Having been roundly chastised for my quibbles about the English language, or at least the American variant of it, more specifically, the term "film", I guess I also have to go on living in a world where my car is referred to as a "Sedan".
Having been roundly chastised for my quibbles about the English language, or at least the American variant of it, more specifically, the term "film", I guess I also have to go on living in a world where my car is referred to as a "Sedan".
Up until the early 1950s cars didn't usually have model names. One might buy a 1940 Ford which came in different size/configurations: coupe, sedan, 4 door sedan, sedan delivery (vans) and convertible. Once the auto makers started giving their cars fancy names like Impala, Fairlane etc the designation of coupe, sedan etc was dropped from the cars.
We stop calling them films when we start (again) calling them flicks.
Yeah....about 30% of the time, I do use that term in casual conversation, even though I do hope that the frame rate and projection quality does NOT make them flicker. In my personal life, I do preserve the use of the term "film" for actual film presentation. I have a theater near me that occasionally does that. They used to have two film projectors, but one took up residence in the lobby as a period decor piece. Film presentations are a special occasion, something like Gone With the Wind or a vintage print of Star Wars and usually noticeable for their scratchy quality.
Up until the early 1950s cars didn't usually have model names. One might buy a 1940 Ford which came in different size/configurations: coupe, sedan, 4 door sedan, sedan delivery (vans) and convertible. Once the auto makers started giving their cars fancy names like Impala, Fairlane etc the designation of coupe, sedan etc was dropped from the cars.
Coupe, sedan, etc still have a life as genre labels. Some years back, the acronym SUV got added to the list, but back to the "Film" debate, having spent half of my life in the science world, the idea of seeing a fox and calling it a salamander makes me startle.
Having also made some small part of my living as a photographer, the difference between film, negatives, prints and digital media is a big deal methodologically. When I see movies today, the photograph editor in me sees all sorts of things that would just NEVER happen on film. We take them for granted now, but as I saw recently, putting the New York skyline in the background of a close up shot would NEVER happen on film. I'm no kind of film purist, so the visual tools available with digital image capture would "boggle the mind" of someone who only had film to work with. It reminds me of how we still rate our cars' speed capability with "horsepower". I don't think we will ever turn back and don't know why anybody would romanticize it.
Last edited by skizzerflake; 2 weeks ago at 04:09 PM.