Most Pivotal Year in History

[Maurepas]

Have to go with the Voyage of Columbus in 1492, wiped out near unprecedented numbers of people, and set the stage for the advancements, and failings of the eventual industrial revolution and the next few centuries.

[Rambhutan]

The spread of English wasn't the actual English's fault, it's the U.S. and their colonialism/intervention in South America and their economic superiority. If America spoke French, the world would speak French. If America spoke Zulu, the world would speak Zulu.

Seems to me the British Empire might be rather more responsible for the spread of English. The reason that Hollywood films etc found a world audience was because people round the world were already able to understand English.

[Maurepas]

The spread of English wasn't the actual English's fault, it's the U.S. and their colonialism/intervention in South America and their economic superiority. If America spoke French, the world would speak French. If America spoke Zulu, the world would speak Zulu.

Seems to me the British Empire might be rather more responsible for the spread of English. The reason that Hollywood films etc found a world audience was because people round the world were already able to understand English.

Not to mention, the reason the US spoke English was because of the British Empire.

[Nazis in Space]

The spread of English wasn't the actual English's fault, it's the U.S. and their colonialism/intervention in South America and their economic superiority. If America spoke French, the world would speak French. If America spoke Zulu, the world would speak Zulu.

Seems to me the British Empire might be rather more responsible for the spread of English. The reason that Hollywood films etc found a world audience was because people round the world were already able to understand English.

So I take it you're not familiar with the concepts of 'Subtitling' and 'Dubbing'?

[Rambhutan]

So I take it you're not familiar with the concepts of 'Subtitling' and 'Dubbing'?

I am beginning to wonder if you are familiar with the concept of common sense. You really think subtitling was more important to the success of Hollywood films around the world than the fact that Canada, Austalia, the UK, South Africa, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc. provided an existing anglophone market? That the reason the then hugely succesful French and German film industries declined after the introduction of talkies in 1928, whereas the Britsh and American industries prospered was dubbing?

[Nazis in Space]

So I take it you're not familiar with the concepts of 'Subtitling' and 'Dubbing'?

I am beginning to wonder if you are familiar with the concept of common sense. You really think subtitling was more important to the success of Hollywood films around the world than the fact that Canada, Austalia, the UK, South Africa, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc. provided an existing anglophone market? That the reason the then hugely succesful French and German film industries declined after the introduction of talkies in 1928, whereas the Britsh and American industries prospered was dubbing?

So, are you suggesting that the world audience is limited to the anglophones, that nobody else counts?

I can assure you that the average german, frenchman, or japanese is not sufficiently capable of understanding spoken english to enjoy the average hollywood flick - they all rely on subs or dubs. And yet hollywood dominates the local markets. I suppose you could make the argument that hollywood could simply afford more money for its productions, thus pushing foreign productions out of the markets... And to some extend, this is true. It does, however, have absolutely nothing to do with the British Empire, since it's always been the domestic american market that provided the lion's share of the money - financial gain from outside it is merely a little bonus. Hardly a surprise, given that the domestic market outnumbers that of all other english-speaking countries (Bar india) by a considerable margin.

It's a simple matter of scale. America is big, and thus produces many films. America is, culturally speaking, european, and thus has easy access to the european mindset, its cultural market, thus, its films are successful in Europe. America has also had a profound impact on a variety of other countries - japan and korea come to mind -, and thus its films are successful there, too. What is notable here is that english-speaking countries make up a distinct minority of the countries american cinema is successful in - so 'They speak english, too!' is kind of a retarded argument. Because they totally don't.

Sure, there are other countries that produce excellent films (France and Italy come to mind), but they're much smaller than America. Thus, they produce less films, and as a consequence, get a smaller market share.

There's also countries bigger than America, which produce just as many, if not more films (India comes to mind), but they're culturally very alien to most of the world - thus, their films, although dominating the domestic market, fail on the global one.

And then there's countries that just plain suck at filmmaking (Germany comes to mind), so naturally their markets are swamped with american, french and italian films.

Incidentally, it should be noted that French and German cinema declined after all their stars and directors moved to hollywood - where the money was. Why was the money there? Because American cinema had, economically speaking, been globally dominant from day one. And why was american cinema dominant from day one? Nah, not because they got a few extra pennies from canada.

Because America had a fucking huge domestic market from day one, huger than any other country. You could take every other english-speaking country away from the start, and the end result would still be the same (Except that there wouldn't have been a Sean Connery). 150 mio people (Back then) of a country not suffering from clinical economic depression and thinking twice about spending every penny make a hell of a lot of a difference.

