I understand that the correct usage is to say "to see a movie" and "to watch TV or a TV program". What is the correct verb to use if the TV program in question is a movie?
e.g. I watched/saw "Gone with the wind" on ABC last night.
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:46:25 -0400, "P.T." <ptnos...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I understand that the correct usage is to say "to see a movie" and "to >watch TV or a TV program". What is the correct verb to use if the TV >program in question is a movie?
>e.g. I watched/saw "Gone with the wind" on ABC last night.
Frankly, I don't think anyone gives a damn which you use. As far as I'm concerned, they're interchangeable in this context. The only distinction I would make is that I would say "I went to see a movie" and not "I went to watch a movie". Once there, though, I either watched it or saw it.
-- Tony Cooper aka: tony_cooper...@yahoo.com Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:46:25 -0400, "P.T." <ptnos...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I understand that the correct usage is to say "to see a movie" and "to >watch TV or a TV program". What is the correct verb to use if the TV >program in question is a movie?
>e.g. I watched/saw "Gone with the wind" on ABC last night.
As I understand the usage, to see something means to to be aware of its existence. To watch something usually infers paying attention to something over a period of time. Either one could apply to a film but there is a slightly different implication as to what impression the film might have made.
P.T. writes: > I understand that the correct usage is to say "to see a movie" and "to > watch TV or a TV program".
It's more subtle than that. "See" is correct when considering seeing the movie or TV show as a single action that you either have done or have not done, and "watch" is correct when you're considering it as an extended action that you might be in the middle of.
It happens that "watch" doesn't come up very often with regard to movies shown in cinemas, because people watching a movie in a cinema are rarely doing anything else at the same time worth talking about. But if someone was talking on the phone, for example, you might want them to put it away and *watch* the movie -- not *see* the movie.
> What is the correct verb to use if the TV program in question is a movie?
As above.
> e.g. I watched/saw "Gone with the wind" on ABC last night.
"I tried to *see* it last night, but while I was *watching* it, the power went off." -- Mark Brader "The world little knows or cares the storm through Toronto which you have had to pass. It asks only if you m...@vex.net brought the ship safely to port." -- Joseph Conrad
Tony Cooper wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:46:25 -0400, "P.T." <ptnos...@sympatico.ca> > wrote:
>>I understand that the correct usage is to say "to see a movie" and "to >>watch TV or a TV program". What is the correct verb to use if the TV >>program in question is a movie?
>>e.g. I watched/saw "Gone with the wind" on ABC last night.
> Frankly, I don't think anyone gives a damn which you use. As far as > I'm concerned, they're interchangeable in this context. The only > distinction I would make is that I would say "I went to see a movie" > and not "I went to watch a movie". Once there, though, I either > watched it or saw it.
My grandmother, born 1892, would go into her drawing room in the evening to "look at" the television. I suppose she grew up without an appropriate verb and adapted what she did to the wireless: "listen to".
I've just remembered that she always locked the back door when she was looking at the television. If we found the back door locked we knew that we had to knock on the drawing room window.
-- David I say what it occurs to me to say. ===== The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the spammers.
<bass.b.vo...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >Tony Cooper wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:46:25 -0400, "P.T." <ptnos...@sympatico.ca> >> wrote:
>>>I understand that the correct usage is to say "to see a movie" and "to >>>watch TV or a TV program". What is the correct verb to use if the TV >>>program in question is a movie?
>>>e.g. I watched/saw "Gone with the wind" on ABC last night.
>> Frankly, I don't think anyone gives a damn which you use. As far as >> I'm concerned, they're interchangeable in this context. The only >> distinction I would make is that I would say "I went to see a movie" >> and not "I went to watch a movie". Once there, though, I either >> watched it or saw it.
>My grandmother, born 1892, would go into her drawing room in the evening >to "look at" the television. I suppose she grew up without an >appropriate verb and adapted what she did to the wireless: "listen to".
In the early days of British radio, you "listened in". The audience were referred to as "listeners-in". This usage (which was standard in BBC publications) is occasionally found as late as WWII, although most people were saying "listeners" by then.
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote in message <news:IWiqa.740$EP3.853539884@news.nnrp.ca>... > P.T. writes: > > I understand that the correct usage is to say "to see a movie" and "to > > watch TV or a TV program".
> It's more subtle than that. "See" is correct when considering seeing > the movie or TV show as a single action that you either have done or > have not done, and "watch" is correct when you're considering it as > an extended action that you might be in the middle of.
> It happens that "watch" doesn't come up very often with regard to movies > shown in cinemas, because people watching a movie in a cinema are rarely > doing anything else at the same time worth talking about. But if someone > was talking on the phone, for example, you might want them to put it away > and *watch* the movie -- not *see* the movie.
