Posts by Karen Smith9

This movie is absolute garbage—it tries to pose as some kind of deep dilemma, but in the end, it just circles back to making the lead character even more of an idiot than she was at the start... though I have to admit, Demi is looking as stunning as a sunset over the Grand Canyon.

electriccanyon26 said:I completely misread your last post: I thought you were saying drama texts belong in the theater department rather than the literature section.... my bad. It’s not exactly news that plays are kept in a library—why even bring that up? I've been saying that this whole time! But it doesn't support your theory that movies aren't based on stage productions, but rather on their scripts. Period.

That was just a side argument... as for the main point, I’m standing my ground. I'll say it again: you still don't seem to grasp that a screenwriter adapts the script—the drama text—not the live performance itself... that's my stance, and period.

electriccanyon26 said:Please quote me when I actually said that wasn't the case!

Look, I've been trying to make my point this whole time, but you’re just stuck on the idea that it's strictly about the theater and nothing else...😂

electriccanyon26 said:My local library doesn't split things into "literature and theater." There is an entire section dedicated specifically to plays—but I suppose that's too confusing for you to grasp...

Look, kid, I actually work in a library... In our system, besides the standard classification for national literature, we add a "2" code to signify a drama text. On the shelves, those books sit right after poetry (coded as 1) and just before the novels (coded as 3).
The performing arts section is reserved for things like theater theory, theater history, and various similar texts... seriously, just walk into any public library in town and you'll see it's exactly the same...

electriccanyon26 said:I don't see how you're missing this. Drama is text meant for the stage—it *is* the theater. We admire Shakespeare and his plays as works of literature, which means we value drama within the literary canon because, even though they provide dialogue for actors, they function as flawless pieces of writing. But the true essence of Shakespeare lives in the theater! You have to see that.

Hura, you finally admitted that a drama text counts as literature...

electriccanyon26 said:A play, a drama text, and finally a performance—that’s theater. A drama belongs to literature, much like a libretto is a literary work; however, once you combine a libretto with a performance, you have an opera. Don't tell me I need to get my act together; you're the one who's confused here. I'm just trying to help.

Listen, kid—if what you're saying were true, dramatic texts would be filed under theater in the Library of Congress system at number 79... instead of being categorized under literature... sorry, but that's how it works globally. A dramatic text can certainly serve as the foundation for a play and be an essential part of that art form, but the text itself, as a printed work, is literature. So, maybe take a breath and settle down—if you can—because that's just the reality. And if there's any confusion, project that onto your pet parrot if you have one, because you're repeating the same nonsense over and over like a parrot...
Basically, a movie is filmed based on the script that a stage production was built from, not based on the performance itself... and that's that. good night...

electriccanyon26 said:It's because theater covers everything: drama, comedy, and musicals. If I were choosing a play to write, I'd have to decide whether it's a drama, a comedy, or a musical. There’s already a thread on this forum under the theater subforum called Drama Text; tell them instead that the topic belongs in literature, not theater.

The text itself is literature; the performance is theater. Get it together...🙂

electriccanyon26 said:That isn't right. The text was originally written for the stage. This is theater—it's a different art form entirely. The film will be based on the theatrical play. It couldn't be any clearer than that.

As for the title of the movie, you'll just have to wait. I can't recall the specific name, but I know for a fact I've seen something like it before...

😂 Here we go again...

electriccanyon26 said:It falls under drama. Drama is its own genre designed for the stage. Without the theater, there wouldn't even be such a thing as drama, for goodness' sake.

That’s exactly my point... so why did you call it a drama in one of your previous posts, only to then mention comedy in parentheses—as if we weren't already aware?? I honestly can't wrap my head around all these contradictions and rambling...
And those very same texts—those dramas—can serve perfectly well as templates for film scripts or just a starting concept; at that point, it has nothing to do with the theater anymore... and that's really all there is to it. If that isn't clear enough for you, well... maybe Laura Palmer25 could explain it more clearly, though I doubt it would help much.

electriccanyon26 said:Well done. What do you even call that? I'm finished here and have nothing left to ask. There’s no point in arguing further; you'll just keep defending those impulsive posts and conclusions, when really, you're just defending your own lack of understanding. Have a good night. And seriously, go read some drama text or a comedy.

I assume you're all still in elementary school, so maybe go ask your teachers to explain this to you...

And you call that a defense... You basically spend the whole time jumping down people's throats, and now you're just running away...😂>

electriccanyon26 said:So, comedy is a theater genre alongside drama? You missed the mark this time. Prove you actually know the subject: what's the fundamental difference between drama and, say, prose?

There are four primary literary forms: poetry, prose, drama, and the essay. Right? So, here is the simple question: a comedy script written specifically for the stage falls under which category?

electriccanyon26 said:Just a half hour ago, I asked the same thing, though perhaps more ironically: will the director adapt the screenplay based on the theatrical text, or just rely on memory? 🤣

Based on the script, obviously—not the play itself, despite what the thread title implies, my dear friend...😉

electriccanyon26 said:Are you going to claim in your next post that there are no plays based on movies either?

Here is an answer for you and your slang:
I know a film student who wrote a script for his own play, performed by actors currently in training—it was an amateur production, of course. The man wrote the text from his own mind; that text is a literary work (who says otherwise?), it can be read as literature, and its genre is drama (there is such a thing as comedy, if you weren't aware). If someone decides to make a movie later, will it be based on that script or the stage play the script was originally written for?

