Talk:High concept

This page is not a forum for general discussion about High concept. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about High concept at the Reference desk.

Uncategorized remarks

I've seen a couple articles make reference to the term "high concept". If this article is up to snuff, I'll go ahead and linkify those to this article. --Morpheuspictures 20:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article is missing a vital component; it fails to address video games. A high concept is a very important stage in the initial development of any game meant for market distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.13.235 (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "High Concept" seems to contradict the definition. "High Concept" SHOULD mean "character development...etc." But "Low Concept" SHOULD mean "an easily-summarized plot." I don't get it. (David Lafleche) — remark by Thundermist0416 23:46, 22 February 2014‎

Poor Writing

wow a whole article that manages talk about something without actually describing what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.55.0.195 (talk • contribs) .

"The term is also applied, often disparagingly, to films that are pitched and developed almost entirely upon such a simply stated premise rather than standing upon complex character study, cinematography, or other strengths that relate more to the artistic execution of a production rather than simply an engaging high concept premise with broad appeal." Umm, sure. 24.211.215.187 (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't read it too closely. The second paragraph is the basic definition.matt kane's brain 15:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while the second paragraph talks about what the plot of a high concept is, it doesn't come out and say what High Concept means. The article describes the properties of a High Concept film without actually defining it. I had to look up the MTV reference to actually get a proper definition. 69.205.160.34 22:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a partial list of high concept movies?Attakmint 23:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See https://www.imdb.com/interest/in0000037/ 98.110.243.10 (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second that request. Benbenbenben

Sounds like a good idea, I'll start one.Tronbarr 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few, hopefully others will add moreTronbarr 16:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article doesn't seem to clear

Is it just me or does the repetition of 'High Concept' make it sound like an infomercial rather than an article? Also, is the release date for Snakes on a Plane really relevant? --ruk 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a sneaking suspicion that this article is in fact part of "Snakes of a Plane"'s high-powered internet marketing campaign.--pjandy 15:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? The phrase 'high concept' obviously needed explanation (see the discussion on the Snakes on a Plane article), and SoaP is a movie that fits the phrase 'high concept' perfectly. Where this article originated is irrelevant. It's factual and clear.

Maybe. But not well written. Rintrah 04:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Star Wars high-concept?

Agreed. The article mentions Jaws and Star Wars but then doesn't go on to explain why those are High Concept.

High Concept is a 'fine art' term that applies to theater or film in genres that hold true to rules. Examples: A horror film firghtens, a science fiction film is based on a fictional fact of scientific principle, a cowboy movie, song, or painting is predicated on the fact that there are workers of a class that deal with live stock that are mainly cattle. The term 'high concept' refers to art works based on a strict use of catagorical thematic choosing that offers specific rules to devise an exicution for its intended purpose; i.e. film, painting, sculpture, a photograph, et. al.. 207.177.237.6 (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... consider a reasonably well-written article like http://www.writersstore.com/high-concept-defined-once-and-for-all/ -- I'm pretty sure Star Wars is the exact opposite of high-concept. How can you deliver it as a pitch? Try convincing a marketing executive that "the mythological voyage of the hero, in space" is a good idea for a film. "High Concept" doesn't mean "easy to fit into a genre" like you claim, dude... it means "easy to pitch." 70.173.45.111 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as opposed to?

near as i can tell from this article, any movie with a plot and a budget could be shoehorned into high concept. there are many statements of things high concept is or usually is, but they are all vague and general. i would love to see a list of things high concept is NOT (with examples). thanks. --dan 00:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, it just sounds like a term for a movie made to maximize profit, in which case, Jaws and Star Wars are definitely not the earliest examples. so i still don't know what 'high concept' means

