Popularity: 1%

HIGH CONCEPT debated…

I Forgot the high concept!

Josh,

Always happy to debate you on this… I’ll try to hit your points one by one but first let me just say this to preface my reply…

You are absolutely correct that EXECUTION is critical. You can throw a high concept at me and that might get me to read your script but if, after I read the first few pages, I can sense a script with problems and poor execution, I probably won’t read any further…

*NOTE: I’m talking about the average producer here… A marketing logline is simply another tool to get your screenplay read.

I agree with you on that however, if you throw me (the average producer) a marketing logline that really grabs me and then you don’t clearly pull that logline off with your script EVEN IF IT HAS OUTSTANDING EXECUTION, I’m gonna take a pass on it. Another thing I’m talking about here is SPEC SCRIPTS. Not pitches. Not studio projects. I’m talking about a screenplay written on SPECULATION by an unknown screenwriter so let’s keep this debate within that context as well.

Okay… point by point…

*NOTE: To read Josh’s comment, CLICK HERE. Then scroll down toward the bottom of all the comments… Josh’s is the REALLY REALLY LONG ONE… LOL.

You said, “Again, Unk, you recall I mentioned BROKEBACK earlier? Not high concept. High story, sure . . . “

Gotta totally DISAGREE with you here. Two Montana cowboys fall in love with each other in the 60s.

Josh, that is DEFINITELY HIGH CONCEPT. As soon as I read that line, I immediately conjur up images about that scenario. I immediately see the obvious conflict here. Then, if you extend that logline to say something about how they hide their love for one another over the next 20 years…

Whoa… High concept again but still an adaptation and not really considered a spec.

Let’s move on…

You said, “I can also think of TRAFFIC, which made big bucks, but at the time it was made, no one really thought it would make a profit, they were hoping for some awards and make back costs, not that it would gross over a hundred mil.“

TRAFFIC. Not even sure that was originally a spec script.

You said, “High Concept is really about marketing, not about story. There is high concept and there is high story.”

I think that statement is definitely PARTLY TRUE for sure but here’s my take on HIGH CONCEPT:

It’s NOT a film with a high budget.
It’s NOT a film that’s necessarily BIG like an epic.
It’s NOT a film with a boatload of CGI or special effects.
It’s NOT a film with amazing characters (although that’s always a plus).
It’s NOT a film with tons of twists and turns that keep the audience guessing.
It’s NOT a film with a story that you fall in love with.
It’s NOT a film with bigger than life action sequences.

To be perfectly honest, I don’t think that any of the elements above have to have anything to do with HIGH CONCEPT and IN FACT a HIGH CONCEPT film might have NONE OF THE ABOVE elements.

My argument? There is a huge difference between story and CONCEPT.

You very well may have the most compelling, interesting, and well executed story around but the concept could still not be a High Concept.

My personal experience is that when a studio, producer, or prodco says or refers to High Concept, they’re actually talking about a story idea that has ALL THREE OF THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS:

On the face of it, that might sound pretty simple but in reality, if your story idea is missing one of the above elements, it probably ISN’T high concept.

Sure, you can go ahead and say this is simply a marketing ploy but so what? It’s still the kind of story you have to write to get your SPEC screenplay read the majority of the time.

You said, “You may be able to find the “high” concept in each film above, but I guarantee you that concept had nothing to do with why each movie above got made, in fact, they got made IN SPITE of their high concept. They were, however, successful because of their highly executed stories.”

How can you guarantee that? How can you say that BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN got made IN SPITE of its high concept? Of course the movie made money because it was in fact well executed. LOL. I’ve NEVER ONCE recommended having a high concept OVER a well executed screenplay.

YOU GOTTA HAVE BOTH. True, a well executed screenplay without a high concept can get made… It happens. But it sure happens a hell of a lot less than a well executed screenplay with a high concept.

You seem to be lumping HOLLYWOOD into this one huge mixture and to be honest, it’s several different mixtures. The fact is that BM did get made. It might have been a difficult sale that’s true… But am willing bet $10K that what got the damn thing read in the first place was its concept not its execution. Then, once it was in fact read, the execution pulled off the high concept and PEOPLE WANTED TO MAKE A MOVIE.

It doesn’t matter if everyone in town originally passed on it… It only takes one. Remember, I’ve never once said that a high concept spec screenplay guarantees ANYTHING. What I am saying however, is that a high concept spec screenplay swings the odds a little more in your favor.

That’s all.

Actually, a lot more in your favor most likely… Even if those odds are still gigantically against you.

You said, “Did that make the “high concept” of their story bad? Or the concept of PULP FICTION, which was also turned down all over town?”

Nope. Of course not. Again, it ONLY TAKES ONE person to say, “WE GOTTA A MOVIE HERE!”

