Aww… I wish you could laugh at yourself, Jeff. Wrecktum’s comment was funny. If it was about me, I wouldn’t think any differently. It’s good for the soul to know how to take a poke in the ribs and roll with the joke.
Wow, this site just keeps getting better and better. Why not just ban everybody interesting and just let DZ and the spammers have full control over the comments section?
I mean, seriously, for all you care about the comments section, why not just ignore it? 95% of your comments are either “screw you, you’re banned” or “Why are you saying this? You’re hijacking my thread! I only want you to say things that are rigidly, specifically responses to what I write… Oh, no problem DZ, post whatever the fuck your brain shits out.”
There are dozens if not hundreds of ways to respond to any given post. Cheap dismissive snark is one way to respond, and it represents almost half of what people write here. I’m not a cop or a censor. I believe in all the colors of the spectrum…except for the color of cheap slanderous tenth-grade bullshit.
Wells that’s a little ridiculous. The worst thing I could think to say about a person would be that they can’t take a joke. Even you have to acknowledge the look on the face of that girl demands some light snark. Also please familiarize yourself with the definition of slander.
I’ve been here long enough to know the rules, so I’m willing to go gently into that good night. It’s been fun. Wells, you’re a great read but you take yourself way too seriously. Adios, see you on the other side!
Jeff, I believe it’s your site and you can do whatever you want. That said, I read Wrecktum’s comment as a clever little shoot-the-shit joke that tied things back into cinema. It’s miles removed from stuff like “you’re a racist old bigot”.
Grow some backbone, sir. Where I grew up, you had to be ready to take some shit You laughed at the good jokes at your expense and you had better comebacks for the shitty ones. You and the guys would mess around town all day, ripping each other new assholes. And guess what? Those guys were your friends even though they said your haircut made you look like Chewbacca.
It’s amusing how Jeff will make derisive comments about the likes of Gabby Sidibe, Phil Hoffman or random people eating at a rest stop but if someone calls him “creepy old guy” he throws down his gloves and is ready for a duel.
Okay, point taken, I need to lighten up a bit and laugh at myself. But where is the wit or the uplift or clear light in going “heh-heh, yeah, I guess I am a bit of a sleazy old raincoat guy, hah-yulk, hah-yulk.” Even though I’m fairly temperate, and not even vaguely coarse. I handle all things in a certain way, carefully, subtly. I don’t stumble through doors or break cocktail glasses or forget to zip my fly. So…you know what? Wrecktem and his bullshit generalizations can take a nice swan dive out of a tenth-floor window.
Long time reader here, who is fascinated how this site devolved from a dynamic film journalism blog with a superb commenting community into this myopic and self-obsessed campaign to prove to the world that Jeff Wells is better than everybody else. It’s like an art piece, an aging movie blogger’s slow descent into madness and irrelevance.
Go ahead and ban me, I don’t ever post anyway. I just wanted to express how interesting I’ve found the evolution.
The film journalism aspects are just fine, and if you think they’ve devolved or degraded you’re simply not reading that regularly — it’s that simple. if you can’t grasp the concept of “make it as sharp and tough as you want but keep it respectful” then that’s another perception problem on your part.
Wells, your hardline approach for dealing with unruly commentators is negatively impacting the quality of your site. Regardless of your perceptions, the commentators you’re booting willy-nilly are some of your best assets. While this might not be something you want to hear, it’s worth emphasizing that I, as well as presumably a lot of other people, come to this site predominantly for the comments alone, and not the actual substance of your posts. Recognize that, and begin to cut some of these guys a little more slack. Otherwise, a significant number of your more devoted followers (myself, I’m from the Mr. Showbiz and Reel.com days) may go the way of the MilkMan.
I don’t think think Science Adventure was referring to your readers, the comment was referring to the site, and your voice on it.
And he/she makes a valid point – you can’t deny that the overall spirit of your posts has changed over the years.
Certainly you understand that the tone you set (often negative towards anyone and anything that disagrees with your view) has an impact on the level of discourse that follows.
That’s what I gleaned from the post, but maybe I have a perception problem as well.
Look, you can do whatever you want but I won’t tolerate little balls of cowshit being tossed in my direction. If I have to suffer the slings and arrows of denigration from commenters in order to keep you guys around then the hell with it — go with God. But you could also try learning or digesting one simple thing (and I know this is awfully tough for some of you out there): It’s called “show some basic respect.” You can fart around and say anything you want within some very liberal boundaries. I don’t need to be a hard-ass or an asshole. But without basic respect if all goes swirling down into the crapper. Your call.
To echo the sentiments of others, in my opinion the quality of the site has dropped over time. However, that shouldn’t be taken as an insult. Your work with Mr. Showbiz was some of the very best stuff on the internet, hands down. It only makes sense there would be gradual slippage. But, this doesn’t mean you can’t revert to form. Instead of asking posters to pay more attention to recent posts in order to truly appreciate how great they’re not, a better approach may be for you to trip back to 1998 and immerse yourself in your finer work. I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing the guy that authored that material make a comeback.
Those Mr. Showbiz stories were posted twice weekly and worked on and refined a lot before appearing, and were written in a traditional journalistic form. HE went bloggy-blog in April 2006, and nobody’s going back to the days of Bill Clinton, I assure you. If you can’t roll with what’s happening now, cool — look elsewhere for satisfaction. But I work my ass off like always, and I’m not into journalistic jack-offs.
I’ve also been a daily reader since your first days as a blogger/web columnist, and your work was formative to my understanding of and interaction with film and the industry. I still look to your reviews as a major indicator of what to see, and I even find most of your socio-political posts at the very least entertaining.
But I don’t think anyone would say that your production now is objectively better than even the early years of HE, in which the predominant tone was still the awed worship of a great medium and not the defensive negativity of the last two years or so. We read you because we value your voice and input about film and the people who produce it, but this concern about comments and how you’re perceived that has seeped into your everyday posts is so distracting and, to be honest, saddening that I almost never feel the joy and excitement I used to when visiting your site.
I hope you can see the futility of even caring what people say in the comments for what it is and regain in full strength the voice we all want to have as a part of our movie-going lives.
