A gifted geneticist perfects the formula for increasing intelligence, but using it on his gorgeous but not so gifted wife he creates a cynical tyrant and his only competition for the Nobel Prize.
I love the concept, the logline and, especially the title (sans question mark). I think it should be “…but BY using it…”. Also, I don’t get the cynical tyrant part, and it doesn’t seem necessary, therefore:
“A gifted geneticist perfects the formula for intelligence, but after testing it on his (dim-witted/dumb but gorgeous) wife, he creates his only competition for The Noble Prize!”
Great job, Paul Clarke!
Could make a great comedy.
I don’t think the II and antagonist are clearly defined more like insinuated:
MC – Gifted geneticist.
II – Him realizing the wife could get the Nobel prize.
AN – Bitchy wife.
Perhaps: “When aiming for the Nobel prize a downtrodden geneticist transforms his dim witted wife into a mad scientist and his only competition.”
tries an intelligence increasing formula on his dimwitted wife who in turn
What’s this “MC” and “II” nonsense? Are we on Twitter? I assume you mean “main character” (protagonist) and “inciting incident”.
I do not believe the “II” is when the “MC” realizes the wife could get the Noble Prize. It’s when he develops and gives her the formula that makes her more intelligent.
I think we have a set vernacular used often in our posts for efficiency’s sake we could abbreviate it just as is done on any other board on the web.
Your welcome not to use it yourself.
You could be right about the II I thought it was when he realizes the threat because experimenting on her was in line with every thing he did until that point. The first time a dramatic change occurs that made him need to return his life back to normal was when she became a threat to his winning the Nobel Prize. As far as the story goes she becomes a threat only once he realizes it.
I guess this confusion points out a weakens in the logline.