You said, “It seems to me, again, that high concept is an idea for MARKETING the film that often has nothing to do with the STORY of it.”

Sure it does happen and of course a studio/prodco is going to exploit the high concept when marketing a film… WHY SHOULDN’T IT? It’s the marketing of that high concept that puts asses in theater seats, isn’t it? How many times has a studio spent ten to twenty times MORE MONEY ON MARKETING than it did to purchase or finance the film?

That still doesn’t make a case NOT TO HAVE A HIGH CONCEPT for your spec screenplay, does it?

I’m telling you that IF YOU HAVE BOTH high concept AND execution, you definitely gotta WINNER.

You said, “The thing is, marketing is fluid and the idea doesn’t account enough for changes and evolutions in audience tastes. Most suits would have held their view, even while being waterboarded, that no one really wants to see a gay cowboy movie. Because at that point, no one had. They would have swore upon their lives it would be a failure.”

I don’t get your point… The fact is that the movie did get made and the fact is that the movie did make money. The fact is that this movie very likely opened the door for a lot of movies that the “suits” might hesitate to make otherwise.

Isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t THIS THE KIND OF EVOLUTION we want to see take place?

You said, “That’s the weakness of high concept. It only reflects what happened. Not what will happen or could happen. Or what you could make happen if you got behind a movie no one’s ever seen before.”

Nobody ever said that high concept can reflect what will happen or what could happen. I know I never said that. What I said and what I will continue to say is that the odds of getting your spec screenplay read and made will swing more in your favor if your screenplay contains a high concept. If your high concept spec screenplay is also well executed, obviously, the odds once again swing more in your favor.

I don’t see that as a weakness at all and to be honest, a well executed screenplay (there’s THOUSANDS of them) doesn’t reflect what will happen or what could happen either… Does it? For every one well executed NON high concept screenplay that gets produced, there are literally thousands of the same that do not and never will get produced so again, what’s the point?

You said, “Again, when I use the words high concept, I’m really talking about marketing. Because the logline where you can fill in the blanks without hearing the rest, that’s marketing, that’s a TV commerical. That’s not high story, that’s an ad.”

Josh, I know exactly what you’re talking about when you say high concept. That’s fine. We can agree to disagree which we obviously are… Hey, it’s America, right? LOL.

But to be honest…

FUCK ALL THAT.

That’s not what I’m saying… I am talking about SCREENWRITING ONLY. The bottom line is this… You go ahead and create a well executed screenplay without a high concept.

Then I will go ahead and create high concept spec screenplay that’s also well executed AND actually REFLECTS the high concept of the logline.

Are you really telling me that your screenplay has as good or a better chance of getting READ and PRODUCED?

Or are you acknowledging that this is in fact the case and you’d like to see it change?

Either way, the bottom line is that my screenplay (all other things being equal of course) will get the nod a hell of a lot more than yours will.

Is that good?
Is that bad?

I don’t give a shit. That’s simply the way it is and all I am is the messenger. On top of that, as both a screenwriter AND producer, I gotta tell ya…

I LIKE HIGH CONCEPT. LOL.

With high concept, you maximize your potential of having a WINNER. A winner is a film that people like. A winner is a film that makes money. A winner is a film that spawns careers and reputations.

I take NOTHING away from the well executed screenplay. If someone wants to write a well executed screenplay about the worm farm debutante, GO FOR IT. I wish them nothing but the best of luck when it comes time to marketing the thing… Because the fact of that matter is that writing is only part of the equation… The other part is getting the script OUT THERE and GETTING IT READ.

Very hard to do without the high concept but after reading all this, if somebody still wants to proceed without the high concept, so be it…

You asked, “The high concept is a way for suits to control product without being terribly informed about writing and story, is it not?”

See now you’re talking about marketing and I’m talking about screenwriting. These are two different subjects but sure, the suits use high concept as a marketing tool. I guess you could say it is a way to control product i.e., that the suits don’t really want to take any risks on non high concept material and since they don’t allow themselves to take risks with non high concept material that, in effect, does tend to control the market.

So what? They’re the ones with the money, right? It’s a free country so if someone finds a non high concept screenplay and wants to make it, it will be up to them to find the money to do so. I don’t have a problem with that.

However…

The market is REALLY controlled by the boxoffice. Every movie that does WELL, spawns a boatload of similar type projects i.e., projects containing elements that will hopefully keep the ticket buying demographic BUYING TICKETS.

You said, “They don’t have to read it, if it’s about gay cowboys, forget it. Nobody makes movies about that.

If it’s a movie about an assassin hired to kill his best friend, forget it, there are too many movies in development like that.

Completely bypassing EXECUTION.

The execution of an idea can make something that may seem ordinary on the surface, but once done by the right writer, can kick some serious ass.”

