Talk:High concept

message: 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)
thread_title: Uncategorized remarks

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  as opposed to? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'product placement'? 

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

message: 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.  - Smerdis of Tlön 19:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Snakes on a Plane 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent Edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion of 'star vehicles' section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  literally: high (quality) concept 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Buried and what 'high concept' means 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  analogous narrative 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not a whit. —Tamfang (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  who will rid me of this turbulent hyphen? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Locke 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 March 2021