After an asteroid hits the earth and wipes out half the planet, a scientist must find a way to keep humanity from freezing to death by harnessing the earth’s core.

Hey guys, I really appreciate the feedback and the time giving it. In terms of the story actually working , that's something I prefer to figure out while I'm writing the synopsis and delving into research, although I do appreciate you flagging it dpg - it's not something one should underestimate. Re. the logline, thanks, Dkpough1, yea I think perhaps a little more detail of how the scientist is going to go about harnessing the earth's core, might be beneficial. Because I'm using loglines as development tools at this point, I'm really trying to make sure I have a handle on them so that I have solid a foundation and direction, for my stories. I'm getting a lot of value from all your feedback, thank you.

I take your point, Dkpough1. ?Frankly, I am occasionally torn between doing a just by-the-checklist review of the structure of the logline (protagonist, inciting incident, objective goal, antagonist/obstacle) and the curiosity to probe a little deeper for?substance. ?Specifically, how credible is the underlying premise? How well has the logic been thought through? ?How well has it been researched?

Bringing passion?to a story is necessary, of course. ?But is it sufficient? ? These days audiences are more sophisticated, less credulous. ?Story concepts ?for certain genres , like scifi, that could get made into movies -- that did get made into movies a few decades ago -- would have a harder time getting a green light today.

One reason so many of Michael Crichton's science fiction books (like "The Andromeda Stain", "Westsworld ", "Jurassic Park") got adapted into movies -- very successful movies -- even became franchises -- was because the story premises were credible. ?His stories are flights of fantasy, of course, but flights launched from a solid foundation of thoroughly researched scientific fact.

No one posting here is obliged to explain ?the underlying logic or factual basis that makes their concept credible. ?However, if they can't provide a plausible explanation, it's not a problem I create by raising the question. ?The problem lies with the premise. ?My inquiry may just be putting a spotlight on it.

I take your point, Dkpough1. ?Frankly, I am occasionally torn between doing a just by-the-checklist review of the structure of the logline (protagonist, inciting incident, objective goal, antagonist/obstacle) and the curiosity to probe a little deeper for?substance. ?Specifically, how credible is the underlying premise? How well has the logic been thought through? ?How well has it been researched?

Bringing passion?to a story is necessary, of course. ?But is it sufficient? ? These days audiences are more sophisticated, less credulous. ?Story concepts ?for certain genres , like scifi, that could get made into movies -- that did get made into movies a few decades ago -- would have a harder time getting a green light today.

One reason so many of Michael Crichton's science fiction books (like "The Andromeda Stain", "Westsworld ", "Jurassic Park") got adapted into movies -- very successful movies -- even became franchises -- was because the story premises were credible. ?His stories are flights of fantasy, of course, but flights launched from a solid foundation of thoroughly researched scientific fact.

No one posting here is obliged to explain ?the underlying logic or factual basis that makes their concept credible. ?However, if they can't provide a plausible explanation, it's not a problem I create by raising the question. ?The problem lies with the premise. ?My inquiry may just be putting a spotlight on it.