| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| benj clews |
Posted - 09/02/2008 : 21:42:09
Here's something that's starting to concern me a little: the number of really debatable 'films' that are being added to the site.
IMDB has, as far as I can tell, no idea what it's doing so I'd like to suggest a simple rule to help curb this trend. My feeling is that the majority of the problem entries are TV documentaries and so I'd like to propose that fwfr only feature documentaries that have been shown to an audience in a cinema (somewhere). This would allow things such as Micheal Moore films and The March of the Penguins, but eliminate breast feeding guides and Louis Theroux documentaries (which, I'm pretty sure, never make it off BBC channels).
What does anyone think? Would this rule out any documentaries that somebody feels should feature on a film site? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 14:04:23
Hhmmm, I don't think how many films one person would lose is a very good basis for anything. |
| Larry |
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 13:50:14
I just checked all my films and I'd only lose three out of 630 titles (depending on how the new rule is interpreted), so I say -- go for it! Get rid of 'em! Although I'd hate to see one of them rejected (History of the Joke) because it has been fodder for so many great reviews. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 13:39:07
I'm saying that the Louis Theroux ones are all not part of a series. Some of them have themed titles, but that's just like Carry On films. There's no real difference from the film Manufacturing Dissent or many others which just involve following someone around.
You have the legal right to delete whichever films you like, but that doesn't make it reasonable, especially when there is so much on the site that undeniably needs doing. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 09:44:20
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The whole point is that Panorama broadcasts are NOT films (as I have already explicitly stated above, twice) and that T.V. non-series documentaries such as Louis Theroux films are not like those but closer to Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock documentaries (and other lower profile ones such as Manufacturing Dissent that are even less 'cinematic' despite having a cinema release).
So let me get this straight... a documentary on TV is a film if it's not part of a series? Yet, I'd class a Louis Theroux doco in one of his series much more like the production quality of one of his one-offs than a Michael Moore doco movie.
The simple fact is, this isn't down to cinematic quality or something being in a series or not, it's perception- and in this instance, mine.
When I go to the cinema I watch a film/ movie, regardless of if it's made by Michael Moore or Michael Mann. If that film/ movie is shown on TV or released on DVD at a later date I still perceive it as a film/ movie. If I watch some crappy TV movie starring Tim Matheson on TV on a Monday afternoon, it's in no way the same experience as watching a film/ movie at the cinema but it's still described in the guide as a movie. If I watch Louis Theroux interviewing people about gambling I in no way categorize it with either of the above since it didn't get a cinema release and isn't listed as a TV movie.
I truly believe your average cinema-goer wouldn't see it much different either.
quote:
quote:
God help anyone who goes to your house expecting a film night.
And on a film night you show people shorts and porn, do you?!
Absolutely not- I told you this the last time you brought some to my house  |
| Sean |
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 05:06:31
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Here's something that's starting to concern me a little: the number of really debatable 'films' that are being added to the site.
If this becomes a hard one to define (like the generic rule, or pornography - "I can't define it but know it when I see it"), then there's always the option of leaving things the way they are but with a declaration such as:-
"I, benj clews, as Ultimate Supreme Commander of all things fwfrey will terminate with extreme prejudice and without warning any 'films' or 'non-films' with associated reviews that I don't want on the site."
 |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 03:24:57
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I simply do not see a film as being a Panorama special- you apparently do.
The whole point is that Panorama broadcasts are NOT films (as I have already explicitly stated above, twice) and that T.V. non-series documentaries such as Louis Theroux films are not like those but closer to Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock documentaries (and other lower profile ones such as Manufacturing Dissent that are even less 'cinematic' despite having a cinema release).
quote:
God help anyone who goes to your house expecting a film night.
And on a film night you show people shorts and porn, do you?!
quote:
I'm not making it movies only- I think I'm being pretty flexible by allowing in adult movies and shorts for example, but I do think a line has to be drawn somewhere on these documentaries. This is simply where I personally feel the film vs. non-film split happens and I'm asking if anyone can name anything they consider a film that would be lost if it were implemented.
I'm at a loss as to how you can see cinema fictional movies, T.V. fictional movies, cinema biopics, T.V. biopics, cinema documentaries, shorts and porn as being one category but Louis Theroux films etc. as another category.
I'm still totally satisfied with the robustness of my aforementioned "I'm making a film" diagnostic. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 01:26:21
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
You used the term film so we thought it covered all films. The Louis Theroux ones ARE films. It's not that movies only wouldn't have been valid, just that it's not really fair to make it that now.
Well you're perfectly entitled to think of what a film is in your terms (I'm not sure where the 'we' came from- have you actually asked everyone else?) but what we're seeing now is that we both have very different opinions on this. I simply do not see a film as being a Panorama special- you apparently do. God help anyone who goes to your house expecting a film night.
I'm not making it movies only- I think I'm being pretty flexible by allowing in adult movies and shorts for example, but I do think a line has to be drawn somewhere on these documentaries. This is simply where I personally feel the film vs. non-film split happens and I'm asking if anyone can name anything they consider a film that would be lost if it were implemented. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 23:37:20
You know Sally, that last line of yours is simply iridescent with wisdom.
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 22:00:12
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
By the same argument I could say that I never said it wasn't for feature films- it was never specified either way. Unless you count the fact the second F in FWFR stands for Film which is how I've always described what I say I'm going to see when I go to the cinema.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. You used the term film so we thought it covered all films. The Louis Theroux ones ARE films. It's not that movies only wouldn't have been valid, just that it's not really fair to make it that now. Further, if you did want to start cutting categories out then shorts and porn films muddy the waters more.
The special thing about this site isn't films, it's the reviews. The priority should therefore be cleaning up the situation with regard to them. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 20:30:53
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
It's rather unfair to now say that the site is for feature films, something you have never mentioned before.
By the same argument I could say that I never said it wasn't for feature films- it was never specified either way. Unless you count the fact the second F in FWFR stands for Film which is how I've always described what I say I'm going to see when I go to the cinema. Hence why I also registered www.FourWordMovieReview.com but yet www.FourWordTVDocumentaryReview.com remains up for grabs.
I do believe these entries muddy the water of the site's premise considerably and unless someone can give me worthy examples of 'films' that would be lost from the site I'm strongly feeling this is the way to go. Right now all I see us losing is a bunch of talking head interviews and (since I don't think I've mentioned it yet) breastfeeding guides. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 17:56:19
Breast-feeding guides etc. can easily be identified by their primarily instructional nature.
I think Benj has already said his policy is to exclude such films, so I agree that there doesn't seem much need to discuss them in this thread.
Also we already exclude TV series, so Josh's example o f A&E documentaries being deleted was not an example of TV documentaries being disallowed but rather TV series being disallowed.
So the core areas would seem to be - correct me if I'm wrong -
1.TV documentaries which are not listed as being one of a series but could be seen as being e.g. some Louis Therouxs
and
2. TV docs which are pretty clearly one-offs.
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 17:03:59
Cannot write a long message as no keyboard at the moment, but my whole point is that the Louis Theroux documentaries are not in any meaningful way a series. They are NOT like Panorama. People seem to be obsessed with mentioning March of the Penguins, but they are no less like that than cinema releases of other journalistic documentaries. Please also stop lumping them in with the breastfeeding guides as if anyone is saying to keep those.
There is so much that should be prioritised over things like this, such as processing reported reviews and training the new MERP.
It's rather unfair to now say that the site is for feature films, something you have never mentioned before. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 16:36:32
Well, OK Josh, that's an explanation, so thanks for giving it, but I was really wondering whether is there one which is practical rather than purely abstract?
|
| Josh the cat |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 16:08:23
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
What harm are they doing exactly? 
I believe that Benj is concerned that they affect the integrity of a film review site, which he now possibly wishes he called FWFFR.
Benj, IMHO the Louis T docs are tv programmes not films or feature films so bin them I reckon you do have a precedent for this in the A&E docs.
Just my humble opinion!
Cheers
Josh the cat |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 15:24:13
What harm are they doing exactly? |
