SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Let's pick the Week 176 movie!

[Scott Parker 27]

We Have A Winner

Chickenluver presented us with a bunch of depressing shit and the SMC went for the only one who doesn't seem like it's aiming to give Shindler's List a run for its money.

Also, first Fritz Lang flick in the SMC. I don't care that it's one of his lesser work. It's still Fritz Lang for fucks sake!!! This makes me a happy europe indeed.

Members: @europe1 @MusterX @Cubo de Sangre @FrontNakedChoke @Tufts @chickenluver @E Undead @Scott Parker 27 @Yotsuya @jei @LHWBelt @moreorless87 @HARRISON_3 @Bullitt68 @HenryFlower @Zer

HOWEVER!!!
​

This week, @Cubo de Sangre has made a proposition to radically alter how the SMC functions. Since this is such a club-changing remodelling, we need voices from the entire membership to get involved in this discussion. You can read Cubo's plans and others responses to it on this page.

What do you guys think? Does this new system seem alluring or do members prefer the current system? Any criticisms, opinions or injections?

Jeez, I thought we were all just having fun here. And you tools have to bring all this crap up on my nomination week? Sorry people, I don't have time for internet movie club drama too, you people enjoy yourself, I'm punching out Maverick! (of the club). Thanks for the memories... Don't go away mad, just go away.

 

[moreorless87]

I agree. I think the nominator needs to pick films that will generate discussion and then needs to be actively involved. I know that @Cubo de Sangre and I put a lot of thought into our last nominations to be sure that every film we nominated had good potential. And I think we both did a good job. I was very disappointed that Barton didn't generate more discussion because it was a fun, original and brilliant film.

I have to apologise for not being involved in that, put me in the annoying position of not having watched it for over 20 years, knowing I have the DVD somewhere but being unable to find it after some major shifting around of my collection to make way for decorating and not wanting to buy it again. The SMC is putting increasing pressure on me to hand money over to Amazon and Netflix monthly rather than trying to keep my local branch of HMV open.

That said I'd agree with Jei that expecting people to be involved every week is perhaps pushing things given that peoples lives might not always allow it and that there going to want to watch other cinema. I don't think you need 20 people involved to have a decent discussion, that's possible with just 3-4 and again I think helps massively if the poster who's week it is actually contributes.

As you say the kind of films being chosen I think is a big factor as well, I mean I hope I'm not a cinema snob and if you look at the discussion of mainstream blockbusters on this forum you'll see I'm often involved in it. That said if your choosing films to discuss here surely the emphasis should be on films worthy of discussion(need not always be high minded arty stuff of course) and indeed that you yourself want to discuss? if that's not the case then I would politely suggest maybe you drop out of being a member? you can still comment in the threads without being one. Whilst this might be "fun" its still somewhere were you asking people to spend 2-3 hours of their time and with that I think comes a certain responsibility.

As I mentioned earlier as well I do get the feeling that theirs a certain intolerance present here, maybe I'm imagining it but in terms of what gets voted on seems to me to shift more towards the conventional and shall I say the "masculine". In itself you could argue that's not always a bad thing I spose but I do often get the sense that you see voting actually trying to avoid the kind of discussion the person doing the nominating wanted yet the people doing that voting still don't offer much discussion on what they picked. I admit both times I picked nominations I deliberately went with films that looked like they offered that "out" on the face of them without IMHO really doing so and was unsurprised when both won.

In terms of length of discussion goes I spose the big negative of 2 weeks is that the rota becomes massively long, maybe a compromise might be to have some overlapping stuck threads? so a film gets 2 weeks as a sticky but a new discussion happens every week?

In terms of the Battle Royal perhaps a compromise might be for them to happen more often Cubo? so say every 4th week(or rotation if we extend to 2 weeks) is a Battle Royal? I wouldn't be against that. That would keep peoples nominating involvement more regular whilst still offering more room for variety of discussion.

 

[Yotsuya]

Now, trying to run two film classes

Congrats! What classes?

Edit. Just noticed your post on SMD.

 

[Yotsuya]

First of all, I wouldn’t do any changes that would increase the workload of our president. If we do more Battle Royals it would be fair, that the winner commits to organise the next BR. Not sure if that would work though.

I don’t know about obscure vs. mainstream -thing. I try to bring diversity with my own picks, but I’ve enjoyed most when I can revisit some classics like Stalker, Withnail and I and Bad Taste with good company or dig into new movies like First Reformed or Wild Tales.

About gifs, I do find it difficult to read long posts with lots of them. It’s hard to concentrate when of tons of big, distracting gifs loop on the page. Spoiler tags could be useful in some cases when showing your reaction about the movie or someone’s comment rather than making a point about the movie. ”Let’s pick” threads are perfect for that stuff though.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

In terms of the Battle Royal perhaps a compromise might be for them to happen more often Cubo?

