The "Nominate A Mod" for Movies & Television Thread

[MEXCOM]

I specifically chose Nuttkase and Coldblooded because of their biases.

Sure, I agree with most of their picks and suggestions even the ones I haven't seen but that's because I want a mod that will challenge the board. I don't want a mod posting a topic titled: G-Force is a good movie! and then have it followed by a synopsis of the plot. That's more attuned for Caff or MTT with their copy and paste articles in the open forum.

I want a modship that will TELL you your a faggot for liking X movie for Y reason. Do I want them banning or editing people's posts? No. But I also don't want none of that hippy, "well, MEXCOM's taste in movies might not agree with everyone but hey everyone has an opinion, so let's calm down guys!"

I'd much rather have Nuttkase, the mick bastard, tell me, "MEXCOM, are you honestly telling me you liked the Care Bears movie? You gay sunnafabitch! That movie was retarded for the following reasons...."

So far all our threads are basically broken down like so:

1. Poster X creates a thread aptly named "X3: The Last Stand."

2. Poster X's only response in that thread is "I like this movie, what y'all think?"

3. Posters 1-40 fill up 4 pages of generic "Yup!" "It was cool" "tight!" comments.

EVERY thread is like that. I sort of wanted more discussion involved. And I think if there's a chance of that happening at all, it'll be because these two fuck-o's are in charge.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

I specifically chose Nuttkase and Coldblooded because of their biases.

Sure, I agree with most of their picks and suggestions even the ones I haven't seen but that's because I want a mod that will challenge the board. I don't want a mod posting a topic titled: G-Force is a good movie! and then have it followed by a synopsis of the plot. That's more attuned for Caff or MTT with their copy and paste articles in the open forum.

I want a modship that will TELL you your a faggot for liking X movie for Y reason. Do I want them banning or editing people's posts? No. But I also don't want none of that hippy, "well, MEXCOM's taste in movies might not agree with everyone but hey everyone has an opinion, so let's calm down guys!"

I'd much rather have Nuttkase, the mick bastard, tell me, "MEXCOM, are you honestly telling me you liked the Care Bears movie? You gay sunnafabitch! That movie was retarded for the following reasons...."

So far all our threads are basically broken down like so:

1. Poster X creates a thread aptly named "X3: The Last Stand."

2. Poster X's only response in that thread is "I like this movie, what y'all think?"

3. Posters 1-40 fill up 4 pages of generic "Yup!" "It was cool" "tight!" comments.

EVERY thread is like that. I sort of wanted more discussion involved. And I think if there's a chance of that happening at all, it'll be because these two fuck-o's are in charge.

Well, add something to the conversation then. You dont need a mod to do that.

And a mod should be UNBIASED...they are there to make sure the forum runs smooth and topics don't get derailed by dumbshit...not ADD to the dumbshit. CB and Nuttkase can do that without the title (no offense, guys).

I don't want this forum to be an extension of the open forum, where people act like fuckin idiots. This was created to have conversations about movies and shows and if YOU feel its getting stale...then add YOUR two cents. Why does a mod have to challenge the other posters? You can do the same.

Leave all that jaw jackin' and squackin for the kids in the ECCR forum. Thanks.

 

[MEXCOM]

Well, add something to the conversation then. You dont need a mod to do that.

I'm a troll. I already do my part by being a regular in the open forum and where ever my services are needed. Such as giving Dana shit for defecating her pantaloons.

A mod on the other hand would have a vested interest in promoting conversation in this forum. A lame duck mod would undoubtedly be replaced. Trust me. Either of these two fuck up and I will let them know. But I think between the two we'll be ok.

And a mod should be UNBIASED...they are there to make sure the forum runs smooth and topics don't get derailed by dumbshit...not ADD to the dumbshit. CB and Nuttkase can do that without the title (no offense, guys).

Unbiased and inconsequential are two completely different things. I want a mod that loves movies because of the cultural aspect they have. Cinema is American's richest art form. Even hoity toity Eurofags wouldn't have their Germanic expressionist surrealism without the US. And I want a modship that will reflect that love for film and cinema.

