Thanks. That clarifies.

The principal concern I have is that anyone reading the logline may jump to the conclusion that it’s just a knock-off of the book/movie “The Exorcist”. “Skeptical” …”archaeologist”… “priest”… “reclaim faith”… “fight a demon” are key elements in “The Exorcist”. “Archaeologist” in particular was a trip wire in my mind.

Okay, you’re mixing and matching them differently, and the other aspects of the the story may be totally different, but I can’t be sure of that from reading this logline. My standard operation assumption is that producers and directors are speed readers of loglines, that they come to snap judgements and first (and only) impressions about loglines in a few seconds.

Which is my m.o, btw, to first read it like I think (fear?) most producers and directors will and gain a first impression. And my first impression was: knock-off. Which is why it took me a week to mention it.

Then I re-read slower and parsed the logline for a better understanding.

But I assume most producers and directors won’t give it a second, slower read. I presume the 2nd worst case scenario: you have one shot, one reading, a few seconds to make the right impression, to lead their multitasking, easily distracted, overworked minds to the correct conclusion. (The worst case scenario is they don’t read it the logline.) It seems to me prudent to make every effort to avoid a wrong first impression, to prevent their minds from leaping — the default tendency — to the wrong reading.

fwiw.