The difference between Movies & Films

when someone asks 'wanna c a film'

would u actually say 'Oh not really, but how about a movie?'


2 me, a movie is a film and a film is a movie and a flick is when someone hits you with their finger

Wow, I can't believe how pretentious this thread is. "Movies are different from films." BULLSH-T. Say you were going to see Eyes Wide Shut, would you say "let's go to the movies" or "let's go to the films"? No difference! Gaaah!

You may disagree with it, but how on earth is that pretentious? Like it or not, agree with it or not, a lot of people make different connections with different words.

I think all films are movies, but not all movies are films. But the only way I distinguish is the shooting medium. I don't refer to ...almost as a "film" because I shot it on digital video. Had I shot the same script on 16mm, I would've called it a film.

Though I do think there's a difference between FilmNerds and MovieNerds.

That's it! That sums it up for me right there!

I also agree with Steve's notion of," Let's go to the movies.." I ALWAYS say that, and not," ...to the films." But that's different.

Why do you think it's the Cannnes Film Festival...and not the Cannes Movie Festival?

I don't really bother making a point to use one or the other unless it's in an extreme case. Example: If I ever refer to "Bio Dome" as a film, it will be a slip of the tongue (or brain). If I happen to remember to at the time, I'll try to refer to "Unbreakable" as a film. Film is to movie as ape is to monkey.

I say lets go to the pictures!

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

The difference between seeing a movie and seeing film???? The answer is simple...........DLP!

Does your theater have one of those DLP thingies?

Yes we do. It stands for Digital Light Processing. It's better picture and sound than film. The real movie going experience!!!!!!!!!


Check it out at www.dlp.com

Didn't know they had one there. That's cool.

To me: If I believe a movie was made to make profit (Rush Hour 2) I often refer to it as a movie. If its made simply to be made, as art, it a film. If its made for profit, but still is artistic, I might call it both (LOTR). As far as I'm concerned, film can still be a film and be shot digital or even videotape. Who cares? I'm actually often a semantics-obsessed jackass but in this case, I am not.

I say "Let's go see a porno".

I mean, um....nothing.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

you are too young for pornos...you dirty, little thing, you.

You can NEVER be too young for porno's. They are one of the building blocks of civilization. Not really, I am just saying that.

Porno's are just like a comedy, cheaply shot and made for laughs.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Now HERE'S a conversation.
What makes one smutty film a porno and another a work of art?

I say the name of the director.

That's interesting. I think you're right. Eyes Wide Shut would be consider pretty pornographic if not for Kubrick's name, wouldn't you say? That's a very good observation, IMO, Matt.

Boogie Nights was borderline pornographic...but it was a work of art.

Americans in general are so stupid when it comes to sex. If anybody has ever seen an actual XXX-rated film and Eyes Wide Shut yet can't see the difference, then they're morons. On a similar level, if one doesn't know the differences between a Botticelli nude, a Calvin Klein advertisement, Cosmopolitan, Playboy and Swank, they must have never seen all five.

If you want to take a Puritanical view that ALL nudity or sexual activity automatically equals "pornography", then you're going to impossibly have to redesign the bulk of the world. If you want to reasonably ("reason" is the key) restrict what is available generally in your community and always of course what is essentially in your own home, God bless, I think we all do that every single day.

As has come before the U.S. Supreme Court time and again, there is no real definition of what makes "pornography" and what makes "art" - it is always in the eye of the beholder. As such, as long as it is labeled so one doesn't walk in completely unassuming, what possible difference could it make to an individual? The Missionary sensibility, being compelled to change the world at large to your particular viewpoint, is one that truly baffles and continually confounds me.

This kind of discussion always leads to the area of censorship of one kind or another. Simply leaving it at not buying 'those kinds of materials' (however you personally define it) you don't like or simply changing the radio station or television channel seems so logical and easy to me. I'm not at all against labeling, which if it is a form of censorship is a mild and logical one. Prohibiting every single piece of material in the world from children is of course impossible, but the idea of being selective and vigilant is a worthwile and feasible exercise for parents. Taking it the next step, making anything completely unavailable in the world because any one person or group doesn't approve, is ridiculous and insulting, and not indicative of the kind of free society I want to be part of.

In my opinion, of course.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Well, then I don't know if you need to worry much, Holden. I'm sure no one here, at least, is making an argument for that. And yes, "Eyes Wide Shut" is not akin to hardcore pornography. But softcore? That seems reasonable to me.

Here's my view on it, and the view of my parents: they WILL find out. Bottom line. As a result, the kids in this family are told about the basics of sex at an extremely young age...when they take it as just another piece of information. The parents make it clear: we don't think you're old enough for this or that, period. In the end, you'll be making your own choices, but that doesn't mean we're going to allow it, and it doesn't mean it's good for you when you do have the freedom.

I'm happy with the society we have so far in terms of such things. If a grown person wants to watch people having sex, they can. If they want to see a movie which shows the same thing, in a less offensive way, they can do that, too. Sex does not equal pornography, as you said, and it does not make something automatically bad...but I also think that, in many cases, the film can do without it...or do without it at the level it uses it.