We agree in that a mod should circumvent potential problems. But I feel it should be as laissez-faire as possible. Only step in and use mod powers when absolutely necessary. If threads get circumvented by dumb shit, such as arguments or name calling, I'm personally fine with that. It's what critique and opinions are all about. However, if it gets to the point, where I guess you can say, it's disruptive then I supposed you'd have some justification for mod intervention.

I don't want this forum to be an extension of the open forum, where people act like fuckin idiots. This was created to have conversations about movies and shows and if YOU feel its getting stale...then add YOUR two cents. Why does a mod have to challenge the other posters? You can do the same.

This forum started off stale. It's a great idea. And it can get better than it currently is, but so far all threads are just like the example I posted. And like I've said before, I don't care enough to create conversation. At least not yet. But a mod by definition should. That's why we're nominating them for mods and not me.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

And thats all great, by what does it look like when a mod is calling people fags and idiots for their preference in film? Thats the thing here, there is no FACT to go on, this is all OPINION...and people need to respect people's opinions. Its one thing to say "are you serious?", but to say something like "you're a fuckin idiot if yo think that movie is good". Im not sayin that this will happen, but this seems to be what YOU want to happen. Im cool off that shit.

I guess I dont understand why CB or Nuttkase has to be a mod to do things you want, like provoking good conversations or challenging others to explain their reasoning behind an opinion...they aren't synonymous. Really, a mod would only be needed to clean up shit, like Nuttkase does in the Music Industry forum.

 

[jake921660]

I still think I should be handed the reigns of the movie forum.

 

[MEXCOM]

Trust me, I have the intention of making my opinions known. And I probably won't sugar coat them. And I want a modship that will be ok with me telling people why their movie sucked donkey ass.

And if a mod wants to do the same, why not?

As long as they're not editing and deleting threads I don't see the problem.

But again, this is why I'm nominating these two. I don't think they'll create an open forum #2, but I think that as long as my trolling is relevant to the movies being discussed I'll be able to get away with it. Just like when I jump into the GOM [rarer now than it used to be] and call people idiots and then provide evidence to support my claims.

It's usually all gravy with 2-0-Sixx because I'm not just being a random dickweed. I'm being a dickweed that is progressing the discussion by using imperical and/or historical data.

You've made your suggestions [I think] and that's cool. I'm nominating them because I think it'll run like the GOM only with a focus on movies and not current political events.

 

[ColdBlooded]

The whole thing about movies being only about opinion is such a cop out.

There are measures of quality and ways of judging a film that go beyond your personal taste.

You can tell in films when there is quality cinematography, editing, sound & soundtrack, story, acting, etc.

If you are going to critique a movie you should be able to say why it was good or bad. You like the movie because the plot and pacing were good, there was quality acting, etc. Or you didn’t like the movie, but still appreciate the quality cinematography and lighting.

Want to know if a movie has fantastic lighting – watch Barry Lyndon and see if it can hold a candle (no pun intended).

Want to know if a movie has great cinematography – watch a Terrence Malik film and see how it stacks up.

Saying you like movie “X” and another siccness poster coming through and saying man movie “X” was wack because of a, b, c, d, etc. . . .
You don’t just roll your eyes and say “whatever man fuck you that’s just your opinion”. Come back and say what was so good about the movie. Challenge their statements, bring your own criteria to the table, compare it to established examples of quality.



As for mods. You’ll never be able to find the right mod for the forum if they don’t like movies and if they like movies they’re going to have a “bias”.

 

[Nuttkase]

Is it because you like their taste in movies?

No, it's because of their knowledge of cinema.

I'd say Coldblooded and I don't even agree on movies half the time and Dhadnot is into older films which I'm not as much.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

The whole thing about movies being only about opinion is such a cop out.

I disagree 100%

There are measures of quality and ways of judging a film that go beyond your personal taste.

