The Logic Nazi
Posted by Craig Mazin on 08 Jun 2008 at 09:32 pm | Tagged as: The Craft & Trade
With the recent and sad passing of the great Sidney Pollack, I was reminded that David Zucker would often cite his interactions with Sidney Pollack as a good examples of a comedy “Logic Nazi.”
Every project or room ought to have one, comedy or drama.
The Logic Nazi’s job is to do what most of us usually do after we see a film. “How did the villain even know he had the jewel in his pocket?” “Why would he refuse to fight that one guy when we’ve already seen he’s willing to fight bigger guys?” “Why are they going out of their way to find someone to help them rob the bank when one of them already has the means to do it on his own?”
Every movie probably suffers from logic flaws. The goal, of course, is to avoid crossing the threshold of tolerance. There are some flaws in The Godfather, for instance. If Tessio can figure out where Michael is meeting The Turk and have enough time to plant a gun, why can’t he plant a few guys in the back kitchen? Or in a back alley? Have them do the murders…and not put Michael on the hook?
But…the logic flaws in The Godfather simply don’t cross the threshold of tolerance. Because they don’t, no one really gives a damn. In fact, many people will instinctively argue that the logic flaws aren’t flaws at all.
I call this the Illusion of Intention. Audiences are primed to believe that everything they see in the film was always meant to be exactly as it is. You and I and everyone who makes movies knows that this is far from true. Studio notes, an off day with an actor, a directorial screwup, a problem with a visual effect, a scratch in the negative…hell, a million things can go wrong, leading to a segment of film that is not perfectly representative of the filmmaker’s intentions, but is, in fact, a mistake or compromise they have to live with.
So we gloss by logic errors in films that don’t cross the threshold of tolerance, because they haven’t done enough damage to shake the illusion of intention.
But…you can only suffer so many shots below the waterline before the ship starts to sink. If the audience’s illusion of intention is repeatedly or grossly challenged by logic problems, they will revolt.
Okay, so what?
Well, when we’re writing, we’re faced with a consistent choice across all scenes. How important is logic to this scene? Sometimes, logic must be suspended in order to achieve something dramatically or thematically powerful. The aforementioned scene with Michael Corleone is a good example. Having a bunch of nameless thugs kill Solozzo would have been boring and inconsequential, whereas when Michael does it, it’s the moment Vito stops being the titular character, and Michael starts.
Sometimes you have to forgo logic for the better moment.
Sometimes.
Most drama and action requires tight logic to really make people feel like the movie is in charge of itself.
Comedy, in particular, craves logic. If there’s any question whatsoever about the logic of a setup, then the resulting punchline just won’t work. We shot a scene where the original setup rested on the notion that Leslie Nielsen’s character wouldn’t recognize his own wife’s face. Well, his characters are definitely confused, but not that confused. It crossed the line into illogic. Once we altered the setup editorially to maintain logic, the punchline worked great, and the audience laughed.
Similarly, when writing in fantasy and sci-fi, internal logic is paramount. Make up any rules you’d like for your fictional system, but adhere to them. For instance, in the latest Indiana Jones film, the crystal skull is presented as an object so magnetic, it can literally attract metal shavings out of the air from hundreds of feet away.
But sometimes, it doesn’t seem to be magnetic at all. Like when it’s in a jeep. Or near guns. Or bullets.
That was a glaring logic flaw that pulled a lot of people out of the moment, including myself.
On the other hand, the filmmakers were smart to include a fast shot of the words “lead-lined” on the refrigerator that Indy climbs into just before the nuclear blast goes off. That’s enough to satisfy the Logic Nazi.
Note that problems of logic are different than problems of suspension of disbelief.
For instance, I have no problem suspending my disbelief when the film suggests that there are crystal alien skulls that have powers…or that a hero can survive a nuclear blast by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator. It’s possible given the fantasy tone with which I’m being presented.
When writing, be your own Logic Nazi, but if you feel like you need a little break from it, take one. Just make sure it’s a very little break, and above all, make sure that it’s a mild logic flaw. Pad around it. Do what magicians do, and misdirect (the fact that Tessio barely has time to get that gun in there helps obscure the obvious alternative that whoever left the gun could have just hung out there with the gun and done the shooting himself). Set off chaff and flares, and hope no one notices that you might have forsaken Occam’s Razor in favor of something a little more interesting or fun.