I agree with you but I also contend that a well executed screenplay probably does have some kind of high concept going for it. Obviously, there are a lot of movies getting made that suck and that most likely means that the screenplay sucked too.

So what?

You seem to know exactly what I am saying here AND more importantly, you seem to know that what I am saying is very likely TRUE… You just don’t like it NOR do you agree with it. Well guess what? On very many levels, I’m right there with you my friend…

That’s WHY I tell people wanting to get into this business to DO BOTH… i.e., write a well executed high concept spec screenplay and make damn sure that the execution you did so well reflects the high concept that you promised in your logline.

Given the current world that we have to play with, those are simply the rules… The way YOU can beat them at their own game is to do BOTH. Not one or the other… BOTH. Keep doing BOTH and you’re gonna get more work. Do both and eventually, you’re gonna be able to just write a well executed screenplay without the high concept (assuming that is in fact your desire) and get it produced. Will it make money? Who knows. But by doing BOTH now, you broaden your opportunity to DO WHAT YOU WANT in the future.

You said, “LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE. Dysfunctional family goes on road trip. Wait, we already have something like that, shooting now, called RV. We got Robin Williams, and it’s a tired concept, to tell the truth, Ice Cube just did one like it, didn’t make any money. So we’re going to pass on your little movie. Robin Williams will make all the money on this road comedy stuff. Which one do people remember? And why? Because of the story. Not the concept. Because of the execution. Not the concept. Because of the high story.”

Again, I agree with you! But that movie does have BOTH high concept AND outstanding execution.

BOTH.

You said, “Again, not a bad thing to be able to sum up a film in 25 words. It helps to solidify whatever it is. You can come up with an idea, a concept, that is good and have the story executed well (I’m looking forward to the upcoming STRANGER THAN FICTION). But it’s not the only way to create product that people really want to see in cinema (I’m thinking BORAT, which I cannot wait to see). And high concept can lead to real stinkers as well, right?”

You get no argument from me again… But even so, I prefer to write and produce well executed screenplays with high concepts. Then, go ahead and use that high concept as a marketing tool because after all… This is a business too.

You said, “A really great story has a voice, in theatre and in literature, they’re always looking for new voices. By voices, I mean people who tell stories really well. Like Neil Gaimann. Quentin Tarantino. Tony Kushner. Stephen “The Fucking Man” King. The living writing who has the most movies to his credit? Stephen “The Fucking Man” King. MISERY? High concept. STAND BY ME? bunch of kids go look at a dead body? Not really. Great movie. SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION? With a title like that, what’s it about? And it’s in prison? And there’s no love story? I don’t think so.”

Josh… Were these SPECS? Come on… These are Stephen King adaptations, not specs. Suffice to say that Stephen “The Fucking Man” King can do any fucking thing he wants… LOL. Get him to allow you to adapt one of his stories as he did with Frank Darabont with SHAWSHANK and I’m willing to bet that you’re gonna get your script READ. Execute it well and I’m willing to bet that you’re gonna get your script produced.

You said, “All three are great movies because all three are great stories, regardless of what the concept is. In fact, I would argue that Shawshank, one of the most rented videos ever, didn’t succeed when first released because they never really knew how to market it (tied down by the “high concept” method of selling, though I bet Miramax would have figured it out) until after it got to the video stores.”

So what? These weren’t scripts written by unknown screenwriters attempting to break into the business.

You said, “In reality, the story matters more than the idea, when you think about it. It’s one reason why you cannot copyright an idea, only the specific expression of an idea.”

I will be the first to admit that I love a good story whether or not there’s a high concept contained within… Nobody is arguing that fact.

What I am saying… No. What I am SHOUTING is that in order for an unknown screenwriter to MAXIMIZE his or her opportunities to break into the business is to DO BOTH i.e., write a spec screenplay with a high concept. Write a well executed spec screenplay that reflects that high concept.

This way, everybody UP THE LINE FROM YOU, will immediately RECOGNIZE the potential of your material to make money for everyone involved.

Focus JUST ON THE STORY and NOT THE HIGH CONCEPT within the story and you’ve just extended your quest to get into the business unless you can find an Indie Producer who loves your stuff and doesn’t care about the project making money… Remember, a good story does not guarantee boxoffice.

You said, “A movie is a story, at its core, its DNA is story-based. It’s not the same creature as a novel or play, it’s not the same creature as a TV show, but they all share the story DNA and stories work best when told in voices born to tell them.”

I agree 100%.

You said, “Again, Unk, I’m not whining or bitching . . . these are just thoughts I’ve had while observing a lot of what’s going on and the develop execs I talk to here in the big apple - in my mind, I think good stories will find their audience, eventually.”

