Popularity: 1%

Response to stephen v2…

High Concept Evidence???Ya know… I can’t help it. I guess I just like to argue. Yeah, that’s definitely gotta be it. Okay, I sat there banging out a response to in the comments section and before I knew it, I had WAY too much for a comment… And for the two of you out there that sent me a nasty email for saying that stephen v2 was full of shit…

Eat me.

Here’s stephen v2’s last comment from the post yesterday:

“You mentioned “wikipedia” 7 times and yes, I read the wikipedia link. I did “read and understand” but I disagree, both with the wikipedia entry and your points. Per your points:

(1) Star Wars was not a unique, original story. It’s arguable there a few, if any “unique, original” stories, but even if we say they are, Star Wars borrowed heavily from Hidden Fortress and other Kurosawa films which in turn were based on earlier works by others. The screenplay underwent huge changes (60 year old Skywalker and green-skinned Han Solo) and Wikipedia details many of the direct influences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope

(2) My goof on Star Wars box office - I meant to say “within weeks of release”. I meant to refer to the difficulty booking the film in theaters i.e. they did not see the success coming nor did most at Fox etc. That’s clearly not what you mean by high concept.

Per Jaws, Casablanca, Great Escape etc. You are writing about high concept for people writing original screenplays. Citing examples of adaptations of what you believe are high concept books is probably only helpful to those with deep pockets to acquire rights/options to those works. How does this help original screenwriters?

Furthermore, you don’t cite evidence that those books/sources were “high concept” either.

Finally you state that point of your post is that the high concept is not a new concept. But if it’s not a concept at all (and just as I argue, a pitching technique not an indicator of great cinema), then your post has a internal logic problem ie.

High concept is valid concept for aspiring screenwriters because all these previous classic films are high concept yet you don’t have solid evidence that any of the cited films follow your high concept model and most are adaptations or remakes involving costly rights.

If you really want to sell high concept, concrete examples of great films (or at least great box office) written and pitched of the high concept model would far better make your case. Unfortunately, many cited examples of “high concept” I’ve seen elsewhere are just post-mortem summaries that often miss much of what made a film memorable.

I think there’s good evidence of connection between “high concept” and “great pitch”. Having a idea/script that you can pitch as high concept will get your script read, get your meetings and enhance your ability to get a script sold/movie made (again, see The Player).

But I still don’t see much if any connection between great cinema and high concept, mostly because getting people to agree on what is great cinema is an exercise in futility and even if you settle on “great box office” or “the most awards”, the I find the concept of high concept is ephemeral at best, meaningless at worst.

I think passion and authenticity are better base for screenwriters to write compelling stories than high concept.”

stephen v2,

Per your points…

1) Of course there are influences… I don’t think anyone who’s making films or screenwriting doesn’t know about elements that influenced STAR WARS. I contend that AT THE TIME, STAR WARS was quite original. I could care less about the influences and how the script changed and evolved. It’s high concept PLAIN and SIMPLE. You don’t have to agree with me… I don’t care. LOL.

2) Same as above.

You didn’t make a number 3 but I’ll do it for you…

3) The point of my post was simply that screenwriters have been writing high concept screenplays for a hell of a long time. Are you REALLY FUCKING TELLING ME that there are no OLDER movies that were ever made from original high concept screenplays? Are you really telling me that? Because if you are, I’ll be happy to list a few more that I’ve seen:

HIGH NOON
NORTH BY NORTHWEST
THE APARTMENT
GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER
ADAM’S RIB
CAT PEOPLE
SHADOWS

I’m sure a few hours worth of digging on the net would easily add to this number.

But that was never my my point… My point was, and always has been, that high concept has been around a lot longer than the phrase itself. We’ve simply put a NAME to something that’s been going on for decades.

By the same token, a lot of non high concept films have been made but on average, these kinds of films are a much harder sell and therein lies my presumption BASED on actual experience i.e., high concept screenplays can be pitched (as well as high concept pitches WITHOUT screenplays) based on the three criteria I mentioned in a previous post.

