3 ms·
Exactly. The good finds on the boards are worth the bad contributions - which could be managed with a bit of effort and changing the format. The value of attac
by exodust 10y ago
Exactly. The good finds on the boards are worth the bad contributions - which could be managed with a bit of effort and changing the format.
The value of attaching discussion to a movie database is unmatched by any alternative.
Take for example the old obscure film Stalker (1979). We see discussions 4 pages long about the meaning of the dog in the film. Or this one, "Other 'visually beautiful' films?", and people respond with suggestions. This information will be lost, and the opportunity to create similar threads in a sensible place in context with the movie, also lost.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/board/thread/138657635 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/board/thread/138657635?
- pvg 10y ago'Stalker' is not an 'old obscure film' and reams have been written about it. For instance, a recent book - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/books/review/geoff-dyers-zona-examines-the-film-stalker.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/books/review/geoff-dyers-z...
- exodust 10y agoThe point I was making is that non-mainstream films released a long time ago still have active quality ongoing discussion on IMDB. I didn't invest a lot time choosing an example film. You're not happy with my choice in Stalker, then replace it with whatever you like that happens to have good discussion on the boards. Perhaps "Celine and Julie go Boating (1974)" would qualify as obscure... Is anything considered obscure anymore? Before the internet if you wanted to watch Salo (Pasolini), you'd be out of luck unless some film festival was showing it. Now you can just grab the torrent and head to IMDB to join the discussion.
- dagenleg 10y agoOld and obscure? That's Tarkovsky, man.