Be Excellent To Each Other

I don't have time to read these gargantuan metathreads. I just dip in and duck out.

What's wrong with a thread per film?

Because often a comment about a film doesn't warrant a new thread.

Like your face.

Typically "I saw X FILM from six years ago, it was really good" wouldn't warrant a new thread, I'd have thought. A new film that lots of people are going to go and see probably would.

If I find a super cool awesome film that I want people to see, I'll make a new thread.

If I want to comment on something vague about a movie everyone has already seen then here's the place to do it.

But I'm trying to talk sense into Myp. I'd be better off teaching Onóra quantum mechanics.

That would be easiest at this stage of her life. The concept of numbers is possibly still quite an abstract one to her, so breaking the mind's cycle to deal with both particulate and waveform behaviours of energy and matter.

Unless it has a thread already, but no-one bothers to check. And it probably won't have a thread already, because 99% of all movie discussion goes on here, meaning if you see the movie six months after everyone else then it's a right chore to find out what people have said about it.

I wouldn't bother - you'd be better off trying to teach brain surgery to Sam.

I agree with Grim... and myps. I'd rather have (more or less) one thread per film. I'm not keen on the Cars and Photography mega threads either. The argument against sub forums was that they get lower traffic because people don't check them -- but people are equally, or more, put off by the chaotic mega threads.

That would be easiest at his stage of life. The concept of lasers is possibly still quite an abstract one to him.

I wouldn't bother. It's like trying to teach Curiosity some common sense OH WAIT

The cars one isn't as bad, because it's mostly about general stuff (about cars).

It can still be a bloody chore to search, though.

I don't get this. How difficult is it to type "Rubber film" into the search box? OK, you'd be replying to a discussion people may have forgotten, but if you quote the relevant bit it'll all make sense

I use the search to find things like that though, easy enough.

OK, kalmar -- find all the posts mentioning Up in this thread, then read them in order as a cohesive conversation. I'll wait.

Also, try searching for 'F1'. It ignores it because the word is too short. I couldn't find the thread for the Codemasters game for love nor money.

Pfft, like any of us would watch 'Up'.

Sure, and you'd have to use the search to find the topic, too. But if you search for, say, Paranormal Activity, you get posts in this thread running from late 2009 to November this year, which doesn't exactly make for easy reading.

Umm.. No

To be fair, 99.9% of films don't have stupid titles that are a two-letter adverb.

As a counterpoint, there's no way I'm searching this forum for 'rubber film' while there's a Zardoz on the loose.

Up is a bad example, due to the title though.

Great Russ Meyer film though.

Too manly for you?

Feel free to go for Paranormal Activity, then. Or "any other film", really.

Seems to work quite well, frankly.

Maybe I'm searching wrong, then

What's easier to follow, though, this or this?

Your point is valid, but it does just quite clearly demonstrate that even if you do have a single thread about a film, there will be large amounts of discussion about that film in other threads anyway - so there is little value to that one original thread (apart from the fact that in this instance it was a marvellous if wrongheaded nervouspete review).

Did I also ever mention I hate Bits and Bobs and the Yay and Nay threads?

Yeah, but I hate you.

You are such a massive cockend.

Despite appearances, I'm not that bothered - certainly not enough to try and push for "YOU MUST DO IT LIKE THIS!" ruling. It comes down to etiquette in the end (and I'm not saying that it comes down to "good" and "bad" etiquette, just "different").

You've really got a twig up your arse today.

Is this the thread we are using to talk about whether we should be making more threads this time round?
I was confused, because it wasn't a new thread.

If the mods ever bothered to do any work, there would be hundreds of new threads every week!

Clearly your time as a moderator served as inspiration.

I was the unsung hero of the team.

I tried to do this the other day (after I watched it) actually, and yes it was a pain

I agree with those saying 1 thread per film, then unpopular films will only a couple of posts, so what?

Malc

We've had this conversation dozens of times. There will never be a rule on it, so it's entirely up to the person posting whether their post goes in a megathread or a new thread.

Just change one existing rule: Be Threadcellent to Each Other. Saves all sorts of handwringing.

Unless the Shadowy Beex Clique Cabal bullies the dissenters off the forum. As has happened before, natch.

Well, quite. It's up to the people who'd rather have things in a thread to create said thread.

Then it's up to the moderators to keep things organised

The mods could split out stuff from the megathreads if they have, say, more than a page of replies concerning one particular topic.

Or we could have a group of "Beex Wombles" who have the power to move posts?

Or we could just "not care" and simply whine about it every four months or so

As a FEARSOME MOD and a tragically lazy person, I agree with Grim...

It's ok, I'll 'enforce' it myself by PMing the mod group every time a thread needs splitting.

Edit: actually, fuck that - it would involve reading those stupid long threads. I had enough of doing that when I was in the mod team.

Would it make you happy if I split this talk about threads out into a threadsplitting thread for you myp?

I declare this thread openover.