Talk:Option (filmmaking)

Theatrical options

I have incorporated this subject, which is very similar to film options, and so I don't think it rates its own page. JohnClarknew 22:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

article title

I suggest changing the title of this article to 'Option (screenwriting and playwriting)' because it applies to both and should be title searchable under both contexts. Similarly, I suggest changing the section headers from 'Film options' to 'Film script options' and 'Theatrical options' to 'Play script options'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydlewis (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of first sentence

Can the first sentence be clarified, please? "...an option is a contractual agreement between a potential film producer, such as a movie studio, a production company or an individual, and a writer or third party who holds ownership of a screenplay." It seems this is listing three parties, which is only suggested by the phrase "writer or third party", but when reading it the first time, I thought "potential film producer" referred to the movie studio, a production company, or the individual, which would leave the "writer or third party" phrase as only a second party. So if there are three parties listed here, maybe the sentence can read, "an option is a contractual agreement between three parties: a film producer, a production company or individual, and usually a writer who holds ownership of a screenplay" or similar. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

@Keraunoscopia: I agree with you completely. I just stumbled across what you have posted here only after noticing all of this and more to then detail my observations in a new section below. Oh well. Anyway, I find it notable how we both saw/felt how poor this was composed and hopped on here to announce the issue. Sometimes if you read talk page comments they influence your direction. I didn't read yours. To be crystal clear with what I'm saying: Two unrelated people essentially without the knowledge of the existence of the other individual both made the same observation. I sometimes doubt my observations of writing that needs work but this... well... I can safely say case closed because you contributed similarly. The page needs work period.

Now what actually matters- Who is going to do the fixarooing? Marc Bago (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

An individual or however many should aim to rewrite the blurb paragraph intro bit before the article's table of contents...

In my opinion, very little information is presented in the introductory sentences appearing before the table of contents. I had to read the article itself to actually understand what some certain things meant in the introduction. What goes to demonstrate the poor construction of this article's introduction is how, after the article actually starts, the first thing that is mentioned is, "To be more specific..." which is part of a one sentence explanation that is in fact shorter than the introduction yet sheds more light on what the hell an option really is exactly.

-I feel as if the second half of the introduction segment could be cut out and moved/pasted to a Miscellaneous or Other table of contents section. This information, i.e. books, articles, video games, blah blah, "real option analysis" assessing an option (which is what the reader is still trying to grasp their head around), and then the mention of Hollywood using this term as a verb is all very unrelated, unhelp, and borderline irrelevant information that should really not, and my feelings against the current intro grow stronger as I write this, be in the article almost at all. I mentioned in the first sentence of this current point this jumble of information being relocated to an area on the bottom of the page. I really think this needs to be done to improve the quality of the article.

-Perhaps all of the different possible types of people or groups that can possibly make a contractual agreement listed out in the very first sentence is not necessary. There must be a word to use for the intro that encapsulates all of these people/groups, who can then later be listed out. This listy sentence is not what I would consider an A Grade sentence.

-The following sentence was the first sentence that made me aware of the need to clean this article up. "A separate deal would be made with a screenwriter to write the screenplay, which is not an option." And then continues onwards, almost leaving the Wikipedia surfer at the end of a half paved path.

-There's more stuff, but it is slipping my mind at the moment. I'm going to add a tag label thingy to this page's top area, one of those notifications you first see when you visit a page, in hopes some kind stranger nurses it to health as to benefit all of humanity. Ha. If anything, I'll take the steps to fixing it but my perfectionism is something that causes me to invest way more time than I should in fixing it and I'm not trying to get too attached to this what I would call project.

Marc Bago (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Updated / Greetings from the future

(Or at least that's how it feels! Hello, people from the past. And everyone reading this now.)

I've attempted to rewrite and -structure this article according to the recommendations outlined here above, and added sources in places they were lacking. Currently trying to fix the mess I made of the r reference numbers.

Also, provisionally, removed the issues template message. \o/

--23:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Fireant314 (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)