This sentence is in the second paragraph: "Often in high concept, characters and scenes that at first seem unnecessary are later used to reveal or explain a plot twist." Since this is true for lots of other films, why is it necessary to include it here ? WMMartin 14:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article really needs some work. The description given in the current article is so vague that the majority of movies could be considered "high concept". The reader has zero chance of being able to distinguish a high-concept movie from one that isn't. The first paragraph, which should summarize the article, tells the reader virtually zero. I'd reqrite the article, but I personally know very little about what "high-concept" actually means (that's why I came to this article). After reading the article, I think I know even less. ;) SuperMachine 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, this is the true definition of High Concept: A story proposal with a Unique Selling Proposition that will bring an audience to a film regardless of who made it, who's in it, or positive reviews. For example, compare Wargames (boy starts WWIII) - without major stars, a world-famous director or Academy-award worthy reviews - with Heat (cop obsessively chases robber) - in which the USP is pairing two great actors, a celebrated director and some of the best reviews of the year.Johann Schlinker 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed in a few dictionaries that can be cited, eg http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/High%20concept --Tshannon0 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"High concept" has never meant "certain sell"; it means "film completely summarized by a simple description". There was a perfect film review--of Twins by, I believe, Bob Mandello of NPR--that described the "high concept" concept as "the fewer words you need to describe the film to the audience, the more high concept it is--and the worse it's likely to be." He went on say "'Schwarzenegger and DeVito are twins' is only five words." As such, most of the films on the "prime example" list are very poor fits to the "high concept" concept. --womzilla 15:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Concept is NOT an ironic term, not in a literary definition. Every movie can be summed up in a single sentence. It's called a logline. Any screenwriter knows that, and should have blasted this article a long time ago. High Concept is a HIGHLY CONCEPTUALIZED far reaching idea. High concept has to do with the way the story is written. It has nothing to do with the content of the story, follow? High concept exists in the minds blockbuster screenwriters and in the dicks of big time producers. It's a vague fleeting term that has no place in traditional academia. And frankly someone trying to come up with a wiki on it is kind of pathetic.

'product placement'?

I noticed this sentence in the article: "a common occurrence is themed products sold at fast-food restaurants such as McDonald's." I think most people reading this article know what a fast-food restaurant is, it they are interested they read the article about them. McDonalds doesn't need to get mentioned here, it feels very much like 'product placement' to me. This entire article seems to have been written by marketing people... Squishycube 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article, please comment if you think it should be reverted. Squishycube 10:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster movies

Doesn't this link to the disaster film idea which came in the early to mid-1970s ? -- Beardo 19:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags removed

I removed two tags from the article, one for unreferenced, another claiming "original research". I see three references in the article, so that one seemed unjustified. And I see no argument being made on this talk page that claim that the article's claims go beyond what the references support.

Them things are too easy to throw around, and too slow to go away^{[citation needed]}. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes on a Plane

I removed the following sentences regarding Snakes on a Plane:

"While the movie suggested an exciting and original concept that attracted attention prior to its release, audiences didn't go see it, showing that the commercial appeal of even a widely advertised high concept movie isn't guaranteed."

I doubt many people thought the movie would be original, they saw it because they thought it would be outrageously cheesy. Also, audiences did see it - compare the budget to the gross on its page. Rodeosmurf (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit

I removed the section relating to music as it was ambiguous and completely unreferenced. 20:26, 10 December 2009(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.252.222 (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

Since when is terrorism a genre of movie? All of the movies listed here could just as easily be called action movies. Webster100 (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of 'star vehicles' section

I've deleted the 'star vehicles' section. the films listed there were mostly not high concept films per the article's own definition (raiders of the lost ark was anything but 'high concept.' The entire list and article needs work, as the list of films in the whole piece seems to be 'films that some snob feels superior to' and that's about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.111.13 (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

literally: high (quality) concept

I thought this term also described an elaborate conception of a movie, a game or something similar, contrary to a "low" concept. Is there something to that? -- Gohnarch^░ 11:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