Don’t worry about the skeptics out there who insist that space explosions shouldn’t be fiery, heroes can’t get shot in an arm and keep raising it to fire a gun, etc. Just make sure everything adheres to the internal logic you’ve set up, as well as the basic rules of the world in which you set your film.
Because if you do cross that threshold…
…well, I’m still wondering about that magnetic thing.


Oy, Craig. Based on this theory, I’m Logic Hitler.
Thank god my bubbe isn’t around to see this.
BTW, I think there were a few good reasons for Michael to do the hit on Solozzo and McCluskey:
1) Everyone knew that Michael was somewhat outside the family business and not likely to be involved in any violence. Thus the targets’ guard would be down and they’d be lax when it came to precautions. They probably wouldn’t have agreed to meet with anyone else of importance without bringing some muscle along.
2) Michael REALLY wanted to avenge his father personally. Also himself — IIRC, McCluskey decked him in an earlier scene. On top of that, they couldn’t be sure which troops could be trusted at that point since Don Vito had already been set up at least twice.
3) There is a pretty big difference between slipping a Saturday Night Special behind the toilet without being noticed and having a couple of hitmen hanging around in the back without being noticed.
That Indy stuff, on the other hand — I get the feeling that that movie would leave me curled up in a fetal position, drooling and babbling incoherently (even more than usual). Crystal Skulls — sure, they can do what they want with those. They’re a fantasy element. But survivng an atomic bomb inside a refrigerator? I don’t think I would handle that little stretch very well.
Yes! The logic nazi, I’m definitely a self-proclaimed logic nazi. This is a blessing/curse that I have to live with.
Blessing – I could break up with my girlfriend using a powerpoint presentation with pie charts and literature citations and she won’t shed a tear because it just makes sense.
Curse – I hated indiana jones! I absolutely loved the original trilogy, and while they were all based somewhat in the supernatural, they were all logical within that religious context. They may as well have cast Will Smith for the lead in this, it’s more up his ally.
I agree about the magnet problem. Giant ants carrying a man into a hole? Shia Le Douche swinging on vines like Tarzan and catching up to cars driving 60 mph that had a 3 minute head start on him? Get serious.
I also felt like there was WAY too much exposition rather than dialogue. “The ancient legend says…”, “Oh look at that, Ox must have figured out that…”. Boo!
I’m not sure where this rant came from. I think it’s because surprisingly I’ve talked to so many people that loved the movie…I don’t get it.
Well, I think the magnetism was partially non-explained in the movie. They had a scene where they showed that things like gold coins and other items which aren’t normally magnetic were getting stuck to the skull. There may have been a line or two about it as well. While it doesn’t outright explain what’s going on, it suggests that what’s happening with the skull isn’t magnetism as we know it, but rather some strange, otherworldly force. It may have been before they knew the origin of the skull so you could say it was foreshadowing.
Much like the first movies were homages to the serials from the 30′s and 40′s, this was a homage to the sci-fi movies from the 50′s, many of which had similarly questionable usage of science to further their plots. While you could probably never squeeze out of Lucas and Spielberg what exactly was intentional or not, I have a hard time believing that after 20 years of scripts that they, along with David Koepp, simply overlooked such details; rather, much like the premise of the post, they just decided it fit their story/atmosphere more then it detracted from it. Obviously not everyone agrees.
Interestingly enough, Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark uses logic perfectly at some points.
Right after the swordsman does all of his fancy tricks — Indy shoots him. Perfect — if you bring a gun to a knife fight, why wouldn’t you use it?
Another example of a logic problem that doesn’t detract from the story (and I only noticed this one because I’ve seen the movie about a thousand times):
In the first Pirates of the Caribbean, when the two pirates have cornered Elizabeth in the governor’s mansion, she ends up throwing hot coals on one of them, with the pirate reacting to the burns.
The problem being, as we later find out, that since the pirates are cursed, they can’t actually feel.
Of course, if the pirate DOESN’T react you’re going to cause a lot more problems than you’re going to solve — people will be asking why he didn’t react, they’ll be calling it B.S. before the explanation, suspension of disbelief is gone, and the payoff of the pirates being cursed and unable to feel is ruined.
