Comments on 13573

Considering how well the Pan's Labyrinth thread is going-- how do people feel about the idea of a series of similar 'link-dump' FPPs about other Academy Award nominees? [mi]
posted by empath to etiquette/policy at 6:07 AM (62 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

I'm not volunteering to FPP all of them, but I'm sure there are fans of most of the movies out there and we could kind of do it on a first-come, first-serve basis. Maybe limit them to one movie per day (per week?), and if nobody loves any of the movies or there isn't much out there worth FPPing, we can just skip them. I'm sure this will be controversial, that's why I'm bringing it up back here before I do a Children of Men FPP.
posted by empath at 6:07 AM on January 29, 2007

I feel that this is the sort of plan that—if needs be at all—should be executed personally and not with public backing. If you feel that a series of posts on Academy Award nominees is the best of the web, go for it. You get a post a day. But I get the feeling that you're hesitant to call the proposed series of posts the best of the web, so you're asking here for confirmation. Left to read them as they came, I might think it's botw, but put out front this way I say nope.

However I feel that we should do this for '08 presidential hopefuls instead!
posted by carsonb at 6:21 AM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

In other words, it's like what I used to tell my DJs about on-air conduct: "If you have to ask if something's ok to say over the air, it's probably not." In this case though, it's better to just go ahead with your own best judgment and reap the consequences 'cause this thread is gonna be controversial.
posted by carsonb at 6:28 AM on January 29, 2007

Carson: that is not a bad idea, either.

The reason I didn't want to just start posting movie FPPs is that I know that they would be buried underneath a storm of snark, regardless of how good they are. So I was throwing it out here pre-emptively.
posted by empath at 6:29 AM on January 29, 2007

Carson: that is not a bad idea, either.

Sorry, my facetiousness-to-text program is on the blink.
posted by carsonb at 6:37 AM on January 29, 2007

could you post it to projects and get community support for it there?
posted by nola at 6:38 AM on January 29, 2007

I'm skeptical about any attempt to strike gold by template. It's great that the Pan's Labyrinth post is going so well, but there's nothing about the post itself that suggests magic—it has simply gone well. If folks happen to keep posting well about movies at a moderate pace, no great biggie, but making a Thing of it (1) puts the idea of each post above the actual independent worth of the post and (2) may regardless generate some friction and snark—because of either perceived copycatism or sheer annoyance at budding trends.

I think it'd be a weird thing to officially sanction, essentially.
posted by cortex at 6:48 AM on January 29, 2007

I would enjoy a Children Of Men post but I couldn't care less about the other Oscar nominees.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:57 AM on January 29, 2007

There is a place for this kind of post and it is not MetaFilter.
posted by caddis at 7:17 AM on January 29, 2007

My feeling si that only some of the films are really going to be that interesting to talk about, so I figure letting the posts come up as they wil is a better strategy. Concerted posting efforts often don't go so well.
posted by jessamyn at 7:21 AM on January 29, 2007

Okay.. so consensus is, that there will not necessarily be massive amounts of snark directed at a good FPP post about another oscar nominee, but that systematically going through all of them would be bad form?
posted by empath at 7:32 AM on January 29, 2007

Bad idea.
posted by languagehat at 7:34 AM on January 29, 2007

Okay.. so consensus is, that there will not necessarily be massive amounts of snark directed at a good FPP post about another oscar nominee

It had better be a damn fine post, not just a catalog of the usual crap someone could find in five minutes of Googling the film. Remember, MetaFilter is about the links, not just setting up a discussion.
posted by caddis at 7:36 AM on January 29, 2007

I object to the idea in principle. It's like seeing that great post on the autistic woman and saying "Hey, how about doing a series of posts on autistic people since that went so well?" Each post is its own entity; the whole idea of a series of posts on some subject or other is profoundly un-MeFi. (Yes, I was one of the poopyheads who hated Elephant Day.) Better you should be inspired by the post to find something equally excellent out there; let the movie sites handle the Oscars.
posted by languagehat at 8:19 AM on January 29, 2007

If there are web pages or sites out there that contain interesting, unusual, and/or insightful content regarding a movie, then by all means make a post. If it's just, "Let's discuss [movie], and BTW here's some links to the movie's official website, the trailer, the IMDB page, and a few garden-variety reviews of the movie," then skip it.

MetaFilter is primarily about the links. The discussion, while also important to the site, is less important than the links themselves. That a poor post sometimes generates good discussion does not, IMO, retroactively justify that post.

