Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Is 'film' still synonomous with 'movie'?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Is 'film' still synonomous with 'movie'? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Is 'film' still synonomous with 'movie'?

Jenn Jennings
Film Handler

Posts: 36
From: Peabody, MA
Registered: Aug 2011

posted 01-26-2012 05:31 PM

I struggle with this one all the time. I try not to use "film" when I am "shooting" but "shooting" is too associated with firearms so I have been trying out the term "capturing" images but then that seems lame as well. Soooo...should we invent a new term?

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-26-2012 05:44 PM

It appears that I will be working next month at a "film" festival that has no actual film in it. I think that there is a bit of a truth-in-advertising issue here, although I can accept the idea that a "film" can be shot on film and exhibited electronically. Similarly, I can accept the idea of something that has been shot electronically and exhibited on film as being a "film."

I do have a problem with the idea of calling something a "film" if no film was actually used in the production or exhibition side, if only because it devalues the "films" which are actually shot and/or exhibited on film. Is it really fair to suggest that something shot on a Handycam is somehow equivalent to a 35mm or 65mm production? Yes, there is a difference, and I believe that prospective ticket-buyers have the right to know what they are about to see. If I had my way about it, "film" festival programs would have listings for "acquisition format" and "exhibition format," although I have never seen one that actually did that. As we all know, there are different grades of video formats, and something originated on VHS is not the same thing as something originated on HDCAM-SR.

In any caes, the people who make videotapes and submit them to "film" festivals get uppity when I tell them how much I enjoyed their video, even though that is exactly what it is.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-26-2012 05:53 PM

Jenn, when I say that I am "shooting" something I usually try to qualify it with the word "footage" by saying "I need to shoot some footage" or something similar. Sometimes I'll leave out "shoot" and say "We need to get some footage of you." But then I think "What is footage"? Yup, footage refers to how many feet of film you are shooting. You can't win!

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-26-2012 05:55 PM

quote: Jenn Jennings
Soooo...should we invent a new term?

We could always go back to "talkies!"

Our former booker, Barry Walker (now retired) never used the word "film" unless he was saying something like "the film was scratched." When talking about a movie, he always called it a "picture," as in "That's a really good picture, it's gonna do a ton of business." He didn't say "movie" much either, actually.

So we could use either one of those. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-26-2012 05:57 PM

I always thought that referring to a movie as a "picture" sounded classy, yet completely undescriptive. To me, "picture" means it does not move. But at the same time, "movie" sounds kind of cheesy when you think about it. It sounds like a toy.

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 01-26-2012 06:47 PM

Do as Variety has done for years - you don't "shoot" a pic, you "lens" a pic. [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 01-26-2012 09:24 PM

quote: Scott Norwood
Is it really fair to suggest that something shot on a Handycam is somehow equivalent to a 35mm or 65mm production?

Then again, simply saying film doesn't differentiate between 35mm, 65mm, 16mm, Super 8, and so forth. And each of those have different expectations in terms of the picture they put on screen.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 01-26-2012 10:35 PM

quote: Scott Norwood
In any caes, the people who make videotapes and submit them to "film" festivals get uppity when I tell them how much I enjoyed their video, even though that is exactly what it is.

If the videographers you have ran into are anything like the ones I've run into, saying they get "uppity" when you call their production a video is a gross understatement.

Of course most of them think they are Steven Spielberg, so I tend to go out of my way to use the "video" term when those types are around.

"Roll the film!"
"Huh??? OH you mean play the dvd! Gotcha."
[Razz]

Unfortunately with fewer booths actually HAVING film, the joke doesn't work very well anymore.

| IP: Logged

Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-26-2012 10:37 PM

Today at work, we pre-taped a program that will air in the middle of February. Except we didn't really; there isn't a shred of videotape involved. It all goes to hard drives backed up by XD discs. We still say "pre-tape" though. Why? Because there is no need to be so thudingly literal that the content somehow loses its validity because the jargon we used didn't actually match the medium. People have been saying "videotape this or that" for years, and everyone knows what is meant by it. If an AD walked into the room and said "we're going to pre-server this" they would be laughed out of the room, and deservedly so.

