text:
High concept

High concept is a type of artistic work that can be easily pitched with a succinctly stated premise. It can be contrasted with low concept, which is more concerned with character development and other subtleties that are not as easily summarized. The origin of the term is disputed.

Terminology
High-concept narratives are typically characterised by an overarching "what if?" scenario that catalyses the following events. Many summer blockbuster movies are built on a high-concept idea, such as "what if we could clone dinosaurs?" as in Jurassic Park.

High-concept narratives differ from analogous narratives. In the case of the latter, a high-concept story may be employed to allow commentary on an implicit subtext. A prime example of this might be George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, which asks, "What if we lived in a future of totalitarian government?" while simultaneously generating social comment and critique aimed at Orwell's own (real-world) contemporary society. Similarly, the Gene Roddenberry sci-fi series Star Trek went beyond the high concept storytelling of a futurist starship crew, by addressing 20th century social issues in a hypothetical and defamiliarising context. Planet of the Apes (1968) likewise engages in social commentary regarding race relations and other topics from modern human society via the lens of the ape civilization, in part as a response by screenplay co-writer Rod Serling to his experiences of anti-semitism.

Characteristics
The term is often applied to films that are pitched and developed almost entirely upon an engaging premise with broad appeal, rather than standing upon complex character study, cinematography, or other strengths that relate more to the artistic execution of a production. Extreme examples of high-concept films are Snakes on a Plane and Sharknado, which describe their entire premises in their titles.

A movie described as being "high-concept" is considered easy to sell to a wide audience because it delivers upon an easy-to-grasp idea. This simple narrative can often be summed up with a single iconic image, such as the theme park logo from Jurassic Park. Along with having well-defined genre and aesthetics, high-concept films have marketing guidelines known as "the look, the hook and the book".
 * The look of the film is simply how visually appealing it is to the public, usually before its release. Jurassic Park would show the world dinosaurs as they had never been seen before.
 * The hook is the story the film is trying to sell to its audience. Everyone wanted to know how dinosaurs could walk the Earth again after being extinct for 65 million years and how they would coexist with people.
 * The book can be labeled as all the merchandise made to help promote the film. The merchandise in Jurassic Park was destined to sell well, with people wanting the T-shirts and lunch boxes that were shown for sale within the movie itself, with similar merchandise later to be sold at Universal Studios in the gift shop connected to the Jurassic Park ride.

Commercial benefits
High-concept television series and movies often rely on pre-sold properties such as movie stars to build audience anticipation, and they might use cross-promotional advertising campaigns with links to a soundtrack, music videos, and licensed merchandise such as DVD box sets. They commonly apply market and test screening feedback to alter the narrative (or even, as in the case of Snakes on a Plane, the dialogue) to ensure maximum popularity. Some commercial blockbuster movies are built as star vehicles for successful music and sports personalities to enter the movie business. In such commercial vehicles, where the onscreen activity is less important than the marketability of the product brand, a high-concept narrative is often used as a "safe" option to avoid the risk of alienating audiences with convoluted or overly taxing plot exposition.

Cinema

 * Jaws (1975)
 * Independence Day (1996)
 * Cube (1997)
 * The Truman Show (1998)
 * Armageddon (1998)
 * Snakes on a Plane (2006)
 * Inception (2010)
 * Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)
 * The Platform (2019)

Television

 * The Beverly Hillbillies (1962-1971)
 * Gilligan's Island (1964-1967)
 * Clone High (2001–2002; revived 2023)
 * Dog with a Blog (2012–2015)
 * Eaten Alive (2014)
 * Designated Survivor (2016-2019)
 * Son of Zorn (2016–2017)
 * The Good Place (2016–2020)
 * That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime (2018-present)
 * Beef (2023)
 * Velma (2023)

title: High concept


text:
St. Lawrence Island

St. Lawrence Island (, Остров Святого Лаврентия) is located west of mainland Alaska in the Bering Sea, just south of the Bering Strait. The village of Gambell, located on the northwest cape of the island, is 50 nmi from the Chukchi Peninsula in the Russian Far East. The island is part of Alaska, but closer to Russia and Asia than to the Alaskan and North American mainland. St. Lawrence Island is thought to be one of the last exposed portions of the land bridge that once joined Asia with North America during the Pleistocene period. It is the sixth largest island in the United States and the 113th largest island in the world. It is considered part of the Bering Sea Volcanic Province. The Saint Lawrence Island shrew (Sorex jacksoni) is a species of shrew endemic to St. Lawrence Island. The island is jointly owned by the predominantly Siberian Yupik villages of Gambell and Savoonga, the two main settlements on the island.