However, non high concept ideas and screenplays have a much harder time going through the exact same process (unless you are already a produced writer and even THEN, there’s no guarantees) because they cannot easily be summed up in that simple sentence and thus, require a read of their execution. But even then, a well written screenplay nor a well written high concept screenplay guarantees movement of that screenplay up through the food chain and to be clear, I never said that anyway… What I did say and what I will continue to say is that it’s just plain fucking EASIER with a high concept screenplay.

4) Cite evidence? Now my ass is starting to hurt… Hmmm. Dude, this isn’t rocket science. No studies have been made that I know of. My PRESUMPTION is based on my own experience as well as the experience of many other screenwriters… In fact… Now GET A GRIP here… This rant of mine is NOTHING NEW. I didn’t make this shit up. I’m simply passing on information… Can you seriously sit there and prove OR successfully argue that non high concept screenplays have just as easy of a time getting sold? I don’t think so…

Obviously, you do not believe the same as I do i.e., what high concept is. I’m not preaching the gospel here… It’s a blog. It’s opinion. It’s presumption and hypothesis based on my own experience and the experience of others.

You have your opinion – I have mine. I’m sure if I wanted to waste my fucking time finding evidence, I could easily dig up references that the above films are high concept. Hmmm. You want me to cite something… How about the Wikipedia link for the 8th time. LOL. You kill me, Dude… You really do. What kind of evidence do you want? Articles? Book passages? Interviews? Science? Death bed confessions? What the FUCK kind of evidence would even come close to convincing YOU that any of the above films are high concept?

None. Trust me… One look at your web site and I can tell.

5) My post has no internal logic problem. You haven’t proven anything with your opinion… It’s JUST YOUR OPINION. Just as my opinion is just my opinion but at least my opinion is based on experience.

You yourself say, “if it’s not a concept at all…” To me, you saying, IF means that I might just be fucking correct since you didn’t absolutely say I was wrong. Again, just differing opinions but you are correct in that there certainly are high concept pitches and having a technique of pitching as you state, is no guarantee of great cinema. The only problem there is that I never fucking said that high concept made great cinema NOR have I ever said that pitching a high concept makes great cinema. So what the fuck, OVER? I thought you were all caught up! What I’ve said is simply this… It’s easier to get a well written high concept screenplay pitched, read, recommended, sold, etc. than it is a NON HIGH CONCEPT screenplay ASSUMING you are somebody trying to break into the screenwriting game.

6) You said, “High concept is valid concept for aspiring screenwriters because all these previous classic films are high concept yet you don’t have solid evidence that any of the cited films follow your high concept model and most are adaptations or remakes involving costly rights.” — Here we go with the evidence again… LOL. Dude… If you don’t think any of those ADAPTED films/screenplays are high concept, I seriously doubt citing anything would convince you. Wait… I just read that point again… YOU LOST ME. LOL. You’re saying that the above named films are in fact high concept but that they do not follow my model?

WHAT THE FUCK MODEL IS THAT?

That it’s easier to get a high concept screenplay sold and produced easier than it is to get a non high concept screenplay sold and produced?

Even though those films were adapted from either novels or stories (as most older films were in those days), I contend that their high concept was in fact one of the determining factors that made them a GO. Model?

You lost me.

7) You said, “If you really want to sell high concept, concrete examples of great films (or at least great box office) written and pitched of the high concept model would far better make your case. Unfortunately, many cited examples of “high concept” I’ve seen elsewhere are just post-mortem summaries that often miss much of what made a film memorable.”

Ah… I’m not trying to sell anything. Just passing along information my friend. One only need look at MANY of the top grossing movies of all time to find a myriad of high concepts. One only need look at the several available resources out there of SOLD SPEC SCRIPTS to find a myriad of high concepts. Since I’m not selling anything, I think I’ll leave finding the concrete examples to those that are interested:

Peruse the list and I’m reasonably sure that you’ll find some high concepts in there somewhere… LOL.

