| Author |
 Topic  |
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
 Posted - 12/29/2013 : 21:53:09
|
Please have a look at the current round of FYC (#986) for a discussion about the rapid decline in contributors for our longest running game, and the only one that is part of the fabric of the whole site's purpose. We are hoping to prevent the untimely death of FYC and all thoughts and comments from both regular and occasional users would be very welcomed. This website means a lot to me after many many years of use, and it's painful to see the fourum dwindling away. If you care as well, please share your thoughts.
Are you still writing reviews for the site? If not, was there anything that made you stop?
Do you use the fourum, but not FYC?
What puts you off from entering the FYC rounds if you still write reviews or regularly use the fourum?
If you want to contribute but currently can't or choose not to, what would make entering the FYC easier or more appealing for you? |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/31/2013 : 02:51:51
|
Read FYCTH #986 for more comments.
I don't review any more (OK, once in a blue moon one pops into my head). Reasons? I stopped enjoying it when I found I was a) forcing them, and b) when I found that the reviews I (and others) were writing were often very similar to other reviews on the site. This was quite some years ago. I concluded then that there's only so much you can do with four words; the glory days where newly submitted reviews made me think "Wow, awesome, how clever!" (the kind of reviews found in the Top 500) are long gone in my view (that was probably 2003-2007 or thereabouts)
I think of fwfr's reviews as a job that's largely been done. The reviews are there for as long as benj keeps paying the hosting bills (that's great for the billions who've yet to discover the site  ) but I think the days of steady submissions of quality content are well behind us. Does anyone think that ten years from now there could still be plenty of good/clever/original reviews being submitted? I think not.
The fourum has been going quiet for quite some time as we all know. FWPT died a few months ago (regular players slowly departed over the years and no new ones arrived). That may be the fate destined for FYCTH, and of course FWTO and the Avatar comp.
However, if there are newbs writing reviews who've never popped into the fourum, perhaps someone could invite them to FYCTH?
No way is FYCTH gonna die before #1000 though, that would be wronger than wrong!  I may pop in now and again to lift the numbers until we get to #1000, but I'm not sure there's much point for my reviews, I'm pretty sure all the regulars here have seen them. That won't stop me sprinkling votes around though (in fact, I may simply lurk every round until #1000).
BTW, I use fwfr these days for:-
- FWTO and Avatar comps
- Occasionally reading/writing movie comments in the Films section
- Scoring every movie I watch and sprinkling votes on reviews (I often don't go beyond the first couple of pages though)
- Occasional use of Accolades for movie watching (e.g., if someone has an Accolade consisting of TimeOut's 'Top 50 War Movies' then I can quickly work out what movies I'll need to complete my watching of that list)
So, even if people stopped writing fwfrs altogether then the site still has a function.
|
 |
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 12/31/2013 : 06:10:50
|
Since we are expressing opinions on the site and its prognosis for the future, I'd like to chime in. Sean is right: the freshness of a piece of an apple is finite.
Back when it was a monumental task to have posted 2000 reviews, there was much new territory to mine. The problem is that there are only so many classic films, or largely admired films, though there are way too numerous films that appeal to only a limited audience. When noncentz wrote "Fin." for Jaws III, it was genius, even though Jaws III was no blockbuster: it was premised on a blockbuster, and we all got the reference. But there are only so many observations to be made about such films.
Who appreciates the subtle beauty of a review for [pick any small-market film]? If you haven't seen it or heard about it, the art (when present) is lost. The prominent films have been mined nearly dry. And recent years have seen the steady and now all-too-common "Description of a scene" review, which is nothing creative at all.
Sometimes a good one gets in. But so much dreck passes as a review; and, again, there are only so many ways to review "Patton" or "A Clockwork Orange," or "Star Wars;" and only so many ways to make a pun out of the Fonda family name. The glory days are behind us; but what a time it was. We published a book!
I, too, haunt the site for the Avatar Contest, the days of which are numbered, and an occasional fourum observation. I stopped ranting long ago. Barring some internal overhaul -- like streaming all of the porn films for free (there's a sure-fire ratings booster) -- it is likely that we are party to the cycle of growing old. Who knew that FWFR's age would be measured in canine years?
Let's enjoy it as long as we can. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/31/2013 : 06:48:34
|
Thanks for your thoughts gentlemen, much appreciated, though not cheery reading. You are basically underlining my own thoughts, something to do with the law of entropy. It comes to all things.
Oddly enough I partly disagree with the reason for the withering. I think it is entirely possible to continue to mint good, if not great, reviews because the complexities and wonders of the English language are practically infinite, and there is a steady and increasing stream of new films, some future classics, every week, month and year. One example off the top of my head: a review like "Icy Dead People" couldn't have existed before "The Sixth Sense" coined the catchphrase to riff on. That will happen again in time to come, a lot. "The Great S Cape" and "This is Spaniel Tap" are simply riffing on other film titles. That isn't hard to conceive of. Is it really true that all the great reviews have been written, or has the individual and collective craving to find it or effort to make it dwindled? The problem now is that so few people read the reviews that are being written, or care to vote on them, that they will remain, by comparison, anonymous.
I personally attempt to review every film I watch, and I take enough care to always make it a word play of some kind - I don't think I have a single straight "plot description" in my whole 3300-odd output, although there may be some overlap as I forget some of my reviews along the way. Here's an idea - one that hasn't appeared on the site before, and for a classic movie... can I offer my review for "Hell in the Pacific", approved this month?