Once you lose suspension of disbelief it’s almost impossible to get it back. spoilers Once you find out there is no Santa Clause, it’s virtually impossible to believe again. end spoilers
In this case story logic trumps “real” logic.
The funny part about that Raider’s scene, is that I read there was actually supposed to be an elaborate fight scene with that swordsman. However, that day Harrison Ford had the flu and it was like 110 degrees out so when they were gearing up for the big fight scene he improvised that part because he didn’t have the energy to do it. They ended up liking it and not reshooting.
Where Indy skulls lost me was actually the blast scene, in the very beginning. Sure, the fridge is lined with lead. Super duper, that covers the radiation part. But was it also lined with super alien shock absorbant material? Did we forget this fridge actually bounced SEVERAL MILES and all the was required to shake off this trauma was some stretching? Incredible. Me and my friend actually looked at eachother and laughed.
That’s where my suspension of disbelief was lost unfortunately. And I went into this movie wanting to like it. I was willing to be forgiving because I’m such an Indy fan, but it was just too much.
I think as a standalone action adventure movie it could have been good, but this is Indiana Jones. And if Shia picks up the franchise from here I will end myself!
People will believe the impossible over the improbable. Surviving a nuclear blast inside a fridge is impossible (even though there are accounts of people surviving the Hiroshima bombings by being in a ditch as the blast went over their heads, later to die of old age). But climbing into a fridge as a last resort to save your life is probable.
What strikes me is that this was a well done, suspenseful, and UNIQUE sequence. The discovery of that the family are really dummies, Indy frantically searching for a hiding place, and finally looking at the mushroom cloud, the horrors of war… great images. If the ending is a little crazy – as if the writers painted themselves into a corner – I think that’s better than just having Indy drive out of range before the bomb goes off, as we’ve seen in so many other stories.
Dick Powell did it correctly in Split Second. The bad guys tried to outrace the bomb blast in a car — fatal error — while the good guys followed the Old Prospector into a mine shaft and got in deep enough to survive the blast.
That’s actually a very good case study in the limits of logic. The bad guys take a doctor’s wife hostage and tell the doctor they’ll kill her if he doesn’t come to their hideout to treat one of their wounded. What they don’t know is that the doctor is about to divorce his slutty wife anyhow. But the doctor shows up: he can’t leave her to her fate, because he’s just that good a guy. It plays well in this instance.
Didn’t know about “Split Second” – I wonder if that’s where they got the idea from?
I just liked the scene before the fridge. I’m glad that was in the movie. They could have come up with a better ending, but I’m glad they kept that scene. So many people have complained against Indy IV that it seems most people would have preferred a re-hash of “Raiders”. Spielberg has said that one of the reasons for delaying the film was it had to compete against “The Matrix” and “The Lord of the Rings” (a big influence on the structure with Indy having to return the skull to its natural place).
Slobdell:
Some of what you’re complaining about falls under tone rather than logic. Remember, the first Raiders film featured Indy riding a frickin’ submarine through the ocean like it was a horse.
The films’ tone allows for reality-stretching heroics.
However, the earlier films generally stay true to their own rules. That’s the logic issue.
Nice blog Craig, I like the breakdown.
Someone told me that there was an Indy script completed by (Demme? crap, I can’t remember who) and it was apperently signed off by the G&S….and then dropped. If that’s true, I’d be interested to read that sucker.
It’s a great movie. The bank robbers take their hostages to the ghost town on the atomic testing range, knowing that the area has already been cleared by the Army. It turns out, however, that that are a little too trusting of the Army’s scheduling… and a little too dismissive of the warning from one of their hostages that the Army always has the option of moving the A-bomb test up a few hours….
There’s also one-way logic, where story logic works as the story unfolds, but becomes problematic after the story has unfolded. A good example is in The Matrix, right at the beginning where the cops are holding guns on Trinity so that Smith can arrive by car. Later, we find out Smith could have arrived almost instantly by taking over one (or more) of the cops, but by the time we find that out, we’re well past the point of questioning the logic of the earlier scene.
