Just remember to keep those motivations relatively simple. In ‘Breaking Bad’, his family can sometimes work as an antagonistic force, but it’s simple and primal for us to understand that the reason Walter starts to break the law is in order to protect his family.

Don’t jump through hoops to communicate that your protag wants to leave ‘the life’ if you’ve got those simple and clear reasons … his wife leaving, his daughter being drawn in: these are universal fears and dangers, and make your hero relatable, despite the fact that he’s an ex-crim turned violent killer who works largely for a child trafficker (read: not a traditionally likeable ‘hero’). It’s without a doubt a premise with a heap of promise, though. Great work.

Agree with Andrew about the ‘grooming’ connotations … but it’s not a hard and fast rule. It could be read that way, but if you can find a way to make the same point without it, you might avoid some negative reception without putting in too much extra effort.

Regarding the “the leader” issue. From what Filmstar says about his film, this guy started out as a vigilante after his son was murdered, and over the course of time has put together a little outside-the-law-crime-fighting-squad. So in that sense, he WOULD be the leader, and it’s important to be as precise as possible.

On a note about making the story compelling, it’s heaps more engaging if there is ONE leader, who lost his son, started fighting crime to clean up the world, made a mistake and that mistake has come back to haunt him in the guise of a “replacement son” … by inserting MULTIPLE leaders (therefore removing the singular “personal” connection to the “family business” he has set up) you muddy a very simple but effective film premise. In effect, you LOWER the stakes simply by creating more people who can run this gang of vigilantes. Please don’t do it.