8) You said, “I think there’s good evidence of connection between “high concept” and “great pitch”. Having a idea/script that you can pitch as high concept will get your script read, get your meetings and enhance your ability to get a script sold/movie made (again, see The Player).”

I’ve seen THE PLAYER but you’re not seriously citing dialogue you heard in THE PLAYER as evidence are you? Whew… Glad I didn’t go searching for something concrete. LOL. You know… I read the above sentence and then I fucking wonder what the hell I’m doing writing all this bullshit since you seem to FUCKING agree with me after all.

9) You said, “But I still don’t see much if any connection between great cinema and high concept, mostly because getting people to agree on what is great cinema is an exercise in futility and even if you settle on “great box office” or “the most awards”, the I find the concept of high concept is ephemeral at best, meaningless at worst.”

Probably a good thing because who the hell said there was a connection?

Listen, I never said high concept makes great cinema. Where the hell you got that, I have no fucking clue. I can ONLY HOPE that the readers that are interested in this kind of information will do the work necessary to write great cinema but in the end, isn’t that for the audience to decide?

10) You said, “I think passion and authenticity are better base for screenwriters to write compelling stories than high concept.”

You think? You THINK? You want me to cite EVIDENCE but it’s okay for YOU to just fucking THINK? You kill me. I also THINK that passion and authenticity are important elements of writing a screenplay. In fact, DON’T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT THEM! What I’m also saying however, is that high concept can live right there among passion and authenticity… Right alongside structure, subtext, research, and every other Goddamn thing that good screenplays consist of.

Whew.

That sucked… My brain hurts.

Unk




Thursday: 16 November 2006|0211|Under Uncategorized

Print This Post Print This Post
 

Comments

22 Responses to “Response to stephen v2…”

  1. Clive on Thursday: 16 November 2006|0825

    Hey, you know me, I see a fire, first thing I think is “Where did I put that gas can?”

    If anyone is claiming that high concept is the primary route to creating great cinema, it’s me.

    In fact, it’s one of the central tenants of my $1000 Spielberg approach to indie film making.

    And although I have theories about why this is the case, I’m don’t think arguing them is the way to resolve this issue.

    What I’m doing is subjecting my theories to a real world, scientific experiment — I’m pulling together a no name, indie film, shooting it on a production budget of $1000 and I firmly believe that it will be a commercial success.

    Now, I’ll either do it or fall flat on my ass trying.

    But either way, in a year to eighteen months this issue will be settled one way or the other.

    But like all scientific experiments, it would be nice to have a control to work against.

    So, if anyone who wants to make a $1000 feature film, from a non-high concept starting point, well, I’d be happy to go head to head and see who gets the widest distribution.

    Theory bores me — but a $1000 film making showdown — that gets my juices flowing.

    So, as the saying goes “Make my day”

  2. Prove Me Wrong - Make My Day at $1000 Spielberg on Thursday: 16 November 2006|0953

    [...] An argument that has raged over at Unknown Screenwriter. [...]

  3. stephen v2 on Thursday: 16 November 2006|1127

    I was not offended by your comments - I like to debate and don’t take stuff personally, even your pot shots at my website (I’m not sure which one since I have a freelance site and my film site), the swearing and ALL CAPS seem more immature flavor than malicious.

    Debates (except in movies) rarely reveal new information or insight, they inform us of who the people are and where they are coming from. Which is why I think this debate has succeeded.

    I’ve had some filmmaker friends who wanted to know what I thought about the $1000 Spielberg’s and your take on “high concept”, since as you have correctly surmised, my current film project cannot be explained at all, much less in one sentence (low concept? no concept? anti-concept?).

