Bitch In The Cellar
Lucius PaisleyLogliner
To cleanse her dead son’s soul, a once-sceptical occult historian must force a former kung fu master cop to recreate a ritual he witnessed as a child. (FOR MEETUP REVIEW)
Share
Have an account? Sign In Now
The only thing that jumped out of me is “former Kung Fu master Cop”. Do we need to know that he was a cop? The combination seems strange.
The only thing that jumped out of me is “former Kung Fu master Cop”. Do we need to know that he was a cop? The combination seems strange.
“Do we need to know that he was a cop?”
Ah, but he IS a cop.
It’s “kung fu master” that was his former ‘job’.
“The combination seems strange.”
The story is not entirely serious.
“Do we need to know that he was a cop?”
Ah, but he IS a cop.
It’s “kung fu master” that was his former ‘job’.
“The combination seems strange.”
The story is not entirely serious.
Intriguing ? but a bit confusing. There?s a bit too much going on, and it?s hard to follow. i.e. ?once-skeptical occult historian?? ? what?s the point of her being ?once skeptical?? why not just skeptical? I guess it?s confusing because as she?s now an apparent expert in the occult surely she would no longer be that skeptical of such things..?
And what exactly is meant by ??cleanse her dead son?s soul???
I don?t think we need to know that the cop witnessed the ritual as a child (this is quite confusing, as ?he? could be construed to mean the protagonist?s dead son?)
And is it important that we must know that the legendary kung-fu master is a cop? As in, what relevance does that have to the story (I guess I could ask the same question as to what relevance a kung-fu master has to solving her problem..)?
Below is just my take ? good luck ? definitely interesting?
When a History professor is visited by the ghost of her dead son trapped in purgatory, she must track down a legendary kung-fu master who knows a ritual that can free the dead.?
Even if you are shooting for a bit of a farce in terms of plot/ character etc, I think the logline needs to be simplified and made clearer.
Best of luck.
Intriguing ? but a bit confusing. There?s a bit too much going on, and it?s hard to follow. i.e. ?once-skeptical occult historian?? ? what?s the point of her being ?once skeptical?? why not just skeptical? I guess it?s confusing because as she?s now an apparent expert in the occult surely she would no longer be that skeptical of such things..?
And what exactly is meant by ??cleanse her dead son?s soul???
I don?t think we need to know that the cop witnessed the ritual as a child (this is quite confusing, as ?he? could be construed to mean the protagonist?s dead son?)
And is it important that we must know that the legendary kung-fu master is a cop? As in, what relevance does that have to the story (I guess I could ask the same question as to what relevance a kung-fu master has to solving her problem..)?
Below is just my take ? good luck ? definitely interesting?
When a History professor is visited by the ghost of her dead son trapped in purgatory, she must track down a legendary kung-fu master who knows a ritual that can free the dead.?
Even if you are shooting for a bit of a farce in terms of plot/ character etc, I think the logline needs to be simplified and made clearer.
Best of luck.
“what?s the point of her being ?once skeptical?”
She was not a believer and her eyes are now opened to the “reality” of the occult due to her son’s death.
“she?s now an apparent expert in the occult”
She’s not an expert in the occult, she is an expert in the history and belief in the occult.
If she were an expert, she wouldn’t need the former kung fu master cop.
“I don?t think we need to know that the cop witnessed the ritual as a child”
I disagree as this explains why it is the once sceptical occult historian NEEDS the former kung fu master cop.
“I guess I could ask the same question as to what relevance a kung-fu master has to solving her problem”
Because it’s funny, and it’s relevant to the ritual he witnessed as a child.
When a History professor is visited by the ghost of her dead son trapped in purgatory, she must track down a legendary kung-fu master who knows a ritual that can free the dead.?
