do the title says all; what sets it apart as 'stage' 'movie' 'other' or whatever? what's wrong with just having rough directions as to what to do, and pointed out what to say, plus some places and times it's supposed to be (scene descriptions) and a costume and character list?

cos that seems to be where mine's heading...

Part of the differences in my mind are the capabilities on the stage vs cinema. There are no CGI special fx to fill things in. So the setting has to be something possible to recreate on the limit setting of a stage.

When I wrote my stage play last year, I initially had trouble adapting to the fact that I had ONE ROOM in which to tell the entire story from beginning to end. I couldn't go out and follow my characters around as they went about their daily lives - I had to keep them all in ONE ROOM. Six people in ONE ROOM.

And like the other poster said - you can't fill in the blanks with CGI or action shots. The characters are the action, and if you can't pull it off on stage, you can't pull it off.

Pretty much what the others have said...
If something is going to be performed on stage, you can't have any crazy special effects, nothing that requires computer editing, and you generally always need someone on stage for the audience to be watching- they don't like staring at an empty stage.
Directions for action also vary a little. In a screenplay, some writers put in basic camera angles/cuts into the script, based on how they see it in their heads (this is especially true if they plan to direct it themselves). In a stage play, you can't say that someone is going to wiggle their nose and clean up a room with magic, because there isn't really an easy way to pull that off on stage - the audience is watching your every move.

Pretty much a screen play without camera angles, special effects, etc. I'll be writing a stage play - hopefully - once I decide on a genre and plot - I forgot about Screnzy until today so...I'm lost as to what to write about!

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet, but on the stage, it's live. There are no re-takes to get it right. You either nail it or you don't and you have to roll with the punches.

You have to account for everyone getting on and off stage, pesky details such as getting props on and off, making sure the audience doesn't get distracted by multiple people on stage at once. How the set affects the show, how big a role lighting plays... This isn't to say you can't have any special effects. Smoke generators, flash pots, fog machines, and small fire crackers are all fair game.

I could go on, but I'll be quiet and think about how to tie my plot together.

"You think I'm bad??!! I'm the conservative in the group!" -Myself ~Hope~

My sister is studying film, and she sums it up like this:

In theatre, the audience is allowed to suspend disbelief, and fancy special effects aren't necessarily required to make it good.

In film, you have to make it as real as possible, because otherwise, it's really really bad.

Also, from an actor's perspective, stage acting is allowed to be a bit more unrealistic or exhaggerrated, while film acting also is more "realistic" and natural, because you're not trying to get people at the back of the house to hear and see what you're doing.

I agree on the acting point - we pretty much assume that film acting will be realistic. If someone were doing a film version of Antigone, we wouldn't expect stylized acting.

I'd like to toss up The Princess Bride as a counterpoint to the suspension of disbelief thing. That movie's chock full of shots that look horribly fake (the sea, the cliffs of insanity, the ROUS), but that's part of the campy fun. But it is true that you couldn't have filmed that movie in a black box theater and had the same effect, so it's true you need a certain minimum of production. In theater you can have people dressed in black act out Hamlet in an empty space and it still works.

I hope I am not re-covering the same ground as others, but...here I go. I have written and taught about writing for the stage and there are a number of major considerations that are purely practical.
1. Try to limit the number of different sets. Sets cost money. Sets take up room backstage. The perfect play has ONE set. That makes it much more accessible for everyone including community theatre, who do the majority of productions. You want it to be produced, right? And ask yourself, do I need to change to another set here, or could all of this happen in the same place, maybe just later in the day, or flashback or something?
2. Keep your cast SMALL. And more or mostly women is better than men. Again, this is because that is the reality of community theatre. And that is who is most likely to pay for your play. It is easier, cheaper, and less hassle to cast. I don't necessarily follow this, but I find in editing, that what I wrote as 4 characters can actually be one recurring role. Otherwise, think double casting. Could you make it 2 same gender minor roles that could be played by the same actor?
3. This is not a movie, you can't have a one page scene followed by another one page scene, etc. Try to maintain a sense of it happening and unfolding right before the audience's eyes. A typical scene in a play may last 10 minutes or more. Some plays are real time, and therefore one scene. Be careful not to change scenes just "because". The audience does not always have to see what happened. Many times, a character can tell us about an incident in a play that would be shown in a movie (again this is the multiple sets, multiple scenes thing).

An easy way to understand this is to read a play then watch the movie.
"Steel Magnolias" works really well. You can see many things in the movie which are only discussed in the beauty parlor in the play. And the play takes place ONLY in the beauty parlor (the one set rule). And there are no men in the play (smaller cast, and all women).

