After an asteroid hits the earth and wipes out half the planet, a scientist must find a way to keep humanity from freezing to death by harnessing the earth’s core.
GabeLogliner
After an asteroid hits the earth and wipes out half the planet, a scientist must find a way to keep humanity from freezing to death by harnessing the earth’s core.
Share
Hey guys, I really appreciate the feedback and the time giving it. In terms of the story actually working , that’s something I prefer to figure out while I’m writing the synopsis and delving into research, although I do appreciate you flagging it dpg – it’s not something one should underestimate. Re. the logline, thanks, Dkpough1, yea I think perhaps a little more detail of how the scientist is going to go about harnessing the earth’s core, might be beneficial. Because I’m using loglines as development tools at this point, I’m really trying to make sure I have a handle on them so that I have solid a foundation and direction, for my stories. I’m getting a lot of value from all your feedback, thank you.
I take your point, Dkpough1. ?Frankly, I am occasionally torn between doing a just by-the-checklist review of the structure of the logline (protagonist, inciting incident, objective goal, antagonist/obstacle) and the curiosity to probe a little deeper for?substance. ?Specifically, how credible is the underlying premise? How well has the logic been thought through? ?How well has it been researched?
Bringing passion?to a story is necessary, of course. ?But is it sufficient? ? These days audiences are more sophisticated, less credulous. ?Story concepts ?for certain genres , like scifi, that could get made into movies — that did get made into movies a few decades ago — would have a harder time getting a green light today.
One reason so many of Michael Crichton’s science fiction books (like “The Andromeda Stain”, “Westsworld “, “Jurassic Park”) got adapted into movies — very successful movies — even became franchises — was because the story premises were credible. ?His stories are flights of fantasy, of course, but flights launched from a solid foundation of thoroughly researched scientific fact.
No one posting here is obliged to explain ?the underlying logic or factual basis that makes their concept credible. ?However, if they can’t provide a plausible explanation, it’s not a problem I create by raising the question. ?The problem lies with the premise. ?My inquiry may just be putting a spotlight on it.
I think that even then, the details and science behind the asteroid isn’t even that important to the script. There are other scientific details that need to be plausible and explained, the consequences of the asteroid. I’m not saying the asteroid’s impact doesn’t need to make sense, but in mind it happens, it’s just a means to kick start the story. I suppose I don’t question it because an asteroid hitting the earth is sort of an established event, whether because of actual history or because of other stories.
I suppose I’ve just gotten to the point where if a logline seems logical and is well-written, I don’t try to go past that, discussing the details the writer has spent however long coming up with. Not to say that I don’t enjoy having discussions, like we do on many threads, but in my mind, at some point, if the logline is sound, then discussing the details of the story without knowing all of the details and how they come together isn’t very effective like if I had all of the details. I guess I’m saying that at some point I just trust that the writer has the ability to tell a story and their script will sink or swim on on its own.
This is in no way a criticism against you, dpg. After over a year on the site I can clearly see you have a passion for storytelling and that you genuinely wish that everyone who posts here succeeds(even if they are competition.) I think some members get the wrong idea about your detail-oriented responses and inclusion of your own knowledge and experiences.
Anyway, aside from that tangent.
After reading through the logline again I do think that perhaps it could add a few details pertaining to the conditions caused by the asteroid.
A scientist is tasked with saving what’s left of the Earth’s population after an asteroid collision claims half of its habitable surface.
I realize I’m asking for more information than can be crammed into a logline. ?That’s because I’m curious as to the scientific mumbo-jumbo behind the concept, that, like it or not, will have to be embedded in the script. ?If the script reader doesn’t buy into that exposition, the script isn’t going to make the cut. ?Just saying.
I think dpg is right that perhaps “must find a way” could be changed to something a bit more specific, even if only a direction. Something like, “a scientist has to complete his father’s research in order to harness the earth’s core”. Just a direction that the protagonist follows. What is the initial idea the scientist has? What makes he/she think that they are able to harness the earth’s core?
However, I think “So?what?s the pseudo-scientific explanation for only 1/2 the earth being destroyed, when one asteroid, less than 10 miles in diameter, striking the earth ~65 million years ago gets the credit for a?worldwide?extinction of some 3/4 of all living species including all the dinosaurs?” is not needed in the logline. The question into such a story specific detail is a unneeded. Whether it’s that the asteroid has less mass than the aforementioned dinosaur-annihilating one or because it didn’t hit with as much force, or whatever science sounding answer there is, whatever. It happens.
In my mind there are other questions that arise from the situation described. Such as, how would harnessing the earth’s core affect the planet?
The one thing I think may need to be addressed in the logline, however, is what will cause them to freeze to death? The concept presents a lot of variables that such a disastrous event would cause.
The ?genre seems to be more science fiction than adventure.
And in science fiction, the premise must have a degree of scientific, or at least, pseudo-scientific plausibility. ?So?what’s the pseudo-scientific explanation for only 1/2 the earth being destroyed, when one asteroid, less than 10 miles in diameter, striking the earth ~65 million years ago gets the credit for a worldwide extinction of some 3/4 of all living species including all the dinosaurs??
And rapidly. ?So what’s the ticking clock? ?How much time does the scientist have to engineer a solution?
And what is the solution — the objective goal, the m.o. to harness the earth’s heat? And how pseudo-scientifically plausible is it?
That’s wonderful to hear. Thank you for your feedback 🙂
This logline, like your more recent one, ?has good structure and an interesting concept.