When a young woman blissfully in love, climbs the Swiss Alps to meet her boyfriend, she is unexpectedly dumped and must overcome heartbreak to start again.
An interesting setup. But, “overcome heartbreak” refers to her subjective need, not her objective want. And loglines are about the latter, not the former. And “start again” is vague. Start what again? Mountain climbing or…? As a result of being dumped, what becomes her objective goal? What will make it difficult for her to achieve it?
Also there is an ongoing refurbishing of the romantic genre. Stories about women who define themselves, their happiness in terms of men are being deprecated in favor of stories about women who define themselves in terms of their accomplishments, whose definition of happiness is not solely about getting the guy. The woman’s job is no longer to please the man; rather the man’s job is to respect the women and get with the program of supporting co-equal relationships. She is as likely to dump him as he would dump her.
Bottom line: if she climbs the mountain for his sake in Act 1, she would climb it for herself in Act 3. (Or something equivalent.) That could constitute her character arc.
“One must never place a loaded rifle on the stage if it isn’t going to go off.” –Mr. Sulu– (Or was it Chekhov?)
You set up your logline with the lead character climbing the Swiss Alps. This is very interesting.
Then you do nothing with it. Once the lead is dumped she simply must overcome her heartbreak.
It is anti-climactic to put the Swiss Alps at the beginning of the story, then not use them in the second act as something the lead must overcome. Especially since it is the “Alps,” part of the logline that will hook the reader.
Excellent point by Richiev! Often a logline explicitly or implicitly plants a “Chekhov gun”. It violates audience expectations not to “fire it” by the 3rd Act. If climbing the Alps for whatever reason is a key event in the 1st Act, it seems to me it needs development or at least a reminder in the 2nd Act, a payoff in the 3rd.