Talk:Movie Making Manual

RE: General points
Hey TP again here!

First of all, a sincere and absolute thanks to all the people who has contributed to this book.

I know it might seem arrogant to show up out of nowhere and critisize the structure, and please take it for what it is. Just another opinion! Believe it or not, im just trying to be helpful in the spirit of the wikipeople.

Just a short comment to your points.

1 & 2 # I agree. I will time stamp this one, and future comments.

3 # I Agree.

4 # You are right about information being duplicated. But I was thinking of a set of crossreferences. I.ex: a pitching article, would apply to producers, screenwriters and directors. One could simply have the same article linked to several places. And add links under the article to whatever other areas it touches on. I believe this can be achieved using categories.

4b # Changing the structure of the book, you are right it would be a huge job. And it would'nt look very good while it was implemented and experimented forth.

What about starting with making categories for the different work fields? And inserting the appropriate articles there? It would not interfere with the rest of the book.

Kind regards

- TP

--TP81 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

General points
Hi, I'm Jack - one of the people who set up the MMM. I'd like to make some general points to the comments below:


 * 1) It's great that this book is gaining momentum - thanks loads to everyone getting involved!
 * 2) Please PLEASE sign and date-stamp your comments!
 * 3) I agree that this book should be readable by noobs.  But I also feel very strongly that this book should aim to satisfy the needs of both the noob and the practicing professional.  And I believe that _is_ possible - we just need good introductory chapters to help frame the more complex stuff.  And, to be honest, the web is already full of material that caters for noob filmmakers.
 * 4) The structure of the book aims to reflect the structure of a film production.  The problem with having "for directors" or "for producers" section is that lots of material would end up getting duplicated.  For example, pretty much everyone on a film production needs to know the basics of cinematography, for example.  Also, changing the structure of the book would be a big, BIG job - you'd have to change every single page title, every category name, every link etc.

dan_aka_jack 11:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Structure of the whole book
I find the whole structure of this book somewhat confusing. And as I see it, the better the structure, it will be more useful and one would also get more input, and the better the book! So from my point of view this is very important. One has to think of the users. Probably many are beginning filmmakers like me, and it is called the Movie Making Manual.

I would like to suggest a break down of the articles along the following lines:

1. For directors. Here I would put all material concerning the artistic choices while making a film, as well as a description of the directors usual role in the process. Actors, film techiques, film theory, film language, locations etc. Ofcourse bordering subjects like stories and scriptwriting must also be here, in addition to the other categories.

2. For producers. Description of the producers role, budgeting, organizing etc etc.

3. Cinematographers. Techiques, looks, light and cameras, etc.

4. Scriptwriters. Scriptwriting, survinging, selling, pitching, copyrighting, organizations etc.

5. Sound and sound design. Techical and artistic information

6. Editing. Theory and practicalities.

7. Other functions: need its own submenu. Lights, set design, props, AD'ing! and so forth.

8. Film theory: The basis

This is the approach most film schools work from, and I personally think they might be right. It would also be good to have colored blocks with this on the front page. I honestly think this would increase the readability and usefulness of the book. My only question is whether there is enough content yet for such a structure.

So whats your opinions?

Regards

TP.

(And what are the rules about linking to wikipedias many good articles regarding film and filmmaking? Can we simply steal them?) (I would also wish upon a stronger emphasis on making short films, as in reality, most people who make features, or are making their first, know most of the stuff here. Through making short films!)

Movie Making Manual Formatting
Hi, I've got a few suggestions how to make the Movie Making Manual easier to read: Feedback, Suggestions? Cramer 10:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Make the colorful banners half their current size to streamline the layout, they will still stand out enough, but currently they overwhelm the page
 * Categories like Category:Writing_movies are difficult to read because all articles start with "Movie Making Manual-" or "MMM/". How about naming each article so that it can stand on its own (no more "MMM" and "Movie Making Manual-" in article titles), and use the top navigation and categorization features to bind them all together?


 * Hi Cramer. Thanks loads for your feedback.  You're right, the MMM is in a bit of a mess.  To answer your two suggestions:
 * Banners: I certainly don't mind if you modify them, sounds like a good idea. Cauri is the guy who designed the banners but I'm not sure whether or not he's got the time to contribute to the MMM at the moment.
 * Page Naming. Yes, it's in a bit of a mess. First off, category names of the form Category:Writing_movies are depreciated because they violate the WikiBooks naming convention... instead we're slowly switching over to category names of the form Category:MMM:writing (i.e. prefixing the category names with MMM).  I'd love to find a way to strip away all the uglyness from the page names but I'm not sure it's allowed (unless you know of some cool new MediaWiki feature I don't know about?).  The page names of the form MMM-Page Name are now depreciated and we're slowly moving over to MMM/Chapter/Page Name.  I'm a big fan of the forward-slash system because it puts breadcrumb trails at the top of each page which helps navigation.  I'm pretty sure we're obliged by the WikiBooks naming convention to include the book name in every page title.  As far as I'm aware, the only way to have an entire book that has "clean" page titles like "Page Title" would be to install and run our own wiki.  Take a look at MMM/Preface/How You Can Help for more detailed info about our existing naming system.
 * dan_aka_jack 17:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to see (all of?) the modules for the Movie Making Manual be subpages of said book. We currently have several different ways of doing page naming with this book. Midnightcomm 19:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I appologise for the mess. If you have some time it would be great if you could help migrate the book naming from the old "Movie Making Manual-Page Name" form to the new "MMM/Chapter Name/Page Name" form. dan_aka_jack 15:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Module merge to use
This is a suggestion from the people who are working on this book.

