Get over it, people - Page 2

Agreed.

But hey, this place ain't all that bad. If you think it is, go hit one of the TalkBacks at AICN. Aintitcool is pretty bad.

I had no idea this place had gotten "less fun".

I promise to make more lists, if that would do anything.

^ Doesn't get it, does he?

I don't think it does any good to talk around the subject. Call out who you think is bringing the boards down. Then, get rid of them. Otherwise, I don't think it's going to change anything.

I participate as much as I can and try to stimulate interesting conversations, but when we have threads debating whether or not disabled people are truly "people" I have to call it like I see it. What, you think any rational person is going to respond with "Hmm! Maybe someone without full use of their limbs really isn't a human being!" No, people who believe that are pricks and assholes and they shouldn't even share my air.

And no offense to Devin, but I don't think direct engagement of people on the message board is the answer. Let your articles stand for themselves - you don't need to defend yourself on the message board, in my opinion. PMs or e-mails do the trick. Now, if you're trying to stimulate discussion, that's great, but discussion isn't forcing people to your perspective. Insults don't help. Let the stupid people bury themselves in their own rhetoric. Believe me, the idiots are obvious. They aren't subtle.

I only really beg for attention when people don't bother to give feedback to CHUD articles I write.

I have to say, to BobClark and anyone else, that most message boards have moderators for the exact reasons Nick is stating -- to keep the off-topic shit and personal insults to a minimum. Now, obviously these boards are rather lenient when it comes to that kind of thing, but considering that this is Nick's site and these are his message boards, he's not out of line to attempt to moderate them. You don't have to like the guy, but I don't see why it's so hard to show your fellow posters some respect and actually discuss the topic at hand in any given thread. Maybe the pithy, one line insults just come easier to some people.

Comedy=juxtaposition! Ha ha! It's like taking this line:

And pairing it with this one:

Or taking the "I have very little time" line and putting it next to your post count (9,818 and climbing! You go girl!). Ho ho! If you took all that posting time, you could cure polio or some shit. Or at least be a "reilable contributer". It's called a "save" button. Ctrl S, muthafucka.

If you're 100% right in your assertion that you should be free to be assholes, then by your logic Nick asking you to stop being assholes is no less valid than you being assholes.

Assholes.

I just want people to stop posting the graboid guess after someone's already gotten it. Pointless.

Amen.

I would like to be able to get on these boards and say that I believe in God and generally don't like Spielberg films without 5 people acting as though I'm Karl Rove or treating me like a 18 year old who's favorite movie is Old School.

Regarding the call for more discussion about movies, I'd enjoy this, but I guess people who have been here longer are probably tired of hearing the same recycled opinions and therefore are more prepared to deliver a condescending or snarky comment than engage in a discussion that will, to them at least, be repetitive.

In addition, I think the direction the site's taken has something to do about this too. By all means feel free to express your political and cultural views as a reporter on this site but when this takes precedent over movie talk, this strikes me as a little self-serving. The reviews for HILLS HAVE EYES and V FOR VENDETTA were posted weeks after the films were released, but commentary on them and their political slant was on this site long before any constructive criticism on the main page.

You believe in God, eh??

Well that about wraps it up for that poster (just kidding, tee hee).

CHUD is a great site. I find that I get so much more out of the main site than I do the forums, but it should be that way. I dip into the forums to lurk and post on occasion. I do think the forums often degrade into name-calling and personal attacks, much more so than some other forums I visit. But I think there are two main reasons for that - 1) I don't see much, if any moderation 2) Being a movie site people from all spectrums and worldviews who may differ on many other items congregate.

Both of these things can be good due to the freedom in posting and the chance for folks who wouldn't ever meet in real life to discuss topics. But as we all know, most people act like fucktards on forums and say stuff they would never dare say in person due to Internet Anonymity.

I would say that CHUD does get a good dose of reaping what is sown. I find Devin to be an extremely witty and entertaining writer/poster but I believe he too often injects his politics just to be mean or what he would consider "edgy and challenging". Often it comes off as just juvenile and a cry for attention. Reading his articles/posts are a double-edged sword in that I often laugh my ass off at the movie and pop-culture rant and then get annoyed at the smug and condescending political crap. And his forum posts are often worse than that of the random troll just stirring shit up. So before the forum posters are attacked (and many deserve it) and told to be civilized, CHUD needs to look at its own as well.

