When a greedy bounty hunter fails to capture a regicide and is falsely accused of being her ally, the two must work together to fight outlaws and retrieve sacred relics to earn a wish and clear their names.

>>> greedy

How is that a character flaw that threatens the ability of the bounty hunter to achieve his objective goal?? And isn’t being a bounty hunter is a risky business and can take a lot of work, a lot of time?? Not to mention travel expenses?? So doesn’t he earn his bounty?

>>>a regicide?s ally

IOW:? a co-conspirator

>>>escape the government

Extraneous for the purpose of the logline.? What matters is the ultimate objective goal:? clear his names, prove his innocence,

So:

When a bounty hunter is falsely accused of murdering the king, he must….

Well, must what?? I’ll say it again: that he must exonerate himself by finding some wish-granting place rather than track down and capture the real killers doesn’t ring right for me.? Why tag him as a bounty hunter — and then not put his unique skill set to use in tracking down the real killers?? That’s his character strength, his metier.

The general guideline is that there should be a relevant match between a dramatic character and his dramatic task such that the character attribute defined in the logline is either congruent or antithetical to the task (objective goal).

By congruent I mean the defining characteristic makes the protagonist the right man for the job. He’s got the right stuff to succeed.

By antithetical I mean the defining characteristics makes him the wrong man for the job..? He’s got the wrong stuff, a character flaw, that he must overcome to achieve his objective goal.

But when I look at this logline I fail to see the relevancy between the character and his quest, either congruently or antithetically.

I realize and appreciate that you’re trying to come up with a new twist on an old trope, have a wish-granting place rather than a wish-granting totem or prop.? But in cinema, heroic characters (and he’s ultimately an heroic character, isn’t he?) have to earn their objective goal, actively make it happen for themselves, by themselves.? ?Luke Skywalker (then) and Rey (now) don’t seek the Force to merely stand by and let the Force work it’s mojo. The magical, mystical power of the Force is what they must learn to use.

The climax of the film should entail the ultimate test of the character, the moment of character truth, that decides the outcome.? But this logline seems to set up an ultimate test of geographical truth for the wish-granting place. The outcome depends on the place — not the protagonist.? The protagonist is rescued when he should be the one doing the rescuing.

That’s not how magical, mystical powers work in the monomyth.? I can think of no successful fantasy or scifi movie that displaces the pivotal role of determining the outcome at the climax from a person to an impersonal place (or object).? Can you?