| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ali |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 13:38:41
Is anyone surprised by the arrogance on display in the "Click for details" messages? It would be worth taking seriously if it weren't so mired in shit.
Also, some messages are veritable essays (badly written, and wrong), to which one cannot respond except for on the forum.
And the literalism. Don't get me started on the literalism.
Also, and many others have brought this up before, some reviewers have an almost free reign here, while others, such as yours truly, have to explain the simplest of puns, and resubmit the same fricking review seventeen times before finally getting it approved. Maybe it's just my luck, and I keep getting that one MERP with the IQ of a retarded chimp.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Salopian |
Posted - 11/28/2008 : 13:35:20
I don't think that would be useless. I frequently point out that a review is NOT too generic and then it either gets through or the MERP makes up a new reason. It's rare for them to insist that it IS too generic, once they are reminded of the 'new' rules. |
| Larry |
Posted - 11/28/2008 : 00:25:57
quote:
Originally posted by chazbo
quote:
Originally posted by Larry
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE - SOP: Simply Offensive Photographs.
I just watched that film and was wondering how I could use SOP in a review. I don't see why that should be declined, as it seems self-explanatory. I've seen many acronym-type reviews on the site, too.
I'd resubmit it if I were you.
You like it? It's yours. It was rejected as being too generic. There's no way to fight that. I was going to re-submit with, "Oh no it's not!!, but that seemed useless. Fell free to submit it under your name. |
| chazbo |
Posted - 11/27/2008 : 20:27:33
quote:
Originally posted by Larry
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE - SOP: Simply Offensive Photographs.
I just watched that film and was wondering how I could use SOP in a review. I don't see why that should be declined, as it seems self-explanatory. I've seen many acronym-type reviews on the site, too.
I'd resubmit it if I were you.
|
| demonic |
Posted - 11/27/2008 : 02:07:28
So as I was saying Larry... I think your "Island of the Damned" review has been done too many times before... dump it. 
(Actually, even though Bife got there way earlier, it's still more appropriate for your film.) |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 11/27/2008 : 01:47:59
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I wouldn't dare copy Rockgolf, but Larry has inspired me to a review for which I have added the film "Return To Treasure Island"... 
Hmm ... I think GHCool used the very same fwfr for Return To The Blue Lagoon Not that I'm accusing you of anything ...
Isle deny everything!
|
| bife |
Posted - 11/27/2008 : 00:50:42
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by bife
I've seen "Isle be damned" before, not sure what movie or reviewer. Think it might have been rockgolf.
You're joking, right?!
Seriously, I have no recollection of that review being mine! I did know it rang a bell, though |
| Salopian |
Posted - 11/27/2008 : 00:33:28
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I wouldn't dare copy Rockgolf, but Larry has inspired me to a review for which I have added the film "Return To Treasure Island"...
Hmm ... I think GHCool used the very same fwfr for Return To The Blue Lagoon Not that I'm accusing you of anything ...
And someone (probably someone like AussieCanuck) famously used it here because they made a big deal out of thinking it had too many votes and disowning it, and Randall used a version here. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/27/2008 : 00:26:33
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I wouldn't dare copy Rockgolf, but Larry has inspired me to a review for which I have added the film "Return To Treasure Island"...
Hmm ... I think GHCool used the very same fwfr for Return To The Blue Lagoon Not that I'm accusing you of anything ...
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 11/27/2008 : 00:12:20
quote:
Originally posted by bife
I've seen "Isle be damned" before, not sure what movie or reviewer. Think it might have been rockgolf.
You're joking, right?! |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 11/26/2008 : 23:41:16
I wouldn't dare copy Rockgolf, but Larry has inspired me to a review for which I have added the film "Return To Treasure Island"...
