Talk:Storyboard

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 project 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 (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.
 
 
WikiProject Human Computer Interaction  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Computer Interaction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human Computer Interaction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

The main article on storyboards mentions 'corollary notation'. What does that mean in this context? How can I use it in teaching elementry student.

They were fancy words instead of just "additional text"... --Janke | Talk 05:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Digital media references changed to interactive media[edit]

I changed the oversimplified references from digital media to interactive media. Not all interactive media is digital, or even electronic for that matter. Film (the motion picture category) and animation could also be digital media, which adds to the confusion if the term is used to distinguish from film and animation. Oicumayberight 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your final change because the article ended up by saying "or interactive media sequence, including websites and interactive media" which doesn't make much sense. I also reinstated information that was removed because it duplicated the opening (lead) section, because that's how good articles are supposed to be written, though few enough are, see Wikipedia:Lead section. Notinasnaid 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
A complete revert of all the changes was not necessary. I made the one sentence clearer by adding the word "other" to show that websites are included in the description of digital media.
Simply reverting didn't address the oversimplified use of digital media where interactive media should have been used.
I don't understand your point about the opening section. The information wasn't removed, but instead moved to the sections which it was discussed. There is no need for a "description" section, because the opening section is a description. Oicumayberight 20:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
By opening section, you mean the lead section, the bit before the first section? If so, it is correct, and preferred, to repeat (or expand) what the lead section says later in the article. Removing the lead section should not remove any information from the article. Notinasnaid 20:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Commercial links[edit]

I have removed the external links section. All the were either commercial, or in a format not recommended (rtf) in the wiki guidelines. Please do not reinstate commercial links, thank you! Wikipedia is not for advertising services. --Janke | Talk 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Storyboarding and Comics[edit]

besides the artists who use the storyboard technique to script comics, the manga Bakuman describes using "names" so writers can better present their story to their artists. Check it out and consider ading this info. Alphapeta (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Expand the History?[edit]

While Disney holds a claim to be the first to adapt the technique to film. But this is nothing more than an extension of the traditional artistic process using sketches to pre-vision finished work. Sculptors are probably closest to film in that historically they have sketched around potential pieces, built tiny models to work out spirit and physical details, and all-in-all extensively plan their finished piece. And, similar to film, the primary visionary has also developed his or her sketches and models to the point that they could be turned over to assistants for creating the final and full sized piece.

At the same time, I seriously doubt that Disney was the first --- but have no way to know. Since pre-sketching is entirely ubiquitous in the art world, it is much more likely that various levels of pre-sketching were in use in many other places. However, it would make sense that Disney was the first to begin rigourously applying boards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.112.161 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree - if the Walt Disney Company contributed anything it would only be for the invention of the word “storyboard” to label and claim as it's own that which artists had already being doing for centuries. It is absolute bollocks that someone like Disney be given the credit for such a process. I mean check this out - from the 1920s: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/megacollectors-felix-cat-part-1-of-2.html - Felix the cat was not a Disney cartoon - and preceeded Mickey Mouse. So even if by "storyboarding" we mean what Disney was doing to prepare a cartoon, then even in that narrow definition Disney doesn't own it. Only the word can be credited to Disney. But if it is that easy to own something - by giving something your own name - well we could all own anything, couldn't we?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.6.86.1 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it seem to anyone else that a lot of this history seems uncited and original research? --ScientificBuccaneer (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)