Talk:Stop motion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
 
WikiProject Animation / Stop motion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Stop motion work group (marked as Top-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Stop motion versus stop-motion[edit]

I'm not a native english speaker, but I think the correct spelling is "stop motion" and not "stop-motion". Is that correct ? Anyway both are currently used in the article and ( it's a matter of unity and consistency) only one of them should be used in the article. Does anybody agree with me ? Regards. 343KKT Kintaro (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely it should be "stop motion" and yes that should definitely be consistent throughout to avoid confusion.--Golferman72 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The article title does not use the dash, so if we're going to be consistent, the whole article should not use it, or the article should be moved. I think no dash is the way to go, as a quick Google search seems to indicate this is how the vast majority of people use it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks like an earlier contributor to this article was just a little to into making connected words with a dash. I have undone every example of "stop-motion" I ran across, and several other unusual combinations as well, but feel free to double check if I got them all or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I just add a reference from an official and (I think) well respected English dictionary. Kintaro (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Grammar Nazi alert. Compound adjectves are hyphenated if they are derived from nouns, verbs or prepositional phrases (eg "hard-luck story", "man-eating shark", "up-to-date information"). Otherwise the use of a hyphen is at the writer's discretion ("trigger happy guards" or "trigger-happy guards", but "forget-me-not-blue eyes" is silly-looking). An excecption occurs when a prepositonal compound adjective is the complement of the verb "to be" (and a few others), rather than tacked on to the noun, in which case hyphens are never used ("the information is up to date", "her reaction was over the top").

"Stop motion" is a compound noun, so when it is used as an adjective (ie "stop-motion animation") it will have a hyphen. When used as a noun, there's no hyphen (eg "the film was created using stop motion").

Hope that clears up people's hyphenation worries! Too tired to check through the article for every use of "stop(-)motion".

Merger of Armature (stop motion animation)[edit]

This is just a stub, and clearly closely related to this article. Should probably be merged, but since I'm not overly familiar with this topic I'd thought I'd bring it here before just shoving it in. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not let it have its own page? - is this an encyclopedia or a dictatorship? Maybe we all should stop contributing to the project and the wikipedia project will be no more. I don't know why I bothered.--Golferman72 (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • No need for the blown gasket. It is certainly not a dictatorship, that is why we are discussing it. I haven't said or even implied that the content is unwanted, just that it might be more useful and accessible as part of this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, now I see that User:CorenSearchBot is also suggesting a merger, as the article duplicates content from Armature (sculpture). Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot came up with the 'duplicates content merger' automatically when I used a different page as a template which I immediately saved out of habit - so your last comment perhaps should be ignored as bots appear not to be so clever as to go back and check for useful, world improving information which may perhaps go onto help thousands (if not gazillions) of future animators who might one day go on to read this new article page. A seed is sewn. --Golferman72 (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I wonder if you would care to calm down and discuss the relative merits of either merging the article or keeping it separate, without resorting to self-aggrandizing rhetoric? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Useful, world improving information which may perhaps go onto help thousands (if not gazillions* depending if Wikipedia will ever survive the current climate of ego tripping censorship) of future animators who might one day go on to read this new article page. Seedless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golferman72 (talkcontribs) 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC) -

  • So you're unwilling to discuss the merger proposal? As I have repeatedly stated, I'm not trying to censor you. I have not suggested in any way that this content should be removed from Wikipedia, just that it might better serve our readers (the people we are doing this for) if it were included in this article instead of being a very brief stub on it's own. If you could explain your objections to this idea, without the hyperbole, it would be much appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Altered as per discussion. --Golferman72 (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis of 'frame-by-frame' in bold at beginning of page[edit]

It seems odd that the introductory paragraph introduces frame-by-frame like it is a commonly used alternative term for 'stop motion' when it just isn't, and even emphasizes it by the 'frame-by-frame' text being bold. My suggestion is to include 'frame-by-frame' in the discussion but not at the outset. If anyone has any objections to this please state now or forever hold your peace.--Golferman72 (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be changed.Amadeus webern (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Article looks rubbish[edit]

