Talk:Filmmaking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Production Cycle

I believe that "Production Cycle" should not be capitalised. Anyone agree/disagree? Amelia Hunt 00:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

You're probably right - I just cleaned up the text that was there before in the form of a long and messy list and tried to turn it into something readable. I still think that work needs doing on the text itself (more wiki links for example). By the way...I dont know the first thing about film making so i didnt try and change the meaning of the text! Go ahead and make some bold changes ChrisUK 00:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, cheers. I agree that there is much to be done in terms of style and content. I too know nothing! - just surfed here, but will make a mental "to do" note. Amelia Hunt 01:48, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Also, other things, like "report sheet," probably shouldn't be capitalized. Is the list of things said by the production crew really necessary? I think that, at a minimum, the "1AD" acronyms there should be expanded, as I found myself constantly referring back to the list. Also, in the "Postproduction" part, the things done to create the final sound mix, like "walla," "SFX," and others, aren't defined in the text, and I think it would improve clarity if they were. Anyone agree or disagree? Alex Cohn 00:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A lot of the content can be boiled down like the list of things said. If you look back at the history to the one before I first did an edit you will see that the page was a right mess - it looked like a list brain dumped from a film students revision notes. All I did was to try and structure the page to allow some sensible editing to take place. I also think it needs to contain some more wiki links, even if they reference pages that don't exist yet. Go ahead and make bold edits! ChrisUK 11:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I did a light edit for style and a spellcheck, converting the haphazard US/US spellings to US, given the dominance of the US in the field. I rewrote the independent film section a bit, eliminating the bizarre reference to hip hop "mixtapes." This is a nice article, but seems to focus on the theoretical methodology of filmmaking rather than the art. I don't think it should become a retrospective of film technique, but acknowledging the realities of filmmaking (the things that can differ from production to production) would be good. (update: forgot to sign) --Tysto 00:18, 2005 May 7 (UTC)


[edit] Content

Encouragement:This article and others like it should try to incorporate examples from actual film product to achieve a undergraduate/graduate film school tone. People reading in the encyclopedia need to relate to the science of film making in terms of things they are aware of, who are inventing film science as they go. I am not talking about video links; I am talking about writing it from a film school graduate perspective. As one myself, I know what goes into this article. The best advice I could give would to Be Bold. Use discussion areas to generate the heavy discussion that comes with serious movie talk. Updating film articles is really simple, and it means adding goodies to the extant structures, like in this article, which is really good. This is a big project with a big diaspora of articles involved. Film is all about not treading on toes but getting things done. I don't want to tread on any toes. There is a definite structure to film. Clint Eastwood invented this, Hitchcock invented that, R.E.M. invented something else. Rocky Horror was made popular by the first African-American studio head, Chester Himes invented the post-Perry Mason crime drama look, and Asian films follow Chinese words very strictly in mise en scene and montage. Financing the movie is job one -- Jon Waters and Seinfeld/Larry David are perfect examples of pioneers in this field. Filmically, Jackie Chan is good. Clint Eastwood is good. Martin Scorsese is good and Madonna is good. One time my film teacher spent an hour lecturing on Bugs Bunny, and Merrie Melodies and it is so strange to think of how serious such lectures are. Its important to bring the film school tone to the reader. Wiki users want to enter this world. I certainly know the bounds of how to talk about these things in the public domain. This is something article writers up and down the tree of the Aesthetic Wiki will want to fee comfortable doing. If one considers that film professors are confidants and close friends of all the names involved in big productions, one can take comfort in this and realize one can write about known names and products without disturbing the legal parameters involved. For instance, people like George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola are friends of the people at the Film Studies departments at the various universities with quality film programs, and people like Michael Bay, a film school graduate, help to finance Film Studies Centers at different schools. The academic approach is a valid approach. Take a film class, in other words, and just apply it to one's work on the web. It is very analagous to taking Junior year chemistry and helping to write an oxidization article that makes sense. Will & Grace, Blue Man Group, O'Grady and 24 are the tip of the iceberg of product that flows from the school I attended. Managing the audience base is a science as good and defined as Astronomy or Biology and it should be treated that way. McDogm--64.12.117.10 13:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to add these ideas to this excellent, encyclopedic article.McDogm--172.141.51.243 06:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I just read the Community Portal sourced listing of this article and I disagree with the assessment. This article is absolutely sound and very scientific and the outline format is completely appropriate. --McDogm 18:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is about filmmaking. This point seems to confuse it with film theory, film aesthetics and film critique. Egrabczewski 06:25, 13 June 2006

I agree with Egrabczewski's statement. It is fine how it is. This is a technical article and there is no place for film theory, history, or great man theories of film in this article. There are plenty of other articles that cover these topics. --GHcool 08:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-production Expand request