[Rambhutan]

I can assure you that the average german, frenchman, or japanese is not sufficiently capable of understanding spoken english to enjoy the average hollywood flick - they all rely on subs or dubs. And yet hollywood dominates the local markets. I suppose you could make the argument that hollywood could simply afford more money for its productions, thus pushing foreign productions out of the markets... And to some extend, this is true. It does, however, have absolutely nothing to do with the British Empire, since it's always been the domestic american market that provided the lion's share of the money - financial gain from outside it is merely a little bonus. Hardly a surprise, given that the domestic market outnumbers that of all other english-speaking countries (Bar india) by a considerable margin.

It's a simple matter of scale. America is big, and thus produces many films. America is, culturally speaking, european, and thus has easy access to the european mindset, its cultural market, thus, its films are successful in Europe. America has also had a profound impact on a variety of other countries - japan and korea come to mind -, and thus its films are successful there, too. What is notable here is that english-speaking countries make up a distinct minority of the countries american cinema is successful in - so 'They speak english, too!' is kind of a retarded argument. Because they totally don't.

Sure, there are other countries that produce excellent films (France and Italy come to mind), but they're much smaller than America. Thus, they produce less films, and as a consequence, get a smaller market share.

There's also countries bigger than America, which produce just as many, if not more films (India comes to mind), but they're culturally very alien to most of the world - thus, their films, although dominating the domestic market, fail on the global one.

And then there's countries that just plain suck at filmmaking (Germany comes to mind), so naturally their markets are swamped with american, french and italian films.

Incidentally, it should be noted that French and German cinema declined after all their stars and directors moved to hollywood - where the money was. Why was the money there? Because American cinema had, economically speaking, been globally dominant from day one. And why was american cinema dominant from day one? Nah, not because they got a few extra pennies from canada.

Because America had a fucking huge domestic market from day one, huger than any other country. You could take every other english-speaking country away from the start, and the end result would still be the same (Except that there wouldn't have been a Sean Connery). 150 mio people (Back then) of a country not suffering from clinical economic depression and thinking twice about spending every penny make a hell of a lot of a difference.

You don't appear to have any knowledge of film history at all. Germany in the early days of cinema was one of the major players and certainly didn't 'suck' at film making - in fact they produced some of the greatest films of all time. The American film industry was certainly not dominant from day one. You have not actually offered anything to support your idea that subtitles and dubbing led to the domination of the film market - you have not even explained how that would work. Subtitling and dubbing were just as avialable to the non-Anglophone film industries around the world - how come it didn't work for them?

[Nazis in Space]

You don't appear to have any knowledge of film history at all. Germany in the early days of cinema was one of the major players and certainly didn't 'suck' at film making - in fact they produced some of the greatest films of all time.

I'm deeply sorry. I was referring to contemporary cinema. This said... I'd like to see evidence that America was at some, any point, not the major player in terms of revenue generated by, or money spent on films produced, barring maybe (A big maybe) a very brief period before WW1 ('Only' #2).

You have not actually offered anything to support your idea that subtitles and dubbing led to the domination of the film market - you have not even explained how that would work. Subtitling and dubbing were just as avialable to the non-Anglophone film industries around the world - how come it didn't work for them?

Maybe actually comprehending my previous post would've helped...? Chiefly by pointing out that they weren't. That was never my claim.

Your claim is that Hollywood depended on the world speaking english to find a major market, and I'm calling bullshit on this, because Hollywood's market outside the US itself is dominantly countries that will provided dubbed or subbed versions of Hollywood films because barely anyone speaks it fluently - and yet, its films are perfectly successful in these places.

Meaning that the english language cannot, in fact, be responsible for Hollywood's success. And that is, in fact, my point.

[Rambhutan]

You don't appear to have any knowledge of film history at all. Germany in the early days of cinema was one of the major players and certainly didn't 'suck' at film making - in fact they produced some of the greatest films of all time.

I'm deeply sorry. I was referring to contemporary cinema. This said... I'd like to see evidence that America was at some, any point, not the major player in terms of revenue generated by, or money spent on films produced, barring maybe (A big maybe) a very brief period before WW1 ('Only' #2).

You have not actually offered anything to support your idea that subtitles and dubbing led to the domination of the film market - you have not even explained how that would work. Subtitling and dubbing were just as avialable to the non-Anglophone film industries around the world - how come it didn't work for them?

Maybe actually comprehending my previous post would've helped...? Chiefly by pointing out that they weren't. That was never my claim.

Your claim is that Hollywood depended on the world speaking english to find a major market, and I'm calling bullshit on this, because Hollywood's market outside the US itself is dominantly countries that will provided dubbed or subbed versions of Hollywood films because barely anyone speaks it fluently - and yet, its films are perfectly successful in these places.

Meaning that the english language cannot, in fact, be responsible for Hollywood's success. And that is, in fact, my point.

