Here's the thing. You said a "movie is a film". /r/AskReddit discusses the difference between a movie and a film. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
328 ups - 0 downs = 328 votes
259 comments submitted at 01:00:27 on Dec 3, 2014 by TheRandomMan1000
Here's the thing. You said a "movie is a film". /r/AskReddit discusses the difference between a movie and a film. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
328 ups - 0 downs = 328 votes
259 comments submitted at 01:00:27 on Dec 3, 2014 by TheRandomMan1000
>And that's why you're wrong. With that logic, you would consider a classical symphony composition the same as a Katy Perry song?
>In Science class, that vial is "just another liquid" so you should be able to drink it?
>In History class, the Soviet Union and The United States are both countries, so their political ideals are about the same right?
>In Literature, the cliff notes will be enough, why read the whole book? Or even yet- do a report on Marvel comics #155, it's the same as Dante's Inferno right?
>I could go on and on. Sorry, your comic book movies are not the same thing as films. Some art is pop art, other is fine art. There is a difference.
>It didn't take me or a professor for people to realize that. A lot of people with DFA's could school you in their knowledge as you keep quoting fart jokes and clinging to the idea your media is of the same intellectual caliber.
New copy pasta
I don't even find this one funny, it just pisses me off.
Why does it piss your off? Would you make a distinction between a commercial and a movie? If so, is there a distinction beyond the length? If not, would there be a difference between a 1 and 1/2 hour long movie and a 3 hour long movie? If it is intent, why not make the same distinction between films and movies?
I know this is reddit so I'm fighting a losing battle, but there is a difference between entertainment and art. If you're curious about learning more, I can provide some basic reading on aesthetic philosophy,
It doesn't matter if one is utter garbage, they're both movies/films, at least according to the definition nearly everyone accepts.
So you would say there is a system of critique in which we can label one over the other "garbage"?
What is your definition for movie/film? Is it simply that they are motion pictures? If so, is there a difference between a Viagra commercial and a Sergei Eisenstein film? If there is, what is the distinction (beyond their length)?
What is this definition "that everyone accepts?"
I don't really want to argue with you to be honest.
"garbage" was an exaggeration. If you understood what I meant, why bother?
A commercial and a film are both videos. So in that regard, yes they're the same thing. But they have differences. I don't know what point you're trying to make. Just because something is lesser quality doesn't mean you have to create a new term.
Come one, don't be an ass. You don't need a strict technical definition for everyday terms like movies or films. Everybody knows what it means, even if they can't define it. If you want a definition, use a dictionary.
>But they have differences
What are they?
>Just because something is lesser quality doesn't mean you have to create a new term
How do you judge quality?
> Everybody knows what it means
What do they mean?
I'm really not trying to be an ass, I'm just trying to point out you already agree there differences in meaning, art, judgement, and entertainment. They aren't all the same thing, and categorizing different types of art is useful.
WTF is your problem dude?
I'm training to be a cultural historian, and it upsets me to see such ignorance about art, judgement, criticism, aesthetics, and entertainment.
Sorry if I was rude, I wasn't in a good mood.
I agree. You're right, some stuff is different than other stuff. Using terms to separate them is useful. You can even use common words and give them new meanings to do so. Just don't act like everybody ought to know the differences between two synonyms if you personally use them in two different ways.
Unless this use of 'movie' and 'film' is common, I'm not too sure.
I think it's a distinction that can be made, but at the same time doesn't always need to be. That's not the issue, the issue is with the fact that he thinks they're different things. Ultimately, the content doesn't matter in this distinction, it was an argument over semantics and he turned it into an argument over quality and philosophy.
I'm not pissed off by that though, it's the inane metaphors he made in that post and the pretentious overly-haughty nature of it all.
I would like to say both arthouse films and entertainment films, by definition, are art, what changes is whether or not they're considered fine arts. In my opinion, what someone considers fine art is entirely up to them, it's how something communicates with them and what worth they find in it, I don't think it's something that can be so easily "objectively" measured, especially if you think the worth in media in general is how it communicates with it's viewer. Of course, popular opinion is fairly uniform on the subject, most people have the same opinions on what is fine art and what is just made-for-entertainment. It's not always a matter of what is what though, it's a matter of being allowed to like whichever you want without being put down by pretentious asshats.