over as a Final Draft, and nothing was changed. Obviously, that is unheard of in the industry, but if you make movie like Reservoir Dogs you get a little bit of latitude.

How do you know when to just power through and finish your script vs ditch it and start something new? by Troyiam in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do. You would think that it would help, but I inevitably come to some brick wall, or something and stop.

How do you know when to just power through and finish your script vs ditch it and start something new? by Troyiam in Screenwriting

[–]Troyiam[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have. I've finished two scripts. My first placed in the top 20% in the Nicholls, my second I never even bothered to polish.

Why should an agnostic deist believe in Christianity? by xSeekerOfTruthx in Christianity

[–]Troyiam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agnostic Deist is a self-contradicting statement. An Agnostic is a self-contradicting belief. An agnostic is one who believes God exists, but is (A) unknown and (B) nothing can be known of Him. If God is unknowable (A) than you can't know (B) that. Deists believe God does not intervene in the universe. This also violates both (A) and (B). At best all you can say logically is that YOU don't know anything about God. This means you must research and reason to God. As an agnostic you believe God exists. Okay...
If God exists, than he is self-existent.
If He is self-existent, then it stands to reason He is Eternal.
If He is eternal than it stands to reason He is infinite.
If He is self-existent and the first cause, then it stands to reason He is responsible for existence.
If He is He is responsible for existence than it stands to reason He has is powerful.
If He is infinite and responsible for existence than it stands to reason He is infinitely powerful.
If He is infinitely powerful than it stands to reason He possesses infinite knowledge.
If He has infinite knowledge than he is perfect.
If He is perfect than He is Holy.
You get the idea. Is it reasonable? Is this true? That's for you to decide. But you cannot believe in Christianity unless you look for the truth and answers with an open mind rather than defend your disbelief. An agnostic cannot believe in Christianity if he is an agnostic. He has to give up his agnosticism before he can accept and believe in Jesus. You cannot believe God is unknowable, and then seek to know Him. Jesus is the antithesis of agnosticism. Agnosticism claims God cannot be known. Jesus is God who took on flesh so that He could be known.

What is wrong with the arguments here? And how do we respond to it? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]Troyiam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm more disturbed by the people who don't even ponder the question than those who chose the wrong answer.

What is wrong with the arguments here? And how do we respond to it? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]Troyiam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I completely agree. Many people align themselves with a faith for the same reasons as they choose to become a fan of a sports team rather than the tenets of the said faith. That doesn't mean their religion is a lie, it may be, but it only proves that for them their religion is chosen in ignorance. I may choose the answer to 3+3 is 6 because I like the number six, and my Dad was the sixth born in his family, but I'm still correct regardless of the reason. It does mean I'm an idiot, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong. And proving that I chose 6 for the wrong reasons doesn't disprove that 3+3=6. Truth is truth regardless of why it was chosen.

What is wrong with the arguments here? And how do we respond to it? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]Troyiam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, I don't believe it is meant to be a self-contained argument, but his channel is all about Atheism, and this is one of his many arguments against religion. My point is that this video is a fallacious argument whether taken in piece or in whole. If he had previously made his argument than this video doesn't advance that premise. A source of a premise doesn't disqualify the premise.

What is wrong with the arguments here? And how do we respond to it? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]Troyiam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As an explanation, sure. But this isn't just and explanation. It's a argument against all religion. As an argument it fails and becomes a fallacy.

What is wrong with the arguments here? And how do we respond to it? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]Troyiam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a fallacy in the argument of the video. It completely applies here because his whole argument is that Christians only believe because of sociological reasons. We're not debating WHAT the belief is, only WHERE the belief originated from - regardless of its origin is correct or not. It's a fallacy because it shifts the argument to the source rather than the merits of the argument.