Wells to Caz3773: So you’re suggesting what? That whatever is said by commenters that I just turn the other cheek, no matter what? You’d better find yourself another columnist because that’s not gonna happen. As for the quality of the column, I work harder and dig in deeper than ever before. I know what I know and I know that, and I don’t give that much of a shit if you agree or not.
Wells to Kenny: I think you have a pretty good idea what journalistic jack-offing is, Glenn, but you’re making me explain it anyway so here goes. When you, a journalist, write something with some kind of clear idea, mood, goal, longing or purpose in mind, that’s not a journalistic jack-off. But if you’re just jizzing or whizzing around on a page like a kid pissing his name in the snow, then you’re most likely guilty of journalistic jack-offery. Howz that?
“That whatever is said by commenters that I just turn the other cheek, no matter what?”
Jeff, respectfully speaking, you’re acting as if Wrecktem called you a child molestor. What is it about what he said that you find so profoundly disrespectful? It seems like just a quick, you know, “Hey, nice shoes” type of thing. I don’t get it.
Carl – Jeff is twice the age of the girl in the picture, though. That seems like a reasonable joke based on her expression.
If that’s it, though, that’s fine, but say that. Don’t be vague. If you’re setting rules for one-strike-and-you’re-out behavior, then explain the rules.
an reopened-door amnesty on all banned posters… a big ‘welcome back’ on the condition that they reveal ALL THE SUBSEQUENT SCREEN NAMES they’ve used since getting the flick.
(of course they’re back on board under a ‘one strike’ probationary period.)
would this be super-fun or is it just me??
no-one can tell me that the quality of the talkbacks us up where it was say, five years ago.
At least a half-dozen good voices have gone, only to be replaced by a strata of new readers without, it must be said, anywhere near the same level of insight or taste.
“As for the quality of the column, I work harder and dig in deeper than ever before. I know what I know and I know that, and I don’t give that much of a shit if you agree or not.”
I actually don’t doubt for a second that you’re working harder than ever. It’s not easy coming up with 10 or so unique posts every day of the year. Hence, what used to be the occasional political tidbit, filler piece, and — perhaps the most egregious offender of late — quoted material has almost turned into HE’s raison d’etre.
I’m not saying you haven’t turned in some seriously classic material of late — in particular the stories of the emotionally vivid cowboy hat and using your neighbor’s loft to “break in,” Mission:Impossible-style, to your own locked apartment are absolutely A-level, classic Wells’ gems.
But there is validity in what some people have been saying here about your Mr. Showbiz pieces — they were just simply better-crafted pieces of serious film writing (and great centerpieces for debate, kind of a shame that there wasn’t a commenting system back then to take advantage!). I have no doubt the high quality was due to the fact that you spent longer hammering out the details, and fine-tuning the structure. But you really excelled at this format, IMHO, so it kind of saddens me to now see you work in such a conventional (at least by modern standards) format with such an abbreviated emphasis on content.
So I guess what I’m saying in a nutshell is — still love the site, obviously — but maybe consider resurrecting the longer format, if only on special occasions (i.e. once or twice a month)?
“no-one can tell me that the quality of the talkbacks us up where it was say, five years ago.”
Believe it or not, the HE talkbacks didn’t even exist five years ago. I know, I know…that didn’t seem accurate to me at first, either, but I was looking at some old archives on here a few days ago and the comment section was entirely blank. This site didn’t really go fully interactive until spring of ’06. I guess I’d take it as a compliment that it certainly seems like we’ve all been having debates on here longer than that .
Yeah, and stop surreptitiously editing comments. Do those two things and no one, wrecktem included, will every dare call your ether-and-duct-tape-hiding trenchcoat a mere “raincoat” again.
I understand the point of not wanting HE to become like the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is the IMDb message boards, but I don’t think Wrecktem meant any harm with his comment. I had the same initial reaction. Who didn’t? I mean come on, look at her face, she’s petrified.
Fuck the haters, regardless of whatever shit they spew out at you. Their opinion is of no importance, they just want to make you feel like shit because they’re sadistic. It really is amazing what people are willing to say to eachother on the internet.
You worked hard to get to where you are, and you run a damn good website. One of the very few websites I check regularly.
You know, Jeff, when you scold posters on these very boards for daring to disagree with you about, say, the relative cinematic merits of BABEL–informing them that any dissenting opinions must be backed up by a measured, reasoned argument citing ample supporting evidence for their heretic cases–and then, less than a week later, turn around to stump your own position with hilariously pithy solipsisms (“I know what I know!”) that wouldn’t be out of place in a barroom argument between two members of the Eloi Class you despise so fervently, you really do make it too easy, brother man.
And yeah, I have to agree with Chapman Carruthers when it comes to the recent cloak-and-dagger comment editing. This is your house and so, sure, you get to decide who’s a welcome guest and who’s not. But the tendency of late for comments to just disappear in the fog as though they were never there– Well, that sort of indicates a lack of what you yourself might call intestinal fortitude, yes? Delete as you please, but shouldn’t the users who populate these boards get to see where the proverbial black marker has been busy redacting the undesirables?
It’s one thing to frown upon dissent, it’s another to ask it to leave the room, but it’s something else altogether to pretend it was never there, isn’t it?
Speaking from experience, I find it pretty delicious that in all the HE comments I’ve posted wherein I’ve nefariously taken issue with this, that or the other thing, the only one (that I know of anyhow) that you’ve seen fit to wipe clean from the slate of history was one I posted not two days ago, 90% of which was made up words you yourself wrote. Sometimes the mirror’s a bitch, ain’t it?
So Godspeed, Mr. Wells. One hopes you can learn to find some levity in your charming idiosyncrasies. If not, it’s gonna be a long, enchanting slide to madness.
And lest you say my poison pen is too much for these boards to bear, I leave you with a couplet from the Bard himself:
“The iron tongue of midnight hath told twelve/ Lovers, to bed; ’tis almost fairy time.”
“But you could also try learning or digesting one simple thing (and I know this is awfully tough for some of you out there): It’s called “show some basic respect.”"
