ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/movies/archive/v02.n292

Internet Message Format | 2000-09-18 | 53KB

From: [e-mail] (movies-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: movies-digest V2 #292
Reply-To: movies-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


movies-digest        Monday, September 18 2000        Volume 02 : Number 292



Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...
Re: [MV] Sidestep city.
Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...
Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...
[MV] It's the Reasoning methinks...
Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...
Re: [MV] Sidestep city.
[MV] some more responses... (long night for dex)
[MV] RE: You only live twice
[MV] How many people on this list?.
Re: [MV] RE: You only live twice
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
RE: [MV] How many people on this list?.
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
RE: [MV] How many people on this list?.
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
Re: [MV] closing pandora's box
Re: [MV] closing pandora's box
Re: [MV] closing pandora's box
Re: [MV] closing pandora's box
Re: [MV] closing pandora's box

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:57:04 -0700
From: Chris Parry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Bad movies will be made whether or not people go to them, so if
> someone's going to go to them on opening night, just let them do what they
> want to do.

Eric, I'm not going to stand there with a pick-axe threatening
anyone who dares go into a Martin Lawrence movie. "Let them"? I'm
not stopping them. But I'm sure as hell not going to approve of
them, nor stay silent and avoid criticising them.

And one last thing, yes, awful movies will always be made. But there
was a time when they weren't released. The makers of a bad movie,
fearful of a critical drubbing and a box office crash, would shelve
it indefinitely. That was back when people bothered looking at a
review before they saw a movie.

Now the marketing guys don't fear any one critic, or critics as a
collective. They'll put garbage like The Ninth Gate out on a bunch
of screens, cut a halfway decent trailer that gives away every plot
point, and put the words JOHNNY DEPP in big letters on all the
posters. The critics will turn up their noses, but the people will
go anyway, and the marketing people know it. They play you for fools
and you not only soak it up without question, but you come back for
more, and then defend your right to be ripped off.

Sad.

OZ

http://www.efilmcritic.com
http://www.mymovies.com.au
http://www.tribe.com
http://www.if.com.au
http://ifmagazine.ifctv.com
http://www.sain.com.au

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:12:43 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Sidestep city.

In a message dated 09/17/2000 9:46:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Yes, Dex has gone to see the critically drubbed films I
 mentioned and, when they stank, not asked for his money back. >>

What I would like to know is: how do you ask for your money back?  Seriously,
you paid to see a movie, you saw it, you can't get a refund and return the
memory of a God awful movie.  Refunds are when you actually return something
tangible, so I think the idea is pretty ludicrous.  One thing I do know: I
would not be very much appreciated with the people running the ticket window
if I was to ask for my money back.  It's a losing battle.  Now, warning
people of a bad movie is a different story.  However, whether someone chooses
to take your advice or ignore it is their choice.  Being a complete jerk and
a snob to others is not going to help your case.
- -Eric-

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 01:26:14 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...

In a message dated 09/17/2000 9:48:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< The critics will turn up their noses, but the people will
 go anyway, and the marketing people know it. They play you for fools
 and you not only soak it up without question, but you come back for
 more, and then defend your right to be ripped off. >>

And how many people agree unconditionally with the critics?  There are people
that go to these movies and really enjoy them.  Are they wrong for liking
them?  No.  Are you wrong for not liking them?  No.  They made their choice,
and if they're happy with it, I have no problem with them.  I usually pay
attention to Roger Ebert's (and the likes of his) reviews.  I mean, from the
trailers, I was toying with the notion of going to The Art of War.  It was,
however, critically bashed, so I kind of pushed it aside.  And, hey, I liked
the fact that Ebert gave Rocky and Bullwinkle a thumbs up, but it turned out
to be (for me) a big disappointment.  And, likewise, some of the movies
you've mentioned in the past that "if anyone likes them, they're idiots" were
movies that Ebert liked.  Are you now saying that he's an idiot?  C'mon, now.
 Heck, even his late partner, Gene, enjoyed Armageddon.  Only we can
determine which movies are good and bad.  That's not to say one can't debate
his opinion with another's, but to call someone a moron on the basis of
something he or she likes is just plain childish.
- -Eric-

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:16:52 -0700
From: Chris Parry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> the fact that Ebert gave Rocky and Bullwinkle a thumbs up, but it turned out
> to be (for me) a big disappointment.  And, likewise, some of the movies
> you've mentioned in the past that "if anyone likes them, they're idiots" were
> movies that Ebert liked.  Are you now saying that he's an idiot?

He's a shill for Disney. But that's another rant altogether.

> to call someone a moron on the basis of
> something he or she likes is just plain childish.

If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's a duck.

