After a robber kills his mother new years eve, a depressed scientist tries to convince his country that the only way to make the world a safer place for all would be to get rid of money.

Nocturnedk:

As Nir Shelter said.

I’ve said my piece on the substance of your story. ? I remain dubious, but if it sells , I will be happy to be the 1st one to offer congratulations.

Best wishes.

I’m the SOB who gave a thumbs down on this logline. ?I commend you for having the intellectual courage to inquire why. ?So here’s my response:

First of all the logline says more than is necessary. ?Distilled down to the basic plot, the logline seems to be:

After a robber kills his mother, his grieving son?tries to make the world a safer place by convincing ?his countrymen to get rid of money.?
(26 words versus 37 in the original. )

?? That he’s a scientist, while it fleshes out the character in the script, is immaterial for the purpose of the logline. ?And it’s a general description — what kind of scientist is he? ?What’s his metier? ?A biologist may know his taxonomy — but it doesn’t logically follow that, ergo, he must know how to do his taxes.

Whatever, my take away is that just because he’s a scientist doesn’t automatically make him a credible authority on economics. ? Now if ?he were an economist, ?a Nobel prize winning economist, no less, that would add some weight to the credibility of the character’s proposal .

?? And yes, death can lead to depression, but the primary reaction is grieving.

?? Now then. ?”Get rid of all money” is a negative goal that ?only creates a vacuum; if cash is no longer the medium of exchange, then what’s the replacement? ?There has to be one otherwise the entire modern economy immediately crashes back into a Neolithic world of barter exchange. ?What is the replacement solution?

And ?suppose your grieving son succeeds in persuading the country to eliminate money. ?How is that cash-free economy to function in a world that still uses cash?

Well, the world is moving toward more digital transactions, fewer cash ones. ?So theoretically all cash could replaced with digital cash (Bitcoins, etc.)

So, in effect, his objective goal, positively stated, could be:

After a robber kills his mother, his grieving son?tries to make the world a safer place by persuading his countrymen to replace old-fashioned cash with digital cash.

Economic theory aside for a moment, every logline should have a positive spin on the objective goal of the protagonist. And the objective goal needs to be concrete. ?Thus a logline for Andy Dufresne’s ?goal in “The Shawshank Redemption” would not be that he’s trying to escape from ?prison. ?Because it’s negative — he’s fleeing from a bad situation without a clue as to what he’s running toward. (So he escapes prison, then what?)

Rather, ?Andy Dufresne’s objective goal is to win his freedom (a positive) and flee to an idyllic beach in Mexico (a specific, concrete destination).

Back to your story. ?So suppose your character succeeds. ?Money is abolished. ?The world is safter because there are more robberies, FADE OUT with a happy ending, right?

As if.

?? People are still going to be robbed, mugged and killed for ?their debit and credit cards, ?cell phones, ?their jewelry, clothes, ?cars — all their other material possessions. ?Because money isn’t the problem. ?Human nature is the problem. The logline proposes a unrealistic solution that only treats a symptom. ?I do not find it believable that his solution, if he succeeded in persuading everyone else to embrace it, would make the world substantively safer.

I also have considered the option that is how you intend the story to end, that his success only leads to failure. ?All other forms robbery continue — maybe even increase. Which makes him a loser and a fool.

Why would I want to invest my time and money to watch a fool and a loser? ?Why would a mass movie audience?

?? Now, if my perception is wrong, if you have thought through all the implications of your premise and can rebut all my concerns, please do.

However, the more important consideration is whether my response to your logline could be considered representative, or an outlier. ? How likely is it that most Hollywood producers and directors would readily accept the premises and implications of your logline?

You, of course, are the final judge of that.