That’s much too dry. Plus, the difference between a professor and a historian is too great, “professor” steals away her naivete. “dead son trapped in purgatory” is too steeped in Catholic lore, which is why I got rid of “exorcism” from my last revision, this way I can make up my own ‘ritual’ and not have it make any form of sense. The former kung fu master cop can’t be legendary, that puts too much emphasis on ability and takes away the opportunity of failure.
At its most simplistic, the logline is – To solve this problem, this person needs another person to provide the solution.
Maybe I can make the kung fu master’s job clearer and possibly rephrase ‘once sceptical’, but I think the situation is pretty clearly mapped out.
Thanks all the same…
“what?s the point of her being ?once skeptical?”
She was not a believer and her eyes are now opened to the “reality” of the occult due to her son’s death.
“she?s now an apparent expert in the occult”
She’s not an expert in the occult, she is an expert in the history and belief in the occult.
If she were an expert, she wouldn’t need the former kung fu master cop.
“I don?t think we need to know that the cop witnessed the ritual as a child”
I disagree as this explains why it is the once sceptical occult historian NEEDS the former kung fu master cop.
“I guess I could ask the same question as to what relevance a kung-fu master has to solving her problem”
Because it’s funny, and it’s relevant to the ritual he witnessed as a child.
When a History professor is visited by the ghost of her dead son trapped in purgatory, she must track down a legendary kung-fu master who knows a ritual that can free the dead.?
That’s much too dry. Plus, the difference between a professor and a historian is too great, “professor” steals away her naivete. “dead son trapped in purgatory” is too steeped in Catholic lore, which is why I got rid of “exorcism” from my last revision, this way I can make up my own ‘ritual’ and not have it make any form of sense. The former kung fu master cop can’t be legendary, that puts too much emphasis on ability and takes away the opportunity of failure.
At its most simplistic, the logline is – To solve this problem, this person needs another person to provide the solution.
Maybe I can make the kung fu master’s job clearer and possibly rephrase ‘once sceptical’, but I think the situation is pretty clearly mapped out.
Thanks all the same…
I don?t think we need to know that the cop witnessed the ritual as a child?
— I disagree as this explains why it is the once skeptical occult historian NEEDS the former kung fu master cop.–
I disagree — we just need know he has the answer to the problem, we don’t need to know how or why he has the answer… It just ends up being added baggage to sort through, and there’s enough already.
Even though — yes — my take is on the dry side, the attempt was made as an example for clarity’s sake…
I guess the main reason I’m confused is becasue of her goal “to cleanse her dead son’s soul” — I did not realise this is a rewrite of another logline (to do with exorcism), and without knowing the details of the other logline I have no idea what cleansing a dead soul actually means… I thought common practice was to rewrite loglines in their original thread so the progress can be tracked by posters…
“At its most simplistic, the logline is ? To solve this problem, this person needs another person to provide the solution.”
I agree — but again, I don’t have a handle on ‘cleaning a dead soul’… “to save her dead son’s soul”?? And FORCING the cop to perform the ritual…? What about “must convince” or “must coerce”?
What was the original logline?
I don?t think we need to know that the cop witnessed the ritual as a child?
— I disagree as this explains why it is the once skeptical occult historian NEEDS the former kung fu master cop.–
I disagree — we just need know he has the answer to the problem, we don’t need to know how or why he has the answer… It just ends up being added baggage to sort through, and there’s enough already.
Even though — yes — my take is on the dry side, the attempt was made as an example for clarity’s sake…
I guess the main reason I’m confused is becasue of her goal “to cleanse her dead son’s soul” — I did not realise this is a rewrite of another logline (to do with exorcism), and without knowing the details of the other logline I have no idea what cleansing a dead soul actually means… I thought common practice was to rewrite loglines in their original thread so the progress can be tracked by posters…
“At its most simplistic, the logline is ? To solve this problem, this person needs another person to provide the solution.”
I agree — but again, I don’t have a handle on ‘cleaning a dead soul’… “to save her dead son’s soul”?? And FORCING the cop to perform the ritual…? What about “must convince” or “must coerce”?
