From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Odds N Ends[edit]

Sometimes in scripts, they say 'beat' i trid find about this but couldnt. please help

I aim to put in a survey of screenwriting craft in here, with some basic descriptions of screenplay structure and literary style, plus some tips on breaking into the industry. Not sure if screenplay format should be dealt with at length here or in screenplay. Okay I logged in now, so that sig should be: UnSane

Okay, having filled out the structure it now seems that there is too much crossover with screenplay. I think it would be best to split off screenplay format and screenplay structure into their own categories and only deal with the craft of writing here. UnSane 15:33, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

This seems more like an instruction manual. I suggest it might be more appropriate in Wikibooks. -Branddobbe 09:29, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

The articles on screenplay and screenwriting should be combined, since there is significant overlap. As well, the screenwriting article is downright amateurish and pedantic; revision is needed.

Protecting your work in other countries[edit]

Just wondering if someone knows of a way to protect your work in other countries (Namely Canada) anyone know about this? perhaps a link would also be good for the same section.

Final Draft[edit]

I reverted a change someone made to the final draft tutorial. I mistakenly commented (in the revision log) that the new link was plagiarism. It isn't; sorry about that. However, the new tutorial contained a bunch of advertising, and didn't seem to be technically superior (as a tutorial) than the old link. So, I treated the change as 'spam' and reverted. -- Ch'marr 20:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


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)

Sounds like you know what you're talking about...go for it. (Somebody else)


The opening is far too negative and discouraging. It contains a bitter bias on behalf of the writer.


I agree that the description of screenwriting sounds very daunting. I was rather depressed after I read the opening paragraph on the subject. Therefore, I decided to write this note to let everyone know that as difficult a career as screenwriting surely is, I -- a woman with no connections whatsoever -- was able to make inroads. Someone, please respond to me by email, if possible, and I'll explain -- Mig 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Migdia Chinea. I hesitate to publish my email here because I'm so Googleable. However, you may be able to get it from Wikipedia, am I right? If not, please, respond here.

More. I wish to thank the person who edited the Screenwriting page with my modest contribution(s). It all reads very well. I do believe that screnplay descriptions/often known as action are/is very important and I was glad to see that during the Academy Awards Screenplay Adaptation portion of the event last Sunday, February 25, 2007, they showed actual movie clips in which script descriptions were read while the screen action was seen taking place. And some of these "descriptions" were quite exact -- like mine. In my view, the difference between a really good screenplay and something a hack would put together -- (because he or she's related to a film mogul and is, thus, someone unconcerned about his/her craft) -- lies in the cinematic way scenes are described. Mig 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Theories on writing a screenplay[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 20:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


I'm not gonna revert it myself, because I don't want to be part of another edit war, but the reference to certainly is spam-- I mean, the way it's placed there. Waiting for different opinions. --Sanssheriff 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs revising[edit]

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)


Becoming a screenwriter[edit]

I propose this bit is deleted as it's not in the correct tone for an encyclopaedia, and it's original research and POV.

I agree. It needs a lot of work.[edit]

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)

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


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)

Original Research[edit]

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)

7-act structure section is an advert[edit]

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 (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Translation Class Project[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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