When a bitten-to-death passenger is found dead in his cabin, a dad with son-issues aspires to catch the killer and redeem himself to his son.
WaveLogliner
When a bitten-to-death passenger is found dead in his cabin, a dad with son-issues aspires to catch the killer and redeem himself to his son.
Share
Is there a particular dramatic reason why the story seems to have co-protagonists?
Are they a mixed couple–one female, one male?
And if not, could they be?
(And going forward please keep all the discussion and revisions in one thread.)
The logline is a bit awkward to read. ?You should try saying the same thing but in a more readable way.
Before: When a bitten-to-death passenger is found…
After: When a passenger is bitten to death…
>>>I just find it difficult to capture a whole story in a single sentence.
Yeah, that’s frustrating. ?But given the constraints…
I don’t know how much you know from 1st hand observation or experience with detective work or how much research you’ve done but the following stream of ?randomized thoughts are is based upon my own experience working for the LAPD.
First of all, independent of his son, he’s got to solve the murder because first and foremost that’s his professional duty. ?That’s what he does, that’s what he’s good at.
Also, in order to solve the murder, he’s got to sacrifice quality time with his son, right? (I assume the son is also on the voyage). ?Which I should think the son would resent. ?
So, the murder would initially exacerbate the relationship, not repair it. ?It would seem to doom his original goal of ?using the voyage to patch up their relationship.
And what wounded their relationship to begin with? ?All the overtime hours he put in solving cases when he was on the clock. ?In major metropolitan police forces, the work entails a lot unplanned overtime. ?A lot. ?(The overtime LAPD officers and detectives racked up — it’s gotta be the #1 reason so many of them had failed marriages and rotten relationships with their kids.)
Anyway, ?I suggest that in the end redeeming himself in his son’s eyes would be an unintended consequence, a bonus. ?How so? Because, unlike when the detective is working the mean streets of the city, his son is close at hand, becomes an eyewitness to how his father works a case, comes to appreciate his father’s unsung heroism and dedication to seeing justice done.
fwiw.
“The story does indeed have two protagonists.”
If this is the case, then you should frame the logline around them. What causes them to come together to solve the case? As I asked in the previous thread, is it a buddy film? If so, then highlight the differences between the characters which will provide the?main relationship.
“When a bitten-to-death passenger is found dead in his cabin, a dad with son-issues aspires to catch the killer and redeem himself to his son.”
Better. As noted before “a dad with son issues” is vague. “Bitten-to-death” is awkward. To be honest, although in my example I named a specific cause of death, all you really need is “a body is found”. “Turns bloody” was simply too vague. It could anything from?someone getting cut to a bloody massacre.
And finally “aspires to catch the killer” is not a visible action. What action does he do? Does he gather crime scene photos? Question witnesses?
As dpg noted, “redeem himself to his son” needs to be reworded so that either that is his actual goal, to catch the killer in order to redeem himself, or the relationship with his son needs to be made into an obstacle.
Example:?When a cruise passenger is found dead in his cabin, a detective investigates the case so he can redeem himself to his estranged son.?(~24 words)
And furtherless, if your going to do a story that’s heavy on relationship, ?you might want to think about ?making the detective a woman.
Men ?go for action; women for relationship.
Call that a stereotype; call me a sexist pig; ?I’m just calling it as I read the demographic readouts on IMDB . ?
(And women lead characters are so grossly underrepresented in movies. It’s scandalous.)
“Men ?go for action; women for relationship.”
While it may be true that women are more likely to see romance type stories, this statement is too stereotypical. There are plenty of women who like action as well, and there are men who like relationship/romance. And, since women have made up the majority of the movie-going audience for multiple years, the action films depend on that demographic.
On your last note, yes, women, especially POC women are??wanting to see themselves represented onscreen.
Personally I would much rather see a platonic relationship between a man and a woman, a female buddy movie, or two LGBT?leads.
And just to throw my perspective in: As a male I don’t mind romance, if it is organically introduced into the story and it gives me a reason to root for the relationship to succeed. ?(A good example is in the recent season of “DC’s Legends of Tomorrow” which featured one of the time-traveling women sparking up a relationship with a repressed lesbian in 1958. It was a rare romance that I enjoyed. Keeping in the DC universe, a bad example is Olicity. I didn’t mind it at first, but once it became a reason to turn the show into a soap opera I enjoyed it considerable less, as many other “Arrow” fans did. )
Men go for action; women for relationship.