JS

I agree with you, JudgeSmails. I don't mind political opinions in a review of something like V For Vendetta, because the entire film is a political allegory. But there are countless other instances, both in articles and on the board, where Devin stirs shit up just to stir shit up. And yet, that always seems to be seen as "Devin just being Devin", and nothing is ever done about it. If something is going to be done about the content of the discussions on these boards, maybe we should start by looking at the folks who actually write for the site.

Here, here JudeSmails. What you said.

Hills was posted one day after release and V was 7 days after. Don't think that really qualifies as "weeks." If you're gonna throw something out there, make sure it's substantiated.

As far as the problem at hand: Some people need to be nicer (or ignore those they can't be nice to), others need to put some thought into how they use the boards and how they post (which would help the first part), others need to just go away period, and it wouldn't hurt if we all paid a little more attention to the articles on the main page and participated in those discussions.

And for those who say "All I had to offer was 'Good job,'" well - post that. It never hurts to hear that, but also tell why you thought it was agood. What you liked, etc. Hence the term "discussion."

Yes, I do.
and his name is Werner Herzog.


I also think Devin is just stirring things up for his own little fun (Jesus rape), but I agree that without Devin, I would technically be here a little less often.

Tired shit:

1. "Guys like Devin who pour thousands and thousands of hours into this site should be held to the same standards as me, Mr. 42 Posts."

2. "I love it when you guys interject opinions and attitude into otherwise boring news stories. Unless you're talking about Republicans or Christians, because then you're RUINING THE SITE."

Can we have a moratorium on these dumbassed arguments? Please? Just for this one lousy thread?

What exactly would the nature of the discussion be if people were not allowed to be themselves?

Personally, I don’t see a problem. The board is busy. There’s plenty of new blood coming in. I don’t think anything needs to be changed.

This is sad. Nick just asked everyone to be a little more conscientious on the boards. What do you do when the bus driver asks you to move to the back of the bus for unloading - blow him away with an AK-47?

And for those who are calling him to task for not looking at the site's writers, he did include Devin in that request as well; look at post #5.

That wasn't necessarily the point I was getting out of all this. I think it's more along the lines that the guys that have stuck around this site for a number of years and thousands of posts, have basically established the tone of the site for newer posters (I'm not talking about trolls at all here, because that's a whole different thing, and I don't really consider them posters as such).

So newer posters are mostly going to try to fit in with the existing gestalt or aesthetic of the site; so if the older members are brusque, flippant, or just plain rude, it's little wonder that newer posters will be as well.

Devin himself is quick to point out that "politeness doesn't matter," so I'm sure many posters have picked up on his aesthetic and run with it, (with some of them obviously, not just outdistancing him but actually lapping him). It's not so much a question of whether or not Devin (or anyone) should be held to the same or different standards. I think it's more about leading by example.

Whether you like it or not, or choose not to acknowledge it at all, the thousands-of-post been-here-for-years guys have an influence on the other (newer) people that post here. They're only contributing to what you've already established. You might not like it, but that doesn't change it.

I don't mean this as a way of apportioning blame either, cause I think ultimately, each poster is enough of an individiual to decide how to post for themselves. Just something to think about.

Dunno, Slater. It's sort of a cry in the wilderness, you know. If Nick is gonna take a piss on the general ambience, stands to reason he's gonna get more than one reminder that it aint "Mr 42 posts" what sets the tone around here.

As for point 2, I had thought that being a legitimate pundit somehow suggested the ability to dig out the higher level/human interest in an event without having to go for the cheap seats. If you took any of Devin's posts in at least one recent thread and traded up "Christian" or "Republican" for "Homosexual" or "Jew", he'd be banned. If that's the way it goes, what right beyond the arbitrary and/or authoritarian does anyone have around here to preach freedom of thought/speech, toleration or communal values? Is it better when "Mr 42 posts" is a raging, hate-mongering asshole or when "Mr. 25000 posts" takes that aim? Who's the bigger issue?

I like Nick, but I think his perspective is full of shit. Not a single bit of policework on the forum means anything while Devin gets carte blanche to be a weiner.

What part of moratorium do you not understand, Necessiter?

The problem there is too often not what is said but how it's said. There's a world of difference between "I understand his popularity, but there's an inherent immaturity in the films of Spielberg that prevents me from taking him seriously as a filmmaker" and "Spielberg should be ass-raped before being allowed to direct again." One initiates discussion. The other initiates the snark fest to begin. Unfortunately, too many times posters come in with the second one and then wonder why they're being jumped on.