What was the original logline?
You’ll find the original logline (before a LOT of changes) and the ongoing discussion here –
https://loglines.org/when-a-young-girl-possesses-her-son-a-sceptical-anthropologist-must-help-a-former-priest-demon-hunter-reclaim-his-faith-to-fight-a-demon-and-save-them-all/
The discussion regarding exorcism is definitely one I don’t wish to repeat since “exorcism” is almost its own genre of late…
You’ll find the original logline (before a LOT of changes) and the ongoing discussion here –
https://loglines.org/when-a-young-girl-possesses-her-son-a-sceptical-anthropologist-must-help-a-former-priest-demon-hunter-reclaim-his-faith-to-fight-a-demon-and-save-them-all/
The discussion regarding exorcism is definitely one I don’t wish to repeat since “exorcism” is almost its own genre of late…
Sounds like a completely different movie now…
Without getting into a similar discussion on exorcism, is it involved in this current iteration?
And is ‘cleanse her dead son’s soul’ tied into this? Or better yet, what is meant by a ‘cleansing of the soul’? Like, specifically, in the case of this movie? I just think that’s important as an audience member (to the logline) as I’m having trouble getting a grip on what this PHYSICALLY (albeit spiritually…) means.
Sounds like a completely different movie now…
Without getting into a similar discussion on exorcism, is it involved in this current iteration?
And is ‘cleanse her dead son’s soul’ tied into this? Or better yet, what is meant by a ‘cleansing of the soul’? Like, specifically, in the case of this movie? I just think that’s important as an audience member (to the logline) as I’m having trouble getting a grip on what this PHYSICALLY (albeit spiritually…) means.
“Sounds like a completely different movie now?”
And one that actually appeals to my own comedic senses.
“Without getting into a similar discussion on exorcism, is it involved in this current iteration?”
Not really, although the ends are similar, the method to reach those ends won’t be.
“And is ?cleanse her dead son?s soul? tied into this? Or better yet, what is meant by a ?cleansing of the soul??”
In a way, I wanted the logline to keep the “exorcism” sounding angle, while at the same time trying to distance myself from it.
Nothing is really meant by it, I wanted to be vague while borrowing spiritual terminology. I guess I could have used ‘purify’, but I have no reason for why I didn’t apart from I just didn’t think of it.
I guess I was just looking for a fancy word for “saved”, because using meant I might as well just have stamped ‘Exorcist Rip-Off’ all over it…
“Sounds like a completely different movie now?”
And one that actually appeals to my own comedic senses.
“Without getting into a similar discussion on exorcism, is it involved in this current iteration?”
Not really, although the ends are similar, the method to reach those ends won’t be.
“And is ?cleanse her dead son?s soul? tied into this? Or better yet, what is meant by a ?cleansing of the soul??”
In a way, I wanted the logline to keep the “exorcism” sounding angle, while at the same time trying to distance myself from it.
Nothing is really meant by it, I wanted to be vague while borrowing spiritual terminology. I guess I could have used ‘purify’, but I have no reason for why I didn’t apart from I just didn’t think of it.
I guess I was just looking for a fancy word for “saved”, because using meant I might as well just have stamped ‘Exorcist Rip-Off’ all over it…
While it does change the story somewhat… again –
“When a resurrection spell backfires and she gives control of her dead mother’s body to a voodoo witchdoctor, a part-time occult librarian teams up with an undead ex-cop to destroy her.”
There are things I’d like to have revealed in the logline that don’t fit word-wise, but if this version now makes more sense, I probably won’t need to…
Thoughts, anybody?
While it does change the story somewhat… again –
“When a resurrection spell backfires and she gives control of her dead mother’s body to a voodoo witchdoctor, a part-time occult librarian teams up with an undead ex-cop to destroy her.”
There are things I’d like to have revealed in the logline that don’t fit word-wise, but if this version now makes more sense, I probably won’t need to…
Thoughts, anybody?