Film blogs can have two aspects. One is the general "What did you think of it and why?"; everyone can contribute (who has watched the film.) The only danger is an argument about tastes--where I follow the Crazy Horse logic that "I like it / I don't like it" is fine, but criticism is something else.
Then there is another aspect, which we have seen an interest in with the photo blog, and that is: technical elements. Sven knows a lot about these--but whether he has time/interest in developing it. Thing is, the technical aspect is served wonderfully by youtube. All those 10 min clips, all the favourites snipped and available. Maybe there would be some interest in analysing a 10 min clip rather than a whole film?
Also, for those who have seen the film, a clip might have a "key resonance" such that it can be shown and then used to feed out to the wider picture.
A simple example: I've never been into Hitchcock. It could just be "like vs. dislike", but he's a famous director, I'm sure clips of his films are online, and maybe I'd learn a thing or eight from a technical discussion--hmmm....maybe I'm thinking "form and function can't be separated"--only maybe not!
(...like I said, just throwing thoughts out.) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
To be frank, I have not seen that much of Hitchcocks works to be certain that this description fits Hitchcock. I am however certain that later generations of moveiwatchers will not experience the awe I felt when I watched Jurassic Park. They made it look so real! Not like the stiff puppets or crude cuts (with blue lines around the cut-in object) I was used too. Now computer animation is standard and hanging a movie on just good animations does not work, thus a story is also needed (ok, Jurassic Park might have had a story but I hardly remember it).