PS: You can ask for your money back for a dud movie. Simply assess
reasonably early on that what you are watching is utter shite, then
leave before the end, asking for a refund. Trust me, hombre, you'll
get it. Ask Gene, he got a refund for Blair Witch.

OZ

http://www.efilmcritic.com
http://www.mymovies.com.au
http://www.tribe.com
http://www.if.com.au
http://ifmagazine.ifctv.com
http://www.sain.com.au

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:30:13 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] It's the Reasoning methinks...

> Now the marketing guys don't fear any one critic, or critics as a
> collective. They'll put garbage like The Ninth Gate out on a bunch
> of screens, cut a halfway decent trailer that gives away every plot
> point, and put the words JOHNNY DEPP in big letters on all the
> posters. The critics will turn up their noses, but the people will
> go anyway, and the marketing people know it. They play you for fools
> and you not only soak it up without question, but you come back for
> more, and then defend your right to be ripped off.

I have a long post coming up regarding your reasoning, and I hope you can afford
the time to read it through before responding.:


Actually Oz, if that's the best example you can give, then your case has a major
flaw.   As we all know, the Ninth Gate bombed at the box office, so did a great
many movies that were expected to do well because of star power.  If you're
following the American film industry, you'll note Keanu Reeve's recent  films
all did poorly at the box office.    Your reasoning, and I want to make it clear
it is the "reasoning" I have a problem with, not you personally, is overly
simplistic.  In a sense, the reasoning you provide is no more rational than
convervative elements in politics blaming a country's economic problems on
excessive immigration.  A simple yet clear scapegoat don't you say?

The rationale that marketing power, combined glitzy special effects, big names
and   the film going public's lack of intelligence results in utter crap
becoming the year's smash hits makes good reading to the embittered film purist
who is trying to rationalize why films they utterly disdian, like those by
Martin Laurence, or Adam Sandler, do so fantastically well.  The flaw however is
that arguments like these fail to take into account the failed films with huge
marketing budgets, huge special effects, and huge licenses.  Do I need to paint
Godzilla on my forehead before anyone takes notice that big hollywood projects
fail spectacularly.  This year's spectacular failure is Battlefield Earth  and
it can be said that the fact that the top grossing film of the year, Mission
Impossible 2, failed to even breach the 300 million mark domestically is an
indicment that while it may have attracted huge audiences,  a lot more people
decided not to see it.

That said, I think there are many more factors that affects a movie's success.
The "herding" mentality, as previously noted is a factor.  But let me say it is
a factor in everyday life.  It is a proven hypothesis in psychology that we are
all wired to follow the group.  Cars drive in packs, people in a group tend to
behave within the "norms" of the group and actively avoids its "taboos" and
filmgoing is no different.   Other factors include word of mouth, appeal of the
subject matter, cultural/demographic issues, marketing/licenses, star power and
timing.     And reviews from critics aren't excluded.  I've said that critics
are irrelevant in previous posts and I think that is partially true, but I was
also angry :-D  In a more objective reading of their role, critics provide the
backbone, or shall we say, framework for  "word of mouth" which of course is a
factor in a film's success.

Now, if the only real factor here is marketing, as you've suggested, where the
marketing people can simply thumb their noses at the critics and counter
negative reviews with agressive marketing, then films like Godzilla would have
succeeded.  Yes, Godzilla opened big because the marketing, the hype drew
attention, people wanted to see what is was about, and when the first wave of
audiences saw it sucked, word of mouth turned against the movie and the movie's
box office takes plummeted like a stone.    Conversely, films like the Sixth
Sense or the Matrix opened modestly, with moderate marketing (the trailers for
both movies received little attention and even less hype) but the audiences
loved it, reviews were generally positive, and they came back for more.    There
are many other smaller scale examples with movies banking on that one name, say,
Pokemon 2000, which opened with a big push and died quickly.    You may argue
that the first week's big takes are more than offset the costs.  For Pokemon, it
is true.  Warner Brothers acquired the film cheaply from Nintendo and they knew
it had relatively small demographic audience, but for films like godzilla which
raked in something like 50 million dollars in the first weekend, its not nearly
enough to cover the film's marketing let alone its budget.

In a nutshell,  If your assertions about films is equivalent to  a scientific
law  where:

marketing budget + special effects + star power + the public's ignorance =
martin laurence's next hit

then, that law is far from being in the same calibre as Einstien's theory of
relativity or Newton's laws of motion.  Both those laws are ironclad, and so
far, no scientist have been able to show an instance where they do not apply,
and therefore, they are accepted.  The same notion applies for ideas and laws in
the social sciences, stuff which I think inevitably play a major factor in your
reasoning and prediction of how people behave.    As I've shown, holes can be
poked into your reasoning and it simply doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.   It
is like a poor mathematician concluding that   2x2=4 and it is therefore
equivalent to the equation 2+2=4.  It works in that case, but when someone ask
you for the product of  2x3, the answer is 6 not 5, so in that case, the
reasoning falls short of the objective truth.    Therefore, I will say that your
analysis works on certain readings of certain films, but as a broad and general
analysis, it is flawed and cannot be accepted.

