Talk:Film editing/Archives/2016

Slight differences in movie dialogue
I tend to watch moves I like over and over again on cable TV. I bet I've seen A Few Good Men over 100 times. Not something to be proud of, I know! Point being that I often will know the movie so well that I will notice variations from one showing to another. Usually, there is a bit less or more dialogue, sometimes just one or two lines. Occasionally, there will be a new short scene that I've never seen before. Unfortunately, I cannot remember which movies I've noticed it in, and my wife, who is in the entertainment industry, laughs at me and calls me crazy, but I don't think I am. I would bet that, on at least one, maybe two, of my favorite films, I have seen four, if not, three slightly different versions. Can anyone out there corroborate such or tell me which movies have the most such versions that they know of? To be clear, I am not talking about remakes of movies or anything like that, just very minor variations. Is there some sort of absolute maximum due to union regulations or something like that?

Thanks so much, Dean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.236.125 (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sometimes these edits may be just on the broadcasting side, rather than official versions. They have their grid, instead of pulling the next show to N minutes later or airing less advertising/making less money, they'll edit the movie to fit in the allotted time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.110.87.133 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Bias/citations
This is a solid start on an article about Film Editing. When I first came across it, however, it became apparent that there is a lot of informal writing and personal opinion in your paragraphs, specifically the lead paragraph. I would improve that by eliminating any kind of speech that would make the article seem as it was not from a legitimate source. To that same point, I would also improve the lead paragraph by adding citations. Wikipedia articles aren't to be written like a personal essay, but rather, more of a scholarly article with no personal opinion involved. These are just a couple of tips to further improve your experience with Wikipedia and all it has to offer! --Lnwrigh2 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the article needs some work. Parts - particularly the lead section - are rather long-winded with some redundancies in the language. Some statements need citation or removal, such as "Film editing is described as an art or skill, the only art that is unique to cinema..." What is the source for this? I would argue that cinematography (composing and lighting shots where the objects and/or camera move) is also a new art born from motion pictures, as well as screenwriting which differs from playwriting, not to mention the art of directing films. I think this lead section could much terser and more technical -- see examples of articles on Cinematography or Graphic Design or Sculpture. The rest of the sections are also very light on citations and include some random opinions and tenses.Henry chianski (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Television editing? Video editing?
This article is titled Film Editing but the artistic side of it (a big theme of this article) overlaps with television editing, commercial editing, etc. I wonder if focusing so narrowly on film is particularly relevant anymore, in today's industry where the technology and craft is largely the same whether you're cutting a scripted film or a script TV episode or even a factual TV episode, also across genres. Maybe some discussion of TV and other non-film fields should be worked in somehow? At least the history of it. There is a Video Editing article but it's mostly technical in scope. And it feels to me like the craft side of editing (whether film, TV, or web series) is maybe more at home in this Film Editing article than the Video Editing one.Henry chianski (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor's Cut
This section also links to a standalone article about Editor's Cut (which has no citations). Is "editor's cut" a phrase that's used anymore, is it actually distinct from a Rough Cut? Of course every project/company has its own workflow, but this section seems to me muddled with all the alternate names, links to different pages. Can it be more coherent?Henry chianski (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing Techniques revisions
This whole section, especially the Dmytryk and Murch "rules" is pretty much opinion -- opinion of those two editors perhaps, but many filmmakers/editors have written books about the "right" technique and have their own list of "rules." Murch's book is great, so is his editing, but I'm not sure it belongs in an encyclopedia entry, spelled out so fully. Perhaps a quote from Murch and from Dmytryk and some other notable editors would help the article. But the current format bogs things down with their opinion. The article about Cinematography, by contrast, doesn't have detailed descriptions of Freddie Young or Sven Nykvist's theories on lighting. The article on Watercolor doesn't describe one painter's "techniques." I am removing much of this, for these reasons. This isn't a how-to page about the craft of editing. I think some cited quotes about technique or theory, would be great, and will start looking for some to add in. Henry chianski (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Continuity
Continuity didn't seem relevant enough to this article to warrant its own (totally uncited) section, which included a whole paragraph describing the script supervisor's job. This gets off topic. The link to Script Supervisor should be sufficient. I'm revising this for brevity. As such, I conflated some sections into a larger one about Continuity Editing and its alternatives. Also cleaned up the language in that. This whole section though still lacks cited sources. Henry chianski (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)