Josh, love debating this with you, really. Good stories already have found their audiences… Maybe not WIDE AUDIENCES, like a well executed high concept screenplay but hell, I’m one of them. I love Indie films. I Just watched ART SCHOOL CONFIDENTIAL and loved it. I don’t think it made any real money but I definitely think it found its audience albeit not a WIDE AUDIENCE.

I think in then END, we basically agree that STORY IS KING… RIGHT? I can settle for that.

Unk

Tags:




Friday: 3 November 2006|2030|Under Uncategorized

Print This Post Print This Post
 

Comments

16 Responses to “HIGH CONCEPT debated…”

  1. Clive on Saturday: 4 November 2006|0254

    Interesting debate.

    I have a couple of thoughts.

    First one: Marketing isn’t a dirty word

    When I read “it’s just advertisng,” the “just” is used in that sentence to imply that advertising is a bad thing. It isn’t.

    I want to be able to ask for a large lump of money for my screenplay — therefore I want it to be the kind of movie it’s easy for the marketing department to sell.

    Second One: Execs are not the enemy

    It’s incredibly easy to lose money in the film industry, not small amounts of money either, stupidly large amounts of money. Therefore it tough being an exec, because you have to contantly make multi-million dollar gambles — anyone of which could wreck your career.

    Now the easy way to be an exec is to never touch a spec script — because by sticking to adaptations you are always going with a product that has existing brand value.

    So, Garfield is an easy choice, because no matter how much the product sucks, you know that there are enough Garfield fans out there to make a profit.

    But a spec has ZERO brand value, and it’s not written by anyone who brings anything to the table. No one is going to que to see the next “Clive” movie (except my Mother).

    This means that a spec script has to have a strong hook, that guarantees it will do business — high concept is just one of the ways of making sure that you’ve got a good hook.

    I used to work in advertising as a copywriter and we worked on three questions:

    Who are you talking to?
    What do you want them to do?
    Why should they do it?

    These questions are the core of selling anything.

    The who is your demographic, the what is “Go see this movie” the why is ………..?

    Well, you’ve got thirty seconds to tell these people why they should see your movie, ten seconds of which is going to be saying SAMUEL JACKSON over and over again… the rest of it is why at the core of your film there needs to be a high concept idea.

    Oh, and by the way Brokeback Mountain was an adaptation of an Annie Proiux short story — it’s consodered to be one of the best short stories ever written. — When Ang Lee walks into your office and says “read this” Annie Proiux doesn’t need to sell that concept in twenty-five words — both she and Ang arrive with enough brand value to get the idea pitched.

    But you have to believe that the exec who tool that took on Brokeback was sweating bullets until the reviews came in — because if that film had been executed even marginally below superb it would have sunk like a rock. That’s a big gamble to take.

  2. Joshua James on Saturday: 4 November 2006|1418

    LOL! Wow, Unk, I’d never thought I’d rate my own post.

    Firstly, thank you for responding with the depth that you have and with the humor you have. I really appreciate it.

    Secondly, you mention that you suspect, and here I agree with you, that you and I are not as far apart as it may seem on the surface. We are simply quibbling over details.

    I think we both know what a good screenplay is (since you are UNKNOWN, I only have your site here, but I like it, and since I am known but still UNKNOWN as of yet, in the industry, you only have my words here as well).

    But can I ask you, do you think YOUR view of high concept is the same view that a studio exec’s view of high concept? Because I don’t know that it is, at least compared with what I hear from the D-folks at the smaller prod-co’s here in the big apple.

    They see high concept as a commericial entity. Like, it’s THE FUGITIVE meets ORDINARY PEOPLE. Fugitive made X amount of dollars. Ordinary People made X amount of dollars, so your screenplay should make X times 2.

    Not a bad way to define it. However, it lacks when your screenplay is unique but never been done before.

    You’re defining high concept as a uniqueness entity in terms of story, not commerical history. In that, we agree. Each story needs something that makes it special and individual and not just a random Law & Order event. I totally agree. If that’s high concept, sign me up, that’s what I try to do

    Let’s take BROKEBACK, which we talked about before. Now obviously, this is in hindsight because the film did get made and did make a ton of bucks, but my point was that an unknown writer would not have been able to sell it and it was only because ANG LEE pushed it through to get it made. It’s high concept by your definition because it was a western and a gay love story. Right. Never been done before. And no audience for it, so the studio’s going to pass.

    Because in a studio’s mind, no one wants to see a gay western.

    Now they’re wrong, and Ang Lee proved that, so you say it works. But let’s go a step further.

    Jon Favreou has a script (he wrote SWINGERS) that he wants to get made, a western. A western about Hasidic Jews. That’s high concept, by your definition. And mine.

    But he said (on his show, DINNER FOR FIVE) that no one wants to make it because westerns don’t sell and Hasidic jewish stories don’t sell.

    Because by the studio’s definition, it’s not high concept because they don’t believe it’s commercial.

