In creating a high-concept comedy, I looked to the past as a starting point. Trading Places really ushered in the genre by taking a powerful man and making him powerless, and vice versa. More recently, Freaky Friday involves a switching of position, but accomplished via magical element. Big was the next notable high-concept, pitting a child in the body of his adult self, to ask the question, "how would a child fare in an adult world?" 13 Going on 30 essentially asks the same question, but geared toward women. To round out the 80's high concepts, Look Who's Talking asked the question, "if a baby had the mind of an adult, but couldn't talk, what would it be thinking," the question further explored in Baby Geniuses.

I found the idea of "switching places" and "switching ages" to be the most compelling idea in the sub-genre because it appeals to a fundamental desire that people often have to lead another life, whereas "giving a voice" to things or people without a voice provides comedy but doesn't reflect any innate desires. I did, however, want to incorporate that element in my work. I wanted to play off Freaky Friday (which itself plays off Trading Places). Rather than mother and daughter, I thought father and son would provide more material for the comedic male awkwardness found in films like American Pie. But given the absurd nature of these previous works (and the fact comedy is born out of absurdity) I wanted to render things as absurd as possible namely by switching the place of father and newborn toddler.

This concept, I believe, reflects the best elements of the high concept comedy sub-genre and all its relevant themes at once. At heart, it's about both "switching ages" but it's also about "switching places." The father, stuck in the body of a child, has to keep family and business afloat, but he can't even walk yet. The child, stuck in father's body, is forced to stand in at his father's work to keep up his appearance, to avoid losing out on his equity in the company; obviously, acting like a child in a straight-edge corporate environment will have many absurdly, comedic consequences. It's also about "giving voice" to a child, in more ways than one. The infant, who must also learn to walk, but within a fully adult body, not only spits out baby words from an adult mouth but has more power to act out his baby impulses, being in an adult body. The father, stuck in the baby's body, is unable to speak, but the audience can hear his profanity-laced rants, and mischievous thoughts. I even kept the magical element of the "switch" except rather than being based on a wish, it's based upon a "curse;" the father is punished for his corporate and domestic misdeeds. Finally, this curse of "switching place and age" and "giving and losing" voice turns out to be not a "curse" but "a new power" which allows the father character to grow as a person.

If marketed well, a novel take on the high-concept comedy is primed for some success,  but to maximize success, the concept should cater to the largest possible demographic, which is women, who make up 52% of all moviegoers. The question is how to market a raunchy high-concept comedy about a man and a toddler switching places to a woman. The answer is built into the script: the lead character is not the father or child, but the wife and mother, who not only holds the family together despite adversity, but literally holds the script together as well. She becomes a mother not to one but to two children, husband and child, reflecting the reality that modern women are asked to do it all. The film can be pitched as such, a raunchy comedy where boys will be boys, but told from a female perspective, where the absurdity of men is exposed, a welcome change from the "Judd Apatow/Hangover-era," where boys will be boys but don't face a reckoning of any significant consequence. Although targeted toward women there's sufficient bathroom jokes that the average male will still see the appeal, peaking interest from both genders.

Box Office Projections

Budget: $50-60 million/Gross: $300 million

The budget is deduced by taking the average budget of comparable 80’s films (17M) and adjusting it for inflation (40M) which is in line with the average budget of recent comps (40M) adding an additional 10-20M for improved special effects, and marketing, making it closely in line with the budget for Ted (60M), the recent, special-effects heavy comedy.

Additional cost savings can be derived by producing The Toxic Masculine in conjunction with Soul Custody. While both films are of different genres with a sharply different tone, both films were written with the same settings, character archetypes, and actors in mind.

The average gross of Ted 1 and Ted 2 was 150M but the second film suffered due to a bad release date but mostly due to lack of originality. The opposite of which was the case for the first film. Also, the first film, while original in it concept, was less successful with its execution, garnering a barely fresh Rotten Tomato Score (68%), which perhaps left not a lasting-enough impression to bring audiences back for the sequel, over three years later, as opposed to recent comedy classics like Anchorman and The Hangover, which brought audience back in droves, even for their sub-par sequels. The originality of Soul Custody should have the gross more in line with Ted 1 (220 M) but with an added appeal due to it being marketed to a larger demographic in women, whose partners will see equal appeal.