Do you know how hard it is to find a good shoemaker lately?

Hey Rob -- Congrats on making The Quest! Good to be able to root for a fellow Bostonian. I saw those same survey results, I listen to Jon August and Craig Mazin talk about how bad it is for screenwriters every week -- I don't doubt a word of it. Because the thing is, everything sucks now. Law, medicine, academia, teaching -- I even recently worked as a stock analyst and people talked every day about how their income has been halved since the mid-OO's. No one, it seems, is advising anyone to enter their chosen profession. The only field expanding apparently is that mind-numbing profession of getting people to like and follow things on social media sites. No, I realized a few years ago that every blessed thing you can make your life's work today indeed sucks and there is no safe, lucrative, respectable profession that's sailing away while we chase this big, shaggy screenwriting dream. Good luck!

“Hey I got this really great idea for a screenplay, no dilemma or conflict yet, but it’s about a guy, handsome, mid-30s, HOARDER… but obsessed with Gladys Knight and Pips. What do you think?” I agree, that example might not be a movie. But how about this: "It's about a mild-mannered professor of archeology who also goes on perilous adventures in search of rare artifacts. He's got a great sense of humor, a fear of snakes and cracks a mean bullwhip." Or this: "It's about a billionaire orphan who lives a secret life as a crime fighter." Or this: "It's about a 40-year old virgin who has given up on ever having sex." Or this: "It's about a San Francisco cop who isn't afraid of bypassing the law for the greater good to kill bad guys with his .44 Magnum. Oh, and he's a racist, a bigot and he hates everybody." Or this: "It's about a Hollywood stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway driver for robberies." All of these depict very strong characters in films where (in my opinion) the plot is secondary. We would follow Indiana Jones to the ends of the earth whatever he was looking for. Are we really watching the Batman films because of the plots, or are we watching because we are invested in this deep character? I do agree that a strong concept will breed a character. If you have a situation like an asteroid threatening to crash on earth, that's an idea. A team of deep-sea oil drillers have to prevent an asteroid from crashing on earth is a concept. Here, the idea and concept most likely came first, which in turn created the characters. The same probably goes for the majority of high concept films. However, I think there are movies, like the examples above, where the character is the concept. The concept doesn't have to be an event, a conflict or a dilemma.

Teddy, I suppose I agree with you (a little), but if we're talking concepts and loglines, these kind of character pitches are always a little vague to me. Batman aside, which Netflix tab am I finding these films under? Drive could be a comedy. 40 year old virgin, a drama. As Scott has pointed out, this flexibility speaks to the strength of an idea, but I've come I've come to really dig loglines and/or concepts that hints a singular viewing experience. I'm sworn to secrecy, but by and large, there is no question what genre of film the concepts of my fellow Questers (God, we need a new word for that) are. I'm willing to bet that they (and can assure you, I) did the kind of "what if" genre game long before we ever sent loglines to Scott and solidified a concept. So, while I do agree a character CAN be a concept, I think stronger/hookier high-concepts tend to favor premise/event/dilemma. Also - I'll play Devil's advocate: Are we following Dirty Harry and Indiana Jones wherever they go... or are we following Clint Eastwood and Harrison Ford? And what? Am I the only one watching Batman movies for Batman AND the plot!? What's the deal, guys? That Dark Knight prisoner's dilemma had actual prisoners in it, for Pete's sake.

I think most of these descriptions have conflict inherent in the character. 40-year old virgin who has given up on sex? By cultural standards, there's conflict. He's a 40-year old virgin, the only thing he should be doing is trying to have sex. A cop who isn't afraid to bypass the law to kill the bad guy but is a racist/bigot/hates everyone. There's conflict for fear of anyone he hates and isn't really a bad guy. There's conflict in his existence. You want to root for him, but he's not so good himself. A Hollywood stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway driver for robberies, there's innate conflict simply because we know as movie goers the robberies aren't going to go over well and we know he'll be in over his head as he's simply a Hollywood stunt driver, not a full-throttle criminal. I think there are movies about characters, but with those movies there is conflict inherent in the character. As for Indiana Jones and Batman, I would say Indiana Jones is largely due to the phenomena that was the Harrison Ford, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg trifecta, Batman had a huge following from its comic books already. That's what happens when you're already a successful film maker or large production company that can afford to buy huge properties like a comic book series. But you do have a point. The character is the concept. But I would say that character is concept when the character is conflict.

Thanks, Matt. I also listen to August and Mazin's Scriptnotes - it's a good podcast and I've learned a ton from it. They're pretty honest on how bad things are, but do admit that the industry is cyclical, so who knows? Maybe we're all riding the sweet wave to spec-town. Population: you, me, and an assortment of Victoria Secret models. Also: GO SAWX!

