They're the same thing, "film" is a word used to describe artsy movies, usually by lazy pretentious people who use the word "film" rather then a valid description to describe the "film". Wedding Crashers is a film, as is Requiem for a Dream, just two words for the same thing. Wedding Crashers is a movie, Requiem for a Dream is a movie. Blah.
Pardon the French, but **** technicalities, lol. Hollywood and underground don't abide by them, so why should movie fans? I mean, that's the beauty of opinion, and nothings going to change mine.
Hollywood has movie premiers, independent circuit has film festivals.
By definition, they're all motion pictures, but the level of intimacy that's in independent films aren't in Hollywood flicks because most indie directors write and direct their own works. Hollywood will get someone to adapt something from someone elses work, then throw some big name director behind it. This holds true especially for documentaries and true life stories, both indie territories, neither "movies".
It's not fair, IMO, to suggest something made strictly for entertainment with no emotion attatched is "art", regardless of any technical, empty, generic, mainstream definition. I'm glad atleast some people agree with me, so I'm not totally off my rocker.
Who says hollywood movies have no emotion attached? Every film ever made was made by someone, someone put their time and effort into it to try and make it the best possible movie they could (some failed, some succeeded) and, as such, obviously put emotion into it. Every movie has to try to evoke some emotion from the viewer, whether it be humor, sadness, anger, fear, ect. No movie attempts to draw no emotion from the viewer, find me a movie that does not attempt to draw out all emotion, and then you can call that movie "not art".
Everything else you said is strictly a matter of opinion and nothing more, and I won't attempt to argue that. Though, technically speaking, reguardless of your personal feelings on the matter, every movie ever made is a piece of art.
Originally posted by BackFire
Who says hollywood movies have no emotion attached? Every film ever made was made by someone, someone put their time and effort into it to try and make it the best possible movie they could (some failed, some succeeded) and, as such, obviously put emotion into it. Every movie has to try to evoke some emotion from the viewer, whether it be humor, sadness, anger, fear, ect. No movie attempts to draw no emotion from the viewer, find me a movie that does not attempt to draw out all emotion, and then you can call that movie "not art".Everything else you said is strictly a matter of opinion and nothing more, and I won't attempt to argue that. Though, technically speaking, reguardless of your personal feelings on the matter, every movie ever made is a piece of art.
I know, I'm not out to do anything but share a philosophy and somewhat of an observation, and people aren't always going to agree. I respect that.
It's not even the triggering of emotion that I'm getting at, it's the actual intimacy. I mentioned the big difference is that indies are from the heart, and that's MY definition of a "film", where it was one person's work from start to finish, down to the finances. "Movie" just feels too generic, and shouldn't be just slapped on whatever makes its way through a theatre. I'm not trying to be artsy fartsy or snoobish, but Hollywood is impure and I don't think the levels of devotion between the two outlets are comparable, and that's how I make the distinction. I also take into consideration the actors and directors.
Lemme share a couple of sources I've came across...
There is a difference between films and movies , and I prefer films .One might say "If Steve Martin is in it, it's a movie; if Ralph Fiennes is in it, it's a film" except "The Spanish Prisoner" is a film and "The Avengers" is a movie. How 'bout "If Sir Derek Jacobi is in it, it's a film and if Elvis Presley / Chris Farley is in it, it's a movie"? 1980s Tom Hanks pictures are movies, 1990s Tom Hanks pictures are films.
Gods and Monsters, aka Father of Frankenstein is a film, and Young Frankenstein, aka Frankenstein Jr. is a movie.A movie may move you in ways (no pun intended), but a film moves you, makes you want to live better and/or appreciate the gift of life as is. A film makes you hug a loved one. Movies sometimes have sight gags. Films have sight poetry. Films express visually what might be cheapened with words.
Hell, even Wikipedia gets in on the debate.
Academics and the English-speaking international community prefer to use film or "cinema", due to the colloquial nature of these other terms.
Colloquial, meaning informal, which suggests "movies" doesn't necessarily respect the medium.
Originally posted by BackFire
Any form of creation or expression is art, Wedding Crashers was createdby someone, as such, it's art.Every movie ever made is art in the technical sense.
Movie = film. Film = movie.
I agree, I see it the same way Backfire does.
Originally posted by The Tired Hiker
Movies are what you put on while you make out with chicks. Films are what you watch with chicks to get laid.
😂
My point is that I can frame a piece of used toilet paper and consider it art because it's a piece of personal expression. That doesn't mean it's supposed to be held in high regard or compared to van Gogh's work.
Just because it's art, and I agree any movie is art, doesn't mean it deserves higher esteem than proven artists works.
I have used the words interchangeably, but mostly agree that they mean different things in our Hollywood-driven society.
Originally posted by Myth
Movies are created to make money but may end up being appreciated.
Films are created to be appreciated but may end up making money.🙂
And I think a movie can BECOME a film. I don't think that film is only where the director had/wanted self-expression. I think there are many movies that were created to BE popcorn-flicks but because of time or whatever (fans, etc.) they are studied as film.