An epic love story set in a time where a dying scientist is able to upload his consciousness into the internet and, facing its global implications, must fight against the forces who are actively working against the existence of a singularity.

Richiev makes a good point. One that I will partly echo myself. My own take, from the top is:

Firstly, the word “singularity” is too technical for a logline. Most execs or producers are not Science-literate enough to know what this word means. Much less make the vital connection between the conventional definition of this word and the concept of the world heading straight for a massive, radical, and irreversible change.

Secondly, there is an apparent genre conflict in the logline as what is initially introduced as a romance turns out to be some kind of cyberspace story roughly along the lines of “The Lawnmower Man” (1992). While, technically, a romance could still exist in this setting, the logline’s emphasis on the cyber setting creates a clashing set of expectations to the reader. At a minimum, a busy reader is likely to think this story concept is confused. At worst, the reader, himself, may be confused! (Either way, a really bad outcome.)

Instead, the logline should pitch the story as one genre and stick with describing it in terms of that genre. Even if the actual script happens to be deep and multi-layered. (Readers don’t want confusion!)

As for the logline’s description of the ‘cyber story’, specifically: It is a little interesting, but it could have all been rendered much more effectively. For example, instead of telling us about vague and unspecified “global implications” and equally vague “forces” acting against the protagonist, greater sharpness and vividness could and should have been applied. Such as, “He discovers a sinister conspiracy that threatens global privacy and his one true love.” (A description that is more specific and more clear about what the stakes are, yet still does not reveal everything.)

Steven Fernandez (Judge).