Like the basic respect you showed Gabby Sibide, for example? Or any other person you deem fat or unattractive? When you’re rude to someone, you’re “keeping it real.” When a poster says something you don’t like, then they lack respect and will be banned.
Seems hypocritical, obsessive, and ridiculous to me.
The expression on the umbrella woman’s face obviously doesn’t convey comfort but doesn’t convey alarm either. It’s a variation of the exact same expression you’re going to get from anyone in any country or any hemisphere, which at root is an expression of the basic philosophy of Anthony Quinn‘s Auda Abu Tayi, i.e., “You are stealing a piece of my soul, and you are therefore a kind of thief.”
If we could transcribe the thoughts of the woman in the photo we would almost certainly read the following: “I will not smile, of course. But neither am I alarmed because the guy who took this obviously wasn’t shooting me — he was shooting the street. But I was there and we obviously both knew it, and so I had to convey something,.,.something that said I knew what he was innocuously doing, and that I was at the very least taking note of it. Big effin’ deal. Due respect to the poster who calls himself “Zach” but he needs a refresher course in human observation. Take the same kind of shot in any city or town in the world and you’ll get the same kind of facial reaction from a six year-old, an 80 year-old, and/or a 37 year-old pregnant woman on the way to a laundromat with her other two kids.
“And so fucking what? The impish commenter known as Wrecktem could take note of this and perhaps try and show a little respect in the bargain. And if I knew that dozens of HE niggy-pigglies would launch a thousand ships’ worth of nagging commentary in response to a minor dispute that arose over this shot, I probably would have just sucked it in and smiled and saved everyone a lot of grief…Jesus.”
Solus and plainview have my respect and allegiance, and my thanks.
Re: “Journalistic jackoff:” I inferred as much. I prefer the old-school print designation for such a thing, e.g., “the casual.” But different, because it’s on the web and it’s more self-consciously…aimless, or experimental, or what have you.
I can’t really do that myself. Even when I do something that looks like that, it’s not really that. Which is one reason I don’t/can’t post as much as you in a day. Different strokes, etc…
Also…Solus has your respect and allegiance for saying “fuck her?” Really? Woman minding her own business up until you were taking a picture in which she was in the frame and she responded, as you say, as “anyone in any country or hemisphere” would respond, but you give respect and allegiance to the guy who stands up for you by giving out the woman-hating “fuck her” to someone who wasn’t asking to have her picture taken, let alone have it posted on the web, in the first place? This is the guy you respect?
@Hip Hop #54 – and you know that he DIDN’T ask her permission because…?
You might be right, but the point is you don’t know and you’re not asking. You’re making an assumption which is perhaps at the root of Wells’ frustration with these kinds of comment threads.
It seems silly to me to complain about website content to the website’s owner. Was it better back in the day? Does more posting degrade the quality?
Who the hell cares? The content IS the site, regardless of what you think of it. The comments ARE the content as well. Read only the most insightful posts and in-depth film reviews if you want, but what’s really your goal in complaining about the other stuff? More often than not, the goal seems to be just to piss Wells off. How is that contribution any more valuable to the site’s content than your perceived problems with how Wells writes it? Enjoy this free service or don’t and move on with your life.
Personally, I see a picture post with no commentary that’s blown up to 50+ comments and I immediately assume that something interesting is going on that I’d like to take a look at.
Wells to Kenny: No, I don’t agree with anyone saying “fuck her” — but she was just standing there and she happened to be in the frame and that was it. Okay, I cropped it after-the-fact to accentuate her presence because she made the shot more interesting. But the Auda Abu Tayi response to having your picture taken doesn’t really belong or have any applicable street cred in 2010 America. She was just there, I was just there and so what? I didn’t invade any private moment. She wasn’t coming out of her apartment door or weeping or scolding her five year old or picking her nose. She was holding a damn umbrella and otherwise doing nothing. I don’t know if she can take a joke or not, but if she can’t over this particular matter then tough tits. Nowadays we’re all extras in the ongoing real-life version of Francis Ford Coppola‘s The Conversation. And if we’re not an extra then we’re Gene Hackman playing that saxophone and wearing that plastic see-through raincoat. “When the red red robin comes bob-bob-bobbin’ along…along!”
I hate it when I’m framing a shot and people who are walking along and about to enter into the frame stop and wait for me to take the shot. They’re being very polite, of course, but in such an American middle-class way, which is to say a form of politeness that says “we don’t get it.” Know this and know it well — people who stop and wait for you to snap a shot don’t get it. If you’re in the shot then you’re in the shot, and if you’re not then you’re not. If I see somebody about to take a photo on a New York street I walk right the fuck in front of them every time. If I wind up in somebody’s Flickr album then so be it. And I don’t then I don’t. Everyone is in everyone’s else’s photo album. Nothing matters. There is no “privacy.” Security cameras and satellite cameras tape everyone all the time for no reason other than rote surveillance. If an average human being snaps you at least it’s being done with a personal motive of some kind. Live with it. Float with it.
You people are all fucking insane. Aggressively fucking insane, I might add. “Tough tits,” yeah, great. “Booyah” and “protect your neck” while you’re at it.
Whenever I visited Japan, it was pretty transparent to me that the politeness proffered by the locals was more a construct than an sincere expression of goodwill. I accepted that politeness anyway, because it helped the wheels of social discourse and transaction run a little smoother. Now, apparently, the thing is to step outside expected a million Wellsian assholes to get in your face and then tell you to like it because that’s just how it is in the world today, baby.
As you like to say, Jeff, wrongo. But next time I see you in a line, I’ll make sure to cut ahead of you, to find out how you “float with it.”
Ahem. That should have been “expectING a million…” etc. Sorry.
Since I’m back allow me to note that you’re all very liberal with the “fuck her” “tough tits” and “float with it”s as long as the subject in question is a little yuppie mouseburger of the sort that Jeff and his minions have spent countless decades harboring resentments about. Take a pic of a gangbanger who’s not receptive to it, or get in front of him when he’s taking HIS shot, and I doubt the talk is going to be that tough when push comes top shove.