I submit a notion to create a new wikipedia article entitled "Notable stop motion artists", and transfer info to this new page, and on this current page replacing the section with a summary of names and a sentence like "for the full list please refer to the main wikipedia article "Notable stop motion artists". This would significantly improve this article and especially the introduction. In fact, I may do it soon.--Farmer21 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Have completed this = Big improvement! As above the link to the new page is within this article. It can also be viewed here List of notable stop motion artists.--Farmer21 09:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Notable stop motion artists" looks like even worse rubbish![edit]

I have just checked in after a few years. Did you even bother reading the entries for the notable section??? Someone vandalized the orignal descriptions and you used them without checking them!!! There were several omissions as well. How can you include a minor animator like selick and not include Sunn or Trinka??? Now the history section in the original looks like absolute crap!! I spent alot of time turning what was a stub into a world-class article. Much of the info I used was gathered on trips to Europe and from recollections of old filmmakers. All that is gone!!! This is what happens when wiki "editors" and "admins" , and OTHER vandals, who DONT have a working knowledge of a subject, and/or rudimetary writing skills, seek to "improve" an article. This is exactly why folks think Wiki is a joke!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.138.22 (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert on the subject, but I thought Jan Švankmajer and the Brothers Quay were highly "notable". They have barely received mention even in the page on notable artists.Ankurtg (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this look like true stop motion?[edit]

This is a french social TV ad against HIV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JvXLvhSJtM

It looks awesome, but I am thinking it's pseudo, a-la, made to look like stop motion - is it? Because if this was true stop motion, it would take innumerable man hours to create such a thing, and I strongly doubt they had a budget for that.

Propaganda function of Sandmännchen[edit]

In my opinion, the cold war propaganda function of Sandmännchen is exaggerated. It's primary function was definitely to entertain children, not without teaching aspects. As stated in the Sandmännchen article, a certain amount of propaganda played its role, e.g. when showing Sandmännchen's futuristic vehicles, but this is, if any at all, a tertiary function of the programme, not its primary. --88.64.70.134 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop motion with live actors[edit]

Should perhaps stop motion with live actors be mentioned under Variations of stop-motion? We have variants where live actors are wearing masks (Angry Kid) and when they don't (The Secret Adventures of Tom Thumb). // Liftarn (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete[edit]

Stop motion is incomplete without mentioning George Pal, Ray Harryhausen, Jim Danforth, etc. or the stop motion technique called "replacement animation" where individual miniatures are used frame to frame (Pal Puppetoons), rather than the same miniature. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Naaman Brown is right. Another glaring omission is where the article says "French trick film maestro Georges Méliès used true stop motion to produce moving title-card letters for one of his short films, but never exploited the process for any of his other films": 'but never exploited the process for any of his other films' should read 'and he used the process for dozens of his humorous short films'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimmelskaft (talkcontribs) 07:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Where does this belong?[edit]

Under variations section, under go-motion the second last sentence about go-motion is followed by: "The 2009 film Fantastic Mr. Fox was also entirely filmed in stop motion." Should the "also" be there? then should "stop" be "go"? Otherwise, does this sentence belong in another section. Manytexts (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think this sentence should be deleted entirely. It is also mentioned in the "1980s to present" section (currently the last sentence of the final paragraph there). That sentence should be given its own paragraph, as it has nothing to do with Nick Park, who is the subject of the rest of the paragraph; it erroneously implies that Nick Park was also responsible for those other films. Old coot (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
agreed and done k kisses 19:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Brotherhood Workshops[edit]

Dear Sirs, I would like to run this by y'all before I do anything. If ome of you have the the time it moght be good to look up Brotherhood Workshops on YouTube. I think that guy does fantastic work. After watching some of his videos tell me if you think he is worth being mentioned in an article please post your thoughts on my talk page. Just for the record I have absolutely no conection with Brotherhood. Hope to hear from you! TheMouthofSauron (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The simple test for all Wikipedia content is whether or not something has been mentioned in a reliable source. Are there any press interviews or profiles that put Brotherhood into context? --McGeddon (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont know. Probably not:(TheMouthofSauron (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)