After a special forces operative witnesses experiments on soldiers & prisoners, he abandons a promising military career & returns to the quiet life. But when a deadly outbreak reeks of government conspiracy & threatens his family, he jumps into the fight to expose the culprits & track down the cure.
Deanna MurrayLogliner
After a special forces operative witnesses experiments on soldiers & prisoners, he abandons a promising military career & returns to the quiet life. But when a deadly outbreak reeks of government conspiracy & threatens his family, he jumps into the fight to expose the culprits & track down the cure.
Share
I guess I am going to have to start a new one on this — it won’t let me edit anymore — just opens up a new submission form. I do value all of this feedback!!!! And am working diligently to improve!
It’s clear that you’re passionate about this concept – a very good thing. However, best not to let our passion stand in the way of accepting notes. There seem to be several repeat comments in this thread, most of which still apply.
What is his single, objective and visible to a camera goal?? You mention in the logline “…his attempts at redemption…”, which attempt, in SPECIFIC DETAIL, is it that provides him with redemption?
As long as this crucial bit of information is missing from the logline, there is no plot described in it. Think of a plot as the crux of a story and the primary focus of a logline.
What do you conceive as the hook of the story?
What makes this different from, makes it stand out from all the other films already made about plagues and epidemics?
Why must the protagonist be an investment banker? ?What’s so dramatically special about his profession in relation to the epidemic? ?How does being an investment banker make him a sympathetic character? He’s in the over-privileged 1% with money and access to resources to better his odds than the other 99%. ?So why should the audience (most of whom are in the other 99%) care about him?
How does”attempts at redemption” translate into a concrete objective goal? ?What specifically must he do? His efforts may be “fruitless” but what exactly he is struggling to do, what’s his game plan to survive? ?And does it include saving others?
Take as an example “Schindler’s List”: ?the protagonist’s redemptive act for exploiting Jewish labor during World War 2 translates into the specific, concrete objective goal of saving as many Jews as he can from the ghetto and Auschwitz. ?He risks all, spends every pfennig he has to save others.
New one posted! Please comment!
The last version of the logline doesn’t describe a dramatic premise, and I think you’re looking at loglines, in general, in the wrong way.? You’ve described? an inciting incident in all the logline’s iterations – a major event that affects the world of the MC, but you’ve not described a direct causality between that and the Mc’s goal. It remains unclear what he or she MUST achieve by the end of the story, or else a very bad thing will happen.
For a dramatic premise to exist you need a goal and motivation, otherwise it’s just random events loosely connected via geography and character involvement. In essence, a good logline, and by extension a good concept, is made up of three main components; a significant inciting incident, high stakes and a compelling goal.
A few side notes, often the high stakes are best coupled with something personal to the MC, and a good character will be flawed. The flaw is only briefly described in the logline so as to indicate the inner journey, or the lesson, the main character will undergo throughout the story.
If you think all this can’t be achieved in a single (approximately 30 words or less) logline, I invite you to read through the multiple examples posted already in other threads and study the Training tab up top again. There is a formula for logline construction, and it works not as a formula for the creative process of story invention, rather purely as a structuring tool to help writers include all the necessary elements in a logline.
Back to your logline, what MOTIVATES the MC to HAVE to achieve the specific GOAL?
>>>>finds out through back channels
I think it would ?make for a more powerful and interesting story for him to find out ?by being on the front line, not through 6 degrees of separation from the front line via back channels.
By powerful I mean being on the front line intrinsically makes the issue more personal for the protatonist; it intensifies his emotional experience and gives him greater emotional stakes. ?And vicariously through the psychological conduit of empathy for him, it intensifies the audience’s emotional experience as they watch the story unfold.
Also, what is the story hook, the concept that differentiates this story from others about epidemics? ?Like “Contagion” (2011) which also involved the CDC?
Okay, the situation is a little clearer. ?However, ?I still have more questions than answers:
1]”government funded plot” — do you mean to say the contagion was released as a premeditated conspiracy? ?Or was it an accident, an experimental program that ran amuck? ? ?If the former, why would the U.S. government — any government other than North Korea — intentionally unleash a contagion on the world?
