Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 January 10

= January 10 =

"Film" vs "Movie"
I've observed for a while that "film" is the convention in Wikipedia. For example, we have Romeo and Juliet (2013 film). Somebody just "corrected" some text in List of sports films from "Sports movies" to "Sports films". I have no problem understanding either form, but as an Australian I don't think I'd be likely to use "film" in this way. I'd be far more likely to say "movie". Last night I went to see a movie. I didn't go to see a film. Well, I did, but "movie" would be my usage. (It was The Railway Man. Very powerful.) It's interesting that both terms are now a bit anachronistic. "Movie" is presumably short for "moving picture", and they've all been that for 80 years now. True "film" format is being replaced by digital forms. But am I out of touch? Is this an American convention? Or something else? HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, there are two reasons "film" is the preferred term at Wikipedia: (1) "movie" sounds rather colloquial and less formal than "film" (and encyclopedic tone should be somewhat formal, which is why we also avoid contractions in articles), (2) "movie" sounds like an Americanism to British ears, while "film" is region-neutral. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Industry folks and critics often use the term "picture" instead of "movie", both of which derive from "moving picture". We in America used to regard the term "film" as applying only to pictures that were considered kind of pretentious, like Ingmar Bergman's work or whatever. In contrast, calling the work of Ed Wood "films" would seem like giving him too much credit. However, "film" is technically valid and lacks the slangy character of "movie" and "picture". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This was all thrashed out back in July 2005.--Shantavira|feed me 17:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe they should reopen it, since actual film is rapidly becoming obsolete. "Movie" is at least a correct term, whether the media is film or digital. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I note that the company is still called Lucasfilm despite their move to digital. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not becoming obsolete at all. A film shot on video or digital is still a film.  It's a generic term. --Viennese Waltz 19:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you refer to a "digital film", then that leaves us with the unfortunate alternative of a "film film". Until recently, we could perhaps assume that any "film" was not digital, without having to specify this, but this is no longer the case. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Then it's a movie too! I think there might still be linguistic difference around the world. People here often speak of going to the movies, but never of going to the films. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, we never say "going to the films", but we do say "going to see a film". We would say "going to the cinema" to imply going to see a film, and never "going to the movies".  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I've seen non-moving pictures less than 80 years old. —Tamfang (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is yet another rehash of the word vs thing debate. Perhaps nominalism? As noted above, the slangy term "moving picture" has come to reflect the essence, while the literal term film', encountered in the Spanish película and the French pellicule, as well as the borrowings Film in German and film in French, have become obsolete, given the technology involved. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not debating anything. I'm seeking knowledge. In Australia we get a lot of our knowledge of the speech of foreigners, like Americans and the British, from the movies and TV. But people on films and TV rarely talk about going to the movies, so I'm asking here. I'm suggesting that, although we understand it, "film" is rarely used, so the Wikipedia usage seems a bit strained to my colonial ears. So, if you were going out to see one, would speak of seeing a film or seeing a movie? I would definitely be using the latter, and it wouldn't feel all that "colloquial". HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's perhaps interesting to note that the Academy Awards have to the with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, a title which would seem to cover any kind of movie you can think of. In America, the casual fan of the cinema (and there's another synonym) is most likely to say "movie". Siskel and Ebert always called their shows something with "the Movies" in the title. So did their various imitators. Leonard Maltin produces an annual Movie Guide. The term "film" is slightly high-falutin' and seldom used in everyday talk about the movies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In the UK, "film" predominates. "Motion picture" is never used as far as I know. We do have the British Film Institute and the British Academy of Film and Television Arts. Obviously "movie" is understood, but not used much except "action movie" which describes an escapist Hollywood spectacular with lots of guns and explosions. There are "film studios", "film sets", "film crews" and "film stars". Shooting a movie is called "filming", a skill which is learnt at "film school". People "go to see a film", "go to the cinema", or more colloquially, "to the pictures" or "the flicks". Alansplodge (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And there are feature films (not feature movies), filmographies (not movieographies), literary characters portrayed "on film", and so on. Then there's the Internet Movie Database.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Alan, "film" is far from "highfalutin", it's by far the most common manner in which to refer to a moving picture, a feature film, whatever, in the UK. And since the UK (and India, where "film" is also commonplace) are responsible for as many, if not more films than the US, it seems odd to prescribe the word "movie" as being the de facto standard across the world.  A quick search also appears to reveal that China and Russia commonly use "film" over "movie".   The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Or their translators do. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be odd to select a British term unless they really meant it, what with the universal language of the internet being US English. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Many film festivals are categorized in Category:Film festivals.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I wasn't accusing you of debating anything, Hilo. I am pointing out that a lot of our questions, including this one, are based on some sort of unclarified etymologogical premise.  In this case, we have moving pictures recorded on celluloid film.  I don't think there's any way I can be clearer than that. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * According to |this, film started as a verb (in 1896) for making a noun, motion picture, which was shortened to movie in 1912 (possibly '08). But sure in America they go to the movies, although they learn how to make them in film school, where they dream of shooting movie stars (but not killing them). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that source says it started as a verb in 1896 meaning "to make a movie of". HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, but movie was not in derived until later from motion picture. People may not have wanted to fully say motion picture anymore, and could find it awkward to say 'let's film a film.'Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In the UK, we would say "let's make a film". We have an article - Filmmaking. Allow me to attempt to summarise this discussion before it starts to deteriorate....


