When a bitten-to-death passenger is found dead in his cabin, a dad with son-issues aspires to catch the killer and redeem himself to his son.

"Because for the purpose of a logline and a plot, a protagonist should only have 1 objective goal"
In this case, I think it matters how you view these, because in reality they could be viewed as only part of a larger goal: to balance work and personal life. In that case repairing the marriage and doing the job are only steps to take to get to the goal. Just as in real life, most people's goal is to live life to the , but everything else falls under that. But in a story is it too broad? I think in that case the focus goes on the trials the person faces to achieve that grand goal. In this case, having to be able to do the job and keep the marriage together.
Anyway, I still stand by my earlier stance where I said seeing the protagonist losing at the end would be refreshing compared to all the happy endings..

You raise good points, as usual, Dkpough 1. ?In response to

>>>?But not both.?
>>>Wouldn?t that be the real challenge? To be able to do both? To somehow be able to get her spouse to remain with her, and catch the killer?

Because for the purpose of a logline and a plot, a protagonist should only have 1 objective goal. ? The Biblical adage that "no man can serve two masters" is as true for reel life as it is for real life in the sense that no protagonist can serve 2 objective goals. ?He can try. ?But one must inevitably taken precedence; one must inevitably be sacrificed for the sake of the other. It's S.O.P. in drama.

True dilemmas are a good thing in drama, a way par excellence to infuse a story with complications and rising tension.

Dilemmas aside, there's the matter of the initial objective goal --before the inciting incident-- and the new objective goal created by the inciting incident.

Case in point: ?"Die Hard"

The movie opens with NYPD officer John McClane flying to LA to visit his kids and his wife from whom he is estranged. ?His initial objective goal is to repair their broken marriage.

And then the terrorists attack-- the inciting incident.

As a result of that inciting incident, what becomes his objective goal? ?To repair his marriage by by impressing his wife with how he single-handedly outwits and defeats the terrorists?

No. ?His objective goal becomes to outwit and defeat the terrorists. ?That's how the plot is framed.

Yes, his wife is among those in jeopardy. ?But even if she weren't, even if there was no one else in the building but himself and the bad guys, John McClane would take on the terrorists. ?Why? ?Because he's a stand up guy, a good cop. ?Because it's his job, his calling.

And in the process of defeating the terrorists, he wins her back -- that's his Christmas bonus, the unintended consequence of his achieving his objective goal.

There, I submit for your consideration, is the template for the premise of this logline.

fwiw

"But not both."
Wouldn't that be the real challenge? To be able to do both? To somehow be able to get her spouse to remain with her,?and catch the killer? As you said in an earlier review about the son, her husband could see what she's doing and then that convinces him to stay with her.
But then again, if she fails at one, then how she deals with that failure could be an opportunity for a sequel. Not to mention that the protagonist winning everything at the end always makes me feel cheated; the story basically went full circle rather than going straight and exploring and building upon the protagonist's actions and the consequences they bring.

" it might be more interesting to explore with a female protagonist."
I do agree with this.

"Men go for action; women for relationship."
I want to expand on my position a bit more. Yes, women go for action. They enjoy action, though they wish for more female action protagonists.
Men are unlikely to go see relationship films, romance-y films. But that is a product of a "broad stroke" as you say. Men don't go see these films because they view them as only for women. Society has implanted in them that if they watch those types of films it will somehow make them less masculine. So yes, men do go for action. It is a product of a societal expectation.
On another note, I simply think that romance as a main plot is not effective enough. We need to see the trials the couple goes through, and what better way than to the make the romance a subplot and focus on the action, horror, fantasy, sci-fi, or thriller part which strengthens and builds that relationship?