Too bad Wells couldn’t take his own advice and “float with” Wrecktum’s initial comment — we might have all actually have had a good laugh instead of all the paranoid sniping going on.
@Burbanked: Not sure to whom specifically you’re referring to, but some of us are just trying to offer up constructive criticism as to our opinions on what might possibly improve the site, or what we enjoyed about previous incarnations of the site that are no longer well-represented. Feedback doesn’t cost anything, either, and while the site owner certainly shouldn’t always feel compelled to address points commenters bring up, having another perspective on things can sometimes be a useful tool.
Your entire general attitude — and specifically towards the web — comes off as a little isolated and closed-minded, frankly. You do realize this site would not exist without actual people visiting it and reading it, yes? When you say “enjoy this free service or don’t and move on with your life,” you almost seem to be advocating living life in some sort of silent vacuum. Which is odd because the Internet — and a blog to an even further extent — is essentially founded on the democratic principle of the free exchange of information and ideas. Not to mention the fact that the reading audience provide the web hits, and web hits provide the advertising, and advertising is about the only way you can make scratch in this kind of racket.
Your last comment is pretty telling, as I’ve never really seen you around here discussing films before. They have words now for people who just wander around the web aimlessly looking for “what the fuss is about,” and they’re none too complimentary.
I’m just so greatly amused by all the people who’ve typed the word Wrecktum. I can just image folks thinking “That poor Wrecktum.” Wells gnashing his teeth spitting, “Curse that Wrecktum.” It makes me laugh. Because it sounds like “rectum.” Which is an icky part of the bottom. Cheers.
Gosh thanks, CitizenKaned, for holding back from calling me something specifically non-complimentary. I guess an implied insult is kinder than a spoken one.
It’s good to know that you get to be the gatekeeper of who’s allowed and not allowed to share opinions here. I might not be one of the HE commenting superstars, but I’ve discussed plenty of films on these boards and have even had the giddy pleasure of Jeff linking to content on my site. Your dismissive characterization of me is every bit as isolated and close-minded as you accuse me of being.
My point is simply this: there are many many many very good film websites. Anyone who consistently finds fault with how a site’s owner does or does not create content is welcome to expend their energy a) complaining about it and disparaging others or b) searching for sites that more closely match their views and sensibilities or c) creating content of their own and developing their own audience. As far as criticism goes, I’d suggest that option “a” is probably the least constructive, and suggests instead a desire on the complainer’s part to show off how clever or sarcastic or superior they can be.
I fully understand how websites and blogs work. And I also understand that it’s a hell of a lot easier to write clever negative comments than to actually create and run a successful site. No one who criticizes Jeff – especially with the kind of nastiness that sometimes shows up here – has cause to be shocked or indignant if he gets bent out of shape over it.
That’s a reasoned reply, and I appreciate it. I guess my primary point is that if everyone just went off and busily created their own web content, there would be no audience for anything, and that sort of defeats the entire purpose of these blogs, IMHO. If you’re into being that insular, why even bother with the ‘net? Why not just thoroughly research a topic and write a book?
I also think there’s a place for loyalty — I’ve read Wells in one form or another for over 10 years. Where I’ve dumped countless other movie sites (AICN, CHUD, Cinescape) from my daily routine over the years, I’ve always kept JW in the rotation. I always felt like he had something to add. From a constructive criticism p.o.v., I’m simply letting him know that there are certain things about older versions of his site — so there is a precedent here — that I personally preferred.
I agree that nastiness and snark have no place here, but I’m still having a hard time wrapping my mind around your suggestion that criticizing the owner of the site cannot be constructive.
This is, after all, a site that makes its bones on its (well-earned) reputation to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the worthiness of films.
Would you find a journalist’s disparaging interview with a director or screenwriter on a movie they found a less than satisfying experience to be an equally fruitless endeavor?
Fair enough, CitizenKaned. I agree that site loyalty is important, and I’ve enjoyed HE for a long time as well. There’s truly no film site like it anywhere, and I guess I extend that to the crazy off-the-rails posts that have nothing at all to do with filmmaking. The writing’s the thing here, and I appreciate it even when it’s loony (in a good way).
And on those topics where I don’t appreciate it, or don’t get it? I move on and come back later. That’s why I don’t see the point in criticizing because on balance, I value what Wells is doing and feel confident that I’ll enjoy what’s here. Who am I to tell him what or how or when to write? At the point where I can’t stands no more, I’ll be the one to leave, not him.
Besides, criticism isn’t going to change many folks’ behavior who aren’t a spouse, offspring or employee, and oftentimes not even those.
That woman looks thrilled to be photographed by a stranger. Priceless.
Was just about to say the same thing. Ha!
Creepy old guy in a raincoat taking pictures of cute young girls on the streets of New York. The opening scene in the latest Lionsgate torture porn.
Careful, Wrecktum. That sounds like slander to me and I’m sure I understand the definition of that word.
Nope, too late — Wreckem is dead for saying “creepy old guy.” No appeal, right to the fucking abbatoir. I will not tolerate blatant disrespect.
And on the right: Joe Leydon!
Noooo!!!
Aww… I wish you could laugh at yourself, Jeff. Wrecktum’s comment was funny. If it was about me, I wouldn’t think any differently. It’s good for the soul to know how to take a poke in the ribs and roll with the joke.
Wow, this site just keeps getting better and better. Why not just ban everybody interesting and just let DZ and the spammers have full control over the comments section?
I mean, seriously, for all you care about the comments section, why not just ignore it? 95% of your comments are either “screw you, you’re banned” or “Why are you saying this? You’re hijacking my thread! I only want you to say things that are rigidly, specifically responses to what I write… Oh, no problem DZ, post whatever the fuck your brain shits out.”
You can laugh about it, Wrecktem, but you’re dead.
There are dozens if not hundreds of ways to respond to any given post. Cheap dismissive snark is one way to respond, and it represents almost half of what people write here. I’m not a cop or a censor. I believe in all the colors of the spectrum…except for the color of cheap slanderous tenth-grade bullshit.
It’s a fair cop.