Re: the Pirates example, given above: the cursed pirates are immortal, but its shown a number of times that they are not invulnerable. So its logical for Rigetti to react to having hot coals dumped on out of fear of being burned. The problem is in Rigetti saying “Hot hot hot!” in reaction to the coals being dumped on him. There’s a similar problem later, when Barbossa holds the dress to his cheek and says “Still warm.” Those things weren’t in the screenplay, but I’ve always felt bad that we didn’t catch them until after the movie was locked.
-Ted
Ted:
Great example with the Matrix, and I like that term. “One-way logic.” As long as the audience’s current lack of information doesn’t expose the logic flaw, you’re on safer ground. Not always completely safe, but safer.
In that regard, the “hot hot hot” moment is actually a one-way logic issue, because we haven’t learned about the nature of the curse at that moment in Pirates.
The dress is a different story.
Aaron:
Sure, Michael may harbor some personal feelings about McCluskey, but that’s not a compelling logical reason for him to do the hit. After all, it’s business. Not personal. No, he does the hit because he can get a sit down with Solozzo.
However, if Tessio’s guys learn the location, then there’s no reason that they shouldn’t just send in five button men in the middle of the dinner and mow down Solozzo and McCluskey. The fact that Michael pulls the trigger forces him to flee the country and puts him in direct harm’s way if, say, the gun doesn’t fire or he should miss.
Nope. It’s just not logical.
But…again…it’s perfect the way it is, and I wouldn’t sacrifice one frame of it to logic concerns.
He SAYS it’s not personal.
Remember also, they had his father shot.
No, I know, it’s obviously very personal for him. But Sonny and Tom can’t justify sending Michael in over personal reasons only. They need to believe that it makes sense. Michael’s speech about how McClusky is a bad cop, and that would make a good headline…that’s what convinces them that it’s a sensible, logical course of action.
But it’s not.
Oh yeah, this is great and you hit all the points! God save the Logic Nazi, even when the rest of the team wants to kill him – especially then.
Ten years back I had a very good writing partner who could drive me nuts. I can put fire and brimstone in a scene, make your heart race, elevate your blood pressure, come up with at least one scene that makes you throw the script. He couldn’t do any of that and there were times he could drive me berserk.
I remember one time in the middle of a Logic Nazi argument, saying to him that he couldn’t do all those things (as if it mattered). His reply was that I was right. “But when I get through with them, they work.” At which point I sat back like a balloon that had just been stabbedwith a Bowie knife. He was right.
Eventually we went our own way, initially not so friendly. But ever after, I remember what he’d say, and I apply his viewpoint. We became more friendly, and most recently I sent him the First Draft of what I think is a Very Important Script, asking him to look it over before it went to the Very Important People. He e-mailed me back after a weekend’s read: “It works for me.”
Best compliment ever. I learned what he was there to teach. But even if you do know this, you still need a Logic Nazi. Particularly if you’re the writer-director. I can’t put a number on the number of movies by a writer-director I have come out of, saying to the person I was with “It would have worked if they’d had somebody yelling ‘this doesn’t make sense!’”
Everybody needs a Logic Nazi. Even the logic Nazis. It’s always the stupid little thing that screws up what would have been a great movie and makes it an “also ran.”
George Lucas needs a good bombin’ from the entire Logic Luftwaffe.
Gee… wouldn’t a synonym for “logic Nazi” be “Vulcan”?
I can see it now: “You’d rewrite it for Sarek, wouldn’t you?”
“Sarek….” (dreamy look in the eye) “All right, for Sarek, I’ll change the refrigerator to an old bank safe.”
Here’s another one from Indy IV…sent along to me by another screenwriter.
If you need the crystal skull to get into the room with the crystal skulls, then how did anyone steal the crystal skull in the first place?
But sometimes the Logic Nazi needs to take a back seat to cool visuals. Since we’re working in a visual art form, logic needs to be suspended at times, coincidence can be bent, so one plot point can lead to the really cool plot point or visual. Could the ships in “At World’s End” really stay afloat in the middle of a maelstrom? I don’t know cause I’ve never been in that situation, but it looked cool and was memorable. Then you’ve got the Michael Corleone scenario described above. Could his future character of a do-whatever-it-takes guy, the future leader of the family, been developed without the scene where he pulls the grunt work himself? Could his complete devotion to the family been confirmed if it wasn’t for that setup In the big picture, one small lapse in logic is worth a dozen cool scenes or the needed development of character for plot purposes. What about Indy falling out of an airplane on a blow-up raft and actually surviving the drop? I don’t know if it’s a complete absence of logic or a coincidence pushed to the limit in order to get a the visual and push the plot along.
