Posted by Neil at 205.163.142.226 on December 02, 1999 at 13:04:38:
In Reply to: A movie and a film are the same damn thing. posted by Stratford I on December 02, 1999 at 12:55:17:
: : It isn't a matter of money. It's a matter of quality, and the expression of the art. And as for Kevin putting "all he had" into each film, this is hardly the case with either Mallrats or Dogma. Mallrats was bankrolled by Universal, and Dogma by Miramax
: Film is what a movie is shot on. A movie is a moving picture. All of Kevin Smith's films\movies are shot on film and are moving pictures. Period. I hate it when people try to use film as a pretentious definition of a movie. Coin a new phrase for Christ's sake.
The worst part is that these pretentious twits always want to come across like they're "informing" us lower beings of this "distinction".
Let me state here and now that I have indeed heard the argument that "film" and "movies" are different and have soundly rejected it as among the most ridiculous, unintelligent theories used in the criticism of any artistic medium.
Now, again, if you feel the need to define some kinds of movies as artistically different than others (and I don't think the line Not-So-Silent Bob Red drew is a particularly valid one), please give up this stupid one and let us get on with a reasonable discussion.