rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (12/21/89)
As a movie lover who's found it necessary to unsubscribe to rec.arts.movies, I'd like to gauge Net opinion about spinning off one (or more) subgroups. The problem with rec.arts.movies is well known, I think: a *very* high count of articles, the great majority of which are about a handful of movies which happen to be popular that week or month. Using Kill files or typing N isn't even remotely a practical solution -- other kinds of articles are thoroughly buried in the avalanche of stuff about Batman or Back to the Future or whatever. Most of the rest of the articles fall in the "list all the movies with X" category. What this means is that those of us with a broader and perhaps slightly more serious interest in the whole history of cinema are unable to use this group AT ALL, and there's really no hope of that situation ever changing. It seems clear to me that, if there is interest in a different kind of forum for movie talk, we'll need a new group to conduct it in. This pre-call-for-votes is an attempt to find out if there is any such interest. As one concrete proposal (but only one), let me suggest r.a.m.classic which would be exclusively for the (serious) discussion of older Hollywood movies (not necessarily "great" movies). This group would have to be moderated, I think. Is there any interest in such a group? How about a different subgroup? I just want to have a usable forum for talking about cinema in a more serious and more historical way than is possible on r.a.m. Any such forum is better than none at all. Opinions?
ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) (12/22/89)
In article <49987@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> writes: > As a movie lover who's found it necessary to unsubscribe to > rec.arts.movies, I'd like to gauge Net opinion about spinning off one > (or more) subgroups. [description of rec.arts.movies.classic deleted] > > Is there any interest in such a group? How about a different subgroup? > I just want to have a usable forum for talking about cinema in a more > serious and more historical way than is possible on r.a.m. Any such > forum is better than none at all. I feel obliged to point out that there is already one subgroup, rec.arts.movies.reviews, which is moderated and attempts to extract useful articles, not just of film reviews, but also film festival descriptions, book reviews, observations on the state of cinema, etc. It's true that discussion is redirected to r.a.m., but a substantial response to an article in r.a.m.r. would probably also get reposted to r.a.m.r. As you might have guessed, I am the moderator.... Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com -- If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I? And if not now, when? --Hillel
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (12/23/89)
In article <2990@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes: >In article <49987@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> writes: >> I just want to have a usable forum for talking about cinema in a more >> serious and more historical way than is possible on r.a.m. Any such >> forum is better than none at all. > >I feel obliged to point out that there is already one subgroup, >rec.arts.movies.reviews, which is moderated and attempts to extract useful >articles, not just of film reviews, but also film festival descriptions, book >reviews, observations on the state of cinema, etc. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything negative about r.a.m.reviews. It is a useful subgroup, but as can be seen from the descriptions, it's somewhat different from what I had in mind for the new subgroup. Are you suggesting that it would be an appropriate forum for a more historical and substantive view of movies and movie-making (vis-a-vis r.a.m)? That's a possibility I hadn't considered. >It's true that discussion >is redirected to r.a.m., but a substantial response to an article in r.a.m.r. >would probably also get reposted to r.a.m.r. This sounds like a problem. Discussions of the kind I have in mind are simply impossible to carry out in effectively r.a.m (yes, I've tried, repeatedly). If redirection is the typical policy, it couldn't work in this case. rs
howells@krypton.arc.nasa.gov (John Howells) (12/23/89)
In article <49987@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes...
<
<As a movie lover who's found it necessary to unsubscribe to
<rec.arts.movies, I'd like to gauge Net opinion about spinning off one
<(or more) subgroups. The problem with rec.arts.movies is well known,
<I think: a *very* high count of articles, the great majority of which
<are about a handful of movies which happen to be popular that week or
<month. Using Kill files or typing N isn't even remotely a practical
<solution -- other kinds of articles are thoroughly buried in the
<avalanche of stuff about Batman or Back to the Future or whatever.
<Most of the rest of the articles fall in the "list all the movies with
<X" category.
<
I agree. This is very annoying.
<What this means is that those of us with a broader and perhaps
<slightly more serious interest in the whole history of cinema are
<unable to use this group AT ALL, and there's really no hope of that
<situation ever changing. It seems clear to me that, if there is
<interest in a different kind of forum for movie talk, we'll need a new
<group to conduct it in. This pre-call-for-votes is an attempt to find
<out if there is any such interest.