Well, I wasn't talking about loglines, per se. I wouldn't say any of my examples above are fleshed out enough to be considered loglines. At least not for pitching. It was more for answering a casual question what the movie is about, like when you're reading TV guide or something. But mostly it was an attempt to answer your question to the question: “When you’re coming up with spec ideas, what comes to you first, character or concept?” Let’s be real here: as anyone ever answered “character?” Yes, I do think that sometimes character comes first. But like Jordan said, it's most likely a character that has some built-in conflict or irony and that itself becomes the concept. A hoarder might not cut it. A hoarder with... hmm... I can't come up with anything. No hoarders. And you're probably right about Harrison Ford. If we would have gotten Tom Selleck as Indiana Jones I doubt that Raiders would have started such a successful franchise.

See, I thought the Drive as a comedy could be good. Stunt work is drying up, so the driver turns to some of his shady friends for some gigs... not knowing his flashy, spectacle style of driving attracts more attention than the robbers want. No-- wait, I've thought about it. Nevermind. I wouldn't change Drive at all. It's awesome.

Sure, sure. I think I got started thinking about a different point in the creative process. And Jordan's right: in the case of some of these, there's a conflict or irony in the character. I think Dirty Harry is the strongest example of that. And yeah, we can forget the hoarders.

This is a great discussion if for only one reason [and I'm sure there are more]: A great story concept [and after development, logline] will almost always conjure up something of a specific character. Speaking from personal experience. "A cop gets a news partner: A police dog." Okay, interesting idea perhaps. But then: "A renegade cop gets a new partner: An equally renegade police dog." Now those characters come to life more in my imagination. Moreover I can see the central conflict of the idea. As a result, the story starts to unfold in my mind. And THAT is what you want! You want to come up with a story concept that conveys to a buyer, "That's a movie." I don't think there is a formula, but if there was, it would involve: * Conceit: The most basic aspect of the concept [e.g., cop / police dog]. * Characters: Some specific elements that fix a character type in our minds. * Conflict: The emotional and psychological touch point that is big enough to feel like it can sustain itself for 100 pages. Finally there's this: Every writer is different. Every story is different. Every creative process is different. Sometimes the concept may emerge from the character. Other times it may emerge from the conceit. But at some point early on, those two will inevitably intersect. So the question is basically a moot point because you need both [along with conflict] to have a winning idea.

If you expand on what Scott is saying, you can also address Ross's hypotheticals. You WILL hear these questions in a pitch: "“Wait– now WHO are you saying are running from the dinosaurs in this dinosaur park?” Or, perhaps better put: “Wait, lemme stop you there and say I need to know who exactly bought tickets to this flight with snakes on it." Character matters. A great concept without great characters is not a great concept. Sam Neill is scared of children. That is a HUGE part of Jurassic Park. It is one of the things that makes it a Spielberg/Koepp studio blockbuster and not a Syfy movie of the week.

To be clear: I do agree with Scott (Myers). My original point isn't that characters don't matter, or that the hypotheticals I imagined are never a part of the process. It was, for high concept stuff, finding a concept hook more often lies with premise than character. When Spielberg asked Crichton what Jurassic Park was about, I'm willing to bet his answer wasn't "An archeologist that learns to love children."

You're probably right, and I think we generally agree. My point is that I would also bet that having a "vivid protagonist" was very much a part of the "immediate equation" when formulating the script for Jurassic Park. Finding a concept can often lie with premise, but executing a concept well will always lie with character. If the first question is the concept, the second is going to be character, and both answers are critically important.

Flat pages - That's what I used to write until I inverted my writing process starting w/ the char first instead of the movie concept. e.g. JK Rowlings - a boy wizard with a scar on his forehead. That's how she began writing, not pitching. I know this article mostly refers to pitching a movie concept,not pitching a char, then the movie concept. (I know this is a book, not a movie but just go with me on this. :) When JK began her process, she focused on her characters and the ideas flowed - this boy goes to wizards school...this boy has friends who are witches and wizards...(when JK's mother died, she realized that Harry's parents should die)...she found her theme 'love'. She did not begin her movie with a logline or what marketplace she should cater her story to. I used to be high concept->logline/pitch -> beatsheet -> outline -> flat pages. Well structured scripts, but boring to read. Here's my two cents: When I started with chars and THEN concept,my flat pages started to come alive. I know this sounds completely counterintuitive and against every film school rule, but my friends told me that something changed in my writing and encouraged me to do this. After several months of working on character exercises and practicing short sequences instead of "I won't start writing until I have a high concept", my writing dramatically improved and my pages became compelling. It's very frustrating writing this way. It's like working an opposite muscle. If you're a concept person, try w/ char 1st. Vice Versa. I think of this as a different tool rather than a rule. :) The Creator, David Shore of the TV show, "House", had a similar process. The Studio pitched him another detective story medical story. He refused for 8 months until he came up w/ a char, "House".