Devin's reviews and articles are wonderful. They're always very informative, and usually make me laugh, whether or not I even agree with him.

Devin's posts, however, are usually pretty damn ugly, and not in a humorous way.

what IS going on? Most of this thread is the typical "Reign in Devin, Nick" and a little "I'm sick of DVD Reviews of movies I'm not interested in seeing get reviewed", and the rest is vague "Things need to change" rhetoric.

The infighting I'm used to seeing is usually in direct correlation to the films there are to discuss. V is a little hot-buttony but that's expected. Excuse me, but Slither, Stay Alive, and Snakes on a Plane don't really incite within me a yearning to debate. There was pretty good discussion during the Oscar season and right now things are in a kind of lull. We've got a large community and don't have as many quality new releases to gab over. These things can change quickly.

I don't see the specificities of the proverbial "beefs" and my words therefore may be pointless.

And almostsexy, nobody has ever been chased out of here for being polite and funny and inoffensive. Just like people don't get run out of town for being snarky.

The guys who get dumped on, and rightfully so, are the obnoxious gimmick posters and the shit-stirring "Spielberg is a f@ggot!" numbskulls.

Nobody gets banned for not being Devinish enough.

You know, when you open up something like these Message Boards on a popular site like this one, you're going to be getting responses from a wide range of people who come from a wide range of backgrounds, upbringings and the like and they're going to bring with them an equally wide range of opinoins. To try and control that is just silly.
Unfortunately, however, there a quite a few people who come from upbringings and backgrounds who are nothing more than knuckle-dragging, overly opinionated douche-bags and attention whores with no respect for others nor their opinions and whose level of discourse and debate tends to go to the level of,well, saying things like knuckle-dragging, overly opinionated douche-bags.
These are the people who ruin it for the others here who just want to have a good time and have positive, interesting discussions. We're not all going to agree on things, and sometimes somthing someone says will make us angry,but we have to be willing to respect that. And we have to not say things or post topics just for the sake of pissing people off or causing a vitriolic debate.
Basically, what im saying is dont respond to the assholes and dont be an asshole youself
IT'S CALLED BEING PART OF A SOCIETY PEOPLE!!!!!

AssClown has shown us the light.

out of the asses of clowns often come gems of wisdom.

Slater,

I think I was a little vague in my previous post, sorry.

I didn't mean to say that people who would otherwise post in an amicable fashion wouldn't, for fear of banning, but merely that new posters would see the behavior of the "senior class" as a tacit encouragement to run wild in the halls after home room lets out.

Now I know that that's pretty reductionistic all by itself. I'm not saying that's all that is going on, but I do see it (i.e., the old guys' behavior) as a potential contributing factor for "acting out," as it were.

Granted, there are plenty of newer posters that are affable and fairly reasonable; I just think there's another group that sees that behavior and allows that to "enable" them to do the same. Except not really the same, because they go pretty crazy with the insouciance.

And while the old-guard of the site might dole out the vitriol in portions that are commensurate with the level of poor-posting they find themselves confronted with, that contextual distinction might be lost on newer posters, who instead of waiting for the "appropriate" time to "go agro" on someone else, jump the gun a little.

Does that clarify what I wrote above, or did I miss the point of your response?

The boards would be more interesting if Jacob Singer kicked the grumpy old man schtick, and Dr. Necessiter stopped posting. Actually, if you complained about Devin and politics, or made an AICN comparison, stop posting: the odds favour you being a boring suburbanite; fuck-off and get back to managing staples, or walmart, or personal finances. Spare us your innofensive crap. It's boring.

Also: what that dude said at the end of CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND.

Although Millette is trying his damnedest to be the first.

Here's the part where I make a harmless pun about capitalizing, and we all hold hands and laugh together. Good times.

Who are these new posters running around trying to be mini-Devins? Unless you're talking about guys like JohnShade or the people who register just to attack Devin for his politics, I haven't seen any newbies starting fights.

I think the reverse is true, unfortunately. Most of the board's recent additions seem polite, well-spoken and utterly bland and umemorable. And when everyone mildly enjoys the same safe movies and politely dislikes the same safe movies, it makes for boring film discussions where nobody really gives a shit either way.

