Hi, Judah.

Thanks for joining the community, always good to see new members.

We do have a code of conduct (like most similar websites), one of our core principles is helping each other out. This translates into a rule that we must review at least as many loglines as we post, therefore we ask everyone to review 2 other loglines for each one they post. The logic behind this is also to try and avoid having most of the top spots taken up by one member. Most loglines will receive more attention the closer they are to the most recently posted spots on the front page, and we want to give as many members the opportunity to have their loglines there for as long as possible.

I would have normally gone in and moderated your posts – delete any that didn’t receive feedback, but almost all of yours already have so I won’t do so in this instance. In future please be sure to post fewer loglines in one go. Though I’m sure you have your own process, posting fewer loglines will also give you the time to re-work your concepts and loglines as the feedback comes in for each one.?

Enough formalities, about your logline.

You describe an arbitrary number of characters instead of one main character, is there a plot critical reason for this? If not, I suggest focusing the logline on one main character. This will help the reader get their head around the plot, and help increase the obstacles.

More importantly, the goal is vague. What is it specifically they want? Getting back to their own turf is one thing, but what will they do once they get there?
What is it they want as a result of being accused of banishing the antichrist? Do they want to prove that they didn’t banish him? Or, do they want to find the antichrist and get him back? What goal do they have that’s causally connected to the inciting incident?

Mop1011.

Not sure what you mean by purchase something, I will elegantly avoid speculating.

In answer to your questions, your primary concern as a writer should be clarity. Currently, the cause and effect connections between the various elements in your logline are not clear.

You state that the MC needs to destroy the radar? – this could be his goal.
BUT
You also state that the MC wants to earn respect – this could also be his goal.

Describing two goals in one logline is confusing. In your response, you specified that the respect he craves is his stake, but it isn’t – stakes are not an objective. The stakes are the potential for an outcome as a result of the MC either achieving or failing to achieve a goal. So what is the worst thing that will happen if the MC fails to destroy the radar? The answer to this question is the stake. Point is, if his goal is to destroy the radar describe that, and only that, as his goal.

Regarding the inciting incident, it isn’t clear how the discovery of a radar station motivates the MC to do anything. If, however, the radar station was responsible for killing someone close to the MC, then you could use its discovery as a motivating event (inciting incident) otherwise it’s simply another day in a war.

Lastly, his character flaw is somewhat cliche – fighter pilots are notoriously brash. Brash/arrogant pilots have been de rigueur in war movies, sure you can use that but Top Gun beat you to it. Assuming that brash is still the flaw, in what way does that inhibit his ability to destroy the radar?? Being brash wouldn’t logically affect his ability, so the connection between his flaw and action is unclear. Perhaps you should consider a different flaw, one that would make achieving his goal harder and therefore necessitate him to overcome it before he can achieve the goal.