Wells that’s a little ridiculous. The worst thing I could think to say about a person would be that they can’t take a joke. Even you have to acknowledge the look on the face of that girl demands some light snark. Also please familiarize yourself with the definition of slander.
I’ve been here long enough to know the rules, so I’m willing to go gently into that good night. It’s been fun. Wells, you’re a great read but you take yourself way too seriously. Adios, see you on the other side!
Jeff, I believe it’s your site and you can do whatever you want. That said, I read Wrecktum’s comment as a clever little shoot-the-shit joke that tied things back into cinema. It’s miles removed from stuff like “you’re a racist old bigot”.
Grow some backbone, sir. Where I grew up, you had to be ready to take some shit You laughed at the good jokes at your expense and you had better comebacks for the shitty ones. You and the guys would mess around town all day, ripping each other new assholes. And guess what? Those guys were your friends even though they said your haircut made you look like Chewbacca.
Nut up, Chewy.
“You and the guys would mess around town all day, ripping each other new assholes.”
This is probably the gayest thing I’ve ever written.
Is that the chic from the Halloween movies?
It’s amusing how Jeff will make derisive comments about the likes of Gabby Sidibe, Phil Hoffman or random people eating at a rest stop but if someone calls him “creepy old guy” he throws down his gloves and is ready for a duel.
That’s what makes him special I guess.
A lot of fallen soldiers lately. HE weeps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH2w6Oxx0kQ
Okay, point taken, I need to lighten up a bit and laugh at myself. But where is the wit or the uplift or clear light in going “heh-heh, yeah, I guess I am a bit of a sleazy old raincoat guy, hah-yulk, hah-yulk.” Even though I’m fairly temperate, and not even vaguely coarse. I handle all things in a certain way, carefully, subtly. I don’t stumble through doors or break cocktail glasses or forget to zip my fly. So…you know what? Wrecktem and his bullshit generalizations can take a nice swan dive out of a tenth-floor window.
“Yeah, I need to lighten up. But Wrecktem can go ahead and kill himself.”
Long time reader here, who is fascinated how this site devolved from a dynamic film journalism blog with a superb commenting community into this myopic and self-obsessed campaign to prove to the world that Jeff Wells is better than everybody else. It’s like an art piece, an aging movie blogger’s slow descent into madness and irrelevance.
Go ahead and ban me, I don’t ever post anyway. I just wanted to express how interesting I’ve found the evolution.
The film journalism aspects are just fine, and if you think they’ve devolved or degraded you’re simply not reading that regularly — it’s that simple. if you can’t grasp the concept of “make it as sharp and tough as you want but keep it respectful” then that’s another perception problem on your part.
Wells, your hardline approach for dealing with unruly commentators is negatively impacting the quality of your site. Regardless of your perceptions, the commentators you’re booting willy-nilly are some of your best assets. While this might not be something you want to hear, it’s worth emphasizing that I, as well as presumably a lot of other people, come to this site predominantly for the comments alone, and not the actual substance of your posts. Recognize that, and begin to cut some of these guys a little more slack. Otherwise, a significant number of your more devoted followers (myself, I’m from the Mr. Showbiz and Reel.com days) may go the way of the MilkMan.
been around since I was 17, back in the Reel.com days as well. I second Chapman.
I don’t think think Science Adventure was referring to your readers, the comment was referring to the site, and your voice on it.
And he/she makes a valid point – you can’t deny that the overall spirit of your posts has changed over the years.
Certainly you understand that the tone you set (often negative towards anyone and anything that disagrees with your view) has an impact on the level of discourse that follows.
That’s what I gleaned from the post, but maybe I have a perception problem as well.
Look, you can do whatever you want but I won’t tolerate little balls of cowshit being tossed in my direction. If I have to suffer the slings and arrows of denigration from commenters in order to keep you guys around then the hell with it — go with God. But you could also try learning or digesting one simple thing (and I know this is awfully tough for some of you out there): It’s called “show some basic respect.” You can fart around and say anything you want within some very liberal boundaries. I don’t need to be a hard-ass or an asshole. But without basic respect if all goes swirling down into the crapper. Your call.
Who’s that handsome, dignified, younger-than-middle-aged gentleman taking my photo?
I am the Anti-Wrecktem.
To echo the sentiments of others, in my opinion the quality of the site has dropped over time. However, that shouldn’t be taken as an insult. Your work with Mr. Showbiz was some of the very best stuff on the internet, hands down. It only makes sense there would be gradual slippage. But, this doesn’t mean you can’t revert to form. Instead of asking posters to pay more attention to recent posts in order to truly appreciate how great they’re not, a better approach may be for you to trip back to 1998 and immerse yourself in your finer work. I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing the guy that authored that material make a comeback.
Those Mr. Showbiz stories were posted twice weekly and worked on and refined a lot before appearing, and were written in a traditional journalistic form. HE went bloggy-blog in April 2006, and nobody’s going back to the days of Bill Clinton, I assure you. If you can’t roll with what’s happening now, cool — look elsewhere for satisfaction. But I work my ass off like always, and I’m not into journalistic jack-offs.
I’ve also been a daily reader since your first days as a blogger/web columnist, and your work was formative to my understanding of and interaction with film and the industry. I still look to your reviews as a major indicator of what to see, and I even find most of your socio-political posts at the very least entertaining.
But I don’t think anyone would say that your production now is objectively better than even the early years of HE, in which the predominant tone was still the awed worship of a great medium and not the defensive negativity of the last two years or so. We read you because we value your voice and input about film and the people who produce it, but this concern about comments and how you’re perceived that has seeped into your everyday posts is so distracting and, to be honest, saddening that I almost never feel the joy and excitement I used to when visiting your site.
I hope you can see the futility of even caring what people say in the comments for what it is and regain in full strength the voice we all want to have as a part of our movie-going lives.
I’m already sorry about asking a question that I haven’t asked.
Oh, what the hell: what ON EARTH is a “journalistic jack-off?” Please be as imprecise as possible when answering…
Wells to Caz3773: So you’re suggesting what? That whatever is said by commenters that I just turn the other cheek, no matter what? You’d better find yourself another columnist because that’s not gonna happen. As for the quality of the column, I work harder and dig in deeper than ever before. I know what I know and I know that, and I don’t give that much of a shit if you agree or not.