<
I wouldn't say r.a.m is useless. Those types of discussions do occur, but
it is hard to sustain because of the high volume of junk articles.
<As one concrete proposal (but only one), let me suggest r.a.m.classic
<which would be exclusively for the (serious) discussion of older
<Hollywood movies (not necessarily "great" movies). This group would
<have to be moderated, I think.
<
<Is there any interest in such a group? How about a different subgroup?
<I just want to have a usable forum for talking about cinema in a more
<serious and more historical way than is possible on r.a.m. Any such
<forum is better than none at all.
<
<Opinions?
I think this is basically a good idea. I have no problem with
r.a.m.classic. How about these?:
r.a.m.noir - for the discussion of Film Noir. Not necessarily limited to
1940s or 1950s.
r.a.m.foreign - foreign films, new and old. No Japanese monster movies,
please.
r.a.m.cult - for discussion of cult movies (there is already
alt.cult-movies, though).
r.a.m.rosebud - for discussion of Citizen Kane (just a joke... :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Howells | "Science does not | howells@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov
Sterling Software | remove the terror | howells@krypton.arc.nasa.gov
Palo Alto, Ca. | of the Gods" | howells%kry@ames.arc.nasa.govdave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) (12/23/89)
In article <49987@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> writes: >As a movie lover who's found it necessary to unsubscribe to >rec.arts.movies, I'd like to gauge Net opinion about spinning off one >(or more) subgroups. The problem with rec.arts.movies is well known, >I think: a *very* high count of articles, the great majority of which >are about a handful of movies which happen to be popular that week or >month. >As one concrete proposal (but only one), let me suggest r.a.m.classic >which would be exclusively for the (serious) discussion of older >Hollywood movies (not necessarily "great" movies). This group would >have to be moderated, I think. One trouble with this name might be endless flames over what is "classic" and what isn't. Also, do you really want to exclude more recent movies from the broad discussions of cinema in general? Another idea might be to create rec.arts.movies.current, which would be for the discussions of Batman, Back to the Future, etc. With that huge volume out of the way, rec.arts.movies might again become a reasonable place. (Other possible names: r.a.m.new, r.a.m.recent, ...) Though I guess there'd still be "all the movies that ..." discussions to worry about. (Rec.arts.movies.lists, anyone?) -- Dave Chalmers (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu) Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University. "It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable"
jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com ((JM Ivler) MDC - Douglas Aircraft Co. Long Beach, CA.) (12/26/89)
In article <49987@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: > > What this means is that those of us with a broader and perhaps > slightly more serious interest in the whole history of cinema are > unable to use this group AT ALL, and there's really no hope of that > situation ever changing. It seems clear to me that, if there is > interest in a different kind of forum for movie talk, we'll need a new > group to conduct it in. This pre-call-for-votes is an attempt to find > out if there is any such interest. > > As one concrete proposal (but only one), let me suggest r.a.m.classic > which would be exclusively for the (serious) discussion of older > Hollywood movies (not necessarily "great" movies). This group would > have to be moderated, I think. > > Is there any interest in such a group? How about a different subgroup? > I just want to have a usable forum for talking about cinema in a more > serious and more historical way than is possible on r.a.m. Any such > forum is better than none at all. > > Opinions? Great idea... also would like to see REC.MOVIES.TECH to discuss the various aspects of film production, but that can wait... I have to agree that BTTF II and other first run movies seem to dominate the discussions and that due to the flow of traffic there can be up to 13 threads on a single current release. I would like to see another name besides .classic, but I am at a loss of what to call it... perhaps .vault as in 'film vault' the place that films go when out of first and second run. The .classic conotation seems to me to be a breeding ground for discontent as what is a classic to some people (for instance WHIFFS a rather lame movie with Eddie Albert) is trash to others. Just a few thoughts... JMI - JMI@devsim.mdcbbs.com [insert cute pithy phrase here] Disclaimer: [insert cute pithy discalimer here]
ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) (12/27/89)
A moderated subgroup of rec.arts.movies (r.a.m) would certainly cut down on the volume, but I'm not sure how useful it would be. For rec.arts.movies.reviews (r.a.m.r), for example, I get a fair amount of material from r.a.m itself-- people just don't send directly (either via posting or via e-mail) to the moderated group. So the question arises as to whether the new group's articles would come from direct posting or culling from r.a.m. If the former, it would probably be very small; if the latter, I pity the moderator! It's tough enough to wade through just looking for reviews, but trying to decide which discussion postings are valuable is more work than I'd want. In answer to Richard's question, followups to articles in r.a.m.r are redirected to r.a.m since they are always (well, 99.9% of the time) brief comments rather tahn substantive articles. R.a.m.r looks for "stand-alone" articles rather than articles than discuss only one point in a previous article. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com -- If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I? And if not now, when? --Hillel
ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) (12/27/89)
In article <4337@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> howells@krypton.arc.nasa.gov writes: > r.a.m.foreign - foreign films, new and old. No Japanese monster movies, > please. And on what basis do you exclude Japanese monster movies? That's one problem with moderated groups. Not everyone agrees on what is included/excluded. In this instance, someone who submitted an article on Japanese monster films might be justifiably upset if the moderator decided it didn't fit. Heck, I get people complaining that I post things in rec.arts.movies.reviews that aren't reviews, even though the original charter allowed for non-review items. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com -- If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I? And if not now, when? --Hillel
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (12/27/89)
In article <496.25976370@devsim.mdcbbs.com> jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com ((JM Ivler) MDC - Douglas Aircraft Co. Long Beach, CA.) writes: >I would like to see another name besides .classic, but I am at a loss of what to >call it... perhaps .vault as in 'film vault' the place that films go when out >of first and second run. The .classic conotation seems to me to be a breeding >ground for discontent as what is a classic to some people (for instance WHIFFS >a rather lame movie with Eddie Albert) is trash to others. Yes, "classic" does have this problem. How about "classical", as in "classical Hollywood style"? This denotes only a specific way of making movies and says nothing about relative merits. One kind of argument I do *not* want to have is "what is a 'classic'?" -- I agree that this is a pointless exercise. The point of this particular subgroup is to discuss the huge group of films (good AND bad; Orson Welles AND Eddie Albert) which could fall under the heading of "classical Hollywood style" -- broadly speaking, feature films from the Hollywood studio system, 1920 through the early 1960's (see the excellent book _The Classical Hollywood Cinema_, by David Bordwell, Janet Staiger & Kristin Thompson for further details). By any measure, this group of movies has been the single most dominant influence in the history of cinema. And yet, it's rarely touched upon in r.a.m, except in the occasional "list the films" query. The reason may be that no one is interested. But it's at least possible that it has more to do with the volume of traffic on r.a.m and the concentration of that traffic on (1) contemporary movies and (2) lists/trivia. Someone else has suggested r.a.m.lists as a home for (2), which I think is a great idea. Also, the suggestion above for r.a.m.tech, for discussion of technical aspects of film-making, is an idea I would support. All of this suggests to me that we should leave r.a.m primarily for discussion of recent/current movies (since that's by far the dominant tendency in that group anyway). It would still be a busy and active group, though perhaps slightly less unwieldy than it is now. And people with other movie interests could use the Net without each of them having to set up elaborate filtering programs. So, after a bit of doubt, maybe I'm coming back to believing that rec.arts.movies.classical is a feasible idea.
reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher) (12/28/89)
In article <32021@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: >In article <49987@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> writes: > >>As a movie lover who's found it necessary to unsubscribe to >>rec.arts.movies, . . . >>The problem with rec.arts.movies is well known, >>I think: a *very* high count of articles, the great majority of which >>are about a handful of movies which happen to be popular that week or >>month. > >>As one concrete proposal (but only one), let me suggest r.a.m.classic >>which would be exclusively for the (serious) discussion of older >>Hollywood movies (not necessarily "great" movies). This group would >>have to be moderated, I think. > >One trouble with this name might be endless flames over what is "classic" and >what isn't. Also, do you really want to exclude more recent movies from the >broad discussions of cinema in general? I like the idea of a movie newsgroup that would be limited to serious discussion of film. I would prefer that it have no further restrictions on subject matter. I don't always read carefully all the articles discussing technical issues, but I recognize that they are of serious interest to people who care about films, and I see no reason to exclude them from such a newsgroup. I also agree that moderation is a necessity, or the group will collapse under the onslaught of listers, people wanting to know what a key grip does, and endless discussions of the latest popular movie. I think that the proposed name may be a bit inappropriate, for the reasons suggested and for the general reason that it excludes too much that could be of serious interest. How about rec.arts.movies.forum, suggesting a place for serious, extended discussions of films? (Or, less fortunately, suggesting a place for discussions of the film, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way To the Forum".) As Evelyn Leeper pointed out, one useful film newsgroup does exist, in rec.arts.films.reviews. But it does not have extended discussions as its charter. I think that the most practical solution is either to try to extend the charter of this group, or to set up a mailing list to test the level of interest in the Usenet community for serious discussions of film. >Another idea might be to create rec.arts.movies.current, which would >be for the discussions of Batman, Back to the Future, etc. With that huge >volume out of the way, rec.arts.movies might again become a reasonable >place. (Other possible names: r.a.m.new, r.a.m.recent, ...) Though I >guess there'd still be "all the movies that ..." discussions to worry >about. (Rec.arts.movies.lists, anyone?) Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is practical. Generally, it's hard to get people with a casual interest to move their discussions to sub-groups. It's the hard core fans who have to leave the main group and switch to a sub-group. (My own favorite attempt to clean up rec.arts.movies would be rec.arts.movies.physics, which would allow all the engineers and scientists on the net to debate the abuses of physics in the latest popular science fiction film.) Peter Reiher reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov . . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher
sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (12/28/89)
From article <50113@bbn.COM>, by rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro): > > Yes, "classic" does have this problem. How about "classical", as in > "classical Hollywood style"? This denotes only a specific way of > making movies and says nothing about relative merits. One kind of > argument I do *not* want to have is "what is a 'classic'?" -- I agree > ... > "classical Hollywood style" -- broadly speaking, feature films from > the Hollywood studio system, 1920 through the early 1960's (see the If this is your definition then why not call it r.a.m.pre60? If not, then the definition of "classical" will INEVITABLY change to include the early '70s in 10 years or so ("_The Godfather_, what a classic!"-- someone in 1996). If you want to reduce traffic, I think the only chance you have is to split things up by genre (r.a.m.foreign-lang, r.a.m.horror, etc.). -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. San Dimas, CA
peterd@opus.cs.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) (12/28/89)
In article <50113@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: > In article <496.25976370@devsim.mdcbbs.com> jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com ((JM Ivler) MDC - Douglas Aircraft Co. Long Beach, CA.) writes: > >I would like to see another name besides .classic, but I am at a loss of what to > >call it... perhaps .vault as in 'film vault' the place that films go when out > >of first and second run. The .classic conotation seems to me to be a breeding > >ground for discontent as what is a classic to some people (for instance WHIFFS > >a rather lame movie with Eddie Albert) is trash to others. > > Yes, "classic" does have this problem. How about "classical", as in > "classical Hollywood style"? This denotes only a specific way of > making movies and says nothing about relative merits. . . . Hmmm, I would suggest either rec.arts.movies.past or .historical. Why? I think both .classic and .classical have the same problem and .vault is probably a little obscure. How about a contest to name it? (a couple of smileys here). - peterd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ +-------+ Peter Deutsch, -- where am I? -- | u # u | School of Computer Science, internet: peterd@cs.mcgill.ca |/\/\/\/| McGill University, bitnet: peterd@musocs | a a | 3480 University St. uucp:..!mit-eddie!musocs!peterd \ a / Montreal, Que, Canada, H3A 2A7 phone: (514) 398-6698 \_____/ fax: (514) 398-3883 "These are only my opinions, but I'm willing to share..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (12/28/89)