This is a distinction which I very much doubt is widely observed.
<bass.b.vo...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >My grandmother, born 1892, would go into her drawing room in the evening >to "look at" the television. I suppose she grew up without an >appropriate verb and adapted what she did to the wireless: "listen to".
Didn't people in pre-TV days often say they planned to "watch" the radio, or wireless? Look at some old pictures: they actually did gather around their radios, and watch them. -- Charles Riggs
>"Richard R. Hershberger" wrote > > > I understand that the correct usage is to say "to see a movie" and "to > > > watch TV or a TV program".
> > It's more subtle than that. "See" is correct when considering seeing > > the movie or TV show as a single action that you either have done or > > have not done, and "watch" is correct when you're considering it as > > an extended action that you might be in the middle of.
> > It happens that "watch" doesn't come up very often with regard to movies > > shown in cinemas, because people watching a movie in a cinema are rarely > > doing anything else at the same time worth talking about. But if someone > > was talking on the phone, for example, you might want them to put it away > > and *watch* the movie -- not *see* the movie.
> This is a distinction which I very much doubt is widely observed.
>> "Did you see that quiz show on the TV last night?" >> "No, I watched the film on the other side"
> The other side of what? This expression is not familiar to me at all.
Archaic (as far as TV goes) UK usage. There were two TV channels until 1963, and three channels up to 1982, and for most people the evening viewing was either ITV or BBC1, BBC2 didn't get all that much of a look-in. So if you weren't watching the quiz show on BBC1, you were watching the film on the other side, ITV.
People were quite territorial about this: you were either a BBC family or an ITV family. Both DH and I come from BBC families, we almost *never* watched ITV, and yet there's very little reason for that. For us, BBC2 was "the other side" to BBC1, we never even considered ITV as an option. Even now I rarely look at the schedules for ITV, it's such an ingrained habit to ignore it.
Jacqui wrote: > Donna Richoux wibbled: >> Graham Ramsay wrote:
>>> That's as I understand it. >>> Although...
>>> "Did you see that quiz show on the TV last night?" >>> "No, I watched the film on the other side"
>> The other side of what? This expression is not familiar to me at all.
> Archaic (as far as TV goes) UK usage. There were two TV channels until > 1963, and three channels up to 1982, and for most people the evening > viewing was either ITV or BBC1, BBC2 didn't get all that much of a > look-in. So if you weren't watching the quiz show on BBC1, you were > watching the film on the other side, ITV.
> People were quite territorial about this: you were either a BBC family > or an ITV family. Both DH and I come from BBC families, we almost > *never* watched ITV, and yet there's very little reason for that. For > us, BBC2 was "the other side" to BBC1, we never even considered ITV as > an option. Even now I rarely look at the schedules for ITV, it's such > an ingrained habit to ignore it.
> Jac
Oh, what a shame. There's been this wonderful quiz show 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire' - you would have loved it. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Jacqui wrote: > Archaic (as far as TV goes) UK usage. There were two TV channels until > 1963, and three channels up to 1982,
How could the British people have tolerated this?
Okay, I guess a lot of Americans used to have just a few broadcast channels, but in the New York TV market, back in the day, we had:
Channel 2 WCBS Channel 4 WNBC Channel 5 WNEW? (Then independent, now owned by Fox) Channel 7 WABC Channel 9 WOR (Secaucus, NJ - then independent, now UPN) Channel 11 WPIX (Then independent, now WB) Channel 13 WNET (Public television - Newark NJ)
Plus the fuzzy UHF channels, like Channels 21, 25, 31, whatever. One of them was the one that showed _Viva Allegre_. Another of them was showing _Lost in Space_ reruns for a while.
> People were quite territorial about this: you were either a BBC family > or an ITV family. Both DH and I come from BBC families, we almost > *never* watched ITV, and yet there's very little reason for that.
So, like, was Monty Python BBC, and Benny Hill ITV? Monty Python was always shown on public television stations in the US (TTBOMK), along with other "high-church" British TV programming, like _Masterpiece Theatre_. But Benny Hill was shown on Channel 9 (WOR) in the New York market; it wouldn't have been considered acceptable on one of the network-affiliate stations, let along a public television station. (Don't try to deny that Benny Hill was British, Simon!)
>>Archaic (as far as TV goes) UK usage. There were two TV channels until >>1963, and three channels up to 1982,
> How could the British people have tolerated this?
They were much better off. I had a return to this way of life during the 14 years I lived in country Australia: 2 channels - ABC and the commercial Golden West Network.
