Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2016 April 14

= April 14 =

Difference between Scene and Sequence..?
What is the difference between Scene (filmmaking) and Sequence (filmmaking)..?-- Jos   eph   12:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The first is a subset of the second. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide me a clear explanation?-- Jos   eph   13:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, at least, the explanation is clear from the first sentence in each article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

naturally, there's no strict, scientific definition for either (particularly what does/doesn't constitute a sequence)...so that's part of the problem and part of why the articles are pretty poor...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article explains it pretty well. Under one common theory of filmmaking, you can divide the narrative action into the following heirarchy: You have an individual shot, several of which make up a scene, several scenes make up a sequence, several sequences make up an act, and several acts make up the film.  For example, take a classic film like Full Metal Jacket  The film is obviously divided into 2 "Acts":  The Boot Camp Act and the Vietnam Act.  The Boot Camp Act is itself divided into several sequences: The introduction of the characters sequence, the Pvt. Pyle Keeps Screwing Up sequence, the Everyone Takes Revenge on Pyle sequence, and the Pyle Goes Insane sequence.  Those sequences are divided into scenes: the "Pyle Keeps Screwing Up Sequence" for example has a scene showing Pyle messing up on the obstacle course, Pyle messing up with his gun, Pyle messing up making his bed, Pyle messing up on his diet, etc.  Each of those scenes has individual shots, between the "start" and "Stop" of the Camera.  I hope that makes sense.  -- Jayron 32 15:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * With the proviso that any of those divisions of the film could consist of just a single of the next division down. So a film could have just one act, and act could consist of a single sequence, a sequence could be just one scene, and a scene could be done as a single shot. That is unusual - and you are not going to get a single film with that happening at every level (though there have been attempt to shoot short films as single shots). 81.132.106.10 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See Rope for good example of this - it only has one scene (all transitions between shots are via zooming and tracking, with cuts only at the reel changes), but three distinct acts - The Murder, The Party, The Confession. To answer the OP's question, a scene is a distinct component of the film itself, the visual images that appear on the screen; a sequence is a distinct component of the narrative, the story told by the filmmaker. Tevildo (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This also raises the notion of the Take, which is the recording of a scene or a song, for example. Rope was filmed in a number of continuous takes. Of course, there can be multiple takes, and the one deemed the best will be used for the final film or record. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, of course. There are different narrative forms, different ways of organizing a story in film, and as such, different ways to do it.  The shot-scene-sequence-act-film hierarchy is common, but not mandatory.  -- Jayron 32 22:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was thinking of Rope, and that it's possible there was more than one take of one or more of the segments used in the film. I was also thinking of the legendary story (true or not) than Stanley Kubrick once shot a hundred takes of an actor walking through a doorway. Presumably only one of those takes was used in the finished product. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)