I couldn't agree more. However it kicks off (character, a song, a joke) you have to know what you're writing about. Writing is one of our most human devices to try to apprehend and comprehend the world we live in (nature, society, politics, relationships, everything). It's a translation of events and situations into a whole new semiotic system, the story. It's building meaning. Through story, we get a little bit closer to the meaning of whatever we're trying to look at through the telescope (or microscope, by the way). If we don't know what we're looking for, then how can we hope to invite anyone to travel with us along the path ? It's not absolute scientific knowledge, it's emotional experience. Without a concept, how can we go anywhere? As a writer, I am absolutely frightened of irrelevance. It's a shame that some cinematographies have misunderstood movements like the French New Wave and thus you can find screenwriting teachers encouraging students to write "poetic" scripts - about "life", about "everything", talking with utter disregard for "concept" or "theme" or anything that makes story work overall. That's part of what makes them such amateur cinematographies.

Diogo, that is terrific. I'm going to update the OP with an excerpt if you don't mind and thanks!

Diogo is so on the money. @Scott "In all honesty, I can’t even begin to wrap my head around that idea because it’s utterly foreign to how I think" They're not joking, though. When I was reading, I'd say around 95% of what I read had no discernible concept. AP's “guys sit around and talk about their lives?” made me laugh out loud. This is SO true. To be more specific about the "read like shorts" a lot of scripts I read felt like the writer had an idea for one scene (usually the opening) -- and then stretched that into 100+ pages. I don't know what will kick people out of this habit. I know the movie that did it for me. AMERICAN GRAFFITI -- The scene where the pointdexter has to buy booze for his lady. That ENTIRE scene by itself could be a short. It has its own stakes and conflict. If he doesn't get booze, he doesn't get the girl. It made me realize how each and every scene is its own little mini-movie. They all add up together to make something bigger, but for the most part they stand alone as well. Conflict, objective -- and the scene ends when the protagonist either accomplishes his goal, or its been made quite clear that he's failed or been otherwise detoured from it. Most scripts I read -- the scenes aren't self contained in this manner. In fact, the scenes usually have the protagonist without an objective or goal at all. The scenes usually are just the protagonist telling you in dialogue what is wrong with him -- and then moping about, doing nothing about it. This will go on for 100 pages until the very end when something arbitrary clicks and he changes his ways -- or somehow things work out.

I just wanted to add that I recently starting reading Stephen King's 11/22/63 and near the beginning the narrator, who is an English teacher, says something like, "After all, the whole point of writing is to evoke emotion." An emotional response, that's what we want to achieve! Otherwise, what IS the point??

AP: I personally think “high-concept” is overrated. Some amazing 80s & 90s movies aren’t h.c. Three cheers for Amanda! I couldn't agree more. I have nothing against high concept movies, but I tell you what - I find many to be yawners and oftentimes they end up like one-trick ponies... something that, as Nate said above, should have been relegated to a skit or play (think SNL movies that have BOMBED). Many are so overly simplistic that they offer no real surprises... you already know what's going to happen because the one line that comprised its premise made you "see it" as a film. Snakes on a Plane. Nuff said on that one. And that is what's called irony. There are a great many high concept films that struck a chord critically and financially, but I'm going to hedge my bet and say it was because they were great stories. Not every great high concept is a great story, just like not every great story is a box office smash (Shawshank Redemption). Sometimes we have to go into the story to find out what it's trying to tell us. :) High concept? I think that has more to do with marketing than it does storytelling - imho. All the stories I've written pass the "what if?" test that's often associated with high concept, but I personally wouldn't label them as such.

I'd actually take the opposite tact of why high concept tends to be over-rated. There's just as many TERRIBLE movies that are high concept. It's not a guarantee of anything, but Hollywood likes to think so. Almost every Roger Corman film ever made is high concept. That doesn't make them good. These days, it almost seems like high concept is an excuse for creating shallow stories. Good high concept stories, the concept is just a springboard to get to the heart of the story -- many high concepts these days don't go much further past their logline. Transformers, high concept, no story. This is what has become the norm, sadly.

Transformers was the first movie that popped into my head when I read that as well. Very high concept, but I fell asleep during the first chase scene because it just freaking dragged on for way too long. I didn't care about the characters or the story at all and felt the director, or whoever, cared way more about the special effects and nostalgia of the concept "transformers" than he did about executing an interesting and compelling story, or giving us characters we actually cared about. It has to be about the story no matter how high concept it is, and I think it's starting to shift that way because the novelty of special effects is wearing off and people are getting bored with going to the movies just for that. They want a great story that makes them feel something.