Hello. I'm looking for more information about the copies that are made during the productin of a film. From the negative that comes out of the camera to the print that gets shipped to my local theatre (or transferred onto DVD). I can't seem to find this information in any one location. Here are some pages that seem to touch on it (some may be from the audio recording industry, but there is some overlap): Original camera negative, Fine grain master positive, Post-production, Remaster, Color reversal internegative, Film distributor, Digital intermediate; also Golden master, Telecine, Digital cinematography, Film preservation. Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 11:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Essentially, the camera negative is cut by a negative cutter, and is then printed out as an answer print. This is reviewed by the DP with a color timer (or colorist), who then reprint selected footage under more selective development for more precise color control. Usually an answer print is approved by the second or third printing. Once this has occurred, the sound will be "married" with the print - this may occur at the answer print stage anyway - and one or more interpositives are made to the specifications approved in the final answer print. From the interpositives, a handful of internegatives will then be struck from each of the interpositives. It is from the internegatives that the release prints will then be struck. Since each internegative and interpositive can only be used so much before they start to degrade, this is why you require several at each stage - if all of the internegs have been exhausted, then you need to go back to your interpositives to create more. If this happens enough, then eventually the interpositives will be exhausted too, which means going to strike more interpositives (and then internegatives) from the original negative. Because of all this, oftentimes it's the most successful movies that wind up in the worst condition for restoration, ironically, since all the source elements become excessively used. Girolamo Savonarola 08:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slating Procedure

My apologies to everyone who would have found the article on slating procedure useful. It has apparently been deleted without explanation or discussion. Egrabczewski 06:25, 13 June 2006

No it wasn't; it was transwikied to Wikibooks:Slating_procedure. Furthermore, you were made aware of this already during the AfD process. Girolamo Savonarola 08:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems not. When I click on your own link there is nothing there. So I reiterate the loss of very useful information. User:Egrabczewski 06:10, 20 Nov 2006

[edit] WikiFilmSchool.com

I've recently created a filmmaking wiki which I hope will grow into a large and useful resource and community for anyone trying to make movies and/or learn more about filmmaking. It is a newborn at the moment, but explore and add content at www.wikifilmschool.com HamillianActor 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Much of this applies to motion pictures created directly for television

Perhaps that's a separate article, but much of the content here applies to (non-live) TV productions as well. --EngineerScotty 17:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italicizing

Does anyone else have a problem with how many words are italicized? It seems to me like there is hardly any rhyme or reason to this in this article. --GHcool 08:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No opinions? In that case, I'm going to delete some of them. --GHcool 05:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It Shouldnt B Merged


[edit] Director of audiography (DOA)

Someone removed the reference to the DOA in this article. That's unfortunate because Bollywood films often have this credit.

For the sake of consistency, the entire article should be read before removing such references. The abbreviation "DOA" was left-in after the reference to the job was removed, making the article more confusing. I've put the link back in.

There is a proposal to merge the DOA with the Sound Designer. I'm unsure that they are quite the same. The idea of having a Director of audiography (or Sound Director) is a political as well as practical role. I don't believe the Sound Designer has, as yet, this type of influence or power.

Is there a Sound Designer out there who has been involved in the Preproduction phase of development and had overall power and influence over the sound budget of a film? If so then please let us know.

--Egrabczewski 06:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there were two roles - the production sound mixer or sound recordist is actually the person who does the on-set recording of sync sound, wild tracks, and on-set atmospheres. They don't do too much in regards to pre-production beyond requesting their kit and remaining generally informed of the circumstances of the production. After production, the sound designer, sound editor, sound mixer, and sound effects teams get to work coordinating all of the work in post. Usually the recordist/production mixer is not a part of the post process. According to a Google search of the IMDb, the term isn't generally used outside of Bollywood. That's probably because their is no single person in charge of sound from pre-production to release, unlike with the photography.
In conclusion, I agree that the sound designer article should not be merged, but I also think that the DoA article probably is best left to be redirected to production sound mixer, as well. Girolamo Savonarola 12:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-writing

Hello, I've just made some edits to the article but there's a few things I thought could be changed that I'd rather point out here first.

  • Stages of Filmmaking: is that long list really vital? Could just be left with the five stages. The rest is covered elsewhere.
  • Little bit of a bias towards certain forms of filmmaking i.e. things like 'pitching' and 'step outlines' are common but don't occur all the time, or in different filmmaking contexts. Steven Spielberg doesn't pitch, neither do low-budget filmmakers. And I doubt David Lynch makes a step outline. Nothing wrong with including these things but I'm not sure about presenting them as this is how it's done. Because it isn't necessarily.
  • Crew: I put in the word 'typically' in that section because again, these posts don't exist on every film, and some films might have hundreds more.
  • Production: seems a bit piecemeal. But it can't be too long I suppose.
  • See also section is very long, could it be trimmed?

JMalky 11:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added the 'unreferenced' tag to the head of the article. It was done in a constructive spirit! JMalky 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)