What does "High Concept" even mean?

Media illiterate righ here >>219970962

>>219970860
This chart's definition of high and low concept is silly.

>>219970860
I like how Soviet films always trick dumb westerners.

>>219970860
The Thing needs to go in high concept high brow

>>219970860
Move Mad Men to highbrow/low concept and its perfect.

>>219970860
>LotR
>Low concept

>>219970860
Arrival atmosphere> Interstellar atmosphere

File: Spoiler Image (3.99 MB, 1920x1080)

3.99 MB WEBM

>>219970860
Lowbrow and Hight Brow at the same time

>>219971038
Yes Ivan boil potato for 8 hours such high concept lmao

>wes anderson
>high brow
lol, lmao even

>>219970860
>Solaris
>Just barely 'high concept'

How can "teacher sells meth" be more 'high concept' than a film about the unfathomable depths of life and consciousness?

>>219970860
too much reading make a video

>>219970962
I think it's how larger-than-life/epic in scale the story is. Movie about people fighting some supernatural apocalypse or alien invasion = high concept. Movie set in the Victorian era about a young man inheriting his father's estate or whatever, or sitcom about some roommates = low concept. And then brow I guess is how artsy the presentation is.

>>219971585
>unfathomable depths of life and consciousness
Every piece of art is about that, most are also about other things as well.

>>219971585
That's what high concept means. Something is high concept when you can easily explain the premise in a sentence. Something about a vague concept like "unfathomable depths of life" is low concept.

>>219971673
Nah, can't be, no way is Ghostbusters high concept but Lord of the Rings low concept, then.

>>219970860
Why is First Reformed below Juno

>>219971088
I think the fact that it focuses on an era of great social transformation and upheaval for the US, and shows us major historical events (Vietnam, JFK assassination, civil rights riots, etc.) from the eyes of not so average people, as they're ad agency execs who occasionally meet with powerful people, pushes it more towards low-high concept.

>>219971709
Stalker is the most high concept film there and can't be easily explained either.

>>219971705
If they're about that then they're about that indirectly. Solaris is about it directly while also being about other things.

These two posts are by people who haven't seen the fucking film. Why even bother responding?

>>219971749
>all period pieces are high concept

>>219971673
>>219971718
not how epic, but how simple and marketable it is. Bam boom fight aliens and save the world = high concept. The complexities of being a Jewish-Moroccan immigrant in late-19th century United States = low concept.

>>219971804
no god why are you so retarded. Stalker is the most 'bang boom marketable' movie? fucks sake. it means how much of the value of the movie is its concept vs the characters, dialogue, visuals etc

The joke of the image is that people think the word high concept means highbrow.

>>219971673
>>219971585

Do you ever get irritated when people use a word without knowing what it means. I don't either....

(I am screaming on the inside that high concept means that the conceit of the film, like an adventurer archaeologist or a plane with snakes or battles in space or a hot tub time machine, is given priority and you're getting what you paid for even if you didn't see the previews)

>>219971705
>Every piece of art is about that
Back to the Future part 3 is about what if you went back in time to where there were cowboys so the time machine is a train now. There are 30 seconds of doc brown talking about looking into the stars but he was just trying to sound deep for mary steenbergen.

>>219970860
>high concept on the left and low on the right
what retard made this?

>>219970860
Is Seinfeld high concept? Isn’t that the joke? It’s completely high concept
>what if our show was about nothing
but they can’t explain it when pressed.

>>219970860
the graph is all over the place. Why is snakes on a plane high concept for examüle? That movie couldt be any more low concept.

>>219971709
you got that mixed up

>>219974188
its completely low concept for that reason. there barely is a concept, it is just about the characters and the dialogue

>>219971147
Arrival sucks

>>219974342
It should be at the absolute maximum high concept as a joke. Creator has no sense of humor

Memento is the best film and in its rightful place

ATTNTION PLEBS
Please learn what the words actually ean before talking bullshit

>High concept refers to a creative work with a clear, compelling premise that can be easily summarized and marketed, often prioritizing the idea over character depth.

>A high-concept work is defined by a succinct, easily pitchable premise that captures attention quickly, often in a single sentence or a short logline. It emphasizes a unique, intriguing idea or twist that drives the plot, making the story immediately understandable and broadly appealing. High-concept narratives often pose a "what if?" scenario, such as "What if we could clone dinosaurs?" in Jurassic Park or "What if a bus would explode if it drops below 50 mph?" in Speed.

>Unlike low-concept works, which focus on character development and subtle storytelling, high-concept works prioritize the central idea or scenario, making them highly marketable and suitable for mass audiences.

