rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/04/90)
In article <1990Jan3.175530.26100@aqdata.uucp> sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: >[genre subgroups] >That sorta was my point, actually. I meant that the "classic(al)" idea >was even worse than the genre idea, which is about the closest thing >to clearly defined as your going to get. This is all a bit beside the point. Nobody ever wanted genre groups, and the classical idea was dropped in favor of a general-purpose, serious discussion group. "Classical" is *quite* well-defined, rather more so than genres, but the important point is that this thread is now tangential. The proposal on the table is rec.arts.cinema as described in a previous posting. I hope that there will be some discussion of genre in the new group, as well as some discussion of the "classical" model of film-making. Both of these are certainly serious topics, and it seems clear that each could use some further exposition.