HarmlessAndroid
Posts 28
|
6/18/2006 8:34 PM
posted awhile ago
Who put Munich in Holywood Lacklusters?!?
What the hell, that movie is not lackluster. Underappreciated definately, but NOT lackluster.
|
|
|
paul
Posts 247
|
6/21/2006 11:41 AM
posted awhile ago
Re: Who put Munich in Holywood Lacklusters?!?
Guilty. And here's why, it definitely qualifies as lackluster (notice it's not in the Worst Movies Ever list). Munich is completely set up to be one thing that it doesn't deliver on. The whole framing of this film is a real trek through moral ambiguity: God and country versus friends and family, saving the world while losing one's soul. This was a chance to really explore some swampy areas of the human heart. Instead Spielberg fell back on what he knows. Munich turned into an action flick with ham-fisted jabs at profundity. All I need to mention is the sex scene. What an unintelligent way to show how the terrorist attack in Munich has broken intimacy between the protagonist and his wife. Is it worth watching? Probably. Like all Spielberg films, it's technically a marvel. But any film that begins with such great material then treats it so poorly is, to me, pure lackluster.
|
|
|
davisfreeberg
Posts 112
|
6/22/2006 6:26 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Who put Munich in Holywood Lacklusters?!?
Wow the first sign of controversy in our group. This is great, but I'm not sure how to respond. I haven't seen Munich, but I almost want to just so I can weigh in with my opinion. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it's a good policy for me to start reviewing films that have been added to this group. Part of the appeal is to know which movies are bad. I may end up wasting way too much time on lousy films instead of focusing on films that might be truly revolutionary if I start checking out bad films. I think I may just keep an eye on Munich and see if more Spout members step up to defend it or tear it down, so whatever you guys say about the film will have a lot of weight as to whether or not it ends up in my Netflix queue.
I do think though that this issue raises an issue where Spout.com might be lacking a bit. One thing I love about flickr is all of the games that they play. Whether it's the Delete Me Uncensored Group where they vote out photos of the group or the guess where this is in SF, I've had a lot more fun playing games then I have talking photos. One interesting tool to see them to develop would be either their own community based games that they could create or possibly the tools necessary for members to create and run games on the site. I'm not really sure how much work this would be or even what types of tools you could build to encourage community games, but at the very least implementing survey tools and the ability for Admins to move films from one group lists to another would be a good start. In our example we could open up Munich to a poll and have it automatically go into the Not-So Hollywood Lackluster list if X% of our members vote positively for the film. It's probably not the most important tool to include in Spout, but the more I use the service the more I try and think about ways that we can improve the community.
Speaking of improving the community, does anyone know if there is a way that we can have multiple admins on a group. As much as I try to stay active and approve group requests, there are times where I may not log into Spout.com right away and I hate making members wait to get into our group. I would even be open to an open group concept where anyone can join without approval. We could always go back and include the approval feature if this gets abused, but in general I think that I'm pretty open to having anyone cool enough to be using Spout as a member of our sub-community within the site.
|
|
|
paul
Posts 247
|
6/23/2006 2:25 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Who put Munich in Holywood Lacklusters?!?
On promoting members to group owners, go to your group page. Click "View All" on the box displaying your members. Then click "promote" on any member you want to administrate your group with you.
It's funny you mention making groups open to anyone. We were just having that conversation at Spout. It originally seemed easier to us to start out approving people into a group, rather than having to go through the uncomfortable step of removing people who aren't wanted. What do you think?
|
|
|
davisfreeberg
Posts 112
|
6/24/2006 3:43 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Who put Munich in Holywood Lacklusters?!?
Nice trick on promoting members, this will be helpful in making sure the group stays open and available. I think that the creator of the group should be given the option to allow anyone to sign up or to require approval. I can think of some groups where I might want to filter out some of the noise or restrict it to a private atmosphere, but certainly for the mainhubs you want everyone to feel welcomed. If someone's behavior really got that bad you could always ban them from the group, but the more open the system is, the greater inducement it will be for people to join and take part. You could always change the system later if abuse got so bad, but given the community exchanges that I've seen, I don't think we'll need to worry about kicking anyone out for at least a while.
|
|
|
lwhite8
Posts 9
|
8/22/2007 6:36 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Who put Munich in Holywood Lacklusters?!?
I agree. I thought it was a great film.
|
|
|