>>219974453
Thanks GPT

Black mirror is the most high concept thing going

>>219974381
you're high

>>219970860
This is possibly the dumbest fucking movie ranking image I've seen. You should feel fucking ashamed OP.

>>219974499
its wikipedia

>>219974597
Go to bed, Denis

>>219971585
Because "teacher sells meth" is more high concept than some vague philosophical themes, that can barely be summarized in a sentence

>>219975059
>vague philosophical themes

yes, zoomer, “you will never get to make things right with those you loved most” is a better concept than “damn yo those mexican cartels don’t play yo”.

it inspired event horizon and contact which are the same idea.

what will breaking bad influence, some british cop procedurals?

holy fucking newfag retards itt
>high concept = the concept is the selling point
>highbrow = bigger brain required for enjoyment
Jaws = high concept, lowbrow
Upstream Color = low concept, highbrow

>>219971804
why would you try to explain this shit when you genuinely have no fucking idea what you're talking about

>>219974453
>A high-concept work is defined by a succinct, easily pitchable premise that captures attention quickly, often in a single sentence or a short logline. It emphasizes a unique, intriguing idea or twist that drives the plot, making the story immediately understandable and broadly appealing.
Chart literally has Lost as high concept. You faggots don't even know the meaning of your own made up bullshit.

>>219975123
nta, but I think you are missing the point.
High/low concept aren't used as "good/bad concept"

>>219971026
>This chart's definition of high and low concept is silly.
Nope

>>219971096
What do you think low vs high concept means?

>>219975123
I am not saying it is a dumb movie or a worse concept.. You clearly dont understand what "high concept" even means

>>219975183
Because lost is high concept. Maybe learrn some reading comprehension

>>219970962
It’s like when a movie is shit but on purpose

>>219975279
Lost was all over the place. It wasn't fucking succinct. Explain the fucking smoke monsters.

>>219970962
it's suspension of disbelief on steroids
basically a committee (not necessarily the ones making the movie) coming up with a binder full of bullshit and calling you stupid if you fail to learn it by heart

>>219975344
any other tips for not kicking ourselves in the butt?

>>219975322
The premise is still pretty simple.
>a group of strangers get LOST on a mysterious island

>>219975322
It wasn't succinct in execution, but if you were trapped in an elevator with a normalfag for five minutes and they asked you what Lost was about you would say some shit like:
>uhhh it's basically about a plane going down in the ocean and the people wash up on an island and get trapped there and weird shit happens
You can explain the premise in a single sentence, the complicating factors arise after that.
Whereas if someone asked you Sienfeld was about you would say some shit like
>It's not really about anything in particular, it's these four or five characters getting into weird and humorous situations over and over again

>>219975394
>A group of friends have to destroy a ring
>A man doesn't like his brother living with him
>We follow real people around with cameras
>A group of friends live in new york
You can reduce everything if you want to.
>A man discovers a way to extrract dna from mosquitoes encased in fossilized amber. Meanwhile, a rival company is trying to steal said dna which sets off a change of events where jeff goldblum ends up removing his shirt
You can do it the other way too. Sounds like a way for pretentious twats to huff their own farts to me. Lost is not a succinct concept. It was really about them dying in a plane crash and being sent to an island where a bunch of inexplicable shit happens to them. There's no easy way to explain lost unless you're being overly reductionist.

>>219975490
Why is that explanation for seinfeld not the same? In fact, is even easier to understand than a group of dead people wake up on a tropical island with polar bears. What the fuck is the concept? Jj didn't even know the concept of his own show. He was everywhere.

>>219971705
No not really

>>219975599
No you cant. Those arent the premisses of the movie you would pitch. You have absolutely no idea what you are taling about. So quit bullshitting and at least read the wiki entry about what high concept actually means

>>219970860
highbrow/lowbrow refers to the concept itself or to its execution. Because it's very different...

>>219976162
No. Stop making up bullshit to wank yourselves over. Lord of the rings is very easy to understand. A group of people set out on a journey to destroy a maguffin. It's much more consistent in story and tone than lost ever was. You're just a pretentious dipshit.

>>219970860
>LotR in the same square as the The Kardashians
consider suicide OP

>>219970962
since nobody is actually answering you, it just means when a piece of artistic work is centered around one or very few ideas that it communicates quite clearly. Stalker in this instance is very high concept as it is about a simple goal and simple obstacles, but has a lot of depth in the characters psychology. It also portrays the characters simply as archetypes rather than named characters (The Writer, The Stalker, The Professor, etc.) the path that the characters go on is also very linear and concept driven as they go from the normal sepia world, into the zone with its obstacles and the climax of the truth of the room. its very simple like that while still having lots of depth.

