| Author |
 Topic  |
|
The General 
"Forty? What? Me? How?."
Canada
|
 Posted - 05/02/2008 : 17:51:23
|
I read the earlier post on this, and like Salopian, Whipper, and probably others, I'm confused by this newish category of rejections. I've had two puzzling title play rejections:
For "Tarka the Otter," "Why, I Otter" was rejected as title play. Not a great review, but since it's a movie about an Otter, isn't this review more than just title play?
But my most puzzling one is an ongoing rejection of "Show me the Munny" as a review for "Unforgiven." This explanation was offered for the latest "Title Play" rejection: "Beside the film featuring Munny, I don't see the relevance of him being 'shown' besides for the sake of a pun on the name."
My sense is that title play rejection is meant to apply to reviews that pun on a title AND have little or no connection to the content of the film. If a review is connected to a film's content, it should be accepted.
Am I misreading this? Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Yukon 
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
Kingston, Canada
|
Posted - 05/02/2008 : 19:35:23
|
Benj recently said that if the movie has no plot information in IMDB.com, then title play is acceptable because technically we don't know what the film is about.
If we do know what the film is about, your review has to match the plot apply to a scene in the movie.
Title play is a slipperly slope and it's up to each MERP to decide but I hope that tidbit of info helps a little. |
 |
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 05/02/2008 : 21:41:12
|
I've seen the film, and your review for Tarka The Otter is not really appropriate.
However, a review can be perfectly pertinent to the film in question, and be a title play, too. Unfortunately a few merps, or maybe just one rather overzealous merp, seems unable to grasp this, and rejects all title plays in a most perfunctory manner regardless of their inherent quality.
I reward such brilliant merping by hitting the resubmit button almost as quickly as the merp hits the "title play only" one. It's turning into a rather nice round of tennis.
Bitter much? Not really - just observant.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 05/02/2008 : 22:33:27
|
I don't think either review should be accepted, although the first one made me laugh, so thanks!
However, neither is a "title play only" and the second one cannot possibly be, as Munny is not mentioned in the title.
Essentially this category explanation is simply not working properly, and the above reviews should be rejected for a different reason, maybe "Does not describe film" for example.
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 05/02/2008 : 23:56:55
|
Actually, I declined the above review with that explanation. I've no idea why it came out as Title Play as decline reason though, so there must be a problem there (or I didn't click the decline reason I thought I did).
Also, for the record, no MERPs I've spoken with ever quickly decline anything without considerable thought (if we did, there'd be no backlog) so statements like "I reward such brilliant merping by hitting the resubmit button almost as quickly as the merp hits the 'title play only' one" are completely ill-informed speculation and helping no-one. I should also add that this doesn't turn into a nice round of tennis- repeated resubmission of the same review with no attempt at further justification or reworking will in all likelihood just be declined by another MERP, only holding up everyone else's reviews. |
|
|
|
Herky 
|
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 00:20:40
|
In Unforgiven, the reason they (tell themselves they) go on the killing is for the money, so the phrase "show me the money" could be interpreted as referring to the characters' motivation. With the money/Munny pun, it's tied to a specific film.
I don't know anything about Tarka The Otter to be able comment on it, but IMDB lists a 1913 film titled The Otter that you might be able to use that review for.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1100110/
|
|
|
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
Canada
|
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 00:57:16
|
A grizzled FWIFFER's two cents/pence worth:
1) The otter review. Other than evoking a beloved Three Stooges catch phrase, the review tells us nothing about the film nor does it relate to otters in any way other than the pun.
2)With respect to the review for Unforgiven, if you check the approved reviews for that film you will see that the reviews that pun on Munny all (with one possible exception) have a bearing on the film. "Show me the Munny" is again just a play on a line of dialogue from another film and doesn't really connect to the film reviewed. Eastwood's character does not ask the prosties for money. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 01:23:12
|
Incidentally, if anyone knows of a film where I can use my "Raleigh otter" joke, please let me know!!!
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 02:01:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Herky
In Unforgiven, the reason they (tell themselves they) go on the killing is for the money, so the phrase "show me the money" could be interpreted as referring to the characters' motivation. With the money/Munny pun, it's tied to a specific film.
