The Stalwarts - Page 2

Not to sound like an echo chamber but I was gonna point this out. On the one hand, who cares about how Fleed arrives at his opinions? On the other, his posts perfectly illustrate the OCD-like qualities of some geeks, although to a much higher degree.

ETA:
But be honest Devin. If these boards were populated by many youse, the Star Trek thread would be INSANE.

Instead of balancing up and down why not try balancing to the right a little every now and then?

The main question seems to be rhetorical. If you keep seeing the threads and the discussion keeps happening, then no, they don't get bored.

Most of the arguments* that erupt on here resemble those of the "who left the toilet seat up?" variety,it just comes down to people blowing off steam and popular icons draw fans to arguments like moths to a flame.

I don't think there's any harm in it,its probably very therapeutic for some?


*which is what most of the popular film discussions become.

Was that some lame ass political slam?

I'm amused by fleed, but it probably helps that I don't care about the Transformers- or Indy-type threads. Those seem like the movies that would inspire the least interesting discussion, no matter how many of us see them.

There are really only two answers to this:

1) No
2) Yes, so I don't.

Either way, it will continue in spite of Devin's all-caps non-baiting.

And you wonder why so many people have contempt for you.

To be fair, that brand of "stalwart" discussion was sparked by some new shit coming down the pike. It's not like we rocked 20 pages talking about who our favorite Mark Lenard character is.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. And I also suspect the name of the site would be one of the first things Devin would change if he could.

Yes, I find my snarky comments are always worth it.

"You lack the courage of your convictions, sir."

He's right, though. You should listen to what the man said.

Not to be too much of a dick about things, but Beaks was perhaps too good for this place. He represented a Chud that was moving away from internet movie site stigma into something a little more 'worthy'. What Devin and Russ do really well is understand their audience, they appeal to the people who only give a shit about genre stuff and then try and use that to shed light on other facets of cinema.

Undercut by him returning to AICN, but okay.

Oh totally. I like to give Devin shit.

This is a weird thing to post in a thread where Devin takes people to task for being incurious about cinema.

So what if someone did? Don't like it? Don't understand why it's being discussed? Stay out of the thread. Talk about something that does interest you. Is that really that hard?

Why is it a weird thing?

He was calling out Devin for chastizing repetitive, franchise-based discussion by bringing up Devin's participation in the recent Star Trek talk. It was a flawed example, and I illustrated why with a pithy comment about versatile acting great Mark Lenard. Why are you getting defensive?

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. You seem to be saying Beaks was doing exactly what Devin wants done but that you didn't like the direction this would have taken the site. Then say Devin and Russ do a better job doing what you seem to not want done.

I think Beaks was an asset to the site and contributed mightily to the highbrow end of things.

Why wouldn't CHUD want to become more "worthy" and leave behind the obvious stigma of "internet movie site" and the association with shit-boxes like AICN?

And I'm saying you only seem to care about the living room when it suits you.

How about we actually name some things instead of drailing? I've got a great example:

The Big Lebowski

There.

I applauded that, I just don't think the readership (ie you and I) were ready for genuinely scholarly views on cinematic text.

Also, is this some sort of corollary to the rule that the more often a disgraced Republican says, "I'm not gay" it brings us that much closer to said Republican coming out? i.e., The Larry Craig rule.

"Mine..."



"Mine..."



"NOT mine..."



"Fuck me...Let's go get a drink."

Odd.

If you are in a hole is it easier for me to throw you a line to pull you up or to climb in the hole with you to carry you out?

Aren't you the one always saying that most of the site traffic comes from people who aren't on the boards? So how does what goes on here affect the reception your content receives? I'd say the Talkbacks are a worse reflection on the site than a thread talking about minutiae of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I might be hanging shitty posters in the living room, but the Talkbacks are dropping trou and pissing all over it.

That's true, Dickson, but a bum pissing on your sidewalk doesn't make your interior design sense any classier.

That analogy really doesn't work for me.

Beaks intention was noble, we just didn't react to it whatsoever. You had the same seven or so guys showing a legitimate interest when he tried to cover classics and its got to take your passion away from you after a while.

Devin, is your issue that you don't feel like your work is acknowledged enough? Do you feel like we totally ignore your articles in favor of 'the Stalwarts'? Do you feel unappreciated?

I think we should ask him that 8 more times and watch the party.

Edit: Now I can't tell if you were really asking that or fucking around.

Actually, I misread it, apologies... I was tripped up by the first two sentences, which I still can't wrap my head around. Beaks' knowledge was welcome in the same way that I appreciate the rest of the staff's knowledge. To say that he was "too good" for this place is odd.