The burden of proof is on you as it is you who is making these claims.  Eric and
I are not obligated to disprove you because it is your responsibility to prove
it to us first and at that you haven't done so to my satisfaction.  That is the
underlying cause of our disagreement.  We've gone in circles before arguing over
trivial things like  whether Gladiator is valid or is stupid, but those
arguments have no end. If Eric or I manages to shoot down that argument, you'll
just come up with another example and another.  And conversely, Eric will claim
Pokemon is valid, which will lead to a whole round of personal attacks, hurt
feelings, and extremely vile words being exchanged.


- --
Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com

>
> Sad.
>
> OZ
>
> http://www.efilmcritic.com
> http://www.mymovies.com.au
> http://www.tribe.com
> http://www.if.com.au
> http://ifmagazine.ifctv.com
> http://www.sain.com.au
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]




[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:44:41 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...

>
>
> If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's a duck.

Chris/Oz, that is a false reasoning and many scientists have fallen in the same
trap. If it beeps like an radio signal, it must be an radio signal from an advanced
civilization?  Well, the Russians called a press conference to announce just that,
only it turned out to be a pulsar, or in everyday jargon, the corpse of a dead star
spinning in space.     Your hypothesis have been disproven.  Read through various
issues of the Skeptical Inquirier and I'll assure you it will dawn on you many of
our assumptions are half baked  rationalities that don't hold up to real scrutiny.

One example.  A survey reports 90% of all plane crash survivors report to having
"mapped"  and reheresed the plane's exits in their mind before the plane took off.
So it must be true  that mapping the exits in a plane will increase our chance of
survival?  It sounds plausible and I fell for it myself.   Of course, keep in mind
whoever did this study could not interview those who died in the crash.  Perhaps
90% of those who died also mapped out the exits in their mind.  90 percent sounds
so good because it is so close to 100%. But without a more pertinent comparison it
does not mean much.

- --
Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com



[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:48:56 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Sidestep city.

Chris Parry wrote:

> My previous email was laoded with challenges to Dex, questions for
> him to answer, admissions for him to make or deny... and he
> sidestepped them all, reverting to this malarky.

I read it an decided it was not worth my time responding because we disagee, yes, but
what we're talking about doesn't deal with the root of our disagreement.  In the end,
we'll just end up in circles with one side brining up examples after examples and the
supply is never ending. You shoot one down, i have ten more to go and I shoot on down,
I'm sure you have ten more to go too.  It is pointless, no?


- --
Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com



[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:35:28 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] some more responses... (long night for dex)

> See, the thing is, tolerance has no place in film criticism, or any
> 'arts' criticism, for that matter. By its very nature, to criticise
> an artistic work one must be honest and direct. Just as I'm not
> going to skirt around the issue in calling Joel Schumacher a hack,
> why should I skirt around the issue that people who think Big
> Momma's House is a 'great movie' are likewise? If nobody speaks up
> and points out the obvious, that the definition of a great film is
> far beyond what Martin Lawrence is capable of, then the population
> drifts closer to the Springer-esque and standards continue to drop
> off.

That may well be true.  But to criticize something is not the same as finding the
truth.  Criticize all you want.  This list has had its shares of disagreements and
people are generally very plain about it when they say it's their point of view and
that's how they see the way things are.  The discussions between the three of us have
gotten quite nasty mostly because you attack things you disagree with, I suppose you
feel like you are critiquing them, with a sense of righteousness and validity that Eric
and I have no choice but to say "wait a minute, why the hell are you belittling fans of
X film" and the irony in all this is, we may actually agree with you on the substance
of your argument.

This brings me to the issue of critiqueing a film.  Criticize, make your point heard.
Hey, I tolerate people's views.   You may or may not realize you are doing this, but
you do cross a line when you call people names, and make accusations of their stupidity
based on the movies they enjoy.  You are moving from a subjective critcism of a film,
based on your own standards, your own views to imposing  your opinion as the truth.
Now, you claim you're not imposing truth, but merely standing up and pointing out what
you think is an injustice, but it doesn't sound like it when your making those
statements.  Only in hindsight do you make them sound like they were opinions.