    Get where I’m coming from? His script may be great, his concept is, but it’s not HIGH concept by a d-person’s definition.

    I think that’s what we’re tussling over. But what fun it is!

    For the record, I don’t view execs or suits as the enemy, I like a lot of the ones I know, they’re smart people in tough jobs. I got money through them, so I’m not ranting about them.

    I typed this fast because I only had ten minutes or so - if I think of more, I’ll drop by tomorrow and add it.

    Thanks Unk - you come to new york, coffee’s on me!

  3. Unk on Saturday: 4 November 2006|1459

    Josh,

    You left a new comment just as I was about to work on my rewrite… CURSE YOU! LOL.

    Because, hey… I can’t help it, gotta keep this debate goin…

    You said, “But can I ask you, do you think YOUR view of high concept is the same view that a studio exec’s view of high concept? Because I don’t know that it is, at least compared with what I hear from the D-folks at the smaller prod-co’s here in the big apple.”

    Josh… Good question and the answer is…

    YES and NO.

    I know quite a few producers (I work with several) who see it exactly the same way I see it which is one of the reasons I’m so happy to be hooked up with this current prodco because basically, nobody here who I work with is HAPPY about the current state of affairs when it comes to movies. We are looking to bring back story WITH the high concept but not formula. We’re looking to get those people back out of the house and spend some money on a movie ticket since they haven’t been doing so for a few years now.

    Unfortunately, there’s a NO part to that answer… LOL. And you OBVIOUSLY know that already because I think it’s that NO that’s got you all hot and bothered… And to be honest, it’s that same NO that’s got us all hot and bothered too.

    But rest assured that the writing is on the wall and more and more producers want to get back to STORY and not formula. More and more studios are realizing that the SUITS that are still in their late 20s aren’t as smart as they think they are.

    So little by little we plod along trying to concentrate on STORY as KING. Great things happen when you give in to this mindset… Budgets go down, profits go up. It’s a WIN-WIN for everyone.

    You said, “They see high concept as a commericial entity. Like, it’s THE FUGITIVE meets ORDINARY PEOPLE. Fugitive made X amount of dollars. Ordinary People made X amount of dollars, so your screenplay should make X times 2.

    Not a bad way to define it. However, it lacks when your screenplay is unique but never been done before.”

    Yup. They sure as shit DO see it that way… Unfortunately, a lot of studios and prodco’s do see it that way but little by little, the movies with outstanding stories that make a PROFIT wedge themselves in just a little deeper and a little deeper and trust me, EVERYONE IS NOTICING.

    One thing that you do need to know is that the MAJORITY of the studios and prodcos do want to build their reputation for making GOOD MOVIES. The problem has simply been that they left the decision of what’s a good movie to the suits you keep talking about. The suits found out that if they made movies for the current ticket buying demographic, they could just keep doing it over and over and over…

    Slowly but surely, boxoffice was going down. DVD sales were going down. Why? Because in reality, the ticket buying demographic doesn’t control the money. This could even explain why so many 4Q films do so well. They’re not specifically made for what the suits consider to be the ticket buying demographic.

    You said, “You’re defining high concept as a uniqueness entity in terms of story, not commerical history. In that, we agree. Each story needs something that makes it special and individual and not just a random Law & Order event. I totally agree. If that’s high concept, sign me up, that’s what I try to do.”

    OUTSTANDING! Because I firmly believe this is what HIGH CONCEPT was meant to BE instead of all the bullshit you keep hearing about… Somehow, we got off track as an industry… Probably because of the SUITS… LOL.

    You said, “Let’s take BROKEBACK, which we talked about before. Now obviously, this is in hindsight because the film did get made and did make a ton of bucks, but my point was that an unknown writer would not have been able to sell it and it was only because ANG LEE pushed it through to get it made. It’s high concept by your definition because it was a western and a gay love story. Right. Never been done before. And no audience for it, so the studio’s going to pass.”

    Well it’s funny that you keep talking about Brokeback because as soon as I heard about that movie, I pretty much felt that a lot of women would want to go see it and SEE IT THEY DID.

    I haven’t read the script but I have heard that it’s well written so I do honestly believe that had an unknown screenwriter written it as a spec and been true to its high concept, it would have eventually gotten sold. Probably not as fast but eventually because no matter what, I do believe that GOOD SCREENPLAYS with high concepts that are true to their high concepts DO SELL.

    A hard road yes… But when it’s good, it’s good. And when it’s good, it sells.

    You wrote, “Jon Favreau has a script (he wrote SWINGERS) that he wants to get made, a western. A western about Hasidic Jews. That’s high concept, by your definition. And mine.”

    Well now I’m not so sure about that being a HIGH CONCEPT. Does it fit correspond to all three elements?

