After being augmented against her will, a street-girl from a futuristic city must avoid capture by both former allies as well as the wealthy caste — sparking a civil war in which only the strongest survive.

If Katniss Everdeen is not the hero, aka: the protagonist, aka: main character, of the "Hunger Games" saga -- who is?

We are so obviously not on the same page as to the definition of basic terms, that I don't know what else to say. Except that by the dramatic conventions of modern cinema, while struggling to merely survive is a positive goal, it isn't enough to sell a movie concept. It isn't enough for a protagonist to escape the clutches of her tormentor, to run away. Eventually she must confront her antagonist (who, btw, is???) in a High Noon showdown, aka: the Obligatory Scene.

I'm not making this up as I go along. And neither are the others, FFF and Nir Shelter. Our concerns are informed by our knowledge of standard industry definitions and expectations.

I think you have a potentially interesting hook. I say potentially because "augmented" suggests something interesting, but I'm not clear as to what "augmentation" is. I think the nature of the augmentation needs to be made more specific.

And I suggest that the story that flows from that augmentation needs to be organic, causal. IOW: don't throw in a civil war just because you think it spices up the plot. There ought to be a clear, logical, cause and effect relationship between her being "augmented" against her will and whatever happens after that. Plot points should fall in sequence like dominoes.

I, for one, am intrigued -- but not hooked. I'm circling around the bait -- but not taking a bite.

fwiw

And yet, I do not have to mention the fact that she is a hero or anti-hero in the logline at all. What she is depends on the goal and motivations.

Also, Katniss is just a symbol for the rebellion, and actually in the end kills the person involved in the death of her sister - revenge killing. The president dies by laughing (choking on his own blood). I fail to see how she can be considered a hero, more like a person just along for the ride. She doesn't even lead the rebellion in any way - it could exist without her after the second hunger games. Granted, they could have changed this for the movies (only seen the first one), yet people still found the story interesting enough to adapt them. I appreciate the discussion.

Anyway, back to my logline, I'm a bit confused as to which goal everyone finds more compelling (or if none of them are). Is her goal of surviving compelling/positive enough? I was told that the story needed something else to separate it from all the other chase movies out there - hence the addition of the civil war and the destruction of the facility to the logline.

A logline is a sales tool where every word matters. Ditto a story pitch. "Hero" raises one set of connotations (the kind that usually interests directors, producers, actors), anti-hero raises another set of connotations that often (but not always) making the concept harder to sell.

So yeah, whether you yourself pitch the story with the protagonist cast as a hero or anti-hero makes a big difference.

In drama, most hero journeys do not start out with a main character wanting to "save the world". Far from it, the protagonist just wants to save herself, advance her own narrow interest, achieve a purely personal goal. But in the course of the story , the journey, the scope of the struggle expands, the stakes escalate so that she ends up "saving the world" or at least a lot more people than she originally intended.

Does Katniss Everdeen start out wanting to incite a rebellion against the despotism of Panem? Far from it. Does that make her any less of a hero? On the contrary.

I'd like to reiterate an important point FFF made earlier in this thread. That is, in a logline, the protagonist's struggle MUST be cast in positive terms. She must be doing more than fleeing a negative situation, she must also be struggling toward a positive outcome, a constructive change in her situation.

The logline is usually more effective when it emphasizes what she's struggling toward, not fleeing from.

fwiw.

Well I think of an anti-hero as someone without typical "good" qualities, but somehow does the "good" or "right" thing, even if it's just a consequence of reaching their goal. With anti-heroes, I feel it may be closer to reality and thus one can find parallels with them in daily life, and maybe relate to them (rather save your own life than that of someone you don't know for instance).

To me, a hero always tries to do the right thing, and has strong moral views. They think of others before themselves. Their goals tend to benefit many people, not just themselves.

I don't have much experience writing, so I could be completely wrong, but from what I've seen and read up that's how I would define them.

Either way, I don't think it really matters whether my main character comes across as a hero or anti-hero in the logline; does it?
Also, I'll remove the civil war part from the logline.

Thanks for the reply!

We may not be on the same page as to the definition of a hero versus an anti-hero. Here's mine:

A hero is someone whose struggle I sympathize with, whose motivation I can identify with, whose goal I can root for. I can sympathize... identify... root for Max in Elysium. Ditto V in Vendetta because they have just cause, righteous reasons for what they are doing -- they are fighting back against tyranny and exploitation. How can someone fighting the bad guys be characterized as an anti-hero?

As stated -- or as I understand your logline -- your protagonist passes my test for a hero, not an anti-hero.

An anti-hero is someone who I don't sympathize with, whose motivation I don't identify with or like, whose goal I'm not inclined to root for. But who is compelling to watch, nonetheless. Like Daniel Plainview in "There Will Be Blood". The movie is a masterful study in the ancient Greek tragic notion that character is fate.

How do you define them?

dpg, why would a film about an anti-hero be uninteresting? I mean V from "V for Vendetta" is an anti-hero, Daniel from "There will be blood", Tyler from "Fight Club", and now a Suicide Squad movie is being released. An anti-hero just lacks heroic qualities.

But I do see your point. Thanks for the input