Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Los Angeles, 1956. An ambitious prosecutor's investigation into the suspicious death of a wealthy businessman uncovers the murder of a young prostitute twenty years earlier. His suspects in both crimes: the mother of the girl he loves and his father, the Chief of the LAPD.
One problem with this logline seems to be the comingling of official roles and responsibilities. Detectives investigate, collect evidence, file charges. Prosecutors try cases based on the evidence the detectives present. Prosecutors don't investigate -- it's not their job. They're lawyers; they don'Read more
One problem with this logline seems to be the comingling of official roles and responsibilities. Detectives investigate, collect evidence, file charges. Prosecutors try cases based on the evidence the detectives present. Prosecutors don’t investigate — it’s not their job. They’re lawyers; they don’t have the experience, training or writ. Just as detectives don’t try cases.
Prosecutors may also present evidence to a grand jury. Evidence collected by detectives.
Then there is the job of district attorney (who has prosecutors working for him); he may investigate crimes — with the assistance of the police or sheriff.
The prosecutor can snoop around on as own, outside his job, of course. But then he’s doing so as a private citizen.
So maybe your main character is an “ambitious district attorney”.
Call it nit-picking if you want, but the devil is in the details and it’s important to get them right in order to establish credibility and prevent readers from getting distracted from the story itself. (Like I obviously have!)
So about the story: what is the plot about? Is it about what he does after discovering these skeletons? OR: does the discovery of the real culprits (his father, the girl friend’s mother) constitute the Big Reveal that solves the mystery. If it is the latter then the logline seems to be giving away the ending. Which a logline should not do.
fwiw
See lessLos Angeles, 1956. An ambitious prosecutor's investigation into the suspicious death of a wealthy businessman uncovers the murder of a young prostitute twenty years earlier. His suspects in both crimes: the mother of the girl he loves and his father, the Chief of the LAPD.
One problem with this logline seems to be the comingling of official roles and responsibilities. Detectives investigate, collect evidence, file charges. Prosecutors try cases based on the evidence the detectives present. Prosecutors don't investigate -- it's not their job. They're lawyers; they don'Read more
One problem with this logline seems to be the comingling of official roles and responsibilities. Detectives investigate, collect evidence, file charges. Prosecutors try cases based on the evidence the detectives present. Prosecutors don’t investigate — it’s not their job. They’re lawyers; they don’t have the experience, training or writ. Just as detectives don’t try cases.
Prosecutors may also present evidence to a grand jury. Evidence collected by detectives.
Then there is the job of district attorney (who has prosecutors working for him); he may investigate crimes — with the assistance of the police or sheriff.
The prosecutor can snoop around on as own, outside his job, of course. But then he’s doing so as a private citizen.
So maybe your main character is an “ambitious district attorney”.
Call it nit-picking if you want, but the devil is in the details and it’s important to get them right in order to establish credibility and prevent readers from getting distracted from the story itself. (Like I obviously have!)
So about the story: what is the plot about? Is it about what he does after discovering these skeletons? OR: does the discovery of the real culprits (his father, the girl friend’s mother) constitute the Big Reveal that solves the mystery. If it is the latter then the logline seems to be giving away the ending. Which a logline should not do.
fwiw
See lessA middle-aged woman who was estranged from her father at age ten when he was taken to prison, journeys back through his life in an attempt to piece together the puzzle of the man she never really knew.
I suggest the logline, and perhaps the concept, may need to be rethought. As as presented, the story seems to be 1] backward-looking (only) 2] with no apparent antagonist, and 3] no well-defined stakes. As a general rule, plots are forward looking, not backward looking. In stories where characters aRead more
I suggest the logline, and perhaps the concept, may need to be rethought. As as presented, the story seems to be 1] backward-looking (only) 2] with no apparent antagonist, and 3] no well-defined stakes.
As a general rule, plots are forward looking, not backward looking. In stories where characters are looking backward in time they are doing so in order to solve an urgent problem in the present or near future.
Stakes: What difference will it make in her present and future life if she does piece together the puzzle? Conversely, what does she stand to lose in the present and future if she fails? Why should the audience worry what the consequences will be if she fails?
What’s the urgency? Other than curiosity why MUST she know about him NOW?
See less