Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. Bushwhacker's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Catalan
      • Home Country:
      • Spain
      • Current Location:
      • Spain

    • Join Date: Apr 2007
    • Posts: 1,043
    #1

    Cool two years later

    How to say in English properly that a movie has suffered a delay of two years in being released?

    Is it correct to say "The movie was released two years later"?

    Thank You
    Last edited by Bushwhacker; 26-May-2010 at 21:37.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: May 2010
    • Posts: 577
    #2

    Re: two years later

    'The movie was released two year later." - a bald statement of fact. It sounds like the delay was expected; the structure's the same as if it was released a week later. If you add a 'finally' after 'was' it's OK, or:
    The movie wasn't released until two years later
    It would be two more years before the movie was released/saw the light of day/appeared on the big screen/appeared in theatres[usually, cinemas in GBEng]/was given a release, etc.

    PS: if you are using GBEng write 'film' instead of 'movie'; although we often say 'movie' if we are talking about mainstream US films, I don't think, eg, Eat Drink Man Woman - to reference an earlier thread of yours - would be considered a movie. In fact, maybe Americans are more inclined to say 'film' when talking about foreign language films but I couldn't be sure - did Tarkovsky make movies, anybody?

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Polish
      • Home Country:
      • Poland
      • Current Location:
      • Poland

    • Join Date: Oct 2009
    • Posts: 1,704
    #3

    Re: two years later

    I think 'two years later' is not exactly what you want to say (if I get you right). In my opinion it needs something that happened two years before that. And I don't think it's the planned release date by default. But first, I'm not sure if it's comprehensible and second, I'm not sure if it's true

  2. Raymott's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 24,091
    #4

    Re: two years later

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushwhacker View Post
    How to say in English properly that a movie has suffered a delay of two years in being released?

    Is it correct to say "The movie was released two years later"?

    Thank You
    The movie was released two years late.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: May 2010
    • Posts: 577
    #5

    Re: two years later

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    The movie was released two years late.
    Late for what? Even - and there is no suggestion that this is the case - even if we accept that the movie had a release date in eg 2008 but was delayed for two years, we would say:

    The movie was due out in 2008 but [reason, eg 'no distributor could be found'] and so it wasn't released until two years later.

    The movie is not 'late'. What boat did it miss? Rather, the movie was released later than, eg, hoped or expected.

  3. Raymott's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 24,091
    #6

    Re: two years later

    Quote Originally Posted by bertietheblue View Post
    Late for what? Even - and there is no suggestion that this is the case - even if we accept that the movie had a release date in eg 2008 but was delayed for two years, we would say:

    The movie was due out in 2008 but [reason, eg 'no distributor could be found'] and so it wasn't released until two years later.

    The movie is not 'late'. What boat did it miss? Rather, the movie was released later than, eg, hoped or expected.
    It depends on the exact meaning of Bushwacker's question. It's idiomatic to say that something is "two years late", but not that something is "two years later".
    Posters will often offer a sentence to see if it's correct in the context. So the answer depends on whether the focus is on i. How do I say that a movie release has been delayed, or ii. Is the sentence I've given idiomatic in the context.
    You are answering i. and I'm answering ii.

Similar Threads

  1. [Essay] The college Years
    By zahrani3480 in forum Editing & Writing Topics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 30-Apr-2010, 23:11
  2. [Grammar] in recent years vs. for recent years
    By LQZ in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 28-Dec-2009, 14:32
  3. has lived vs has been living
    By juliana0403 in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 24-Jan-2009, 15:36
  4. 5 - years ago vs years back
    By FirstScript in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-Mar-2008, 09:48
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-Jul-2007, 11:06

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •