darkblue
-
Posts
22,191 -
Joined
-
Days Won
38
Posts posted by darkblue
-
-
And that specific poster is?
You, sweetie. It might be time to move on to other things.
Unless you want to keep on with the same. That's your prerogative and I'd never presume to tell you what or what not to talk about. It's a partially free country, so enjoy whatever you decide.
-
I don't have an issue with a light being shined (e.g. it was more than silly to ask for threads to be moved), but does the light need to remain on? When will it be shut off? Keeping it on is a waste of energy.
Ahh, you're referring to one specific poster. True, that much repetition becomes pretty pointless after a while. Unnecessary.
-
I do favor everyone's right to not have one poster dictate their behavior.
Nobody dictates our behavior but our selves.
-
1
-
-
Hey! Whaddaya TALKIN' 'bout here, James?!
I don't think james likes it when so many people shine a light.
-
EVER NOT BOTHER TO POST HERE?
A very great deal of the time. I come here everyday - usually several times a day. Mostly I read - and I often will feel a compulsion to say something about what I've read. Most of the time, though - I don't.
The very last thing I'd want to do is bore anyone, and that's probably the main reason I don't give in to every compulsion.
As well, I've found that those who have the most to say are always the least interesting people on the boards. To me.
I favor brevity. The practice of it tends to make one's points sharper (in my opinion).
-
4
-
-
Hmm. I see primos' post where she said "You're right, darkblue" has been removed.
Darn it - I knew I should've taken a picture.
-
1
-
-
Well I just watched POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE and LOVED it! A very interesting view on Hollywood "celebrity" and filmmaking. Of course, based on the book written by someone who knows.
Just watching CATCH 22. Amazingly funny war movie. Fantastic, delightful performances by all. Great to see Balsam in a meaty role for a change. Maybe Nichols' strong point as a director was getting great performances from his actors.
There are a couple of members here who have disparaged that one quite vehemently. But I liked the movie so much I was inspired to read Heller's novel - which I also liked a great deal. I'm not sure anyone could've done a better job translating it on film than Nichols did.
-
I used to post quite often under my previous user name. Now I feel less than welcome.
I welcome you. Very much. Most of us do.
-
3
-
-
That's pretty much how I feel about Universal horror films. I used to really like them, but you can't watch too many or too often or they will become boring.
Yes, the only ones I really like a lot are the original 'Frankenstein', the wonderfully-fun 'Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man' and the beautifully atmospheric 'Son of Dracula'.
-
I believe Angelina Jolie is massively over-rated as an actor.
Sexy face, though.
-
I like threads that wander away from the topic at times, but then come back on point. Just like real life conversation, which is nice.
-
Interestingly, 'Carnal Knowledge' was the very first movie in which critics actually had good things to say about Ann-Margret. I remember well one saying that he was amazed at how Nichols had gotten a superb performance from her - he'd never had any inkling that she could act before that.
But mostly, it's a tour-de-force for Nicholson.
Excellent movie about a period of time (late 40's to late 60's) in the life of an ultra-selfish, college-educated jerk.
-
One should bear in mind that movies made-for-tv are (or should be) a separate category from movies made-for-cable.
Movies made-for-tv are what was produced for the networks beginning in 1964, seeing its heyday through the 70's and tailing off toward the middle through the end of the 80's. The content of these productions was constricted by the standards and practices required by television ota broadcasting regulations. Kind of the 'Breen era' of tv movies.
With cable, and the accompanying ability to access premium channels that also began to conscript movies for their own programming needs, there was much greater freedom of content - violence, sex, nudity, swearing.
Although these movies were still being called "made-for-tv", they were very much a different animal than what the networks were allowed to broadcast. It's really the reason that there are no more movies made for tv anymore - at least not created by ABC, CBS or NBC (as it was in the first 20 years). Standards and practice content simply cannot compete - for single stand-alone movies - with what cable is allowed to present.
-
To those who replied to my post by commenting about my choice of first comments and my posting about not returning for additional commentary: 1. I made an observation and then asked a question about that observation. 2. I did not respond until now because I was needed by my disabled husband. I hope that satisfies your curiosity.
That was quite the "observation" you made there, "newbie". Like I asked before - psychically drawn to this were you?
-
Very interesting. I am all for new folks coming on here to share their ideas and or thoughts, but to select this one thread and post what they posted and then not come back for additional posting is rather odd or and I hate to use the term, but rather troll-like.
Puppet-like as well. Of the sock kind.
-
Are there any discussions anywhere online that don't digress into personal jabs? I love classic movies and had hoped to discuss them somewhere on this website.
Interesting first post. Did you read any of the thousands of threads here or were you psychically drawn to this one for your introductory comment?
-
3
-
-
I think this line of questioning is being used as a decoy. I didn't see the film the other day since it was on a 3 AM PST. But I have seen it before.
Oh? What'd you think of it?
-
It'll never tap out until you and Nipkow let it. As long as you two keep bumping it to the top of GD, we're stuck with it.
-
Once a thread has waned and it's been moved to a sub forum, that thread would never be returned to GD.
If someone dies, a whole new thread would open up. Even if someone doesn't die - they or one of their movies just hasn't been talked about for a while - a new thread may open up.
Happens all the time - completely natural flow to our activity here.
-
Hehe, you may be right about that, Swithin! I think, however, that the Me-TV thread is a freak of nature. LOL Not sure why people keep viewing it.
Speaking for myself, the only time I click on it is when it's neither you nor Nipkow showing as the most recent poster - my reasoning being that the two of you are responsible for the majority of posts (and views) represented in the counts, and there's nothing worthwhile being said if its either of you. However, if I see Swithin or Dargo - or anybody else, really - has posted last, that's the only time I click on that thread.
It'll continue going on that basis - but if one were to delete the posts by you and Nipkow, the numbers would be much less impressive. Much less.
The only reason it got so much attention in the beginning is that the stated premise was so outrageous, people were trolled in.
-
1
-
-
So it sounds like you would use the sub-forums for archiving old threads?
No. The threads in the sub forums could be new - if placed there as new.
General Discussion sees more traffic, and threads get more attention if they're put there. However, if a thread has run out of steam - AND it's suitable to a sub-forum like westerns or comedy or noir etc - rather than let it be buried in the long ago pages of GD, I'd move it to its appropriate sub forum, where it has a greater chance of being read and added to by visitors to that sub forum.
Because a thread has a better chance of engendering discussion when new if it's put in GD, I'd allow that - moving it only when it has begun to demonstrate a waning of interest.
-
The Genre Sub Forums are the Siberia of this message board.
I have posted a few threads there and received a small fraction of the responses that I have received under General Discussions.
That's just the reality of these boards for me, no matter what the original intention behind the sub forums may have been. It's my experience that anyone posting in the sub forums will have to wait longer for fewer responses than in General Discussions.
I would allow any thread to remain in General Discussions until it had arrived at a time where no new posts had been added to it for a full 3 days. At that point - and only at that point - would I move it to a sub forum.
-
Why are so many people sneezing?
-
Missed a lot lately.
Sorry about missing the humor in your post, darkblue.
That's okay. Sorry I didn't acknowledge how you'd underlined "noirs".
Sometimes we just have to have faith.
STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS
in General Discussions
Posted
Lucas shoulda handed the entire film-making and writing process over to someone else for the third movie.
As it is, it sucks. Big time.