A rookie female detective, out to prove herself, is tasked with protecting a single mother and her son when a serial killer learns that the young boy claims to be the re-incarnation of one of his victims, and tries to kill him again.
kailicLogliner
A rookie female detective, out to prove herself, is tasked with protecting a single mother and her son when a serial killer learns that the young boy claims to be the re-incarnation of one of his victims, and tries to kill him again.
Share
I agree with all previous comments.
My biggest question though is why does the killer care? Unless this boy can remember incriminating facts about the killer then surely, knowing this is a sure fire way to get caught, he’d just steer clear. What is it about the reincarnated person that the killer deems so important that he must risk his life to kill him again. Just as the protagonist must have a clear visual goal, the antagonist’s goal must also be clear. How does the killer even learn about this? If the mother found out that her son was a serial killer’s victim reincarnated wouldn’t she just keep quiet? This setup also means that this serial killer has been wanted for at least say 4/5 years minimum? The boy has to be old enough to be able to express that he’s reincarnated. What’s the killer been doing all this time?
I feel there’s a ?lot of implausibility that, whilst it initially sounds cool, actually ends up asking too much of the audience. The reincarnation bit is the hook – the audience must buy into this so strengthen how that element works. The boy can’t just claim that he is… there has to be undeniable proof!
Hope this helps.
The premise hinges on the fact that people can be reincarnated. You’d have to make it clear beyond a doubt that the boy is indeed a reincarnation and he’s not just claiming it.
This is tougher than I thought it would be. Here is an attempt:
———————————————————–
“When a boy claims to be targeted by a serial killer who believes he’s the murderer’s latest victim re-incarnated, a reluctant rookie cop is tasked to babysit the duo, but soon the protection duty turns deadly.”
Loads of pronouns and antecedents here, too long, too confusing, provokes too many questions for clarity…has to be simplified. And too much plot for a logline. Keep it simple: protagonist, antagonist, conflict, stakes, with a single adjective here and there to define character, like “rookie detective.” We don’t need to know she’s female, and you don’t need to add she’s out to prove herself; is that not already implied? Aren’t all rookies out to prove themselves? And if she’s a detective, why is she assigned to protect them? Shouldn’t she be out detecting the suspect?
Don’t get bogged down in supplying as much information as possible; tell us only what we need to know to understand the story and make it interesting. We don’t need to know about the single mother, just the kid. Save the fleshing out for a synopsis or even just the script.
A rookie cop must protect a young boy being targeted by a serial killer after the boy claims to be the reincarnation of a previous victim.
The idea is to get people to want to read more, so just give us the basics and make it compelling. Even this example, though short enough and to the point, still raises the question of why a rookie has such an important task, but that question is asked because one wants to know more about the story, not merely to comprehend it. And as long as the more detailed materials outlining the story make these things clear, it can all work.
There is a bit of double proof here.
Rookie coo & out to prove herself, not exactly the same but close enough you could drop one.
You could also drop the – tries to kill him again line. She is protecting him for that reason.
Remove this and see how it speeds it up.
Why would the detective believe his claim?? ?(Which is to ask, why would a movie audience buy into the premise?)
It seems to me it would be more interesting if nobody believes him.? So he has no choice but to save himself.? IOW:? he’s the protagonist.
fwiw