>
>
> But hey, you might not agree with me (just because I believe I'm
> right doesn't necessarily make me so), and you may full well
> continue to go to crap movies that you know are crap going in, and
> you may keep believing trailers and studio marketing campaigns and
> ignoring reviews, but don't expect me to like it or keep my mouth
> shut about it,

Hmmm.  I never said I follow trailers or marketing.  I won't deny I am not influenced
about it, because I am, but the underlying issue is you think Martin Laurence movies
are crap, I think they are funny.  I never said they are works of art that must be
placed on a pedestal and worshiped.  That's a leap in reasoning you took for the
benefit of your argument, but I never said it.

> just because you're concerned about... tyrants... was
> that it? We're supposed to embrace awful movies so tyrants don't
> rise up?

From your readings, I get the impression you would love nothing more than for every
movie goer to pick up a review  before going to see a movie and heed its advice so they
are never cheated out of their hard earned dollars.  Is this not true?  If so, what
does it make critics?  An all powerful class with the power to influence people's
viewing habits at your very whim.  That  ironically put critics in the same position as
the marketing people, who you claim to have a stranglehold on people's thoughts, a
hypothesis I dispute.  (see my e-mail entitled "It's the reasoning methinks") And we
are not even getting into the issue of critics who may want to  advance a political,
social , moral, agenda, and  change  their reviews accordingly to change public
perceptions.
There is certainly an ideal out there which I share with you that all good films
deserves equal viewing, but there are problems.  The Definition of good is  murky at
best, and the ideal is nothing more than that, an ideal.  If it were to be put into
practice, it becomes very clear that it is nothing short of mind control, which I'm
sure you would oppose.  If critics control you movie going habits, what else can they
control?  perhaps moving homosexuals into heterosexual movies to try to change their
orientaion? Make boys love War and Peace TheMovie so we will have a generation of
sensitive men?  You get into the space of social planning in the very vein of communism
and totalitarian regimes with your ideal that the movie goers should read and follow
the whim of critic.  Social freedom, the freedom of the individual is neglectd.  You
can see the idea of tyrants is relevant in this discussion in the same way a simple
matter of the company awarding an insignificant contract  to non union workers will
lead to threats of strikes and job actions from union workers.  It is the threat of the
opening of the pandora's box that I am arguing against.  What may seem like an
overaction to you, really is a perfectly legitimate issue with me.

As for mispelling, I apologize. I am a horrible speller. I do my best, but keep in mind
I spend the majority of my time thinking about my ideas not checking spelling.  I leave
it to my spell checker which unfortunately is an inconvinient feature with this e-mail
program I am using.     I don't have anything to prove.  There are many discussions
about films I've never seem which I don't respond to because I know I have no authority
to jump into the discussion.  I am here right now engaged in this discussion with you
because I think what you're doing, or at least the way you go about making your point,
serves a great injustice to a lot of people, myself included.

>

Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com



[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:01:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] RE: You only live twice

> Next up for me .. "Diamonds are forever" - 1971.

You should really watch all of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE first.  To skip
directly from YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE to DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER would be like
watching STAR WARS and RETURN OF THE JEDI back-to-back after dismissing THE
EMPIRE STRIKES BACK because you didn't like the sequences on Hoth.

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:32:26 -0700
From: "David F. Nolan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] How many people on this list?.

I'm curious: how many people are on this discussion list?  The majority of
postings are from a small handful of people, and I don't think I've seen
messages from more than 25 people in the last 2-3 months.


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:31:52 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] RE: You only live twice

You should really watch all of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE first.  To
skip
directly from YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE to DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER would be like
watching STAR WARS and RETURN OF THE JEDI back-to-back after dismissing THE
EMPIRE STRIKES BACK because you didn't like the sequences on Hoth.


Now, on her majesty's secret service is the worst 007 movie ever, but you
gotta watch it because the ones with Sean Connery have a full storyline, so
watch from russia with love to diamonds are forever, the rest of the movies
only have 1 seperate storyline.

- -Jed
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:54:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vi On <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

There are 146 members here and 49 on the movie digest.
Almost 200 people. Majority just listens and post once in a long while
like me.

Waving across the Charles river from BU to MiT.

- -Vi


On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, David F. Nolan [e-mail] wrote:

> I'm curious: how many people are on this discussion list?  The majority of
> postings are from a small handful of people, and I don't think I've seen
> messages from more than 25 people in the last 2-3 months.
>
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]
>



[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:17:59 -0500
From: Diane Christy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

On 9/18/00, 9:32 AM -0700, David F. Nolan said so nicely:
>I'm curious: how many people are on this discussion list?  The majority of
>postings are from a small handful of people, and I don't think I've seen
>messages from more than 25 people in the last 2-3 months.

