Penpusher
Posted: 2013-02-23T16:03:09+10:00 In:

When team of zombie fighting monsters lose their commander an overzealous commando orders them to protect a solitary human that could save their food source from extinction.

The Council of Blood: Wildfire (open to suggestions for the subtitle)

Share

    Post a review

    You must login to add an answer.

    To see everything,

    9 Reviews

    1. I’m a little confused about these words, “… a solitary human that could save their food source from extinction.”

      I’m thinking this: the monsters eat humans, and are protecting them from the zombies who also eat humans. Right?

      • 0
    2. Penpusher

      That’s it exactly…

      • 0

    3. I like it. For me, at least, there are a few ambiguous references,
      the second “their” would almost apply to humans;
      the subject of “could save” (I figured it was humans, but I guess I’m so conditioned for the main
      characters to do the “saving,” that I initial assumed it was the monsters)

      … and, I guess my obvious question is, why a solitary human? shouldn’t it take at least two humans to repopulate? I’m sure you’d reveal the answer, but the question seems important enough to the story, it might need to be addressed in the logline?

      • 0
    4. Penpusher

      Yeah, maybe I’ll change it to ‘ could save the monster’s food source’

      The human is unique, holds the link to a cure in her blood.

      • 0

    5. I’m intrigued, but, for me, it’s over-complicated and confusing.

      It feels like there’s just too much world-building information going on in the logline, and the basic story you’re telling is getting subverted. It’s clear up through the word “commander,” then I get lost.

      • 0
    6. Singularity

      Timmy, that’s because it needs a comma right after the word commander,

      Other wise it reads like:

      “When team of zombie fighting monsters lose their commander an overzealous commando….”

      When you read it the first time you think that the commander is an overzealous commando.

      It would be more clear if the words were switched just a little bit:

      “When a team of zombie fighting monsters lose their commander, they’re ordered by an overzealous zombie fighter to protect a solitary human to save their food source from extinction.”

      • 0
    7. Penpusher

      Thanks!

      • 0

    8. It is a very intriguing logline and yes it is a little complex but I think that adds to the point. I already know what genre and tone to expect from the words used in the logline so I think that works well. Richiev’s point is right but that is just a rearrangement or punctuation check that is needed so no big deal. The line works well.

      • 0
    9. Logliner

      Its a nice and definitely original idea – zombie-fighting monsters (which still feeds on humans) needs to save humans or they will extinct (not enough food). But I have to agree that the logline is very, very unclear and complicated.

      Perhaps it would help to put only the important information and then make it a logline.

      Like: Commando – needs to save human who is a cure (cure against zombie plague i guess?) who is likely to be eaten by zombies. So its a triangle – monsters, humans, zombies. Not sure if its important that they had lost their commander.

      Overzealous does not feel much as a perk, but it perhaps intrigue a comedy? What about starving? It actually adds up on irony, that starving monsters needs to protect their food alive and it can generate a lots of comedy-tension like situation.

      From all of it I would build the following:

      When zombies ate all human food source, a breed of starving monsters needs to protect last living woman with a cure to the plague, or they have to face the extinction.

      I know that I have turned it upside down, but hopefully it will help you somehow to find a way to communicate the story in more simple way 😉

      • 0