    As per your latest rant/post directed personally at me, I did not see any real new points there except the new examples:

    HIGH NOON
    NORTH BY NORTHWEST
    THE APARTMENT
    GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER
    ADAM’S RIB
    CAT PEOPLE
    SHADOWS

    Good films and clearly less complex in story idea than the earlier examples. But perhaps my overall argument is lost amongst all the points here:

    (1) Your take (as with other high concept takes) on high concept doesn’t inform me on why a film is great, only on why it’s easy to pitch in Hollywood & then market in mass culture. It’s very easy to shoe horn high concept into a concept after a film earns hundreds of millions.

    (2) What films are “great” is difficult or impossible to get people agree on, so there is logic problem with connecting “great” or even “good” cinema with “high concept”, since if we can’t define the terms, there is really no where to go. Personally, high concept to me is “simple concept”, but that’s just me :)

    (3) Even looking at the top box office and/or award winners (maybe a BCS points system like college football :), I’m not sure that many of these new examples fall easily into high concept.

    (4) For aspiring screenwriters, I still think high concept is a pitching tool, not a writing tool. Passion and authenticity is better foundation (good, but not necessarily great execution is obviously required) for writing. You are correct that I gave no evidence, so here’s some evidence.

    Top Box Office and award winners rarely are films made without someone with a driving personal passion to get a film made about something they deeply care about, know about and willing to spend years/decades of their life bring to the screen. Here’s a very small sample of the kind of films I’m talking about. I don’t necessarily love every film but that illustrate my point.

    (1) 2001: A Space Odyssey
    (2) Platoon
    (3) ET
    (4) Star Wars
    (5) Lord of the Rings Trilogy
    (6) Fahrenheit 9/11
    (7) Moulin Rouge
    (8) Ran
    (9) Passion of the Christ
    (10) Trois Couleurs Trilogy

  4. Miriam Paschal on Thursday: 16 November 2006|1302

    I don’t understand this. Our host on this site, The Unknown Screenwriter, is (according to him) a man who has sold screenplays and has produced films.

    Maybe he has and maybe he hasn’t. It’s up to each of us to decide for ourselves. Based on other producers and screenwriters I know, I’d say he’s the genuine article.

    Let’s also not forget that he has taken time out of his busy schedule to start a blog that is open to the public, where we may discuss and debate with him on an equal level. That’s why he’s the Unknown Screenwriter.

    I think his willingness to reach out to us, the aspiring masses, is awesome. It’s totally cool.

    So why debate him on a point he obviously knows a lot about?

  5. Ann Wesley Hardin on Thursday: 16 November 2006|1328

    Exactly, Miriam. What I know about screenwriting could fit into a shotglass but I’ve been around a loooong time in the novel biz and there are many similiarities. High concept is big there too. Unk isn’t telling *me* anything new there. What he’s trying to do is share his wisdom. That’s all. And it’s a very generous, priceless thing to do.

    Back in the day I sat at the feet of many published authors, wanting it so badly I’d be aching. They were our best cheerleaders, seeing us not as competition, but as future colleagues, and sharing what they’d learned on the road to publication with an astonishing selflessness. Without them, I certainly wouldn’t have gotten published as quickly. But that didn’t mean I took *all* their advice. I picked and chose what was best for me–without harrassing them over minutae.

    That’s the beauty of these forums. You can take it or leave it. But whether you take it or not you should listen carefully and be very thankful an industry pro is willing to share his knowledge. And don’t make him sorry for freely giving it!

  6. Unk on Thursday: 16 November 2006|1618

    stephen v2,

    Here we go again… Since this is obviously getting us nowhere, I think this reply to you will be it for me but please feel free to have the last word…

    1) You said, “I was not offended by your comments - I like to debate and don’t take stuff personally, even your pot shots at my website (I’m not sure which one since I have a freelance site and my film site), the swearing and ALL CAPS seem more immature flavor than malicious.”

    I never said you were offended by my comments. I said that I received two emails from readers who were ONLY offended that I typed the word, SHIT.