 * To answer HiLo's question; "movie" is used in everyday speech in North America and it seems, Australia. "Film" is preferred in the UK and some other Commonwealth countries, although use of "movie" is not unknown. On both sides of the Atlantic, "film" is used in more formal contexts, although in the US, "motion picture" is a valid alternative. A film is still a film, whatever technology is used to record it. Correct? Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Russian translation
was presented as a reliable source for the claim:
 * Andrei Fursov, a Russian historian and academician at the International Academy of Sciences in Innsbruck, Austria, was interviewed in 2012 by the Russian publication Terra America and asked to comment on the characterizations of LaRouche in Western media. He replied that intellectuals who have called LaRouche a fascist do not deserve to be called intellectuals, and that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics. Fursov said that LaRouche is little known in Russia, and has insignificant influence

My very rudimentary finding seems to be that the last sentence would be petter para[hrased as
 *  Fursov said that LaRouche is little known in Russia, but that it is not the "quality but the quantity" that counts.[

But I am concerned lest my wording might actually be reversed. Can someone please word the claim properly and accurately at Lyndon LaRouche and at Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement? Merci Collect (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that literal translation will do better. Fursov means that by his opinion it's more important that LaRouche is well-known to the definite narrow professional circles than to Russian ordinary general public.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, your wording is reversed. His response is "I wouldn't rush to say 'significant'.  I think that in Russia not so many people know of Larouche, although, of course, the important thing is not the quantity, but the quality."  The question was whether a significant number of Russian intellectuals have been influenced by Larouche.  The answer implies that the influence may be significant even if the number of people so influenced is not great.  The claim you quoted is a bit out of context and misleading given the whole interview.  --Amble (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also not obvious to me whether Fursov is a reliable source or a notable person whose opinion merits a place in the article. Is the International Academy of Sciences a significant institution?  I don't find a Wikipedia page for it.  Fursov certainly says some silly things, such as that former Obama administration advisor David Axelrod is Leon Trotsky's great-grandson.  (Yes, there is a David Axelrod who is a great-grandson of Trotsky.  No, he's not that David Axelrod.)  --Amble (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Aybolit
Доктор Айболит, according to our article Doctor Aybolit, can be translated to "Ouch, it hurts". But an IP with these edits claimed it translates to "Dr. Feelgood". Google translate agrees with the IP. However people can add random (and perhaps wrong) translations to Google translate. Assuming good faith, I just fixed the entry. But, is it a legitimate translation? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From my limited knowledge of Russian, and considering he is known as "Dr. Au, mă doare", i.e. "Dr. Ouch, it hurts" in Romanian, I would say that's the more accurate translation. 92.81.68.23 (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Correct. Ай is an expression of pain, such as "Ouch", "Ow".  Feelgood is the polar opposite of the literal translation of болит, the 3rd person present of the verb болeть, which means "it hurts" (the 1st and 2nd persons are never used).  It and its plural counterpart болят crop up in expressions like:
 * у меня болит в ухе, I have an earache,
 * у меня душа болит, my heart bleeds
 * у него зубы болят, he has toothache. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed with the above editors and the original "ouch, it hurts" literal translation. Aj, mne boli zub means "Ow, to-me it-hurts the-tooth". μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the language in your example?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My grandmother used to sing this national anthem, Ljuboslov. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Dr. Feelgood"? I have no idea from where did it come. BTW, Google Translate is notorious for its buggy "translations" of names. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can imagine it being an ironic take on his name. I used to play a card game called Grass, which features a "peddle card" called Doctor Feelgood, but that was all about stuff that really does make one feel good. So I'm told.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To Engish it was translated as Dr. Ouch.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I just want to comment that this sort of thing can cause a big problem for a translator. In America the name "Dr. Ouch" has bad connotations -- it certainly doesn't make that doctor seem appealing.  It's possible that the literally equivalent name has quite different connotations for Russians.  I don't know whether that's true, but it seems likely, and if it is, then a literal translation would be quite misleading. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. "Ouch" in English is usually something sharp and immediate, so it sounds like the doctor is jabbing you with something.  The Russian word doesn't only refer to pain, but also to being sick.  I suspect that for a native Russian speaker the name "Dr. Aybolit" sounds more like a patient telling the doctor what's wrong so that he can fix it.  --Amble (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspect that for Americans the name of a doctor suggests what the doctor does, while for Russians it suggests what the doctor cures. But that's 100% unadulterated speculation. Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One needs to consider the distinction between "translation" and "transliteration" — the former requiring context; this is particulary true when dealing with idiomatic or colloquial terms. If the original intent refers to a doctor who "fixes" patients who has an "ouch", then Dr. Feelgood might be the better translation; whereas if the intent is more derogatory, then something like Dr, Ouchy would be better. ~Доктор зная:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so much transliteration as literal translation vs. sense-for-sense translation. But in any case, Dr. Feelgood does have an idiomatic meaning that's completely different.  --Amble (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your help. I left it on the page but moved it to "See also".. It is a disambiguate page so people looking for "Dr. Feelgood" might be interested in Доктор Айболит. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the by, Google translate translates Айболит as a single word to Veterinarian. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)