Huh. So it does.

People who aren't 'into' movies will often get offended or not understand when you start pointing out the flaws in a movie they like. I talk about movies a lot at work with people and I'll get into some of the story / character problems I have and they'll say something like "Well, I liked it a lot" and I'll say "I liked it, too", and they'll give me a weird look, like "How could you like something that you just ragged on for five minutes about the story flaws and the plotholes and stuff...?"

The answer to that is simple and complex and if you're into movies, you get it. I just watched "The Grey", and it's got about a thousand problems that I could go through and point out, but I enjoyed watching it and I'd watch it again, if for nothing else than to try to understand why certain things were done. Can't really turn that part of my brain off unless the movie is something that connects with me so well that I stop doing that. If I don't absolutely love a movie within ten or fifteen minutes, I spend the next hour and a half analyzing it.

"The Grey" is kinda depressing and silly, btw.

I have become the same way with analysis. Its not that I don't want to be entertained-I can be entertained just find by things like "The Grey" and as you said watch it and enjoy it. But I love background information, things that give details and life to the characters, Things like plot holes, and inconsistencies bother me now that I am more analytical.

People who just want to be mindlessly entertained don't get that wanting depth is not film school snobbery-its wanting something to think about after the popcorn is gone and you've gone home.

^^^ I think we can discuss this later at some point in a different thread, but I thoroughly disagree with you guys. I think The Grey is the closest movie I've seen to having the awesome character dynamics of Jaws in a survival type situation. I felt all the survivors were both realistic and likable, and I really liked that the movie never really fell into typical jump-scarey horror movie territory (it does for maybe 15 minutes after the crash, after that it goes back to being an absolutely brutal character drama).

As above. I think many of us mentally put you into the "Internet Friend" zone, and would feel pretty awful if DiF was becoming more of an obligation than a fun thing to do.

I remember months ago thinking that perhaps you'd burn out on doing all the double bill commentaries for so long, as that's pretty intensive to go through every Sunday (and then you added the intermission as well!). Sure, LOTR was an especially long haul but what you'd done previously up to then was pretty exhausting (give or take about 5 hours) and shouldn't be discounted.

It's no surprise to me that you'd want to scale back - though I'm a bit curious as to what the ultimate goal of all this is and what is hoped to be accomplished by moving up the tail. Does DiF want to become a business?

For the record, I'd like very much for DIF to become a profitable enterprise if it could, but nothing we've talked about trying to do to that end has ever materialized in any meaningful way. But if it meant changing the show purely to kowtow to audience demand I wouldn't be down with that. If a change we want to make anyway could work in our favor where audience share is concerned -- like the shift in format -- then that's a point in the plus column when we're considering it but not a trump card.