Xref: utzoo news.groups:16141 rec.arts.movies:28088
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: renewed Call for Discussion: rec.arts.cinema
Message-ID: <50453@bbn.COM>
Date: 5 Jan 90 13:31:32 GMT
References: <50326@bbn.COM> <1990Jan5.062111.29517@sq.sq.com>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 26

In article <1990Jan5.062111.29517@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>I didn't think it was necessary to post before, because there were also
>several articles mentioning what I thought was an obviously superior name:
>rec.arts.movies.serious.  The reason I think it's superior is not that
>.movies.serious is better than .cinema, but that I think this *clearly*
>belongs as a subgroup of rec.arts.movies.  Anything else would be massively
>confusing to anyone coming onto the net after the group is created.

r.a.m.serious was my proposal. I dropped it because (a) it was so
clumsy; (b) those expressing a preference seemed to come down
uniformly in favor of r.a.cinema; (c) it's misleading in its own way:
does it mean 'serious movies' or 'serious talk'?

I agree that, from a net hierarchy point of view, a subgroup makes a
bit more sense. Maybe if someone came up with a less clunky subgroup
name, I would support it. For now, the relative elegance of r.a.cinema
gets my vote. It really is common usage (in the US, at least) to use
"movies" in casual conversation and "cinema" in serious and/or
scholarly discussion (when discussing the institution; in the context
of a single picture, the distinction is more often "movie" vs "film"). 


>If there are people who don't agree that this is obviously right,
>then I suggest that the vote be of the STV type...

Sure, why not.