Entertainment desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 31[edit]

Duration vs running time[edit]

The Academy Award article lists some films by "Duration (not running time)". However, I haven't been able to figure out the difference between the two, and there is apparently a big difference. Anyone?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Awards themselves are listed like that sometimes too - maybe it means the length of the show, minus the commercials on TV (so a four-hour broadcast might actually be only three and a bit of ceremony time). For movies, maybe it means the length of the movie, minus the credits, which can go on for quite a long time? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely about the movies. A few reviews I've checked, especially British ones, give the "duration" of the movie and it's identical to the "running time" given at IMDB. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not about the movies. Shakespeare in Love was not 4 hours long! I think can only mean the length of the broadcast/ceremony including commercials. I haven't been able to confirm those numbers online, but I've watched a lot of those broadcasts and just over 4 hours is about as long as they get. --Anonymous, 21:50 UTC, January 31, 2010.

Anonymous is right, the table in the Academy Award article lists various stats of each Academy Awards ceremony, including the "Duration (not running time)". That is, the times in that table refer to the Academy Awards ceremonies. --70.254.86.38 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are absolutely right. My mistake. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After digging through the revision history, the "(not running time)" disclaimer seems to have been added over the course of these three edits by the same editor: 1, 2, 3. In the first edit, it appears the editor mistook the times in the the table as the running times of movies and changed one of the times. In the next two edits, the editor noticed the mistake and reverted the time back to its original value, then added "(not running time)" in the column header, supposedly to clarify to future editors that the times are the duration of the ceremonies, not the running times of the movies. --Bavi H (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it evidently wasn't clear, I've changed it to "Length of broadcast". --Anonymous, 02:13 UTC, February 1, 2010.

Thanks everyone. Obvious when you know! I was evidently thrown by the fact that that column follows the title of the Best Picture for that year, so I assumed it somehow referred to the film.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to invent/write dialogue[edit]

I can imagine a film with the scenery, characters, and some of the plot. But what I find more difficult is what (and when) the characters will say. Are there any techniques etc that could help with this? Thanks 92.24.73.102 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism comes to mind, although that is usually frowned upon :(
Much of the dialog in many films goes along what seem to be standard formats which apply no matter what the particular monster is for that particular blockbuster. Unless you aren't planning a blockbuster, I believe there are some standard script dialog templates circulating around. There must be. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I write, I write down the bare minimum of what must be said. Keep in mind any foreshadowing or plot points that must be brought up. I don't even write full sentences - just who says what. Then, when I'm falling asleep, I usually think of one or two things that someone could say in one of those places and jot it down. Over time, I end up with complete dialog. Unfortunately, this has only worked once. Everything else I've written has been utterly terrible. -- kainaw ™ 23:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide a reference: I recommend a trip to the physical library. There are thousands of books that speak directly to this problem. (Writers love writing about writing, apparently.) Here is one example, for screenwriting specifically. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to understand dialogue is to listen to real speech. Eavesdrop at cafes, on buses, stations, lifts, the street. Listen to your work colleagues, concentrate on what they say and how they say it. Consider how speech differs by setting or subject, by the speakers' age, class, relationship or role. Develop a good ear. Then watch films, read books and scripts to see how the author portrays speech (ie. adapts real speech for dramatic purposes). Then practice your own. Write, write, write. Read it aloud to see how it sounds. Ask friends' opinions. A quick google seacrch shows up these for starters: /www.associatedcontent.com/article/5301/how_to_write_dialogue.html; writingfiction.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_write_dialogue; www.howtodothings.com/hobbies/a4274-how-to-write-dialogue.html; www.ehow.com/how_4478980_write-good-dialogue.html. (spam blocked, so can't add links; you can find more by googling "how to write dialogue"). Gwinva (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Vladimir Nabokov system: Write words and sentences on index cards. Then go sit on a park bench with the stack of cards and write more words and sentences. Another method is called the "step outline": Summarize the entire film in a paragraph. Later, expand that paragraph to fill two pages. Finally, write a full outline that covers all the major scenes. As you write that, you can add any dialogue that occurs. The dialogue then becomes a natural outgrowth of the situations. Avoid cliches. If you find you are about to have someone say, "I have a bad feeling about this," write something else instead. Pepso2 (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I do when I translate literature is, I let the characters "live" inside me, i.e., I try as much as possible to let a character get under my skin, and eventually I know instinctively what a character would say and what they wouldn't. This works better with some characters than with others, and of course, since I'm talking about translating, I am bound by the original and cannot stray from it, but knowing what a character feels like helps nonetheless. You could try it - get the rough estimate of what you want your characters to talk about, then imagine what makes them tick, how they react to stuff, what they like and dislike etc. and from there, what they would talk like. Of course since writing is a creative labor that requires a personal approach there is a high probability my approach won't work for you, but some of the ones above mine could. Experiment a bit and see what works best for you. Good luck! TomorrowTime (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not write a silent film? Juliankaufman (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]