Set in the near future: When his neighbourhood is raided by a violent vigilante squad, a gang-member must venture through enemy territory to get his 5 year old daughter to sanctuary before they are killed.
I’d consider removing “before they are killed”. I’m not sure it’s necessary as the danger is implied enough. Also, it confuses me slightly… vigilantes take the law into their own hands without legal authority – they want justice. Yes, things may get out of hand – mob mentality – but would they kill an innocent 5 year old girl? Remove this line and you remove all issues and I don’t think the logline is worse off. Others may disagree.
Can we make him a gang-leader not just a member? Make the target on his back bigger? There’d be a more obvious “why this guy” and it would explain why the vigilantes were pursuing them. In this vein, I don’t think that you need him to be venturing through enemy territory. Can’t he just avoid enemy territory? It sounds a bit convenient? If the vigilantes are chasing him, he could just be anywhere. He still needs to get to sanctuary and it makes everywhere unsafe for him. They need to be doing more than just raiding… particularly if you’re suggesting their lives are at stake.
My only other issue is that you have to get the audience to sympathise with a gang-member/leader. It can’t just be because he has his daughter with him. Can he be an ex-gang leader? Seen the error of his ways?
Set in the near future: When vigilantes take to the streets and attack gang members, a repentant ex-gang leader must escape across the city to sanctuary with his 5 year old daughter.
Since the story is about a father and daughter fighting their way to safety, you should have the bad guys kill the mother, a dead mother is more personal than just his neighborhood being raided. After all, since the mom isn’t in the story, use her death as an inciting incident in order to draw in the audience.
When his wife is killed by vicious anarchists, an anguished father must fight his way through a dystopian nightmare in order to get his five-year-old daughter to safety.
For me there is some confusion. Enemy and vigilante are different people? If yes why are they both important? Plus what is sanctuary?
It’s all a bit vague. Why is it important for us to know he is a gang member?
This is probably wrong but how is this?
Making a run through enemy territory for sanctuary with his five year old daughter pursued closely you vigilantes.
There are so many aspects we don’t know. What makes the vigilantes move in? Can we get that in? Why does that make him run.
If the protagonist is an ex-gang banger, he may be the victim of a vigilante squad inflicting street justice, but wouldn’t it be justice that the gang banger has brought upon himself and his daughter for participating in lawless acts? His daughter is innocent, but he isn’t.
I find the moral geometry of the premise somewhat confusing and unsatisfactory.
I know the problem.
Drop the inciting incident. It isn’t tied close enough to the struggle to make sense in the logline. Plus sanctuary is vague. But here is a refined version.
A gangster much sneak his daughter through enemy territory to reach safety while being pursued by vigilantes.