Wells to Kenny: I think you have a pretty good idea what journalistic jack-offing is, Glenn, but you’re making me explain it anyway so here goes. When you, a journalist, write something with some kind of clear idea, mood, goal, longing or purpose in mind, that’s not a journalistic jack-off. But if you’re just jizzing or whizzing around on a page like a kid pissing his name in the snow, then you’re most likely guilty of journalistic jack-offery. Howz that?
Consider me incredibly thankful that you at least remembered to include the word “journalistic.”
“That whatever is said by commenters that I just turn the other cheek, no matter what?”
Jeff, respectfully speaking, you’re acting as if Wrecktem called you a child molestor. What is it about what he said that you find so profoundly disrespectful? It seems like just a quick, you know, “Hey, nice shoes” type of thing. I don’t get it.
All this from a photo.
The rainy weather and the timid look on the face of a random girl were the perfect storm for a comment revolution on Hollywood Elsewhere.
If only it were sunny today or that girl had smiled. Although that probably only would have just delayed the inevitable.
Gordn27, I’m fairly certain the offending word was “old”.
“If only it were sunny today or that girl had smiled.”
That’s a pretty big “if” on the latter…
Lenny Bruce said, “The truth is what is, not what should be.”
So what is the truth of this photograph?
It’s an open question for all who care to answer.
And yes, I am a big fan of “Blow Up.”
Carl – Jeff is twice the age of the girl in the picture, though. That seems like a reasonable joke based on her expression.
If that’s it, though, that’s fine, but say that. Don’t be vague. If you’re setting rules for one-strike-and-you’re-out behavior, then explain the rules.
hey Jeff here are my two cents on a fun exercise:
an reopened-door amnesty on all banned posters… a big ‘welcome back’ on the condition that they reveal ALL THE SUBSEQUENT SCREEN NAMES they’ve used since getting the flick.
(of course they’re back on board under a ‘one strike’ probationary period.)
would this be super-fun or is it just me??
no-one can tell me that the quality of the talkbacks us up where it was say, five years ago.
At least a half-dozen good voices have gone, only to be replaced by a strata of new readers without, it must be said, anywhere near the same level of insight or taste.
redux! redux!
“As for the quality of the column, I work harder and dig in deeper than ever before. I know what I know and I know that, and I don’t give that much of a shit if you agree or not.”
I actually don’t doubt for a second that you’re working harder than ever. It’s not easy coming up with 10 or so unique posts every day of the year. Hence, what used to be the occasional political tidbit, filler piece, and — perhaps the most egregious offender of late — quoted material has almost turned into HE’s raison d’etre.
I’m not saying you haven’t turned in some seriously classic material of late — in particular the stories of the emotionally vivid cowboy hat and using your neighbor’s loft to “break in,” Mission:Impossible-style, to your own locked apartment are absolutely A-level, classic Wells’ gems.
But there is validity in what some people have been saying here about your Mr. Showbiz pieces — they were just simply better-crafted pieces of serious film writing (and great centerpieces for debate, kind of a shame that there wasn’t a commenting system back then to take advantage!). I have no doubt the high quality was due to the fact that you spent longer hammering out the details, and fine-tuning the structure. But you really excelled at this format, IMHO, so it kind of saddens me to now see you work in such a conventional (at least by modern standards) format with such an abbreviated emphasis on content.
So I guess what I’m saying in a nutshell is — still love the site, obviously — but maybe consider resurrecting the longer format, if only on special occasions (i.e. once or twice a month)?
“no-one can tell me that the quality of the talkbacks us up where it was say, five years ago.”
Believe it or not, the HE talkbacks didn’t even exist five years ago. I know, I know…that didn’t seem accurate to me at first, either, but I was looking at some old archives on here a few days ago and the comment section was entirely blank. This site didn’t really go fully interactive until spring of ’06. I guess I’d take it as a compliment that it certainly seems like we’ve all been having debates on here longer than that
.
Yeah, and stop surreptitiously editing comments. Do those two things and no one, wrecktem included, will every dare call your ether-and-duct-tape-hiding trenchcoat a mere “raincoat” again.
I understand the point of not wanting HE to become like the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is the IMDb message boards, but I don’t think Wrecktem meant any harm with his comment. I had the same initial reaction. Who didn’t? I mean come on, look at her face, she’s petrified.
Fuck her…he was taking a picture of a street and the weather….she just happened to be standing there….
Fuck the haters, regardless of whatever shit they spew out at you. Their opinion is of no importance, they just want to make you feel like shit because they’re sadistic. It really is amazing what people are willing to say to eachother on the internet.
You worked hard to get to where you are, and you run a damn good website. One of the very few websites I check regularly.
Keep your chin up, keep doing what you do best.
You know, Jeff, when you scold posters on these very boards for daring to disagree with you about, say, the relative cinematic merits of BABEL–informing them that any dissenting opinions must be backed up by a measured, reasoned argument citing ample supporting evidence for their heretic cases–and then, less than a week later, turn around to stump your own position with hilariously pithy solipsisms (“I know what I know!”) that wouldn’t be out of place in a barroom argument between two members of the Eloi Class you despise so fervently, you really do make it too easy, brother man.
And yeah, I have to agree with Chapman Carruthers when it comes to the recent cloak-and-dagger comment editing. This is your house and so, sure, you get to decide who’s a welcome guest and who’s not. But the tendency of late for comments to just disappear in the fog as though they were never there– Well, that sort of indicates a lack of what you yourself might call intestinal fortitude, yes? Delete as you please, but shouldn’t the users who populate these boards get to see where the proverbial black marker has been busy redacting the undesirables?
It’s one thing to frown upon dissent, it’s another to ask it to leave the room, but it’s something else altogether to pretend it was never there, isn’t it?