Great question.  I've often wondered this myself.  Does the list have
a web site?  I went to "xmission" web site and it looks like an
Internet Provider.  Couldn't find anything about e-mail lists.  I
wonder if there's a list of all of the members.  Might be interesting
to check out.  I know egroups keeps a list of all subscribed to their
lists.
- --
~~~~~
Diane Christy (Samantha and Joshua's Mom)
Jefferson, LA
http://www.geocities.com/diane507/
mailto:[e-mail]
ICQ #12904700  <dkbc10> on Instant AOL Messenger
~~~~~

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:18:39 -0500
From: Diane Christy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

On 9/18/00, 1:54 PM -0400, Vi On said so nicely:
>There are 146 members here and 49 on the movie digest.
>Almost 200 people. Majority just listens and post once in a long while
>like me.

How do you know that??  Really curious over here!  :-)
- --
~~~~~
Diane Christy (Samantha and Joshua's Mom)
Jefferson, LA
http://www.geocities.com/diane507/
mailto:[e-mail]
ICQ #12904700  <dkbc10> on Instant AOL Messenger
~~~~~

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:30:19 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [MV] How many people on this list?.

Gee... You don't think that people don't want to post for fear that Chris
Parry-OZ will declare them morons!

- -----Original Message-----
From: Diane Christy [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 1:19 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.


On 9/18/00, 1:54 PM -0400, Vi On said so nicely:
>There are 146 members here and 49 on the movie digest.
>Almost 200 people. Majority just listens and post once in a long while
>like me.

How do you know that??  Really curious over here!  :-)
- --
~~~~~
Diane Christy (Samantha and Joshua's Mom)
Jefferson, LA
http://www.geocities.com/diane507/
mailto:[e-mail]
ICQ #12904700  <dkbc10> on Instant AOL Messenger
~~~~~

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:34:19 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

There are 146 members here and 49 on the movie digest.
Almost 200 people. Majority just listens and post once in a long while
like me.

Waving across the Charles river from BU to MiT.

- -Vi

Yeah, but some of them are no longer active email boxes.

- -Jed
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:40:50 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

Great question.  I've often wondered this myself.  Does the list have
a web site?  I went to "xmission" web site and it looks like an
Internet Provider.  Couldn't find anything about e-mail lists.  I
wonder if there's a list of all of the members.  Might be interesting
to check out.  I know egroups keeps a list of all subscribed to their
lists.
- --

One way to check, try sending an email to [e-mail]
and type who movies in the body of your test, this works with the N64 list,
and Greg owns that list as well, so i figure he may allow these members to
view each other

- -Jed
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:41:14 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

