unforum

[Teedub]

[Tharol]

Still no video.

[Jingleman]

[Geneaux486]

[Lithp]

[Geneaux486]

[baseballfuries08]

[Animal]

The argument is frustrating because it may feel like "filler" because of the time in between entries, but watched consecutively it really isn't.

[Gold Knight]

[Lithp]

I watched most of Marble Hornets sequentially. There were still a lot of moments where I felt like it was in a slump.

[fezstudios]

[Lithp]

[Geneaux486]

[Jingleman]

Geneaux486, if we keep arguing like this, people are going to think that we're on different sides of the question as it applies to MH.

I'm not trying to dispute your definition directly, in fact, it's close to what I would go with if I were to embrace one myself. Rather, I'm arguing that your definition isn't so obvious that it will come into common use. It's just another competing definition, however reasonable it may be. People are using the term "filler" in lots of ways, and the "literal" definition isn't exclusive enough to discourage it. The literal definition isn't the only definition, and there's nothing in the literal definition that makes the other ones necessarily invalid. Everyone who uses the term "filler" thinks he's being reasonable about it, and maybe he is, but we always end up arguing about things other than the important issues. Dropping the word altogether would avoid all that.

And Lithp continues to be wrong, because all of the different reasons that the "filler crowd" have used since I've followed these boards - the reasons that they supposedly "generally understand" by implication - have always come down to other, more conventional issues that could be discussed more directly, and with less condescension toward the creators. Like when Lithp said, "There were still a lot of moments where I felt like it was in a slump." "Slump" is somewhat ambiguous, of course, but that certainly sounds like an issue of pacing to me (if not, then maybe addressing it directly in the conventional way would help).

Why use conventional literary terms when they might have disputed definitions, too? Because at least with the conventional terms, there is a body of scholarship to serve as a foundation for reference. Anybody with any education will be well oriented to the discussion already, and anybody who isn't has the benefit of being able to actually look it up, so we can skip ahead to the points of real disagreement.

As Lithp is using it, the thing that makes the word "filler" insulting - and it is always insulting - is that it necessarily suggests that the work they created was irrelevant to their own story. They obviously disagree. Who is more likely to be right?

Anyway, I've said my piece. You either agree or don't. I'm not wasting anymore time on this tonight.

[Geneaux486]