Talk:Previsualization

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): Filmmaking task force

[edit] Dozoretz inclusion

Please don't delete the information regarding Knoll/Dozoretz. Dozoretz is perhaps the biggest pioneer of the field, more or less starting it in earnest with work in Mission Impossible and using it extensively to essentially create a pre-viz cut of the entirety of each of the Star Wars prequels before filming began. He was also the first person hired for the prequels, with good cause. He's been cited as one of the top three pre-viz artists in the world by a noted FX publication. His interview with PC Magazine also clearly establishes his place central to the blossoming of the field. That he doesn't have an article on WP yet is an omission that hopefully will be addressed in the near future. Girolamo Savonarola 19:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit is nonsensical - Lucas didn't previz the films. Furthermore, while discussing Dozoretz's role in an article on the film may indeed be a "minor player" mention, bringing up the name of the guy who created the field of modern previsualization is plenty germane in an article on Previsualization. If you have further problems with this, cite something to the contrary. Girolamo Savonarola 19:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So why not mention the other "TOP THREE" pre-viz artists? Why not mention Ron Frankel? I know previz people that could run rings around David. What is the point in mentioning his name where it does not belong. He is/was a minor player.

The fact that the inclusion of only one artist's name (and not any others) is why the omission should be enacted. In your previous discussion piece, you mention that he is ONE of the top three previsualization artists (from an article dated from 2002). This leads us to the question of "Why not mentuion the other two?" So he was the first previz-artist hired at the 'Ranch. Should we not also mention the first previz artists hired at Warner Brothers?

I mean, really? There is no mention of hardware and software used, techniques, or even a brief description of the process- and yet you see fit to "drop names." The sad thing is this is all too "Hollywood." The awesome thing is, that people are going to see this discussion, and realize what a crock the name dropping is anyway.

Enjoy!

Perhaps you could actually open an account here instead of sniping from the sidelines. The notion that Dozoretz is a minor player is laughable when he pretty much started the field and supervised the work on the most previz-intensive films yet created. Why was Frankel omitted? I didn't write the Dozoretz section to begin with, so I don't know. I'm guessing that the other two were chosen on the merits of their work, which I'm not qualified to judge; however, Dozoretz was chosen not only for the films he worked on, but the amount of influence he's had in the creation of the field. I don't think it's unreasonable to include notable founding artists when discussing the history of a field. This is an encyclopedia - we are supposed to cite names when they are relevant to the article. If you want to add Frankel and Green's contributions to the field, please do as I am not familiar with the specifics of their particular work. I'm going to do a more thorough edit of this page in the next few days, with references. If you have sourced information which negates Dozoretz's involvement with the creation of modern CGI-based previsualization, cite it, otherwise future edits may be regarded by other editors as vandalism. Girolamo Savonarola 21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] name dropping is not information

Cite what??? How do you 'prove' something that DIDN'T HAPPEN? You are asking me to cite articles that proves David Dozoretz is not the single handed "founder" of previsualization? Are you on crack? The fact of the matter is this: You (or the original author) cited Dozoretz name like three times in the article. Please get his flacid penis out of your mouth, and consider a well written entry like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storyboarding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.12.103 (talk • contribs)

Yes, they mention a few artists- nothing wrong with that. But, your account is more of a fairy tale, describing the "GLORIOUS HIRING" (LMAO) of the magnificent DAVID DOZORETZ as the king of Previz. Cut us all some slack, remove your puckered lips from his anus, and make a useful entry instead of worrying about who's "sniping" your beloved post.

If you're going to make personal attacks, then I cannot assume that you are editing in good faith. The end. Girolamo Savonarola 23:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between a personal attack and a personl endorsement when it comes to providing INFORMATION. Now you feel the frustration of viewers who are forced to sift through dribble to try and discern truth about an entry. The end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.12.103 (talk • contribs)

One difference is that personal attacks can get you banned from Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks KarlBunker 00:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the nature of your edit, I don't see where you've given any valid reason for it. A Google search shows that David Dozoretz is a well-recognized name in the field of previsualization. The word "glorious" does not appear in the text you're removing. So without misrepresenting your edit, and without personal attacks and vulgar language, do you have reason for making this edit? KarlBunker 01:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. We're new to discussion about previs. Surely we're not stars as David and others but we did worked hard for nearly two decades doing previs when no name was attached to this process. I can recall doing previs using sinclair spectrum and Amiga, but I don't feel the need to enter that as I'm not sure if anyone can use that information. Only reason would be PR. So if David or other people can do good PR while providing useful information - I guess it's ok. History is remembering people that are more shouted around, but I guess it's natural thing. For example - I'm sure everyone knows who is Thomas Edison, but not many people knew who was Nikola Tesla : ) Wikipedia is actually meant to deliver information that can be useful for people, in one form or another.

Just today I entered a proposal for new term - superprevis. We were doing previs for blockbuster Feature films since end of 80s, and we feel that previs should be much more than camera planning, and can serve much better on creative side of film-making. Ideally - every film will after the script is nearly finished enter superprevis stage, where all film elements are orchestrated. It will be an amazing tool to plan the movie. Hopefully it can mean more jobs to animators, as Hollywood can start greenlighting superprevis works - rather than scripts. Please read our entry about superprevis as we're interested to hear more about what you think about it. Dear Girolamo - I understand your point completely, as we also know many excellent hard-working artists, but somehow - history is always on the side of lucky ones - guys that happened to work in cool companies : ) Me and few of my friends were "wrists" on many projects - doing jobs of few directors, and we don't even got our names out there... I guess when you work too much, you don't have time for PR at all : )Girolamo - where do you work at the moment?

Best regards from Dragon (the poor unknown previs artist who wishes that previs can become an appreciated art-form (which it surely can be)).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceDragon (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No such thing as Superpreviz!

I have worked in the film industry for about 15 years and have never heard of "Superprevis." SpaceDragon, please site sources or remove this entire text from this article. Please keep discussion centered around Previs, not obscure proposed terms that point to your own company which I believe happens to be called "Superprevis."