Every once in a while we aspiring screenwriters question our methods. If Hollywood is making a lot of “high concept” movies that fail, is the high concept movie dead? And in a world that is changing, where movies might soon be seen on iPods instead of in big-screen theaters, does that mean storytelling has to change too?
In the past few days I realized once again why the basics still apply and why no matter what the delivery system may be, the rules of writing stories that satisfy still hold.
1. This past weekend we saw Steven Soderburgh’s Bubble premiere. It’s a movie that will be best known as the first to be released in theaters and as a DVD on the same day. But the manner of distribution doesn’t matter if no one wants to see the movie — and Bubble has barely made a ripple.
2. I also got a lesson in sticking to my guns while out pitching this week. For as poorly as the typical “Hollywood” movie is perceived in any given year, the rules of why the good ones work still hold.
Having a pitch that is easy to describe is still the coin of the realm in Hollywood and my studio meetings this week confirmed this — again! My pitch to an executive must be translated to the studio head and, if we’re lucky, eventually pitched to moviegoers. Across the board the test is the same: Am I interested in this idea or not?
3. I was also teaching my screenwriting class at Chapman University this week. The students have GREAT ideas, several of which I think they can sell and get made. But in each case as we were going around the table, as each writer pitched their concept, the old saw still applied: Does it grab me? If not, no sale.
Your movie idea must follow the rules, too. The so called “death” of high concept is better understood as the hoped-for death of bad movies. And the way to test to see if your ideas are good or bad is the same as everyone else’s: Pitch someone. No matter how we get our ideas to an audience, you can’t get past having to come up with one that doesn’t make our eyes glaze over — whether in person, on your iPod, or on 3,000 screens.
10 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t like going to the movies much anymore. I think Hollywood is gun-shy of making what I would call “high concept” movies. They’re taking the safe road in my opinion, and they’re using the excuse that high-concept is somehow bad.
It’s not that I don’t think that tons of great films are being made every year, they are, and I see many of them. But I mostly watch them on TV, and that’s good enough.
Romantic comedies, dramas, buddy films you name it, I watch it on the Tivo or the DVD. But when I go to the trouble and expense of going to the theater please, plese, PLEASE … give me “High Concept” everytime.
In my view it’s not a difficult term to define, “High Concept”.
Concept basically refers to PREMISE, and high refers to GREAT, FASCINATING, TOTALLY KICK-#SS. So basically we are talking about a kick-#ss premise.
I think an awesome premise is at least 50 percent of the success of any blockbuster movie, and it’s hard to pull off a great premise. Plus – even if you have a kick-#ss premise you still have to follow through on the rest, the other 50 percent; plot, character, theme etc.
The difficulty in forming a great premise is why I say Hollywood is gun-shy. They’re not swinging for the fences, taking risks, trying to create original blockbusters, exciting movies that just HAVE to be seen in the theater. Not from what I see anyway.
So what is a “High Concept” or awesome premise?
I think a great premise is 4 things:
It’s interesting, scratch that, THRILLING even.
It’s credible, believable. People have to buy into it.
It’s original, never been done SUCCESSFULLY before, at least not recently. Nobody likes re-hashed premises.
And it resonates with large numbers of people. People really care about what the film is about, it strikes a cord, to use Blake’s term it’s “primal” even.
When I think about premises, I always start a sentence with the two magic words … what if.
What if a corporation created a theme park on an island filled with genetically enginneered, living dinosaurs?Jurrasic Park
What if a montrous, man-eating white shark terrorized a new england town?Jaws
What if a young boy found a lost little alien and took him home?ET
What if a serial killer could get you in your dreams?Nightmare on Elm Street
What if the captain of a top-of-the-line soviet nuclear submarine steered his sub straight for the USA because he wanted to defect?The Hunt for Red October
What if a poor street criminal from Cuba became a rich, powerful crime boss in a few short years? Scarface
What if a pretty girl is kidnapped by a black ship full of pirates who are cursed, bloodthirsty, hideous and dead?Pirates of the Carribean
Man, I hope High Concept isn’t really dead. We need more big, exciting, awesome premises to fill up the theaters – not just good, safe, small premises with great execution.
I just had to ask a question that’s sort of on this topic. I’m just wondering what you all think, especially those out there like Blake who not only have their foot in the door of the film industry, but perhaps most of the rest of their bodies as well.
What’s the deal with movie titles any more?
Shouldn’t all titles strive for at least a semblance of high concept status, in order to compete? Isn’t the idea of the title to make us look up at the marque in the mall and say to our date “Damn, I just have to see that one!”
Does anyone in Hollywood really think The Forgotten was a good title for a movie that has anything remotely to do with aliens and abductions?
Who actually decided to call a pretty good, twisty little gothic ghost story something as vague and dull as The Others?