>>219971096
it definitely is low-concept. it is about so many things rather than zoning in on just one particular idea. do you think low-concept means "worse" or something?

>>219977319
It's about destroying the ring, retard. The same could be said of lost but you somehow think that's high concept.

>>219977413
that is what the PLOT is, yes, but not the overarching themes, retard. do you think tolkien wrote LOTR to JUST be about destroying the ring? nothing else? i dont know who you think youre talking to because i never said that lost was high concept

>>219977466
OP says it is, retard. What was the overarching theme of lost that is so easy to understand? You faggots can't even define your own bullshit.

>>219970860
Stalker is the most pseudbait movie ever made.

>>219978485
i never said i agreed with all of OP's assertions you fucking weirdo. just chill the fuck out and talk to me as an individual rather than the schizo hodgepodge of enemies you conjure in your head

>>219978501
>Stalker is the most anon will try to call you out as a pseud pseudbait movie ever made
Fixed

>>219970962
high concept is the film's gimmick like Liar Liar

Retards itt literally think high concept means “good” and low concept means “bad” when ironically in practice it’s usually the opposite. There’s a reason film snobs often use “high concept” as an insult because it implies the movie is built around a simple gimmick instead of complex characters and themes. Sci-fi, action and horror tend to be high concept while things like character studies and period pieces tend to be low concept.
Calling something low concept is not an insult and does not imply it has a bad concept.
This is basic shit, I’m honestly embarrassed for this board that so few of you understand this.

>>219970860
>tokyo story
>when it's just a confirmed by Ozu rip-off of Make a way for tomorrow
>Highbrow
[laughs in japanese]

>>219978485
Lost is pretty high concept
>What if a plane crashed on a magic island?
It has more character/theme stuff going on than a typical high concept show though, so I’d put it closer to the middle.

>>219974218
Snakes on a Plane is quite literally the most high concept movie ever made. The entire plot is in the title.

>>219979079
He thinks high concept = good concept and low concept = bad concept

>>219970860
Most people will agree on the vertical ranking, I think. There's broad consensus about what's lowbrow and what's highbrow. (Even then, some high-quality lowbrow films might get thought of as highbrow. Where are you going to put Goodfellas, for instance?)

But the horizontal axis is trickier, especially when it comes to good films. A good film might start out with a certain concept but then go beyond just exploring the ramifications of that concept. So is it fair to call it "high-concept"?

"Stalker" is the obvious example of this in your chart. Yeah, it sort of starts from a single "idea", but it's not really about that at all. It's about life and stuff. I would say that "Rashomon" is far more a slave to its "big idea" (everyone tells a different story) than Stalker.

Basically "lowbrow" correlates with "high-concept", and vice versa. A film entirely defined by its "idea" (i.e. it just takes a cute premise for a spin around the block and nothing more) will generally be lowbrow, even if it's well-made.

There are other problems. For example, Mulholland Drive is so incoherent it's hard to say where it belongs on the horizontal axis. Is it pursuing a single idea (e.g. the dream of Hollywood vs. the reality) or not?

>>219970860
How the fuck is Lord of the Rings a low concept?

>>219980377
Pitch it to me.

>>219980377
how is it not? do you not know what low concept means?

>>219980457
A band of soldiers carrying the literal weight of sin witness the worst horrors of mankind as an analogue to World War 1 framed as *The* Fantasy Story to end all fantasy stories. It's as out there as you can get.

>>219980511
high concept doesnt mean "being out there" or being smarter or better or something. im begging you guys to just google shit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_concept#:~:text=High%20concept%20is%20a%20type,are%20not%20as%20easily%20summarized.

>>219980589
Excellent, so explain how Lord of the Rings isn't high concept?

>>219980511
>as an analogue to World War 1 framed as *The* Fantasy Story to end all fantasy stories
The fact you included this part proves you have no fucking idea what high vs low concept is

>>219971718
High Concept is about the focus of the film around an idea; some fascinating idea about things, forces, or abstractions. The story Ghostbusters is based around the concept of physicists constructing a device to trap spirits, and they decide to be pest control agents. The story's strength is based on that concept, and the characters, tone and emotions move around in that conceptual framework but are better to support the conceptual framework.

