Talk:Screenwriting

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: Filmmaking

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Screenwriters Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 30 June 2013. Further details are available here.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Rewriting

I think the article merits a lot of re-writing, and as I can see this view is shared by some people here. I would be glad to do it, focusing more on the craft itself and pointing out that formatting is generally looser (with what is written here merely being "standards and guidelines", with quite a bit of room for deviation in most industries) and adding a few facts about the way different industries work (TV, film etc) as these are really not covered. Plus, I think that there should probably be a bit less focus on the "Hollywood school" (Syd Field etc) - his views should of course be covered in some depth, but I think it's not stressed that this is just one way of approaching screenwriting, albeit clearly the strongest right now. The thing is, I'm quite new to wikipedia and I'm not sure if it's acceptable conduct to just go ahead and re-write such a large part of the article (I'll be keeping chunks of it but a lot will be reworded and some bits may even be omitted)... So, my question is, basically, "should I"? BunnyDee 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you know what you're talking about...go for it. (Somebody else) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.125.245 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theories on writing a screenplay

There should be some mention here of the Eight Sequences Structure taught by Frank Daniel.

What is currently mentioned in the article is inaccurate. Frank Daniel didn't invent it. He merely brings it to light.

Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill66man (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs revising

Holy crap is this article filled with original research and POV writing. Here's a hint, when one includes the word "you" (dozens and dozens of times) you are no longer writing in a subjective manner fit for an encyclopedic entry. On a related note, much of the article needs to be moved to a section headed: "Screenwriting in the United States." --RoyBatty42 00:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.115.78 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a screenwriter

I propose this bit is deleted as it's not in the correct tone for an encyclopaedia, and it's original research and POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.93.212 (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It needs a lot of work.

In my opinion, this article is in quite bad shape.

It's full of POV, original research, inaccuracies, out-of-date material, and content not suitable for Wikipedia.

The section on the "status of screenwriters" is extremely POV and not true in any genuine sense. "Low social position?" Baloney. Ask a production assistant about low social position in the industry. Screenwriters are frequently paid enormous sums of money, given prestigious awards, and move on to add producing and directing positions to their writing roles. In the article, it sounds as though they're treated like dirt, while the truth is simply that they aren't the most powerful person on a film.

As a screenwriter, I understand the common gripes about credits, power, and copyright issues, but this section is disingenuous opinion at best, and flat-out untrue at worst.

The section on "Theories" is incomplete and needs to be cleaned up. The Mamet quote is certainly not a "theory" and, in my opinion, is mostly glib. The inclusion of only two theories is unacceptable for such a section. As someone previously mentioned, the "eight sequence" structure should be added at a bare minimum, along with sections for other theories, relative to their importance. (I know that smacks of POV, but there are hundreds of screenwriting books in print, seemingly all with a "unique" theory on structure. They can't all be included, but the major ones should be.)

The choice of "Kal Bashir's" hero journey theory seems odd and rather suspect to me. While the hero's journey idea is well-known and respected in the screenwriting world, it's generally attributed to, first, Joseph Campbell and then to Christopher Vogler, who refined the idea for screenwriting in his seminal work, "The Writer's Journey." Vogler's work came before Bashir, has sold many, many more copies and is much more widely referenced in the industry. The fact that the article imbeds a link to Bashir's sales site makes me doubly suspicious. The article should credit Campbell and Vogler with the idea, not some guy selling a retread. From what I can google, the inclusion of Bashir is essentially spam.

Also, the Syd Field section there is overly long. While his book, "Screenplay" is certainly a seminal work, it's by no means universally respected or accepted. It doesn't deserve such special treatment in this particular article. I don't think this is the place for a long breakdown of his structure. Perhaps on the Syd Field page?

The section on format is mostly okay, but needs some clean up so that the writing is descriptive, rather than instructive. It also could use a section describing the differences between a shooting script and spec script. And, to be honest, it's a section better suited for the "Screenplay" article than this one.

The "dialogue and description" section is extraordinarily POV and tonally wrong for a Wiki article. This is not meant to be an article on how to write a screenplay. Additionally, many of the statements are miles away from fact and are, essentially, someone's opinion on what makes a screenplay good or bad.

A better choice for that section might be a neutral description of common screenwriting styles and conventions.

The section on "Screenwriters Portrayed in Film" is drastically incomplete. For starters, how do you not include "Sunset Blvd."? The statement about only one full-length documentary is false.

The section on "Copyright" seems superfluous and unneccesary. It's generic information about US copyright law and has no specific bearing on the topic at hand.

The article needs some more sections. The term "screenwriting" also includes writing for television, which is ignored here. There should be a section giving some information on the history of screenwriting. I also think something belongs here about how and where screenwriting is taught. Instead of the problematic "Status of..." section, I think there ought to be a factual and informative section about the real roles of screenwriters in the industry and the various forms "screenwriting" takes - spec scripts, assignments, rewrites, staff writing, polishes, script doctoring, etc.

Finally, the article is entirely Hollywood-centric. It needs some information regarding screenwriting outside of the Hollywood system.

I'll start working on these changes over the next couple weeks, but this'll be my firt wiki-editing experience, so I wanted to lay out the plan before I started. Comments? Objections? Blcfilm 09:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, be BOLD! Ev. I'll later improve the (typographic) style. Cate |_Talk 09:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format

I changed this section to a general discussion of script formats, rather than a heavily-detailed description of one particular format. In my opinion, detailed descriptions of script elements like transitions and slugs are better placed on the Screenplay page. I eliminated the image, as well, because it was representative only of a single format, and because it didn't match current format conventions. If we're going to have a illustrative image for script format, it needs to accurately represent current standards.Blcfilm 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a breakdown of Master Scene Format to this article as it was not discussed. We can move that section into the Screenplay Article (which is also unwritten and I couldn't see a link from here), but we must acknowledge that the role of the "screenwriter" is not necessarily dependent on producing a script. In documentaries, for example, it is not uncommon for there to be no written "screenplay" (as we think of it) at all, and often editors are given writing credits. Stuartmwillis (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

Re the gardenia scene. Where is my name or title posted that would make this some sort of self-promotion? Where is the research -- as this is only an example for a reader? And where are screenplays published? Thanx for your response. Mig (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7-act structure section is an advert

I think the 7-act structure section is simply an advert. The links go to the man's website. I suggest deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.172.25 (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. ClaireJV (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation Class Project

We are currently working on THE TRANSLATION into Spanish of this article. Translation work will be ready by the end of May 2013. For more information see Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Universitat_Jaume_I_-_E-translating PLEASE, DO NOT TRANSLATE THIS PAGE. IF YOU DO SO, PLEASE INFORM US AT Mcptrad Mcptrad (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Screenwriting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]