I Love Film

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I had a movie critic friend suggest to me the other week that 'we' set up a talkboard about movies at some point. ('We' had a webzine for a while.) I said, hmm, funny you say that since I've gone interweb CRAZY recently and yes there are some film-lovers out there with Things To Say your Pet*r B*ads*aws and Anth*ny Q*i**s couldn't dream of.

But not, oddly, at I Love Film. All film discussions end up here. Which suits me, o'course, but how come even I Love Books is more successful? Could a film talkboard work?

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Probably not, because people don't know shit about film.

― ModJ (ModJ), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

There are film discussions on 'i love film'. I did a thread a week ago.

but yes, I love books has taken off in a way in which I love film hasn't.

maybe a 'what's good on I love film' thread might be required.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Modj -- yeah, they do. The LiT threads, if exasperating, have been good in ways.

― Enriqure (Enrique), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Jesus Godbastard, Peter Bradshaw is an idiot. Particularly online, when his reviews appear beside Philip French. Everything I have ever read by PB is a) firmly in the middle of The Critical Consensus and b) without a single interesting thing to say. You might as well take all the other reviews of the film and chew them.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:15 (twenty-two years ago)

If I Love Books has been more successful than I Love Film (and I'm still waiting for the novelty to wear off a little before that's proven definitively; ILF was popular in its first month, too) -- I think the #1 reason is that Jessa has plugged it on Bookslut and thus has attracted a sizable group of posters that aren't ILX regulars. As it is, I think ILF tends to be an afterthought for people who are already posting lots on ILE, rather than the locus of their online discussion about film.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:19 (twenty-two years ago)

good idea Julio

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha, I like Peter Bradshaw. And someone compared me to him once.

― Llahtuos Kcin (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I never liked I Love Film, I much prefered the way the discussions roll into and out of consciousness here of ILE. Especially when an issue present in a film can be discussed without having seen the film, a la the LiT/Kill Bill thread.

Though no Momus on ILF...

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Bradshaw is not so bad and he sometimes surprises you - i detest the reviews Philip french does which are basically plot summaries. As for the main question i think ILF often seems a bit highbrow - i dont mind posting flippant comments on ILM and changing my mind 10 posts later but there is a feeling that you have to know quite alot about film before you can post ther and that it has to be definitive in some way. I'm not sure why.

― jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I second Jaymc and the plug from Jessa.It really helped move things along. Plus, we shamelessly pimped ILB on I Love Music when ILB was starting up. I dunno if that did anything, but it might have. I Love Film just needs more people. I confess i don't look there very often cuz the film threads here on ILE are so quick and spirited and on ILF the lag-time between responses is just too long. I posted on there once and it took almost 2 days before there was another response. Maybe if someone posted a link on other film boards/message boards/film sites,etc? That might help.

― scott seward (scott seward), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, I tried getting us linked from a few places, but to no avail. Perhaps it is something I should pursue more aggressively?

I certainly see the benefits to posting a film thread here rather than on ILF, which, as I said before, was originally intended to be a technical forum of sorts (!). I post to film threads in both places. It has turned out to be a small group of regular posters (a few critics among them) who kind of chat amongst themselves, but I think it has lacked truly interesting threads. Ryan's thread about the limitations of film was a rare success and the kind of thing it would be nice to have more of.

ILF has been more busy of late, I should add, but with Amateurist and Girolamo no longer checking in and s1utsky fairly busy, many previously high-volume posters are missing. But we have Eric, Jay, Ryan, and Jaymc all contributing interesting stuff, and if folx like Enrique, Pete, tracer, anthony easton...hell, even Momus would care to stop by that would be more than great.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 18:25 (twenty-two years ago)

I have given up trying to "defend" ILF's existence on the boards as such. It is what it is. It clearly doesn't have any bearing on the film discussions over here, and nobody accuses Ask A Drunk of diluting the silly threads on ILE, do they? ;)

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 18:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Calum seems to have glommed on to us, too...

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

please dont link to ilf from anywhere please

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 18:38 (twenty-two years ago)

no.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

If you say so.

How could this be a bad thing?

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 21 January 2004 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...

No idea, myself. I have been gone, it's true - but that's more b/c of lack of internet access and more important things to do at the moment while getting settled in London. I'm still lurking, I just don't usually have time to visit frequently, that's all.