I haven't looked at the PL post on the blue yet; please take the above as a general comment only.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:44 AM on January 29, 2007

If you can find stuff about other movies as good as grapefruitmoon's The Sketches of Guillermo del Toro link, hell yeah, go for it.

You probably won't, though.
posted by mediareport at 8:49 AM on January 29, 2007

Considering how well the Pan's Labyrinth thread is going...

I'd invite you to reconsider your position. What metrics do you utilize to determine the progress and scope of the discussion and evaluate its relative state of health? The amount of comments? Some sort of archaic equation of praise versus scorn multiplied by the ensuing discourse? What?
posted by prostyle at 8:51 AM on January 29, 2007

What cortex said; the comments in the Pan's Labyrinth thread were really interesting, but the FPP and its links came across as perfunctory.

I was one of the poopyheads who hated Elephant Day
posted by languagehat

Shocking, that.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:52 AM on January 29, 2007

I would enjoy a Children Of Men

I believe there was already a Children of Men thread--or at least it was mentioned heavily someplace. I remember posting how I thought it was the shittiest film of the year and muckster, I think, liked it.

Now, someone make a damn thorough post about what a travesty it is that The Fountain didn't get nominated for visual effects. Truly mind boggling.
posted by dobbs at 8:59 AM on January 29, 2007

What makes a good thread post to MetaFilter?

A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.

1. Have most people already seen pages about the films nominated for the Academy Awards? Probably.

2. Is there something interesting about the content on these pages? I doubt it.

3. Will it warrant discussion from others? Yes, because everyone will be discussing how much the post and films suck and do not warrant an FPP.
posted by fandango_matt at 9:35 AM on January 29, 2007

What makes a good thread post to MetaFilter?

The bigger question here is: WTF is a thread post? Is that where I hitch my bobbinhorse?
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 9:52 AM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

No, please, no. There are a zillion-billion places to exhaustively discuss movies on the internets. Anything Oscar-nominated is getting enough publicity that it doesn't need a FPP unless someone has something unusually interesting to contribute. (I didn't love the Pan's Labyrinth post either, and I might dispute the assertion that it is "unique" as a fairy-tale unsuitable for children, but didn't feel like adding more snark into an already-long discussion thread.)

While we're at it, can we hold off on "look at this interesting article that was in the NY Times this weekend" posts? This goes for Slate, too.
posted by desuetude at 10:26 AM on January 29, 2007

What the hell is this crap?
posted by loquacious at 11:00 AM on January 29, 2007

While we're at it, can we hold off on "look at this interesting article that was in the NY Times this weekend" posts?

No.
posted by caddis at 11:04 AM on January 29, 2007

I have Children of Men, the book, sitting on my nightstand, and I never go to it before going to see Children of Men, the movie. I understand the ending was changed in the adaptation. Perhaps you could angle the post to be about the overall political landscape fo the films? THe one that interests me most is the future dystopian CoM, personally. Or counterpoint that film with Idiocracy, etc.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:37 PM on January 29, 2007

What cortex said; the comments in the Pan's Labyrinth thread were really interesting, but the FPP and its links came across as perfunctory.

Did you read the links? Seriously? What would it take, honestly, to have a GOOD post about a movie that didn't reveal major spoilers? I had two reviews, a link to the director's site, his freaking SKETCHBOOK (as mentioned by mediareport) and you say this is "perfunctory?"

I spent a good chunk of time researching and crafting an FPP not because this movie is up for any Oscars, but because I thought it was an amazing movie and when I got home to find out more about the process of making the movie, I found a lot of really great stuff online and thought "Wow, this should go on MetaFilter, if it hasn't already."

Isn't that what an FPP is supposed to be anyway? Best of the Web?

I don't get any of the snark that has been directed at me for this, first the "Pepsi Blue" and now that it was perfunctory... What on Dog's green earth would satisfy you bastards?
posted by grapefruitmoon at 1:23 PM on January 29, 2007

I'm not sure what the snark is about either, grapefruitmoon, and I wouldn't take it to heart. I think your post is perfectly fine, grapefruitmoon, and didn't mean to suggest otherwise—and it seems there's been rather little snark, anyway.