I also don't believe the Top 500 is anything like the zenith of the creative work of the FWFR community - they happened to be the best reviews that hit that golden time when votes were applied liberally and healthily. Once they were established (and prominently displayed) they generated their own heat and remained unassailable. Most of the top 10, excluding your fine offering MGuyX naturally, if we are honest are actually pretty standard reviews. "Pretty Shitty Gang Bang" for "Eyes Wide Shut" is nice but no classic work of word play, but has nigh on 200 votes, and is the fifth "best" review on the site. We can't still do better? I beg to differ.
A common offered solution is to encourage new reviews to write and also to get involved with the fourum. Big question is how when even the long time users are rather despondent and dispirited.... |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 12/31/2013 : 08:28:39
|
How the Kramer v. Kramer review got to no. 1 I will never really understand (though I'm not campaigning against it!). It is not my best review by far. But that was the nature of the voting system, as you accurately described. There's some great stuff in the top 500, but there's some great stuff under 500 as well.
I agree that the possibilities are endless. But the probabilities don't look so agreeable. I sure hope I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 12/31/2013 : 13:07:31
|
I also think there are still many many great unwritten reviews out there due to the size of the English language and the endless output from the film industry. In some cases, all that's needed is just one notable scene (recent examples being Cameron Diaz with the car in The Counsellor, or Nicole Kidman in The Paperboy, to go for two slightly grubby examples) we've not seen before and the inspiration can come flooding in.
There is definitely a serious problem in getting anyone to notice them reviews and FYC has always been a great effort to help in this. However, we're no longer the reasonably well-ranked website on Google we once were and I don't believe fwfr alone can do new reviews justice.
I've been wondering for some time about involving Twitter or Facebook in this somehow. More thoughts to follow... |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/31/2013 : 15:35:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I've been wondering for some time about involving Twitter or Facebook in this somehow. More thoughts to follow...
Just popped in for the av vote - but wanted to support benj's consideration of an FB involvement. [puleeze not twitter, tho]
Happy New Year to you all.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/31/2013 : 21:11:17
|
Okay, sorry for the dramatic pause in my post but I had to rush off mid-post.
Anyway, my thinking is that perhaps instead of announcing FYCs here, we could have fwfr post the FYCs to Facebook upon a user opting to be in FYCTH that week. The reviews would then be vote-on-able from within FB for anyone logged into FB. Of course, I need to look into how to do this- I'm presuming it's possible given FB's general developer friendliness however.
How does that sound? Not only would it expand the reach of FYCTH but also keep the FB page fresh with new content and provide more routes back to fwfr. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/31/2013 : 22:10:52
|
| It's a good idea and I support its implementation overall, but I wouldn't participate as I have stopped using Facebook (being so tired of its ubiquity). |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/01/2014 : 01:53:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I also think there are still many many great unwritten reviews out there due to the size of the English language and the endless output from the film industry.
Yes, I think so as well, not as many as at the start but still plenty. A disadvantage that I find for my usage is that non-dubbed films in Spain and especially in San Sebasti�n are mostly more arthouse ones and/or released later. This means that I am now rarely reviewing big films at the time of release, which is when reviews get the most attention.
Conversely, though, for the majority of people Netflix, LoveFilm and other streaming/downloading should mean that they are able to see more recent films than ever before, and Facebook, Twitter &c. &c. &c. also mean that there may be more awareness of the general content of these films amongst those who haven't yet seen them. Talking of such technology, while our reduced attention span nowadays may undermine film viewing and long-term dedication to particular sites, the content here is surely perfect for it.
I also think that there are plenty of old reviews worth voting on. I recently saw The Godfather Parts I and II, having seen neither since years before first finding this site. I'd voted on some reviews, but some good ones (by less known reviewers) I'd never seen and others I presumably had but not understood at the time. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/01/2014 : 02:06:10
|
Plenty good reviews left.
See you at Sundance. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/01/2014 : 02:15:15
|
| I also meant to add that I submitted several reviews for both Godfather films that I think have at least some merit, despite their having over four hundred older ones between them. |
|
|
|
Sludge 
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 01/03/2014 : 18:27:45
|
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
...I recently saw The Godfather Parts I and II, having seen neither since years before first finding this site. I'd voted on some reviews, but some good ones (by less known reviewers) I'd never seen and others I presumably had but not understood at the time.
I was wondering who to thank for the mystery votes.  I've been paying it forward on Godfather II. I am surprised at the number of ones I voted on just based on (spoiler alert) Fredo's betrayal and (spoiler alert) demise.
(note, MERPs check for dupes of "Fredo Sleeps with Fishes" - I believe I saw one from 2003 and one from 2008) |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/02/2014 : 00:28:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
I was wondering who to thank for the mystery votes. I've been paying it forward on Godfather II.
No worries and glad to hear it. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/02/2014 : 00:32:28
|
| With F.Y.C.T.H. 1,000 coming up, it would be helpful if Benj and/or the MERPs were able to process more reviews, so that we have some to post in that round. Over the last few months, I've had tens of reviews pending all the time (and I don't submit that many). I've now gor first-pass reviews spread back over three months. |
|
|
|
Sludge
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 02/02/2014 : 13:20:35
|
I have been thinking a lot about the site redesign and whether it has something to do with activity or retention. I hope my $0.02 doesn't rub anyone the wrong way. I will try to keep it short:
I think users enjoy seeing their names, and those of their fellow reviewers in lights. As a new reviewer a couple ten years ago, it gave me something to aspire to. The home page is now all about reviews and not so much about reviewers.
Additionally, it could be worth experimenting with getting rid of the requirement to mouse over titles to read the longer ones, and have the titles fully visible. The novelty wore off after the first hundred times I had to do this. It sometimes has the effect (affect?) of having to have a joke explained to you, and also distracts from the FWFR itself as you have to re-register those words in their newly revealed context after mousing over. It adds work for the user rather than giving a "book read" experience. It's kind of like a video game, but you don't get any points.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
FYC in peril.
