On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 09:35, The Cunctator wrote:
We actually did have a big discussion about this and film ended up being nixed because of the problem of digital videa replacing actual film as
the
medium for "films". Thus, "movie".
If that is the case, then surely 'movie', a word linked with the silent world of moving pictures, should be replaced on wiki by 'talkie'.
And if the Cunctator's assertion is correct, then we need to change it. Non-Americans do not generally use the word 'movie'. It is a word only occasionally used outside the US and usually applied to heavily Americanised Hollywood-ised blockbusters; Bruce Willis saves the world, gets the girl and wisecracks his way to the conclusion, with the promise of 5 sequels and billions of dollars of merchandising to come. In fact 'movie' is used internationally in relation to 'film' the way 'fast food' is used in relation to 'cuisine'. Stuff by Quentin Tarantino is often described as 'film' whereas something with Arnie, Sly or that genre is invariably a 'movie'. And anyone ever heard of a 'movie noir'?
JT
_________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
james duffy wrote:
On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 09:35, The Cunctator wrote:
We actually did have a big discussion about this and film ended up
being
nixed because of the problem of digital videa replacing actual film
as the
medium for "films". Thus, "movie".
If that is the case, then surely 'movie', a word linked with the silent world of moving pictures, should be replaced on wiki by 'talkie'.
And if the Cunctator's assertion is correct, then we need to change it. Non-Americans do not generally use the word 'movie'. It is a word only occasionally used outside the US and usually applied to heavily Americanised Hollywood-ised blockbusters; Bruce Willis saves the world, gets the girl and wisecracks his way to the conclusion, with the promise of 5 sequels and billions of dollars of merchandising to come. In fact 'movie' is used internationally in relation to 'film' the way 'fast food' is used in relation to 'cuisine'. Stuff by Quentin Tarantino is often described as 'film' whereas something with Arnie, Sly or that genre is invariably a 'movie'. And anyone ever heard of a 'movie noir'?
In which case a disambiguator of '(movie)' is totally appropriate for the works of which you're contemptuous, eh? In fact, people could tell from the use of '(film)' vs '(movie)' in the article title whether it's one that you approve of, and thus know how to evaluate the worthiness of the article before reading it.
But seriously, there are a hundred ways that I could look down my nose at, say, Ireland and the Irish, yet you don't see me spewing those out at every opportunity. So cool it with the cultural superiority guff - nobody is actually interested in your opinion on what kind of material they should admire.
Of course, you're welcome to try to convince people to disambiguate with '(film)', but let me give you a hint - they'll be a lot easier to convince if you treat them with respect.
Stan
--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
james duffy wrote:
On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 09:35, The Cunctator wrote:
We actually did have a big discussion about
this and film ended up
being
nixed because of the problem of digital videa
replacing actual film
as the
medium for "films". Thus, "movie".
If that is the case, then surely 'movie', a word
linked with the
silent world of moving pictures, should be
replaced on wiki by 'talkie'.
And if the Cunctator's assertion is correct, then
we need to change
it. Non-Americans do not generally use the word
'movie'. It is a word
only occasionally used outside the US and usually
applied to heavily
Americanised Hollywood-ised blockbusters; Bruce
Willis saves the
world, gets the girl and wisecracks his way to the
conclusion, with
the promise of 5 sequels and billions of dollars
of merchandising to
come. In fact 'movie' is used internationally in
relation to 'film'
the way 'fast food' is used in relation to
'cuisine'. Stuff by Quentin
Tarantino is often described as 'film' whereas
something with Arnie,
Sly or that genre is invariably a 'movie'. And
anyone ever heard of a
'movie noir'?
In which case a disambiguator of '(movie)' is totally appropriate for the works of which you're contemptuous, eh? In fact, people could tell from the use of '(film)' vs '(movie)' in the article title whether it's one that you approve of, and thus know how to evaluate the worthiness of the article before reading it.
But seriously, there are a hundred ways that I could look down my nose at, say, Ireland and the Irish, yet you don't see me spewing those out at every opportunity. So cool it with the cultural superiority guff - nobody is actually interested in your opinion on what kind of material they should admire.
Of course, you're welcome to try to convince people to disambiguate with '(film)', but let me give you a hint - they'll be a lot easier to convince if you treat them with respect.
Stan
This whole debate is pointless. Who cares if we use movie or film. Neither one is ambiguous. Neither is really that "uncultured". It doesn't matter. Just make redirects from one to another (since some use movie and others film) or else pick one and adopt it as a standard. Pick a number 1 or 2. One of them is movie, the other film. It really doesn't matter which one is used. Will one of them detract from our goal of creating an encyclopedia? Just think of that when debating these pointless issues. -LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
On Sat, 3 May 2003 21:58:43 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com gave utterance to the following:
This whole debate is pointless. Who cares if we use movie or film. Neither one is ambiguous. Neither is really that "uncultured". It doesn't matter. Just make redirects from one to another (since some use movie and others film) or else pick one and adopt it as a standard. Pick a number 1 or 2. One of them is movie, the other film. It really doesn't matter which one is used. Will one of them detract from our goal of creating an encyclopedia? Just think of that when debating these pointless issues. -LittleDan
I was about to raise my hand in favour of movie for the reason that film is ambiguous but movie isn't.