My point upthread was that the proposed theme wasn't a solid plan, not because your post was bad or perfunctorily constructed but because there was no clear reason for people to clone it in thrall of the pending Oscars.
posted by cortex at 1:40 PM on January 29, 2007

grapefruitmoon grapefruitmoon grapefruitmoon
posted by cortex at 1:40 PM on January 29, 2007

also I see now that jessamyn did some trimming, so maybe I missed a fair chunk of the snark in question

anyway i liked your post
posted by cortex at 1:47 PM on January 29, 2007

Yes, jessamyn kindly trimmed the first six or so comments which were variations on "the FPP police" and "Pepsi Blue."

I understand that there's plenty of snark to go around on MetaFilter, but really, this was going a bit far - it was just snark for snark's sake.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 2:03 PM on January 29, 2007

Anyhow, on the subject of "post-cloning" - I didn't intend for my post to be first in a series or anything like that, nor did I think about the upcoming Oscars at all, I just thought it was a great movie and I found some pretty neat stuff about it and wanted to share.

I've seen plenty of other movies that I've loved that I didn't create MetaFilter posts about because there wasn't enough online material to warrant it.

A post should exist on the basis of the links - if you find great links about Oscar-nominated movies, then go for it. If not, well, the basis of it being nominated for an Oscar isn't what MetaFilter is for, and the snark-brigade will remind you of that.

(I also cringe at the term "link-dump" - I did a lot of research on my post and only included links I felt were relevant, there are no Wikipedia or imdb "padding" type links which I tend to see and think "Hmmm, link dump." I mean, if you classify a bunch of links on the same topic as a "dump," then mine qualifies, but it certainly wasn't "I'm going to link the first ten things that come up on Google!")
posted by grapefruitmoon at 2:09 PM on January 29, 2007

Metafilter: What on Dog's green earth would satisfy you bastards?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:15 PM on January 29, 2007

'oscar nominated' != 'good/interesting'
posted by MetaMonkey at 2:41 PM on January 29, 2007

posted by grapefruitmoon What on Dog's green earth would satisfy you bastards?

1. Fewer crappy posts
2. Fewer MetaTalk threads about crappy posts being mocked and deleted
posted by fandango_matt at 3:52 PM on January 29, 2007

1. Let me propose a corollary to Sturgeon's Revelation ("90% of everything is crud") that nobody can agree as to which 10% is not crud. Until MetaFilter evolves into an actual hive mind, yours is only one opinion among 49105. That's not to say that no bad posts exist, of course, but that there may be posts that you think should be gored by boars, which plenty of others think are the bee's knees.

2. I like to think of MetaTalk as the village hut where members come to petition the chief, lodge a complaint with the sheriff or raise a topic of discussion with the town's ~~busybodies~~ elders. This village hut comes with a peanut gallery, but such is life on the intertrons. Similarly, since anyone can post there, there are going to be posts that you think should be pissed on by Sonny Liston, which many others consider to be the elephant's adenoids.
posted by Kattullus at 4:55 PM on January 29, 2007

Cassius Clay was pissed on more than Sonny Liston
Some piss on K.K. Downing, more than Glenn Tipton
Some piss on Jim Nabors, some Bobby Vinton
I piss on 'em all
posted by Kwine at 5:18 PM on January 29, 2007

empath: how do people feel about the idea of a series of similar 'link-dump' FPPs about other Academy Award nominees?

Two thumbs down.

grapefruitmoon: I just thought it was a great movie and I found some pretty neat stuff about it and wanted to share.

Yeah, I did the same when I posted about Alpha Dog. If I hadn't found the long articles about the Nicholas Markowitz case, I wouldn't have posted it. Not the same as a "link-dump."
posted by russilwvong at 5:25 PM on January 29, 2007

Metafilter: What on Dog's green earth would satisfy you bastards?

nothing, really, nothing ever, we are just a bunch of spoiled little brats, sorry, but it's true, and worse, we are unrepentant about it
posted by caddis at 6:19 PM on January 29, 2007

I remember posting how I thought it was the shittiest film of the year and muckster, I think, liked it.

dobbs doesn't like your favorite movie/book/band, hyperbolic declaration of said work's worth to follow. Footage at 11.

(In other words, least surprising news of the year!)
posted by The God Complex at 6:48 PM on January 29, 2007

Considering how well the "Considering how well the Pan's Labyrinth thread is going" MeTa thread is going, should I start MeTa threads for all the other MeFi threads that are going well, suggesting similar topics?
posted by The Deej at 7:11 PM on January 29, 2007

TGC, don't you have some Buffy episodes to catch up on?
posted by dobbs at 7:37 PM on January 29, 2007

No, seriously. What the hell is this crap? Do you have brain worms? Why are you even having this conversation?