Your opinion on quality may differ from biilyjoebob. That is called personal taste.

You can tell in films when there is quality cinematography, editing, sound & soundtrack, story, acting, etc.

That does not take anything away from OPINION.

If you are going to critique a movie you should be able to say why it was good or bad. You like the movie because the plot and pacing were good, there was quality acting, etc. Or you didn’t like the movie, but still appreciate the quality cinematography and lighting.

No one is denying that. But if someone says they like Caddyshack for all the above reasons, and YOU don't, then it is a clash of OPINIONS.

Want to know if a movie has fantastic lighting – watch Barry Lyndon and see if it can hold a candle (no pun intended).

And someone might disagree with you that the lighting is crap..that is OPINION.

Want to know if a movie has great cinematography – watch a Terrence Malik film and see how it stacks up.

And someone might disagree with you and feel the cinematography is crap...that is OPINION.

Saying you like movie “X” and another siccness poster coming through and saying man movie “X” was wack because of a, b, c, d, etc. . . .
You don’t just roll your eyes and say “whatever man fuck you that’s just your opinion”. Come back and say what was so good about the movie. Challenge their statements, bring your own criteria to the table, compare it to established examples of quality.

At the end of the day, even with ALL the deabing in the world, it STILL COMES DOWN TO OPINION.

This is just like music, man. Even if YOU think an album sucks because of a) b) and c), someone may LIKE IT FOR THE SAME REASONS. It is all PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

So yes, at the VERY end of EVERY discussion/debate/argument, a persons subjective view is going to win EVERY time, whether YOU like it or not.

 

[Ethereal]

No, it's because of their knowledge of cinema.

I'd say Coldblooded and I don't even agree on movies half the time and Dhadnot is into older films which I'm not as much.

Okay it just struck me as odd when you encouraged a users (ColdBlooded) movie recommendation thread to be vital. Because a persons unconventional or "out of the ordinary" taste in movies/documentaries certainly does not neccesitate a vital thread just because the content is different.

 

[Ethereal]

ColdBlooded I find it very interesting that some of your measurements for "quality movies" are quite similar to those who are behind the Academy Awards, which ironically determined "best picture" for movies you have openly regarded as trash (slumdog, no country). That is because, as Jesse has already stated, it is all a matter of opinion. And just as many people dislike the way the Academy Awards operate, they would equally dislike a moderator who has such distaste for popular movies.

 

[Nuttkase]

Okay it just struck me as odd when you encouraged a users (ColdBlooded) movie recommendation thread to be vital. Because a persons unconventional or "out of the ordinary" taste in movies/documentaries certainly does not neccesitate a vital thread just because the content is different.

Why not?

I just thought it was a good thread and if he was going to keep up on it and update it every week (or almost every week) then it would be a good thread to have made vital.

It wouldn't have mattered if CB or Carlos made the thread. I was going by the content and not by the author so to say.

 

[Ethereal]

Lol because it's ONE guy's opinion! ..and Vital?? Hahha.. If it were "Recommend a movie a week" thread (for everyone), then that would be a different story. Besides, if the thread does what it intends to then it will be constantly bumped and would not need to be vital. My point was that you wanted a thread full of his opinion to be vital then said you do not agree with his selection half the time. It didn't make sense to me.

Wait.. hold up. Are you recruiting him into your elitist siccness/mod group!?

Ooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh SNAP!

 

[savage]

no mods needed

 

[Mac Jesus]

I would nominate ColdBlooded.

 

[Nuttkase]

Lol because it's ONE guy's opinion! ..and Vital?? Hahha.. If it were "Recommend a movie a week" thread (for everyone), then that would be a different story. Besides, if the thread does what it intends to then it will be constantly bumped and would not need to be vital. My point was that you wanted a thread full of his opinion to be vital then said you do not agree with his selection half the time. It didn't make sense to me.

Wait.. hold up. Are you recruiting him into your elitist siccness/mod group!?

Ooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh SNAP!

