| Author |
Message |
|
| Joe Vitus |
 Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:15 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
My position is somewhat between Lorne and Marilyn. I agree that we've become closer, and I really didn't have a death wish for them or anything. But their policies were stupid. When the editors said "you are to discuss only movies reviewed by NYT critics and limit yourself to how you respond to these critics" they displayed basic ignorance of how people on the web interact. Also, we pointed out that rather than stifling others' contributions, our discussions encouraged them and made the case back then that by eliminating our contribution (and such venues as the Lobby), their numbers would shrink, not grow.
But in a real sense, the Times won, because I don't think that institution is comfortable with the whole "forum" concept. They want to heavily regulate the content, and control the discourse, or they want none of it. And I think they'd prefer none of it. In the end, with the movies forums at least, they got what they wanted. |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:23 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| I don't pretend to know, ultimately, what the NYT wants or doesn't, but they certainly didn't want our way of interacting. I never saw this as a competition. I feel vindicated that they could not survive without us because they never knew how to build a community and sustain it within their increased rigidity. In that sense, I don't think they have been very successful in reaching an on-line audience. They remain print-bound in their mindset. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lady wakasa |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:35 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5911
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
|
Joe Vitus wrote: When the editors said "you are to discuss only movies reviewed by NYT critics and limit yourself to how you respond to these critics"
Man - why didn't I mention Bosley Crowther's 1941 review of One Foot In Heaven? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| zzzzzzzzzz..... |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:27 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 35
|
| Here's my two cents.....I don't think they read what goes on or else they would have a clue. They are always trying to stear the conversation but this very medium propels a sort of randomness that they do not appreciate. I think they hire recent college grads and tell them how to run it and they listen to them. |
_________________
She turned me into a newt.......I got better |
|
| Back to top |
|
| sioux |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:18 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 802
Location: philly burbs
|
well the thing that struck me when I visited there recently was that all the posts are oilcan format - short posts with no grammar, punctuation or syntax. If NYT was looking at content, even in a casual way, I'm sure they didn't see anything that impressed.
I feel bad for not feeling bad, but ....I slogged through some posts. Its a mercy killing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Earl |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:44 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 2621
Location: Houston
|
Re the NYT Movie Forums:
I suppose that explains why there were 30 users online when I logged in here about an hour ago.
Hard to know what to say since I never visited the Movies forums. The only two places I ever frequented there were the Tennis and Buffy the Vampire Slayer forums. I'm still surprised the latter lasted as long as it did. Then when it closed I was invited here. I still go to the Tennis board there because I've been a regular for a while now (I'm a casual fan about other sports, but a nut about Tennis), and that's it.
Hearing all of you talk about the experience, especially towards the end, I'm glad I never dropped in over there, no offense. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rod |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:56 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Posts: 2944
Location: Lithgow, Australia
|
| As the guy who got specially featured twice from the old NYT forums, I still feel an overwhelming need to tell the bastards to rot in hell. |
_________________
A long time ago, but somehow in the future...It is a period of civil war and renegade paragraphs floating through space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:14 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
| I am especially gratified and proud at what we have accomplished. WEe left en masse an there were virtually no cracks in our solidarity, We set up our own site, thanks mainly to Marc and Lorne (I hope I'm not leaving any of the creators out), made it a success, and watched as the NYT Forum that we said Fuck You to, rapidly platzed leaving a pitiful legacy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:16 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
| That was My (marantzo's post above. Not Marc patting himself on the back. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Earl |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:33 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 2621
Location: Houston
|
Anyone recall a TV special Siskel & Ebert did back in 1990 called "The Future of the Movies" in which the guys interviewed Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas? The transcripts of those interviews were published in paperback form under the same title and included material the TV special couldn't because of time restraints. I dug it up after seeing Revenge of the Sith because I remembered that Lucas had made some remarks back in '90 about the trilogy of eps 1, 2 and 3. I was curious to see if what he said back then matched up with what happened.
While leafing through the book, the name Howard Hughes jumped out at me. Siskel asked if what projects were on the horizon and the reply came back
Quote: Well, it's no secret that I am interested in a biography of Howard Hughes. I've been working with Warren Beatty and Bill Goldman on a possible Howard Hughes biography.
...and I thought, "Hmm, even back in 1990 Scorsese was thinking about doing a Hughes biopic. Wonder what took him so long to get to it." But on a closer look I noticed that it was Spielberg, not Scorsese, who was giving that answer. That was a surprise. I'd never heard Spielberg wanted to do that.
Spielberg was also discussing doing "a Peter Pan" movie, but he seemed to be describing it as a musical. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| yambu |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:11 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
Earl wrote: ....Spielberg was also discussing doing "a Peter Pan" movie, but he seemed to be describing it as a musical. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:13 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| Hook was, indeed, originally intended as a musical. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nancy |
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:14 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4607
Location: Norman, OK
|
lady wakasa wrote: Joe Vitus wrote: When the editors said "you are to discuss only movies reviewed by NYT critics and limit yourself to how you respond to these critics"
Man - why didn't I mention Bosley Crowther's 1941 review of One Foot In Heaven?
LOL! Maybe you should. |
_________________
"All in all, it's just another feather in the fan."
Isaacism, 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:51 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Ebert starts off his review of WAR OF THE WORLDS with the following comment:
Quote: War of the Worlds" is a big, clunky movie containing some sensational sights but lacking the zest and joyous energy we expect from Steven Spielberg.
Hey Roger, maybe Spielberg wants to defy expectations and not make a typically joyous and zestful Spielberg picture. Maybe he wants to do something different. Afterall, WAR OF THE WORLDS is about the destruction of humanity. Where's the joy and zest in that. Roger, did you criticize SCHINDLER'S LIST for lacking joy and zest? Roger, review the movie at hand, not some preconception based on a director's past work. Allow Spielberg to fuck with your expectations. Thats what great artists do. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| daffy |
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:56 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1939
Location: Wall Street
|
Earl wrote: Re the NYT Movie Forums:
I suppose that explains why there were 30 users online when I logged in here about an hour ago.
I noticed that, too. Was Third Eye mentioned there? Or did someone post another link on another site? |
_________________
"I have been known, on occasion, to howl at the moon."
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