2] I fail to see a sufficient dramatic congruency between the protagonist and the problem. ?By way of clarification through contrast: what if the protagonist were a biologist, a virologist? ?He would have more expertise than a mere investment banker to know how potentially dangerous the program was. ?His premonition is “better qualified”, believable. ?He would have far more justification to feel guilty because he really knows better. ?He might have been directly involved in the program. ?Hence, not only more knowledgeable to speak out, but also in closer proximity and involvement in the program to try to stop it.
But an investment banker? ??He’s a character out of his depth, his field of expertise. I would have no expectation that he would comprehend the full gravity of the program. ?And if you expect an audience to think otherwise, then you’ve got to expend ?dialogue to explain to the audience how he came to know about the program in the 1st place, how he knows enough about the biology to be so concerned. ?Whereas if he’s a biologist or virologist working on the program — all that is explained by his job title.
3] The rule of thumb is that a logline should explicitly state an objective goal, but the subjective need is only implied (usually by the character flaw). ?So it might be better to imply the subjective problem by means a statement of his character flaw — “a guilt-ridden biologist must survive…”
4] If indeed he has a deserved burden of guilt to bear for the epidemic, then the story needs to give the protagonist an opportunity to not just save his own life but redeem himself by saving the lives of others. ?(Unless ?you are proposing a tragedy with no salutary, redemptive denouement for the protagonist.) ?Which a virologist might be able to do. ?But an investment banker? ?What can he do besides wallow in guilt, save his own life while the world goes to hell in a viral holocaust.
So shouldn’t his objective goal be to atone for his complicity by saving mankind — not just himself?
fwiw
Posting revised logline as a review — also edited the original above … covering all my bases …
When an unstable contagion is accidentally unleashed causing a world-wide epidemic, an investment banker fighting to survive must deal with the intense guilt of knowing he was aware of the government-funded plot, but chose to remain quiet.
OK I edited the original above, but also wanted to post the ‘new’ one here … hoping you all notice the ‘new’ one …
When an unstable contagion is accidentally unleashed causing a world-wide epidemic, an investment banker fighting to survive must deal with the intense guilt of knowing he was aware of the government-funded plot, but chose to remain quiet.
Good notes given above.
I’ll add that loglines are made up of specific detail, and descriptions such as “…struggles to preserve his humanity…” are too vague for a logline. What actions specifically does he do or not do when struggling to preserve his humanity? It’s these that need to be in the logline for it to make sense.
This is so great. Thank you. Going back to drawing board … with this feedback!
I try to hit what the person wants at a life level and then put in an event that shows it. I also try to be as specific as possible. ?Underlying emotional journey is implied and expected so you don’t need to hit them to hard in your logline.
This will not be your story, but an example.
After a contagion is released a DC insider (be specific) pulls every string to save his family even though it may cost the lives of millions, reach a final decision of mass death or his family
Really excellent feedback. Thank you. Yes, I read probably 50 articles/posts on loglines … I’ll keep trying. Am I allowed to submit a revision or just post it as a new one?
While the logline has a clear inciting incident, most of the other elements are vaguely described.
Like: “DC insider” ?What is that? A politician, a political advisor, a bureaucrat, a lobbyist, a reporter??The logline would benefit by being more specific on the describing the protagonist. ?And what does being a “DC insider” versus being a “DC outsider” have to do with his chances of survival? ?What is so special, of dramatic interest, that he operates within the Washington beltway?
And: “Struggling with his humanity…. how far will you go to survive”. ?When the plague breaks out, tens of millions of people will be struggling with their humanity, wrestling with the same general issue of survival. ?What is so special about his struggle that makes it of dramatic interest? ?As a result of the plague, what becomes the protagonist’s specific objective goal? What is his specific game plan to survive?
Finally, while a logline should implicitly raise a dramatic question, it is the convention for a logline to never explicitly state the question.
If you have not done so, please consult the “Training” ?option at the top of the web page for tips on building an industry acceptable logline.