Have an account? Sign In Now
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.
This draft of the logline seems to outline a situation in which the MC makes a discovery then the logline makes a statement about the MCs opinion of the discovery. It doesn't outline what the main action will be that the MC will take. Will the MC go after the mother of the girl he loves how soon aftRead more
This draft of the logline seems to outline a situation in which the MC makes a discovery then the logline makes a statement about the MCs opinion of the discovery.
It doesn’t outline what the main action will be that the MC will take.
Will the MC go after the mother of the girl he loves how soon after the discovery of the murder? Will the MC go after his father and how soon after the discovery? Will he search for other suspects because he refuses to accept his current suspicions?
From the way the logline reads now, the inciting incident is the discovery of the murder not the murder itself. As such his main action would be to investigate who killed her but if he already has suspects at the beginning then the “who dun it” element is diluted. Better to shroud the killer in mystery and let the reader wonder who could have killed.
Part of the fun is watching Poirot figure out the mystery than know the solution ourselves…
According to the currant draft of the logline “…the suspicious death of a wealthy businessman …” is not relevant to the prostitute’s death and his subsequent suspicions. Best to remove this from the logline and save on word count.
The location and period are also un related to the story in the logline so better not to mention them all together.
Hope this helps.
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.
This draft of the logline seems to outline a situation in which the MC makes a discovery then the logline makes a statement about the MCs opinion of the discovery. It doesn't outline what the main action will be that the MC will take. Will the MC go after the mother of the girl he loves how soon aftRead more
This draft of the logline seems to outline a situation in which the MC makes a discovery then the logline makes a statement about the MCs opinion of the discovery.
It doesn’t outline what the main action will be that the MC will take.
Will the MC go after the mother of the girl he loves how soon after the discovery of the murder? Will the MC go after his father and how soon after the discovery? Will he search for other suspects because he refuses to accept his current suspicions?
From the way the logline reads now, the inciting incident is the discovery of the murder not the murder itself. As such his main action would be to investigate who killed her but if he already has suspects at the beginning then the “who dun it” element is diluted. Better to shroud the killer in mystery and let the reader wonder who could have killed.
Part of the fun is watching Poirot figure out the mystery than know the solution ourselves…
According to the currant draft of the logline “…the suspicious death of a wealthy businessman …” is not relevant to the prostitute’s death and his subsequent suspicions. Best to remove this from the logline and save on word count.
The location and period are also un related to the story in the logline so better not to mention them all together.
Hope this helps.
See lessA wannabe weatherman gets an internship at a small t.v. station in suburban Ohio, but must fight his own tendencies of stability against the abnormal weather patterns that fame the state.
If the inciting incident is getting the job, how does that force him to take action? In other words; what change was brought about in his life as a result that, made him want to do something? If he is a wannabe weatherman then getting an internship at a TV station is a good thing and part of his norRead more
If the inciting incident is getting the job, how does that force him to take action?
In other words; what change was brought about in his life as a result that, made him want to do something?
If he is a wannabe weatherman then getting an internship at a TV station is a good thing and part of his normal plan of action. This doesn’t present anything new or different to what he normally would have done.
Perhaps re design the inciting incident to clash with his major character flaw or his aspirations.
Secondly the action of fighting his own tendencies doesn’t relate to getting the internship. The action the MC takes and the inciting incident are not in a cause and effect relationship which dilutes the impact of the MCs choices in the story.
The MC flaw is “…tendencies of stability…” this doesn’t sound like a flaw that would need over coming. Perhaps inflate the tendencies to an OCD level and make it debilitating then it becomes an obstacle for him to overcome.
Hope this helps.
See less