    Additionally, I didn’t take a potshot at your web site however, I did visit your web site and spent about 10 minutes there:

    OutsideInFilms.org

    After doing so, it was OBVIOUS to me why we are having this debate. I think you should continue to do what you’re doing and I’ll continue to do what I’m doing.

    2) You said, “the swearing and ALL CAPS seem more immature flavor than malicious.”

    I’m glad you see it that way because they are certainly not meant to be malicious. Debatable that it is immature but I understand that criticism coming from your personal standpoint… I type that way because I talk that way. Nothing more. It comes out of my head and through my fingers EXACTLY the way I talk.

    3) “Debates (except in movies) rarely reveal new information or insight, they inform us of who the people are and where they are coming from. Which is why I think this debate has succeeded.”

    HAHAHA (I’m actually LAUGHING out loud just to be clear)… Even though I think that was definitely a pot shot on your part, I think you are correct. Everybody now knows where we are coming from. I could be wrong but I don’t personally think your debate succeeded at all. If I were an aspiring screenwriter, I think I’d have to go with writing a high concept screenplay. You make some valid points but to be honest, the points you made are the minimum baseline for writing anyway… TELL ME SOMETHING I DON’T KNOW.

    4) “I’ve had some filmmaker friends who wanted to know what I thought about the $1000 Spielberg’s and your take on “high concept”, since as you have correctly surmised, my current film project cannot be explained at all, much less in one sentence (low concept? no concept? anti-concept?).”

    Hmmm. YOU probably don’t think so however, I would be willing to bet that I could do it. I would also be willing to bet I could ferret out the high concept in your idea. All you’re telling me is that you’re not working hard enough but that’s okay… Just take your passion and authenticity and go make a film. Be sure to come back here and let us all know when it hits the theater… I will do the same with my next film.

    5) “As per your latest rant/post directed personally at me, I did not see any real new points there except the new examples:”

    Uh… That’s because I answered every one of the points you were debating me on. I have no new points to make. I made the POINT I was making in the post. You were the one who saw fit to debate that point with me. In fact, I kept making the same point over and over yet you consistantly FAILED to see that. You keep talking about models and points…

    I WILL ONCE AGAIN sum up my ONE POINT in a simple sentence… HIGH CONCEPT SCREENPLAYS ARE EASIER TO SELL THAN NON HIGH CONCEPT SCREENPLAYS.

    You never seemed to ARGUE the actual point with me though… I found that very interesting.

    6) You said, “1) Your take (as with other high concept takes) on high concept doesn’t inform me on why a film is great, only on why it’s easy to pitch in Hollywood & then market in mass culture. It’s very easy to shoe horn high concept into a concept after a film earns hundreds of millions.”

    My God… I would never sit here and try to tell ANYONE why I thought a film was great NOR has this site ever puported to discuss why films are great. I’m here to talk about fucking screenwriting. The craft and the business. You’re talking about A DIFFERENT web site. I leave those discussions at the bar or a party with a glass of beer in my hand. Why? Because opinions are like assholes.

    7) You said, “(2) What films are “great” is difficult or impossible to get people agree on, so there is logic problem with connecting “great” or even “good” cinema with “high concept”, since if we can’t define the terms, there is really no where to go. Personally, high concept to me is “simple concept”, but that’s just me :)”

    But that’s NOT the problem, stephen v2… The problem is that YOU’RE THE ONLY ONE TRYING TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION. I never said it YET, you keep intimating that I have. I thought you were all caught up? This isn’t a film fan site or film fan blog.

    8) You said, “(3) Even looking at the top box office and/or award winners (maybe a BCS points system like college football :) , I’m not sure that many of these new examples fall easily into high concept.”

    You may not be sure but I am. I’m sure I could pick out a lot of high concept films from that list.

    9) You said, “(4) For aspiring screenwriters, I still think high concept is a pitching tool, not a writing tool. Passion and authenticity is better foundation (good, but not necessarily great execution is obviously required) for writing. You are correct that I gave no evidence, so here’s some evidence.

