–
sek505Logliner
Two bitterly-divorced CDC epidemiologists are called to investigate a disease outbreak at a mountain resort and uncover a government conspiracy that they must stop in order to survive.
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.
I think I’m fine with the logline, except that I would expect the word “survive” to apply to the disease.? There needs to be more of a reason for them to want to stop the government conspiracy.? Is the conspiracy to spread the disease and kill them and other people?? Is the government planning something? that they want to keep under wraps and they want to kill these epidemiologists? (likely by exposing them to the disease… but maybe just shooting them) to silence them?? I’m assuming this government conspiracy is related to the disease, but the way the logline is written, it doesn’t have to be.? (although it probably should be)
I read your latest revision, in response to Mike’s comment, and actually, that one excites me more.? ?I find generalizing about conspiracies to be boring, actually.? I love the “leading mismatched survivors” concept, and the fact that the scientist isn’t a natural leader.? Uniting is a part of leading though, so I’d just write “must learn to lead”.? ?Sadly, in today’s day and age, I think the phrase “transform its victims into deadly drones” is going to make people think about humans being transformed into those little flying robot drones that are popular today, so maybe I’d switch out that word if you can think of something better… but otherwise, yeah, I’d say you’ve got a winner there.
I prefer the original post about CDC epidemiologists, but agree that it’s too wordy and not clear enough. Also, the government angle works well, and I think you should keep it in.
By making them CDC scientists working for the government, you’re reducing the amount of coincidence the premise relies on. Otherwise, it feels contrived if they get trapped in a resort and by chance, are scientists who, again by chance, are equipped to research the fungus.
Definitely get more of a sense of horror from your amended version. I like that it could draw on previous horror films for inspiration. Have you played the game “The Last of Us”? If not, I highly recommend it.
I would still have a single protagonist who acts as the emotional conduit for this story. I quite liked the idea of the two scientists being divorced. It adds an element of humour to the situation and obvious conflict.
“Must work together” – can you be more specific? What must they work together to do? Find a cure? Escape?
I would consider scrapping “CDC epidemiologists” and just calling them either “scientists” or “doctors”. I would also choose one of these two to be the main protagonist. It’s easier for the audience to relate to one character and see the world from their perspective. What’s the endgame with these two? Do they get back together? Or kill each other?
Surely, in order to survive, they must not catch the disease? Stopping the government conspiracy doesn’t ensure their survival. Rather than they must stop the conspiracy in order to survive, they must survive in order to stop the conspiracy? I hope that makes sense hahaha.
I like the premise though. Nice The Shining meets The Mist vibe. What does this disease do? Are we talking zombies? or does it just kill people? Where’s the horror element?
I’d argue that the inciting incident is the discovery that the outbreak is part of a government conspiracy… and they’re trapped.?
Hope this helps.