When a manic-depressive sharpshooter?s mother is assassinated, he marauds a criminal empire for the elusive hit-man responsible.
EethanSamurai
When a manic-depressive sharpshooter?s mother is assassinated, he marauds a criminal empire for the elusive hit-man responsible.
Share
Isn’t “manic-depressive” just ‘bipolar’? That seems much easier to say.
Anyway, you have a the goal, to kill the hitman. No need to include the therapist in the logline, though it does add an interesting element, but it just doesn’t seem relevant the way you put it in.
The problem that arises in this logline. What exactly does he do? So far, you have “marauds”, and he kidnaps his therapist. The latter of which does absolutely nothing to get him closer to his objective goal.
Here is an example, using elements from your logline, but I put my own spin on it: When a bipolar sharpshooter’s mother is killed, he starts torturing criminals for information on the hitman who killed her.
His action is clear. He looks for information, by torturing criminals who might have it.
So far, your first version of the logline is a better logline, but the second version is a more interesting story to me.
As Dkpough1 said. ?Bipolar has replaced manic-depressive in psycho-lingo.
?I have a concern about the wording, that the character is defined in an adjective phrase, rather than as part of subject of the sentence. ?So instead of?”When a bipolar sharpshooter’s mother is assassinated, he…” ?I suggest “When his mother is assassinated, a bipolar sharpshooter….”
I think it could be beneficial to be more specific about the nature of the antagonist – Who does the hit-man work for? Is the hit-man the antagonist, or was the hit carried out on another person’s orders? Expanding the role of the antagonist a little more in the logline will help to personalise the stakes more fully.