Should aspiring filmmakers attend film school?

I agree with Matt. "Should" is good.

Should vs. need does indeed change the debate. I agree with that completely, Jacki. But need implies a regimented system of education, like medical or, to a slightly lesser extent, law school. Film, like many creative endeavors, is wide open. A producer in L.A. once told me should couldn't tell someone how to "make it" in the industry, because everyone succeeds along a different route.

I believe the issue revolves around "should." "Need" for me just implies to much of a strict progression of educational levels, and it's very transparent from successes such as Quentin Tarantino or Kevin Smith, that it's not necessary. Therefore, the issue just wouldn't be much of a debate under "need."

my only concern is whether we need to revise this to:

Do aspiring filmmakers need to attend film school? 

i think should v. need changes the debate. thoughts?

I like this one, and I agree with Brothacrowe, that it's so often asked and explored, it'd be a good issue to debate. As someone who did go to film school, I'd definitely like to see this get approved and debated in some form. And, yes, I don't see it under business, Nick, because essentially we're asking if film school effectively helps a filmmaker nurture and develop his or her voice.

or should we say:

Do fimmakers need to attend film school?

issue prior to revisions:

I'm not sure about it  going under "Business" as some schools/programs emphasize the art (more than the business or technology) of filmmaking.

I'm with jacki on this one

i'm not digging nick's revision here.  the issue is whether filmmakers need formal training, not whether they should go to a "top school." 

1. I think it belongs under "business" (if you are following the new enhancement to topics)

2. I don't like "largely"... and it's too much of a catch-all, e.g., nobody could possibly make any kind of informed decision based on this issue.

3. how about, "Is enrolling in one of the top film schools... ". That way you weed out the undesirables and help somebody that has that as an option. I'd only want to try to rework it for trying to get public figure evidence.

I'm  fine with Jacki's revision.

i agree that we should stick to yes or no.  lose the punctuation.  i also think we need to say:

Should aspiring filmmakers attend film school?

asking whether it's a "worthwhile investment" implies a bias and leads you in a direction that it might not be a worthwhile investment.  i think my revision is more neutral.
thoughts?

It's not really a matter of good/bad schools or even of philosophy. Is it more valuable (as an investment) to study technical stuff or academic stuff? But that's another question and "depends on the film school" in this case is too vague as a stand, so I'm OK with losing it.

Kill option three. There's no difference between that answer and "Yes." It goes without saying that a good school is a better choice than a bad one, or one whose philosophy you don't agree with, etc.

Yes, I'd agree. Some schools emphasize technical aspects more, others on filmmaking as art (as a director who attended NYU once told me).

issue revision:

---

Okay, but I think there should be a third option for the "depends on the school," only because I've seen "stands" where people say exactly this.

---

stick with yes or no stands.  they tend to work better on the site.  remember that we are trying to find evidence of where public figures stand.  it's going to be a lot easier to find a public figure say:

Yes, film school is worthwhile then it's going to be to find a public figure that says:

Yes.  Film students acquire a wider variety of skills more quickly ....


I'd revise to:


Should aspiring filmmakers attend film school?

Yes
No

This is a very relevant question. I'd keep the question as is, but maybe shorten the first two stands (though they're right on the money!)

This is one of the most commonly asked questions within the aspiring filmmaking community; established filmmakers give varying opinions on the matter.