Author Topic: Filmspotting - we have a problem  (Read 10163 times)

spoko

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2062
  • Hero of the Great Taco Syndicate
    • Bullet in the Brain
Re: Filmspotting - we have a problem
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2012, 02:41:43 PM »
Honestly, my #1 wish for the show, which I've wanted for years, is that you'd release it as an Enhanced podcast and put in chapter marks. So often I want to skip a review of a movie that I haven't seen but will soon, and to do so I have to just hold the fast-forward button to get past it. Since I often listen while biking to work, that's not so easy. Would love to just be able to skip to the next marker. A couple of my other casts do this, or have in the past, and it's REALLY nice.

Robert Holloway

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: Filmspotting - we have a problem
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2012, 09:10:02 PM »
Great responses and thanks Adam for taking part

I am not knocking Josh or his ability to review movies.

My issue is that you are both more tonally similar than different. I always had the feeling with Matty that you were more different than similar.

Rob


Adam

  • Administrator
  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4432
    • Filmspotting
Re: Filmspotting - we have a problem
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2012, 09:43:08 PM »
Great responses and thanks Adam for taking part

I am not knocking Josh or his ability to review movies.

My issue is that you are both more tonally similar than different. I always had the feeling with Matty that you were more different than similar.

Rob
This is accurate, sure. For the first time in the show's history you've got  two hosts who: 1. Are married with kids. 2. Weren't actors previously. 3. Have some film criticism background and made the decision to focus on film criticism. (I'm sure there are a few others too.) That wasn't by design, it just worked out that way.

Does that mean FS 3.0 will always be a little bit more, I don't know... academic... dry... serious... less jokey? Whatever you want to call it, the answer is yeah, probably. And that won't work for everyone.

The fact is, Josh and I have probably disagreed about reviews more in 4 months than Matty and I did in 4 years, so tonally we're more similar, but our approach to films is different.

In the end, as long as I'm/we're having fun, and I think we're doing good work, that's all I care about. If we lose people along the way, I won't begrudge anyone that.
Follow Filmspotting on Twitter at http://twitter.com/filmspotting

Listen to Filmspotting at http://filmspotting.net and on Chicago Public Radio (91.5 FM)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27719
  • Marathon Man
Re: Filmspotting - we have a problem
« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2012, 12:25:48 AM »
I've noticed that Josh embraces more genre work, especially horror. His Top 5 lists have brought some choices new to the Filmspotting landscape. The Great Muppet Caper, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, A Nightmare on Elm Street Idiocracy and his entire list of Overlooked Films. I think an Adam/Josh Blacksploitation Marathon will be much more interesting than an Adam/Matty one.

Robert Holloway

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
Re: Filmspotting - we have a problem
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2012, 09:24:01 AM »
Great responses and thanks Adam for taking part

I am not knocking Josh or his ability to review movies.

My issue is that you are both more tonally similar than different. I always had the feeling with Matty that you were more different than similar.

Rob
This is accurate, sure. For the first time in the show's history you've got  two hosts who: 1. Are married with kids. 2. Weren't actors previously. 3. Have some film criticism background and made the decision to focus on film criticism. (I'm sure there are a few others too.) That wasn't by design, it just worked out that way.

Does that mean FS 3.0 will always be a little bit more, I don't know... academic... dry... serious... less jokey? Whatever you want to call it, the answer is yeah, probably. And that won't work for everyone.

The fact is, Josh and I have probably disagreed about reviews more in 4 months than Matty and I did in 4 years, so tonally we're more similar, but our approach to films is different.

In the end, as long as I'm/we're having fun, and I think we're doing good work, that's all I care about. If we lose people along the way, I won't begrudge anyone that.

Adam,

100% correct on all counts. And weirdest of all, I'm middle aged, white and with kids. Nothing wrong with that either.

The tone feels more serious for sure. And yes, I was psyched that you guys took on Bresson, one of my favorite directors.

And yes, there's no arguing that you and Josh have more differences that previous hosts. I'm not even arguing that the reviews are not excellent.

At the end of the day this is my problem, as you rightly say. I guess there is a reason I love critics like Mark Kermode. They are irreverent and knowledgeable. My weekly listen to the two doctors is a joy beyond film. You and Matty came close to that very high bar.

I knew that when I first aired this opinion it would not fly well within this forum. What I admire most here actually is that you engaged. That's really impressive.

Very kind regards
Rob



doughboy

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: Filmspotting - we have a problem
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2012, 08:46:41 PM »
Hi there,

I hate to write this. I've been a listener for years. Every Friday I'd download the latest episode and smile with glee. Filmspotting for me has always been about appreciating movies and a sense of joy.

But week after recent week, I've listened. Wanted to enjoy, wanted to be happy. But the fun has gone - for me anyways.

I recognize that replacing the insanity that was Matty was unlikely. There was something anarchic in those shows!

But it's all become so serious. I listened to an episode from a year ago and was shocked. Adam's voice seem's to have dropped.

Guys, please relax. Adam you were always the serious of the two with Matty. With Josh.....

Never forget that films are joyous and fun.

Rob
Gotta say I kind of agree with some of this. I'm wondering if the rapport is harder to establish, because Adam knew Matty so well (I think) before he came on. But, whatever it is, it feels dryer than it has in the past. Can't quite put my finger on it.

