From: donnell@manowar.micro.umn.edu (BogusMan)
Subject: Re: Film Comment and Film Threat
Organization: none
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:30:19 GMT

In article <QeybjSu00WBNM1Eq0q@andrew.cmu.edu> Daniel Read <dr3u+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>I used to read Film Comment, but I find them too serious and way too
>>pretentious at times. Also their acceptance of "Hollywood Product"
>>verges on Fanboy masturbation at times. <IMHO>
> 
>>I mushc prefer the outright bitchiness of "Film Threat", to the overly
>>sensitive gushing of "Film Comment", but that is just me. 
>
>
>Do you prefer the outright stupidity of FILM THREAT as well?  Those guys
>know less about film than the editors of FANGORIA.   I believe that the
>word pretentious would be better applied to Film Threat than to almost
>any other magazine I know.  They pretend to be incisive "no bullshit"
>writers about film, but they really offer slim content dressed up in
>adolescent-ready prose.  I won't say there is nothing interesting in
>their pages, but I suggest that there is very little.
>
>Moreoever, has no one ever wondered why the films which they sell
>(remember that Film Threat and the Video Guide are essentially
>catalogues for products sold by FT) always get good reviews?  I don't
>know what you mean by Fanboy masturbation, but if I am offended by
>anything it is that remarkable level of special pleading.
>
>FILM COMMENT is not pretentious.  It "pretends" to be exactly what it is
>-- a serious film magazine (the US equivalent to SIGHT AND SOUND).  It
>is articulate, well-researched and, even if you don't care for the films
>it writes about, informative.  It contains no "overly sensitive
>gushing".  
>
>What does it mean to be "overly" sensitive anyway?  I would think that
>if you are inspecting a work of art the more sensitive the better. 
>Would anyone argue with that?
>
>daniel
>
>daniel  

I have a Film Threat right here, and they gave wretched reviews to 
five tapes they are selling. Hardly a "remarkable level of Special
Pleading" from where I sit. 
Film Comment is okay, but their taste in films is not even close to mine.
FT is stupid, but at least they are honest about it, and I find much more
information that I can use, that in the detailed analysis of 
Spielbarf, and Cameron that I find in FC. As for overly sensitive,
lets just say that they seem to have a weakness for they type of films
that are generally made by the bucketloads by "serious" film students.
<you know, tender stories of the relationship between a mother and
her "physically challenged" son, or Immigrants, etc... Been done a 
million times and I just don't care to watch the average film of this
sort>.

This is personal taste, but comparing FT's editorial policy and knowledge
to that of "Fan-Boring-a" is ludicrous. Fangoria exists to give goreboy
fans their masturbation material for the month. I gave up on them after
the 11th issue. All they give a damn about is SFX, and we all know
that there is more to film than that.
But FT gives a hell of a lot more attention to up and coming Filmmakers
than FC, and that is probably their best service. 
Have you ever seen the article in FT comparing their articles with 
some very similar ones that showed up in FC months later?
Who is borrowing from whom?
You read what you want, and I will read what I want. Que sera sera.
Pax
					--Judex--

Newsgroups: alt.cult-movies