My point was that America is not entirely responsible for so many people speaking English in the world. You joined that argument halfway through picking up on a minor example that Hollywood has benefited from there being English speakers around the world as opposed to people in those parts speaking English because they watched Hollywood films. Hollywood was only part of my example that a large part of the world speaking English because they were part of the British Empire. I was not arguing Hollywood was succesful because of the British Empire (and I am hard pushed to see where I am supposed to have said that - where exactly did I claim that Hollywood depended on the world speaking English?), but that the presence of a large anglophone population around the world has provided an extra market for films and TV in English. That market is because of the British Empire not because Hollywood subtitled and dubbed films.

[Barringtonia]

The main issue with North America speaking English is not so much an issue of Hollywood but more of WW1. It's actually very interesting to visit Ellis Island due to the map they have where you push a language button and see the population spread - until that point I had no idea how much German ancestry is in the US.

It might not be the case where the US would join Germany but rather, simply, not join at all. That may have led to the US being somewhat more isolationist - I imagine the mere fact of joining WW1 strengthened joining in WW2.

The US influence in Europe and, therefore, the rest of the world is a result of its initial involvement in Europe.

One would argue the cultural influence of Hollywood resulted in that, not a cause in itself.

Perhaps my view is coloured by the recent nature of the world but communication, above all other factors, from the airplane to Hollywood and, latterly, the Internet is an enormous force generally under appreciated in the course of world events.

For some reason, the British did not retain their language solely to themselves, unlike, say, the Mongolians in China - the Forbidden City is so named because it's where Kublai Khan maintained his culture within the walls while administrating the country in Mandarin - but I suspect it was partly the nature of evolving technology - the spread of trains for example - that required greater language integration.

Somewhat a fluke perhaps but given the truly global integration of the last, and this, century I think the fact that English became the language of North America remains the most important event in history.

Bismarck was no fool.

[Serrland]

The main issue with North America speaking English is not so much an issue of Hollywood but more of WW1. It's actually very interesting to visit Ellis Island due to the map they have where you push a language button and see the population spread - until that point I had no idea how much German ancestry is in the US.

It might not be the case where the US would join Germany but rather, simply, not join at all. That may have led to the US being somewhat more isolationist - I imagine the mere fact of joining WW1 strengthened joining in WW2.

The US influence in Europe and, therefore, the rest of the world is a result of its initial involvement in Europe.

One would argue the cultural influence of Hollywood resulted in that, not a cause in itself.

Perhaps my view is coloured by the recent nature of the world but communication, above all other factors, from the airplane to Hollywood and, latterly, the Internet is an enormous force generally under appreciated in the course of world events.

For some reason, the British did not retain their language solely to themselves, unlike, say, the Mongolians in China - the Forbidden City is so named because it's where Kublai Khan maintained his culture within the walls while administrating the country in Mandarin - but I suspect it was partly the nature of evolving technology - the spread of trains for example - that required greater language integration.

Somewhat a fluke perhaps but given the truly global integration of the last, and this, century I think the fact that English became the language of North America remains the most important event in history.

Bismarck was no fool.

On the matter of English in America: perhaps the most important impact of America speaking English came in the form of its ties to England. It's hard to envision America getting involved in WWI if its ally from across the Atlantic wasn't involved in the war, and the same could possibly be argued of WWII. The same can be said of music: would The Beatles or Zeppelin be half as big as they are today if they didn't come from Britain to America, capitalizing on the friendly relations between the two?

If America had ended up speaking French or Dutch or German, I can't really see relations with Britain (and despite the whole Revolutionary War and War of 1812 deal, Britain was often America's closest trade partner) being as solid as they were. Imagine a USA whose fortunes were tied to the French, who were plunged into costly continental war after war after war in the late 18th and 19th centuries - it would be shaky at best, especially with the Brits still holding Canada.

[Nazis in Space]

but that the presence of a large anglophone population around the world has provided an extra market for films and TV in English.

And that's where you're wrong since, if the market in countries that aren't anglophone is (Per capita) just as big and (In absolutes) even bigger, this suggests that whether people speak english or not has little to no relevance to the success of american films, specifically because dubbing & subbing are pretty neat ways to get around that language barrier.

What's so hard to understand about this?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

In my opinion, the human rights movement of 1948 and the moon landings of 1969.

[Rambhutan]

but that the presence of a large anglophone population around the world has provided an extra market for films and TV in English.

And that's where you're wrong since, if the market in countries that aren't anglophone is (Per capita) just as big and (In absolutes) even bigger, this suggests that whether people speak english or not has little to no relevance to the success of american films, specifically because dubbing & subbing are pretty neat ways to get around that language barrier.

What's so hard to understand about this?

Well show me some figures that contradict me. Maybe take a look at this while you are at it
http://www.globalization101.org/issue_s ... can_Market

[Mad hatters in jeans]

In my opinion, the human rights movement of 1948 and the moon landings of 1969.

the human rights movement was faked.
they used dodgy film sets.