I'm all for pimping the shit out of it at places where intelligent film discussion already somewhat exists, or maybe places where it exists, but don't exist exclusively for film discussion. Interesting problem. I'd say stay away from IMDb boards, though, unless we're talking about the more obscure stuff - not so much out of elitism as just out of desire not to have the link be buried within a few hours. There's also a good board for the Criterion Collection fans that might be a good place to look. These are just my ideas...

― Girolamo Savonarola, Saturday, 7 February 2004 16:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Hi Girolamo! How's tricks?

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Saturday, 7 February 2004 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Tricks are for kids!

You keeping the fort at ILF?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Saturday, 7 February 2004 17:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Doing my best!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Saturday, 7 February 2004 17:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm flattered. I love film.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 8 February 2004 02:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Your website is good, too!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Sunday, 8 February 2004 02:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I can only be flattered so many times in one evening, dude.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 8 February 2004 03:07 (twenty-two years ago)

amateur!st -- what's wrong with linking ILF up, brah?

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 9 February 2004 09:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Gawd Terminator 2 is actually quite good isn't it? I am slightly worried how this affects my film "voice" for Do You See because I now like EVERY SINGLE FILM I SEE!!* I even want to see Miss Congeniality now (inspired by an episode of FRIENDS)!

Yes but that child was wearing a Public Enemy tshirt and had indie hair!!

*apart from Serendipity, that was a pile of pants and no mistake

― Sarah (starry), Monday, 9 February 2004 09:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Serendipity: two pretty people: what's wrong with that?

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 9 February 2004 09:50 (twenty-two years ago)

They're RUBBIDGE! The final scene was ruined by lack of slapstick, I care as much for the hem hem FEMALE LEAD as much as I care for the quality of Kirsty McColl's microwave ready meal dinners and HER GLOVES WERE SHIT ANYWAY and quite frankly where the robots/aliens/hijackers?? Shakespearean confusion?? My only confusion was as to why I was still watching the sodding film (hurrah Daily Mail reviewing stylee there).

Oh I was watching the film bcz I was round someone elses house who was watching it, and I was eating their food and drinking their GIN so it would have been rude to complain.

Of course I shouted at the telly the whole way through. Come to think of it that was quite enjoyable...

Shit!! Do you SEE??

― Sarah (starry), Monday, 9 February 2004 09:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I watched 'Shanghai Knights' this weekend just cos it had Owen Wilson in. I enjoy watching John Cusack and the premise/premiss of Serendipity is very real to me so I may see this anyway. Even crap films ('Mickey Blue Eyes') can be good if you have the right attitude.

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 9 February 2004 09:59 (twenty-two years ago)

What, you wrote your phone number in a book for a lady and SHE NEVER CALLED?

Actually that has happened to me and I still hated Serendipity. It was teeth grindingly inane really and failed to disguise this with humour or irony or dinosaurs so there was no escaping it. Chiz to it all. John Cusack was far better in CON AIR!

I have never seen or heard of Mickey Blue Eyes. Is it the sequel to Metal Mickey: The Movie?

― Sarah (starry), Monday, 9 February 2004 10:03 (twenty-two years ago)

'Mickey Blue Eyes' (1999) ie circa 'Analyse This' and series one of 'The Sopranos'. Hugh Grant plays a FOPPISH New York auctioneer whose bird's dad is a MAFIA DON played by James 'The Godfather' Caan. Half the cast of 'The Sopranos' gives support. For some reason Hugh has to learn how to become a wise guy. It was on C4 the other Sunday. It has an immortal scene where HG has to learn to say 'forgetaboutit' in a 'Donnie Brasco' fashion.

'Con Air': My g/f loves *and owns* this film.

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 9 February 2004 10:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Why don't I own Con Air? Questions must be asked at the highest levels.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 9 February 2004 10:29 (twenty-two years ago)

You're saving up for Independence Day?

~~What a young lady of such obviously marvellous taste is doing with Enrique who knows??~~

― Sarah (starry), Monday, 9 February 2004 10:30 (twenty-two years ago)

It's usually about 4 quid in hmv sales so is therefore a must-have. which reminds me, we must check the features -- a commentary from Cusack would be a dream come true.

Thanks Sarah! I'll pass that on.

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 9 February 2004 10:32 (twenty-two years ago)

B-b-but Mickey Blue Eyes sounds GRATE! Perhaps not as good as the film where Hugh Grant had to wear surgical scrubs with hilarious consequences.

