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: rec.arts.cinema (was: rec.arts.movies subgroups)
Message-ID: <50361@bbn.COM>
Date: 3 Jan 90 19:55:36 GMT
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Lines: 22


In article <1990Jan3.175530.26100@aqdata.uucp> sullivan@aqdata.uucp
(Michael T. Sullivan) writes:
>[genre subgroups]
>That sorta was my point, actually.  I meant that the "classic(al)" idea
>was even worse than the genre idea, which is about the closest thing
>to clearly defined as your going to get.


This is all a bit beside the point. Nobody ever wanted genre groups,
and the classical idea was dropped in favor of a general-purpose,
serious discussion group. "Classical" is *quite* well-defined, rather
more so than genres, but the important point is that this thread is
now tangential. The proposal on the table is

   rec.arts.cinema

as described in a previous posting. I hope that there will be some
discussion of genre in the new group, as well as some discussion of
the "classical" model of film-making. Both of these are certainly
serious topics, and it seems clear that each could use some further
exposition.