Talk:Movie making manual

Join the discussion on the MMM Google Group

Apple icon
I've seen that icon before. I know it's from iMovie or FCP or one of those. It looks awfully familiar; it's from an Apple product. It's altered, but I don't think that makes it legal. 65.35.3.81 23:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi 65.35.3.81 (!), thanks loads for your comments. This issue was discussed briefly in the Google Groups list a while back... please do get involved in the discussion at the link above. Dan AKA Jack 10:15 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)

PC vs. Windows
The "Movie Making Manual-PC in film production" section should really read "Movie Making Manual-Windows in film production". A PC is a Personal Computer. Windows is just one OS that can run on the x86 arch.


 * Yeah, good idea. I'll move it... Dan AKA Jack 11:18 16 April 2005 (GMT)

WTF
I don't mean to be so negative, but I just read through the whole screenwriting section and it made me sick. It's HORRIBLE. The entire section focuses on futile tips and pointers to get a script accepted by a Hollywood studio and the screenwriter as merely one small cog in the machinery of one of them. The "writing for low budget" part made me laugh. It mentions writing extra scenes to have a "clean" version for when it goes to TV, and how to keep the rating down in order to sell more. In my opinion, this section should focus on ways to make a script believeable, with more focus on writing for low-budget, DIY projects. Ninety percent of the info here is completely worthless to anyone who isn't practically established in Hollywood.


 * Thanks for your comments. I would make two suggestions. Firstly, come and discuss your opinions in the MMM Google Group - we could do with a bit of controversy to spice things up! Secondly, if you don't like the content then edit it! Dan AKA Jack 8:55 22nd Sept 2005 (GMT)


 * As the person who wrote that section (for the most part) I'll say that it comes from my experience in the industry, dealing with a particular genre and distribution of film, namely action-adventure for the international market. Many other types of scripts exist for many other different demographic groups. I have written and read scripts from these other genres, however I do not feel qualified to run on about it as I have not yet produced these films. I think the section on screenwriting can benefit from your input as to how to makie a film believable, the two subjects do not have to remain mutually exclusive. The section needs more information... please write it. cauri 10:53 22nd Sept 2005 (GMT)

module naming
Hi, I believe you should consider refactoring the MMM to use either: See Naming policy for more information about this. Kellen T 17:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A false namespace, like the cookbook. E.g. "Movie making manual:Screenplay format"
 * Subpages. E.g. "Movie making manual/Screenplay format"


 * Hi Kellen. Many thanks for your comments. To be honest, we gave quite a lot of thought to the module names (you can read our discussion on the topic here). Kellen, do you feel our existing naming convention is so bad that it MUST be changed? To be honest, it'll be a fair amount of work to change every module and I'm not eager to go through that hassle unless it's absolutely necessary. Dan AKA Jack 8:58 22nd Sept 2005 (GMT)


 * No, I don't think it must be changed, but it does look a bit odd in relation to the other books on here; I found myself having to look twice to find what the actual section name was in the title. The NP hasn't been accepted (yet) by WB as a whole, so there's no mandate in any case, but it might be easier now rather than later. Kellen T 08:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for letting us know. I've alerted the MMM Google Group to this issue. Dan AKA Jack 10:27 22nd Sept 2005 (GMT)


 * On the topic of naming conventions, are there any naming conventions for categories? We're using quite a few categories for the movie making manual. See |this root MMM category to see our category naming in action. Dan AKA Jack 11:15 22nd Sept 2005 (GMT)


 * I don't think there are any conventions for categories. There's not really a lot of categorization going on here right now, so I don't think it's been seen as a real issue. The Cookbook has a lot of categories, but we have somewhat inconsistent names for them (fixing that is on my list of TODO's). I am sort of inclined to have a prefix on all the categories related to a particular book, e.g. "Category:Cookbook:Vegan recipes" or "Category:Movie making:Cinematography" because at some point I can see there being difficult overlaps when we have enough books. Who gets to own Category:Tools? or does that category just get polluted with modules from different books? Seems like the "top level" categories (ones w/o a prefix) should be for categorizing books as a whole, then scoped categories (w/ prefix) should be used w/in books.... but that's just me musing about it. Kellen T 17:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Humf... OK, maybe I should think about prefixing all our categories. I've asked about categories in the staff lounge. Kellen, you might like to cut-and-paste your response to the staff lounge. Dan AKA Jack 18:37 22nd Sept 2005 (GMT)