Geography
The United States Census Bureau defines St. Lawrence Island as Block Group 6, Census Tract 1 of Nome Census Area, Alaska. As of the 2000 census there were 1,292 people living on a land area of 1,791.56 sqmi. The island is about 90 mi long and 8–22 mi wide. The island has no trees, and the only woody plants are Arctic willow, standing no more than a foot (30 cm) high.

The island's abundance of seabirds and marine mammals is due largely to the influence of the Anadyr Current, an ocean current which brings cold, nutrient-rich water from the deep waters of the Bering Sea shelf edge.

To the south of the island there was a persistent polynya in 1999, formed when the prevailing winds from the north and east blow the migrating ice away from the coast.

The climate of Gambell is:

Villages
The island contains and is jointly owned by two villages: Savoonga and Gambell. The island is now inhabited mostly by Siberian Yupik engaged in hunting, fishing, and reindeer herding. As a result of having title to the land, the Yupik are legally able to sell the fossilized ivory and other artifacts found on St. Lawrence Island.

The St. Lawrence Island Yupik people are also known for their skill in carving, mostly with materials from marine mammals (walrus ivory and whale bone). The Arctic yo-yo may have evolved on the island. Anthropologist Lars Krutak has examined the tattoo traditions of the St. Lawrence Yupik.

Prehistory
In St. Lawrence Island, earliest evidence of habitation dates from 2,000 to 2,500 years ago. Artifacts resemble the Okvik (oogfik) style. Archaeological sites on the Punuk Islands, off the eastern end of St. Lawrence Island, at Kukulik, near Savoonga and on hill slopes above Gambell, all indicate evidence of Okvik habitation. Okvik decorative style is zoomorphic and elaborate. Sometimes crude engraving, with greater variation than the Old Bering Sea and Punuk styles.

Okvik habitation, influenced by Old Bering Sea habitation of 2000 to 700 years ago, is characterized by the simpler and more homogeneous Punuk style. Stone artifacts changed from chipped stone to ground slate; carved ivory harpoon heads are smaller and simpler in design.

Prehistoric and early historic settlements of St. Lawrence Island were temporary. Periods of abandonment and reoccupation depended on resources along with favorable climate. Famine occurred, shown by Harris lines and enamel hypoplasia in human skeletons. With travel to and from the mainland during calm weather, the island was used as a hunting base. Sites were re-used occasionally rather than permanently.

Major archaeology sites at Gambell and Savoonga (Kukulik) were excavated by Otto Geist and Ivar Skarland of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Collections from these excavations are curated at the University of Alaska Museum on the UAF campus.

Arrival of Europeans
The island is called Sivuqaq by the Yupik who live there. It was visited by Russian/Danish explorer Vitus Bering on St. Lawrence's Day, August 10, 1728, and named after the day of his visit. The island was the first place in Alaska known to have been visited by European explorers.

There were about 4,000 Central Alaskan Yupik and Siberian Yupik living in several villages on the island in the mid-19th century. They subsisted by hunting walrus and whale and by fishing. The famine in 1878–1880 caused many to starve and many others to leave, decimating the island's population. A revenue cutter visited the island in 1880 and estimated that out of 700 inhabitants, 500 were found dead of starvation. Reports of the day put the blame on traders' supplying the people with liquor causing the people to ″neglect laying up their usual supply of provisions″. Nearly all the residents remaining were Siberian Yupik.

Reindeer were introduced on the island in 1900 in an attempt to bolster the economy. The reindeer herd grew to about 10,000 animals by 1917, but has since declined. Reindeer are herded as a source of subsistence meat to this day. In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt established a reindeer reservation on the island. This caused legal issues in the indigenous land claim process to acquire surface and subsurface rights to their land, under the section 19 of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) as they had to prove that the reindeer reserve was set up to support the indigenous people rather than to protect the reindeer themselves.

World War II
During World War II, islanders served in the Alaska Territorial Guard (ATG). Following disbandment of the ATG in 1947, and with the construction of Northeast Cape Air Force Station in 1952, many islanders joined the Alaska National Guard to provide for the defense of the island and station.

Cold War to Present
On June 22, 1955, during the Cold War, a US Navy P2V Neptune with a crew of 11 was attacked by two Soviet Air Forces fighter aircraft along the International Date Line in international waters over the Bering Straits, between Siberia's Kamchatka Peninsula and Alaska. The P2V crashed on the island's northwest cape, near the village of Gambell. Villagers rescued the crew, 3 of whom were wounded by Soviet fire and 4 of whom were injured in the crash. The Soviet government, in response to a US diplomatic protest, was unusually conciliatory, stating that: "There was an exchange of shots after a Soviet fighter advised the US plane that it was over Soviet territory and should leave (the US denied that the US plane fired at all).

