Grammar in opening titles: "presents" vs "present"

[Neal Whitman]

In watching old movies, I notice that the opening titles might say something like "Warner Bros. present", whereas these days it would be "Warner Bros. presents", unless two companies are teaming up, as in "Universal and Warner Bros. present".

I'm wondering when the change from plural to singular agreement occurred. I'd like to put out a call to film enthusiasts to submit data points that they observe: The movie title, year, studio, and how the "present(s)" line in the title is written. I'm particularly interested in companies with a plural name: Paramount Pictures, RKO Radio Pictures, etc. I will post a summary of the responses I get.

Thanks!

Neal Whitman

[heynonny]

On 2013-01-14 23:22:11 -0500, Neal Whitman <nealw...@yahoo.com> said:

> In watching old movies, I notice that the opening titles might say somethin
> g like "Warner Bros. present"

Common British usage (not saying correct even there) is to treat
company names as plural and in general to favor using the plural for
many collective nouns. I think it rubs off on people who read a lot of
British and was proabably was more likely to in the 19th and early/mid
20th century.

When Hitchcock (after decades of living in rhe U.S.) says of the
MacGuffin that it's what all the characters are after but "the audience
don't care" it sounds perfectly natural to me and I would grit my teeth
at "doesn't," which is what most Americans would say.

I had lots of problems with spelling tests in High School because I
read mostly British novels and poetry and tended to use "s" where
American usage had subtituted the barbaric "z."

[Stone me]

"Neal Whitman" <nealw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c81ba1a5-d07a-4b61...@googlegroups.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My 2 pennyworth.

Perhaps in the old days, people still considered the
brothers Warner, but today, who knows or cares, it's
just a title and is considered as singular.

Stone me.

[madar...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 11:22:11 PM UTC-5, Neal Whitman wrote:
> In watching old movies, I notice that the opening titles might say something like "Warner Bros. present", whereas these days it would be "Warner Bros. presents", unless two companies are teaming up, as in "Universal and Warner Bros. present".
>
>
>
> I'm wondering when the change from plural to singular agreement occurred. I'd like to put out a call to film enthusiasts to submit data points that they observe: The movie title, year, studio, and how the "present(s)" line in the title is written. I'm particularly interested in companies with a plural name: Paramount Pictures, RKO Radio Pictures, etc. I will post a summary of the responses I get.
>
>
>
>

> Neal Whitman



Neal,

Why don't you get hold of a wide sampling of movies from those years from different studios and look at the beginnings, one by one, until you find what you're looking for?

I have hundreds of old movies, but I don't have the time--or inclination--or financial incentive--to do your research for you.

M.

[dm16...@gmail.com]

Hitchcock loved stirring the pot. In the pre-publicity for _The Birds_ he insisted that the posters should be worded "The Birds is coming" rather than "The Birds are coming."

Dave M

[Neal Whitman]

In fact, that's what I plan to do. But if there are others on this list who take an interest in the question as I do, I invite them to share what they find the next time they're watching an old movie. And if there are some who already have data points to offer, the thread is open.

[Stone me]

<dm16...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:402cfa5c-6675-4b86...@googlegroups.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am no expert, but it would have sounded better "My new movie 'The Birds"
is coming".
Even that is a little crude. "is coming" is too ambiguous.

I wonder what old Sam Goldwyn would have made of it.

(By the way, "the audience" can be singular, as opposed to "the people in
the audience")

There, I shall now step down from the pulpit.

Stone me.

[gtr]

On 2013-01-15 21:38:55 +0000, poisoned rose said:

> To me, "was" definitely seems correct, but sustaining the singular tense
> can get tricky when writing something like, say, "Led Zeppelin was a
> band that played [its? their?] own instruments."

Band, group and ensemble are all singular. So I use "its". But, I can
easily shift to a reference to the band or group of individual persons;
"they were very limited musicians", "they were laughed at by their
peers".

The curiousity is that it is difficult to refer to the band as "it".
Which has us migrating back and forth between singular and plural. The
band was popular, because *it* played fashionably loud; that sounds
odd. I think we construct it with an implication; "the band (of
individuals/members/musicians) was popular". Then we shift to a
back-reference of the implied plural "individuals" instead of the
singular band.

Hmm. What a curiousity, I thought I could explain it to my own
satisfaction but am not sure I have.

[mikeos]

Surely what is implied is "The Warner Bros. Company" presents

[madar...@gmail.com]

Well put. I might even make some notes myself, since it IS indeed an interesting question.

[Joan in GB-W]

<dm16...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:402cfa5c-6675-4b86...@googlegroups.com...

> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:22:09 AM UTC-5, heynonny wrote:
>> On 2013-01-14 23:22:11 -0500, Neal Whitman <nealw...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>
>>
>> > In watching old movies, I notice that the opening titles might say
>> > somethin
>>
>> > g like "Warner Bros. present"
>>
>>
>>
>> Common British usage (not saying correct even there) is to treat
>>
>> company names as plural and in general to favor using the plural for
>>
>> many collective nouns. I think it rubs off on people who read a lot of
>>
>> British and was proabably was more likely to in the 19th and early/mid
>>
>> 20th century.
>>
>

> Hitchcock loved stirring the pot. In the pre-publicity for _The Birds_ he
> insisted that the posters should be worded "The Birds is coming" rather
> than "The Birds are coming."
>
> Dave M
>

But Hitch was correct. The Birds is the title, a singular title on one
movie.

[dm16...@gmail.com]

That was his point but it confused many people at the time.

[Howard Brazee]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:55:06 -0800 (PST), dm16...@gmail.com wrote:

>> But Hitch was correct. The Birds is the title, a singular title on one
>>
>> movie.
>
>
>That was his point but it confused many people at the time.

There always are people confused. But I expect most people weren't.

But maybe not, as people do say "The Giants are the reigning NFL
champions", which grates on me.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[WrongWayWade]

When you hear soccer commentary by English announcers, they refer to the
teams as plural. "Spain are the new Champions Cup winners." That always
sounds odd to me. In the US we'll say either "New York is the Super Bowl
winner, or "The Giants are the Super Bowl winner." (Mascot names come out
as plural.) But never: "New York are the Super Bowl winner."

[madar...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:35:22 PM UTC-5, Joan in GB-W wrote:

As Mad Magazine put it:
"The Birds is coming...and good grammar in advertising has went"

[robfr...@gmail.com]

Hi.....re "Champions".......the competition is called "Championes" therefore Spain are the new champions cup winners is correct.