I saw Hugo the other day. Pure digital, end to end, yet I have heard it described as the new Scorsese film. I suppose technically, it's his new data stream. Do you think I'm going to be caught dead saying such a thing, except as an in-joke? I'm going to invite someone out to see the new Soderburgh DPX file? Ummm . . . no.

Life is full of euphamisms for things that have no tangible existence. People can call things what they want, as long as it is understood by shared experience what is really meant. Same goes for film, unless you'd like to demand that the world's various film institutes, film societies and film corporations all change their names to suit the anality of a few. Good luck on that.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-27-2012 02:04 AM

quote: Mark Ogden
People can call things what they want, as long as it is understood by shared experience what is really meant.

This is true, but people who use the correct terminology can't be faulted because using a word that ACTUALLY expresses what is intended to be communicated can't be LESS accurate or less understood, no matter what the colloquial usage might be. Had you said, "We are going to pre-record a piece for February airing," you would be just as accurate. Conversely, you cringe when someone says there is something wrong with the "camera" in theatre 3, even though anyone within earshot would know exactly what was meant.

Accuracy is not "anality," likewise precision in language always trumps sloppiness. Ever try the “but everyone knows what I meant” argument when using incorrect grammar at school? Thing is, sooner or later, accuracy and precise thinking overtakes inaccuracy; rational people tend to eventually seek language that reflects reality.

quote: Mark Ogden
unless you'd like to demand that the world's various film institutes, film societies and film corporations all change their names to suit the anality of a few. Good luck on that.

Well, actually, this is happening to an extent, as in....LucasDigial Ltd. Thing about film societies is that they actually do still run film and are quite proud of that fact, but even there, where they do run video, at least they have the integrity to say so, many even adding "video" to their monikers in attempt at accuracy rather than anality, as in International Film & Video Festival, as in The New York International Independent Film & Video Festival, as in Columbus International Film+Video Film Festival, as in TAC International Film and Video Festival, etc. Then there are these guys, who put "video" BEFORE film...The Berkeley Video & Film Festival. And finally we have a city that has no problem with leaving film out altogether, Dallas Video Festival. At least they are being accurate.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 01-27-2012 03:49 AM

Maybe it's due to colloquialisms, but I feel 'video' denotes something less cinematic than a movie. Maybe 'film' should not be the preferred word when describing a movie which is 100% digital from production to exhibition. But I think it would be just as inaccurate to simply call it 'video'.

Furthermore, because 'film' is already established lexicon for capturing motion picture image and a synonym for movies, I think those terms are here to stay.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 01-27-2012 03:54 AM

Maybe that videotape comment that people think we run, just might hold true then... "Roll the Tape".

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-27-2012 04:21 AM

On a similar subject, I remember when people used to call video game cartridges "game tapes". People did this because they were uninformed and had no desire to know the correct term. Only a few gaming computers used tape drives and they weren't massively popular, much less so than video game systems that used cartridges. People call them "carts" now since intelligence within the community has increased.

| IP: Logged

Christopher Crouch
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 128
From: Holywood, ca, usa
Registered: May 2006

posted 01-27-2012 04:51 AM

I'm sure "film" will follow the same path "record" has for the music industry. It will remain in regular use for a time and those who predate the conversion will continue to use the term, out of habit. However, once the post conversion generation comes of age, using the term will likely fall out of favor/date the person utilizing it.

I still find myself referring to "records", even though I'm rarely referencing an actual LP, and it usually generates a few snickers/snide remarks from those under a certain age.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 01-27-2012 06:37 AM

Frank: I don't know you personally, but I am certain that I would like you! (last item you wrote)

People use the old terms out of habit. That is sorta OK. Others use the old terms out of respect, but at the same time, are trying to pass off their BS as classy. I have a BIG problem with that.

If the NEW was so much better, it should embrace its own terms. Louis

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.