Xref: utzoo news.groups:16181 rec.arts.movies:28122
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!ruby!boyajian
From: boyajian@ruby.dec.com (The Dread Pirate Roberts)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REVISED CHARTER for rec.arts.cinema
Message-ID: <7261@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 6 Jan 90 04:40:44 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 88

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.

} [...] would argue that made-for-television films [...] belong in
} rec.arts.cinema and r.a.m(.r).

I would agree. Some factors to consider:

(1) The dividing line between theatrical releases, home video releases,
and television "releases" is getting fuzzier. If we decide that tv-movies
are no go, what about direct-to-video releases?

(2) The medium of display often changes at the last minute. A studio may
make a film with the intention of releasing it to theaters, but as a
result of poor reception at "sneak previews", deciding to go direct to
video or cable. Or, a film may have been intended for television and end
up being released theatrically (one example I can think of is an anthology
film NIGHTMARES).

(3) An American made-for-tv film may get theatrical distribution in Europe.
So, with respect to us, it's a tv movie, but to Europeans, it's a theatrical
movie. Sometimes this happens in the US. TESTAMENT, for example, appears
to have been made with the intention of it being a "PBS film", and yet it
was apparently released to theaters in some limited arrangement as evidenced
by Jane Alexander's Oscar nomination.

(4) How do we deal with tv *versions* of films previously released to
theaters -- films that were re-edited with additional footage for their
television broadcast? In a discussion of the Godfather films, for example,
would the "tv mini-series" cut be valid source material in place of the
two distinct theatrical films?

(5) How about made-for-tv sequels or spin-offs of films? I'd consider a
compare-and-contrast article on HIGH NOON vs. its tv-sequel HIGH NOON
II: THE RETURN OF WILL KANE to be completely appropriate. Or say, one
that looks at the differences between M*A*S*H the film and M*A*S*H the
tv series.

I sympathize with the Maltin viewpoint that "tv films are a breed apart"
but it seems to be getting less easy to distinguish exactly where the
dividing line occurs. It seems more intuitive than anything else. And I
think *that* should be the basis -- and on a case by case basis -- for
the appropriateness of the subject matter. 

I wouldn't like to see, for example, a discussion in rec.arts.cinema that
revolves around, say, I LOVE LUCY as a program. On the other hand, if one
wanted to write an article highlighting Lucille Ball's career it would
rightly and necessarily delve into her television work in some detail.
An article about "Nuclear Fear Films" would be incomplete without making
reference to tv films like SPECIAL BULLETIN or THREADS, never mind the
real fence-straddlers like THE DAY AFTER or TESTAMENT. It would be
appropriate to use the mini-series AMERIKA in a discussion of the image
of Soviet-American relations in film. And so on, and so on, and so on.

For better or for worse, television has greatly affected the film industry.
It was the dominant factor in the switch to widescreen photography. It
has completely changed the accessibility of older films that might have
otherwise disappeared into oblivion. It (unfortunately) is the root cause
of colorization. And so on, blah, blah, blah. And the home video revolution
goes hand-in-hand with it.

In article <50483@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes...

} 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? 

I'm nervous about the "without contraints" clause, but can't say exactly
why. Maybe because it allows the potential for discussions of television
material to dominant the group (however unlikely I'm sure that is). I
would not like to see this happen. On the other hand, a "serious" article
that examines the dystopic atmosphere of MAX HEADROOM in the same way that
another might do for BLADE RUNNER seems to me to be more appropriate for
this type of newsgroup than for r.a.tv.

			"Although you whirl wonderously with your
			 majestic and superior cackling hen, your
			 people I do not understand."

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

UUCP:	...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian

ARPA:	boyajian%ruby.DEC@DECWRL.DEC.COM