When I came to the Big City, there were already 4 channels and now there are more, but what do you get? There are still the same number of good programmes shown per week - six at the most - and most frequently they are on at the same time. How these people with their satellites and 40+ channels manage, I don't know - I expect they still have a choice of about half a dozen decent programmes a week.
> >> "Did you see that quiz show on the TV last night?" > >> "No, I watched the film on the other side"
> > The other side of what? This expression is not familiar to me at all.
> Archaic (as far as TV goes) UK usage. There were two TV channels until > 1963, and three channels up to 1982, and for most people the evening > viewing was either ITV or BBC1, BBC2 didn't get all that much of a > look-in. So if you weren't watching the quiz show on BBC1, you were > watching the film on the other side, ITV.
> People were quite territorial about this: you were either a BBC family > or an ITV family. Both DH and I come from BBC families, we almost > *never* watched ITV, and yet there's very little reason for that. For > us, BBC2 was "the other side" to BBC1, we never even considered ITV as > an option. Even now I rarely look at the schedules for ITV, it's such > an ingrained habit to ignore it.
That's interesting: I'm surprised that the distinction persisted into your generation. Although my parents already owned a TV [1] at the time of the Coronation [2] we didn't acquire a set that would receive ITV until well into the 1960s and I missed many programmes that my husband watched as a youngster. We didn't discover this cultural mismatch until a visit to the late lamented Museum of the Moving Image where tapes of old TV shows were played.
[1] It was given to my grandfather in part payment of an outstanding debt in 1947. As a baby, I was apparently parked in a playpen in front of the test card. The long-term effect of this remains unclear.
[2] The lucky few who owned TVs invited the neighbours in to view the broadcast of the event - it was all very exciting.
> > Archaic (as far as TV goes) UK usage. There were two TV channels > > until 1963, and three channels up to 1982,
> How could the British people have tolerated this?
We borrowed your stiff upper lip, of course. It gets worse: there was no daytime broadcasting apart from the test-card and short films repeated daily for reference purposes. (I vaguely recall a film shown on BBC at around 4pm daily which I believe was of Stourhead Gardens -- does anyone else remember it? This must have been in the late fifties.)
> Okay, I guess a lot of Americans used to have just a few broadcast > channels, but in the New York TV market, back in the day, we had:
> Channel 2 WCBS > Channel 4 WNBC > Channel 5 WNEW? (Then independent, now owned by Fox) > Channel 7 WABC > Channel 9 WOR (Secaucus, NJ - then independent, now UPN) > Channel 11 WPIX (Then independent, now WB) > Channel 13 WNET (Public television - Newark NJ)
> Plus the fuzzy UHF channels, like Channels 21, 25, 31, whatever.
"Fuzzy UHF channels"? What were the other ones? Here in Britain, VHF was the older, lower-definition mode and UHF the new 625-line mode still used for analogue and now digital broadcasting.
> One of them was the one that showed _Viva Allegre_. Another of them > was showing _Lost in Space_ reruns for a while.
> > People were quite territorial about this: you were either a BBC > > family or an ITV family. Both DH and I come from BBC families, we > > almost *never* watched ITV, and yet there's very little reason for > > that.
> So, like, was Monty Python BBC, and Benny Hill ITV? Monty Python was > always shown on public television stations in the US (TTBOMK), along > with other "high-church" British TV programming, like _Masterpiece > Theatre_.
Python was always strictly BBC and remains so.
> ... But Benny Hill was shown on Channel 9 (WOR) in the New York > market; it wouldn't have been considered acceptable on one of the > network-affiliate stations, let along a public television station. > (Don't try to deny that Benny Hill was British, Simon!)
Benny Hill started out on BBC, and was thoroughly excellent. The gags were mostly based on wordplay[1], and any sauciness was implied rather than visual. Then he went over to ITV, and -- just as Jacqui says -- thereby became invisible to families like ours. I gather that those programmes were a bit saucy.
[1] Typical example that I remember: Benny is in Liverpool Docks by a big sign reading "Mersey Docks and Harbour Board"; he's surreptitously adding "And Little Lambsy Divey".
R F wrote: > Okay, I guess a lot of Americans used to have just a few broadcast > channels, but in the New York TV market, back in the day, we had:
> Channel 2 WCBS
Does CBS have Channel 2 in every major market except the Bay Area?
In the Bay Area it's KTVU, which I think is now Fox or at least a Fox affiliate. When I was growing up it was independent, and at some point got independent-minded enough to show R-rated films without cutting out the nudity. I don't know whether Fox put a damper on that or whether they felt the pressure from some other direction, but regrettably they stopped.
"P.T." <ptnos...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message <news:dggqa.4773$2g5.694463@news20.bellglobal.com>... > I understand that the correct usage is to say "to see a movie" and "to > watch TV or a TV program". What is the correct verb to use if the TV > program in question is a movie?
