moderators and co: (prescript: all the below meant in positive light, no negative or illwill at all from me as i really enjoy this place and want it to be as much fun as possible as that is the key to everything, i think and most of the below is just me thinking outloud).

i totally understand the need to generate traffic and keep the fav films traffic going as much as possible, but it seems like its just adding another step in order to discuss the film. (but i understand if that itself creates more traffic that is desireable) for e.g. this case here (and the doom thread). say we wanted to then discuss terrence's pov's etc. and things he brought up in a discussion/debate, we would have to come back to the 'closed' review, copy what he wrote, then start a new thread and paste it in there. (i guess i am just being superlazy in the thoughts here, not that what i just described is such an onerous task, but just trying to think outloud to help streamline the process).
it seems like wherever the 'debate' is going to happen, it is inspired by the review and someone would have to go back and forth between the 'debate thread' and the closed review. also as kex mentioned, tangents sometimes occur (ok, maybe not 'sometime' but all the time) and are just part of the fun.

no one is debating or calling in to question terrence's point of view (just like an equipment report, his findings are his findings), whatever he reports is exactly that, but if i, or anyone, disagree with a point he makes (e.g. great thriller vs. not so great), right here in this thread would be the place to have it. film review, (particularly the content portion of it) is extremely subjective (actually it can only be described as subjective, there is nearly no objective analysis to art) and what makes it so much fun to discuss the different reactions people have seeing the exact same movie. also, not that this is even close to the same situation, but in our favorite obsolete printer's former "official reviews" there were numerous factual errors in technical audio/video issues which t3 and wooch and co. all took him to task for, which... in the review itself was the place for that to happen. had that been a 'closed' review, then you would have this horrible review standing alone, and then in another section, all the debate about how crappy it is (again an extreme example, which i know is what your trying to avoid, .i.e. finding reviewers who wont make such blatantly amateurish and factual errors in their reviews).

so i guess am just voting for the format to stay as-is, where the review is posted and any convo that it may spark about that movie, sticks with the review. personally, just my own two cents, there's only 2 reasons why i post any reviews of the movie's i have watched on here:
1. to tell people (who have similar tastes as i do) about movies they might not know about and should absolutely, hopefully see, and support (with the hidden agenda to help generate revenue for said movies and make it easier for indie filmmakers to keep making inspiring films over such dreck as Doom, etc), and
2. to discuss those movies with everyone here.

the fun part of all this is having a disagreement with someone on an issue and debating it. perfect example is right here, i dont think the elements of a great thriller was satisfied by Flight Plan, quite the opposite. and would be great to discuss the 'whys' behind what made sir t enjoy it and what made me not. if that has to happen in a second thread entitled...? Flight Plan Review Discussion? then that's fine, just seems like its adding another thread just to add another thread.

as far as having a closed review means more people would want to sign up for writing reviews, am not sure that would be the case. if the 'fear' is that having an open review subjects you to the general public's critique of your work, then that is still present in the closed review example if rogue printers were still writing closed reviews. (again, with the caveat that i do understand you are trying to pick people who have a better understanding and a more than average knowledge of what they are reviewing and of the format they are reviewing, etc) but the point is (if i ever have one) is to keep things as open as possible. my knowledge in this arena (again, if i have any at all) is solely on content of the films, in the acting, the writing, the directing, the cinematography, any of the artistic elements that comprise the movie. my reviews focus on that. if i were to have any comments on audio/video quality, they would be very minimal and i would gladly like to have anyone else add an addendum to the audio/video quality (as someone did to my Into the Blue section of my last movie review) which again, i have some movies coming up i will be posting reviews of (Blow Up, El Crimen Perfecto, Frankie and Johnny are Married) three non-mainstream movies who the majority probably havent even heard of as i myself hadnt until recently. now after posting them, if, for eg. wooch or sir ttt has seen these movies as well and wanted to add on to the audio/video section by saying say... for e.g. that Blow Up has a reference quality transfer for an older movie... i'd think that should be included in the 'review' thread, not the 'discussion inpsired by the review' thread. and maybe that could be part of the process, as i could send my review in and then have it go through your internal quality controls before it gets posted with an: "Editors Note: audio/video quality comment here" type thing added on to it.

whew, that was very long winded, but just wanted to get another two cents in for some thought and debate. (btw, overall, i dont think its such a bad idea to have a closed review, and i think with the proper safeguards in place, can work, as that is how established places post their reviews (e.g. nytimes, rogerebert.com, etc).)