    1. The story idea is unique.

    2. The story idea appeals to a wide audience.

    3. The story idea can be said in ONE SENTENCE and you can INSTANTLY visualize the entire movie in your mind’s eye.

    It’s definitely UNIQUE. Cool, but would it appeal to a WIDE AUDIENCE? That, I don’t know. Believe it or not, I know a lot of people who have absolutely no idea what a Jew is let alone a Hasidic Jew. So when you factor THAT into the equation, it’s kind of hard to also say that the story idea (Hasidic Jews) can be said in ONE SENTENCE and you can INSTANTLY visualize the entire movie in your mind’s eye.

    It might actually be too small a niche however, if anyone is eventually going to get it made, Favreau will.

    Remember, for a movie to be high concept (as far as I’m concerned) it MUST fall into the above three elements. BROKEBACK did because Women are a wide audience and a lot of women went to see that film. More women than men anyway… I’ve seen the numbers.

    You said, “But he said (on his show, DINNER FOR FIVE) that no one wants to make it because westerns don’t sell and Hasidic jewish stories don’t sell.”

    I do know of 3 westerns that have sold in the last couple of years. The big problem for some studios and prodcos making westerns is that most foreign money won’t have anything to do with westerns so they end up not getting made… Trust me when I tell you… Foreign money is how more than half of all the movies getting made ARE GETTING MADE… LOL.

    However, I would still say to someone who wanted to write a western to go ahead and DO SO and just be sure to bring the high concept along with it. If the script is high concept and the screenplay is true to the high concept and well executed, IT WILL SELL. Again, it might take a little longer than say, a Romantic Comedy, a Thriller, Horror, etc., but it will sell.

    You said, “Get where I’m coming from? His script may be great, his concept is, but it’s not HIGH concept by a d-person’s definition.”

    Right. I’m not even sure it’s HIGH CONCEPT myself. In this particular case, I’d have to read it to see if I thought it might appeal to a WIDE AUDIENCE.

    You said, “I think that’s what we’re tussling over. But what fun it is!

    For the record, I don’t view execs or suits as the enemy, I like a lot of the ones I know, they’re smart people in tough jobs. I got money through them, so I’m not ranting about them.

    I typed this fast because I only had ten minutes or so - if I think of more, I’ll drop by tomorrow and add it.”

    LOL. Stop by anytime… I’ll be glad to keep hashing it out with you.

    Unk

  4. Joshua James on Saturday: 4 November 2006|1738

    Hey Unk,

    I’m glad to hear what you’re telling me about the SUITS you’re working with (is that a negative term, do they like being called suits?) and for the record, I had a screenplay picked up by someone just like that (I only have 3 screenplays listed, but I’ve written more than that) who sees story - so I agree that the market is changing and there’s more interest in what writers do (I think some of the boom in television has a little to do with it, where writers have freedom to take risks) and the boom in blogs and books which detail the “failures” also helps expand the views of storytelling (I just read HELLO, LIED THE AGENT by Ian Gurwitz and it kicks ass, exchanged emails with him, he’s saying a lot of what you say, only about television writing).

    So we’re cool - the Favreau thing was from awhile ago, too - the market is fluid, as I mentioned, and westerns are now more in than a few years ago. Jon’s point was that after SWINGERS everyone wanted to do something with him - as long as it was a commerical concept rather than an artistic one.

    A lot of my historic context for the film world is a bit dated, it’s from REBELS OF THE BACKLOG, DOWN & DIRTY PICTURES, etc . . . So I freely admit that you are more plugged in than I am.

    Then again, I’ve certainly run into a lot of that wrong-headed idea of high concept (more from agents than anything) than the one that you speak of.

    But I get that it’s changing, I do. I just wonder if HIGH CONCEPT as a term, if it doesn’t have just a bit too much baggage, you know? Whenever I hear it, it sort of reminds me of action movies from the eighties like TANGO & CASH.

    Love this kind of talk, gotta say - I’ll be back, ya anonymous trickster -

    Thanks for this - though my website lists the work I’ve done as a playwright, I’m really just a child of film and television and where I hope to work - I’m a playwright simply because people keep doing my plays. So I dig this kind of talk big time!

    Gotta run, have a script of me own I’m hashing out with it’s own concept . . . BTW, just saw BORAT with my lady and nearly pissed myself laughing.

    Yes, you read that right. Nearly pissed myself.

    Take care, UNk, coffee’s on me if you come here - beers on me if my producer flies me out in Jan -

    Yours,

    Josh

  5. Unk on Saturday: 4 November 2006|1811

    Josh,

    I am extremely lucky… The only SUIT in our prodco is our lawyer and I’m fuckin’ glad he’s a suit because as a suit, HE KICKS ASS.