Despite all the trolling, personal attacks and whatnot, honestly I don't think it's that bad around here. I didn't post for a loooooooooong time after registering, and it's really not that hard to filter out responses just meant to be inflammatory. This site is great; it gives me something to do while I'm at work, has given me some good connections, and never hurts my feelings that bad. Maybe we should take a poll or something!

Polls are fun! We could start some kind of coup d'etat against Nunziata and Devin, where we wrestle control away to eenin and fabfunk or something!

I'd vote for anyname.

Again, poor word choice on my part. I apologize. I wrote "new" when I should have written "newer." I'm not talking about people that just signed up, but people that came to the boards after it already had an established attitude or atmosphere, and have continued to do so for years. I'm speaking relatively.

If I understand what you're saying correctly here, I disagree. You seem to be inter-changing the concepts of cordiality and passivity. They're not the same thing. What you've written above almost seems to imply that you can either be polite and not have good film discussion, or be rude and have really good discussions. Again, that's probably reductionistic, but I don't see why you can't have an intense discussion about film and still be nice about it.

Edited: (Cause I think really slowly, and just realized this)
Furthermore, your above quote seems to imply that good film discussion comes from disagreement. Discussion doesn't require having to change someone's mind or get them around to your way of thinking. It might just be pointing out something someone else hasn't noticed yet, or free-associating in a new direction. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but re-reading your above paragraph makes it sound more like you enjoy heated arguing than discussion. You can be passionate about movies and still entertain other points of view.

As for really high quality film discussion, I haven't had much of that here. I almost had one once with Jonathan Parker about why I disliked Heat, but he hovered on the very precipice of discussion, informed me that I was wrong and then departed.

It probably comes down to what you consider a good discussion of film. It's probably different for everybody. I wouldn't call the Firefly or Ultraviolet threads film discussion, because it seemed to be about everything except for the film. From my definition, I just don't see a lot of in-depth film discussion.

Of course it does.

Anyway, good is relative. Pauline Kael is good film discussion. On the CHUD boards, I'll settle for interesting or entertaining. And there's nothing interesting about universal agreement.

Im fairly new here to the boards (many thanks to the guys finally opening the boards up to HotMail account owners), but I havent had too many issues with others being mean. Well, just once.
It's fairly easy to weed out the jackasses from the intelligent ones.

Just to clarify, I know I whinge a lot, but no one's ever been mean to me on these boards; my observations come from the interactions of others. So just from my own personal experiences, everyone here's been pretty darned cool. I apologize if I come off like I'm condemning the place. All of which is really to take the long way 'round to say that I agree with Bob Clark, and re-tract my earlier avowal of disagreement.

And Slater, yes, good is relative. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't really get where you were coming from before, but now I do. I think I was just getting hung up on definitions.

Millette is far more cold-blooded than Devin ever was. We're talking Killer Croc levels here.

He also has far worse taste. And less hair. And less barnacles.

I never asserted anything like that. I was simply saying it was insulting for Nick to call us all assholes. I'm kind of funny like that.

And BTW, it took me over three years to achieve my awe-inspiring post count. It was built in two or three minute windows throughout my work day. You try researching and writing a complete article with interruptions every three minutes and see how well you do. I tapped out at two.
BTW, pt.2- I found that 3 year old thread quickly because it has always stood out in my mind.




Okay, I have no real defense for that.

I'm very thankful to Nick for giving us this great place to spend our time & for all the work people like him, Devin, Dave et al do to make it so interesting. There really is no better site out there.

Which makes me so surprised at Nick's seemingly angry opening of this thread. I said in another thread yesterday that apart from one or two jerks the folks on these boards were a good crowd (don't say it again Brad!) There is plenty of film discussion, which I haven't gotten involved much lately because I really haven't seen a lot of movies lately. In other sections it seems there are always people helping others out with PC stuff, electronics etc.

Yes there is always some smartassed comment around every corner but on the whole it seems to be good natured & pretty entertaining. I'm sure there are things we could all do to make the place even better but I don't think it's such a bad place to be.

Worse taste than Killer Croc? Hardly. The dude lives in a damn sewer.

Can't we all just go back to agreeing that Brett Ratner is a hack? Simpler times.

Millette lives in South Carolina.

I'd take the sewer.

Well, I see it's Groundhog Day again.

The sky is falling, the boards are full of meanies that need to be banned, there's not enough good discussion or intelligence, all the good people are gone, etc, etc.

Lather, rinse and repeat in a year to six months.

GROUNDHOG DAY was much funnier.