― Sarah (starry), Monday, 9 February 2004 10:33 (twenty-two years ago)

It is sort of grabte, if you can take toxic amounts of Hugh. Immensely dignified performance from Caan. The lady is played by the Evil Brunette from 'Sliding Doors' (which I have somehow seen abt 12 times, so know that it is an ad for Nat West and Grolsch, FACT).

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 9 February 2004 10:37 (twenty-two years ago)

What's good on I love film

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 9 February 2004 10:57 (twenty-two years ago)

i'd be careful where you link ILF--take a look at the Aint It Cool message boards for look at how bad it can get.

― ryan (ryan), Monday, 9 February 2004 16:51 (twenty-two years ago)

four months pass...

ILF's not dead yet! Surprisingly, though, there are some good threads going at the moment. Do check it out.

You know you want to.

Also, a general question/crazy idea: if people can post the same thread first on ILF and then ILE b/c they want maximal response, then can threads on ILE be copied over to ILF? And if so, does the starter of the ILE thread have to do it, or can anything be ported over? Fuck it, I'm all about doing what I can to keep ILF as busy (looking) as possible.

Also for those who don't ILF much...I've started to do a "Random 10" thread feature - 10 films per week randomly selected from my huge masterlist and held up for any comments or discussion. It's seen decent numbers for the board, and has brought up some films for discussion that might not have otherwise been ever talked about, so I think it's a good thing. (In a twist of hypocrisy - please don't port it over to ILE.)

Ta.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 23 June 2004 23:05 (twenty-two years ago)

one month passes...

so does anyone have an explanation as to why this is a complete failure?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:33 (twenty-one years ago)

We love movies, not film. Fuck a film.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Argh, I just missed a great opportunity. I should've said:
Fuck watching a film.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:39 (twenty-one years ago)

In order for me to actually click on "I Love Film" I'd have to slide my mouse far to the right and draaaaag down, ugh. Please, I have too much to deal with already.

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Or you can memorize which board number it is (35) and type it into the address bar;.

― The Dreaded Rear Admiral (Leee), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:41 (twenty-one years ago)

As much as I hate to say it, the tone there seems unsurmountably snooty most of the time. I watch a lot of movies, and I haven't seen like 75% of the ones being discussed there.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I still think there should be a link in the upper right from ILE and ILM.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

it's all adam's fault for abandoning ILX!

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sorry to say it, but I never go there. I don't know if it is a reflection of any specific posters or anything, but it is definitely snooty and dry and not in the least fun. I guess I'm still a moderator, though.

XPOST

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Whisper it, but it makes me HATE film sometimes. Or at least, become frustrated with it.

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Boards that I better than I Love Film: I Love Everything, I Love Music, I Love Baseball, I Love Comics, I Love Books, and the Moderator Request Forum.

I still go to ILF and scan it regularly, but there's never anything I feel like talking about on there.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh I didn't know you were posting!

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

there should be an I Love Television board. Why isn't there?

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:45 (twenty-one years ago)

i just checked it for the first time in months (??). like a ghost town. not that i ever contributed much after the initial month or two. there definitely was a snooty tone about it, but it wasn't so much genuine film appreciation as just a shallow notion of art v. commerce, i think.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:45 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost

i think we should learn our lesson from ILF and just stick with ILE

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)

If amateur!st is talking about ILT, then otm.

― The Dreaded Rear Admiral (Leee), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I mean I Love Books isn't such hot shit either. ILComics and ILBaseball are interesting to me in a "Wow, I have no clue what these people are talking about, but it sure seems complicated and kind of fascinating," way.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:49 (twenty-one years ago)

the Moderator Request Forum is quite brilliant, I agree.

But to be honest, I spend most of my time

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)

again-
the Moderator Request Forum is quite brilliant, I agree.

But to be honest, I spend most of my time here these days.

We mostly talk about who the biggest boy is on road and contemplate the fitness of Sadie Ama.

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I used to post to a movie message board on AOL, of all places. It was the most pathetic bunch I've ever come across. No room for dissent, and if you didn't think the three greatest filmmakers were Kubrick, Hitchcock, and Malick you were persona non grata.

I think it has a lot to do with how in music, the more "rock and roll" filmmakers (i.e. genre directors like Leone, Peckinpah, Carpenter, etc) are still in large part considered to be "fanboy favorites" and not at the same level as the Godards, Tarkovskys, etc. While in music, there's more a sense that every genre is on the same level and treated with a more equal respect. Which is why the more "serious" film discussion boards to me feel very limited. There's still that divide.

that probably makes no sense.