    And no, they won’t read this comment because nobody in the prodco even knows I have this blog… LOL. So I’m not gettin’ my nose all browned up… I’m no good at it anyway.

    You said, “Then again, I’ve certainly run into a lot of that wrong-headed idea of high concept (more from agents than anything) than the one that you speak of.”

    I totally agree… I’m constantly explaining HIGH CONCEPT because REALLY, there’s not a lot of details about it out there but once you know what it is, IT’S PRETTY SIMPLE. I think you just have to RETHINK it. LOL.

    Unk

  6. Ann Wesley Hardin on Saturday: 4 November 2006|1833

    A western with Hasidic Jews? Try Frisco Kid, with Harrison Ford and Gene Wilder. A freakin’ piss-funny movie. I guess purists will say, hey he was a Polish rabbi, not a Hasid. But whatever. It was a western with a very Jewish Jew.

    Of course, it was made in 1979. Arguably before High Concept was practically a household word with writers.

    Oh, and Unk, who the hell heard of the Amish outside of PA before Witness was made?

    Guess I feel like raising a little hell tonight ;)

    Ok, I skipped ahead w/o reading the whole of your posts. Back to it!

  7. Unk on Saturday: 4 November 2006|1913

    Ahh but Ann,

    WITNESS is still HIGH CONCEPT!

    Very UNIQUE.

    It would appeal to a large audience (in my opinion) because you’ve got a hard-nosed cop who’s basically the very opposite of the Amish living among them and hiding out.

    That gets my interest up automatically AND gives me the visuals in my mind’s eye without even knowing the story.

    An interesting side note is that my Mom is really good friends with one of the screenwriters of WITNESS but no… it never turned into an opportunity for me.

    Still… A GREAT SCREENPLAY.

    Unk

  8. Ann Wesley Hardin on Saturday: 4 November 2006|1943

    Unk, I hold Witness up as a “perfect movie”. I think the structure, cinematography, writing, lighting, casting…every freakin’ thing was perfect. And I thought this waaaaaaay before I was a professional writer, and way before I read Linda Seger’s book. I just knew as I sat there watching it that this was a kick ass film.

    I also think that about Star Wars and Jaws.

    But mainly Witness. Still, it was the story, and yes, the high concept, that sold it. Because people still don’t know who the F the Amish are. After our horrific schoolhouse massacre a few weeks ago, the papers were still teaching the general public about them.

    So I guess my point is that if the story about Hasids in the old west was like Witness, or the Frisco Kid, I’d think some exec. somewhere would give it the green light. (notice I didn’t say SUIT because they weren’t even born when these great movies were made).

    I was very heartened to hear your perception that studios notice the SUITS don’t know everything. I love movies. I used to live for them as much as I lived for books. But the last twenty years or so I’ve almost given up on finding one that was worth my money.

    Besides your discussions on writing craft, my secret and personal reason for hanging out with screenwriters is this deep, abiding love of the movies. As I said before, I don’t want to write one. I love writing books. But man do I love to be swept away by a good flick.

    Don’t tell anyone, but I’d say I love movies–really good movies–almost more than I love books. Ack. I’ll probably be burned at the stake.

    But more than anything, I’d like to see a return to the days when story, and writing was king. It’s already happening in the book biz because of the rise of the e-pubs who are willing to take big risks. Clive said that digital filmmaking is cheaper than ever now too, but that no one seems to be taking advantage of it. I hope they do. I hope they play their movies on the Internet (like e-pubs posted their books) get a following, and get the big distribution they deserve (like many e-pubs did!).

    I hope you guys keep pushing. I want to be enchanted again!

  9. Unk on Saturday: 4 November 2006|2106

    Ann,

    I’d have to agree with you about all three movies… Perfect structure for what these movies are about.

    It’s a long, slow, uphill battle but little by little, even the suits (old and new) are starting to get it. Too many of what I would call, NEW AGE PRODUCERS are getting into the mix and MIXING IT UP and the studios are taking notice.

    And while it might take a while, the move toward STORY being KING and lower budgets for higher profits is already happening.

    As for the digital filmmaking movement… More and more movies are being made in HiDef. I just think that’s the way of the future and only the real old school directors will be using film for a long time to come.

    Clive and I have had lots of conversations about low budget filmmaking over the last year or so and I think what we’ve basically come to agree on is the fact that the smaller Indie Films just don’t pay as much attention to STORY as they should.

    It’s so easy to make a movie these days but so many low and micro budget filmmakers keep worrying about the equipment when they should be worrying about their screenplay.

    But that’s okay because the ones that do worry about it are the ones that are going to make it…

    Unk

  10. Clive on Sunday: 5 November 2006|0204

    Yeap, that’s my take on it.

    The digital film revolution contains so much promise to offer a wider variety of films to audiences who I know want it.

