A scurrilous attack! A stirring defense!



No announcement yet.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: and the answers to the questions?

    boy, storynotes and twobrad have WAY too much time on their hands.


    • #32
      Re: and the answers to the questions?

      Isn't this exactly what is wrong with rules and guidelines?

      People get caught up too much in what constitutes one or the other, or whether or not they are worthwhile or not.

      It just doesn't ****in' matter. Do what you need to do in order to get the best story on the page, in the best, most exciting way you know how.

      Fu ck the rest of it.

      p.s. Jeff, this is no way a slag on you or your fine article. Only a comment on the thread itself.


      • #33
        Jeff, your posts and your articles share one trait: they use too many words. Now, I can understand when you're being paid by the word, but here, brevity is divine.


        • #34
          WinterMuse sagely observes:

          "Jeff, your posts and your articles share one trait: they use too many words. Now, I can understand when you're being paid by the word, but here, brevity is divine."

          True. But actually, when being paid for one's work -- whether by the word or otherwise -- and when there is a strict range limit (1300-1500 words) -- I go over my articles many times, both for clarity and for tightening.

          It's very time-consuming. No time to do that for posts to groups.

          So ... for free, ya gets the long version (sometimes). Sorry.



          • #35
            Re: and the answers to the questions?

            so we are no longer defining mainstream by the percentage of the movie-going population something strikes a chord with? isn't that really the only way to define mainstream? (scarves are mainstream; codpieces are not.)

            titanic wasn't mainstream because it contained a story within a story and "didn't follow the three act structure" (yes it did, by the way, but that's neither here nor there; i didn't care for the movie enough to defend it)?

            batman wasn't mainstream because it was a superhero movie, despite its popularity? simply because we know superhero movies don't strike a chord with audiences. i mean: hulk, spiderman, dark man, xmen, xmen 2, and the half dozen comic adaptations in pre-production, production, and post-production certainly back up your point that films about superheroes bore the hell out of a mainstream audience. and when will people finally learn the wonders of the automobile!?

            even if you define "mainstream" as something intended to have mass appeal, big production for a big audience, both titanic and batman fall into the catagory. i mean, christ, greg araki didn't direct either if these, and neither giovanni ribisi nor adam goldberg had a starring role.

            if you want to start throwing actual meanings of words out the window, you can pretty much make any point you want to.

            it really makes the whole discussion silly. not that it hadn't devolved into silly before that point.


            • #36
              Re: and the answers to the questions?

              Oh no, now I'm being attacked by sea!

              Say there's a movie that works. Let's not decide yet if it is mainstream or non-mainstream.

              Ten people see it. Non-mainstream?
              then a hundred,
              then a thousand,
              then 8,123,578. Congratulations! The movie can now be safely labeled mainstream.

              In movie terms MS/non-MS has nothing to do with how many people see it. It explains the difference between Memento and Casablanca. Which leaves open the possibility that both a mainstream and a non-mainstream movie can be very popular with the public.


              • #37
                Re: and the answers to the questions?

                "Oh no, now I'm being attacked by sea!"

                that was funny.

                now, i have nothing else to say, because while i don't agree with your defintion of mainstream, we've both made our points, and to continue would be to go on with what has become an already ridiculous thread.

                have fun.


                • #38
                  Re: and the answers to the questions?

                  But Captain there is a benefit.

                  What you said will always stick in my mind and what I said will always stick in yours.

                  And then when Spielberg asks if our screenplays are mainstream movies, we'll be prepared to do some fancy tap dancing.


                  • #39
                    the answers! were revealing


                    As I suspected, you were operating with your own private little definition of "mainstream."

                    Thus, from the very beginning, you were being disingenuous.

                    When you informed readers here that in my column I used examples from non-mainstream films to support my case, you must have known the vast majority of them were operating under a different definition of "mainstream" than the one you choose to use -- your own private definition.

                    And thus would interpret the statement in a very different way than you actually meant it. If you had said "as I define it," and then offered your definition -- fine. But you didn't do that.

                    That is not effective communication.

                    It's intentionally misleading others whom you know are using a different definition than yours.

                    Thus you were indeed being scurrilous, and disingenuous.

                    Now that I know you have your own private set of definitions, and that you don't view "Titanic" or "Batman" as mainstream films, there is no point in discussing matters with you any further. We would be talking at cross-purposes, what with your private, unexplained definitions.

                    Jeff Newman


                    • #40
                      Re: the answers! were revealing

                      based on brad's definition and examples, no movie is a mainstream movie.

                      BATMAN wasn't mainstream??? TITANIC wasn't mainstream???



                      • #41
                        Re: the answers! were revealing

                        Okay, I'm excited, I'm learning something new. That's most of the reason why I'm here on the board - to learn. It is a bit unnerving to have your belief system, the system you lived by for the last 15 years, turned upside down and inside out. But, hey, I have an open mind and you can teach an old dog new tricks.
                        In the spirit of helping me just one more time, I do have one question. Everything you people are saying is beginning to gel, but if you clear up just one more thing I think I'll be a convert.

                        I'm assuming that Memento is a non-mainstream movie. (If I have this wrong than I may not be as close as I thought.)

                        So, what would it have taken for Memento to be considered a mainstream movie?

                        Is it the number of people seeing it?
                        Is it the number of people seeing it within a specific timeframe?
                        Is it the amount of money it makes?
                        Is it the about the profit it makes relative to the budget?
                        Or is it all of these or something else I'm missing?

                        I really hope this is an easy answer because I don't want to indulge on you any longer than I need to. I can't express how helpful you have been so far. I'm very happy I joined this community.

                        Thank you,


                        • #42
                          Re: the answers! were revealing

                          Or is it all of these or something else I'm missing?
                          Maybe it was the fact that it opened in only a handful of theaters, then built word of mouth, rather than the opening in 50,000 theaters at once, that kept it "non-mainstream."