A time-traveling Jewish scientist goes back to 1891 to smother Hitler in his crib, only to return to the future to find out a different Fuhrer was able to win the war, making Europe a permanently enslaved continent and the U.S. its fascist ally. Now he has to return to the past, and kill himself before he can kill Hitler.
Alan SmitheePenpusher
A time-traveling Jewish scientist goes back to 1891 to smother Hitler in his crib, only to return to the future to find out a different Fuhrer was able to win the war, making Europe a permanently enslaved continent and the U.S. its fascist ally. Now he has to return to the past, and kill himself before he can kill Hitler.
Share
>>>After his plan to kill Hitler
He doesn’t plan to kill Hitler. ? He DOES kill him. ?The dramatic question is: can he undo the assassination when it has unintended consequences; ?the “cure” turns out to be worse than the original “disease”?
>>>his original returns to the future, but the 1891 version of himself is arrested for being a Jewish killer of Aryan babies.
Say what? ?There are 2 versions of himself? ?Why? ?How does that happen? ?(And, yes, I’m quite familiar with “Looper”.)
As Richiev wrote, simplify the premise to the bare components which have cause and effect relationship, cut all else.
I would only add a description that enables him to time travel:
After his plan to kill Hitler creates an even worse future, A desperate time traveler must go back in time to kill himself before he kills Hitler in the crib.
Your story seems interesting, However when framing the logline it helps if there is only one inciting incident.
———————————-
When his plan to kill Hitler creates an even worse future, A desperate scientist must go back in time to kill himself before he kills Hitler in the crib.
I feel that the explanation “… making Europe …and the US Its fascist Ally” is too much detail for the Logline.
Consider something more like:
When A time-traveling Jewish scientist goes back and smothers Hitler in his crib, he returns to a Europe enslaved under a (worse/extreme/horrific) regime. His only hope is to travel back and stop himself before… (he is imprisoned/his machine is discovered).
Actually, no, he thinks? that’s “all” he has to, but it creates complications within the past that have other unforeseen results in the future. I set up the protagonist’s task — what constitutes the narrative drive of the first act — but it’s a logline, It’s not supposed? to tell you the entire story, just the premise and the hook.
As it happens he is too late, his original returns to the future, but the 1891 version of himself is arrested for being a Jewish killer of Aryan babies. He is put on trial and can offer no defense anyone believes. The crime provokes the mass expulsion of Jews from Central? Europe, and many more flee to the United States before? we close the doors. The U.S. isolationism increases in reaction, and we do not enter WWI, which Germany wins. The conditions do not arise for the birth of Nazism, and? there is no holocaust. So perversely, he accomplishes his original goal after all – although we only find this out after is is hung from the gallows and this seemingly sad ending is redeemed by the coda.
I take it you wouldn’t suggest I include all of that in a logline.
There’s plenty of irony in the logline — but where’s the dramatic suspense? ?By suspense, I mean a logline should be framed in a way the creates ?uncertainty that the protagonist can succeed in achieving his objective goal. ?IOW: ?it should not contain a spoiler.
But the last sentence seems to be a spoiler, giving away the ending, the solution to his predicament: ?all he has to do is return to the past and kill himself and the damage he has wrought is undone. ?The future-present is left to deal with the consequences of the lesser of 2 evils. ?At least, the problem he created is solved.
fwiw