The following module may be useful to merge into this Wikibook somehow: VideoCodecs

If you choose not to use this Wikibook module, please add the   to that page, so we can get rid of it. Otherwise rename the module to conform to the naming conventions here. --Rob Horning 17:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. We'll adopt it.  Looks very useful.  Thanks. dan_aka_jack 14:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Superlatives!
Hi there - can i just say, what a find this wikibook is! It's really great - it looks good, it's exciting - great work! It's been my burning desire for well over ten years to make a film, and I might just be dipping in to get some tips or add my own if I can. I haven't looked at everything, but I think it would be good to have a bit more on storyboarding, ie images that actually show an extreme close-up, wide angle etc. Also, has anyone heard of the Wikimentary idea? Basically, it is an idea for video files to be available to edit together collaboratively - how it will actually work is anyone's guess, but I thought you might be interested. And the films you mention as being in pre-production - are you developing them here as an idea/script/process, or just writing up about the experience after it's done? Anyway, keep up the good work! Cormaggio 19:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Basic Basics
Hi.

This movie making manual seems really promising. The only thing I'm wondering about is that seems a bit in-depth for people who are thinking about making their very first short movie. I mean, you don't really need to go through all the steps mentioned in the basic basics bit, if all you want to do is experiment with making a short story with a couple of actors, and editing it together on your computer. That said, I really like the idea of a movie making wiki like this, and hey, maybe I'll contribute some stuff myself in the future, if you'll allow, because I've made a few short movies myself.

Cheers!Doom jester 16:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting / Audience
In my opinion, the main target audience for this Wikibook should be people who are interested in low-budget indie filmmaking. Most of the people who read this book will likely fall in this camp. I don't think this site should be geared as much towards professionals, since the information is very specific (i.e. funding a feature in Canada is different than in the US, and features are different than music videos or corporate) and it's unlikely that there'd be enough knowledgeable contributors to get something going.

For people who want to get their feet wet in making films, I think the Wiki should be structured into two main areas: And then there could be another layer that goes more in depth... i.e. Lighting 201, Audio 201, Color Enhancement / Film Look 202, etc.
 * There are course/guides which explains the general concepts. It should provide just enough detail to produce a film, and not overwhelm the user with too much information!  There would be a bunch of modules or courses like:  My First Film 101, Lighting 101, Audio 101, etc.

A "My first film" module would be the introduction for people like Doom jester, who don't want to wade through the entire wikibook and want to get their feet wet.


 * A reference section, with in-depth information. For example, there could be a section on grip equipment which lists all the various pieces of equipment, how to use it, and the applications.

All The Steps are Necessary
Anyone can make a motion picture. All you have to do is learn all the steps.

Learning only a few of the steps does NOT work. Having a "My First Film" section would skip steps. And when you skip steps, you will wonder why your movie does not look right.

It is like making a clock. If you an eliminate some of the gears and wheels then you don't see the minutes, just the hours.

The steps of making a motion picture were developed in the mid 1930s after sound was added. Since then, little has changed. New technology such as digital video still requires the same steps. The steps might be done differently now but they steps still need to be done.

Alternative #1: If you do not want to learn all the steps, simply grab a camcorder and a Macintosh computer with Final Cut Express and begin. Slowly, you will learn what filmmakers have learned 70 years ago. Of all the ways of learning how motion pictures are made, this is the most fun way to learn.

Alternative #2: Become a PA. Anyone can work on a motion picture by becoming a Production Assistant. Today, you can go to the Troma website and look the section about volunteering to work on a movie. Other studios are not as open about getting a job as a Production Assistant and in Hollywood, there is competition to become an unpaid Production Assistant. Still, you can have an interesting experience and work on real motion pictures.

Alternative #3: Become experienced with one step and do that for other filmmakers. If you are extremely observant and take excellent notes, become script supervisor. No degree is required to be a script supervisor. One really good book and perhaps a one day class is all you need. The job of script supervisor is the best possible vantage point for seeing everything that goes on during production of a motion picture.

