| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 12/08/2008 : 08:12:39
Four Your Consideration - Treasure Hunt
Sean Says: Shopping may not longer be an option!
 Put any five reviews you like in your F.Y.C. list.
Do not use reviews from the previous round - you must change them every round.
Post here to declare that you've done it. Sooner is better than later.
 Provide a spoiler warning in your post when appropriate.
You must read the F.Y.C.s of all participants.
The next round starts on Monday or Thursday at 6:00 a.m. FWFR time, whichever comes next.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Salopian |
Posted - 01/15/2009 : 09:44:10
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Do you ever have even the slightest self-awareness that you might take relatively trivial things, and indeed yourself, just a tad too seriously?
Does it never cross your mind that I might be doing so in order to entertain myself (although the content of what I say is still true)? I notice that whenever I use hyperbolically pompous language for comic effect you parrot it back later as though I had just said it ordinarily. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 03:29:35
Do you ever have even the slightest self-awareness that you might take relatively trivial things, and indeed yourself, just a tad too seriously?
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 02:47:34
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
The secondary inferred meaning is a title play, but the primary meaning of "Enjoying NY (especially Queens)" is geographical, which I suppose is why it was accepted.
No, it is the "especially Queens" that makes it title play only. There is no evidence from the actual film (including the real meaning of the title) that Queens is favoured in it. "Enjoying NY (including Queens?)" would be fine, probably even without the question mark, but you chose not to go with that version.
quote:
Incidentally, objecting to reviews being incorrectly refused as title play onlys does not contradict getting reviews accepted which might be title play onlys
It depends what you mean by contradict. It's not a logical impossibility to be hypocritical in such a way way, but the principle is certainly contradicted by submitting title-play-only reviews like this one. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 13:27:21
No, Mr Twilight Zone, my "Gay Time In New York City" is not a title play only.
The secondary inferred meaning is a title play, but the primary meaning of "Enjoying NY (especially Queens)" is geographical, which I suppose is why it was accepted.
Personally I don't know or care whether people in 1911 would have understood the secondary meaning, as I didn't write the review for them. I wrote it for people in 2008. However, if anyone feels that this detracts from their appreciation I respect that position.
Incidentally, objecting to reviews being incorrectly refused as title play onlys does not contradict getting reviews accepted which might be title play onlys, except perhaps in the strangely warped personal reality hell that we call "Salopian". 
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 12:50:02
My comment on your review was not in the objective category mentioned. I took napper's punctuation reference to be about things like the apostrophe I was talking about a round or two ago. My post about your review was entirely and openly subjective, since it was framed within a judgment of its quality. It still would be better in the way I suggested, though, for a couple of reasons. 
And yes, napper's review is title play only. As he always has a bee in his bonnet about reviews being unfairly rejected on that basis, I'm surprised he's so happy to have them unfairly approved in that way. Well, actually, in his case I'm not surprised, since he is not keen on avoiding hypocrisy. |
| Sludge |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 06:53:50
V&V
Funny. I agree with Whipper about punctuation and really liked that "operatunity" made me think twice (and then I voted for it). I think my review works as is though it would also work by swapping one non-letter for another non-letter. This site is not "reviews in a properly-punctuated four word sentence." I try to read reviews with that in mind. This means, no, it is not completely objective to insist on a punctuation change.
But... I would have felt better voting for
"Gay Time In New York City, A" if I hadn't noticed the (1911) after voting (sorry to say). It's difficult to know much about the film, but I'm pretty sure the pun on Queens would be lost on New Yorkers round the turn of the century.
To say more about "Operatunity", though, I really thought this was a great way of putting it. I also liked this because I cannot separate the film Fitzcarraldo from the total nightmare it was to make. Reflecting on the experience, Director Werner Herzog referred to himself as "conquistador of the useless." This is kind of how I see myself among my collection of fwfrs. (More so when Salopian puts so much energy into picking them apart).
 |
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 02:35:41
V&V and that's no bull. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 00:46:05
Bullshit.
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 12/10/2008 : 23:06:30
Wanting actual errors to be corrected and expressing one's preference for potential reviews are both categorically distinct from 'explaining' the self-evident. Unlike that, neither can be deemed condescending since one is totally objective and one is explicitly subjective. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 12/10/2008 : 22:48:45
Well, I thought all those people whose reviews you regularly critique were the obvious audience.
All those people who need to be told by you where to put their commas or colons. Those people who would get your vote if they would only rewrite their review in the correct way, as defined by you.
To be accused of condescension by you is deeply, deeply ironic. Thanks for making me laugh at loud.
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 12/10/2008 : 22:44:52
I cannot imagine who here you thought needed it. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 12/10/2008 : 22:31:45
The explanation wasn't for superior people like you Salopian, naturally.
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 12/10/2008 : 21:59:10
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
My review is not just a pun on "opportunity" - its on the phrase "land of opportunity," (that is financial opportunity)which South American was seen as by C19th Europeans, and what it is to all the European characters in the film except Fitzcarraldo, who, bizarrely, sees it as the perfect opera venue.
Thank you for that explanation of the obvious, which is also neither here nor there since the pun is wholly located on the word in question. I was simply pointing out that that pun was very well known beforehand, and so it makes no difference who recycled it into a review first. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 12/10/2008 : 21:35:38
How could anyone ever accuse you of being picky, Salopian?  Ridiculous!
My review is not just a pun on "opportunity" - its on the phrase "land of opportunity," (that is financial opportunity)which South American was seen as by C19th Europeans, and what it is to all the European characters in the film except Fitzcarraldo, who, bizarrely, sees it as the perfect opera venue.
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 12/10/2008 : 21:19:13
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Well, I don't mind if I do!
Well, I guess you don't mind that I already did!! Here's your chance to pay respects
Well, if we're going to be picky, Channel 4 was first with its programme Operatunity.
Gee I didn't know they were a member of fwfr
BTWE - v&v
|
