Whoa, here's a radical solution: use the form "Jackass (movie/film)". There. Doesn't that cover it?
-- John Knouse jaknouse@frognet.net www.jaknouse.athens.oh.us +1.740.589.4575 PO Box 1196, Athens, OH 45701-1196
Author - F. P. Jones
English - Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
Quote supplied courtesy of Verba Volant at: http://www.logos.it/owa-l/press.rol_ml.verbavolant1?lang=en
Now what if I prefer "motion picture"? ;-)
Good compromise.
John Knouse wrote:
Whoa, here's a radical solution: use the form "Jackass (movie/film)". There. Doesn't that cover it?
-- John Knouse jaknouse@frognet.net www.jaknouse.athens.oh.us +1.740.589.4575 PO Box 1196, Athens, OH 45701-1196
Author - F. P. Jones
English - Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
Quote supplied courtesy of Verba Volant at: http://www.logos.it/owa-l/press.rol_ml.verbavolant1?lang=en
On Mon, 05 May 2003 22:11:16 -0700, John Knouse jaknouse@frognet.net gave utterance to the following:
Whoa, here's a radical solution: use the form "Jackass (movie/film)". There. Doesn't that cover it?
Or we could be encyclopaedic and write (motion picture) - which is what the movie/film industry tends to formally call itself.
Richard Grevers wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2003 22:11:16 -0700, John Knouse jaknouse@frognet.net gave utterance to the following:
Whoa, here's a radical solution: use the form "Jackass (movie/film)". There. Doesn't that cover it?
Or we could be encyclopaedic and write (motion picture) - which is what the movie/film industry tends to formally call itself.
Hmmm, this is certainly more professional-sounding, although I note that Wikipedia officially favors "common usage" over formal ones, thus we title the article "Bill Clinton" instead of "William Jefferson Clinton". I like it better than "(movie/film)", which tells our readers "wikipedians were too stiff-necked to agree on something simpler". :-)
Perhaps the next generation of software can have more variables to adjust for reader nationality set via preference, so you could have "Jackass (%MOTIONPICTURE)", "labo%Ur", "theat%ERRE", and so forth. Makes a little more work for editors, but avoids giving offense.
Stan . . . . . (See, without the :-) you weren't sure whether my last paragraph was a serious suggestion or not, eh? But no, I wasn't serious.)
On Mon, 05 May 2003 20:18:01 -0700, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com gave utterance to the following:
Perhaps the next generation of software can have more variables to adjust for reader nationality set via preference, so you could have "Jackass (%MOTIONPICTURE)", "labo%Ur", "theat%ERRE", and so forth. Makes a little more work for editors, but avoids giving offense.
Stan . . . . . (See, without the :-) you weren't sure whether my last paragraph was a serious suggestion or not, eh? But no, I wasn't serious.)
Just when I was about to point out that a great number of American theatre practitioners of my e-acquaintance insist that "theatre" is indeed the correct spelling for their profession and venues and that "theater" implies a burlesque house or a place where movies are shown :-).
How about using film when it was made by a filmmaker and use movie when it was made by a moviemaker? This is the only moviemaker entry I could find on google search was http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI All the rest of the Super 16mm, 35mm, 65mm cinemagraphed or digital video videographed audiovisual works made for distribution in commercial movie or film theaters or theatres or for broadcast or cablecast on NTSC, PAL, SECAM or other HDTV video formats were made by filmmakers, but this does not include those works originally commissioned or otherwised produced for television known as television programs that were made by television directors, video artists or documentarians and may have been recorded on kinoscope or quad video which may have subsequently secured a theatrical release in major markets or in the art house market domestically or internationally having been originally shot on any of the above mentioned formats and subsquently reformated or transfer to simulate a different technology (such as Frank Zappa's 200 Motels) nor does it include those works by artists in any of the above formats that was produced for original release on CD-ROM, DVD, VHS, Betamax, flipbook format or for exhibition in a sculptural installation, interactive video kiosk or via slowscan ham video transmission licensed by the FCC or similar foreign licencing authority in any sovereign state. Not to mention the internet...
John Knouse wrote:
Whoa, here's a radical solution: use the form "Jackass (movie/film)". There. Doesn't that cover it?
Or "(film/movie)", so as to forestall charges of American cultural imperialism because "movie" comes first. :-)
Or, use "(movie/film)" and "(film/movie)" as a subtle method of differentiating the European-preferred from the American-preferred works, heh-heh.
Stan
On Mon, 2003-05-05 at 22:11, John Knouse wrote:
Whoa, here's a radical solution: use the form "Jackass (movie/film)". There. Doesn't that cover it?
<detector style="sarcasm" active="no"> Not in the least. The reason "(movie)" was used was that most of the existing entries were already "(movie)" and it required the least amount of renaming labor to standardize on it.
If one _were_ to define a new standard and go to the trouble of renaming every single article about a motion picture to use it, it would make much more sense to simply use "(film)", as most people working on the film articles who have expressed a preference seem to prefer it. </detector>
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)