From now own the movie industry shall release work in either of 2 clearly defined categories: Movies and Films.

[Arcadio]

Movies: previously known as "blockbusters" or "pop-corn" movies.
Films: previously known as movies that are not "blockbusters" or "pop-corn" movies.

Only Films should qualify for any serious awards.
Streaming services will have two separate plans. One for movies, cheap. One for films, more expensive.
Movie theaters (now renamed as Cinemas) will be required to play one type or the other, BUT NOT BOTH.

What else should I add to my proposal?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Any and all films and movies will now only consist of: prequels, sequels, reboots, rehash, and remakes.


Oh wait were already there.

 

[IronWing]

Where do talkies fit into this scheme?

 

[sdifox]

Where do talkies fit into this scheme?

Exiled to UK.

 

[SKORPI0]

MOVIES - works of fiction, nothing is real.
DOCUMENTARIES - works of fact, everything presented really happened.

 

[BoomerD]

Can it be a "film" if it was recorded digitally?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

MOVIES - works of fiction, nothing is real.
DOCUMENTARIES - works of fact, everything presented really happened.

If you've ever seen a Michael Moore film - you can definitely have "facts" that are there to drive a narrative.... Where only certain facts are stated and others aren't.

So documentaries can be tricky too.

 

[nakedfrog]

Which one is the LotR trilogy?

 

[purbeast0]

Anyone who calls a movie a "film" I pretty much automatically consider them a movie snob and their opinion will be invalid because they look for way more meaning out of movies than I do. I watch them for 2 hours of entertainment and nothing really more, for the most part. And most of the movies that win these fancy awards aren't very entertaining to me.

 

[nakedfrog]

Anyone who calls a movie a "film" I pretty much automatically consider them a movie snob and their opinion will be invalid because they look for way more meaning out of movies than I do. I watch them for 2 hours of entertainment and nothing really more, for the most part. And most of the movies that win these fancy awards aren't very entertaining to me.

Meh, I enjoy "films" and I enjoy stupid movies too. I don't pay much attention to awards though.

Edit: SOME stupid movies. Not, for example, any Transformers movie. Nick Cage movies are a maybe, Ghost Rider was pretty lame.

 

[purbeast0]

Meh, I enjoy "films" and I enjoy stupid movies too. I don't pay much attention to awards though.

Edit: SOME stupid movies. Not, for example, any Transformers movie. Nick Cage movies are a maybe, Ghost Rider was pretty lame.

So what you are trying to say is that you enjoy movies.

Got it.

 

[nakedfrog]

So what you are trying to say is that you enjoy movies.

Got it.

Yeah, but I would also call a movie a "film", which evidently makes me a movie snob with an invalid opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[BurnItDwn]

I like movie films.

Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters was kinda dumb, but I loved it.
Borat subsequent moviefilm was hilarious albeit a little bit crude at times.

 

[DigDog]

can you not yourself easily tell if a thing is a Movie or a Film just by the trailers?

 

[snoopy7548]

Anyone who calls a movie a "film" I pretty much automatically consider them a movie snob and their opinion will be invalid because they look for way more meaning out of movies than I do. I watch them for 2 hours of entertainment and nothing really more, for the most part. And most of the movies that win these fancy awards aren't very entertaining to me.

I only partake in motion picture film viewing, as my top of the line home theatre (only weeaboo plebs spell it "theater") has never once presented any so-called "movies" for my consideration (note that true film enthusiats consider films rather than "watch" them, as it means they give careful consideration to the thought-provoking qualities of said films).

Enjoy your "movies", pleb.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Meh, I dunno, I watch what I watch, I likes what I likes. Sometimes it's popular, sometimes not.

 

[IronWing]

Which one is the LotR trilogy?

It can’t be a film as it was wholly digital so I guess it’s a flick.

 

[TheELF]

Streaming services will have two separate plans. One for movies, cheap. One for films, more expensive.

It would be very much the other way around, charge hard for the blockbusters that can be sold to people and take whatever small amount people would give for the rest.

It can’t be a film as it was wholly digital so I guess it’s a flick.

Digital or analog it's the same, it's a series of still pictures that are played one after the other like a string or a film if you please since a string is "one dimensional" ,so to speak.
Flick because you flick through them as in a stack of physical pictures (flip book/thumb cinema) try doing that with a hard drive.

 

[Muse]

Movies: previously known as "blockbusters" or "pop-corn" movies.
Films: previously known as movies that are not "blockbusters" or "pop-corn" movies.
-SNIP-
What else should I add to my proposal?

A failsafe means of differentiating the two. Hint: Not possible.

And, you know, there are a lot of movies not conceived as blockbuster material that are dull and stupid all in all.

 

[Muse]

can you not yourself easily tell if a thing is a Movie or a Film just by the trailers?

I don't watch trailers but pick up of a few seconds of many when navigating (fast forwarding through) the rare TV I watch. Of course, a goodly hunk of the cinema (for want of a better word, I'm really not into parsing movies/flicks whatever this way) is blockbuster (wannabees?) trying to entice an audience with violence, sensationalism, CGI, flash/bang/wow. I generally avoid that kind of thing, but I'll make an exception (i.e. give a try to) such fare when it's highly touted. 1/2 the time I'm pretty disappointed, but sometimes not at all. The original The Fast and the Furious was pretty damn good. I like Peter Jackson's King Kong. I should rewatch TLOTR, I have the DVD's on my shelf.

 

[DigDog]

weird, i too liked PJ's King Kong. I couldn't put my finger on why, but i suspect it is because me and PJ both loved the original b&w film, and his film has some strong vibes from the original. I'm not talking about the story being the same, but the way the sets are used, the pacing, and generally it being treated as a "here is realistic science explorers", almost down-to-earth film.

 

[Muse]

...and generally it being treated as a "here is realistic science explorers", almost down-to-earth film.

I have an "is this realistic" litmus test I apply to many movies and etc. I don't automatically reject art if it isn't realistic, but I often do.

 

[Arcadio]

And, you know, there are a lot of movies not conceived as blockbuster material that are dull and stupid all in all.

I never implied that dull and stupid movies didn't exist in the "true film" category, but at least we can assume that they were not meant to be easy-money formulaic works that look like they were spit out by an algorithm.

 

[Muse]

I never implied that dull and stupid movies didn't exist in the "true film" category, but at least we can assume that they were not meant to be easy-money formulaic works that look like they were spit out by an algorithm.

Yup, I avoid those like the plague. I just don't get off on that stuff. I like a good emotional kick, something that makes me feel really human.