During a solo expedition through the Australian outback, a lonely female scientist befriends a mysterious traveller via her long-range UHF radio, but things turn sinister when he insists on meeting up in the middle of nowhere.

Paul Clarke:

I agree that a logline should not reveal the Big Payoff, even for a short.? The journey to that Big Payoff should stand on its own; that is, it ought to be interesting, compelling, dramatic in its own right.? A logline should describe the journey to a destination, not the arrival.

A textbook example is "The Sixth Sense".? The Big Payoff, the Final Reveal is a whopper, one of the most famous in the history of cinema -- but the dramatic journey is interesting, compelling in its own right.

I think this is close to a solid logline and? there seems to be two ways this can go.? The guy shows up? and tries to kill her (could be a short or feature), or ... the guy shows up, after a lot of ominous worrying, and it turns out to be a nice guy. (probably a short).? Possibly want to modify the logline to express? which it is... or something else if I'm mistaken.

This logline reminds me of something Woody Allen said about setups for movies: "The world is strewn with very good ideas that don't go anyplace?It happens all the time, to me, and everybody. They get a great idea. A guy walks down the street and finds a wallet and he goes to a house and there's a dead body on the floor. Then what? It's the 'then what?' that kills you." (Start to Finish: Woody Allen and the Art of Moviemaking, p 13)

So she meets up with a guy in the middle of the Outback. Actually, the logline only says he insists on meeting her.? It doesn't say she agrees, that they actually meet.? Anyway,? he insists on meeting her.

Then what?

What is the plot that arises from this setup?? "Things turn sinister" is vague, uninformative, doesn't go anyplace. It doesn't tell us what becomes the woman's objective goa, what the dramatic question is.