[Just your average movie goer]

It's because of that stuff that I never joined forums before now. This is the first and only forum I'm a part of... and I don't think I'd ever join a different forum because frankly, most of the other ones out there are unintelligent flame fests.

[Jordan]

I'll bet you 25 cents that if you join the forums now, and swear, you're toast.

[civilian_number_two]

Chef, I can tell you (well, I guess you know), that the sign-up system is fully automated. Your intended User Name nust be blocked if you were able to create another with no trouble. If I were you, I'd create /Chefelf or chef.elf or some dipshit thing like that, just to let those members know what their moderators are doing. I bet a few of them would be genuinely embarrassed to learn something as childish as that had been done to protect their poor little virgin ears. Eyes? Minds? Anyway, they're not all idiots.

Also, the we could meet up and post together in the forum: "Which Amidala dress is the least comfortable?" or "Who's more badass? Yoda or Mace?"

\\\l33t!
\\\l33t!

Blahmbabago!

(What silliness; I must be drunk)

[Heccubus]

I did sign up for an account in order to flame the lot of them (and believe me, they'll be toasted into ashes when I get there), but they haven't sent me a conformation e-mail yet. I'll just fins somebody to hack their ass into next week, make it easy...

To be fair, I was referring to the quoted post. If Chyld wants to go causing problems, he'd better not go throwing our name around. I already read some of Jordan's stuff and was relatively impressed.

Also, the we could meet up and post together in the forum: "Which Amidala dress is the least comfortable?" or "Who's more badass? Yoda or Mace?"

\\\l33t!
\\\l33t!

Blahmbabago!

(What silliness; I must be drunk)

Drunk or not, I likes the sound of that Amidala thread...

[Chefelf]

Yeah, I know the system is automated. My name wasn't blocked. It allowed me to select my user name, it just never sent me my email with my password, etc. When I emailed them to re-request it they never responded. I hope they get to me soon... I'd like to post.

[Jordan]

Just take civ's advice


Chef.elf

ElfChef

ChezElf

CHEF_elf

Chef-elf

[Jordan]

I think Civillian Scared them away. The thread seems dead.

[Just your average movie goer]

Excellent. Good job, everyone.

[barend]

Iron_Chef_Elf


?

[DistantAngel]

I was just having a brief skim through the TFN topic in question, and noticed this little gem:

In 1977 the movie critics just jumped on the bandwagon, like they jumped on the "Love Titanic" and "Love Lord of the Rings" bandwagon (not to say those movies are bad). It's not like many critics want to seem "out of it" for saying that a very popular movie that had great word-of-mouth was a juvinile movie, a movie that reminds a person of the Brothers Grimm but certainly not a weighty movie like Lawrence of Arabia. And I work in a library, where we get 50 newspapers from around the nation, and even though a lot of critics slightly critizise AotC (most noticeable complaint was the wooden acting) I saw a lot of 3 and 4 stars for the movie. Critics want to be popular, so they say what they think will be popular to say.

Utter crap. I've never heard of critic wanting to jump on a bandwagon over anything. Critics, if anything, want to be saying the complete opposite of what everyone else is saying; they want to be the dissenting voice, the one who stands up and says "wait a minute!", the one who notices the nudity of the emperor. That's why they're called "critics". They don't want to encourage you to see a film that everyone is going to see anyway, that's not their job ... their job is to give their opinion on the film, their take on it ... it is then up to you to decide whether or not to see it. Most often, if we listen to the opinion of a critic before seeing a movie, it'll be a critic we've listened to in the past and find ourselves agreeing with anyway ...

A true critic would never give a film a good review just because everyone else is, that's idiotic - they may as well be working for the studio's marketing department. Sure, some dodgy critics will give a film a good review, regardless of their opinion, but there's usually money involved (or a chance to get their name and quote on the poster). But the films these whores are championing are usually the expensive-yet-vacuous action movies that cost a lot and, because they're pretty lame, won't be box office smashes - let's face it, something as big as "The Lord Of The Rings" wouldn't need a slew of poster quotes to get people to see it - but "Biker Boyz" would. A true critic will encourage you to see the films that NOBODY else is seeing ... they want you to see a film they've fallen in love with, but know that it's not got the pull of the blockbusters to get your attention. True critics got people to see "The Shawshank Redemption", when everyone else was ignoring it because it wasn't "Forrest Gump". True critics urged you to see "Donnie Darko", when everyone else was telling you to see "AOTC" instead. If critics were so keen to jump on bandwagons, as has been suggested, then there would be hardly any independent movies because the critics would be cheerleading the blockbusters, simply because every marketing exec, and every other form of media owned by the studio producing the movie, is saying that it's great.

I'm not a huge follower of critics because, well, it's just their opinion. But there are some who's opinion I trust - ones who have recommended some great films I otherwise wouldn't have seen, and who I trust enough to be giving me their honest opinions in their reviews. I would never trust the reviews of people like Paul Ross, a critic in the UK one could more accurately describe as a Quote Whore - anyone who's words "The greatest action film ever!" graced the poster for "The Scorpion King" a couple of months before the near exact same words appeared on the poster for "xXx" cannot be trusted. Similarly, I'm not going to trust reviews by anyone even remotely connected to a film. When "TPM" came out, a movie poll in the UK showed that "Star Wars" was the British public's favourite film of all time. When I noticed that the film, produced by 20th Century Fox (owner, Mr R. Murdoch), was voted number one in a survey carried out by Sky Movies (owner, Mr R. Murdoch) and in association with The Sun newspaper (owner, Mr R. Murdoch), I found the air to be somewhat rat-scented ...

As has been already said, critics adored "Star Wars" in '77 (with only a handful of folk like the legendary Ms. Kael expressing an opposing view). Critical response to AOTC was, certainly here, lukewarm to disappointing. This time, it was the gushers who were in the minority - the overwhelming feeling was that it was a bit of a let-down, average, not great ... a bit crap ... well, that was the critics opinion ... mine was that I'd felt like I'd been buggered by George Lucas for two hours while he held pictures of cool space ships in front of my face in an attempt to distract me from the pain ...

And there's a quote you won't see on the poster

[Paladin]

It's because of that stuff that I never joined forums before now. This is the first and only forum I'm a part of... and I don't think I'd ever join a different forum because frankly, most of the other ones out there are unintelligent flame fests.

I've been to websites were the MODERATORS actively initiate and take part in flame wars. Even though the incident that happened to me is years old, I'm still going to go back there soon and flame the living piss out of them for the crap that they dished out to me back in March 2002.

[Just your average movie goer]

The Moderators, hey? Yeah, that's real mature of them, isn't it?

I know it sounds fun to flame the living piss out of them... but I don't think it'd be worth it. You wouldn't want them to think that you thought they were worth the effort.

[Paladin]

I'll probably be banned in a few minutes, but it'll be worth it.

Anyway, I'll tell you all about what happened once I get back to Dubai, the keyboards in my Cousin's internet cafe are hell to use and I can't write anything big with them (took me 5 mintues just to write this message!) :angry:

[civilian_number_two]

Ok, I want to know about all that, Paladin, but I need to switch gears for a moment. Check this out:

http://boards.thefor...007/16770627/?6

I think I have pretty much given up on the sort of gushing that goes on over there. What I'd really like to see is njamilla debate on that topic. I'm in over my head when it comes to swordplay. I mean, I know I'm right, but can I prove it?

njamilla? You getting this?

[Jordan]

Good Call with the Rob Roy Duel. Archie and his semi-faggy sword play was brilliant. The villian was better skilled and deserved to win that match. It took steaming rage and hate (are those the right words) to prevail and win an impossible fight.