Senior clinical psychologist Peter Bower?s life is in turmoil when he reluctantly accepts that all his patients are ghosts. Upon further investigation he discovers they all died on the same day. In a spine-tingling, supernatural thriller, Peter travels back to his past to confront a secret he has kept for 20 years
Share
No need to name the psychologist. No one will remember at this stage. How about
When a (adjective ? whatever describes him) clinical psychologist discovers all his patients are ghosts, and that they all dies on the same day, he is forced to travel back in time to unravel a twenty year old secret.?
– Jack, Judge
Sounds interesting and could make a great a supernatural thriller but the basic action of the story is hard to make out.
The MC’s introduction seams too long it needs leaning up.
“…reluctantly accepts…” means that in the film he denies what he knows to be true until he has no choice but to admit to it. This is a good detail for the synopsis as it outlines one of the known stages of the heroes journey “the heroes refusal to go on the journey”. But it is not a detail of the story that should be in the logline in my mind.
“Upon further investigation…” is obvious no need to mention in the logline either. Equally “In a spine tingling…” a super natural thriller better be spine tingling…, so best to describe a plot that will come across as spine tingling or have the potential for it, rather than label it as one. “…super-natural thriller…” is again an obvious and therefore redundant statement.
Alluding to the fact that he may be the killer himself is a known gimmick as a twist at the end yet another aspect I think best reserved for the synopsis rather than a logline. Simply because whether the AN is him or not the action of the story won’t change he will still have to go on his journey and find/catch/stop the AN or discover it’s been him all along…
Could be a good exercise to write up a logline for successfully produced films that used the same gimmick (spoiler alert): 6th sense, Shutter Island, The Manchurian Candidate, etc…
My little whack at it:
When Peter a senior psychologist discovers he not only has been treating ghosts but that they all died on the same day, he is forced to put a stop to their killer who is still at large.
I think it’s a wonderful concept, and a brilliant title. The glaring issue I had when first reading it is that it reads like a comedy, until we learn that it is a thriller. I think the original premise is farcical and quite a nice “high concept”- anger management for ghosts! You can still make it comedic, with him trying to find out who killed them all and their connection, and make it an interesting ride.
I think if you cut out the unnecessary words, you’ll have an excellent logline:
“A clinical psychologist life gets complicated when he reluctantly accepts that his new patients are ghosts, killed on the same day, and under mysterious circumstances.”
(25 words)
(Judge)
Steven Fernandez-Judge
The story fundamentally lacks compelling interest. Patients that are, in fact, ghosts? All because of some incident 20 years ago? Where’s the dramatic tension here? The “ticking clock”? Why doesn’t the psychologist just keep on charging his patients – whether ghosts or not – and live comfortably on? There is no evidence in the logline that his cosy professional existence is under any present threat.
Sharkeatingman. whats your actual name sorry, so I can post it on the site
thanks for your feed back too
Sorry- my fault. Geno Scala…
At 52 words your stretching the boundaries of a logline. I’d leave out the genre and the psychologist name. Plus you could reword it to convey the same information more concisely.
The story is clear, I would be interested in watching. But it’s still lacking a personal touch to really pull an audience in. Maybe a detail regarding the psychologist, or what’s at stake if he fails, are the ghosts on his side or against him?
– Judge, Paul.
I would be more interested to know the flaw of the psychologist rather than his seniority and full name.
?Reluctantly accepts? suggest a gradual change. I would replace it with ?realises? which suggests sudden insight. I would leave out ?in a spine-tingling supernatural thriller? – use words that only serve to tell the story.
The logline suggests that he KNOWS his patients have something to do with his secret past. This may rob the reader of some of the mystery. We want to find out at the same time as the psychologist which occurs at the midpoint reversal.
I would mention the obstacles if you want to keep the antagonist?s identity a surprise. I would be interested to see this posted a second time ? leaner and meaner!
Judge.
Cool idea for a Sixth Sense-like supernatural thriller! You’ve got two intriguing hooks: the mystery of why his patients all died on the same day, and travelling back in time to confront a twenty year old secret.
I think it needs to be clearer in the logline how the ghost and time travel ideas are related, because at the moment it sounds like pitches for two different movies. Perhaps he travels back in time to find out why they all died, and discovers he is personally linked to their deaths?
Also, be careful with “travels back to his past”, because I’m not sure if it means time travel, or just revisiting his past. Maybe “travels back in time” is clearer.
Here’s my attempt:
When a senior psychologist discovers his patients are all ghosts who died on the same day, he must travel back in time to find out why, confronting his dark past.
– Judge, Patrockable