Then try to imagine yourself having to produce your play. How do you accomplish the number of sets? How many people do you have to cast? You usually can solve many of these problems this way.

These are practical considerations. A good story will grab the audience, whether on stage or on film.

The primary difference I have noticed lies in the staging of a play. On film, the director can use camera angles and shot composition to focus the audience. For example: that often used shot (the official name slips my mind) where the focus switches from foreground to background (or vice versa). The filmmaker is able to tell the audience, just through that simple adjustment, which elements of the shot are important.

Onstage, the same clarity of focus must be achieved, but without the ability to focus the audience using technological means. Everything must be focused, or "framed" physically, using the elements of stage production. I'm actually of the opinion that the stage director's job is more creatively challenging than that of the film director, because every single moment of the production must be framed with enough specificity to communicate the play to the audience.

There have been a couple of assertions that limiting set/scene changes will make a play better. The truth is, while this is a valid & powerful choice for many plays, there are really no limitations to what can happen onstage. Because everything IS ultimately abstracted - the sets, lights, characters, etc. are all representations - anything can be done or represented onstage. Realism is overrated, remember.

The only rule of putting on a play - don't hurt yourself or the audience. And, if it's against fire codes, don't burn anything.

Having read all the previous comments, I have to add what might sound like dissension.

Live theatre, above all, is about imagination. The audience has to buy in and interac with the play for it to be successful — even something as direct as a Neil Simon potboiler comedy requires you to pay attention. A movie however requires no more than you put your mind in neutral and sit back.

Theatre isnt about doing everything in a single set. A good director like Julie Taymor can create an entire universe on stage by using little more than a black backdrop, a ladder, a few chairs, and maybe a couple of oversized apples. It's what you *do* with your physical production that can push the audience's imagination in any direction you want. And with the rampant-yet-inexpensive technology available these days, you can create worlds upon worlds. Yes, audiences are more forgiving when it comes to theatre in their use of special effects than movies. But that's because, again, theatre is such a one-time-only event that special effects, whether mechanical or projected or both, add to the "thrill ride" aspect of it all.

As others have intimated, theatre is unique in that it's immediate. You get the moment and no more, because there's no retakes, no redos, no Mulligans. And that's half the fun: the audience *wants* something to go wrong, because that's the thrill of a live performance.

Ive designed over 200 productions, from grand opera to pocket drama — and I can tell you this with certainty: nothing compares to a well-done performance. Nothing.

These are my main differences

-In theatre everything is based around the story. Since you can't have huge action or special effects you must engage your audience with your wit/humor/drama/etc.

-An experience at the theatre always changes. You can see the same play/musical several times and each time will be different. Each time you see a movie you are getting the exact same performance.

-In theatre the audience knows the actors know they are there. This means a few things. It means that they accept the fact that everything in a room faces one way. They also accept the fact that the people in the story talk past each other instead of talking to each other. The audience also wants more than a story to view through a 4th wall. They want the actors and characters to speak to them and deliver them lines and make them laugh. Its like the whole you try to be funnier or smarter or whatever when you know people are watching.

As it's been said above, Theatre is alive. in Theatre, you have only a certain number of people to work with, and limited space. It is possible to do a multi-set play, you just have to be creative. I've done Christmas Carol with a large rolling set-piece to hold Scrooge and Christmas Past. Alice in Wonderland with a few small set pieces for each scene. It all depends on how far you're willing to stretch your mind. But in Theatre, you do only have so much space to work with, and not a 373$ million budget with which to do it.

You don't need to keep them in one room, you need to find ways to change that room quickly. We have a small stage and I mean small- 15 x 20 feet. I did the play SYLVIA. I attached huge Warped buildings to the sides of the presidium and the wall at the side- they lit up in the night scenes, I put twinkle lights behind the blacks so I could have stars show through. I took one of the walls and made it revolve so it was a park on back and the bench in the apartment opened up and turned to become a park bench in the park scenes and when the picture that was on the wall swung open it was the board at the airport and the bench became the airport seats. I used spotlight on the character at the end of one scene and the rest of the stage in darkness to let my ASM swing the wall and turn the bench each time. I was nominated for best set in a comedy so it certainly did work. Try some various ways of adapting the room- you don't have to stay there.

I think one of the biggest differences is the presence of a fixed fourth wall. The fourth wall is always present more or less in any type of media including film, but on the stage the fourth wall is ever present. The fixed fourth wall combined with a general lack of significant sound amplification forces certain actions on the stage that you don’t see in a movie where you can get close-ups and different angles for character shots.

I agree 100% with SeanMartin and pniesiobedzki. Anything I would write would just be parroting these two great comments.