Hey Phil -- yours was the first public response after receiving five private replies to my post about "lurkers" and my sense of MoPo members being "old" or "young." Rather than re-invent the wheel, here is the gist of my private replies; the composite below was aimed at a MoPo'er who's about my age:
"We're likely in the same age bracket, having grown up in the 60s and 70s -- and my watching every Oscars on TV since 1964 and finding out about older films later in life and then collecting that. The gist of people who write me privately is they feel intimidated by either "not knowing" about stuff they feel they should know -- or feeling intimidated by the personalities at MoPo pounding each other with confidence -- and that usually only comes after you've logged a lot of films in your brain or have set views for which you're unafraid to share. For example, ironically, I think it one of the NON-LURKERs -- who actually made a public crack (to which I did not respond) about my telling people that Kim Novak dies at the end of "Vertigo" -- hence giving the ending away to people who haven't seen it, which may not have been wise on my part. "I do notice a big difference between the type of posts at MoPo vs. those at "real" blogs -- whereby the audience is skewed younger and they talk about film stuff that interests them, usually going no further back than the 1980s... It's hard to force feed stuff we like onto others less informed. And the younger ones tend to look at us as being irrelevant to them -- when we can't name even one of their favorite films made since 1998. They're truly baffled by less-commercial films that win Oscars or films showing on the art-house circuit. "The one thing that really turns me off though -- is when someone rejects seeing a film because it's in black and white, making the errroneous assumption that because a film is antiquated and dull looking, then the dialogue must also be obsolete or stilted by virtue of its age, then vs. now. "Now Voyager" is a good example. I love its soapiness. It's great Bette Davis. But I easily understand why younger people roll their eyes at it because the plot turns on the notion of love unrequited -- because divorce as a solution isn't discussed. It's unthinkable and one of the main reasons why it couldn't be remade today. Oh well..." As to your question, 'why would discussing films be off topic?' -- that's an old one. Some people just hate reading long posts (esp. my own) -- and more so when posters aren't hard-wired into the equation. It's been suggested several times over the years -- that because this is a movie poster discussion board, things like my reviews/comments about films or awards, etc. -- aren't universally appreciated. I usually don't care because some people reflexively hit the delete button when my name pops up anyway. To me, films are inextricably linked to posters. But to be fair, I don't regard MoPo as a film review forum -- with people arguing about movies in a way disproportionate to MoPo's fluid guidelines. Hence I try to stay true to the spirit of MoPo by choosing non-poster topics carefully -- because I know reviews and related comments about films can be found elsewhere on the Net, especially at movie blog sites. -d. Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:05:37 +1000From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Scott - MoPoTo: [email protected] Just a small point, as David makes some good ones here.... what I don't understand is how is talking about a movie " off topic". If there wasn't a movie, there would not be a movie poster for it. Interestingly, I was talking about this subject with a fellow dinosaur and one-time business partner Greg Edwards (no relation that we know, he being from Manchester or some godforsaken midlands town and me being from Wollongong, a godforsaken NSW south coast mining town) and te subject of how " collectors have changed". The one thing us two old farts (and his farts are older than mine by a year or two) is that there seems in the last 10-15 years a new breed of collector of movie posters - that is people who are not remotely interested in films (except for this week's multiplex CGI eye-candy, perhaps)... and we wondered in that collective wondering way that dinosaurs though separated by thousands of miles of ocean can do.... why do people collect movie posters if they are not actually that interested in films. Ipso facto (or in this case dipso facto).... whay is talking about MOVIES on a MOVIE POSTER GROUP considered OFF TOPIC. Phil (today, sovber as a judge) On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:50:45 -0700, David Kusumoto wrote > Scott: > > I'm not alone when I say again that I've received private e-mails over the years from MoPoers who say they'll remain "lurkers" -- in some cases -- "forever." They usually fall into 2 categories -- 1) they don't feel they've anything to contribute; they're satisified others will cover issues that interest them most; 2) they fear getting pounded in public or private from people who disagree with their views, stirring up trouble they don't want. > > Other broad observations: some "lurkers" tell me they see layers of "camps" for every issue, and it's the same people writing to MoPo, not a lot of new names. When I encourage them to "get out there and contribute" -- they say they get the impression that most of the group is made up of older people who don't want to talk about newer things. For ex., when I go off-topic to, let say, talk about a new film, that's when some "lurkers" will write privately. Yet I know several veteran MoPoers who have say, no offense, I have zero interest in your reviews and what not; that's fine and I rarely hear from them again on any level. The impression that there are "too many old people on MoPo" comes from the discussion of posters to films made when were in cribs or before they were born. A few admit they haven't seen some of the "classic films" that have been discussed, like "Vertigo," for example, and feel kind of left out. So they stay quiet unless we invite them to comment. > > -d. > > > Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:14:17 -0400 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: > Re: bad pic, NO PURCHASE > To: [email protected] > > > >-----Original Message----- > > From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Franc > > > > No, I think it would be better for Michael to > e-mail the seller personally rather than broadcasting it all over this board. > FRANC > > > I disagree with Franc. > > Michael said he *did* contact > the seller who refuses to send any additional images. I have no problem with > mentioning an eBay seller's user ID on MoPo. In fact, I appreciate hearing > about such situations myself. We're a relatively small group here (less than > 400) and our individual experiences with sellers can provide valuable > information useful to all. A seller who is less-than-generous with images or > condition information can not expect an endorsement on MoPo. I'm sure WELN's > eBay world won't come to an end because of a little bad press on MoPo. But > such information certainly helps me when making a purchase decision on eBay. > > > I'm also bothered by Michael's later e-mail where he states his reason > for not initially identifying the image-challenged eBay'er was because he was > previously "blasted" on MoPo for being "too friendly" about poster-guru Bruce > H. I've heard this before about posting on MoPo --there is a fear that > stating an opinion will generate an unpleasant response. Wow. That's a > problem!!! Everyone should feel totally free to express their point of view > without fear of taking an electronic beating by other list members. Do > others feel as Michael does? Perhaps my ultra thick skin from running MoPo > all these years makes me totally impervious to such feedback. > > Scott > > MoPo List Owner > > -----Original Message----- > From: MoPo List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Claude Litton > Sent: Friday, June 27, > 2008 12:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MOPO] bad > pic, NO PURCHASE > > > Michael > > I cannot understand why you would make > an interesting post which clearly makes sense to pursue and then stop short > by stating you will not name the seller. I recently named ricksmovies > because they were posting 80's and 70's movie posters in the US Originals > 1940's category. I not only did not start a war but I got an email from them > telling me they corrected their listings and lo and behold, they no longer > are doing this. > > Why not name the seller and explain the problem. In > lieu of a war, you are doing the seller a favor. The seller may not know it, > but many people might not be bidding on his posters for the same reason. > > > Claude Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