Low concept centers around around people, emotions, character dynamics, holistic themes that are personable or more naturally relatable. While LOTR being fantasy has a lot of important ideas, relating to things happening in the world, the story is conceptually a hero's tale that takes that framework and then centers the focus on the nature of each character, their choices, their feelings or desires. The scope is big, but still it is around characters in developing dynamics within an emotionally driven narrative.

Another way is see this is just read the two corner extremes. Stalker vs Jersey Shore in favor of High Concept; Tokyo Story vs Sharknado in favor of Low Concept.

Insane that a board focused on television and film, which is supposedly used by people who are fans of television and film, can get filtered so fucking hard by something as simple as high concept vs low concept. This is literally taught in fucking high school

>>219980945
I would argue that both thematically and as a narrative Lord of the Rings is driven by the mechanic of the aforementioned ring. All the power and all the evil in the world are placed into one object. All the character struggles both internal and external are because of said ring. I can't accept it as low concept.

>>219980511
You failed to pitch it accurately and succinctly.

>>219970962
>What does "High Concept" even mean?
"What if we cloned dinosaurs from DNA found in amber"

High concept is any movie that can be accurately summed up with a “what if” question
>What if a shark attacked a beach?
>What if you were trapped with a hostile alien who could shapeshift into anything?
>What if toys were alive?
>What if you traveled back in time and met your parents in high school?
>What if a guy with severe memory loss had to solve a murder?
>What if there was a plane full of snakes?
>What if there were zombies in World War II?
Everything that happens in the movie exists to explore the concept. There can of course be complex characters and themes happening but they’re built around the concept. The concept defines the movie. To support my point, everyone with basic film knowledge would be know exactly what movies I’m talking about just from reading those summaries.
Low concept movies cannot be summarized so succinctly.
>What if two people from different cultures fell in love?
>What if two people in a relationship grew apart?
>What if World War II happened?
These don’t really tell you anything about the films in question, and nobody would be able to identify a specific film just from hearing the concept. The focus is more on the specifics of characters and themes.
Now of course some dishonest retard out there could oversimplify or overcomplicate a film to muddy the waters but that’s not really relevant.

>>219980457
A ring needs to be destroyed.

>>219970860
Whoever made that must be absolutely insufferable.

>>219970860
Whoever made that sounds like my kind of guy.

>>219970860
>Speed almost on the end of lowbrow
retarded chart

>>219970962
It's "abnormal" for midwits.

>>219983675
its not. not even close.

File: 1751727577667868.png (34 KB, 652x120)

34 KB PNG

>>219974263
No I didn't. "High concept" as in it relies highly on a concept

>>219970962
It means
>DUDE LMAO WHAT IF *hits bong* THIS HAPPENED

File: hawley_the_divorcerer.jpg (136 KB, 1280x720)

136 KB JPG

>>219981840
Are you describing a The Pitt episode's segment?

>>219970860
People seem to trip up on the high and low concept thing because they think it carries the same connotations as highbrow and lowbrow just because of the descriptors.
When in reality, a high concept film is often worse, in that it is predicated on that narrow concept being a) entertaining b) thought provoking c) something with longevity.
The risk of high concept is alienating the audience with the premise right out of the gate (I won't watch Inception because the premise itself is unappealing to me), whereas low concept focuses on human affairs of generally universal appeal.
In literature the high concept would fall under genre fiction generally and more literary fiction would fall under low concept. The prose styling and treatment of the issues within literature take more focus than wowing the audience with a fantastical premise. That would be more equivalent to the direction, the camera work, framing etc.

>>219970962
Lord of the rings

>>219976613
the ring isnt a macguffin. you are retarded

>>219979079
You are right. I mixed it up again.

>>219977319
It's about a fantasy world where there's elves, orcs, etc. To me that's the concept. The same way Jurassic Park's concept is dinosaurs. To me the moment you have elements of fantasy, sci fi, horror, you dip into high concept "what if?" territory, because none of those things are real. So for LOTR, the concept would be "what if there was a world with elves, orcs, hobbits?" then you could add "and hobbits had to go on a quest to destroy a powerful magical item?". Sure, it's about many things, it integrates a lot of ideas from mythology and religion, it has metaphors, but that would make it high concept, high brow.

>>219970962
It means the exact opposite of what it should mean.

>>219974453
>prioritizing the idea over character depth
What if you have something that has both a unique concept and character depth?

File: MV5BYjZmMzlmMWItMTNmOC00Z(...).jpg (192 KB, 838x1257)

192 KB JPG

>>219970860
Where does this movie go on the chart? Seems like it should be in all 4 quadrants at the same time.