Alternative #4: Learn film editing. This is best training for anyone who wants to be a movie producer, a movie director, a film composer, a sound effects person and of course a motion picture editor. In film editing, you control how the entire movie comes together. In the past, this was very difficult since the only place you can edit real motion picture or television drama is inside the film studios or the post production houses of Hollywood. However, now that every personal computer comes with an editing program, more and more companies are releasing film dailies from real motion pictures for you to edit at home. If you cannot find any other source of unedited scenes, try the Star Movie Shop. In a few years, I think that even Apple computer will have unedited scenes from hot, new television dramas on the iTunes website for you to edit.

Missing Steps
There are lots of sections still missing in the book. How do you add sections to the Table of Content for MMM?

Example #1: Animation is described as a way of creating visual effects. The animation section of MMM does not explain that animation can be used to make entire motion pictures. To be complete, this book should show all the steps of making an animated movie... which is in a different order than the steps for making a motion picture with a camera.

Anyone who can draw can buy a simple 2D animation program such as Toon Boom and make their own feature film. None of that in explained anywhere in this book so far.

Also, 3D character animation is not explained in the book. Neither is the theory of using digital puppets which are 3D characters that you purchase off the shelf from companies such as DAZ and Poser.

All the steps of making an animated motion picture need to be explained.

Example #2: The telecine section is listed last in post production. It should also be listed first before editing. Most telecine is done to prepare dailies for editing on personal computers. Therefore, a new catagory should be added for Prep of film dailies or telecine of the dailies. This seems like a trivial task but you will see that it is not once you read all that must be done to prepare a movie for editing.

Robert Purser, Editor, Digital Puppet magazine

Theory
What exactly is intended to go in the theory chapter? I mean, isn't that sort of what all the other chapters cover? Athox 23 September, 2006


 * I think this section should be about critical theory and how film is interpreted (psychoanalytic, deconstruction, etc). If this seems appropriate, I'd love to start the page. However, I too am not 100% sure of the page's purpose. If this seems correct to everybody I could do a rough outline of the different approaches. Let me know if this approach to the page seems appropriate here or on the theory talk page. Theadorerex (discuss • contribs) 03:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

film and filmless movie making
I would be nice to see this Wikibook cover both film and filmless movie making. The two are very different in many ways-Miketm 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Request
Someone marked Movie Making Manual/Film_Academy Training for speedy deletion, which I changed to a votes for deletion due to my uncertainity of the situation. The reason given was it was an "advertisement". Are the authors/editors aware of this and in agreement that it should be deleted? You can find the votes for deletion discussion here.

--darklama 03:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

US Resources
I've noticed that a lot of the content in the MMM is directed towards the UK or applies to those only in the UK. I, for one, would like to see a lot more content that applies to the US, and other countries. Just a suggestion.

~Vaare Valentino 12 February, 2007

Appendices?
What was added at the bottom looks pretty much like an ad. I haven't been contributing to this project, so I am rather uncomfortable about doing a quick revert. Somebody else want to jump in on this one? Weaponofmassinstruction 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

PDF?
When is this going to be turned into a PDF? My internets are being a bit slow recently, so I would prefer to download it and read it at my leisure. Please do It soon! Great guide by the way.

Orphaned pages

 * Movie Making Manual/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/HVR-V1
 * Movie Making Manual/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/RED
 * Movie Making Manual/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/Slow Mo
 * Movie Making Manual/Cinematography/Learning cinematography
 * Movie Making Manual/Cinematography/The Perfect Camera
 * Movie Making Manual/Clapper board
 * Movie Making Manual/Hosting
 * Movie Making Manual/Post-production/Importing From a DVD
 * Movie Making Manual/Sales and Exhibition/Burning a DVD
 * Movie Making Manual/Special Effects

These are not linked to by this book. Please mark them for deletion with, link to them, or merge them into another page and mark them with. – Adrignola talk 00:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets Bring MMM Back to LIFE!
Hi, I've recently found this wikibook, and I think it's feeling a little outdated and unorganized, (no offence) so I'm hoping we can bring this wikibook back to life with updated information and be an much more efficient read for people on the fly. So, I have a few things I would like to add, first of all, Chapters? I saw it mentioned in the introduction, and I think it could be awesome. I like the Pre, Pro, and Post production, but in that, there are so many areas, Cinematography, being my more favoured area, there are like 4 pages, The perfect camera I have rewritten, but I think it is an orphan currently, so I'm going to try and structure what I can using the current system, but if anyone would like to help, PLEASE do. Illusional (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions
As part of a project-wide infrastructure upgrade, I've renamed this book's categories and templates to use current project-wide preferred conventions. The book category is, and its subcategories have names starting with  ; book-specific templates all start with. In several cases there were redundant categories or templates with slight variations in name, which I merged (the number of categories dropped from a little over 50 down to 34).

It seems to me this book would be better off using some other organizational scheme than directly sending readers to the categories. One technique available would be dynamic page lists; other possibilities may be opened up hereafter by semi-automation. (Ping: User:Illusional.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)