The Stalwarts

OCD? Fetishism? I often wonder when I'll stop making the same dozen points about the Bond franchise.

But finding others who are as far down the rabbit hole is the real catalyst. I'd type about Phantom of the Paradise all day if anyone else were on the other end to feed that habit.

A valid point, Devin.

These are usually movies that are near and dear to the hearts of the fans and have become part of the popular culture. Extreme fanaticism towards the film has transcended the fact that is still, at the end of the day, JUST A MOVIE.

In regards to some movies/franchises: I'm guilty as charged.

And sometimes new aspects come up. We may have talked plenty about Last Crusade, but that specific conversation about the necessity of the opening sequence was new.

Because Lawrence of Arabia doesn't lend itself to obsessive nit-picking. I'm being serious.

It seems that the agreed upon classics, for whatever reason, rarely evoke more discussion than "Oh yeah, it's fantastic." Maybe because, since almost no one has a differing opinion, it's not fun to simply trade "I loved this moment" posts over and over again.

Plus, we're on a geek/nerd website. It's chud.com, not the-400-blows-exquisite-masterpiece-cinema.com

Not true at all. There's a thread somewhere in the classics forum where Django of all people gave a brilliant, reasoned dissertation on why the movie didn't work for him.

Favorite thing about the boards are moments where interesting & intelligent people challenge my perceptions on sacred cows.

I dunno, things like The Godfather and Citizen Kane shouldn't lead to "I love this moment" over and over. They are timeless masterpieces because they can be looked at from so many angles and hold up. These are films that hold up under intense scrutiny, and become better for it. I mean damn, Ebert's done something like 80 shot-by-shot viewings of Kane? These films are fun to nitpick, because like good literature, everything connects and complements everything else.

It has always seemed to me that things like Star Wars and Indy get much discussion because they are not masterpieces, they are icons. Because of this, you get the "I love this moment" from everyone who loves the films and have happy memories with them. What keeps the conversation going and going is the fact that you have fans at various stages of love for the movie.

Some have grown up, matured, moved on, whatever and feel the need to elevate themselves above the ones who still blindly like it. The fight with the ones that need to validate the movie they love, even though they've started noticing the warts. I've always thought (and I could be totally fucking wrong) that most posts about these sort of movies can be categorized as either condescending or stubborn.

EDIT: I think Dickson is right that masterpieces don't lend themselves to nitpicking. The Indy's and such though, do. They are ripe with the tiny warts and flaws that can be debated over like I mentioned above. The masterpieces should lend themselves to equally lengthy discussion, critique, and appreciation.

Math. We don't have 20+ viewings of Lawrence Of Arabia in our back pocket. You or I could type PAGES of shit about Beneath the Planet of the Apes without even needing to fact-check who played the female mutant (Natalie Trundy, only person to play a human, an ape and a mutant in the series!). But some of the more "revered", mainstream classics aren't as burned into geek brains, and the conversation leans toward the perfunctory. "Man, what a beautiful looking film". Even if you did type some deep paragraphs about a film, you need a handful of participants who're at that same level (see: most of Spike Marshall's reviews) to keep the conversation going.

We can't talk about a film as much if we don't know it up and down. People on this board have been watching Indiana Jones movies every year for over 20 years. Sad math, but math nonetheless.

There are certain geek movies that offer no limitations on how much can be said without having to back anything up with cogent analysis or any kind of expertise. Nobody can gainsay you because the movies are a part of the public consciousness, and "belong" to you as much as anybody else... thus making everyone an expert.

Plus people just don't see as many movies as they'd like to think they do.

I'd disagree with this. I read virtually all of the main articles, I just don't participate in all of the discussions. That's my personal choice, and I respect those who are knowledgable on subjects to which I have no vested interest. To each their own. The quality of the writing/reporting of the principal contributors is exemplary, compared to similar websites.

Plus, that Lawrence of Arabia article is linked to within the Favorite Transitions thread. If someone isn't keeping up with that series, they won't know LoA was even mentioned to discuss it.

So, we're basically down to people talk about things you're not interested in. Got it.

Maybe they read the first part and thought it wasn't for them. Maybe they haven't gotten to today's part. Every thread that doesn't blossom into the CHUD equivalent of the Algonquin Round Table isn't a threat to site, you know. Stupid shit has been flung, stupid shit will continue to be flung. Stick to what you feel is the non-stupid shit if it bothers you so much.

Well then you've come around a bit since your "I'm not here to teach people" days, which is great. And it's a valid point; I'm usually ranting about Monte Hellman or Phantom of the Paradise or Rolling Thunder because a lot of people have yet to see them. I burned out on the "big" franchises of my youth a long time ago.

So I guess I don't really know why people want to talk SW or Indy over and over. My closest example is the Bond franchise, and speaking only for myself it's been more about rediscovering them after not seeing any for maybe 23 years.

I have no idea if that's positive or negative.