The Oscars? Great, let's talk about MTV, or Billboard's charts, or the New York Times bestseller list - all massively important cultural touchstones and tastemakers of the finest quality and greatest importance.

You don't want to know exactly how hard I had to bite myself while writing that. GODDAMNIT that fucking hurt. Oh, god, I'm bleeding.
posted by loquacious at 7:50 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Can somebody do my homework for me and give me some links to explain the dobbs vs. The God Complex thing going on above? And get loquacious a bandage?

Okay, fine. I'll get the bandage.
posted by cgc373 at 8:03 PM on January 29, 2007

Dammit.
posted by cgc373 at 8:03 PM on January 29, 2007

Considering how well cgc373's "Dammit" comment went, perhaps others can post comments consisting of single-word mild curse words.
posted by The Deej at 8:23 PM on January 29, 2007

Shit.
posted by The Deej at 8:24 PM on January 29, 2007

Don't slag on Buffy. It's a pretty good show.
posted by cortex at 8:40 PM on January 29, 2007

I'm with loquacious. It's bad enough we get bombarded by movie awards ceremonies on all the other media... I mean really, how many times can you pat the same dozen movies on the back in one year?
posted by furtive at 8:46 PM on January 29, 2007

Fuck.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:57 PM on January 29, 2007

prunes.
posted by localhuman at 10:04 PM on January 29, 2007

Nunshitter.
posted by loquacious at 10:22 PM on January 29, 2007

Don't slag on Buffy. It's a pretty good show.

Don't tell dobbs that unless you want a lecture ;)
posted by The God Complex at 11:43 PM on January 29, 2007

My hat has a cow on it.
posted by Wolof at 3:36 AM on January 30, 2007

Should I begin crafting a series of FPPs based on individual episodes of Buffy? Or do you think one FPP per season would be enough? Obviously, 'Once More With Feeling' would get it's own FPP regardless.
posted by MrMustard at 4:42 AM on January 30, 2007

I actually did an FPP on Once More With Feeling already, I think. Before Deadwood came along, Buffy was basically the justification for the existence of television.

The Oscars? Great, let's talk about MTV, or Billboard's charts, or the New York Times bestseller list - all massively important cultural touchstones and tastemakers of the finest quality and greatest importance.

The ranking of the works that you end up seeing on MTV, Billboard's charts, and the NYT bestseller list are not directly determined by the opinions of artists whose work has been nominated for those positions in the past. Hence the term "academy awards."
posted by bingo at 5:30 AM on January 30, 2007

My long-ago "Buffy musical s good/Willow drug/magic metaphor is bad" thread.
posted by bingo at 5:39 AM on January 30, 2007

Also, Children of Men is generic and a bit boring. I really don't understand the appeal, unless it's about some kind of nuanced Christian symbolism that I'm not picking up on.
posted by bingo at 5:51 AM on January 30, 2007

The ranking of the works that you end up seeing on MTV, Billboard's charts, and the NYT bestseller list are not directly determined by the opinions of artists whose work has been nominated for those positions in the past. Hence the term "academy awards."

I don't care if they're making their choices with a dart board and a gallon jug of 200 proof moonshine, they have very reliably sucked for many, many years and have served as little more than yet another self-congratulatory popularity contest.

There's this clumsy phrase "There's no accounting for taste." I'm pretty sure was invented for the express purpose of using it to describe members of SAG and award shows like the Oscars, in particular.
posted by loquacious at 6:10 AM on January 30, 2007

I don't care if they're making their choices with a dart board and a gallon jug of 200 proof moonshine

But that would be yet another metric not based on anyone's aesthetic judgement. Part of the reason the oscars are interesting is because they get picked by the academy. Their decisions don't mandate quality, but just seeing what they are is interesting.

Personally, I care mostly about the writing awards, and while I don't always agree with the winners or even the nominees, by and large the nominees for the writing awards tend to be well-written scripts.

As for members of SAG, well, they're professional (or at least paid part-time) screen actors. The whole idea of the SAG awards is to see who the professional screen actors think is the best professional screen actor. That's interesting to a lot of people, not because the contest was anointed by God, but because it's just interesting to see a group of professionals judge their peers in an industry that gets a lot of public attention. You don't have to be interested; the contests have the same inherent validity in their own context whether the winners are actually the best in their categories or not.
posted by bingo at 6:24 AM on January 30, 2007

January 29, 2007 6:07 AM Subscribe

January 29, 2007
6:07 AM Subscribe