rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:38 pm

Alan

I'm sure it's nothing but an affectation. Bates would probably defend his choice of words by saying it is now a widely used term, no longer just in America, or claim it as an example of a linguistic import from across the pond. But unless I'm way out of touch (usually more than a possibility!) I don't think the average person in this country would ever say "I'm going to the movies on Saturday" or "I've just seen a good movie." Put it down to the metropolitan media being out of touch with you and me, especially in showbiz. It wouldn't be fair to ask the USA to change its own familiar term after all these years, though! Talkies, movies; and didn't they try the smellies at one time?

There again, the young may be beginning to use the expression, perhaps? Globalisation and all that? Sheldon would know. Film & cinema - or for my generation - "the pictures" or "the flicks" would still seem to be adequate for most. Movies? They're still "over there"!

In the late '50s & early '60s, with the arrival of rock 'n' roll, almost every British pop singer felt obliged to attempt an American accent, Tommy Steele being one of the few exceptions. Don't ask me why. The arrival of the Beatles & the "Mersey sound" kicked all that out of the window for a for a few years, but back it came. Misguided affectation.

Peter

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:45 pm

Alan,
Where did you grow up?

Peter,
"First (1895) - they moved! Then (1927) - they talked! Now (1960) - they smell!" Actual publicity tagline for SCENT OF MYSTERY, filmed in 70mm and Smell-O-Vision...

You're right that "movies" generally remains foreign to these shores, but I don't think many young people in Britain refer to "the pictures" these days - though probably more do in the North than in the South. If you'll forgive me, I recall an exchange from an episode of Channel 4's BIG BROTHER a couple of years ago when a Southerner asked a Geordie why he referred to the cinema as "the pictures". He was met with a stony silence...

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:54 pm

Warrington

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:46 pm

"Kinema"-- Hmmm- "kine-" from the Greek relating to motion, as in kinetic energy (energy in motion). Egad! Don't tell me you all pronounce "cinema" with a hard "c" as in "complimentary"? Honest, I've never seen it spelled with a "k" (the mind boggles), although I've heard of a Kinetascope (sp?). Maybe with the requisite inclusion of at least one gratuitous sex scene in most American "pictures' we should just spell it "Sinema" as it's pronounced!

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:54 pm

Many memories of going to the Kinema. My father went there when he was a boy.

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:32 pm

Terrific picture! Don't worry, Saw, "Kinema" is strictly old-school (as my students would say) and was probably obsolete by the 1930s. Even so, until 1971, when it folded, Britain's leading film trade paper was "Kine. [formerly Kinematograph] Weekly"...

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 8:27 pm

Fellows.....re: tee-vee.....Have you guys gone all digital yet? It's supposed to happen here on February 9 2009. Bye bye analog and ditch those crystals and antennae... Wink

...heh heh I hear some think our govt hasn't put enough money behind the effort to let people know about the fact that they'll need a converter if they still have analog sets. And if they don't prepare all they'll get is "snow"..... Wink

....The avg hh here watches tv around 6+ hrs a day around here. They'll go batty if that screen goes blank!

Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:12 am

Rich,
I'm in semi-rural NH (AKA Cow Hampshire) so my only TV sources are cable and dish, of which I've got the latter. My Brother, however, lives just outside The Big Apple and not only gets high-def digital, but receives it through his antennae; so I guess the change over to total digital isn't going to obsolete the old bunny ears for everyone. My Bro incidentally, who's a bit of a techno weenie, contends that over air digital signals are actually less prone to "noise" than both cable or satellite as long as the range is reasonable. And crystals of course will always be popular Uptown, if you get my drift.
My mystery de jour is: What with the PAL format being a slightly higher resolution and a faster frame rate than NTSC, is my new copy of "ZULU", which was purchased from the UK and is therefore PAL, actually clearer and sharper than a comparable DVD purchased in The States? Inquiring minds want to know...

Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 4:23 pm

Saw,
Yes, your PAL disc should be fractionally superior to an NTSC equivalent - though your DVD player's conversion of the PAL signal to NTSC output may result in a loss of quality (as it tends to do with NTSC discs played on PAL machines here). Of course, it may depend on how good your hardware is!
Sheldon

Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 10:57 am

Thanks, Sheldon. The definition was superior to any other copies I already had, but I wasn't sure if that was only a result of re-mastering (which certainly might be a factor also. I enjoyed in particular the commentary feature-- thanks for the outstanding contribution.

Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 4:29 pm

Thanks, Saw! The commentary was done in about 2002, before I'd really got into researching my book, and needs updating. I offered to do another one for the new edition, but they didn't leave enough time - or money, probably (not for me but for the hire of a recording studio). Glad you enjoyed it, though.

Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 10:08 pm

Enjoyed it is a bit of an understatement. I hate to use a trite expression, but it's "important" to offer those insights to those of the unwashed who seek it. Did you get a sense however of your co-commentator failing to take your priming (as it were) and run with it? You seemed to be asking leading questions or making provocative comments and then having to fill in the blanks yourself, but perchance that's merely my inference. Too bad you weren't born a decade or two earlier (LOL) and gotten the likes of Stanley Baker or Cy Enfield on tape eh?

Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 3:22 pm

A number of people have said that Bob Porter sounds a bit grumpy on the commentary, but that's just his manner (as a no-bull old pro) - he's actually a very engaging dinner companion! He was right not to pretend knowledge of aspects of the production he wasn't directly concerned with, and also right to be impatient with some of my more ignorant questions! But yes, it's a pity Cy and Stanley weren't around for the age of DVD - though they have left recorded comments in various TV and radio interviews which could be pasted together to form some kind of ersatz commentary, as has been done with other films.