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

This is topic Is 'film' still synonomous with 'movie'? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006608

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-24-2012, 09:58 PM:

Now that the movie industry is going digital, is it still reasonable to call a movie a film? Is the term strictly linked to the media?

I have always thought of a 'film' as being a more artistic movie, where a 'movie' was more just the typical popcorn entertainment.

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 01-24-2012, 10:03 PM:

I always thought a distinction of that sort was just about perfect, but - considering the general quality of pictures these days - it's well to remember that a "film" can also mean the sticky layer of dried sludge on stagnant liquid (think of a 5-day-old cup of soda that hasn't been picked up yet).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-24-2012, 10:18 PM:

They need to stop using the term "film."

If they don't have film running through the camera they're shooting video. It doesn't matter if it's analog or digital, it's fucking video. But "video" doesn't have quite so much romance associated with it since it is synonymous with television shows (the news, soap operas, video-originated sit-coms, talk shows, etc.). So these guys say they're "filming digital" and call themselves "filmmakers." Douchebags.

Honestly, anyone saying they're "filming digital" makes them sound like an idiot. At least when the Smurfs used the term "smurf" for everything from eating to whacking it we didn't mind because they were little blue fantasy cartoon characters. I refuse to give anyone in Hollywood or any human beings elsewhere the same amount of slack over use of the word "digital" as I would a smurf for saying "smurf."

The term "digital" is an extremely broad term, it even goes well beyond stuff related to computers. For example, a clock which displays the time in numerals is technically a digital clock even if the numerals are those old, non-lit, gear driven, flippy kind of things. Your fingers are digits. A light switch on a wall can be called a "digital switch" since you use your fingers to manipulate it. If you're solving math problems you can say you're doing "digital calculations."

I can stomach the use of the term "movie" for a 2 hour feature shot with video cameras. But let's face it, it's a damned video. It sure as shit isn't film.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-25-2012, 04:07 AM:

How about when people say stuff like "I'm going to film my cousin's wedding"? Hell, these days you can't even say "I'm going to videotape my cousin's wedding". I think the word "shoot" should be used in place of film when used as a verb.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-25-2012, 05:07 AM:

In light of the above comments, I propose to legislate heavy fines for any cinema who uses frames of film in their advertising material when they are running digital presentations.

Let them try and use a hard drive to inflame the movie-going passions in the public. [evil]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-25-2012, 10:34 AM:

LucasFILM

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-25-2012, 11:37 AM:

Old habits die hard. I still refer to our "film booker" because I've been doing that for 33 years. If I was to start saying "movie booker" it would sound weird. And if I just say "booker" then people outside the business don't know what I'm talking about.

Most movies still start off with "A (name of director) Film" in the credits.

It's the same way a new group of songs by an artist is still called an "album" even though many people buy songs piecemeal these days.

I do usually refer to "shooting" when talking about videocams though. (I've tried to stop saying "taping.") I've always thought the term "filming" was kind of dumb anyway. You're not filming, you're putting images onto film.

We don't use a film image in any of our advertising, but there is a 'strip of film' image across the top banner of our website. But, I think that looks cool so I'm keeping it. I will get rid of it when video producers stop using fake scratches and specks to simulate "film."

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 01-25-2012, 02:15 PM:

We still "dial" the phone even though phones have not had dials for a few decades now...

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-25-2012, 03:46 PM:

With Martin's post about the preservation of film, I can see filmmakers hanging on to the medium for such, thus the term will stay as a "film" to be shown on the screen no matter how it's presented.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-25-2012, 04:41 PM:

quote: Ian Parfrey
I propose to legislate heavy fines for any cinema who uses frames of film in their advertising material when they are running digital presentations.

I agree. Nothing but 1s and 0s should be permitted or else they have to close down for 6 months (all digital screens).

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-25-2012, 04:43 PM:

The cameraman is digitally "ingesting reality."

In the cinema, we are "downloading content."