Speaking from experience, I find it pretty delicious that in all the HE comments I’ve posted wherein I’ve nefariously taken issue with this, that or the other thing, the only one (that I know of anyhow) that you’ve seen fit to wipe clean from the slate of history was one I posted not two days ago, 90% of which was made up words you yourself wrote. Sometimes the mirror’s a bitch, ain’t it?
So Godspeed, Mr. Wells. One hopes you can learn to find some levity in your charming idiosyncrasies. If not, it’s gonna be a long, enchanting slide to madness.
And lest you say my poison pen is too much for these boards to bear, I leave you with a couplet from the Bard himself:
“The iron tongue of midnight hath told twelve/ Lovers, to bed; ’tis almost fairy time.”
“But you could also try learning or digesting one simple thing (and I know this is awfully tough for some of you out there): It’s called “show some basic respect.”"
Like the basic respect you showed Gabby Sibide, for example? Or any other person you deem fat or unattractive? When you’re rude to someone, you’re “keeping it real.” When a poster says something you don’t like, then they lack respect and will be banned.
Seems hypocritical, obsessive, and ridiculous to me.
What’s going on in here?!
I can hear y’all all the way down the hall!
Jeez…. I glance past a rather innocuous photo post and KAPOW! Fifty comments!
And nary a mention of Spielberg, Sarah Palin, teabaggers, Avatar or fat midwesterners.
So I had to come in and check it out.
A little tip for HE preservation….. ixnay oldway anmay ommentscay.
The expression on the umbrella woman’s face obviously doesn’t convey comfort but doesn’t convey alarm either. It’s a variation of the exact same expression you’re going to get from anyone in any country or any hemisphere, which at root is an expression of the basic philosophy of Anthony Quinn‘s Auda Abu Tayi, i.e., “You are stealing a piece of my soul, and you are therefore a kind of thief.”
If we could transcribe the thoughts of the woman in the photo we would almost certainly read the following: “I will not smile, of course. But neither am I alarmed because the guy who took this obviously wasn’t shooting me — he was shooting the street. But I was there and we obviously both knew it, and so I had to convey something,.,.something that said I knew what he was innocuously doing, and that I was at the very least taking note of it. Big effin’ deal. Due respect to the poster who calls himself “Zach” but he needs a refresher course in human observation. Take the same kind of shot in any city or town in the world and you’ll get the same kind of facial reaction from a six year-old, an 80 year-old, and/or a 37 year-old pregnant woman on the way to a laundromat with her other two kids.
“And so fucking what? The impish commenter known as Wrecktem could take note of this and perhaps try and show a little respect in the bargain. And if I knew that dozens of HE niggy-pigglies would launch a thousand ships’ worth of nagging commentary in response to a minor dispute that arose over this shot, I probably would have just sucked it in and smiled and saved everyone a lot of grief…Jesus.”
Solus and plainview have my respect and allegiance, and my thanks.
Re: “Journalistic jackoff:” I inferred as much. I prefer the old-school print designation for such a thing, e.g., “the casual.” But different, because it’s on the web and it’s more self-consciously…aimless, or experimental, or what have you.
I can’t really do that myself. Even when I do something that looks like that, it’s not really that. Which is one reason I don’t/can’t post as much as you in a day. Different strokes, etc…
Frankly, I think you should’ve moved the camera to take her out of the picture or asked her permission, since you knew you’d be using it on the web.
Also…Solus has your respect and allegiance for saying “fuck her?” Really? Woman minding her own business up until you were taking a picture in which she was in the frame and she responded, as you say, as “anyone in any country or hemisphere” would respond, but you give respect and allegiance to the guy who stands up for you by giving out the woman-hating “fuck her” to someone who wasn’t asking to have her picture taken, let alone have it posted on the web, in the first place? This is the guy you respect?
Nice.
Wells to Hip-Hop Homey: Fuck that. It’s the Wild West out there. You step outside your apartment door, you takes your chances.
@Hip Hop #54 – and you know that he DIDN’T ask her permission because…?
You might be right, but the point is you don’t know and you’re not asking. You’re making an assumption which is perhaps at the root of Wells’ frustration with these kinds of comment threads.
It seems silly to me to complain about website content to the website’s owner. Was it better back in the day? Does more posting degrade the quality?
Who the hell cares? The content IS the site, regardless of what you think of it. The comments ARE the content as well. Read only the most insightful posts and in-depth film reviews if you want, but what’s really your goal in complaining about the other stuff? More often than not, the goal seems to be just to piss Wells off. How is that contribution any more valuable to the site’s content than your perceived problems with how Wells writes it? Enjoy this free service or don’t and move on with your life.
Personally, I see a picture post with no commentary that’s blown up to 50+ comments and I immediately assume that something interesting is going on that I’d like to take a look at.
Wells to Kenny: No, I don’t agree with anyone saying “fuck her” — but she was just standing there and she happened to be in the frame and that was it. Okay, I cropped it after-the-fact to accentuate her presence because she made the shot more interesting. But the Auda Abu Tayi response to having your picture taken doesn’t really belong or have any applicable street cred in 2010 America. She was just there, I was just there and so what? I didn’t invade any private moment. She wasn’t coming out of her apartment door or weeping or scolding her five year old or picking her nose. She was holding a damn umbrella and otherwise doing nothing. I don’t know if she can take a joke or not, but if she can’t over this particular matter then tough tits. Nowadays we’re all extras in the ongoing real-life version of Francis Ford Coppola‘s The Conversation. And if we’re not an extra then we’re Gene Hackman playing that saxophone and wearing that plastic see-through raincoat. “When the red red robin comes bob-bob-bobbin’ along…along!”
I hate it when I’m framing a shot and people who are walking along and about to enter into the frame stop and wait for me to take the shot. They’re being very polite, of course, but in such an American middle-class way, which is to say a form of politeness that says “we don’t get it.” Know this and know it well — people who stop and wait for you to snap a shot don’t get it. If you’re in the shot then you’re in the shot, and if you’re not then you’re not. If I see somebody about to take a photo on a New York street I walk right the fuck in front of them every time. If I wind up in somebody’s Flickr album then so be it. And I don’t then I don’t. Everyone is in everyone’s else’s photo album. Nothing matters. There is no “privacy.” Security cameras and satellite cameras tape everyone all the time for no reason other than rote surveillance. If an average human being snaps you at least it’s being done with a personal motive of some kind. Live with it. Float with it.
