Talk:Filmmaking/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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 (UTC)

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)

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— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.42.165 (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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 November 2006 (UTC)

Information about slating can be (appropriately) found in the clapperboard article, which is referenced in the Production section where relevant. Binba (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Personally, I think that the article is in dire need of improvement: all the information is there, but it needs coherent editing to summarize such a vast topic for a reader who is not a film graduate or professional. Is there any one article that explains "how to build a skyscraper"? I believe we need to establish the bare necessities of filmmaking to include The Blair Witch Project, Kubrick's 11-year old filmmaker vision, animation and experimental films - and then move on to some specifics of commercial narrative production. Binba (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also rewrote the whole Production section (and welcome any revisions, of course). Binba (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The lack of references is also dismal, given the large number of books on the topic. I added one, and therefore upgraded the tag from 'unreferenced' to 'additional citations needed.' Binba (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Girolamo - postproduction sound is coordinated by the Supervising Sound Editor or the Post Production Supervisor. However, there is currently a growing pressure in Hollywood and independent Western productions to have a Director of Audiography or Sound Director or Director of Sound to supervise the whole sound experience of a production. Some productions in the Western world are now starting to recognise the importance of this role. It remains to be seen how much the industry takes up the role. But for now, the fact remains that this role definitely exist in the Eastern world and we must not forget that Wikipedia is not just about Western culture. Egrabczewski 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

/* Film and Television Production Manager */

The film and Television Industry encompasses many professions with a diverse set of skills and working practices.

All productions work to a fixed budget that is agreed to prior to commencement. These budgets vary from the huge sums required to make a feature film or major TV drama, right down to whatever a group of aspiring filmmakers can pull together to make a short film, music promo or student project.

One thing remains constant. One person must manage the budget. This could be the producer but invariably the producer will be working closely with the creative team and making sure the Director, Crew and Talent are all working toward delivering the best possible programme.

The Production Manager will take the agreed budget and with the producer plan where funds will be allocated.

Once a plan is in place the next job for the production manager is to attach services to each area within the production from start to finish.

Planning for programme making can contain many variables and these have to be accounted for.

A successful Production Manager must have a good working knowledge of many areas of commerce.

• Business planning • Documentation • Scheduling • Team Management • Negotiation • Procurement • Cash Flow • Union procedures • Contract Law • Health and Safety • Risk management • Human Resources • Local Bylaws • National Bylaws • VAT • Insurance • Logistics • Acquisition Technology • Post production Technology

A Production Manager will manage all the aspects of running a production except for the directly creative areas. However, even in these the production manager will oversee these with respect to costs incurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLIrwin (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The 5 Stages

I'm contemplating some serious changes to this page, so I thought I should include my thoughts here before barging forward. I agree with the basic structure of this article, and the five stages themselves are very well established - what I'm proposing is this: Simplifying the "five stages" subsections, and giving each their own article with more detailed information (yes, some of the stages already have separate articles). More specifically, as it would apply to each section:

• Development - The current description of development presents it as a rather specific, step by step process. In reality, film development is often a years-long process in which various things are happening simultaneously on multiple fronts (creative, financial, legal, etc). It definitely warrants its own article. An informative article on development would not only shed light on how important this step is in the process, but also provide insight on why certain films get made and others don't.
• Pre-production - This section is unnecessarily detailed, especially considering that there is an existing article on Pre-production. The stand alone article on pre-production doesn't even include a lot of the details in the filmmaking article. The more detailed information (such as what different crew members are doing at this stage) can be consolidated into the Pre-production article, and this section can be streamlined.
• Production - There is a lot of granular information here that I believe is unnecessary in an article that is supposed to cover the entire process of filmmaking, from the first kernel of an idea to theatrical release. I think this section could be simplified, and that a much more detailed article on film production could be created. I will admit that there is the potential for confusion between "filmmaking" and "film production" - especially considering that the heading of this article conflates the two as analogous terms. In the industry, this confusion is sometimes dealt with by referring to the actual production stage as physical production, although in this context I'm not sure that helps. However, there is enough to be said about this part of the process that it deserves its own article (especially given that Pre-production and Post-production have their own articles). I have noticed that when most people think about "how movies are made", they imagine actors and lights and a camera on a film set, with a director yelling "action", but I believe it's important to emphasize that this is only one part of a larger process.
• Post-production - This section could actually be expanded upon slightly. The article on Post-production could probably be elaborated upon as well, although this is not my area of expertise.
• Distribution - This section is adequate, and creating a new article for "film distribution" may be a little redundant, since most of the relevant info is already in the Film distributor article. Film marketing is also a part of this stage, so the Film promotion article is relevant. Perhaps a "See also" to both would suffice.

--Griffithfk (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Production Cycle

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

Hello, I'm not sure if the following violates the talk page guidlines, but since it relates to the written material, I believe it to a valid point. I personally found that the "list of things said by the production crew" to be informative. It provides a solid understanding to the common terms often heard in movies and television shows regarding a shoot - similar to being there. S Skie (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2012 (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 December 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, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

References

I couldn’t help noticing there are no sources for… well, nearly everything in this article. Which is surprising, given the number of specific details. So I tagged it with {{refimprove}}. I also find myself agreeing with User:Griffithfk above. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Cinema"

The usage of "cinema" is under discussion, see talk:movie theater -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

TV SERIALS AND MOVIES ACTING..

Hello sir, I am Shahid Mahetar. Dear sir Mujhe TV serials &Movies Acting me interest he plz contact mo : 9033025666 . From : Gujarat. Shahid Mahetar (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Buying a book

I am trying to order a Mark Twain Adaptation of "Tom Sawyer" book. The making of, Behind the Scenes, 1973 edition. Douglas Kirkland, Frank Stanley Shot the movie in Arrow Rock and Lupus, Missouri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.227.130 (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)