How do you know that??  Really curious over here!  :-)
- --
~~~~~
Diane Christy (Samantha and Joshua's Mom)

Vi probaly owns this list too with Greg.

- -Jed
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:42:53 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] How many people on this list?.

000 13:30:19 -0500

Gee... You don't think that people don't want to post for fear that Chris
Parry-OZ will declare them morons!

It's cause some of them are dead email accounts.

- -Jed
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:44:11 -0700
From: Chris Parry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Gee... You don't think that people don't want to post for fear that Chris
> Parry-OZ will declare them morons!

Spoken like a true mo... bah, forget it. Too easy.

OZ

http://www.efilmcritic.com
http://www.mymovies.com.au
http://www.tribe.com
http://www.if.com.au
http://ifmagazine.ifctv.com
http://www.sain.com.au

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:49:00 -0500
From: Diane Christy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

On 9/19/00, 11:44 AM -0700, Chris Parry said so nicely:
>  > Gee... You don't think that people don't want to post for fear that Chris
>>  Parry-OZ will declare them morons!
>
>Spoken like a true mo... bah, forget it. Too easy.

Watch it you guys!!!  :-)
- --
~~~~~
Diane Christy (Samantha and Joshua's Mom)
Jefferson, LA
http://www.geocities.com/diane507/
mailto:[e-mail]
ICQ #12904700  <dkbc10> on Instant AOL Messenger
~~~~~

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:31:57 -0700
From: Chris Parry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] closing pandora's box

Okay, let's break it down to the essentials. I'll try to keep it
PG-13 for the kids who like things generic.

To understand me and my approach to this issue, you should really
understand a bit about who I am. I don't pay to see movies, yet I
see everything that comes out. I work in the industry, and I also
write about film for various media outlets. I'm invited to special
screenings by the marketing mob, placated with drinks, and forced to
navigate a careful path through publicist BS. I then watch the
movie. Once it is over, I'm paid to give my opinions. Why me? What
makes me special? Not a bloody thing, other than I can say clearly
and without fear of hurting feelings exactly what my impressions
were, and back it up with some kind of knowledge of film and
filmmakers.

Not a bad job, I'm constantly told by people who would love to spend
all day watching movies. And it's not. It beats digging ditches. But
there's a humungous downside. See, there's a lot of really bad films
out there. A buttload. In fact, I'd say 75% of the films I see and
have to write about are just so bad they shouldn't have got past the
planning stage, let alone to a big screen in a multiplex near you.

But sometimes there's something so damn good that comes out that you
feel guilty taking money to praise it. Crouching Tiger, Hidden
Dragon, which just won the prize at Toronto, is so damn good it
amazed me to the point of apoplexy. Ghost Dog, released earlier in
the year, was so good I couldn't review it. I just didn't seem to be
able to aptly sum it up in the word-space I was given.

I dig it a lot when a great movie comes out. Not a good movie, or a
really good movie, but a great movie. A movie that everyone should
see. When Lawn Dogs came out I told everyone I knew that it would
change their life, and they should run out and find it. A week
later, when it had closed without trace, I asked around. Had anyone
seen it? Anyone...? Nope, not a soul. One guy went instead to see an
action movies that he 'figured were gonna be crap, and it kinda
was.' Another went to see Urban Legend. And so on, and so on. This
same scenario hit when The Spanish Prisoner was released, and Bottle
Rocket and Magnolia and Being John Malkovich and Go and Fight Club.
When Ghost Dog was released, I screamed from the rooftops for people
to see that film, and nobody did. It wasn't that people didn't
believe me that it was great, but (choose your own excuse - The
Mummy was out and I like Brendan Fraser/it looked like it was
subtitled/I don't like little movies/I don't like martial arts/I
wanted to see that Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks film..)

When Three Kings was released I introduced a preview screening of
Anywhere But Here for a group of readers of a magazine I was writing
for. Before that film I said "look, this is a decent flick and all,
but do yourselves a favour and go across the street afterwards and
go see Three Kings. I personally guarantee you'll enjoy it, and if
you don't, bring your ticket stub to me and I'll give you your money
back. Personally. Me."

How many people went? One. How many people asked for their money
back? None.

So here I sit, working hard for the good movies and good
moviemakers. I think Jarmusch, Lee, Hartley, Anderson, Von Trier,
Russell and Jonze are far better filmmakers than Spielberg, and no
matter how many times I point people to a great film they've never
heard of, they always (and yes, I generalise here, if you're in the
3% of the moviegoing public that this generalisation doesn't cover,
ignore) revert to the flock mentality.

I don't write about movies for the money. I do it because I've
worked on them, and I know how much of a person's heart and soul go
into making them, and because that sort of effort should be
rewarded. I've worked on studio films as well, and I can assure you
that the attitude is not "let's make somnething great", it's "let's
make something we can sell. Make that ending happy, dammit."

So forgive me for being passionate. Forgive me for being rude.
Forgive me for being severely annoyed when I see a film get
universal damnation from critics and still clear a phat profit. The
reason critics exist is not to blow their own trumpets or Stalinise
you into seeing what you're told. They're the test-drivers. They're
the guardians of your dollar. They go see the crap so you won't have
to. When you go see it anyway, you weaken their power to protect
you, to the point where you may not have them around much longer.

With The Avengers (which still made a fortune, despite it's
indisputable crappiness), the marketing people decided to do the
unthinkable. They didn't let the critics see the film before
release. Ten years earlier such behaviour would have been seen by
the public as despicable, and the film would have been ignored and
the studio stained red for a long time thereafter. But ten years
later, it simply proved to the marketing people that they can treat