Are vague titles like these recent gems, The Good Woman, Fateless, In Her Shoes, Cold Mountain, Constant Gardner etc. really the best foot forward, from a marketing perspective?
I was just wondering what other writers thought of this?
You know I went to film school with the creators of The Last Broadcast, an indie film that has a lot to do with a mythical monster called The Jersy Devil.
Some folks say Broadcast was the inspiration for the makers of The Blair Witch Project a few years later (now there’s a kick-#ss title!).
If I ever run into these guys again I’m gonna want to shake em and say “Geeez, how could you make a film about something as fascinating, scary, and notorious as the Jersey Devil, and not call it, well … The Jersey Devil?!!
I think there is a difference between good and bad High Concept. Bad High Concept is 2 completely dissimilar ideas thrown together with no rhyme or reason- 3 overweight nuns have to defuse a nuclear bomb on a cruise ship, etc. Good High Concept is something like Liar Liar, where 2 different ideas come together that actually relate in a new and meaningful way.
Hmmmm, interesting.
I’m not saying my concept, for determining high concept is right or relevant, but just as an exercise, for fun, I will indulge myself and analyze the above films based on my silly four attributes for a blockbuster premise (“high concept” in my book).
Liar Liar is a riot, definitely good execution. How about the premise? Well it’s credible enough for the genre, original I’m pretty sure, and most certainly resonate (I think this is its strongest card, we all totally relate to the problem here). I think it might be a little weak in the fascination factor, I don’t think it spawned a large line of Liar Liar merchandise, speculation and discussion of the plot in internet forums, or caused people to stop going swimming in the ocean, but all and all pretty strong premise.
Now the nun idea fails the originality test big-time (we’ve all seen bombs on ships before), doesn’t really sound at all exciting to me (probably because it’s predictable), I guess it could be credible (maybe), but I’m fairly sure it would resonate with almost nobody. It’s a stinker in that regard. In other words … who cares?
Now if the over-weight nuns had somehow accidentally captured Satan, had him locked up in the women’s bathroom at the church, and didn’t have a clue what to do next … that might work : )
I agree, Steve. I think there are some High Concept presentations that just make you go “Ooo! Tell me more!”
But others seem contrived. Speed worked because it was unusual (“The bomb will go off if you slow down.”) But whoever thought the sequel had to be more of the same, only bigger, didn’t understand what held the audience in the first movie. It wasn’t the concept, it was Keanu Reeves’ character.
I think that “failed” High Concept is when someone mistakes what element of the story is going to hold the audience.
But Sarah and Steve, what does the term “High-Concept” really mean?
Is it something vague? It can’t just mean a movie that works, or is excellent, or moving, or exciting, or funny, has a great story, a movie we all like, a movie that holds an audience … Can it?
Wouldn’t it be useful – or at least mildly entertaining : ) – to attempt to nail it down in specifics? You know come up with general attributes that make a concept high.
I think a litmus test for “High Concept” might be if you have just seen a poster, while waiting in line for a movie, or just heard the title and a single blurb of what it was about … you might just HAVE to see that particular movie based on that small amount of info. Not reviews, or who’s in it or anything.
I think it helps to seperate the concept (be it high or otherwise) from the film’s execution, how well it is pulled off.
There can be good and bad executions of high concepts, and a film that is great, well written, well-liked, or has a big star in it, isn’t automatically high concept.
Concept refers to the premise alone … at least in my book.
Can a movie like American Beauty be considered High Concept? Or even Pulp Fiction?
I think not, though both are excellent mainstream films that scored huge at the box-office (for different reasons). But what makes them excellent is more execution, the talented writing, story-telling and film-making, than the premise plus great execution – ala Speed.
Seperate the premise of Speed from the execution:
What if a vengeful madman put a bomb on a bus full of people on a busy LA freeway that was set to go off when the bus dipped below a certain speed?
Now tear that concept apart and see what elements you think make that premise sell tickets – on its face alone – what makes the premise “high”?
Compare those elements to other high concept films – Jurrasic Park, Jaws, Hunt for Red October, Star Wars perhaps, or even stinkers that might fit the high concept litmus test like Godzilla 1998 or The Mummy 1999, but fall down a bit because of execution.
Just some thoughts … let me know what you think.
Well, me, I wouldn’t call 1999’s The Mummy a stinker. Light weight, sure. But it was a piece of fun entertainment that stands up to repeats, better than some “quality” films do.
Anyway, still a good question about “What is High Concept?”
I’ve always felt that High Concept was like seeing a line of mountains on the horizon. You know exactly what is in front of you, and even at a distance, you can see the main features of it. Low Concept was like a rolling landscape where features are hidden, waiting to surprise you.
Notice that High Concept can also have surprises in the detail (like hidden canyons and rivers). But you still have a very clear idea of what you’re heading into.