In article <1989Dec27.211218.18630@aqdata.uucp> sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: >From article <50113@bbn.COM>, by rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro): >> [explanation of "classical" in the context of film history] >If this is your definition then why not call it r.a.m.pre60? If not, >then the definition of "classical" will INEVITABLY change to include >the early '70s in 10 years or so ("_The Godfather_, what a classic!"-- >someone in 1996). As explained before, "classical" says nothing about the merits of a movies. It refers to a particular set of formal and institutional constraints. A movie cannot "become" classical - either it was made that way or it wasn't. It's purely a descriptive term, not an evaluative one. And it does NOT refer only to a time period (there are many superb non-classical movies throughout the history of cinema). PRE60 would be even more misleading than CLASSICAL -- the point was not when it was made, but how it was made. >If you want to reduce traffic, I think the only chance you have is >to split things up by genre (r.a.m.foreign-lang, r.a.m.horror, etc.). No, genre is much too narrow of a focus and "foreign", while not a genre and not overly narrow, is too provincial -- Swedish readers don't regard Bergman's films as foreign-language. Classical is broad enough to attract a sizable audience, but focused enough to keep from getting out of hand. However, having said all of that, I can see from this example that "classical" will be problematic because of misunderstanding. To some extent, the moderator can deal with this problem (she can write back to the person who submits the article on _The Godfather_ and explain why it's a post-modern movie rather than a classical one, for instance). Or we could periodically repeat explanations of what "classical" mean (in fact, I would expect some argument about what it means, which is fine). Or, perhaps the person who suggested "rec.arts.movies.forum" is on a better track, and the discrimination should be strictly on the basis of "seriousness" rather than historical/social context. The problem with this is deciding what is serious and what isn't. Is the "Deckard is/is not a replicant" discussion that pops up from time to time on r.a.m serious? I would say it isn't, but it's a close call. Pointing out continuity errors? Trivia, imho, and not so close of a call. Lists of movies starring Eddie Albert? Definitely not serious (likewise simple lists of movies made by Godard, or any other lists). But these are just my opinions; others will disagree I'm sure. This puts lots of power in the hands of the moderator. But with a responsible moderator, we could get some excellent wide-ranging discussions in such a group. This is all still in the "pre discussion" phase, remember. From the looks of things, there is some interest in getting a new group (or possibly a mailing list) for serious and extended film talk, which is a good thing. If the consensus favors a more general format like r.a.m.forum, I'm happy to shift the focus there. Perhaps it deserves another "Call for Discussion" announcement, and we can let r.a.m.classical slip away peacefully...
martyst@sco.COM (Marty Stevens) (12/29/89)
In article <50113@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >In article <496.25976370@devsim.mdcbbs.com> jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com ((JM Ivler) MDC - Douglas Aircraft Co. Long Beach, CA.) writes: >>I would like to see another name besides .classic, but I am at a loss of what to >>call it... perhaps .vault as in 'film vault' the place that films go when out > >Yes, "classic" does have this problem. How about "classical", as in How about r.a.m.scholar? This would seem to be able to encompass a wide variety of films, as long as they were dealt with in a largely informed manner. This way anything from Citizen Kane to Forbidden Planet to, yes, the latest release could be discussed, as long as the manner in which it is discussed is serious. (For the part at least. Smileys allowed.) Marty -- Try not to get worried, try not to turn onto, problems that upset you. Ah, don't you know everything's alright? -- Andrew Lloyd Webber
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (12/29/89)
I think the number of genres would make division along these lines
prohibitive. (Also, I have a horror of finding a
rec.arts.movies.buddy-films one fine day.) I think Richard's original idea
is sound, but agree on the problem of defining classic. How about a
rec.arts.movies.current, for movies in current release? I know, because of
second-run theaters, this is fuzzy, too, but it confine things more sharply
than .classic. Besides, I think there might be people out there who only
are interested in discussion of newly-released films, and not too much about
older film discussions.
Speaking for myself, I'm not pushing for rec.arts.movies to be divided (my
major grievences were solved by the moderated rec.arts.movies.reviews
group), but I can see the reasoning behind it and certainly wouldn't stand
in the way.
"Well, I wouldn't exactly call it 'working'...more
like 'groveling for dollars.'"
---
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla, uiucuxc}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) (12/29/89)
What would people think of the following?
Name: rec.arts.cinema
Charter: for the discussion of film as an art form.
This would have two advantages. First, "cinema" is a word with
serious overtones (you won't find the Back-To-The-Future-discussers
saying things like, "A bunch of the guys were sitting around the dorm
last night talking about cinema . . "). This would send the message
that the group is for serious discussions about film art. Second, the
name is usefully vague; that is, it would allow for the serious
consideration of all sorts of film -- US, foreign, old, or new.
