The Armageddon Virus
An idealistic priest is hunted by Church agents after he uncovers a plot to release a virus that targets non believers.
Share
Have an account? Sign In Now
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Now *THAT*’s interesting.
Consider the word “Idealistic”. To me, this sounds like a normal attribute of a priest rather than a fatal flaw.
I’d swap it for something describing a stronger flaw, or a deeper or ironic flaw.
Thanks to both of you for the feedback, I’ll be back with a revision soon.
Originally it was intended as a discussion between religion and morality, the latter being being built on the former, but one being bent to an organisation’s vision and the other interpreted on a personal level. If a devout priest discovered this plot by his own church, would his duty allow it to progress or would his (religion informed) morality force him to act against his church?
I take on board what you say regarding ‘uncovers’ and ‘discovers’, and to make it more a race against time I would have him discover the plot and then immediately being forced on the run.
The anti-virus is administered via Communion. Some people would naturally be immune and, if not devout, be hunted down and killed to allow no accidental access to a serum.
In a world increasingly pitted by the polarity between religion and atheism, I think the story gets its fair chance at the screens.
That said, you might want to determine in earnest where to stand between “uncovers” and discovers”.
The former could take after the priest unassumingly having to mention it in an ethics column he handles in a provincial Christian newspaper; then the church authorities find out about that particular column edition.
The latter could take after church agents deciding to go after the priest after he naively mentioned it to a stranger ex-FBI operative he wasn’t aware of in a monitored phone conversation, before now his fingerprints having been found on the locker of the digital safe where research documents on the virus are kept.
It’s easily any writer’s cut. Good one. Go for it.
I wish we could edit these, it would help…
I noticed I used deadly twice… How about, “worlds greatest genocide.” “Worlds most horrific genocide” either one.
While your logline is concentrating on him being hunted. I think it is more compelling to concentrate on him having to stop the viruses release. It ups the stakes.
When an idealistic priest discovers his church has created a deadly virus that targets non-believers. he must stop it?s release or mankind will face it’s most deadly genocide.?
Sorry, I should have ended that with, “history’s deadliest genocide.” Genocide is a stronger word than history. (Always end on the strongest word if possible)
I’m not sure how a virus could target non-believers to be honest, however I think the logline you presented is good. Maybe just a little tweaking.
“When an idealistic priest discovers his church has created a deadly virus that targets non-believers. he must stop it’s release or the world will face the most deadly genocide in history.”