| Author |
 Topic  |
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
 Posted - 11/23/2008 : 17:36:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by dem9nic
It's one for the big boss man really.
Big boss man spoke, he say "yes". |
 |
|
|
chazbo 
"Outta This Fuckin' Place"
|
Posted - 11/24/2008 : 17:59:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by dem9nic
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k 9 0 1 f
I too am getting frustrated with the number of reviews rejected without explanation. My review for Changling was just turned down. It was "Jolie adopts another waif."
With a rejected without reason I pretty much always resub with explanation in case the MERP missed the meaning, and sometimes take the opportunity to give it a second look and tweak it.
I second RockGolf's frustration. I don't submit many reviews these days, but nearly all of them are being rejected with no reason.
I have a question, though. I often submit a review with an explanation, especially when I do older or obscure films. What do you do when a review that already has an explanation is rejected? One example is a review for Ron Howard's The Paper: 'The Sun's too Close'. I explained that the newspaper's title is The Sun, and Michael Keaton's difficulties are caused by Glenn Close's ideas about what the paper should be like. I thought the review was fine (it's the only film to include Close and a tabloid called The Sun). I'm wondering how I could resubmit it if it's been declined despite my explanation.
|
|
|
|
Larry 
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 11/24/2008 : 19:01:37
|
Chazbo -
That's a great review for "The Paper." I'm afraid we might have some less-than-knowledgeable MERPs when it comes to older and independent films -- and they don't have the time or inclination to research the films. Rather than admit their lack of knowledge, they just summarily reject the reviews. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/24/2008 : 21:17:15
|
Well, lack of knowledge was not the reason for Chazbo's rejection, since his explanation provided all the info. An awesome review that should not have been declined.
To be fair, I don't think lack of film knowledge is a major MERP weakness. |
|
|
|
chazbo
"Outta This Fuckin' Place"
|
Posted - 11/25/2008 : 01:10:37
|
Thanks for the comments. Maybe my wording is a bit confusing (Sun's = Sun is). I have resubmitted it with the same explanation. All I can do is hope for an approval this time.
|
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 11/25/2008 : 14:03:53
|
There's a lesson to be learned here: Don't fuck with the MERPs. I just had three reviews rejected as "Don't Understand." All would be easily understood by taking two minutes to look at the IMDB summaries of the films. I suspect this is in retaliation to my comments in this thread. No more trying to help. |
|
|
|
chazbo
"Outta This Fuckin' Place"
|
Posted - 11/25/2008 : 14:58:44
|
Sorry to hear that, Larry.
I often give an explanation right off the bat, especially if my review is not obvious or if the film is not well-known. With all the reviews that are probably submitted on a daily basis, MERPs might not have much time to check out IMDB pages for them. Perhaps it's an either/or situation: either have a larger number of reviews passed (but also declined), or devote more time to figuring the reviews out.
|
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
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.
|
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
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. |
Edited by - demonic on 11/26/2008 03:33:26 |
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
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
"Cinemaniac"
|
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? |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
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. |
Edited by - bife on 11/26/2008 23:31:30 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
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!
|
Edited by - Whippersnapper. on 11/27/2008 00:26:55 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
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?! |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
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 ...
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Click for Details