Derek:
Like someone before you, I think you’re confusing “fantasy” with illogic.
Suggesting that a ship could flip upside down in POTC:AWE isn’t illogical. It’s fantastic, it’s set up with a mystical map, and the entire effort is done in service of traveling to a magical place.
If, however, another ship came along and tried the same exact thing but failed, that would be illogical.
Or if there were an obviously easier way to do it, the crew knew that easier way, but still opted to flip the boat instead…that’s illogical.
Indy surviving an impossible drop isn’t illogical. It’s fantastic.
Going over the falls without hesitating when a character is afraid of water or heights? Illogical.
Okay. So, you’re talking about is consistency. Becuse no matter what story we’re talking about, it’s fantasy, whether it’s the Godfather or Harry Potter. Character consistency and consistency with the rules outlined in the created universe. So, the only way the Godfather scene could really be illogical is if it countered previous knowledge. But then again, it could also be considered character growth.
Wow. Sorry, it’s early in the morning and I guess I’m not awake yet. I guess it’s just the English major in me that wants to argue the difference between logic and consistency. Please disregard me and have a wonderful day.
I saw another movie in need of a Logic Nazi this past weekend. Only it wasn’t the movie I saw but the trailer. The culprit: “Wanted”. Much is made of the fact that these assassins can “curve the bullet” to make it do what they want it to do. In the newest trailer James McAvoy’s character pulls up alongside a target’s limo and fires his pistol at the man in the backseat. The bullets don’t penetrate the bulletproof window. So McAvoy speeds ahead, does some automobile gymnastics with his car and Angelina Jolie’s car that propels his car above the limo so that he can fire the fatal bullet down through the open sunroof at his target. Contract complete. The Logic Nazi would say: Since he can “curve the bullet” why didn’t he just pull up alongside the limo and curve the bullet into the sunroof…target eliminated. Oh, but that wouldn’t look nearly as cool and might put several CGI people out of work.
Yeah. He should’ve just curved the bullet.
derek, but why did that one bullet put the other bullet on the train? It makes no sense.
Having seen Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, my inner logician asks, why hasn’t the international community demanded that Tony Stark be brought up on war crimes trials, or at least murder charges? And how does General Ross get to stay in uniform?
Thanks for this post. As a producer and a self described Logic Nazi, I have often been accused of being pedantic in my insistence that logic is the first thing to get right. Or should be. The number of times I’ve been shot down for insisting on this for the sake of expedience (or worse needing to create “drama”) is mind boggling.
Everyone likes to blame “studio notes” for everything that is wrong in the development process, but it’s been my experience that a script with holes in it, that goes out to the world, invariably loses its way because everyone takes a crack at patching the holes because the writers/producers/directors didn’t take the time to patch them first. And then the ship sinks or at least takes on a lot of water.
I worked on Chicken Run, and before we sent it to Dreamworks, we had a pretty tight structure, with the rules fairly well intact. So when Katzenberg, the actors, the animators, or gag writers Karey Kirkpatrick wanted to bring on, came to the table, they almost always improved on it. Made the jokes better, or the characters deeper, or the visuals more imaginative. Because they didn’t have to spend all their time trying to fix “But why does he do that?” problems.
I’d be curious from a writer’s point of view whether logic fixed first and foremost always helps the creative process or sometimes stifles it, when the logic could and is fixed down the road.
Sure. Large logic problems indicate fundamental flaws in the concept and narrative. Why bother adding sparkle or drama to a scene when the story content of the scene is in trouble?
Lipstick on a pig.
Guess I was thinking more about the little logic problems. I tend to like to get stuck on them because I think lack of an understanding of a little logic problem is predictive of potentially bigger problems down the road. Most people seem to like to gloss them over and fix ‘em later and I just find when later comes, and 27 peoples have ideas for fixes, that’s when you are really in trouble.
It’s like a string sticking out of a sweater. If you can get everyone to overlook it, or if you can clip it so that no one notices, then you can live with it. But if people are going to focus on it and pick at it, they’ll keep pulling until the whole sweater unravels.
Best not to have those things sticking out in the first place, yes?