As to usage, movie is one word I don't regard as an americanism (it probably arrived in NZ with the troops during WWII). New Zealanders will say they are going to the movies, to see a movie, to the pictures, but they will seldom say "to a film" or "to the cinema". I think "the flicks" has almost died out as a term.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Grevers" lists@dramatic.co.nz To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 6:26 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Conventions and movie vs. film
On Sat, 3 May 2003 21:58:43 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com gave utterance to the following:
This whole debate is pointless. Who cares if we use movie or film. Neither one is ambiguous. Neither is really that "uncultured". It doesn't matter. Just make redirects from one to another (since some use movie and others film) or else pick one and adopt it as a standard. Pick a number 1 or 2. One of them is movie, the other film. It really doesn't matter which one is used. Will one of them detract from our goal of creating an encyclopedia? Just think of that when debating these pointless issues. -LittleDan
I was about to raise my hand in favour of movie for the reason that film
is
ambiguous but movie isn't.
As to usage, movie is one word I don't regard as an americanism (it probably arrived in NZ with the troops during WWII). New Zealanders will say they are going to the movies, to see a movie, to the pictures, but
they
will seldom say "to a film" or "to the cinema". I think "the flicks" has almost died out as a term.
I'm with LittleDan on this, I don't think either term is ambiguous. I really can't believe that anyone could be left perplexed by either Dirty Dancing (movie) or Dirty Dancing (film). And even if they were, spending 10 seconds reading the article's first paragraph would make it clear.
Like most English people (I think) the word I use is 'film' but I think we should leave the articles at (movie), or if people prefer then make both endings acceptable.
Andrew (Ams80)
We did this and we chose movie.
Fred
This whole debate is pointless. Who cares if we use movie or film. Neither one is ambiguous. Neither is really that "uncultured". It doesn't matter. Just make redirects from one to another (since some use movie and others film) or else pick one and adopt it as a standard. Pick a number 1 or 2. One of them is movie, the other film. It really doesn't matter which one is used. Will one of them detract from our goal of creating an encyclopedia? Just think of that when debating these pointless issues. -LittleDan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Jtdirl wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
We actually did have a big discussion about this and film ended up being nixed because of the problem of digital video replacing actual film as the medium for "films". Thus, "movie".
If that is the case, then surely 'movie', a word linked with the silent world of moving pictures, should be replaced on wiki by 'talkie'.
??? Talkies still move, so talkies are still movies. *And* silent films (even silent digital videos) are still movies. So only "movie", not "talkie" nor "film", is most general.
And if the Cunctator's assertion is correct, then we need to change it. Non-Americans do not generally use the word 'movie'. It is a word only occasionally used outside the US and usually applied to heavily Americanised Hollywood-ised blockbusters; Bruce Willis saves the world, gets the girl and wisecracks his way to the conclusion, with the promise of 5 sequels and billions of dollars of merchandising to come. In fact 'movie' is used internationally in relation to 'film' the way 'fast food' is used in relation to 'cuisine'. Stuff by Quentin Tarantino is often described as 'film' whereas something with Arnie, Sly or that genre is invariably a 'movie'. And anyone ever heard of a 'movie noir'?
Apparently, "movie" is used in NZ as well as in the US. So I don't think that we can make a general distinction like «"movie" is used *only* in the US, but "film" is used everywhere else.». Thus we should say that both terms are acceptable in running text, and pick a naming convention for titles rather arbitrarily. The arbitrary choice that was made some time ago is "movie".
In which case a disambiguator of '(movie)' is totally appropriate for the works of which you're contemptuous, eh? In fact, people could tell from the use of '(film)' vs '(movie)' in the article title whether it's one that you approve of, and thus know how to evaluate the worthiness of the article before reading it.
Where did this come from? Did I miss an earlier post by jtdirl where he said that he agreed with snobbish Eurotrash about American movies? If that's how the terms are in fact interpreted in Ireland, then you can't blame jtdirl for reporting it.
(And Tarantino's movies *are* better than Willis' movies. ^_^ In particular, Pulp Fiction is Tarantino's worst and Willis' best. Both are Americans, of course.)
-- Toby
This is nonsense. I'm sorry, JT, but we have a standard that was worked out several months ago, and to change it now is only because the Americans are using it, and we can't have that, can we?
To me, at least, I can't speak for all Americans, the use of the term "film" has a sort of preciousness to it (though I have to admit I have used it in the articles I've written.)
Zoe
--- james duffy jtdirl@hotmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 09:35, The Cunctator wrote:
We actually did have a big discussion about this
and film ended up being
nixed because of the problem of digital videa
replacing actual film as
the
medium for "films". Thus, "movie".
If that is the case, then surely 'movie', a word linked with the silent world of moving pictures, should be replaced on wiki by 'talkie'.
And if the Cunctator's assertion is correct, then we need to change it. Non-Americans do not generally use the word 'movie'. It is a word only occasionally used outside the US and usually applied to heavily Americanised Hollywood-ised blockbusters; Bruce Willis saves the world, gets the girl and wisecracks his way to the conclusion, with the promise of 5 sequels and billions of dollars of merchandising to come. In fact 'movie' is used internationally in relation to 'film' the way 'fast food' is used in relation to 'cuisine'. Stuff by Quentin Tarantino is often described as 'film' whereas something with Arnie, Sly or that genre is invariably a 'movie'. And anyone ever heard of a 'movie noir'?
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com