So if you had started that thread and regardless if my opinions differed from yours or not and I asked for your thread to be made vital you'd have a problem with it? I honestly don't think you would. I just think that thread which happened to be started by CB to link to his recommendations in his blog is informative, well written and is something that could be a benefit to the forum. Maybe I'm wrong? I do agree with you about it getting bumped though but I still don't see what the problem with making it vital would be. But really it's no big deal to me whether it gets made vital (which it probably won't) or not and as I said before it has nothing to do with me thinking he should be a mod here.

And I'm not an elitist, I just have better taste then everyone else. That's all. :chinese:

 

[ColdBlooded]

So if you had started that thread and regardless if my opinions differed from yours or not and I asked for your thread to be made vital you'd have a problem with it?

He's just still mad I trashed Boondock Saints so hard.

 

[ColdBlooded]

I disagree 100%

Of course you do. You’re the number one user of the opinion cop out.

And someone might disagree with you that the lighting is crap..that is OPINION.

And someone might disagree with you and feel the cinematography is crap...that is OPINION.

Sorry, no I disagree. Either the person had never seen the film or they don’t know what they are talking about.

The two examples I gave are fact when it comes to film. Now if the “someone” didn’t like the movie as a whole that could be their opinion.

Your opinion on quality may differ from biilyjoebob..

No it is called understanding the standards of quality. But Billyjoebob may have an opinion as to what degree of quality he can enjoy and mine may differ, but there are still standards.

This is just like music, man. Even if YOU think an album sucks because of a) b) and c), someone may LIKE IT FOR THE SAME REASONS. It is all PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

Again there are standards in music too. Musicianship, productions quality, mixing, etc. It is fine if a person can get over all those things being poor and still like an album, but they shouldn’t get all pissed off when they get called out on all those things being poor in an album they like. They should be able to state what, dispite those failures, makes the album appealing to them.

That’s why this opinion thing is a cop out.

You say “hey man I just liked it and that’s my opinion so fuck off.” I say “well there has to be a reason you liked it. What is that reason?” But instead of defending your position you just say “I liked it and that’s my opinion and my opinion will win EVERY time, whether YOU like it or not.”

Instead of copping out you could say “I thought the plot was good, the supporting cast turned in good performances all around, the cinematography was well shot, etc”. In turn I would say “Ok, I can see that, but I didn’t like the movie because the editing was horrible, the pacing of the story was off, the main characters were acted poorly, etc” THAT is opinion. We can back up our views with evidence.

 

[ColdBlooded]

ColdBlooded I find it very interesting that some of your measurements for "quality movies" are quite similar to those who are behind the Academy Awards

This leaves me questioning if you either didn’t understand my post or don’t understand how the Oscars are awarded. Maybe both?

ColdBlooded I find it very interesting that some of your measurements for "quality movies" are quite similar to those who are behind the Academy Awards, which ironically determined "best picture" for movies you have openly regarded as trash (slumdog, no country). That is because, as Jesse has already stated, it is all a matter of opinion. And just as many people dislike the way the Academy Awards operate, they would equally dislike a moderator who has such distaste for popular movies.

Never said Slumdog Millionaire nor No Country For Old Men were trash.

Slumdog is a strange choice for an example because I've always said - I never saw the movie (still as of this posting haven't seen the movie) – where did you come up with this one?

I said I didn't like No Country and I believe gave a fairly good accounting for why, but that is different from me, of all people, calling it trash. As for it winning Oscars I thought there were films more deserving of the awards that it won(Paul dano should ahve gotten Best Supporting and There Will Be Blood should have gotten Best Picture) and thought it got snubbed in other categories(Brolin should have got Best Actor). I thought there were better movies over all that year and thought there were numerous even worse movies that year.

And just as many people dislike the way the Academy Awards operate, they would equally dislike a moderator who has such distaste for popular movies.

If, by this, you are insinuating that I don't like popular movies I am going to have to, without sounding as condescending as possible, tell you that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Nuttkase]

I feel like I'm the GOM forum right now lol.