Jon
--
Jon Corelis jon@lindy.stanford.edu
Stanford University BITNET: XB.E70@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDUxanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (12/29/89)
Looks like
rec.arts.movies.classic -- for discussing oldies
rec.arts.movies.current -- for discussing hot new issues
rec.arts.movies.filmmaking -- for discussing the technology and
its practitioners
rec.arts.movies -- for "help me remember the name of",
quizzes, and other less qualifiable
stuff
might be a basis for a discussion of partitioning the group "nicely".
Hope this helps!
xanthian@well.sf.ca.us
Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available
as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores.rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (12/30/89)
OK, it looks to me as if a clear consensus is forming around the idea of a "serious" discussion group which would cover all movies. I hereby drop the rec.arts.movies.classic(al) idea. As usual, there's some contention about the name. I think we should bite the bullet and go for something long and inelegant, but clear and, from the net hierrarchy point of view, conherent and consistent. It really should be under rec.arts.movies, so how about: rec.arts.movies.serious ? Anyway, let's forget the "classical" idea and the more general idea of fragmenting r.a.m and focus instead on discussing the merits of this proposal: a moderated group for serious/scholarly discussion of any and all movies. Moderation is essential here, I think, otherwise it will be no different from r.a.m. There are probably a few things we should exclude from the start: any kind of lists, contests, trivia, movie or actor identification, etc. On the other hand, we should NEVER exclude articles solely because of the movies they discuss: if someone has something serious to say about Mothra movies, fine. If interested people agree that the group should be moderated, we need a moderator. Volunteers? I'm willing though not anxious (and possibly not able -- see below). Anyone else? [NB: I'm about to change jobs and I may not have Usenet access when the time comes for calling a vote. Will someone else volunteer to conduct the vote in that event?]
jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler - MDC - Douglas Aircraft - Long Beach, CA) (01/01/90)
In article <1989Dec27.211218.18630@aqdata.uucp>, sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: > > If you want to reduce traffic, I think the only chance you have is > to split things up by genre (r.a.m.foreign-lang, r.a.m.horror, etc.). Michael... NO!... Please... as an example of the confusion that this would lead to... take "BTTF-II" was it Sci-fi/Fantasy or was it Action/adventure or was it Humorous (three possible genre under your system). I could see posts for it ending up in all three. Splits like this don't work because people don't see the same movie in the same genre. The idea looks good on paper... but when it gets implimented it turns to trash. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | J.M. Ivler at Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach, CA - VOICE: (213) 496-8727 | | INTERNET: jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com | UUCP: uunet!mdcbbs!devsim.mdcbbs!jmi | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Disclaimer: [enter pithy disclaimer here]
jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler - MDC - Douglas Aircraft - Long Beach, CA) (01/01/90)
In article <6759@lindy.Stanford.EDU>, jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes: > What would people think of the following? > > Name: rec.arts.cinema > Charter: for the discussion of film as an art form. > I think we have a winner here. Although I would like the charter to be expanded upon the name is fantastic!!! Great work Jon. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | J.M. Ivler at Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach, CA - VOICE: (213) 496-8727 | | INTERNET: jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com | UUCP: uunet!mdcbbs!devsim.mdcbbs!jmi | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Disclaimer: {enter a pithy and very employer disclaimer here}
jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler - MDC - Douglas Aircraft - Long Beach, CA) (01/01/90)
In article <50208@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: > OK, it looks to me as if a clear consensus is forming around the idea > of a "serious" discussion group which would cover all movies. I hereby > drop the rec.arts.movies.classic(al) idea. > I agree... I like Jon's idea of rec.movies.cinema . It clearly conveys the fact that we are not discussing "what's hot" but will be discussing the art form. > As usual, there's some contention about the name. I think we should > bite the bullet and go for something long and inelegant, but clear > and, from the net hierrarchy point of view, conherent and consistent. > It really should be under rec.arts.movies, so how about: > > rec.arts.movies.serious > Jon's is still better (in my humble opinion :-) ). > proposal: a moderated group for serious/scholarly discussion of any > and all movies. Moderation is essential here, I think, otherwise it > will be no different from r.a.m. There are probably a few things we > should exclude from the start: any kind of lists, contests, trivia, > movie or actor identification, etc. On the other hand, we should NEVER > exclude articles solely because of the movies they discuss: if someone > has something serious to say about Mothra movies, fine. > good start on the charter... > [NB: I'm about to change jobs and I may not have Usenet access when > the time comes for calling a vote. Will someone else volunteer to > conduct the vote in that event?] I have never taken a vote, but I would be happy to help in any way possible (with the noted exception of becoming a moderator... I have enough to do in my 'real' job :-) ). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | J.M. Ivler at Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach, CA - VOICE: (213) 496-8727 | | INTERNET: jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com | UUCP: uunet!mdcbbs!devsim.mdcbbs!jmi | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ disclaimer: [substitute any pithy saying about my views not being my employers]
mitchell@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Mitchell Marks) (01/02/90)
>>>>> In article <6759@lindy.Stanford.EDU>, jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU >>>>> (Jon Corelis) writes: jon> What would people think of the following? jon> Name: rec.arts.cinema jon> Charter: for the discussion of film as an art form. jon> This would have two advantages. [...] I've followed this thread with interest, since I'm also a frustrated r.a.m. dropout, and this is the first name suggestion that I've really liked. Along the same lines, maybe we should think about rec.arts.film as another alternative; it seems to me it largely shares the advantages Jon mentions, but leaves it marginally less open to charges of pretension. One nice thing about either of these names is that the group then becomes an alternative to r.a.m., rather than a subdivision. -- Mitch Marks mitchell@cs.UChicago.EDU --But...but...I can see with my own two eyes that it's... --Hey, who're you gonna believe: *me* or your own two eyes?
daniel@psych.toronto.edu (Daniel Read) (01/03/90)
In article <50208@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: > >OK, it looks to me as if a clear consensus is forming around the idea >of a "serious" discussion group which would cover all movies. I hereby >drop the rec.arts.movies.classic(al) idea. > >As usual, there's some contention about the name. I think we should >bite the bullet and go for something long and inelegant, but clear >and, from the net hierrarchy point of view, conherent and consistent. >It really should be under rec.arts.movies, so how about: > > rec.arts.movies.serious > ... we should never >exclude articles solely because of the movies they discuss: if someone >has something serious to say about Mothra movies, fine. I just want to add my support for this proposal. I have only recently had access to this news network. Since starting to read r.a.m I have become increasingly disappointed with the kind of discussion that is its stock and trade. A moderated group discussing films as works of art would be a delight.
dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (The Manic Tinker) (01/03/90)
In article <1989Dec27.211218.18630@aqdata.uucp>, sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: > If you want to reduce traffic, I think the only chance you have is > to split things up by genre (r.a.m.foreign-lang, r.a.m.horror, etc.). Which would be fine if everything was easily defined. Which genre does Alien belong to, Horror or SF? How about Aliens: SF or action/adventure? Is The Blues Brothers a comedy or a musical? Is The World According To Garp a comedy or a drama? How about The Sting? The Purple Rose of Cairo? Hannah and Her Sisters? Crimes and Misdemeanors? One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest? Etc etc etc. -- Doug Moran | When correctly viewed, everything is lewd. pyramid!ctnews!unix386!dougm | I could tell you things about Peter Pan, and dougm@unix386.Convergent.com | the Wizard of Oz, *there's* a dirty old man!
howells@xenon.arc.nasa.gov (John Howells) (01/04/90)
In article <3030@cbnewsj.ATT.COM>, ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes... <In article <4337@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> howells@krypton.arc.nasa.gov writes: <> r.a.m.foreign - foreign films, new and old. No Japanese monster movies, <> please. < <And on what basis do you exclude Japanese monster movies? < Sorry. I forgot to put a smiley there. It was just a joke. Hey, I LIKE Japanese monster movies! :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Howells | "Science does not | howells@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov Sterling Software | remove the terror | howells@krypton.arc.nasa.gov Palo Alto, Ca. | of the Gods" | howells%kry@ames.arc.nasa.gov
sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (01/04/90)
From article <500.259f456f@devsim.mdcbbs.com>, by jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler - MDC - Douglas Aircraft - Long Beach, CA): > In article <1989Dec27.211218.18630@aqdata.uucp>, sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: >> >> If you want to reduce traffic, I think the only chance you have is >> to split things up by genre (r.a.m.foreign-lang, r.a.m.horror, etc.). > > Michael... NO!... Please... as an example of the confusion that this would lead > ... > the same movie in the same genre. The idea looks good on paper... but when it > gets implimented it turns to trash. 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. -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. San Dimas, CA