the critics with disdain, and still make a packet, because the
majority of the viewing public just don't care what they see.

(FYI - Godzilla not only made a profit, but after video revenues and
pay TV, it made a fortune. Even Waterworld made a large profit and
that was supposed to be the biggest bomb ever. Battlefield Earth?
Took a pasting, but it will still get its money back once the video
cash is in.)

So in closing, what I say is what I believe in. It doesn't mean I'm
right, but it does mean that's my honest, considered opinion. If I
say you're a moron, it doesn't mean you necessarily are one. I'm not
medically qualified to make that call. It just means I believe you
are one, or that you're at least doing a good impression of one. And
hey, by all means, tell me what you think of me, a true critic needs
to be able to take it as well as dish it out, and I won't get hurt
unless I believe you're right.

Contrary to popular belief, I do suffer fools gladly. In my mind,
there's nobody smarter than someone who believes their knowledge in
a topic is lacking and actually seeks out ways to improve it. I know
people who seek me out for recommendations of good under-the-radar
films and videos, and while they don't always agree with my taste,
the fact that they're seeing something different, challenging and
that they might have otherwise missed gives them a buzz.

Personally, I'm happy to sit back and watch a crap action film when
I'm bored. But I much prefer to watch a really good action film. I
saw Big Momma's House, and to deny I laughed at bits would be to
lie. But I know Election, Rushmore, Bottle Rocket, The Size Of
Watermelons, High Fidelity and Trekkies had me in hysterics, so Big
Momma's House has to be judged compared to those experiences, not
compared to sitting at home washing my hair. To me, a film being
passable just isn't enough.

It doesn't have to be good. It just has to have tried to be.

And with that I'll consider the topic closed... at least until
someone tells me how much they liked Chairman Of The Board... then
I'm going postal.

OZ

http://www.efilmcritic.com
http://www.mymovies.com.au
http://www.tribe.com
http://www.if.com.au
http://ifmagazine.ifctv.com
http://www.sain.com.au

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:51:37 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] closing pandora's box

In a message dated 09/18/2000 6:23:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< It just means I believe you
 are one, or that you're at least doing a good impression of one. >>

I still believe this impression is a bad call, since I don't believe we're
idiots for going to movies that entertain us.  Believe me, I believe there
are rather naive thoughts that people take on when going to movies, but it's
strictly their choice, and I don't have a problem with it if they are really
entertained.  However, recommend the movies all you want.  The peoples'
opinions are what matter in the end.
- -Eric-

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:18:32 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] closing pandora's box

>
> I still believe this impression is a bad call, since I don't believe we're
> idiots for going to movies that entertain us.  Believe me, I believe there
> are rather naive thoughts that people take on when going to movies, but it's
> strictly their choice, and I don't have a problem with it if they are really
> entertained.  However, recommend the movies all you want.  The peoples'
> opinions are what matter in the end.
> -Eric-

Well, dont forget there is a lot more weight in the opinions  of the experts in
the field of cinema, which are the film critics.   I'm not going to seek  advice
from a psychic or a hack who doesn't know his star chart when I go outside at
night to star gaze.    People's opinions matter yes, but keep in mind people
have voted monsters like Hitler into power. Does it mean their opinion is as
valid?  I would disagree.

Keeping a certain level of respect is a healthy thing.  That includes respect
for everyone's opinions, including the critics.  of course, how much weight we
put into them is entirely up to the person.

Dexter



>
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

- --
Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com



[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:34:51 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] closing pandora's box

In a message dated 09/18/2000 8:08:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Keeping a certain level of respect is a healthy thing.  That includes
respect
 for everyone's opinions, including the critics.  of course, how much weight
we
 put into them is entirely up to the person.

 Dexter >>

Of course, I respect the opinions of the critics, but I'm talking about
those, like Chris, who decided to call me an idiot based on the movies I
like.  Some, might I add, that he hasn't seen.  I've said that I respect his
views on movies, but he needs to respect others' tastes as well.  By calling
me a moron because I like something he doesn't doesn't exactly earn him my
respect, but I like that he has, somewhat, apologized for sounding so
snobbish.
- -Eric-

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:48:11 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] closing pandora's box

I appreciate the clarification.  You have my admiration.

Dexter

Chris Parry wrote:

> Okay, let's break it down to the essentials. I'll try to keep it
> PG-13 for the kids who like things generic.
>
> To understand me and my approach to this issue, you should really
> understand a bit about who I am. I don't pay to see movies, yet I
> see everything that comes out. I work in the industry, and I also
> write about film for various media outlets. I'm invited to special
> screenings by the marketing mob, placated with drinks, and forced to
> navigate a careful path through publicist BS. I then watch the
> movie. Once it is over, I'm paid to give my opinions. Why me? What
> makes me special? Not a bloody thing, other than I can say clearly
> and without fear of hurting feelings exactly what my impressions
> were, and back it up with some kind of knowledge of film and
> filmmakers.
>
> Not a bad job, I'm constantly told by people who would love to spend
> all day watching movies. And it's not. It beats digging ditches. But
> there's a humungous downside. See, there's a lot of really bad films
> out there. A buttload. In fact, I'd say 75% of the films I see and
> have to write about are just so bad they shouldn't have got past the