This article needs a complete rewrite. The "High Concept" (it's meant to be ironic...) is concept of making TV and Movies(ect) simple as possible, to appeal to as many people as possible. Basically to make TV shows and Movie summoned up in two sentences. Examples are: Avatar, Titanic, Spider man, ect. Not a great source, but only one I can use this back this up. http://www.screenwritinggoldmine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=9d27f30e5baec0a15df4a13aeb205ca7&t=4416 82.29.4.50 (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't seem to me to be ironic. It does describe a type of work, one with a simple and original (but not too original) Premise, which probably is also its logline, and with a focus on plot rather than characters. Some would say it shouldn't have intellectual pretensions. No, I don't want the job of rewriting it. Chrismorey (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Buried and what 'high concept' means

I'm a bit confused about the inclusion of Buried. To me high concept means a movie with a plot device that gives room to a lot of plot *opportunities* and scenarios to build a movie around. Buried, where the whole movie is contained to a story about a guy in a coffin, would be an example of what is exactly the OPPOSITE of 'high concept' to me: The concept restricts the movie to a very narrow plot device and gives the director very little opportunity to create situations with the plot device that move the film forward--so the quality of acting, cinematography the execution of narrow plot options becomes more critical. I know that's superficial as the 'roominess' of a plot device varies, but the idea behind a high concept movie is that when immediately hearing the idea, you can see ROOM for the plot to grow easily because the device gives rise to so many possibilities.

Maybe I'm confusing this with a different term (such as Premise (filmmaking), but for example a film on time travel or dreaming would generally be HIGH CONCEPT because there is a lot of breathing room for the director to develop a compelling movie within. When pitching a movie, one would think of a 'high concept' movie as one where the plot device, once explained, immediately indicates the potential for a good film as there are many possibilities for the plot to carry the film. I say generally that a movie focused on relationships lower concept as the success of the film is more dependent on the quality of the production (good acting, well developed execution of scenes, etc.).

Other movies you could say have lower concepts: About Schmidt, Before Sunrise/Before Sunset, Lost in Translation, Gerry, Cube, the Exam. If High Concept is defined as the plot idea driving the movie, then perhaps distinction is needed between movies that are 'high concept' but very plot opportunity restrictive (such as Cube, Groundhogs Day, the Exam, Gerry, Buried) and movies that are very high concept with wide plot opportunities (Butterfly Effect, Inception, Star Trek).

96.50.87.54 (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction between 'high concept' and 'low concept' (if such a term exists) isn't necessarily to do with the number of possible endings, or where a film could go, but more along the lines of someone being able to say "Oh, I understand why that would make a good movie" after hearing only the premise. For example, Groundhog Day, "A man is stuck reliving the same banal day over and over, thousands of times." Someone would hear that and say, oh, that's an interesting premise, I wonder what I would do in that situation, I can see what that's a good movie idea, etc. But something along the lines of When Harry Met Sally, which can be pitched as "Two people fall in love over a twelve year relationship filled with ups and downs", well, that is not immediately enthralling just as a premise. In that way, Buried ("A man is buried alive!") would classify as high concept, because someone is grabbed immediately by the simple premise. I guess the polar opposite of a "high-concept" movie would be a meandering drama, where not a ton happens, but the relationships between the characters are put on display. And of course a million movies fall in between, but hopefully that clarifies? Cuttycuttiercuttiest (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

analogous narrative

“

However, it is important to differentiate a high concept narrative from an analogous narrative.

”

The link doesn't help me understand what "an analogous narrative" might be. From context, perhaps allegory is intended? —Tamfang (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is trying to get rid of the "what if" sticker glue, so that high concept is a more complete and complex model of concentrate, not necessarily a "what if" each time. --Dorebo (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

who will rid me of this turbulent hyphen?

