Jump to content


Photo

Consolidating Film Forums


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Greg Wolfe

Greg Wolfe

    Concedo Nulli

  • Administrator
  • 342 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 10:47 PM

Just a note to let announce that the separate film criticism forum has been folded back into the main Film forum.

Because we have disabled the rating system, it no longer makes sense to separate the sections as we had been doing before.

No posts have been deleted -- just merged.

#2 Cunningham

Cunningham

    Easy, Prescient, Interpersonal. Previously Solishu.

  • Member
  • 1,215 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:00 AM

Can I suggest that we continue the practice of naming thread titles about a movie with that movie's title, as verbatim as possible, even though we aren't going to be rating that movie in the thread? For example, name a thread, "Alice in Wonderland" rather than, "Tim Burton directs another children's book adaptation!"

#3 Greg Wolfe

Greg Wolfe

    Concedo Nulli

  • Administrator
  • 342 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:34 AM

I second the motion!

QUOTE (Cunningham @ May 26 2009, 09:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Can I suggest that we continue the practice of naming thread titles about a movie with that movie's title, as verbatim as possible, even though we aren't going to be rating that movie in the thread? For example, name a thread, "Alice in Wonderland" rather than, "Tim Burton directs another children's book adaptation!"


#4 MattPage

MattPage

    Bible Films Geek.

  • Member
  • 4,189 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:11 AM

: Just a note to let announce that the separate film criticism forum has been folded back into the main Film forum.

Great. Thanks


: Can I suggest that we continue the practice of naming thread titles about a movie with that movie's title, as verbatim as possible,
: even though we aren't going to be rating that movie in the thread? For example, name a thread, "Alice in Wonderland" rather than,
: "Tim Burton directs another children's book adaptation!"

It's certainly a good principle, though in practice often the thread starts when we hear a rumour that someone is making a film about X, and the name only comes along later. e.g. Quentin Tarantino's went from an unnamed war pic to "Inglorious Bastards" and only then to "Inglourious Basterds". So it sometimes requires admins / thread creators to amend as we go along. Alan used to post when he renamed something in this way which was useful as well.

Matt

#5 M. Leary

M. Leary

    Member

  • Member
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:39 AM

This may be too much to ask, but since everything is merged, I wonder if it would be too much trouble to formalize how we title actual Film threads.

Something like Film (Director, Date) or Film (Director) or Film (Date).

Edited by MLeary, 27 May 2009 - 11:38 AM.


#6 Greg Wolfe

Greg Wolfe

    Concedo Nulli

  • Administrator
  • 342 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:40 PM

Anyone else want to vote for a particular format?

Also, would you-all be expecting a moderator to adjust thread titles that diverge from the agreed-upon format?

QUOTE (MLeary @ May 26 2009, 10:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This may be too much to ask, but since everything is merged, I wonder if it would be too much trouble to formalize how he title actual Film threads.

Something like Film (Director, Date) or Film (Director) or Film (Date).


#7 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,331 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 11:07 PM

Well, whatever format we settle on wouldn't apply to ALL of the film threads, especially now that the fora are merged, since some of the threads are all about multiple films or ways of analyzing entire genres etc.

Specifying a director could be tricky when we come to a film that has multiple directors (especially where animation or, even thornier, omnibus films are concerned).

As for the date, if we went that route, I'd follow the IMDb policy of going by a film's first screening to a public audience ("public" in this sense would include festivals etc. -- it would include both limited releases and wide releases, or broadcasts if the work was first made for television or the internet; and because this is an international forum, "public" would also not distinguish between different territories; if, say, Memento is released in England in 2000 and in the United States in 2001, then it's a 2000 film).

Oh, and there's a thought. Like the IMDb, I would say we should NORMALLY go with a film's original title (so, Shooting Dogs and not Beyond the Gates). However, I wouldn't necessarily insist on that when we're dealing with foreign films. SOME foreign films are better-known by their foreign names than by their translated names (so, Ikiru and not To Live). But sometimes there are multiple translated names (The Bicycle Thief, or Bicycle Thieves? the former was the commonly accepted title for years, but the latter is more accurate and now adorns the Criterion edition and is thus, in some sense, the new standard). So there'd be judgment calls to make there.

And then you've got things like Harry Potter and the ... Stone. The original title of the BOOK refers to a "Philosopher's Stone", but the MOVIE was produced by an American studio and thus the primary title at the IMDb refers to a "Sorcerer's Stone", even though the movie is still called "Philosopher's Stone" in the rest of the world.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 26 May 2009 - 11:08 PM.


#8 Cunningham

Cunningham

    Easy, Prescient, Interpersonal. Previously Solishu.

  • Member
  • 1,215 posts

Posted 27 May 2009 - 06:38 AM

I think that it's safe to say that when a thread is about a movie, we can title it by that movie (and putting the year afterwards in parenthesis seems reasonable too). If it's about more (or less) than one movie, then a more descriptive title might be appropriate. Of course there are always quirky titles that throw a monkey wrench into any naming system. I don't see it as a cause for consternation, especially since we're essentially just maintaining the status quo.

Unless you're pointing out these quirks because you think you know a better system that can better address them, Peter.

#9 M. Leary

M. Leary

    Member

  • Member
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 27 May 2009 - 11:39 AM

QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ May 27 2009, 12:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, whatever format we settle on wouldn't apply to ALL of the film threads, especially now that the fora are merged, since some of the threads are all about multiple films or ways of analyzing entire genres etc.


Yes, just for threads on particular films. It will help to sort out what is what when scanning topics. The IMDB date is a good one to go with, as they often have the most up to date release year for films still in production.

#10 gigi

gigi

    ReMember

  • Member
  • 950 posts

Posted 05 July 2009 - 05:30 AM

Mihihihihi... MLeary - the academic in me finds great joy in your fastidiousness! I'm happy to go along with this, as long as I remember when doing the posts. I would favour the film (director, year) approach. Oh if only we were able to italicise in subject lines...

#11 Thom

Thom

    nothing, nobody, nowhere

  • Member
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 20 June 2012 - 06:40 PM

Since this is a "pinned" thread I guess I will ask the question nearly 3 years later, did we ever come to a decision on this? Scouring the forum suggests that we did not. I see film titles with and without dates. Not too many with a director's name.

So, what is the scoop? To each his own?

#12 pmgomez

pmgomez

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:16 AM

Hi there. How do we contribute films to this forum? Here's a nice short here on faith :)