> planning stage, let alone to a big screen in a multiplex near you.
>
> But sometimes there's something so damn good that comes out that you
> feel guilty taking money to praise it. Crouching Tiger, Hidden
> Dragon, which just won the prize at Toronto, is so damn good it
> amazed me to the point of apoplexy. Ghost Dog, released earlier in
> the year, was so good I couldn't review it. I just didn't seem to be
> able to aptly sum it up in the word-space I was given.
>
> I dig it a lot when a great movie comes out. Not a good movie, or a
> really good movie, but a great movie. A movie that everyone should
> see. When Lawn Dogs came out I told everyone I knew that it would
> change their life, and they should run out and find it. A week
> later, when it had closed without trace, I asked around. Had anyone
> seen it? Anyone...? Nope, not a soul. One guy went instead to see an
> action movies that he 'figured were gonna be crap, and it kinda
> was.' Another went to see Urban Legend. And so on, and so on. This
> same scenario hit when The Spanish Prisoner was released, and Bottle
> Rocket and Magnolia and Being John Malkovich and Go and Fight Club.
> When Ghost Dog was released, I screamed from the rooftops for people
> to see that film, and nobody did. It wasn't that people didn't
> believe me that it was great, but (choose your own excuse - The
> Mummy was out and I like Brendan Fraser/it looked like it was
> subtitled/I don't like little movies/I don't like martial arts/I
> wanted to see that Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks film..)
>
> When Three Kings was released I introduced a preview screening of
> Anywhere But Here for a group of readers of a magazine I was writing
> for. Before that film I said "look, this is a decent flick and all,
> but do yourselves a favour and go across the street afterwards and
> go see Three Kings. I personally guarantee you'll enjoy it, and if
> you don't, bring your ticket stub to me and I'll give you your money
> back. Personally. Me."
>
> How many people went? One. How many people asked for their money
> back? None.
>
> So here I sit, working hard for the good movies and good
> moviemakers. I think Jarmusch, Lee, Hartley, Anderson, Von Trier,
> Russell and Jonze are far better filmmakers than Spielberg, and no
> matter how many times I point people to a great film they've never
> heard of, they always (and yes, I generalise here, if you're in the
> 3% of the moviegoing public that this generalisation doesn't cover,
> ignore) revert to the flock mentality.
>
> I don't write about movies for the money. I do it because I've
> worked on them, and I know how much of a person's heart and soul go
> into making them, and because that sort of effort should be
> rewarded. I've worked on studio films as well, and I can assure you
> that the attitude is not "let's make somnething great", it's "let's
> make something we can sell. Make that ending happy, dammit."
>
> So forgive me for being passionate. Forgive me for being rude.
> Forgive me for being severely annoyed when I see a film get
> universal damnation from critics and still clear a phat profit. The
> reason critics exist is not to blow their own trumpets or Stalinise
> you into seeing what you're told. They're the test-drivers. They're
> the guardians of your dollar. They go see the crap so you won't have
> to. When you go see it anyway, you weaken their power to protect
> you, to the point where you may not have them around much longer.
>
> With The Avengers (which still made a fortune, despite it's
> indisputable crappiness), the marketing people decided to do the
> unthinkable. They didn't let the critics see the film before
> release. Ten years earlier such behaviour would have been seen by
> the public as despicable, and the film would have been ignored and
> the studio stained red for a long time thereafter. But ten years
> later, it simply proved to the marketing people that they can treat
> the critics with disdain, and still make a packet, because the
> majority of the viewing public just don't care what they see.
>
> (FYI - Godzilla not only made a profit, but after video revenues and
> pay TV, it made a fortune. Even Waterworld made a large profit and
> that was supposed to be the biggest bomb ever. Battlefield Earth?
> Took a pasting, but it will still get its money back once the video
> cash is in.)
>
> So in closing, what I say is what I believe in. It doesn't mean I'm
> right, but it does mean that's my honest, considered opinion. If I
> say you're a moron, it doesn't mean you necessarily are one. I'm not
> medically qualified to make that call. It just means I believe you
> are one, or that you're at least doing a good impression of one. And
> hey, by all means, tell me what you think of me, a true critic needs
> to be able to take it as well as dish it out, and I won't get hurt
> unless I believe you're right.
>
> Contrary to popular belief, I do suffer fools gladly. In my mind,
> there's nobody smarter than someone who believes their knowledge in
> a topic is lacking and actually seeks out ways to improve it. I know
> people who seek me out for recommendations of good under-the-radar
> films and videos, and while they don't always agree with my taste,
> the fact that they're seeing something different, challenging and
> that they might have otherwise missed gives them a buzz.
>
> Personally, I'm happy to sit back and watch a crap action film when
> I'm bored. But I much prefer to watch a really good action film. I
> saw Big Momma's House, and to deny I laughed at bits would be to
> lie. But I know Election, Rushmore, Bottle Rocket, The Size Of
> Watermelons, High Fidelity and Trekkies had me in hysterics, so Big
> Momma's House has to be judged compared to those experiences, not
> compared to sitting at home washing my hair. To me, a film being
> passable just isn't enough.
>
> It doesn't have to be good. It just has to have tried to be.
>
> And with that I'll consider the topic closed... at least until
> someone tells me how much they liked Chairman Of The Board... then
> I'm going postal.
>
> OZ
>
> http://www.efilmcritic.com
> http://www.mymovies.com.au
> http://www.tribe.com
> http://www.if.com.au
> http://ifmagazine.ifctv.com
> http://www.sain.com.au
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

- --
Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com



[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

End of movies-digest V2 #292
****************************

[ To quit the movies-digest mailing list (big mistake), send the message     ]
[ "unsubscribe movies-digest" (without the quotes) to [e-mail] ]