The incident took place under heavy cloud cover and poor visibility, although the alleged violation of Soviet airspace could be the responsibility of US commanders not interested in preventing such violations."

The Soviet military was under strict orders to "avoid any action beyond the limits of the Soviet state frontiers."

The Soviet government "expressed regret in regard to the incident," and, "taking into account... conditions which do not exclude the possibility of a mistake from one side or the other," was willing to compensate the US for 50% of damages sustained—the first such offer ever made by the Soviets for any Cold War shoot-down incident.

The US government stated that it was satisfied with the Soviet expression of regret and the offer of partial compensation, although it said that the Soviet statement also fell short of what the available information indicated.

Northeast Cape Air Force Station, at the island's other end, was a United States Air Force facility consisting of an Aircraft Control and Warning (AC&W) radar site, a United States Air Force Security Service listening post; and a White Alice Communications System (WACS) site that operated from about 1952 to about 1972. The area surrounding the Northeast Cape base site had been a traditional camp site for several Yupik families for centuries. After the base closed down in the 1970s, many of these people started to experience health problems. Even today, people who grew up at Northeast Cape have high rates of cancer and other diseases, possibly due to PCB exposure around the site. According to the State of Alaska, those elevated cancer rates have been shown to be comparable to the rates of other Alaskan and non-Alaskan arctic natives who were not exposed to a similar Air Force facility. The majority of the facility was removed in a $10.5 million cleanup program in 2003. Monitoring of the site will continue into the future.

After the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, the villages of Savoonga and Gambell opted out of selling their land to the federal government and joining a larger regional Native corporation. In return, they were promised full ownership of St Lawrence Island. In 2016, after completing a decades-long land survey, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management transferred permanent private ownership of the island to the two corporations representing Savoonga and Gambell.

St. Lawrence Island made national news in April 2023 when Nanuq, an Australian Shepherd dog from Gambell, Alaska, was rescued and returned. The one-year-old dog belonged to a young Yupik named Mandy Iworrigan, who took the dog to Savoonga, where it disappeared. It was found weeks later in Wales on the Alaskan mainland. Large areas of the surrounding sea were covered by ice at the time. The dog is believed to have survived the 150-mile crossing by catching wild game. After posts about a lost dog in Wales were posted on social media, Nanuq was recognized and returned to its owner.

Transportation
The airports are Gambell Airport and Savoonga Airport.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: St. Lawrence Island


text:
Baran

Baran may refer to:

 * Baran (name)

Europe

 * Baran, Belarus, a town
 * Baran, Lublin Voivodeship, a village in Poland
 * Baran, Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship, a village in Poland
 * Uroczysko Baran killing fields near Kąkolewnica, Poland
 * Baran, Russia, several rural localities in Russia

Africa

 * Baran, Sool, in the Sool province of Somalia
 * Badhan, Sanaag, in Somalia, also known as Baran
 * Baran, alternative name of Buraan, a town in Somalia

Asia

 * Baran district, in the state of Rajasthan in India
 * Baran, Rajasthan, a city in Baran district, India
 * Bulandshahr, India, earlier known as Baran
 * Baran, Khuzestan, a village in Iran
 * Bārān, alternative name of Borj-e Balan, a village in Markazi Province, Iran
 * Baran Duz (Castle of Baran), a village in Iran
 * Baran, Pakistan, a village

Arts and entertainment

 * Baran (film), by Majid Majidi, released in 2001
 * Baran, a character in the anime/manga series Dragon Quest: Dai no Daibōken
 * Baran, Japanese spelling of Varan, a fictional monster lizard

title: Baran


text:
Bereg

Bereg may refer to:

 * Bereg (Sokolac), a village in Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Bereg County, a historic county of the former Kingdom of Hungary
 * Bački Breg or Bereg (Croatian), a village in Serbia
 * A-222 Bereg, a Russian self-propelled 130 mm coastal defence gun
 * Igor Mangushev (1986-2023) Russian mercenary who used the call sign Bereg

title: Bereg


text:
Talk:High concept

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)

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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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

I second that request. Benbenbenben

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

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

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)

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)

 * 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)

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)

 * 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)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 * 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)

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)

 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Requested move 29 March 2021
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * Oppose: Per Compound modifier "not hyphenated (...) unless they are permanent compounds attested as dictionary headwords." --Askedonty (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

title: Talk:High concept