When Western men suspiciously die in an peaceful Asian country the US counts as a key ally, an inexperienced American Embassy security official ruffles diplomatic feathers by claiming the country’s first serial killer has emerged and is probably an American.
wryter69Penpusher
When Western men suspiciously die in an peaceful Asian country the US counts as a key ally, an inexperienced American Embassy security official ruffles diplomatic feathers by claiming the country’s first serial killer has emerged and is probably an American.
Share
You should name the country. It will help the reader visualize the setting.
“After a series of grizzly murders rock South Korea, an inexperience American security official hunts for clues while battling officials who wish to keep secret the possibility the serial murderer could be an American.”
And then what? ?As a result of suspecting the murderer is an American, what does the security official do? ?What becomes his objective goal? ?Who opposes him?
And as Richiev said, it’s better to name the country; it’s a must-know factor in getting the script read.
Agreed with both the above comments, although the goal is largely hinted at – catching the killer and the opposition could be assumed – the Asian country’s officials, this all needs to be disclosed in the logline.
I’d say go one step further and put a face to the character – specify who it is that won’t let the official carry out the investigation. Could be a twist that the person who stands in his way is the killer or is somehow connected to the killer?
This feels like two loglines smashed together. Why call the Western men when you probably mean American?
What country are you referring to in regards to the serial killer? Overall, the logline is way too long and confusing.
After a murder a US diploma starts an incident by suggesting there is an American serial killer operating in Asia.
This is an incident. But what is the story? What happens before and after is the story. Tell us that.