When you binge on a specific director...

I mean, yeah, of course you’d be the only one to know what an exchange is, discounting the other party’s view (as ever)… how cute & familiar.

Loving the pattern here.

(Yeah, yeah, don’t butt into other people’s conversations, point taken in advance).

You treated me like the plague with your "I'm just done" attitude. You left because you just didn't want to listen. This strong indication is based in what appears to be your belief that it's impossible to think or process movies in a manner other than your own, or at least your own and very similar manners. That, in turn, is deciding without knowing me that my brain is only allowed to act in specific ways, as if a stranger on the internet can actually decide that for me. What I have a problem with was the tone of disgust you showed me.

Which is really very common around here. Honestly, you snobbish darlings, get over yourselves a bit.

I'm just going to skip the rest then.

I left because I felt it's pointless to discuss a film whose main strength lies in its atmosphere. Especially when my interlocutor is not even allowing this atmosphere to fully permeate his mind because he pauses the movie several times. And I left because I was disappointed with your movie-watching culture.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

These drama posts sure do get a lot of likes.


The most substantive post in the thread that's actually about the films of Jesus Franco was by Rock, and I think I was the only one who repped it. Maybe we should consider what we're encouraging here.

Fair, but it seems to me graciousness tends to get quite a few likes, too.

For drama, I think that's more about how read and trafficked the posts are.

I feel that cinema should be like a box of surprises, like a magic box. And in that world, anything is allowed to enter, as long as it's always treated with a spirit of "Pop!". Not in the spirit of "Now you understand the problems of society in 1947". No, I don't give a **** about that. - Jesús Franco

Oh, dear, indeed we should. Don’t like being criticised, do we?

I didn’t expect you to read anything I wrote in the first place, but you’re not necessarily the intended audience…

Culture? You think I do this every time? I was being polite by replying to you as quickly as I could, but apparently that's problematic. And if there's one thing I can do with any movie, it's hold onto the atmosphere, even when I'm taking a short break.

I've said this exact same thing before.

What Jinnistan (I’m doing third person on purpose, especially as this won’t be read anyway) doesn’t seem (or like) to acknowledge is that they can’t shut down any argument or discussion by branding the opponent unreasonable, a “child” or whatever else they might deem insulting. The show can go on without you, hey…

No, no, to a different person. Maybe even on a different website, but the sentence is almost word for word. It's just... weird.

Heh. Oh well, that happens.

I was referring to the Keyser/Minio deal. Say, how do you feel about Jesus Franco, since you lost a shoe running in here this morning?


You probably think your passive-aggressiveness is 3D chess, but it's really more like Go Fish.

I think everyone really should take a step back here and consider how they respond and how their posts come off, whether that’s the intent or not. There’s a lot of “intellectuals” who sometimes feel the need to use said intellectualism as some sort of blunt instrument to beat people over the head with. There’s a hint of arrogance attached to it, often.
This happens, especially, when a conversation doesn’t go the way they expect it to. Or they don’t like the answer they get.

On the other side of the coin, we have some people who are unable to express fully their meaning, and intent.*

This, mixed with all of the above, leads to a misunderstandings that spiral because each person involved decide to take defensive swipes that lead to sarcastic barbs that just escalated things.

And then we have some that feel like stirring the pot for the sake of stirring the pot. And sometimes old grudges come into play. I’ll let you guys decide on who is playing which part.

The point is, a lot of the above could have been avoided had we each taking some time to actually measure our responses instead of resorting to the usual condescending and curt responses, and that was on both sides, mind you.

Just doing my part to spread the love for cute hats.

Some people appreciate my sense of humor. When it became clear that Keyser and I do not share that sense of humor, I apologized, because I wasn't intending offense.


I was under the impression that AX and I had agreed to not interact with each other, in multiple past threads. I'd rather not have someone taking advantage of drama to insert herself in threads simply to insult me. But I'm a big boy, and she gon' do what do. It's a different situation there.

^Agreeing with Wyldesyde.


Let's get this down now: No one here is a legal authority on how cinema is to be handled. It doesn't matter if your a college professor, there are college professors who will disagree with you, and your authority does not come into play outside your jurisdiction (i.e. Movieforums). For all you know, another professor from MIT or the Ivy League could be here. It doesn't matter if you write for a newspaper or magazine. I'm certain more important critics have disagreed with you. In fact, it doesn't even matter if you've been here longer than another user. By that logic, you should agree with Yoda on literally every tiny thing he says since he's the founder, and I know no one here has done that yet.

There is no unwritten law that you have some authority to make a nasty quip because of a movie disagreement. However, there is a written reminder of rights called freedom of speech, which means if you, the unwritten "authority" have the right to do something, so do we innthe event that you are not the other party's written authority. When authority does come into play, that's jurisdiction-based, which means the mods here have the only right to stop certain comments.

On the subject of moral debate (which I am invested in with another individual), making little insinuations cleverly disguised as polite comments doesn't work on anyone who's smart enough to recognize that you are insulting them and pretending you're not. It only allows you to be a target for another lash. It's an adult's reworking of a child going, "but I didn't do anything." Personally, I am very against the idea. If you're gonna insult me, at least be honest about it instead of acting like the lesser of two evils is good behavior based on the notion that if it's a little better than it's good.

Right, i should preface this by saying I’m not trying to attack you personally, so if that’s the impression you got, I apologize. Looking back at my post, it could have been worded better.*

it feels like using “that’s just my humor” is a bit of an excuse. It’s kind of like making an insulting jokes to someone and then saying “it was just a joke!”
You did apologize, however, so there is that.

AX was specifically who I was referencing with “stirring the pot” and “old grudges”. So please don’t feel like you were the only being called out.

Not at all. I think you're trying to cool things down, and I agree.


I don't think that joking about naps are insulting, per se. That was meant to cool the all-caps portion of the thread, like let's settle down here. All in all, I was genuinely trying to engage KC into discussing these films in a little more depth. I misread the temperament.



This is a simpler issue. I will admit that I don't really care for Agripp, and the feeling seems mutual, and I thought it was clear from past brush-ups that it was best to avoid each other. There's plenty of forum for the two of us. I'm happy to maintain the separation.