> e.g. I watched/saw "Gone with the wind" on ABC last night.
I think the distinction might be comparable to that between "hear" and "listen" - in other words, the degree of attention you are paying. Most of the time I "see" things on TV - i.e. in one eye and out the other. But if I am "watching", then I put down my book, send my children out of the room, and remove my earplugs.
> People were quite territorial about this: you were either a BBC family > or an ITV family. Both DH and I come from BBC families, we almost > *never* watched ITV, and yet there's very little reason for that. For > us, BBC2 was "the other side" to BBC1, we never even considered ITV as > an option. Even now I rarely look at the schedules for ITV, it's such > an ingrained habit to ignore it.
Yup, this sounds very familiar. Of course, one reason we rarely consider ITV as an option is that we live between transmitters and listings regions. If we get the correct Radio Times for the BBC region we can watch, the prominently listed ITV programmes are for the wrong region so even if we do find something we'd like to watch on ITV the chances are high that it's not on in our region.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:37:51 +0100, Graham Ramsay wrote: >>"Donna Richoux" <t...@euronet.nl> wrote
>> > "Did you see that quiz show on the TV last night?" >> > "No, I watched the film on the other side"
>> The other side of what? This expression is not familiar to me at all.
> Sorry Donna. > Side = channel.
> "Can you switch the TV over please?" > "What do you want to watch" > "The news thanks" > "What side is it on" > "BBC1"
> I may be showing my age here.
As someone who feels relatively young amongst AUE-ers - no you're not showing your age at all. In the seventies, when I was a nipper, it was always "side". Even though there were three channels, to switch sides was always to "the other side". My parents, of course, grew up with fewer channels (0 as toddlers), which is where I got the phrase from.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:51:21 +0100, "Matti Lamprhey"
<matti-nos...@totally-official.com> wrote: >Benny Hill started out on BBC, and was thoroughly excellent. The gags >were mostly based on wordplay[1], and any sauciness was implied rather >than visual. Then he went over to ITV, and -- just as Jacqui says -- >thereby became invisible to families like ours. I gather that those >programmes were a bit saucy.
ITV Benny Hill was in the same vein as Dick "Ooh, you are awful, but I like you" Emery -- but with lots more bikinis and reeskay doobly ontawndries. (I have it on very good authority that Dick Emery chose that stage name because of his lone mission to file the licence-payer's patience down to the quick.)
The 1970s was a period when I suspect that television programmers on some course were taught that middle-aged men dressed in drag was Entertainment. As well as Messrs (or Mmes, if you prefer) Hill and Emery's laugh-a-minute extravaganzas, no bank holiday was complete without its Danny La Rue special on BBC and Stanley Baxter special on ITV.
Now I come to think about it, the dragginess was so pervasive that even the comediennes on the box looked like middle-aged men in drag (cf. Hilda "Ooh, look at the time, it's twenty past... I must get a lickle hand put on this watch" Baker).
Has 'e beeeeen?
Ross Howard -------------------- (Kick ass for e-mail)
>> Archaic (as far as TV goes) UK usage. There were two TV channels >> until 1963, and three channels up to 1982,
> How could the British people have tolerated this?
They had other things to do. :) And decent national radio.
>> People were quite territorial about this: you were either a BBC >> family or an ITV family. Both DH and I come from BBC families, we >> almost *never* watched ITV, and yet there's very little reason >> for that.
> So, like, was Monty Python BBC, and Benny Hill ITV? Monty Python > was always shown on public television stations in the US (TTBOMK), > along with other "high-church" British TV programming, like > _Masterpiece Theatre_. But Benny Hill was shown on Channel 9 > (WOR) in the New York market; it wouldn't have been considered > acceptable on one of the network-affiliate stations, let along a > public television station. (Don't try to deny that Benny Hill was > British, Simon!)
Yup. The Pythons were "very BBC" (being Oxbridge-educated), Benny Hill was for the "vulgar masses" on ITV. :-) (Unfortunately that doesn't explain the popularity of Are You Being Served? which was a BBC show, but never mind.) The Pythons also had the advantage of having a BBC "in" because Cleese had been on BBC Radio for some time, and on the various David Frost shows with the Two Ronnies who were also BBC.
tv.cream.org (no www) might be able to identify the origin of other British shows you remember, if you want to attempt to formulate a theory about US showings of UK shows.
Where US imports were shown here: Dallas and Dynasty were both BBC, as were The Dukes of Hazzard, Bermuda Triangle, The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. ITV got The Fall Guy, The Six Million Dollar Man, The Incredible Hulk, Hart to Hart. I can't remember any more right now, but I'm sure a lot more will come to mind the minute I press send.