That 's what I call quick MERPing!
|
| bife |
Posted - 11/26/2008 : 23:31:12
quote:
Originally posted by dem9nic
I think you should keep at least some of those for yourself. Demon Seed, Letter to True, Three Guys Named Mike, and particularly Island of the Damned are all good work and worthy of votes. As for the others... either I don't know the film or what you're getting at; much like a MERP might not. Did these get rejected with or without explanations?
I've seen "Isle be damned" before, not sure what movie or reviewer. Think it might have been rockgolf. |
| demonic |
Posted - 11/26/2008 : 22:40:40
I think you should keep at least some of those for yourself. Demon Seed, Letter to True, Three Guys Named Mike, and particularly Island of the Damned are all good work and worthy of votes. As for the others... either I don't know the film or what you're getting at; much like a MERP might not. Did these get rejected with or without explanations? |
| Larry |
Posted - 11/26/2008 : 19:50:13
Here are some of my reviews that have been rejected because the MERPs didn't understand them (also a few that were dismissed without comment, two title-plays and a generic). If anybody out there understands them and cares to explain to the MERPs what they mean, or why they should be accepted, they're yours. Free. Gratis. Take them and run. Submit them as your own and wait for the votes to pour in.
FOUR CHRISTMASES - Christmas visiting, WithersPoon delayed.
BIG CARNIVAL - Kirk, de-pressed journalist, restarts.
HITLER: THE RISE OF EVIL - Carlisle, the Weeding Planner.
STRIKE FORCE - Forceful third-Gere vehicle.
CLUB FED - Kinsey report: Landers, sexy!
BLAZING SADDLES - Mongo flips that horse.
DEMON SEED - Whirr and piece.
YENTL - Streisand: The Vain Event.
GETAWAY (1994) - Kim. Car-dashin'
MERCY - Kramer vs. Kramer 2.
ISLE OF THE DAMNED - Well, isle be damned!
LETTER TO TRUE - A True Documentary.
ALL THE KING'S MEN - Penn mightier than sordid.
THREE GUYS NAMED MIKE - Great Mikes think alike.
HAUNTED - Haunted: stinko de Mayo.
SNAKES ON A PLANE - Mobsters can't venom all.
CHANEL SOLITAIRE - Pisier unwatchable. Change Chanels!
CARIBBEAN GOLD - Payne of the Caribbean.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE - SOP: Simply Offensive Photographs.
|
| demonic |
Posted - 11/26/2008 : 03:11:04
No Larry, I don't think that's right. Firstly I don't expect the MERPs to read up on every film I decide to review - it would be a major addition to the already extensive job they have to do - if I'm not making a blindingly obvious point with a extremely well known film I'll nearly always submit with an explanation on the first pass. Better safe than sorry right? Why go through all the rigmarole of waiting for a second pass to be approved when all it needed was some extra info?
Secondly when someone is reading the page of a film more often than not they will have seen the film in question... why else see how that film was reviewed in four words, or risk reading spoilers which are common? Yes, Benj and the MERPs may not get what you mean straight away, but may get it after you explain, and even then it might fly with votes once the people who've seen the film and can appreciate your take can view it. Therefore re-sub your reviews!
Worth mentioning I've had plenty of reviews from my top 100 only approved after re-submission, as will be the case with many long-time Fwiffers...
edit: comically, I've just had the perfect reason why IMDB research doesn't always help a MERP. I had a review for "Rear Window" declined because they knew Jimmy Stewart's character was called L.B. Jefferies but didn't know he's called Jeff throughout the whole film. |
| Larry |
Posted - 11/25/2008 : 17:18:51
I think I need to subscribe to this Benjism:
"...if we can't figure out what the reviewer is trying to say in their four words, chances are neither will anyone else visiting the site."
I could explain the three rejected reviews to the MERPS, and they might eventually agree one or two are okay reviews, but I can't explain them to everyone who sees 'em. Chances are, even if approved, the reviews will just sit there with zero votes. And I've got enough of those already. I just need to realize that the three reviews were crap and move on.
|