Sez you.

I'd argue that for the seven or so vocal people on the boards their were dozens more quietly taking what he said and checking it out. Perhaps as was said earlier those people never felt the need to chime in because they were afraid to have their thoughts lambasted?

And does the analogy not make sense or doesn't seem appropriate? Not being a dick, just asking.

"They do say that Britain and America are two countries separated by the Atlantic Ocean."

You know, my question was not meant in a negative way at all. If you took it that way, then I apologize.

People like and expect to be appreciated for the hard work that they do, and you honestly put forth a concerted effort to create meaningful content for this site. We look towards recognition in all aspects of life. I honestly didn't mean any offense.

I thought all of Fleed's comments were done tongue-in-cheek?

For what it's worth, I read it as sincere. But that's how Minnesotans read most things.

It just didn't seem appropriate.

It's my own view of the Beaks situation, I could be completely misreading what happened. It just seemed to me that Beaks was writing his little heart out and never finding an audience.

Do you think Beaks left because he didn't feel readers were responding enough? I wouldn't hang your argument on that assumption. I'm pretty sure Beaks' move was a business decision.

Don't you fucking dare give up. I've watched more movies due to this site than any other influence outside of my mom.

Yeah, there is a bit of repetition (every Christmas the music forum has the requisite "Favorite Christmas song" thread), but there is also a lot of conversation generated by the main page and the boards that gets people to talk about new stuff.

If it weren't for Phil I would have never known the majesty of Monte Hellman.

If not for Spike I would have never even known Bright Future existed.

I could write a (poorly written) book on films that I've revisited or discovered because of Chud staff.

But because your audience is from the "Golden age of Geek" you're going to have discussions on the standard franchises. There are going to be new chewers who think they're adding something new to the conversation.

Actually, Spike, Beaks left specifically because of you. He told me so himself.

Same here.

Honestly, the trail of corpses (read: dead threads) slain by that ridiculous B-movie thread in the Films in Release is proof enough of what Devin's saying. You could make the argument that a lot of those threads don't have meat to them -- I'll admit that a lot of them start with a single post sentence. I should know. I created a bunch of them. -- but the fact of the matter is, there are plenty of good potential discussions on films to be had in that forum that don't get a chance to breathe.

I'm going to say it: The B-Movie thread is a great example of what Devin's talking about, and it pretty much kills all other discussion in that forum.

Although one of the better discussions we had recently was in Fat Elvis's crime movie thread, where a lot of classics got brought up. I'd already talked about those films before, but it was fun to discuss them again, because they hadn't really been talked about much. And as someone who's been watching a lot more classics and trying to expand my cinematic horizons, I'll be the first guy to admit that the boards get really frustrating at times when it comes to fostering and having decent discussion. Not just on the articles that appear on the main page, but the threads started by, say, Spike or Ripoll or Zahn or any number of others.

(And before you get all up in arms, the reason I haven't talked about Lawrence is because I haven't seen that -- I'm waiting to see it on the screen, and I've missed both opportunities to do so in the past.)

Problem: Either Devin's stigma (impatient, harsh on posters) makes legitimately interesting sociological questions like "What is left to say about SW/Indy/beloved childhood franchise?" seem like an attack to a lot of you, or you're really goddamn defensive about being asked to even think about the question. Probably a combination of the two.

Idea: Even if you believe it's an attack or bait, why not discuss the question (which I think objectively has merit), rather than obsess over his motivations behind asking it? Explore, discuss, posit. It's more productive.

Edit: And Judas is a good guy; it's just that very question was asked like 6 times already in the thread.

Well, I always appreciate the forays into "highbrow" here, and think the site does an admiral job of trying to address both genre and "real" film. I understand Devin's (rather constant) disappointment in the sites readers for only seeming to care about genre film, or highbrow films only if they're violent. I just don't think it's something that can be changed.

Coming back to that: when I was a kid, I saw every movie I liked a million times, since that is what kids do. For better or worse, most of it stuck with me.

Nowadays, I just can't bring myself to watch a movie ten times a week (no, not even Dark Knight). Therefore, the movies I know most about are the ones that are the most "regressive" ones, if you will.

By the time a new and/or interesting movie hits these shores, it's been out for a while and Devin, Russ, Andre, Phil, Slater, DaveB, ... (more than one answer possible) has already voiced my opinion.

That just makes no sense. How is it "killing" anything? If it didn't exist, why would Jonathon Banks post more stuff in your threads?

bendrix, Rob, and Phil: Thanks