The concept part is a hard one for me in the sense that I've written a few character-driven scripts, which tend to be low concept, but often great movies. My first character-driven script was also the first script I'd ever written, with nothing but a "How To..." book I bought off the Internet. It took eight months of revisions, a few more books, a Syd Field DVD workshop, and a professional consultant to hone it into something I could describe in five minutes or a one sentence logline while retaining the focus on character. And still it placed in the top 20% at Nicholl, which seriously surprised me. I'm told it was probably good I started with a character-driven script, because they're the hardest for this very reason - Hollywood's obsession with high concept - and I learned A LOT about what to do and not do. When I wrote my second script, I developed something high concept and knew my logline before I wrote Fade In. After everything I went through on the first script, that script was so easy to write it just fell into place, only needing a couple of pass-throughs later. Every script after that has been the same way, and one of them was also a character-driven script, but I made sure it also had a discernible concept. I think high concept is overrated in the sense that a lot of the stuff that's come out in recent years, the big blockbuster hits, seem to let the story get lost or dismissed in lieu of the concept, when the concept should only be the starting point that organizes a great story. But I do believe a good strong concept, even low concept, like Juno, is essential. Not just for a good script, but also it makes the writing easier, more concise, and more marketable. It really does just fall into place when it's more organized from the beginning.

Yes, this is why I relayed it as marketing vs simply storytelling. The producers are smart - they know you take a popular cartoon and kids toy concept, add a lot of CGI = box office success. That's why there's so much interest in pre-existing material: it's an easy sell that has a built in audience. As such, it's not surprising very little is spent on actually figuring out the story - yet I firmly believe if they actually created something compelling that struck some kind of chord with meaning behind it, the receipts could be that much better. As for Transformers, I only saw the first but do recall before the third was made, they acknowledged the story for the second wasn't up to par and they would improve on it. To be honest, I have no idea if they did or not having passed on it, but it received about the same critical response as the previous via rottentomatoes.com.

Exactly! A high concept that also has a solid story would do even better. A high concept without a great story might make a lot of money the first couple of weekends, but it's quickly forgotten after that. Take The Avengers. Everyone I know who was excited about that movie talked about Iron Man more than the others. Why? Because Iron Man was a fantastic story with an amazing actor who brought out the essence of the character. Nobody raved over The Hulk or even Thor, though I thought Thor was a decent movie. It was all about Iron Man and Robert Downey, Jr. and that was why they wanted to see The Avengers. Great story really does make a high concept film better and more successful. This seems so obvious to me, I don't understand why it wouldn't be to studio execs.

Lisa, you and Producer Scott would get along famously [see today's Quest post for more on that], that is if you could stand all his shouting

A couple of things, Melissa, and thanks for your posts as you raise some good points. The buzz phrase one often hears in Hwood for the ideal script is a "high concept, character driven story." That can mean a lot of things, but basically what it boils down to is a story with a clean story concept that has strong characters. You mention Juno, that's a good example. Not the highest concept in the world, but a snarky pregnant adolescent decides to become a surrogate mother for a Yuppie couple gets at the meat of it. Combined with the nicely drawn characters, you've got a terrific movie. The term probably wouldn't get used in reference to Iron Man, but I think that movie deserves that categorization if only because Tony Stark's character is so terrific. A final point, another reason why high concept is important to a screenwriter. If you pitch a story to a studio exec, unless you are an A-list writer, you're dealing with mid-level and even lower level execs. They in turn have to pitch to their boss, who has to pitch to their boss. So what they're really talking about is their version of your pitch. If your story has a spotless clean / strong story concept with a killer logline, the idea is more likely to work its way up the food chain resembling its actual self, increasing your chance for a sale.

Oh, no. Executive "telephone."

I'm glad you clarified this, Scott. I just read through the responses and saw that a lot of people were reading "high concept" as "big dumb action movie," which wasn't my intent when I used the term. I'm a bit surprised by the confusion over what "concept" means. There was a comment on the Day One thread that really seemed to have an alternate reality view on what concept and structure were. Might be worth discussing on our next reader chat.

