Penpusher
Posted: 2020-12-15T14:32:20+10:00 In:

EDITED: In Victorian London a ruthless spy battles a fanatic telepath to thwart his plot to kill the Queen and plunge the world into war.

N/A

Share

    You must login to add an answer.

    To see everything,

    13 Reviews

    1. Singularity

      I have been thinking about this concept, there is definite potential. The killing of a ruler has begun wars in the past.

      Queen Victoria ruled from 1837 to1901
      This would be after Napoleon and the French revolution
      This would be after the war of 1812, after which I doubt America would have any stomach for another war with England.
      Also, the American civil war happened while she ruled.
      Perhaps Spain, or Russia?

      So here is just a suggestion, and take it with a grain of salt.
      Samuel Clemens lived from 1835 to 1910, right in the middle of Queen Victoria’s reign. He is also known for his travels to Europe and abroad. From his travels, he wrote the book Innocents abroad.

      Since this is a story about a Victorian London mixed with a fantastical element in the form of a villain who has Telepathy. You could add a real-life character to the mix.

      When Samuel Clemens arrives in London he discovers the fanatical telepath’s plot to kill Queen Victoria and when no one believes him, He must use his imagination to stop the assassination plot.

      Just an idea, it’s just that the most mundane part of your logline is the ‘ruthless spy’ everything else seems interesting. The assassination attempt of Queen Victoria, the Telepathic assassin, the plot to start a war. (Not sure why the assassin wants to start a war, that might need to be explained as well)

      Anyway, I like the elements of this story and it has definite potential.

      • 1
    2. Singularity

      This is cool and an interesting premise.

      I have a couple of minor points:

      – Is the fact that the spy is American fundamental? Admittedly, there’s a fish out of water thing with it, but I wonder if your protagonist would be better off with a characteristic that suggests an arc. Or something that suggests how she, an individual with no special abilities, can take on someone with the power of telepathy.
      – “Telepathic madman”… ok, so they telepathy thing is cool but I wonder if madman is the right choice. I think it could be stronger if he is described in a way that suggests he actually has a clear motive and a goal. He might be a madman, but that makes me think his actions are a result of his madness and potentially more erratic and less calculated. This is totally just my interpretation. The best villains act with complete certainty and a clarity of action that what they’re doing is right e.g. Thanos, Hans Gruber, Darth Vader. Food for thought.
      – I think it might be worthwhile adding the ultimate goal of the antagonist. Why does he want to assassinate the Queen?

      Hope this helps in some way.

      • 0
      • Penpusher

        In Victorian London a vengeful spy battles a telepathic madman to thwart his plot to kill the Queen and vanquish the ghosts of her corrupted past.

        I’m sticking to madman as a portion of the script concerns how he got that way. I don’t feel that describing both the protagonists arc and the villains arc needs to happen IN the logline. If it prompts the listener to ask questions – great. It did it’s job. Is that wrong?

        A spirited farm boy joins a rebellion to save a princess from a sinister imperial enforcer – and the galaxy from a planet-destroying weapon
        Where’s Vader’s arc? Right?

        • 0
        • Singularity

          I’m not suggesting you need an arc for the bad guy. But assassinating the Queen surely serves a bigger purpose. Why does he want to kill the Queen? It would be like saying Thanos wants to collect all the infinity stones but without explaining why. “Madman” is fine and it might be perfect for what you have in mind. To me, it just suggests someone erratic and unpredictable and not someone I’d expect to have the mental faculties to plot something elaborate like assassinating the Queen. Does that make sense?

          “Vanquish the ghosts of her corrupted past” – What does this look like on screen? Are you talking about the protagonist’s ghosts or the Queen’s?

          There’s nothing wrong with the listener/reader asking questions BUT if you’re sending this off to producers etc, you won’t be there to answer them. So it’s all about making a reader ask the right questions.

          • 0
          • Penpusher

            In Victorian London a ruthless spy battles a telepathic zealot to thwart his plot to kill the Queen and prevent the world falling into war.

            In Victorian London a ruthless spy battles a telepathic zealot to thwart his plot to kill the Queen, thus preventing the world from falling into war.

            A vengeful writer is killing unimaginative producers to stop people from ever being forced to generate another logline.

            • 0
            • Singularity

              Last one is perfect! Hahaha. That being said though, I love loglines – once you nail a really good one you suddenly have something that can be a vital tool throughout both your writing and marketing process. It can tell a producer potential budget, locations, theme, tone, number of actors, etc etc. It might seem like a pointless task to appease lazy producers, but actually once you embrace the format, being able to distill the essence of your plot to a single sentence is a far more valuable skill than most writers give it credit for.

              I like zealot – but I want to know what his belief is. I want to know why killing the Queen will start a world war. Why does he want to start a world war in the first place? See Richiev’s comments. We need to know the endgame to understand why it’s so important. Richiev just referred to the bad guy as a “telepathic assassin”… I think that works and needs less explanation (other than the “why” issue).

              If you want, message me with your synopsis. Happy to take a look.

              • 0
          • Penpusher

            Hi Mike. For some reason I can’t reply to your comment further down, so I’m replying here.

            I would be glad to show you the synopsis, but I’m putting the script down for a bit. wrote the film script directly from my comic script and the more I read it, the more I see major problems with the structure, What worked (really well) in a comic that is spaced out from month to month does not work (extremely does not work) in a movie. Essentially I’ve got a kind of flashback telling the villains story. In the comic that sequence takes up an entire issue. It’s not just a flashback, it’s a story telling device it works really well. If this were cable series, it would be an entire episode and it work just fine. But in a movie? You can’t pull a fourth of the film to do that. I’ve got a solution, but I’m going to sit on it for a month or two as I’ve got other fish to fry and those fish have deadlines.
            Thanks!

            • 0
    3. Penpusher

      It sounds interesting. This might be tighter.
      In Victorian London an American spy attempts to thwart the plot of a telepathic madman before he assassinates the Queen.
      Not sure if American serves any purpose. Would rather see an adjective to describes her drive.

      • 0
    4. Singularity

      Why her? Why is it up to the American spy to save the queen? What causes this specific person to be the one?

      • 0
    5. Logliner

      I like your original and alibenson’s version. The later versions muddy the water and make it sound complicated. The first one gets right to the point. Just one opinion.

      • 0