Film Fanatics - Chat Thread II

I don't see that happening much. This society would get hardly any join requests if I did not have the link explicitly in the OP. It currently gets 7 or 8 a week compared to other groups which get 4 or 5 a month, in my experience. This is only because there are people who want to join by seeing the chat thread on top of the film forum but are not so interested in actually posting.

Most of these threads are coming from people who can't be bothered looking for an existing thread and just want a quick answer. If someone was taking time to look at associated threads, they would spot the Recommendations thread with over 1000 posts? If you did have this thread, the problem would remain. You'd still get a thread the next day or after 'Recommend me an action film'.

In my opinion.

EDIT: Recommendations thread isn't even associated. But I still stand by my point.

Social groups are often used more than you or I think, though. There're plenty of social groups where there are scores of members who've never posted in the thread and join the group, and people who find the thread through the social group (I suppose they must search the social groups for their interests). Linking it to the society may bring it to the attention of those who wouldn't trawl the film forum.

Perhaps the only real way to dam the flow of threads asking for quick recommendations is to put up a separate sticky telling users to use the existing Recommendations thread, and locking new threads that spring up.

Although it would lead to activity massively increasing in the Recommendations thread, is hardly bursting at the seams as it is, and it leaves the forum less cluttered with pointless threads, causing people to miss interesting discussions/threads on films.

In terms of the join requests, I suppose it depends on the society. I'd much rather build up an active thread with a core of members, where a trickle of new users join, as has happened with this thread and others and then have the society built around that. Although that's sort-of what's been done with the Film Fanatics, the integration of the two societies (although definitely the right move) has, in reality, left us with an enormous member list and a fraction of that actually posting. Those that do post do so regularly and well, as evidenced by this thread. The problem is just often transferring group members to posts in the chat, and I agree with you on this.

It also depends on the emphasis of the society. Some are all about the chatting, not so much about joining the society. This is somewhere in the middle. If it becomes too focused on the social group, activity levels die and there's a lot of members who just want it on their profile for the icon/badge in their 'groups' section.

Yeah: I think it should be linked to the social group, at least.

I'm still not convinced people would use it that much. If they're looking for a film-related society, surely they'd be interested enough to come and have a look at the chat thread or the film sub-forum. In which case they'd probably use a pre-existing thread (or create another one ).

Ah, but Phalanges already did that with his 'Welcome to Film' sticky. He says people should stop posting these generic threads and should use the Recommendations thread instead. As you can see, it still goes relatively ignored.

All these threads already get merged with the Recommendations sticky anyway. 80% of the posts in the sticky are merged posts from the past few weeks by Phalanges and Illusionary. But they are extremely irritating to see, I agree, generic threads asking for recommendations where 40 people will randomly name and re-name the same films by listing the titles. Repeat and rinse.

Yeah, it was a bit of a dead-weight addition since a lot of members have left TSR to go onto bigger and better things, although the Fanatics society on its own has doubled/tripled the member base compared to what the Review thread ever had in years of members joining.

Conclusion: We are all awesome. Though, not a massive influx of new members posting.

Conclusion: It's that Facebook - like a page habit that a lot of people have?

That's why I try and make an active effort to quote all the people that join and welcome them. We occasionally get the odd member who will actually post after that.

Yeah, I've seen a few inactive societies which are made for the sake of really that Facebook page purpose rather than a medium for active and on-going discussion.

Is true Grit any good?

Merged posts surely mean that it's a repetition of the same requests and recommendations, over and over, though?

It's just a pointless exercise in banality: "REcommEnd me a film... wanna watch a film, any1 gt any gd1s?" met with "Hey, have you seen Inception? Inception's really good" and "Avatar". Sometimes, someone will think to actually ask "that depends; what sort of film are you in the mood for", which usually elicits the ever-helpful "lol dno, anyfin really, just not action/violent".

Is true Grit any good?

Is true Grit any good?

So much for Will Smith: Quentin Tarantino has settled on the man he wants to star in Django Unchained and it’s not the Fresh Prince. Nope, now Jamie Foxx is in negotiations for the lead.

Yes, despite spending weeks trying to lure Smith to star in his tale of a freed slave who goes up against a sadistic plantation owner to rescue his long-lost love, only for the actor to pass on snatching the role, the writer/director has been looking down the list of other possible candidates. And while Idris Elba, Terrence Howard and Chris Tucker all took meetings, it seems that Foxx, who has been mentioned before alongside the others, is the man.

Leonardo DiCaprio is already attached to play the villainous Calvin Candie, while Inglourious Basterds’ Christoph Waltz had the role of Django’s friend and mentor, a German bounty hunter named Dr Schultz, written for him. Fellow QT regular Samuel L Jackson will be Candie’s right-hand man, Stephen.

Tarantino hasn’t yet found the actress he wants to play Broomhilda, the love of Django’s life, though Kerry Washington is one of the names under consideration for that part.

And while Variety can claim credit for digging up some of the additional info, the real kudos for breaking the news about QT’s latest choice must go to top podcast interviewer Jeff Goldsmith, who tweeted word on Tuesday afternoon.

Not hyped for it (curious though) but I've set myself up for disappointment. It's looking inevitable that it's some MMORPG or social networking site as opposed to The Scottish Book.

I found it to be brilliantly done but unfortunately lacking in any depth of plot :/


Also - Jamie Foxx Unchained anyone?

Also in the mood for a Di Caprio binge like zjs went on a few weeks ago.

Do it, tbh.

Having watched Fight Club, Se7en, Babel, Shutter Island, Inglorious Basterds and Mr & Mrs Smith fairly recently, I'm on a bit of a Brad Pitt marathon.

Anybody going to see Transformers 3 as purely mindless entertainment?



Missed Titanic, not in the mood. Watched Blood Diamond, an underrated and rarely mentioned film - really good. Next up, Catch Me If You Can.

Anybody going to see Transformers 3 as purely mindless entertainment?

Missed Titanic, not in the mood. Watched Blood Diamond, an underrated and rarely mentioned film - really good. Next up, Catch Me If You Can.

No, as the films thus far have been so tired and cliche-ridden that they weren't even entertaining.

Who cares about a story lol. I want explosions and gun/car porn.