    Top Box Office and award winners rarely are films made without someone with a driving personal passion to get a film made about something they deeply care about, know about and willing to spend years/decades of their life bring to the screen. Here’s a very small sample of the kind of films I’m talking about. I don’t necessarily love every film but that illustrate my point.

    (1) 2001: A Space Odyssey
    (2) Platoon
    (3) ET
    (4) Star Wars
    (5) Lord of the Rings Trilogy
    (6) Fahrenheit 9/11
    (7) Moulin Rouge
    (8) Ran
    (9) Passion of the Christ
    (10) Trois Couleurs Trilogy”

    You and I CLEARLY DISAGREE and too many other PROFESSIONAL SCREENWRITERS out there would disagree with you as well. Hmmm. Maybe THAT’S the evidence you need but will not accept.

    You say passion and authenticity are better foundations for aspiring screenwriters. I say those are definitely good tools (I have NEVER said otherwise) but HIGH CONCEPT can live in harmony right alongside passion and authenticity and you have yet to tell us why it cannot.

    Again, I would be the last fucking person on earth to argue your other point here:

    “Top Box Office and award winners rarely are films made without someone with a driving personal passion to get a film made about something they deeply care about, know about and willing to spend years/decades of their life bring to the screen.”

    Uh… NO SHIT.

    Who said OTHERWISE? I don’t get your argument. I’m talking about selling a screenplay and you’re talking about something else entirely. I thought you were all caught up? Even after someone sells their screenplay, RARELY ARE FILMS MADE WITHOUT SOMEONE WITH A DRIVING PERSONAL PASSION TO GET A FILM MADE ABOUT SOMETHING THEY DEEPLY CARE ABOUT, KNOW ABOUT AND WILLING TO SPEND YEARS/DECADES OF THEIR LIFE TO BRING TO THE SCREEN.

    What the FUCK does that have to do with my post? You are clearly on the wrong track here. You keep bringing other elements into this debate that I never started.

    I thought you were caught up?

    Unk

  7. Laura Reyna on Thursday: 16 November 2006|1703

    I get the feeling that writers who are critical of the term/idea/preferance/popularity, whatever…

    …of “HIGH CONCEPT”, are really equating high concept with stupid, silly immature, low quality, hacky, formulaic, etc etc…

    In their minds high concept = bad movie.

    But this is a limited– & limiting– attitude. There are bad high concept movies, & there are good high concept movies. There are even a few GREAT ones.

    “High concept movie” & “bad movie” are NOT the same thing!

    Nobody is saying you have to write a dumb gross out comedy that appeals to retarded 13 yr olds (altho you’re welcome to do just that).

    Nobody is saying you have to lower your standards, certainly not Unk.

    I understand that there are writers out there who like small, char driven movies. I like them too — the good ones anyway. I just bought the DVD of ON GOLDEN POND.

    I love TENDER MERCIES, ORDINARY PEOPLE, REMAINS OF THE DAY, CENTRAL STATION…

    But the reality is, as a new writer trying to break in, you’ll have a better chance of succeeding if you write something that has an easily understood, catchy premise, that appeals to a large audience.

    If it makes anyone feel better, make up your own definition of “high concept”, like:

    1. Easily understood & catchy
    2. Has story elements combined in an original way
    3. Appeals to a large audience
    4. AAAAND… is intelligent & well-written!!!

    There. Feel better? Now go find the high concept in your idea.

  8. Unk on Thursday: 16 November 2006|1722

    Laura,

    Outstanding.

    Unk

  9. Joshua James on Thursday: 16 November 2006|1901

    Wow. Unk’s awake!

    I’m starting to feel he took it easy on me when we debated this subject earlier . . . heh. Gulp. Heh.

    Glad you’re up and caffienated, Unk, and when you simmer down, I have questions regarding the story uniquenesss thing we were talking about previous (8MM versus Hardcore) but methinks I’ll wait until the smoke clears ;)

    Talk

  10. The Film Diva on Thursday: 16 November 2006|2012

    Unk, you have the patience of a saint.

