(OT) Why do movies always use Roman Numerals in the date

If you've been paying attention, you'll know that there are a few movie traditions that need breaking a bit more urgently than that one. :(

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Reply to
pcdhobbs
Loading thread data ...

They don't.

Minutes? It takes me a couple of seconds at most!

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Why do movies always use Roman Numerals when they list the year in the credits. Not only does it take 5 minutes to decode them, but most of the time the credits move so fast there is no way to jot down the roman numerals, for later decoding. Why cant they just use common numbers? Apparently there is some tradition in using the roman numerals, because they have been doing it since movies first began. However, traditions can be ended, and this one surely needs to be broken. Roman numerals are so outdated, I bet they dont even teach them in schools anymore.

Reply to
oldschool

I think that (not really for movies, but at least for documentaries on TV) the producers want to be able to re-run them or postpone their first transmission without everyone noticing immediately what the date of production was (i.e. they are watching old stuff).

Reply to
Rob

Common numbers? Jot down the numerals?

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

Outdated? Haven't you seen ads for iPhone X?

Reply to
edward.ming.lee

Why is it easier?

Reply to
oldschool

OK, what about iPhone IX?

Reply to
krw

Pretension to long history, which (given that cinema is in century #1 of its existence) is a bit of dramatic license.

Like, tickertape symbolizes the stock market, and spinning tapes symbolize computing and Morse beeps symbolize RF... the use of Roman numerals connotes monumental constructions in durable stone.

So, how else would you inscribe the date on a cinematic masterpiece like _Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle_? It's gotta be Roman numerals.

Reply to
whit3rd

"The general consensus is the "deception theory":

to "make it difficult for viewers to determine exactly how old the show is", the reason being the older the date the "staler" the material may seem to the audience.

Then there's the "inertia theory": That's just the way it's always been done."

Reply to
bitrex

Close but no cigar. A standalone Roman numeral always unambiguously represents a date, no further explanation needed.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

Because MM (2000) is easier than MCMLX (1960).

This year is MMXVII (2017). MM is 2000, X is 10, V is 5, and II is 2. Easy peasy.

Reply to
John S

I didn't know my clock was trying to tell me dates

Reply to
tabbypurr

Writing a date as yyyy-mm-dd would be so much easier than as mm/dd/yyyy for many purposes, yet the people of some countries seem to find it easier to stick to their backward conventions...

Similar to using units with non-decimal subdivisions, or non-metric units in general.

Reply to
Rob

Why are you so hung up on base-10. Base-2 or 16 would be so much more efficient. As long as you're tearing up all conventions, why not base-e?

Reply to
krw

Base-2 is not more efficient. Base-16 is, but only when used as a native base for all numbers, not when using decimal numbers and base-16 units. (like 1/16")

Reply to
Rob

Sure it is. 1/16 in hex is 1/10 or 0.1.

Reply to
John S

OK, define "efficient".

Again, you're outing yourself as a decimal bigot.

Reply to
krw

Really.

Reply to
krw

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.