After a lovesick flight attendant and the wife of a doppelganger of a famous actor becomes pregnant by him, he sets out to convince them to share a home with him.
PstoneLogliner
After a lovesick flight attendant and the wife of a doppelganger of a famous actor becomes pregnant by him, he sets out to convince them to share a home with him.
Share
This version is a more interesting concept of a marital triangle.? However, now it’s not clear to me who the protagonist is, the stewardess or the husband.? ?Frankly,? it seems to me that this version makes the the husband the central character.? He’s the one who drives the story, who creates the central dramatic dilemma by suggesting a co-living arrangement.? He’s the one with an objective goal: to have a living arrangement convenient for him.
And he is certainly the most interesting of the three.
So who is the protagonist?? And what is the story really about?? What theme are you trying to explore?
I’m a little confused – is it a triangle between two pregnant women and one man who looks like a famous actor?
Interesting! (If I’ve got it right, of course). The doppelganger characteristic seems to imply that he may be shallow, relying on his looks and its similarity to someone famous to live the high life without actually earning anything. In which case, a good flaw – and one he would need to overcome if he is to make things right with the two women he loves.
Can I suggest:
“A man who coasts through life by virtue of looking exactly like a famous actor impregnates both his wife and his girlfriend at the same time, and sets out to convince them to share a home together”
This logline is confusing – I’m not sure if the flight attendant and wife are the same character or two separate characters and it’s unclear who the pronoun ‘he’ in the second clause is referring to.
Other than the confusion over the wording in the logline, it’s also unclear what the story will be – is it about someone convincing a couple of women to live with him? This doesn’t sound like much of a story, if anything, the story would really start after they agree to live together and all the problems that come about as a result of the awkward triangle.
This is written?in such a way that I am not sure who is who.
Also, I am not sure you have actually written any conflict into your logline.
>>>?A doppelganger of a famous actor impregnates both his ill gotten gain fan and his wife and convinces them to share a home together with him.?
End of story.? FADE TO CREDIT SCROLL.? I mean, from the guy’s pov, problem solved, mission accomplished — right?? What else is there to dramatize?
If the denouement of the plot is that he does convince the women to co-habitate, then this version is a spoiler:? it gives away how the movie ends.? And that is something a logline should never do.
I’m guessing there’s more to the plot than that.? But I don’t know what you have in mind; there are so many possibilities.
A logline should lay out a dramatic problem that becomes a source of escalating conflict, that? is not resolved until the end of the movie.? What is that dramatic problem in this story?
Also, I do not find the man a relatable, sympathetic protagonist.? He’s trading on his looks, not his character. And it doesn’t ring emotionally true to me that in these modern times, either woman would agree to such a convenient arrangement — because it’s only convenient for him.? What’s in it (emotionally) for the women?? Certainly not love.
And then there’s this:
>>> for personal moral reasons, [he] decides against abortion
Whoa! I have to call a time out and throw a penalty flag on this.? Why is he the one who makes the decision?? Shouldn’t the woman decide for herself?
Frankly, this seems to be the kind of movie plot that women in the “Times Up” movement are railing against,? one with a story line that treats women as little more than sex objects, that casts them in servile roles subordinate to the sex drive , narcissism and dictates of male protagonists.? A concept that seems doomed to fail the Bechdel test from the git go.
fwiw
My first reaction was to stay WELL AWAY from this thread… but then I thought an impartial opinion could help clarify a few things.
First and foremost, we encourage all members to express their honest opinions about a story/logline in full – this is the only way we can actually learn from each other. If anyone finds someone’s thoughts unpleasing or otherwise different to their own, no biggie, it happens all the time – my approach is to thank them for their time and move on to the next comment.
I believe that any remarks made with a social-political context about a concept are intended to highlight a marketing/pitching caveat rather than be a criticism of any kind. If this wasn’t the case, then we do apologise – this website exists for the discussion of story in general, loglines in particular and nothing else.
My comments reflect my concerns as to the marketability of the concept in light of the ongoing debates over the roles offered women in front of and behind the camera.
In my opinion it is the fact that this story idea says so much about the nature of our society, gender, superficiality, objectification? (for both male and female characters to some degree) that makes it interesting.? The characters are all flawed in ways that really cut to the bone for the point our society is at at the moment.
For this reason, it will be extremely delicate to tell, and I agree with dpg that so far the pitching has been a little indelicate – but this is not a discouragement. These things are hard. My advice is take the feedback and make sure you know the moral arch of the main character and can tell the story in a way that makes them likeable.
I agree with the other commenters that the meat of the story is still absent. “Sets out to convince them to share a house together” is the wrong action. “Sets out to make things right” is better, and I think the story then involves the protagonist learning about their perspectives and what he needs to do in order to make things right with them.
His motivation is a determination not to be a bad father to his children, perhaps because of his own absent father. He realises that he can’t be a good father (to either a son or a daughter) without fixing his own emotional problems and learning to treat other people in his life with respect.