Two farmers in Iceland are framed by the Sheriff and sent to Denmark to slave in chains for the rest of their life. The younger one returns after 20 years to realize he has a son and wants revenge.

Thanks dpg and Nir as well as Rudger. I'm glad you see more than just the potential of the story to be a feature. A series is of course much more prestige. But the feature would of course make my day.

Agree with Nir Shelter that if the concept is for a feature film, than the focus may need to be narrowed, the narrative tightened. As I currently understand the concept, it seems to lend itself more to a series.

In any event, I think it's a viable concept. May the odds be in your favor.

Good setting and great stakes but a few structural problems though.

"His motivation is revenge and getting his farm back?" = two goals.

"The bulk of the story is the suffering and surviving of the main character and then the embarrassment and the conviction of the accuser doing wrong?" = two act 2.

As there is an insistence on doubling up on the goals and main actions the MC will take in act 2, this reads to me more like a series than a film.

The forward motion drive that comes from a singularity is more powerful than that of a double goal in a film (did any one say legalist??). Most producers would be attracted to the power of such a pitch for a film.
However in a series you can have multiple goals and justify this by allowing the motivations to compound each other and subsequently grow as each goal is clarified over a longer period of screen time.

I suggest you re consider the format and structure this concept into a series it would have a greater likelihood of being picked up.

Hope this helps.

A minor. The logline doesn't tell he escaped; the first thing I would ask myself is "how? can someone who is imprisoned 'for live' (in the old days) return back home.

And does the logline without any doubt tell us 'where' he returns without using the word "home".

'After being forced to watch his lover?s execution and( then) sentenced for life in prison for a crime he didn?t commit,, a farmer in 16th century Iceland escapes and returns home to avenge her death and exonerate his name."

Maybe there is a shorter way to say "sentenced for life in prison"? Don't know...

That's just great ! - And I could shave 2 words off by taking "Twenty years" - then It's down to 36. And I agree - some things just can't be boiled down when the ingredient is complex has many alternatives.
Thanks !

Well, then, how about:

Twenty years after being forced to watch his lover's execution and then sentenced for life to prison for a crime he didn't commit, a farmer in 16th century Iceland returns to avenge her death and exonerate his name.

I don't mention that he's shipped off to Denmark because I think the execution conveys a more powerful emotional punch. In fact, I suggest this version has a one-two-three emotional punch: he 1] witnesses the execution of his lover; 2] gets a life sentence; 3] for a crime he didn't commit.

Logline legalists will, no doubt, throw a red flag on my play for giving the protagonist a dual objective goal. Although a dues paying legalist myself, I believe there are (rare) exceptions to every rule. I think an exception is warranted, certainly permissible, in this case.

Ditto with the 30 word maximum. That's certainly the ideal and close to the statistical average. But, again, there are rare exceptions, justifiable outliers to the statistical average. For me, the redline for length is 40 words. I haven't met a verbose logline yet that couldn't be boiled down to 40 words or less.

This one comes in at 38 words.

He was sent for prison for life - no one ever came back from the "slave yard" in Copenhagen

Gunn:

Clarification, please: was he sent into exile for life but not to prison for life? Or both? (Big difference)

The crime was stealing fish hooks and fishing string (which was enough)
His motivation is revenge and getting his farm back - but returning he's evidently gone mad..... so he try's to get the facts right for his son.