    I’m in my forties and everyone I know (of a certain age) feels abandoned by Hollywood. We’d like an intelligent “old school” movie every now and again.

    What I see in the indie scene is an incredible energy and knowledge of lo/no budget production technique, but the product itself always fails in two areas — the writing and the performances.

    What I’ve found is that most indies can happily digest any amount of information about camera technology, but just can’t take any criticism of their scripts or get their heads around working with actors.

    My goal is to prove that budgets are irrelevant now and that only the writing and the acting matter.

  11. Bill Cunningham on Sunday: 5 November 2006|1844

    Like, it’s THE FUGITIVE meets ORDINARY PEOPLE. Fugitive made X amount of dollars. Ordinary People made X amount of dollars, so your screenplay should make X times 2.

    Isn’t that the concept behind the CW’s recently canceled show RUNAWAY?

    As someone who makes his living by writing and producing high concept screenplays and the marketing that goes with them - loglines, taglines, synopses, box copy, etc… let me say this:

    Even if you write a screenplay that isn’t high concept, there WILL be a high concept logline written for it so that it can be marketed quickly and easily to the audience.

    I will be that guy, and I will boil it all down to the most exciting, compelling and/or dramatic thirty words or less sentence I possibly can.

    Oh - and believe me, you want me to do that. You want me to make your script “accessible.” You want me to make the copy and the artwork and the packaging memorable.

    If you have the execution down - great. Now’s the time to start understanding the marketing because we aren’t going away. There’s a semi-famous quote by an executive over at New Line which I’ll paraphrase here:

    I’d rather have a crappy script with a great concept, then a well-written script no one wants to see. We can always fix the writing.

  12. Christina on Sunday: 5 November 2006|1949

    Somewhere in this long post and comments, you mention that Brokeback Mountain would not have been made without Ang Lee championing it. However, that was not enough to get it made. I watched an interview of Larry McMurty and Diana Ossana where they recounted how they developed the screenplay. Diana had insommia one night and read the short story in the New Yorker. The next morning, she had Larry read it - they immediately decided they had to adapt it, so they contacted Annie Proulx and got the rights. At some point, they put up their own money (I don’t know if it was for the option or to fund part of the production) to make it happen.

    So my point is this: Ang Lee was only part of the equation. The screenplay was written by bankable writers and the original writer, Proulx, had already had material adapted to the screen. (Successfully? I don’t know how The Shipping News fared at the BO.)

    I think if Brokeback had been entered in the Nicholl (let’s say as an original script - don’t believe they allow adaptations), I do believe it would have placed as a finalist. (I’ve read it - it’s really well done.) However, I don’t think it would have been made - I don’t think the “high” concept and execution alone would have sold it. I think it took two high-powered writers and Ang Lee to get it off the ground.

    That’s just a sideline note. It’s not a comment on the bigger stance you take, that developing and executing high-concept ideas is the way to break in. I totally agree. After writing 6 screenplays that weren’t high concept, I realized that only 2 of the 6 had a real shot from a concept level. My 7th is closer to high concept than the others (i.e., Kung Fu Bridesmaid, an action wedding comedy that has execution problems), and my 8th is definitely high concept - I’m currently in the middle of executing it

  13. Clive on Monday: 6 November 2006|0743

    There seems to be confusion here.

    But that’s understandable, because it’s the same confusion that exist throughout the industry.

    Pitch sentences, like “It’s Jaws meets Pretty Woman” or “It’s Silence of The Lambs meets Garfield” (God, would love to see both of those hybrids — I mean rich guy falls in love with a killer shark and Hanibal Lecter mentally tortures annoying cartoon cat — that’s my kind of cinema)

    Any, strayed off the point.

    Those kind of sentences are just pre-ptich warm ups to give execs a frame of reference — they aren’t high concept.

    My understanding of high concept is pretty much as Unk outlined it — Mass audience appeal + One sentence description that allows the average guy to picture the entire film + a unique story

    When I used to teach this stuff I had an example I used to use:

    Title: Shortfellas
    Genre: Action/Comedy
    High Concept: Three “little people” rob a bank

    Now, if I wanted a contextual opening pitch statement it would be something like “Bad Santa meets Goodfellas” but that’s not the high concept element, it just places the idea in context.

  14. The Moviequill on Monday: 6 November 2006|0831

    The Mennonites can never catch a break, it’s always Amish, Amish, Amish…

  15. Ann Wesley Hardin on Monday: 6 November 2006|0903

    Wait your turn, Moviequill. Hasids are going to be the new Amish, then Mennonites can be the new Hasids. K?

  16. Laura Reyna on Monday: 6 November 2006|1048

    I saw Witness last night.

    They’re still Amish.

    Just thought you’d like to know…

    (p.s. Unk, i’m pretty sure you’re screen template is giving me a brain tumor.)

Leave a Reply