Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: preliminary call for disussion: rec.arts.movies subgroups Message-ID: <50059@bbn.COM> Date: 22 Dec 89 19:16:14 GMT References: <49987@bbn.COM> <2990@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> Sender: news@bbn.COM Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 31 In article <2990@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes: >In article <49987@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro writes: >> I just want to have a usable forum for talking about cinema in a more >> serious and more historical way than is possible on r.a.m. Any such >> forum is better than none at all. > >I feel obliged to point out that there is already one subgroup, >rec.arts.movies.reviews, which is moderated and attempts to extract useful >articles, not just of film reviews, but also film festival descriptions, book >reviews, observations on the state of cinema, etc. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything negative about r.a.m.reviews. It is a useful subgroup, but as can be seen from the descriptions, it's somewhat different from what I had in mind for the new subgroup. Are you suggesting that it would be an appropriate forum for a more historical and substantive view of movies and movie-making (vis-a-vis r.a.m)? That's a possibility I hadn't considered. >It's true that discussion >is redirected to r.a.m., but a substantial response to an article in r.a.m.r. >would probably also get reposted to r.a.m.r. This sounds like a problem. Discussions of the kind I have in mind are simply impossible to carry out in effectively r.a.m (yes, I've tried, repeatedly). If redirection is the typical policy, it couldn't work in this case. rs