Please note the above and delete any references to film, its style, or its quirks. Louis

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-26-2012, 01:20 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Most movies still start off with "A (name of director) Film" in the credits.

"A (name of director) File"

And of course there's --

"A New File by Academy Award Winning Director N N"
[Big Grin]

Posted by Brent Francis (Member # 5008) on 01-26-2012, 10:55 AM:

Don't even get me started on "process and print" instructions for negative, when the client means process and transfer to tape or drive, not actual workprint film. I gave up asking about that one 10 years ago.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-26-2012, 11:12 AM:

I hear reps from digital cinema companies (Barco, Doremi, etc.) still refer to it as "film"

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 01-26-2012, 03:24 PM:

One definition of "film" is a "motion picture." The definition of "motion picture" does not care what media the images are recorded on. So YES, a movie is still a film.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/film
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/motion+picture

I asked a friend of mine who was going to film school this question once, and he agreed. They still make films, even if the media used to make them is not film. Two different, mutually exclusive definitions.

quote: Joe Redifer
How about when people say stuff like "I'm going to film my cousin's wedding"? Hell, these days you can't even say "I'm going to videotape my cousin's wedding". I think the word "shoot" should be used in place of film when used as a verb.

While the term "film" is not inaccurate here, I tend to agree. I also use "shoot" when referring to photographing.

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
We still "dial" the phone even though phones have not had dials for a few decades now...

A valid point, sir! [Smile]

Posted by Jenn Jennings (Member # 6455) on 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?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 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.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 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]

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 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.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 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.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 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.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 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.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 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.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-27-2012, 03:54 AM:

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

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.

Posted by Christopher Crouch (Member # 3784) on 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.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 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

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-27-2012, 08:05 AM:

quote: Christopher Crouch
I'm sure "film" will follow the same path "record" has for the music industry.

I was going to make a similar analogy.

First, it's not a "record." It's a digital audio computer file.
Neither is it a "film." It's a digital video computer file.

If it is not recorded on the physical medium of film or record it is neither a "film" nor is it a "record."

Call it a movie if you want but, as far as I am concerned it's video.

People don't listen to records anymore. They don't listen to CDs. People don't watch movies anymore, either.

If you came over to my house and listened to records, the focus would not really be on the music. The focus was on socializing and being with friends and family. When CDs came out the focus turned to the technology but there was still a social aspect to the affair. At the same time, "Walkman" personal music players became popular and listening to music became an isolated, personal event. With the advent of purely electronic media, the whole concept of "playing records" and listening to music has entirely lost its social aspect and has become a purely personal, isolated, non-social experience.

The same thing is happening to movies. The switch from film to video has already had an effect on the social aspect of gathering together and watching a movie. We don't go to theaters anymore. We don't gather together to share the experience. We don't talk about what we saw anymore. We simply sit and stare at our iPods and virtually reject the social experience of gathering together to watch a movie.

Y'know, I haven't really listened to music for years. The only time I do is when I put on a pair of noise cancelling headphones and listen to my old school, first generation iPod while I'm mowing the lawn. It helps cut down the hearing damage or, at least, if I'm going to kill my cochlear cells I'm going to do it while listening to some good, old fashioned Rock and Roll.

(No! It's not "classic rock!" It's ROCK AND ROLL!... fuck you very much.)

The same thing is happening to me with movies. I rarely watch movies. Neither in the theater nor at home. I just don't watch them. 90% of all movies made today don't interest me in the slight. To be honest, it's too much like fucking work.

The bottom line is that the change from film to video will kill movie theaters just like the change from records to CDs to MP3s has killed music.

To be honest, I think the best thing a theater owner who is considering whether he should switch from film to video could do is to burn down the theater, collect on the insurance policy, invest the money in a good IRA then retire and live off the interest.

That's where I think the movie industry is headed. It will be an isolated, anti-social experience where gathering together with other people will be avoided and even frowned upon.

Video has killed the movie theater. It's already a done deal. Movie theaters are just on life support until somebody comes along and pulls the plug.