The adjective high-concept properly has a hyphen, the noun phrase high concept none. The adjective appears much more often in the article than the noun does, but adjectives are not usual as titles. —Tamfang (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The formula in itself is a to us still under-determined extrapolation from conceits similar to those by the school of Vygotsky's Cultural-historical psychology, so that there is some uncertainty as to the precise semantic value it would hold: how to set it linked to other notions. The noun-phrase, until your critic in the above section "analogous narrative" can be answered smoothly, is extremely an advertizing super weapon, and the article, not absolutely certainly up to it now. I hope this helps. --Askedonty (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a whit. —Tamfang (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is found used as an adjective unless in statements like "high concept is a term which.." then "if you understand what we're suggesting then you know what we're talking about". Which makes it a coloration, thus an adjective. --Askedonty (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A term can be a verb, too. A better example of the noun usage: "Examples of high concept include..." —Tamfang (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking if it exists as a noun you're right. I'd also prefer a title without an hyphen, although the article is discussing "a term applied to.." and mainstream dictionaries seem to do the same. Also Heitmueller seems reluctant to make use of the noun, he soon is shortening it into "HC". In Wyatt, Guber is mixing determination and qualification: "high concept can be understood as a narrative which is very straightforward, easily communicated, and easily comprehended". Then Wyatt makes it a thing: "The emphasis on narrative as the driving force behind high concept (...)", ..perhaps. We get back soon to a simple "usage of the term". So I would stand, and prefer a noun title covering the article but there should be no possible ambiguity, which means that the linguistics we're discussing had to be obvious to the reader as well. --Askedonty (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tamfang and User:Askedonty, seeing you both discussed the hyphen in this article's name, I'll point you to Requested move 29 March 2021. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locke

I don't think "Locke" qualifies as high-concept. The way the film is shot is unusual and often noted, but the plot itself does not depend on some easily summarised, unusual premise. If you were to describe the film as "it's just Tom Hardy in a car", that doesn't tell you anything about the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.26.234 (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Literature

The article makes no reference to written work that I can see. The HC idea is strongly debated among writers, with some believing it's the only way to publishing success. I'd hesitate to identify specimen HC novels, though others probably could. But the term is not confined merely to cinema/TV Chrismorey (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2021

Moved - the one opposition relates to use of the title as an adjective, but one argument for the move is that it should be considered a noun (concept) rather than an adjective, which seems generally accepted among commentators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 02:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

High-concept → High concept – I'm not a native speaker of English, but unless I'm mistaken, the phrase should only be hyphenated if used as an adjective before a noun. So, we could have e.g. a high-concept work that is high concept. 143.176.30.65 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Vaticidalprophet 22:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Example references that don't use hyphenation include utexas.edu, mtv.com, stevenpressfield.com. The ones that do, write about high-concept films, high-concept premise, etc. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the 2012‎ move in reverse was done without discussion, and while the editor who moved the page is right that dictionaries do indeed use hyphenation, they (the editor) failed to mention that dictionaries also say it's then an "adjective", e.g. Oxford, Macmillan, Merriam; they all describe the adjective. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the MOS, tho there is a category for Naming convention articles: Category:Wikipedia naming conventions. Note that according to MOS nouns and noun phrases are the usual standard but not an absolute requisite yet. They give Above-the-line (filmmaking) as a sample in agreement with what I had kept in mind; (as above), then remains whether High-concept needs its sub-grouping to filmmaking, which IMO.., it does not. -Askedonty (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - The two titles are functionally identical with neither having any real benefits or drawbacks when compared to the other. WP:RETAIN may apply unless more specific manual of style elements mean one title is preferred to the other. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The proposed form is more of a WP:NOUN. With a hyphen, it seems like an adjective. See also the MOS:HYPHEN discussion of Compound modifiers. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what is precisely your point unless in MOS:HYPHEN you mean: "To link related terms in compound modifiers: (...) ,usually not hyphenated when used predicatively." If so, the same guideline adds "Where there would otherwise be a loss of clarity, however, a hyphen may be used in the predicative form as well". If I can dare, quoting myself there should be no possible ambiguity, which means that the linguistics we're discussing had to be obvious as well --Askedonty (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per Compound modifier "not hyphenated (...) unless they are permanent compounds attested as dictionary headwords." --Askedonty (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Correct usage is mostly hyphenated as a modifier (“a high-concept video”), but to just refer to the idea is properly un-hyphenated (“from high concept to deep character development”). The New Oxford American Dictionary gives examples of both. —Michael Z. 20:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.