The thing that kind of gets me is that there's been a shift in tone. Instead of it being a couple of well-informed guys exploring movies, I feel like I'm listening to two art critics. I know that, technically, you two are art critics, but there's something of an inaccessibility to it. What got me was the bicycle scenes episode. It was about the densest episode that I can remember. I mean, you went from marathons about Westerns and Hitchcock to Bresson and Iranian cinema.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that 1) you discuss the movies that intrigue you most and 2) you do discuss non-arty movies. Just remember what I wrote about two well-informed guys exploring movies. Include the arty things. I usually find them intriguing. But try to mix it up a little bit and throw in just ok looking movies that aren't necessarily the biggest draw. And RELAX. The rapport will come.

Brian, Oswego, IL

PS. Do we really need a summary of the "lessons" that we learned this week? I see no need to summarize the podcast.

PSS. Still love the podcast, and I write all this with love. To include the positives (as you like to), I like the new blood that Josh brings to the top fives, and I find his perspective interesting. I can't wait to get to know him better. And, of course, I'll always trust Adam. Plus, I like the addition of Michael Philips. I know that he probably can't do this, but weekly with the three of you would be great.

Adam

  • Administrator
  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4432
    • Filmspotting
Re: Filmspotting - we have a problem
« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2012, 11:38:21 PM »
Brian, I probably shouldn't even respond because you and anyone else should be able to come in this forum and vent and not necessarily have to deal with me responding or seeming to take it personally... which I don't at all because you're respectful and it clearly does come from a positive place. But a few thoughts because I can't help myself:

"But try to mix it up a little bit and throw in just ok looking movies that aren't necessarily the biggest draw." -- You mean, like when we talked about Dark Shadows? Deciding which movie to talk about each week is something that's just organic, and it's always been that way. We ask ourselves which movie we are most excited to see and discuss. Occasionally, what we imagine the listeners' interest level to be factors in. But there's no grand plan.

I think the note about going from Westerns and Hitchcock to Bresson and Iran is a little bit off because it overlooks all the super arty Marathons both Sam and Matty did on the show. Bergman? Kurosawa? Kieslowski? Almodovar? All with Matty. It's true Matty and I would deliberately try to break up the foreign language/arty ones with a good genre or Hollywood marathon, but Josh and I have always planned to do the same and we've only done two. We felt comfortable getting away with two 'tough' ones back to back because the next one, Blaxploitation, should be much lighter and has been set for several months.

At the risk of repeating myself from above, it's probably objectively true that the show has become 'dryer' to some degree since Josh came on board. But I don't think it has anything to do with us needing to relax or build more rapport. If it feels like it's two art critics more than it did before, that makes sense -- it's the first time two people who approached the show as critics are doing it. I'm sure there's room to improve, but I'm honestly as relaxed and comfortable now as I've ever been. And frankly, that comfort level has been there for me since the first time Josh came on.

Sure, it takes some time to understand the other guy's tendencies and be able to play off their likes and dislikes, but I think after 6 months I can safely say: this is your show... unless, you know, it's not. I personally don't want to change anything about our approach on-air or off-air at this point. We're having fun... and having laughs... every week.

P.S. The summary of the 'lessons' comes from the mind of producer Sam Van Hallgren, and honestly, I haven't completely embraced it yet myself... But as (almost) always, there's a method to his/our madness. The show isn't just a podcast; it's a radio show. And people who listen on radio don't necessarily here the entire episode.
Follow Filmspotting on Twitter at http://twitter.com/filmspotting

Listen to Filmspotting at http://filmspotting.net and on Chicago Public Radio (91.5 FM)

shuabert

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
    • Caveat Lector (Personal Tumblr)
Re: Filmspotting - we have a problem
« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2012, 12:29:42 AM »
If anything, the reason it seems you two are taking it more seriously is that Josh ACTUALLY takes the job seriously. As much as I loved Matty and the banter between you two, he often seemed like he really had no interest in being on the show.

sdb_1970

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2176
Re: Filmspotting - we have a problem
« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2012, 11:28:27 AM »
@shuabert:  That may have been true the last few months of Matty's tenure on the show, but I do not believe that was the case through 2009 and 2010.  I miss Matty, especially when I think back on shows like the 'Synecdoche' meta-review and the 'I'm Still Here' intro.  What I liked about Matty in particular was that he was not afraid to cop to a subjective emotional reaction to a film without grasping for rationalizations to try to prove that the film was objectively bad or good.  Sometimes a reviewer needs to recognize that what the director was trying to do is just not in the reviewer's emotional wheelhouse, which necessarily clouds one's appreciation of the objective aspects. In this sense, I found that Matty was refreshingly frank about where he was coming from, rather than feeling the need to wear the pretense of total objectivity.

A different perspective and background between the hosts helps as well in my opinion.  That's why I was rooting so hard for Dana or Allison as replacements.  It would have been really great to have a female perspective for a while after the single guy.
[insert pithy expression of false modesty here]

OmNom

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1148
  • They mostly come at night. Mostly.
Re: Filmspotting - we have a problem
« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2012, 12:55:51 PM »
Since Matty left (you know, to like get a "life" or whatever instead of being my podcasting poolboy) I've enjoyed the show much more than I thought I would.  I love it when you and Josh disagree, and I think there's more of that than there has been. 

I hope hope hope you guys disagree about the next Tarantino.  That would be epic.   ;D
The answers you seek are in Norway.