But I think High Concept also asks for a certain degree of credibility to what we’re seeing. To reference Speed again, a bus that you can’t slow down or else it will blow up, stuck in the urban landscape – that is easy to grasp. Speed 2, not so much. A “speeding” cruiseliner? Where 35 knots (nautical miles per hour) is fast? The bulk of the ship and the simplicity of aiming the thing toward open sea undercut the credibility of both the threat and the difficulties in solving the problem. It was a “high concept” that was a cardboard cutout, and not real mountains.
But I agree, that there should be an immediate reaction to the simplest description if you want to call a concept “High”. A bus that can’t slow down in LA, that’s High to me. But then I live and drive in LA, which may make me biased in its favor. ;)
Great discussion! Jim, I really liked your exercise of ‘what if…’ Those 2 magic words alone, coupled with say some sort of subject matter you’re interested in (say terrorists or soccer moms or dishonest lawyers…) can probably help you brainstorm many ideas to start with.
I’ve been thinking about what really constitutes ‘High Concept’ for awhile. I think Jim’s definition is excellent, also Blake describes it very smartly as an ‘itch that you have to scratch.’ His 4 elements in STC are as good a starting point as any I think.
Regarding LIAR LIAR, I think it is one of those really short loglines that just makes sense. I mean you can already tell it would make a great Jim Carrey movie, and you can already visualize the type of movie it is before reading even a brief outline. It’s up the the screenwriter to both smartly fulfill the promise of the logline, yet spin it all in a way that also can surprise or delight the audience (like JAWS which is 100x more than your typical monster flick.)
I think LIAR LIAR turned out to be a nice mainstream vehicle movie. There’s not really any merchandising potential out of this type of flick, and I doubt there were a lot of involved discussions around the water cooler. But what trumps all those factors (except the toys part) is the box office- $180 million domestic!
I need to re-read some of the other comments, and then post again on those.
SPEED is a great example- catchy but shallow hook. I think that concept has (obvious) potential, but demanded great execution to fulfill its promise.
SPEED 2 is weird, because I don’t think it even used the ‘speed limit’ device anymore. Kind of like how in TRANSPORTER 2 the hero doesn’t even transport things, but even worse because it didn’t have the main protagonist from the original.
Jim- Nuns against Satan is actually pretty cool. At least interesting enough to set off a tiny spark in my head. It’s always a fallen priest or hardened cop in these Satanic plots, why NOT nuns?
I totally agree about the titles. I think FAILURE TO LAUNCH has a decent idea, but the title is just bad. It either sounds like a rocket movie, or maybe a movie about impotence. I think it’s easy to fall into the trap of creating titles that you think are clever and nifty, because you wrote or are making the movie and know it inside out. But not so clever for the general public, who has not idea what your movie is about. I think it’s common for movie titles to key on the thematic elements of the movie (FAILURE TO LAUNCH), but totally miss factual elements.
For me, a great high concept is something that is new and unusual, yet makes complete sense in retrospect from a story point of view.
There’s a great article at Wordplayer.com that reminds of this. Article #14- Anthropic Principle. It’s actually not that related, but kinda ties in the to concept of ‘random yet makes sense.’
I’m a long time professional sf writer (mass market, HC, trade, and now even e-book, too) with a couple scripts on the market, but unsold.
Naturally, the foggy notion “High Concept” has grabbed my attention now for years.
I found this blog by googling on High Concept!
I see two notions in these comments, which combined would indeed make a very useful method for producing High Concept ideas.
1) STEVE LANG’s Feb 7th post: I think there is a difference between good and bad High Concept. Bad High Concept is 2 completely dissimilar ideas thrown together with no rhyme or reason- 3 overweight nuns have to defuse a nuclear bomb on a cruise ship, etc. Good High Concept is something like Liar Liar, where 2 different ideas come together that actually relate in a new and meaningful way.
2) Sarah Beach’s Feb 9th post: I’ve always felt that High Concept was like seeing a line of mountains on the horizon. You know exactly what is in front of you, and even at a distance, you can see the main features of it. Low Concept was like a rolling landscape where features are hidden, waiting to surprise you.
Notice that High Concept can also have surprises in the detail (like hidden canyons and rivers). But you still have a very clear idea of what you’re heading into.
——–
Now, it seems to me that if you combine these two approaches, High Concept could become something that any writer who has a grasp of all the other mechanics of writing could master.
Take two elements generated by the same THEME that have a natural conflict or stark contrast between them, and look at them from far, far away so you can see the entire statement at once without shifting your focus.
Pan in just close enough that you can recognize what you’re looking at, and you have the 4-word High Concept statement.
Get a little closer, and you can see the volcano that’s going to erupt among those mountains in the distance — and you have your 1 snappy sentence description.
Is that how it works?
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/