A lifelong wimp must learn to finally stand up for himself when his son is bullied by a mean boy with an even meaner dad.
This is quite good but I think you need to make it more specific. We’ve got our protagonist, the lifelong wimp and to a lesser extent his son. We’ve got our antagonist, the mean boy and his mean dad, but the goal is simply “stand up for himself”. Can you not make that more specific? What is the action that the dad has to take?
Also why is the protagonist, the dad and not the son? Why are we following the dad’s viewpoint of this story?
What is the inciting incident? Why can’t the lifelong wimp of a dad continue to be a wimp? How is he challenged at the beginning of the story to start being brave?
I like this and I think it’s very relevant. I agree with being more specific. The words “must learn” don’t really convey action. I find myself wondering things like does he take karate lessons alongside his kid? It’s also a comedy, so I would punch it up and let us see the comedy playing out in our heads. If someone doesn’t know it’s a comedy, they should be able to get that from the logline and almost laugh or smile just from the premise. It makes me think of the premise for Liar Liar – the logline wouldn’t state that “a dad must learn not to lie”, instead it makes sure we know the dad is a lawyer who must go a full day without lying and that in itself makes us smile because it begins to play out in our heads.