The worst part is, in throwing away film, they did it to themselves.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-27-2012, 08:57 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
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.

Agreed, completely. I am completely in favor of giving patrons access to as much information as possible. If I ruled the world, every theatre box office would list each title playing there with a title, synopsis, list of major stars, list of major crew members (producer, director, DP, editor, writer, etc.), year of release, running time (of both feature and entire program), color or B&W, origination picture format, exhibition picture format, exhibition sound format, rating, ticket price, 2D/3D, auditorium number (if in a multiplex), and other pertinent information.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-27-2012, 10:33 AM:

Scott: easy to do on line. We are, after all, in the information age! [Roll Eyes]

Louis

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-27-2012, 12:23 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
The bottom line is that the change from film to video will kill movie theaters just like the change from records to CDs to MP3s has killed music.

It's a pretty different thing. First, music isn't dead. The profits from selling it have diminished because in its desire to stop theft, the industry is emphasizing selling individual songs, rather than albums.

You would be better off comparing movies in theaters to live concerts. That's where the money is in the music business these days. Concerts had a down year last year, which was caused by (surprise, surprise!) a down economy, high ticket prices and a comparatively lackluster slate of talent on the road. The exact same problems that have been plaguing the theater business.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-27-2012, 01:14 PM:

The term "film" has a certain prestige that video lacks. A real movie scene would take place within view of some Panavision (or Arri) film cameras. When you see the "making of" documentary puff pieces they like showing off those cameras because it makes the production look more like a real movie. Video cameras were traditionally used just for TV shows, like soap operas, talk shows, live sports events, sit-coms and the 6 o'clock news. There's is a certain trashy "ick" factor associated with that. And this is why so much work is done in post production to make movies shot on video look more like they were shot on film.

I think this is the fundamental reason why so many people shooting features on video still cling to terms like "film" and "cinema". God forbid anyone call what they're doing "TV".

quote: Christopher Crouch
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.

I've always referred to pre-recorded music according to the media on which it was stored. The term "album" is a catch-all for something that can be stored on a vinyl LP, cassette tape or music CD. I never got into using the term "record" for a music recording on disc or tape. Record is really a verb that has been turned into a noun.

quote: Randy Stankey
If you came over to my house and listened to records, the focus would not really be on the music. The focus was on socializing and being with friends and family. When CDs came out the focus turned to the technology but there was still a social aspect to the affair. At the same time, "Walkman" personal music players became popular and listening to music became an isolated, personal event. With the advent of purely electronic media, the whole concept of "playing records" and listening to music has entirely lost its social aspect and has become a purely personal, isolated, non-social experience.

This problem has been compounded by the increasing level of rude, close-mindedness present in the general public. If music is being played on a stereo system or home theater system out loud in a social setting there's always at least one or more people who want to change the music being played because it doesn't fit their preferred playlist. I've seen people leave parties over that nonsense. They can't just let it go and have a good time. I think this situation has contributed to night life in my town going down the toilet. Lots of people don't go to certain clubs/bars because it plays a certain format of music and then the clubs that do play what they like aren't playing exactly the songs they like. So they end up going home and coccooning themselves in their iPods, losing sight of the point of getting out of the house.

Movies are different from music in many respects, but the whole notion of watching them at home "in the coccoon" as opposed to going to the theater could grow into a bigger problem. The movie-going experience is being harmed by things like inconsiderate audience members who can't put down their damned iPhones or stop doing other things to disrupt the show. A lot of big chain theaters have an environment more like that of a fast food chain than a fine restaurant. That's increasing the temptation to just watch the show at home. With our lives being so busy it's sometimes tough to take time to watch a movie uninterrupted for 2 hours on the home theater system. It can be easy to load the disc into a notebook computer and watch it on the go in bits and pieces. I have done this. Even with Blu-ray. My new notebook has a BD-burner and a RGB LED back-lit 1080p resolution screen. Hit play, put on the headphones, and enter the coccoon.