Xref: utzoo news.groups:16167 rec.arts.movies:28113
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REVISED CHARTER for rec.arts.cinema
Message-ID: <50483@bbn.COM>
Date: 5 Jan 90 23:57:09 GMT
References: <1990Jan5.055309.5776@eddie.mit.edu> <3183@cbnewsj.ATT.COM>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 30

In article <3183@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>One issue not covered is whether made-for-television (including made-for-cable)
>films are included.
>...
>[I] would argue that
>made-for-television films (including documentaries--see the review of
>"Forbidden City, U.S.A" just posted to r.a.m.r) belong in rec.arts.cinema and
>r.a.m(.r).



This is pretty thorny.  Are two-hour pilot episodes "movies"? If not,
how are they different from made-for-tv movies? How about a
mini-series -- is it a movie? Or think about it from the other
perspective: are the serial Westerns of the 30's "movies" or are they
the equivalent of tv shows? They were an hour long (or so), with
continuing characters -- really no different from "Gunsmoke". Why are
they "movies" when "Gunsmoke" isn't? Because of the physical medium?
But "Moonlighting" was produced for film rather than tape. Because of
the intended exhibition place? That's clear enough, but it seems
arbitrary, especially now that many movies are only viewable via
video. 


The easy answer to these questons is to do what the serious "cinema"
journals started to do in the 70's -- include tv & video without any
constraints. Personally, I would be very happy to see this happen.
However, I suspect that that's a minority opinion. Anyone else feel
this way? If not, how do you propose to distinguish movies from tv
shows?