I grant this interpretation of the review, however my feeling is that this is too much of a stretch of the film's plot just to force a joke. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 02:40:20
|
Everyone should remember that The Prof was quite validly objecting to the 'Title play only' rejections, not saying that the reviews could not be rejected.
In the case of "Why, I Otter", apart from the inexplicable capitalisation of Otter, the review is arguably O.K. for the film. This is because it shows motivations for aspects of Tarka's behaviour. It also shows things which the otter could be angry about, or which one could be angry about on its behalf. It's a bit of a stretch structurally, but not more than numerous reviews here. |
Edited by - Salopian on 05/03/2008 02:40:56 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 02:42:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Herky
In Unforgiven, the reason they (tell themselves they) go on the killing is for the money, so the phrase "show me the money" could be interpreted as referring to the characters' motivation. With the money/Munny pun, it's tied to a specific film.
I grant this interpretation of the review, however my feeling is that this is too much of a stretch of the film's plot just to force a joke.
I dunno: this seems totally equivalent to "To Helen back". |
|
|
|
The General
"Forty? What? Me? How?."
Canada
|
Posted - 05/03/2008 : 03:17:12
|
Accepting or rejecting reviews is not an exact science, and everyone does the best they can. (Except for the MERPs who reject my reviews, who clearly lurk Gollum-like in dark basements and feed on my pain.) 
My concern with the "Title Play" category is that it should be limited to a very specific circumstance--where a review is a play only on the title and has no tie to the movie's content. (Look at many of the reviews of "Roof Sex" for examples that could have been rejected for Title Play only.)
My contention is neither of my reviews should have been rejected for title play only, because both are linked to the film's content.
My broader concern is that the "Title Play" reason is being applied too broadly and is creating some frustration among FWFR'ers. Perhaps some inter-MERP discussion (that sounds kind of dirty) is in order.
|
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 08:07:23
|
As I have said before, I have observed that some reviewers get an easier pass for their reviews than others. Also, rejecting reviews on the grounds of their being "Title Play Only" has been producing equally unfair results.
Further, many, MANY times, merps reject reviews, some of them rather fine, without providing any reason whatsoever. None.
My outburst was based on these three observations, and, thus, not at all ill-informed. If we are asked, time and again, to take it easy with merps and give them the benefit of the doubt because they are only human, and because theirs is a volunteer position, I also think it's equally fair to point out that some of them are prone to making rather questionable decisions.
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 19:11:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
As I have said before, I have observed that some reviewers get an easier pass for their reviews than others.
I have to agree with this. Or certainly reviews are rejected even when the MERPs are reminded of totally equivalent approved reviews. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 21:11:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
As I have said before, I have observed that some reviewers get an easier pass for their reviews than others. Also, rejecting reviews on the grounds of their being "Title Play Only" has been producing equally unfair results.
Further, many, MANY times, merps reject reviews, some of them rather fine, without providing any reason whatsoever. None.
My outburst was based on these three observations, and, thus, not at all ill-informed.
I'm sorry, but you're commenting on a black box process. You see some of what goes in and some of what comes out, but you have no idea what goes on inside. All you can do is speculate on the rather limited information you have available to you, which I would class as ill-informed.
quote:
If we are asked, time and again, to take it easy with merps and give them the benefit of the doubt because they are only human, and because theirs is a volunteer position, I also think it's equally fair to point out that some of them are prone to making rather questionable decisions.
I agree completely, as long as it's respectful of the fact these guys are volunteers. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 22:49:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I'm sorry, but you're commenting on a black box process. You see some of what goes in and some of what comes out, but you have no idea what goes on inside. All you can do is speculate on the rather limited information you have available to you, which I would class as ill-informed.
Not really. Ali can see a review rejected for himself that he is more than capable of objectively assessing as being equivalent to a review approved for someone else. This is especially the case as the detailed rejection explanation may well often directly contradict said approved reviews (whether for the same film or others). If approved reviews in this category often seem to be for certain people, then Ali can reasonably infer what he has (and similarly that it is not just down to one MERP's opinion on one occasion). Submissions being anonymous would of course almost entirely remove this problem. |
Edited by - Salopian on 05/05/2008 22:50:36 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Title Play Confusion
