The Definitive Psychological and Physical Destruction of a Deceitful, Arrogant, Untalented Prick
An egocentric writer translates a novel that details the impending torture of him and his family unless he figures out who wrote it and makes amends.
Share
This paints an obvious anti hero as the main character problem is there is nothing for the audience to like about him. Audience empathy to the MC is very important especially in a film as appose to a television series where there is more time to develop the empathy.
If you want to tell a story about an anti hero look at Dexter as an example. There was every reason of the audience to dislike him but they ended up liking him and empathising with him over the course of several episodes serial killer, took the law into his own hands but killed bad guys and lived by a strict moral discipline.
Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction was another example of a MC that gave the audience every reason to dislike him as a murdering member of an organised crime syndicate. However he was also a hard working man that lived by a simple set of moral codes (amongst which was not to sleep with married women) only different to most law abiding people.
How will you make this egocentric, deceitful, arrogant, untalented prick palatable to the audience as a MC they can empathise with?
About the plot it isn’t clear what will happen in this movie. If the inciting incident is him translating a novel I don’t see how this relates to him stopping a future torturer. The inciting incident should be his discovery of the events to come. However this raises another plot hole; why is he convinced the novel’s predictions are true?
Perhaps just mention that he discovers plans to kill his family and construct a believable mechanism by which he does so in the synopsis and make his goal in the logline to stop the killer.
Hope this helps.
There will be 2 kinds of sequences,
-the reality, with the writer, his job and his tentative to protect his family,
-the content of the novel, where we see what could happens (his family been tortured)
I think the writer will finally find that the murderer is himself, but I don’t think you have to give any clues in the logline. Or he thinks to be the murderer but … (surprise).
I think the problem with your MC is just the way you present him in the logline. In fact I can imagine a character who start as a selfish writer, then he SEE (in the novel) her family in danger (greater dangers… first someone spying on them, then kidnapping, the torturing etc) so the writer understand that he cares and that he need do do something to stop this (and become a better person).
I think the expression “make amends” is too vague.
The only bit that I am tripping over on is the last few words. They feel a bit like “and they all lived happily ever after”. “Who wrote it and make a means” is to vague and lacks real action. Perhaps outline what motivate the original author, then it gives you something to resolve.
I like it. I recent saw a film about a priest that during confession is told he is going to be murder. The person in confession gives him 7 days (I think) to settle his affairs.
Is egocentric the best word to describe the writer. Nir immediately headed in a direction I didn’t. I know some egocentric people that I could never describe as a prick. Unless the word is a good fit drop it till you find the perfect word.
Perhaps the writer is an innocent victim, the other author is obviously deranged.
Sounds similar to “Stranger than Fiction”. The difference being that the victim is fated to be murdered, not tortured. And the victim/protagonist is a really a nice guy, even for an IRS auditor; we, the audience, want him to live.
So, as Nir Shelter noted, why would the audience root for the egocentric writer? His family, yes, but since they seem like innocent victims of his own character flaw, it make him even less sympathetic.