I don't know, dude. Does it make sense to you that people in a club should support each other? That with the privilege of directing folks' attention to films of your choosing that you should have the courtesy to view and comment on the films of your fellow club members' choosing?

About gifs, I do find it difficult to read long posts with lots of them.

Is that because you're engaging with mobile? It's a tech issue, right? Not that you're confused by the meaning of the gifs posted?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

and again I think helps massively if the poster who's week it is actually contributes.

Couldn't agree more. I stand by my history of leading discussion when my number is called.

As I mentioned earlier as well I do get the feeling that theirs a certain intolerance present here,...

Frankly, I feel that you're part of that. I mean, you're the guy saying Shot Caller is beneath you and the club. Can't get more intolerant than that sort of snootiness.

 

[Yotsuya]

Is that because you're engaging with mobile? It's a tech issue, right? Not that you're confused by the meaning of the gifs posted?

It’s like trying to read while there’s a strobo effect flickering my way. I get really distracted by add banners too and sometimes gifs are like a series of add banners in middle of the text. I’m not saying the gifs aren’t funny, just that for me they are very distracting at the same time.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It’s like trying to read while there’s a strobo effect flickering my way. I get really distracted by add banners too and sometimes gifs are like a series of add banners in middle of the text. I’m not saying the gifs aren’t funny, just that for me they are very distracting at the same time.

I hate strobes, but gifs don't bother me. Quite the opposite. I like how people use them to exhibit a little personality.

 

[Yotsuya]

I hate strobes, but gifs don't bother me. Quite the opposite. I like how people use them to exhibit a little personality.

I suppose I’ve always been a slow reader and easlily distracted.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I suppose I’ve always been a slow reader and easlily distracted.

Then gifs are perfect. No reading necessary.

 

[europe1]

@Tufts @Cubo de Sangre

Alright. I'm ending the system-discussion right now.

It's been less than 24 hours. But it's clear that you're not going to win a majority. Your arguments aren't marshalling the membership. The only one who kind of agrees to your proposal is Yotsuya (and maybe FrontNakedChoke).

More importantly, this discussion has birthed a bunch of drama and negative-vibes that has made members want to leave the club. That is exactly the thing a club is NOT supposed to do. If a club has reached that stage, then it has already failed. So I want no more of it. Further discussion is only going to amplify that negative impression.

Let me be blunt. I need you to accept this state-of-affair. Or I must ask you to leave. I can't have internet drama turning people off the club. If you truly wish, then you can always start your own SMC that follow different regulations.

 

[Yotsuya]

The only one who kind of agrees to your proposal is Yotsuya (and maybe FrontNakedChoke).

I thought there were more people who liked the idea of having more BR’s in general, so I just threw in an idea how it could be arranged while giving you a break every now and then. I think every week is too much though and I’m happy with current system too.

 

[MusterX]

 

[moreorless87]

Frankly, I feel that you're part of that. I mean, you're the guy saying Shot Caller is beneath you and the club. Can't get more intolerant than that sort of snootiness.

You look elsewhere on this forum and I'm certainly not above watching and commenting on films that aren't "high minded" without looking down on them but I don't think I'm alone in thinking the SMC should be aiming for stuff that offers more discussion than "I liked it/I didn't like it" and "actor X was fun/aweful".

I mean that doesn't have to be Tarkovsky or Kurbick every week but something like Get Carter or Angel Heart offer plenty of room for discussion. To me the mindset shouldn't just be "I want to watch X film" it should be "I want to discuss X film". That doesn't have to come with distain for people who don't want to do that but if you want to be a member here surely that should be the reason? not just to get other people to watch the films you want them to.

One big issue with the Battle Royal's I would suggest as well is that votes are naturally spread quite thiny which often means films can win with quite limited support. I think you could almost say the same for the standard weeks really and I think actually that's a lot of the reason why we see a certain bias come to the fore, you very often get a spilt vote and a winner that's furthest from the intensions of the person making the nominations.

Infact if were looking at smaller changes I would suggest perhaps reducing the number of nominations on normal weeks? even with just 4 films the winner typically only has about 1/3 of the votes. You reduce that to three or even two choices and its going to mean considerably more films being chosen that people actually voted for. Either that or perhaps sliding scale voting not on a poll where you choose the films in order(say 4 point to 1 point) although that would also mean more work for europe1.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Or I must ask you to leave.

I left on page 2. Thanks for considering making changes. Sorry it didn't work out.

 

[Tufts]

That's always been my approach. This is a place for fun, not for "well we need to throw people out of the club."

I've been around since Week 1. Written about every single movie from Week 1 (a year later, but I was moving that inaugural week so whatever) to Week 92, then had to take off 20 weeks for personal reasons, and then came back and I've written about every film from Weeks 113 to 173. Every film, without exception, even if I'm late by a while. I'm on The Shining this weekend, been a rough time in my family recently so I've been around even less often than usual.

