So what did YOU think about the new Spiderman?

December 18, 2002 2:44 PM

The thread in question. I understand that some sort of precedent was set with the Spiderman thread last spring (or was it something before that?), but can't we, I don't know, reverse the precedent? [more]
posted by The God Complex to etiquette/policy at 2:44 PM (33 comments total)

The links are to the Lord of the Rings Website and Rotten Tomatoes reviews. Realistically, I could find any movie I like and make a front page post about it--and that's what this seems like, considering the poster is responsible for about a quarter of the comments in the thread (which makes sense since most people in North America haven't even seen the movie, since it opens today).

If the website for the movie was cool and somewhat original, like the Donnie Darko one that I think got posted last year, then fine, it's an interesting post. But this isn't any of those things, really.

Unless you're trying to save yourself the troubles of deleting a million LOTR threads in the upcoming week and hoping this one fulfills the desire. In which case, carry on!
posted by The God Complex at 2:47 PM on December 18, 2002

*Sheds silent tear for the neglect of Life As A House*
posted by Skot at 2:50 PM on December 18, 2002

Geeky movies traditionally get a pass, God. However, a post about My Big Fat Greek Wedding got a thorough spanking back in September.
posted by timeistight at 2:54 PM on December 18, 2002

Hey, I like movies and I don't mind talking about them. But I'd prefer it in the context of interesting links, at least if I'm going to discuss them on Metafilter.

I just don't see the point of a thread that points to nothing, basically, and has a whole bunch of "Why didn't he use majik?!" comments, especially considering almost nobody has seen it. Maybe I'm just sore because I haven't seen it and he keeps talking about thinks he liked in the movie? Hah!
posted by The God Complex at 2:58 PM on December 18, 2002

[exchange a 'k' for a 'g' and we're through.]
posted by The God Complex at 2:59 PM on December 18, 2002

All I know is that, according to Fandango, every showing here in Austin, TX for today is currently sold out. Which makes me wonder how many screens could it have opened on?
posted by vraxoin at 3:02 PM on December 18, 2002

i for one would like to... [fooled ya!]
know what the hell IS the fascination with movies? they are just movies for christ sake! 2 hours of moving lights. great entertainment, beyond a doubt. but jeez - people talk about movies (and sports) as thought they MATTERED. they don't.
posted by quonsar at 3:04 PM on December 18, 2002

Actually, some movies do matter. Not the ones that get the noise around here, of course, but some do.
posted by timeistight at 3:07 PM on December 18, 2002

shhh! yer spoiling my attention getting via broad brush condemnation of a very popular activity.
posted by quonsar at 3:12 PM on December 18, 2002

Not the ones that get the noise around here, of course

Read: because we are all tasteless heathens so obviously a movie like The Two Towers is worthless.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:25 PM on December 18, 2002

I guess that did sound snotty, didn't it? Let me amend it to say that the movies that get attention around here aren't the ones that matter to me.
posted by timeistight at 4:02 PM on December 18, 2002

Seems like the last LotR movie exceeded 2 hours. How many hours does it need to be before it matters?

Almost everybody posting on MeFi is just static lights to me - unless I scroll. Is it the fact that the lights move that make them less meaningful and worthy of discussion - because I've seen some good flash sites posted that had moving lights.

Thankfully major movies don't open very often because trying to stop somebody posting it about it would be about as effective as trying to change US foreign policy in a discussion threa... Oh wait. Yeah, OK. Carry on then.
posted by willnot at 4:04 PM on December 18, 2002

I came across the Rotten Tomatoes page and was amazed by the ratio of good to bad reviews for this film. Rotten Tomatoes is an excellent site that has never been FPP'd before, so there's yer unique content. In any case, mathowie has made a constructive comment in it, so I think I'm safe with this one.

If you don't like discussing the movie, talk about modern popularist film criticism, how liberal a director can be in converting literature to film, great films that have been critically panned, whether a director can be expected to aim for good reviews over profits, etc. etc. Personally, I've never complained in MetaTalk about any post I didn't like; I've ignored the post. This isn't a radio station; the magic of HyperLinking(TM) allows YOU the USER to edit the information you are exposed to! Matt does a splendid job of deleting things to maintain the integrity of the site, so I think people should in general be a bit more relaxed about their MeTa complaints.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:06 PM on December 18, 2002

I was gonna say something about that Two Towers thread earlier today, about how the links were shallow, and it was probably just one Tolkien-fuck-fest, but then I saw that Matt commented in it, and decided that complaining about it after that point was just pissing in the wind.
posted by crunchland at 4:07 PM on December 18, 2002

This isn't a radio station; the magic of HyperLinking(TM) allows YOU the USER to edit the information you are exposed to!