Anyways I think the thrust of your argument is really quite sound in that the wider populous of Chud only have a few films they can actively talk about that they've all seen. Once you start to stray away from the Camerons, Scotts and Blockbusters you start to haemograge people who can talk about stuff.

Also on a basic level you only really get a reaction when you're talking about stuff that people have seen and are knowledgeable about. People are terrified of having their points picked apart and so they only seem to type when they've properly 'studied' a text or when they're sure they're in the majority hence why threads which argue against commonly held logic tend to be bigger than ones which argue the merits of an already discussed classic.

Being able to quickly assimilate information from sources like google/wikipedia and present it as their own is something of a skill. I like to think that most people here when they make observations are making their own observations, not cherry picking information from elsewhere.

That would be completely transparent around here. It'd be like a guy who's read the Cliff's Notes debating with someone who has a masters in English literature.

It's positive. You actively try to shine a light on things you find worthy, and I think that's awesome. But so few people (myself included) have seen a lot of what you like, that the discussion is often stillborn. You can lead a horse to (insert great Asian film I've never heard of here), but you can't make him watch it.

I don't mean this in a snarky or negative way at all, but sometimes you seem kind of obsessed with other people's viewing/discussion/fanboy habits.

[QUOTE][I don't mean this in a snarky or negative way at all, but sometimes you seem kind of obsessed with other people's viewing/discussion/fanboy habits./QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure it comes down to this Jacob.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That goes back into the point Devin made about evangelists and choirs. Devin, Russ, Nick, Dre and perhaps members like Slater are the evangelists of the board and as such they are viewed as the one to teach and impart, everyone else is a member of the choir and as such it's hard to actually promote something new or interesting.

I could go on and on about the greatness of a film like Welcome to Dongmakgol or This Is England or the Survive Style 5+ but I'm still a member of the choir and until a film gets official recognition its praise will always be ignored. The only threads which seem to actually create excitement about off the radar films is the B-Action Movie Thread and the Asian Film Thread and that's largely because they're populated by the outsider clique of the forum.

I guess I'm one of those "light a candle rather than curse the darkness" kind of people, but I think it's better to say, "Let's talk about Film X" than to ask, "Why the hell are you talking about Film Y?"

Disagree. Beaks was always championing old, little-seen films. How many of you ran out and watched the Budd Boetticher box set?

See, that's what Devin is upset about though. He does light candles all the time and watches them get blown out by the bonfires of the stalwarts.

Seems to me to be indicative of the preferential autism that geeks have over the things that they are fanboys about. They can talk about their favorite thing forever, but are otherwise uninterested in something that shares a deep familiarity with the thing they love. Loves zombies, hates zombie mutants. Loves Bizarro Superman, hates Superman. Given the law of averages, that's why we have gigantic discussions about Transformers, Indiana Jones, Star Wars. Keep in mind, I'm not above these things myself. Could talk about BSG for much longer than most.

and I created a thread about 'Jeremiah Johnson' that you didn't contribute to. Granted, it's not LoA or aNatO, but it's better than 'Omen III'.

Has Dickson EVER championed a movie?

Devin, no one's going to impugn the quality of your articles, but there's a difference between posting a link to them here and saying "Okay, discuss," and being an actual conversational presence in the thread. The reputation you have as the guy who just shows up to complain and insult people isn't entirely inaccurate -- you're more likely to pop in with something snarky like "least popular feature ever!" than to actually contribute to the thread.

Fair enough. I'm just saying it seems to come up in your articles/critiques more often than other critics.

Have I ever started a thread about people not?

edited: this was covered in previous posts while I was typing this.

Speaking for myself, I take the advice of a lot of the senior members of the site and check out the movies they recommend. I never would have seen All About Lily Chou Chou or 9 Souls if it weren't for Spike. I watched State of Play because of Rath. I just bought the Planet of the Apes blu-ray set based on Devin's pimping, since I've only seen the original. This goes on and on based off the CHUD lists. I can't thank you all enough and I'm always looking for more gems.

However, when it comes to discussion, I am a little hesitant to start a new thread (most of them get ignored or get one or two posts) or jump in to a big discussion since I don't have the extensive film background/education that the "big guns" have shown time and time again. I'll pop in and give my two cents, but I'm more interested in reading the threads to see what a Devin or a Spike or an Andre might bring up that I might have missed. And that usually prompts me to rewatch the film, which is always a good thing.

Anyway, not to get too far off topic, but I wonder if the big threads are a comfort zone for a number of members. I'm sure there are a great number of people out there who, like me, love to watch the films you guys champion, but may lack the background in film history and theory to join in some of the more in depth conversations.

That definitely doesn't mean that you're wasting your time. Far from it.

I think this repetition connects to why people like Duke Fleed.

Fair enough. As you said, your question is to why people post in 'dead horse topic' threads at all, not why they don't post in current ones.

I wasn't talking about guiding or hand holding, I was just talking about participating. That's all.