I think it is very commendable that you have seen every single film. Could I ask that you switch up the order you watch them in and prioritize the currant one if you're behind? By this I mean that if next week rolls around and you haven't watched Malkovitch, watch the currant one first so you can comment with the group and then catch up on ones whose cycle has passed. I do think it makes a difference when the film is fresh in our minds, and my main concern would be that you would post on my week or on something I would care to respond to but I would not know you had posted.

 

[Tufts]

I would say the thing that got me this time around was that blue/red color scheme that permeates the entire film. I've seen the film multiple times and never really caught on to that. The walls are blue, the walls are red, the twins dresses are blue, the blood is red, all the major characters are seen wearing blue and red during the film. Then you have that pesky series of shots where Shelley Duvall has the knife in one hand and the background is blue then she has the knife in the other hand and the background is red.

I noticed the colour patterning too. Same thing happened with Eyes Wide Shut. We could have an entire thread on Kubrick's use of colour,.

 

[Tufts]

I mean that doesn't have to be Tarkovsky or Kurbick every week but something like Get Carter or Angel Heart offer plenty of room for discussion. To me the mindset shouldn't just be "I want to watch X film" it should be "I want to discuss X film". That doesn't have to come with distain for people who don't want to do that but if you want to be a member here surely that should be the reason? not just to get other people to watch the films you want them to.

I agree. I'll be honest, I feel like some folks disdain my taste. I also feel that I have been very thoughtful about the movies I have nominated, and have always approached them from a would it make for a good discussion place. EL Royale is an example of that. I saw the film for what it was, but it was sufficiently kookie and had enough twists and turns and great performances to warrant being a SMC nominee. I have watched plenty of films that I didn't necessarily want to watch but I did want to discuss with the club. This brought me many experiences that were positive. I only gave up on movies after doing my level best to watch them. It has only been as discussion by others has fallen off, that I have let myself do the same. I did not like this downward trend. I have felt judged. I have felt that the amount of effort I have put in isn't even seen, and it bummed me out. Hence my musings on how we can improve participation with the club.

If folks aren't going to comment, at least throw out a like here or there. There has to be interaction for success. It doesn;t feel good to write something that no one responds too.

 

[Tufts]

@Tufts @Cubo de Sangre

Alright. I'm ending the system-discussion right now.

It's been less than 24 hours. But it's clear that you're not going to win a majority. Your arguments aren't marshalling the membership. The only one who kind of agrees to your proposal is Yotsuya (and maybe FrontNakedChoke).

More importantly, this discussion has birthed a bunch of drama and negative-vibes that has made members want to leave the club. That is exactly the thing a club is NOT supposed to do. If a club has reached that stage, then it has already failed. So I want no more of it. Further discussion is only going to amplify that negative impression.

Let me be blunt. I need you to accept this state-of-affair. Or I must ask you to leave. I can't have internet drama turning people off the club. If you truly wish, then you can always start your own SMC that follow different regulations.

Let me be blunt. I've made a point of being my own person since I joined this club. Why is this message being directed to me? Concerns were brought up about participation. I threw in my two cents. I ribbed a couple of people in a funny and good natured way (IMHO).

Are you upset over my karma gif over the Cubo and Jei exchange? You got mad at Cubo for saying; nah, but were ok with Jei saying it first. I just thought it was funny that Jei's words came back at him. There were no evil or mean intentions on my part. I feel like you are defending your friend, while ignoring that he said it first, and then giving us shit for reacting to it.

I also don't think making suggestions for improvement is a negative act. I wasn't marshaling anyone. I felt that the club was in decline and threw some suggestions out there. This message, however, feels threatening, negative and inappropriate to me. Yes, the person who brought up the desire to make changes is my husband, but my agreement with him has nothing to do with our marital status. So I ask again, why does this message include me? The way to handle it would have been to respond to @Cubo de Sangre and at the most ask me if I want to stay. The most I said is I was considering leaving before identifying why I think we have been in decline and offering up suggestions. I don't feel that anything was posted that would warrant people leaving until just now. It is ridiculous that a group of adults can't handle discussing a change of rules.

Now I definitely feel like you want me to leave. So I guess I'm experiencing that which you said you cannot allow to happen, internet drama turning people off of the club.

This message is negative and it is direct response to the tone and message of your post. I will decide whether I will stay or I will leave unless you decide to kick me out because of this reply.

And so its clear, I understand your ruling and this is the last I have to say unless you continue to engage or choose to kick me out. I plan to move forward the way everyone else is.

 

[Tufts]

And actually one last thought.

My complaint (if you go back and look at my posts) was that I felt there was a lack of interaction with me on this forum. Your response is for me to leave.

How is that supposed to make me feel?