/applaud

Community, people...think community.
posted by rushmc at 4:14 PM on December 18, 2002

Did you not like the movie or something?
posted by riffola at 4:14 PM on December 18, 2002

Did you not like the movie or something?

June 13, 1999: Probably The Phantom Menace.
posted by timeistight at 4:22 PM on December 18, 2002

Look, trying to stop a discussion from occuring on an internet forum about one of the highly anticipated geek movies of a year is like trying to discourage your fiancee from showing off her huge bling bling ring at a engagement party.

Aint. Gonst. Happen.
posted by Stan Chin at 4:35 PM on December 18, 2002

True. But I think the question is, should we really encourage it to happen on MetaFilter?
posted by UnReality at 4:45 PM on December 18, 2002

*crickets*
posted by quonsar at 5:13 PM on December 18, 2002

Let's not discourage it until after "Gangs of New York" is released.
posted by timeistight at 5:17 PM on December 18, 2002

First of all, here ya go. There's a Rotten Tomatoe list of every movie that has over 90%, including more than a few at 100%.

I came across the Rotten Tomatoes page and was amazed by the ratio of good to bad reviews for this film. Rotten Tomatoes is an excellent site that has never been FPP'd before, so there's yer unique content.

A cursory search shows that rotten tomatoes reviews have been linked three times since September 6th on the front page, some in very good thread's like the one by Carlos Quevedo.

If you don't like discussing the movie, talk about modern popularist film criticism, how liberal a director can be in converting literature to film, great films that have been critically panned, whether a director can be expected to aim for good reviews over profits, etc. etc.

Perhaps that would be a viable discussion if anything closely related to it had been raised by an interesting link. I think it's a tired excuse for a lackluster post to say that. My point is it shouldn't be up to the people commenting to save your thread from being nothing more than you gushing over what looks like a cool movie.

I'll let it drop now and people can talk away. I just thought it was something that's at least worth considering since Matt's been tougher on other threads lately.
posted by The God Complex at 5:20 PM on December 18, 2002

Well, if it's a double post, I take it all back. It was a rubbish post and it won't happen again!
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:30 PM on December 18, 2002

I searched for "rotten tomatoes" with a space, you see. I am foolish.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:19 PM on December 18, 2002

Threads like this are what bring me back to Me-Talk day after day. You guys will bitch about anything! You remind me of that one table at every church breakfast seating a bunch of old prudes who look down on everybody and every action.

Thanks for the entertainment!
posted by mischief at 6:30 PM on December 18, 2002

Why thank you, mischief. What a lovely thing to say.
posted by timeistight at 6:49 PM on December 18, 2002

mischief makes me want to feast on the souls of innocent dutch children
posted by Stan Chin at 7:02 PM on December 18, 2002

Church breakfast? Church? CHURCH!? Hey, screw you and the god you road in on. There's simply no place for that on MetaFilter.
posted by willnot at 7:21 PM on December 18, 2002

willnot, as long as we're feasting on the souls of innocent Dutch children, church is OK. But don't anybody pray!
posted by languagehat at 7:50 PM on December 18, 2002

All this grisly talk of cannibalism and God hatred, has created the perfect opportunity to plug this awesome thread.
posted by dgaicun at 5:24 AM on December 19, 2002

it is simply not cricket.
posted by johnnyboy at 7:12 AM on December 19, 2002

Speaking of church... no, really, this comment is relevant to the discussion... Seriously, I used to run a campus religious group while I was in college. Ever week we'd have a meeting that would involve a topic of a religious nature, perhaps on theology, a mission trip someone had taken, or the meaning of an upcoming holiday.

That said, when you get a dozen college and grad students together, if there's a movie or news event that featured quite prominently that week that everyone was thinking about, they're going to start talking about it whether you like it or not because the members of the religious group were friends and the weekly meetings were a friendly get-together as much as they were about learning more about their faith.

So it will be with Metafilter. If something is on everybody's mind, it's going to inevitably come up as a topic of discussion. Whether it's spider man, LoTR, or the sniper.
posted by deanc at 12:55 PM on December 19, 2002

If something is on everybody's mind, it's going to inevitably come up as a topic of discussion. Whether it's spider man, LoTR, or the sniper.

The issue isn't that LOTR got discussed at MeFi this week; the issue is that the post that started the discussion was *lame*. Sorry, Pretty_Generic, but Rotten Tomatoes is one of the most well-known film review sites around, and linking to a blockbuster movie's official site is hardly unique or interesting. The same happened in the Spider-Man opening day thread, and the Big Fat Greek Wedding thread was started by an IMDb link. Oboy.

Timely posts about major popcult events *could* be fascinating, but only if the folks who make them bother to spend at least a few minutes trying to find something unique and interesting to post. Official sites, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, aintitcool and all the rest just don't qualify.
posted by mediareport at 7:26 PM on December 19, 2002