High concept movies can be made poorly. Or well. High concept should be neutral, not a negative. Hell, "Romeo & Juliet" is high concept. "Sideways": High concept. "Little Miss Sunshine": High concept. "The King's Speech": High concept. You want to make it as a screenwriter in Hollywood? Don't disparage high concept. Accept it. THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH HIGH CONCEPT MOVIES!

*Applause*

I am all yours haha! Thanks, Scott.

I think the conversation drifted to that end because movies like Transformers are easy targets. Most contained thrillers are high concept and aren't necessarily dumb - but something like Buried more or less pushes the limits. It's great in concept to milk a story like that from and find a way make it compelling, but actually sitting through it felt like an endurance test because the novelty wears thin after a while. Then again, I'm sure part of the experience was to make the viewer feel claustrophobic - but nevertheless...

Sideways is high concept? I always thought high concept films had the goals and stakes clearly spelled out in the premise. If Sideways is high concept, can you please give some examples of movies that are not high concept? Since everyone seems to have a slightly different view on what high concept entails, maybe the readers and other commenters can give their view on what that term means to them.

You're right, high concept is a malleable term, as I noted in my post re it earlier this week. It means different things to different people. My articulation -- "A story idea that can be summed up in 1-2 lines" -- emphasizes the central conceit of the story. Re Sideways, that would be two wayward friends who go on a debauched road trip through California's wine country. Boom! I see the movie. So for me, that qualifies as high concept.

@ Teddy Pasternak The problem arises that high concept doesn't necessarily dictate story. That's why most loglines attempt to humanize the story -- give us a hint at the emotional journey of the story, but it's not always possible to paint the entire picture without muddying the poster. Loglines that give the gist are a terrific tool. The problem (especially as of late) is many of these movies tend to give us the gist of story as well, without really delivering on the substance.

True, but there is really no way of knowing if any movie will deliver on the substance until you watch it or read the script. There are great premises made into shitty movies all the time. Scott's description of Sideways "two wayward friends who go on a debauched road trip through California’s wine country" could be the most awful, boring movie ever in the wrong hands. Exactly the kind of film where “guys sit around and talk about their lives" that Amanda mentioned. That premise doesn't tell the audience much of what to expect. Maybe if you add "and hilarity ensues." Haha... Scott's other example Little Miss Sunshine has both goals and stakes built in the premise: a contest, will they make it there on time, will she win. It's not that overt like other films perhaps, but it's there. At least there's something there to engage the audience in a conflict of sorts. Obviously, that's not the main idea of the film, as we find out when we watch it, but I think it was easier to market the film because it had goals and stakes built in the premise. And when someone asks "What's Little Miss Sunshine about?" the answer would include the characters' goals in the story: "It's about a family that travels cross country to enter their six-year old daughter into a beauty contest." Something like that. You wouldn't say it's about a man who struggles with his career as a motivational speaker and deals with his family breaking apart. To me, a high concept is a premise that can not be misconstrued when you market it. Will a team of oil drillers stop an asteroid before it destroys Earth? A wheelchair bound photographer spies on his neighbors from his apartment window and becomes convinced one of them has committed murder. In 1985, Doc Brown invents time travel; in 1955, Marty McFly accidentally prevents his parents from meeting, putting his own existence at stake.

"Most scripts I read — the scenes aren’t self contained in this manner. In fact, the scenes usually have the protagonist without an objective or goal at all." There's a really easy tool to fix this. Courtesy of Hegel. I just write three things. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Thesis is what the protagonist wants or needs to do. Antithesis is for the force opposing the protagonist (which may not always be the main antagonist), and Synthesis, which is the goal - the outcome of the scene. The goal of course may not be an ideal outcome and may frustrate the protagonist forcing him/her to grow and change in order to get the skills or grow in an emotional way to overcome their misbehavior. For the hospital scene in Godfather Part one. Thesis: Michael Corleone finds his father alone and unguarded at the hospital. Michael needs so save his father. Antithesis: Tattaglia's hit men are on the way to kill Don Corleone. Synthesis: Michael recruits a nurse to help hide his father. Then he stands outside on the hospital steps and asks Enzo the baker, a "civilian", to act like a mobster in order to scare the hit men away. After the hit men drive off Michael notices Enzo's hands are shaking. His hands are steady, confident, cold. This kind of life suits him. Regards, John

[...] 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part [...]