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Say all you like about ILF being snooty and dry. That may be true. But guess what, guys? It ain't gonna get any better if you don't post there. Why not make some topics like Is ILF Too Snooty? or Thomas Jane S/D or Best pre-1980 porn film, hmm?

I've been doing the Random 10 thing most weeks lately, just b/c it allows a shitload of stuff to be brought up (and lumped together) that would otherwise have no business together.

More talk on ILF, less grumbling 'bout it here.

I also would like the link to ILF in the upper right corner, but given the sad state of ILF recently, I have to agree that it remains unmerited at the moment. I hope that will change.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:05 (twenty-one years ago)

i think the problem is that ILF is dominated by a small number of people, who just don't collectively have the right "spark" to set off a really bitchin' board. it's no one's fault in particular. some times things just happen that wa-ay.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:08 (twenty-one years ago)

ba-doo ba-doo...ba-doo ba-doo

(couldn't resist)

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Exactly why we need some more people in there.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:24 (twenty-one years ago)

i will start posting my druken entusiasm there. nothing like drunken enthusiam to get a board going.

― :|, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

also ilf needs an enemy like ilm has pitchfork. ao scott? rog ebert? who shall it be?

― :|, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think ILF was/is snooty at all. I don't really see many disparaging comments there. The problem might have been that the couple people with the most to say (and a lot of it was very interesting) just happened to have very similar taste in fairly obscure and very very highbrow movies.

I agree with Girolamo; ILF just needs more people participating.

― Dan I., Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh wait I just remembered a couple of threads making fun of stuff like really awful film critics. But come on! Did you read the thread? The critic in question was really unquestionably awful.

There was certainly nothing like "Oh dear, you like that movie? How very quaint."

― Dan I., Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

no but there was stuff like "how 'bout this movie, it's not one o' dem popcorn-junkie opiates." i won't name names because i'm nice like that.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I watch a lot of movies, and I haven't seen like 75% of the ones being discussed there.

Then start a thread about ones you've seen. ILF isn't snooty, but definitely needs some more posters to gain any kind of critical mass.

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:34 (twenty-one years ago)

but to what purpose? why not just post abt it on ILE?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I popped into ILF when it first started, but like others have said, the vague snootieness made me feel a little uncomfortable. It was like - oh no, I admit to liking the trilogy of k-lame (Donnie Darko, RFaD and Pi), I will be shot down in flames.

Or something. Still, it is also just that I forget the other boards are there, most often (fwiw I dont read ILM either).

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Believe me when I say ILF is the best film board I've seen when it comes to LACK of snootiness. I can't recall any dismissal of specific films when people have talked about them. IMDb and the AOL boards are far, far worse.

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:08 (twenty-one years ago)

rally around hatred of Armond White, dudes.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:10 (twenty-one years ago)

ILF is to those of us who study (work, write for) film the same way that ILM is for those who (study, work, write about) music. With the caveat that /more/ mortals will admit to being music freaks than movie freaks, and that the level of discourse, when it does get going, can be just as good. But, for whatever reason, posters on ILF are more defensive about their tastes. Saying, on ILM, "Band X suXor..." will inspire little real vitriol from its followers, and can lead to a good discussion. But saying, on ILF "Director X [insert Fellini]... suXor" seems to inspire real wrath. I suspect that many of the posters who find ILF film selection difficult to wrap-around might recognize that many others feel the same way re. ILM snobbery.

― x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, ILF completely ignores MCBAIN which is by far the best film ever. This is why it is a failure.

― dean? (deangulberry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

snobs.

― x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:16 (twenty-one years ago)

looking for McBain discussion? I believe the Walmart is THAT way, chortle chortle chortle

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:21 (twenty-one years ago)

If Walmart had copies of Mcbain for sale, their profits would double! No, triple!

― dean? (deangulberry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:23 (twenty-one years ago)

It's kind of weird that some would rather discuss ILF here then post on it. The apparent perceptions of snootiness are somewhat confounding as well. Keep in mind there's currently a thread about Police Academy.

― theodore fogelsanger (herbert hebert), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 02:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Well I'll happily admit in my case it is far more that I just forget to look in, than anything else. Sorry.

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 03:11 (twenty-one years ago)

ILM is for listeners too, jeremy. many of them over there are just that.

