From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Theater as edited by DanielPulido (Talk | contribs) at 18:35, September 4, 2010. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


Any material regarding non-Western theater, in any medium, would constitute a welcome addition to this article.--TerryHTalk 16:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Serious Re-write needed

This article regarding the theater is un-encyclopedic. Saying "Nero would be proud" is an unsubstantiated and unprovable claim and has no place in scholarly writing of any kind.

Secondly, if this article is to focus on the theater, then any discussion about the Hays production code is completely irrelevant and ought to have its own article devoted to the subject.

The article also claims that plots became "increasingly salacious" without giving any concrete examples or statistics to back it up. Not only that, but it completely lacks any reference to the major playwrights of the late 19th and early 20th century. There is no mention of Anton Chekov or Henrik Ibsen (essentially the fathers of modern drama) no discussion of the varying methods of acting and how they changed over the centuries, no mention of the realism movement from the 30's to the 50's (ie the works of Arthur Miller and Tenesee Williams, as well as others)

Instead it veers off into a discussion of televison and film censorship. I don't know if there are any qualified theater historians in this camp (I myself am only a student) but this article deserves to have another look at by someone who has studied the theater extensively and who will write a concise, focused article on theater itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StephenS (talk)

I don't think we have any theater historians, so feel free to fix it. Errrr I see that it has been locked. HelpJazz 20:49, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Actually, a separate article titled Motion Picture Production Code does exist. However, I still desire that this article retain its broad focus. Theater is theater, whether the medium be the ancient Greek amphitheater, or William Shakespeare's famous Globe, or the Victorian proscenium stage, or the sound stage in motion pictures or on television.
Nevertheless, if you have material on the playwrights of the Regency/Victorian/Edwardian era, and on the further development of the stage through the two World Wars, that would be welcome.
What would be more welcome would be additional articles on each era of the theater, like Elizabethan theater, Broadway, etc. And, of course, articles on each of the great playwrights, with overviews of their work.--TerryHTalk 22:07, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
I see that Broadway already exists. I wouldn't object to placing a link to it in this article.
The article--originally written by myself, BTW--is now unlocked. But I will watch it closely, as will other senior sysops. I have given everyone some proper guidelines. Let us hope that any interested editors will adhere to them. Please propose major reorganization on this Talk page first; I will watch that as well.--TerryHTalk 22:12, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

While etymologically speaking, your definition of theater is correct, I'd like to point out that modern usage of the word in the majority of cases pertains strictly to the variety of theater that is performed live on stage without any cameras. I know many people in the acting business, and believe me, there is a huge distinction between "theater acting" and "acting for film/tv". That is why one will have an agent for theater, and another for film and tv because it is now recognized that these are 2 separate mediums. It is for this reason that I propose this article be narrowed in focus, as most people reading the title will assume it pertains to live theater, and thus in its current state is rather misleading. That aside, to encompass such a broad array of subjects without mentioning any pioneers in any of the genres while giving Hays a disproportionate amount of space is an insult to those who actually furthered the craft (in film, television or live theater). If I were writing an article on classical music, for example, i would not focus on those who attempted to restrict or undermine the composers, but rather on the composers themselves. It's only appropriate. I would also like it if the article could have a slightly more objectice tone; (saying plots became more sinful is a personal judgement call, not an undisputed fact). StephenS 14:37, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I disagree with you with regards to the influence of William Hays and Joseph I. Breen--which probably ought to surprise no one, least of all you. Maybe you appreciate what the stage, motion pictures, and television have all become today. But I do not.--TerryHTalk 20:51, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
StephenS, if you are saying that sinfulness is a personal judgement, then I disagree. If you are saying that claiming that (many of) the plots are sinful is a personal judgement, then I disagree. If you are saying that claiming that they have become more sinful is a personal judgement, I might agree with that, but on the other hand, I think it's fairly obvious when you compare modern plots with plots from 50 years ago, for example.
Having said all that, I'm not sure that it's relevant to mention what Nero would have thought of them.
Philip J. Rayment 00:42, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Skating on thin ice

User:StephenS, if that is the best you can do--call that which is sinful not sinful, and imply that Christian conventions are "narrow" and ought to be ignored--then your proposal to "correct" this article is not promising.

Do you deny that Nero, Emperor of Rome, would be proud of some of the spectacles that made it into film shortly before the enforcement-in-fact of the Motion Picture Production Code? Not to mention some of the spectacles produced today? I cannot even describe them in any detail without violating every rule of family friendship that I, as a senior administrator, am sworn to enforce here.

If you want to mention men like Henrik Ibsen and Anton Checkhov, mention them. But that is not what you started out doing. You started out watering down the criticism of what theater has become that I fully intended to convey and that I insist shall remain.

Now you know what I meant by "discuss that on this page first."--TerryHTalk 21:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I neither deny nor endorse the idea that Nero would be proud of today's spectacles. The whole argument is silly to begin with, since Nero is dead and cannot speak for himself. Your claim is purely speculative and entirely unfalsifiable, thus rendering it a personal opinion, which last time I checked does NOT belong in an encyclopedia.
I apologize if my edit offended. I thought conservapedia would embrace writing with a more scholarly and objective tone. Was I wrong? In any case, I should have time this week to add the edits regarding important playwrights I promised, and I won't interfere with your criticisms again.
Still, I beg you to reconsider 2 things:
1. Your assertion that theater is theater no matter the medium, is a view not commonly shared by people in the industry, nor the general public. I would very much like it if the article entitled "theater" would emcompass live theater only, as that is the modern understanding of the word. Television and film require completely different styles of acting, scriptwriting, directing, etc.
2. The attention given to Hays over people who actually contributed to the medium.
I understand that I have no power here, and I will not do any drastic edits without your blessings. As an amateur actor and a lover of the theater, I just want to make sure that people coming here can understand what a wonderful and powerful medium it can be when done correctly.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by StephenS (talk)
The reason that you will never "have power here" is that you doubt that men like William Hays and Joseph I. Breen made positive contributions to theater--that is, as theater defined more broadly. You disappoint me when you essentially assert that a set of rules designed to keep theater, or at least one part of it (i.e. motion pictures), wholesome, is an inherently wrong thing to do. I put it to you that the removal of the restraints that they laid on the motion-picture medium has ruined motion pictures.
In any event, I thought you took a lively interest in the contributions of certain playwrights. Where are the references to them? An objective summary of their contributions, with a link to articles devoted to each man and his work, would be most welcome.--TerryHTalk 22:15, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Modern Theater

This article diverges away from theater (in the stage sense) at the point of the second world war. Thus, it lacks mention of important modern practioners such as Brecht, who redefined theater during the war period. Similarly, it does not mention the developments beyond this point such as Absurdism and post-dramatic theater. Is there any reason that there is no further information on the development of theater as a stage medium listed? --Donald

"Donald" (as if that's actually your name), if you have something substantive to contribute to the entry then do so. If all you can do is complain on the talk page, then liberal Wikipedia might be a better place for you. Either contribute substantively or find another wiki to pollute with endless talk. DanielPulido 14:35, 4 September 2010 (EDT)