See, this is proof you don't have a clue what you're talking about... comedy is a literary work that falls under the genre of drama—drama, poetry, prose, essays... remember anything from middle school? Comedy is part of drama... I knew there was a breakdown somewhere in basic terminology...
And regarding what you said about that student—the movie will be based on the screenplay, or rather the text for the play... it's that simple.

Quote: that hasn't even had many different runs.

electriccanyon26 says: That’s really not how you look at it—those are just your own assumptions! I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, but some movies simply aren't based on plays that have been staged a million times in theaters all over the world. You know, those massive classics? Some films—like Tape—are based on versions of a stage production

The point being made is this: Tape is a 1999 play by Stephen Belber. So, the text exists, and the screenplay was adapted from that text... is a screenwriter really going to sit there watching a live performance and transcribe dialogue for a movie like some kind of court reporter tracking events on a stage? It's the same damn story all over again...

electriccanyon26 said:So what exactly would he grab instead? What? Curious actors? If a director wants to make a "more literal" adaptation of a play—and I mean a PLAY—actors will CERTAINLY head to the theater where that play is originally being performed just to get some inspiration for their roles, if nothing else. If a director wants to make their own version, fine, but who's to say that isn't based on a production? Some movies are based on stage shows that aren't even the plays you're talking about! What then? Do we say: "the film is based on a text written for the theater that has only ever been staged in a theater?" Like I said before: it's all the same thing.

Both theater and film have their own writers and scripts; whether we say a film is based on a stage script or just based on a theatrical production doesn't really matter. There are plenty of stage plays written based on movies; are those plays based on the film or based on the film's screenplay? Honestly, what are we even debating here?

Alright then, give me an example of a film—and please, don't give me a musical—that is based on a stage production but isn't based on a play.

electriccanyon26 said:But who ever said a film has to relate to just ONE specific performance? Of course, productions vary—some stay literal—but nobody else is even arguing that point except you.

The very title of your thread implies this... if a film is based on a theater production, then regarding the film itself, you have to think about a specific run—that is, one individual performance... you're jumping to conclusions again... you can't film something based on four or five different versions if you're going to insist on that direct connection...

electriccanyon26 said:What's the point of constantly repeating "independent work of art"? Are you trying to separate it from the theater? Why? Because you read it at home instead of actually going to see it in a theater?

edit: Have either of you actually watched a single drama in a theater? When you finish the book "Romeo and Juliet," do you bother reading about Shakespeare, his life, or the context of his works? Did you learn anything about drama in school? Have you even seen the movie In Love Shakespeare, so you’d know he founded his own theater, wrote everything specifically for the stage, and lived for the theater? Don't tell me you have!!

😂 Goodness, I simply cannot believe this... Pasolini's Medea on film is his autonomous work of art—just as it is his own specific interpretation of Euripides' text. Similarly, a director's version of Medea at an American summer arts festival would be their autonomous work of art through the lens of staging a new production of Euripides' text... these are two distinct things based on the same text. I don't see what part of that is confusing.

electriccanyon26 said:Don't you see that a written drama—take >, for instance, which I assume we've all read—can be taken straight to a theater where you follow the actors word for word. THAT DRAMA IS THEATER. It lives in the THEATER; it is meant for the THEATER. WHAT IS SO CONFUSING ABOUT THAT?

True, absolutely... but do you realize that, say, Hamlet has millions of different performances? And I mean everything from traditional theater productions to shortened versions, or even avant-garde pieces that barely use the text at all.
Film has an even wider scope for adaptation... please don't try to tell me you could just follow Macbeth's text in the Kurosawa version... and it isn't even because it's in Japanese, but because the script itself was altered and adapted specifically for the screen... that's why I'm saying it's a completely different beast than the stage play.

electriccanyon26 said:How can you argue that a movie based on a play performed in a theater has nothing to do with the theater? It’s like saying the drama itself isn't linked to the theater. Where is the logic in that?

Well, one could argue that—since a film based on a dramatic script is its own autonomous work of art, just as a stage production of that same text is its own distinct entity. Is that clear enough now?

electriccanyon26 said:Nothing at all. You're just accusing me of having an issue with it... I don't get why you feel the need to strip away the most fundamental element—theater—from a drama that was originally written for the stage long before cinema even existed. You claim Kurosawa adapted it his own way and that theater isn't relevant here? Why? Claiming a drama has nothing to do with the theater is just an invention of yours and Laura Palmer25.

It seems you’re struggling to distinguish between a drama as a written text and a theatrical production. That confusion really comes through in your thread title. Even your argument—which, granted, is technically true—that theater is a completely different medium than film, leads to the implication that a director providing a personal vision of a dramatic text doesn't care how that text was staged in a theater. I am emphasizing the *director's* specific, personal vision here. That is precisely what defines both great stage productions and great films based on dramatic texts.
Simply taking a Broadway show and filming it isn't necessarily part of that same category.
Take, for instance, Pasolini's "Medea" based on Euripides... that is a highly specific, personal vision; I highly doubt Pasolini cared one bit about some classical, academic interpretation from a particular theater... well, because he was Pasolini.