I was painting with a broad stroke to be deliberately provocative. ? But I stand by my statement that if the premise of the story is about a ?detective’s struggle to balance his personal and professional life, it might be more interesting to explore with a female protagonist.
Even more interesting might be a female detective on a vacation cruise taking the cruise with her husband who intends to file for a divorce because her detective work consumes so much of her time. ?This is the last chance to save their marriage.
And then the corpse appears which throws her onto the horns of a dramatic dilemma: she can solve the murder or she can save her marriage. ?But not both.
“But not both.”
Wouldn’t that be the real challenge? To be able to do both? To somehow be able to get her spouse to remain with her,?and catch the killer? As you said in an earlier review about the son, her husband could see what she’s doing and then that convinces him to stay with her.
But then again, if she fails at one, then how she deals with that failure could be an opportunity for a sequel. Not to mention that the protagonist winning everything at the end always makes me feel cheated; the story basically went full circle rather than going straight and exploring and building upon the protagonist’s actions and the consequences they bring.
” it might be more interesting to explore with a female protagonist.”
I do agree with this.
“Men go for action; women for relationship.”
I want to expand on my position a bit more. Yes, women go for action. They enjoy action, though they wish for more female action protagonists.
Men are unlikely to go see relationship films, romance-y films. But that is a product of a “broad stroke” as you say. Men don’t go see these films because they view them as only for women. Society has implanted in them that if they watch those types of films it will somehow make them less masculine. So yes, men do go for action. It is a product of a societal expectation.
On another note, I simply think that romance as a main plot is not effective enough. We need to see the trials the couple goes through, and what better way than to the make the romance a subplot and focus on the action, horror, fantasy, sci-fi, or thriller part which strengthens and builds that relationship?
You raise good points, as usual, Dkpough 1. ?In response to
>>>?But not both.?
>>>Wouldn?t that be the real challenge? To be able to do both? To somehow be able to get her spouse to remain with her, and catch the killer?
Because for the purpose of a logline and a plot, a protagonist should only have 1 objective goal. ? The Biblical adage that “no man can serve two masters” is as true for reel life as it is for real life in the sense that no protagonist can serve 2 objective goals. ?He can try. ?But one must inevitably taken precedence; one must inevitably be sacrificed for the sake of the other. It’s S.O.P. in drama.
True dilemmas are a good thing in drama, a way par excellence to infuse a story with complications and rising tension.
Dilemmas aside, there’s the matter of the initial objective goal –before the inciting incident– and the new objective goal created by the inciting incident.
Case in point: ?”Die Hard”
The movie opens with NYPD officer John McClane flying to LA to visit his kids and his wife from whom he is estranged. ?His initial objective goal is to repair their broken marriage.
And then the terrorists attack– the inciting incident.
As a result of that inciting incident, what becomes his objective goal? ?To repair his marriage by by impressing his wife with how he single-handedly outwits and defeats the terrorists?
No. ?His objective goal becomes to outwit and defeat the terrorists. ?That’s how the plot is framed.
Yes, his wife is among those in jeopardy. ?But even if she weren’t, even if there was no one else in the building but himself and the bad guys, John McClane would take on the terrorists. ?Why? ?Because he’s a stand up guy, a good cop. ?Because it’s his job, his calling.
And in the process of defeating the terrorists, he wins her back — that’s his Christmas bonus, the unintended consequence of his achieving his objective goal.
There, I submit for your consideration, is the template for the premise of this logline.
fwiw
“Because for the purpose of a logline and a plot, a protagonist should only have 1 objective goal”
In this case, I think it matters how you view these, because in reality they could be viewed as only part of a larger goal: to balance work and personal life. In that case repairing the marriage and doing the job are only steps to take to get to the goal. Just as in real life, most people’s goal is to live life to the , but everything else falls under that. But in a story is it too broad? I think in that case the focus goes on the trials the person faces to achieve that grand goal. In this case, having to be able to do the job and keep the marriage together.
Anyway, I still stand by my earlier stance where I said seeing the protagonist losing at the end would be refreshing compared to all the happy endings..