Talk:Film/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Film?/Movie?

Hhmmmm....Most people would say "movie", rather than "film". In many cases, "film" could make a sentence make no sense at all. Saying, "Let's see a movie," makes sense, but saying, "Let's see a film," does NOT make sense. Most people today say "movie" rather than "film"; therefore, "film" used to describe a movie or motion picture is being more rarely used from now on. --PJ Pete

Why it does NOT make sense? --Ondrejsv 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "movie" is most common in the US, but in some non US English speaking countries, "film" is the usual word and "movie" is considered an Americanism. LDHan 09:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. "Let's see a film" is the absolutely correct way to say it in most of the English-speaking world. The word "movie" is used mostly in North America. Please check your facts - and possibly broaden your horizons - before saying "most people say 'movie'", PJ Pete. EuroSong ^talk 01:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think American is far more common as an English dialect to learn than British. Most people tend to learn American as a second language not British. So we never ever say "Let's see a film" we just say "Let's see a movie" either in formal or informal usages.--Tahmasp 6:45 AM, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So then you are welcome to form usa.wikipedia.org. Until then, we have en.wikipedia.org, which is for all English speakers over the world. The current language policy here is to have a mix of languages. Some articles use British English, other articles use American English. And I think you'll find that an awful lot of people who speak English as a second language, do in fact say film. Ever asked the population of India? EuroSong ^talk 21:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's because Britain colonized India! He was probably talking about other countries like all of the ones in Europe except maybe Cyprus and Britain itself. When most learn ESL these days they learn American English unless they live in a formerly British occupied area. They learn American English because it is the most widespread. Also film is like the film on the camera screen, the film that a movie is made of, etc. A dvd does not contain a film it contains a movie because there is no film in the case, its a disc.Grk1011 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A DVD contains a film. A film is the feature production which was filmed by cameras, before being edited and encoded onto the disc. Also - Europeans do not learn American: they are taught proper British English in schools. EuroSong ^talk 18:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As a native English speaker living in Europe I can say for definite that the above statement is incorrect. Most Europeans prefer to learn what they consider to be proper English (BE). They are probably biased as the England lies in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaeron (talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No one in America says "Let's go see a film". In the United States when people speak of film they are talking about the actual tape and not what's showing on the screen. The vast majority of WP:English visiters are from the U.S. so I believe we should change the article to "Movie". But I know it's not going to happen as these eurotrash snobs have a sense of superiority (calling British English "proper English" for example) and they will never allow the name change. --Tocino 17:30, 10 May 2008

"Film" is outdated and archiac term

I have an MFA in "film" from USC, and a BA in "film" from the U of Rochester (started by G. Eastman) plus decades of experience in this fiel. It is quite clear to anyone who is in the industry or even reads the trades, that the term "film" is already obsolete. The bulk of production these days happens in the digital medium and has nothing to do with the medium of "film." We need to recognize, in this article, that "film" is an outdated, archaic, obsolete term. Everything is going digital, from shooting, to post (already happened long ago) to presentation. Celluoid is a thing of the past. This article needs heavy revising because the term has a connotation which is NO LONGER ACCURATE. Use the term "movies" instead, or "flick" or something, but "film" is no longer correct. Please, this is making Wikipedia look idiotically backwards.

"Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." WP:NAME. When the general public catches up with you (maybe they have, but I'm a geezer), it should change. But film has a meaning beyond celluloid anyway, which includes a more "serious" aspect than "movie" or "flick." (John User:Jwy talk) 19:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The misconception that digital is driving out film is largely driven by product marketing and opportunistic filmmakers. The reality is that digital's biggest expansions are currently being made in hybrid technologies. Film still dominates as an origination, archiving, and distribution medium, and while digital has taken some share of these activities since its inception, it has not come anywhere near unseating film at large. For larger productions, there is also little incentive, as film tends to be the least expensive item, especially compared to the cost of actors and labor. I agree that more precise terms would be nice, but for better or worse, even digital practitioners use words like "filming". Girolamo Savonarola 02:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "film", referring to the thing otherwise known as a motion picture, may have originated because of the celluloid medium of recording - but when people talk about "going to the cinema to watch a film" they're obviously not talking about staring at a piece of celluloid, are they! From the celluloid origins, the word acquired meaning in its own right to refer to the production itself. So even if the day does come where actual celluloid film is obsolete and absolutely everything is recorded digitally, that has no relevance to the word for the feature production. We still say "hamburgers", even though the items most commonly referred to as such are made of beef. Makes no difference: the English language accommodates these discrepancies. EuroSong ^talk 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. In fact, celluloid as a film base (aka nitrate) itself has been an obsolete term since the 1950s. Since dominant terminology is a result of social habits, the terms often do not evolve, even though the technology does. Girolamo Savonarola 03:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the two comments above, it's a mistake to think that because the origins behind a general term such as "film" are no longer applicable, we should alter the term itself. You're welcome of course to campaign for a change in the English language, but so long as the term "film" incapsulates the formal and most common label for the "movie" - and in this you must include countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia - this article should retain the same name. To name the article "movie" or "flick" or a similar informal Americanism, is quite wrong in my view - two terms which are utterly meaningless in a literal sense too, as it happens.

The only other term which would be acceptable as far as I'm concerned is "motion picture" but this isn't used as extensively throughout the English speaking world as "film" (it's generally confined to North America). Blankfrackis 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to identidy an old film

Many years ago, I saw a film which was set on some kind of island with an evil priest and an Army. At the end of the film, the priest gave a speech that it was better to reign in hell than serve in heaven and then took a hero down to a prison cell, full of snakes. The hero's two friends were already dead in the cell. The hero was locked in with the snakes, but escaped, killed the guards, and captured the priest and nuns. He then takes the priest down to the cell, who is shouting "No! NO!" and locked him in with the snakes. The hero then leaves the island just as the priest screams, being bitten by the snakes. Its a long shot, but does anyone know the name of this film? -38.119.112.190 06:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could it possibly be "Snake People"? Otherwise known as "Isle Of The Living Dead", or "Isle Of The Snake People"? See here and here. EuroSong ^talk 10:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

3d film

I think the article should make mention of 3d films -- perhaps in the "future of films" section. Any thoughts? Wikipedia brown 02:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

GA delist

I have delisted this article from GA status. The article contains cleanup tags, lacks in-line citations, and has a pending to-do list that dates back to January. If you feel this delisting is in error you may request further review at WP:GA/R. Otherwise, the article is free to be renominated for GA status once the above issues have been addressed. Drewcifer 04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

i like —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.83.117.93 (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Move Film to Movie?

For my reasons above Talk:Film#Film?/Movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grk1011 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Consensus doesn't seem to support it; it's been brought up several times before (see several threads above and look through the archives), but generally has been solidly opposed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - A film is both a medium and content. A film on DVD is still a film. As justification for the fact that there term Film crosses the actual recording media (as many pictures are digital now) I point to http://www.oscar.com, in which movie films are still referred to as "Films" not "Movies". The Oscars are controlled by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, -- KookyMan (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, "movie" has been moved to "film". Case closed(?) :-) Binba (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

download —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.95.190.245 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)