  11. Unk on Thursday: 16 November 2006|2211

    Film Diva…

    Only online… Only online… LOL.

    Josh,

    I’m awake and drinking coffee like a MADMAN!

    Unk

  12. caroline on Thursday: 16 November 2006|2212

    At the risk of raising your blood pressure, I think there’s a book on high concept in you. Not being snarky, totally serious. I think a lot of people don’t really understand it and need some extensively cited examples. I am loving all these posts, so thanks(but am seriously a little worried about your blood pressure … breathe).

  13. Unk on Thursday: 16 November 2006|2232

    Caroline…

    LOL. Thanks… I think I’m okay though. Blood pressure is good. I even recently got hooked to an EKG but I told them NOT TO BOTHER… When I was in the military and ever got hooked up to an EKG, I always flatline.

    I flatlined again and again and again…

    I’ve had specialists out the ying yang trying to figure it out but nobody can…

    So maybe I’m already dead.

    Unk

  14. Ann Wesley Hardin on Friday: 17 November 2006|0312

    Beware the Unkdead…

  15. Unk on Friday: 17 November 2006|0314

    LOL. You’re up late! Or are you up early?

    UnkDead

  16. High Concept Is Evil - The Debate at $1000 Spielberg on Friday: 17 November 2006|0532

    [...] The rest of the debate can be found over at Unknown Screenwriter. [...]

  17. Ann Wesley Hardin on Friday: 17 November 2006|0728

    I’m on the east coast and I get up early so my schedule usually jibes with Brits, Aussies and UnkDead Californians ;)

  18. Laura Reyna on Friday: 17 November 2006|0943

    Thanks Unk! :-)

  19. caroline on Friday: 17 November 2006|1933

    Hmmm, a medical mystery. Like me and watches. It is only a matter of time before they fry. New batteries don’t work, they just die. I once had some kind of new age type aura reader or something tell me there was something odd with me and magnetism. Maybe we’re mutants? I don’t want to be un(k)dead yet.

  20. Unk on Saturday: 18 November 2006|0259

    Caroline,

    Ah… The watch battery thing used to happen with me too… Very strange. It finally stopped happening in my late 20s and then the flatline.

    Maybe you too will end up a flatliner… LOL.

    Unk

  21. george w. bull on Sunday: 19 November 2006|2349

    stephen V2 on myspace?

    http://www.myspace.com/sv2studios

    About me:
    “I’m an indie filmmaker and have a production company (SV2 Studios) doing digital video production (music vids, commercials etc.) and motion graphics for film, video, flash etc. I’ve made over 20 short films over the years and currently working on ambitious experimental art film about the Cassini Mission to Saturn. More at http://www.outsideinfilms.org More about me and my stuff at http://www.sv2studios.com & http://www.stephenv2.com”

    Someone please hand this 39-year old college dropout a loaded .45. He really really wants to be a screenwriter, but he’s only a “DIRECTOR, EDITOR, CINEMATOGRAPHER.” Irony: When someone that’s obivously not a screenwriter has a lot to say about screenwriting.

    -Your President

  22. dave on Monday: 20 November 2006|0040

    dude, it *never* ceases to amaze me how many people want to debate you when you mention high concept.

    I believe you and I see eye to eye on this subject, but maybe you need to put in caps at the beginning, “if you want to sell to Hollywood”.

    If you want to make it yourself, or run the indie track, of course, you can do whatever you want. Write on toilet paper in existential rantings and, hey, you can make it! But if you want Hollywood to shell out some cash, they need high concept. They need it so they can find the marketing angles.

    Sure non high concept flicks come out of Hollywood too, but they’re movies made in the Indie tradition by folks with more cashola than indie makers (i.e. stars and directors with pet projects).

    As usual, enjoy the posts.

Leave a Reply