You people are all fucking insane. Aggressively fucking insane, I might add. “Tough tits,” yeah, great. “Booyah” and “protect your neck” while you’re at it.
Whenever I visited Japan, it was pretty transparent to me that the politeness proffered by the locals was more a construct than an sincere expression of goodwill. I accepted that politeness anyway, because it helped the wheels of social discourse and transaction run a little smoother. Now, apparently, the thing is to step outside expected a million Wellsian assholes to get in your face and then tell you to like it because that’s just how it is in the world today, baby.
As you like to say, Jeff, wrongo. But next time I see you in a line, I’ll make sure to cut ahead of you, to find out how you “float with it.”
Ahem. That should have been “expectING a million…” etc. Sorry.
Since I’m back allow me to note that you’re all very liberal with the “fuck her” “tough tits” and “float with it”s as long as the subject in question is a little yuppie mouseburger of the sort that Jeff and his minions have spent countless decades harboring resentments about. Take a pic of a gangbanger who’s not receptive to it, or get in front of him when he’s taking HIS shot, and I doubt the talk is going to be that tough when push comes top shove.
I think she’s cute. Has no one noticed that the bearded guy is also looking at the photographer?
Too bad Wells couldn’t take his own advice and “float with” Wrecktum’s initial comment — we might have all actually have had a good laugh instead of all the paranoid sniping going on.
@Burbanked: Not sure to whom specifically you’re referring to, but some of us are just trying to offer up constructive criticism as to our opinions on what might possibly improve the site, or what we enjoyed about previous incarnations of the site that are no longer well-represented. Feedback doesn’t cost anything, either, and while the site owner certainly shouldn’t always feel compelled to address points commenters bring up, having another perspective on things can sometimes be a useful tool.
Your entire general attitude — and specifically towards the web — comes off as a little isolated and closed-minded, frankly. You do realize this site would not exist without actual people visiting it and reading it, yes? When you say “enjoy this free service or don’t and move on with your life,” you almost seem to be advocating living life in some sort of silent vacuum. Which is odd because the Internet — and a blog to an even further extent — is essentially founded on the democratic principle of the free exchange of information and ideas. Not to mention the fact that the reading audience provide the web hits, and web hits provide the advertising, and advertising is about the only way you can make scratch in this kind of racket.
Your last comment is pretty telling, as I’ve never really seen you around here discussing films before. They have words now for people who just wander around the web aimlessly looking for “what the fuss is about,” and they’re none too complimentary.
I’m just so greatly amused by all the people who’ve typed the word Wrecktum. I can just image folks thinking “That poor Wrecktum.” Wells gnashing his teeth spitting, “Curse that Wrecktum.” It makes me laugh. Because it sounds like “rectum.” Which is an icky part of the bottom. Cheers.
Gosh thanks, CitizenKaned, for holding back from calling me something specifically non-complimentary. I guess an implied insult is kinder than a spoken one.
It’s good to know that you get to be the gatekeeper of who’s allowed and not allowed to share opinions here. I might not be one of the HE commenting superstars, but I’ve discussed plenty of films on these boards and have even had the giddy pleasure of Jeff linking to content on my site. Your dismissive characterization of me is every bit as isolated and close-minded as you accuse me of being.
My point is simply this: there are many many many very good film websites. Anyone who consistently finds fault with how a site’s owner does or does not create content is welcome to expend their energy a) complaining about it and disparaging others or b) searching for sites that more closely match their views and sensibilities or c) creating content of their own and developing their own audience. As far as criticism goes, I’d suggest that option “a” is probably the least constructive, and suggests instead a desire on the complainer’s part to show off how clever or sarcastic or superior they can be.
I fully understand how websites and blogs work. And I also understand that it’s a hell of a lot easier to write clever negative comments than to actually create and run a successful site. No one who criticizes Jeff – especially with the kind of nastiness that sometimes shows up here – has cause to be shocked or indignant if he gets bent out of shape over it.
Hey Burbanked, are you also “aware of all internet traditions?”
Well I had to look that one up, Glenn, so apparently not.
That’s a reasoned reply, and I appreciate it. I guess my primary point is that if everyone just went off and busily created their own web content, there would be no audience for anything, and that sort of defeats the entire purpose of these blogs, IMHO. If you’re into being that insular, why even bother with the ‘net? Why not just thoroughly research a topic and write a book?
I also think there’s a place for loyalty — I’ve read Wells in one form or another for over 10 years. Where I’ve dumped countless other movie sites (AICN, CHUD, Cinescape) from my daily routine over the years, I’ve always kept JW in the rotation. I always felt like he had something to add. From a constructive criticism p.o.v., I’m simply letting him know that there are certain things about older versions of his site — so there is a precedent here — that I personally preferred.
I agree that nastiness and snark have no place here, but I’m still having a hard time wrapping my mind around your suggestion that criticizing the owner of the site cannot be constructive.
This is, after all, a site that makes its bones on its (well-earned) reputation to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the worthiness of films.
Would you find a journalist’s disparaging interview with a director or screenwriter on a movie they found a less than satisfying experience to be an equally fruitless endeavor?
A critical mind never sleeps. Nor should it.
Fair enough, CitizenKaned. I agree that site loyalty is important, and I’ve enjoyed HE for a long time as well. There’s truly no film site like it anywhere, and I guess I extend that to the crazy off-the-rails posts that have nothing at all to do with filmmaking. The writing’s the thing here, and I appreciate it even when it’s loony (in a good way).
And on those topics where I don’t appreciate it, or don’t get it? I move on and come back later. That’s why I don’t see the point in criticizing because on balance, I value what Wells is doing and feel confident that I’ll enjoy what’s here. Who am I to tell him what or how or when to write? At the point where I can’t stands no more, I’ll be the one to leave, not him.
Besides, criticism isn’t going to change many folks’ behavior who aren’t a spouse, offspring or employee, and oftentimes not even those.