The reason why ILM is very active is bcz pop music is used as a basis, the starting point (the type of discourse used for discussing pop is applied to other types of music too, which is part of the attraction). But pop means accessible -> we can all hear it -> always active with ppl posting.

on ILF its split where the 'pop' movies are discussed on ILE so ILF is very specialized hence the dryness.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:19 (twenty-one years ago)

on ILF its split where the 'pop' movies are discussed on ILE so ILF is very specialized hence the dryness.

See, that's a self-defeating prophecy. "I'm not gonna post the 'pop' films (whatever the hell you define as 'pop film' to begin with) in ILF, I'm gonna post them on ILE...hey, why is ILF so dry?"

I blame that misperception as part of the problem, though certainly not the only one.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 28 July 2004 10:10 (twenty-one years ago)

ILM is for listeners too, jeremy. many of them over there are just that.

on ILF its split where the 'pop' movies are discussed on ILE so ILF is very specialized hence the dryness.

I've always been opposed to this viewpoint, Julio, and wish people would stop pigeonholing non-american / british cinema into a specialized category while privilaging mainstream pop-schlock
as 'normal,' and 'accessible.' It's quite the opposite model of pop-music, where the most easily discovered is usually the most criticially reviled and the esoterica is lauded. On ILF, it seems, if you post about a movie unseen by other ILFers, you're a snob, a showoff, and your credibility discussing 'normal and accessible' movies is shot since you've outed yourself as more a critical viewer than a casual one.

― x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:12 (twenty-one years ago)

None of the pro-ILFors have really said why, if I was starting a thread on a popular movie, I should post it on ILF instead of on ILE. What benefit would there be? I understand that I have to make an effort to have threads that appeal to me on ILF, but I don't see why I should make that effort.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 13:36 (twenty-one years ago)

For the same reason that most music posts aren't dropped onto ILE.

― x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't really see a parallel there. ILM is already set up with lots and lots of posters, distinct from ILE, so there's no "effort" required. It's already there. If I post a bunch of threads on ILF, only like four people will reply and it will be the same people who are on ILE.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 13:40 (twenty-one years ago)

ILM also started small, NA. And many people did make the effort in the early days, but of course there was no ile at that time.

girolamo -- all my saying is that this is what's happening. The diff between ILM and ILF is that pop will not be discussed on ILE.

jeremy I don't like pigeonholing anymore than you do.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 14:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Honestly, ILF represents the worst kind of ILX splintering for no reason. I would prefer one board, including music in with ILE, but since ILM was first and is kind of it's own monster, it's too late for that. ILComics and ILBaseball and ILCricket, ok, they're kind of specialized topics that only certain people are going to be interested in, I can see that. But everyone loves movies. Why does there need to be a seperate board for it?

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 14:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I Love Film..Making?

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 14:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I think ILB bought ppl in bcz it was linked to bookslut, ilm has nylpm/freaky trigger and maybe ILF might need something similar (does it? I haven't kept up).

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

i film making love

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Why not make some topics like Is ILF Too Snooty?

I tried: Are there any threads on I Love Film that aren't marked by endless self-congratulatory remarks on how smart "we" all are and how dumb and passive the "average moviegoer" is?

It only reinforced my perceptions.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyway, I don't think that any posters on ILF have actually made fun of another poster's tastes; it's just the prevailing attitude toward art/commerce, with its Adornoesque tendencies, that really irks me.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

(Actually, in contrast to direct attacks on others' tastes, what irks is the assumption that we're all in league together against the know-nothing plebes. I hate that shit.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

(If you're going to make fun of the plebes, make fun of me, dude.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Right. I'm away over to ILF to start posting right now. Because I have a question.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 16:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Ehh, I didn't post to that one because I found it ridiculous.

― x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd post there if it had more traffic.

― cºzen (Cozen), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:18 (twenty-one years ago)

jaymc otm

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:18 (twenty-one years ago)

ILF is to those of us who study (work, write for) film the same way that ILM is for those who (study, work, write about) music.

This was the intention when we started it, but I really didn't find it was much of a help with my own writing/filmmaking, though Girolamo in particular always comes up with some answers to any questions I post. It's a shame that there isn't a more extended community of people like this, THAT would perhaps warrant an alternative board (who wants to read about cardiod mikes and mythic structure if they really don't have to?).

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyway, I I revived my own pet thread. Mock me if you must.

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:23 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.