| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 03/11/2010 : 04:17:07
|
Fight cub.
Fight Cub.
At one stage these two had about 20 votes. When I saw that lemmy got there first I gave mine to Alan (about 5 years ago). Sure I could have deleted it, but it's virtually a certainty that someone else would have submitted it at a later date.
So giving it to Alan appears to have stopped it getting any more votes and stopped anyone else submitting it.
With hindsight I'd have deleted it, resubmitted, then disowned (i.e., got rid of the votes). Also with hindsight I'd have done multiple submissions of "Brat out of hell" for the appropriate movies before everyone else did and similarly donated them to Alan. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 04:27:22
|
| Lemmy's also has the advantage of bearing some relationship to the film... (They are domestic cats in the other one, not big cats, so they cannot be cubs.) |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 14:48:38
|
I disown a fair number of my films - not because they are a copy (I tend to delete these if the meaning is identical) but just because I don't feel any love for them or feel that they're just not up to scratch. Sometimes it takes a little while to realise this.
Shortly after I joined I (seem to) remember Benj saying that he would prefer that reviewers would actively disown their lesser regarded films in order to keep a better standard of review under their name. He also said that he'd rather a review wasn't deleted.
Now I understand that for those whose aim, or one of their aims, is to rise up through the ranks in terms of numbers of reviews, this would be a destructive act. But for me, I'm not too worried about my total number of reviews, so I can go along with Benj's preferences.
The fact that Smithee turns up in various statistics is a whopping great irrelevence as far as I'm concerned. Anyone who has spent enough time here to be checking out these lists should know that the Smithee isn't real, so ignore it. To a degree I think it's actually an interesting barometer to measure oneself against.
The invention of Smithee is one of the cute little details that make this site so interesting and engaging as far as I'm concerned.
Long live Alan Smithee!
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 14:56:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Shortly after I joined I (seem to) remember Benj saying that he would prefer that reviewers would actively disown their lesser regarded films in order to keep a better standard of review under their name. He also said that he'd rather a review wasn't deleted.
He said the second part but I really don't think he said the first.
quote:
The fact that Smithee turns up in various statistics is a whopping great irrelevence as far as I'm concerned.
Tell that to the people who are 101st and thus get less exposure as a result.
And it's not about the number of the ranking � it's just that I think it would be pretty fucking demoralising to come below other people's hand-me-downs on any of the quality scales. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/11/2010 15:00:35 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 19:15:45
|
BiggerBoat: I agree. And, for me too, sometimes it takes a while to finalize divorce proceedings between reviewer and review: every once in a while I run across something I haven't seen for quite some time and realise that I've had my fill of it.
But I'd be careful about calling Smithee "not real"; and don't try that late-night, screen saver thing -- it's not worth the risk.  
Salopian: I am aware of your long-standing sentiments on the matter of Smithee, and I am respectful of the fact of your opinion, which I am sure others share as well. I am hopeful that some level of comfort may come from the fact that Smithee owns mostly the lesser-in-quality reviews vis a vis those who have fewer, but likely better, reviews. |
|
|
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 21:51:05
|
Normally I maintain a position of neutrality bordering on practised, even supreme, indifference on the matter of Smithee and his growing collection of rejects.
However, I am currently one place behind him in the ranking of total number of reviews. And bugger me if the gap isn't widening. (That's not a piece of Shropshire flirtation, by the way.)
I'd be most grateful if you lot would lower your standards and hang on to your despised reviews.
Smithee's got enough already. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 22:02:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
Normally I maintain a position of neutrality bordering on practised, even supreme, indifference on the matter of Smithee and his growing collection of rejects.
However, I am currently one place behind him in the ranking of total number of reviews. And bugger me if the gap isn't widening. (That's not a piece of Shropshire flirtation, by the way.)
I'd be most grateful if you lot would lower your standards and hang on to your despised reviews.
Smithee's got enough already.
Isn't that the WORST? I recall once upon a time having a goal of passing him and then someone disowned somewhere around 700 reviews. Cooked my chaps. I have never Smitheed a review. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 22:03:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
.... And bugger me if the gap isn't widening.
The wider the gap, the more likely the buggering, I'm afraid.  |
|
|
|
Chris C
"Four words, never backwards."
|
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 22:17:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
.... And bugger me if the gap isn't widening.
The wider the gap, the more likely the buggering, I'm afraid.
I've voted on 34 Smithee'd reviews. I have votes registered against 34 Smithee reviews. I've only ever passed him one review, and that was by mistake - I meant to delete and hit the wrong button.
My view, FWIW, is that if you dislike a review that much, get rid of it completely, don't leave it hanging around like a bad smell. |
Edited by - Chris C on 03/11/2010 22:21:01 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 22:29:51
|
| I've given Smithee at least 400. Benj can delete them if he doesn't want them on the site. |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 03/12/2010 : 00:35:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Tell that to the people who are 101st and thus get less exposure as a result.
Well, it's not people is it, it'll be a person [Edit: I see what you mean - those who are 101st in different lists. Gotcha], and the degree of exposure they get is minimally reduced. They're either going to be on their way out of the top 100 or on their way in so it's going to make very little difference to their exposure.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
And it's not about the number of the ranking � it's just that I think it would be pretty fucking demoralising to come below other people's hand-me-downs on any of the quality scales.
I think you'd have to be fairly obsessed to be demoralised by it. And even if you were, do something about it and start posting better reviews (or less bad ones).
|
Edited by - BiggerBoat on 03/12/2010 00:49:55 |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 03/12/2010 : 20:45:45
|
| I've given reviews, and thus votes, to Smithee ever since he was invented. I've even voted myself on reviews just after I Disowned them for one reason or another [any specific reason I might have had happens to be, um, how you say, none of your fucking business]. I think he's one of our most fascinating fwiffers now...trawling through his pages is endlessly entertaining. Long may he fwiff. |
Edited by - randall on 03/17/2010 21:34:24 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 17:14:10
|
| Since Alan Smithee does exist, shouldn't all the anonymous reviews be given to him too? |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 04/24/2010 : 02:02:37
|
I would say "no": some people want no one to take credit for a review (e.g., "Crossed, uncrossed, HELLO, crossed.") While I don't know that author's rationale (if there indeed was any) in not taking credit, I like to imagine some altruistic genius who posted that review in the spirit of a great artist, who appreciates the art more than the residual glory it can provide his repiutation. Though probably it was some pervy slob who thought it was funny but couldn't figure out how to register. We will never know.
IMHO, that's potentially a more powerful statement about a good review (as anonymous bad reviews generally don't make it, I assume). But, that's just my op-onion.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/24/2010 : 02:39:47
|
That would make more sense if it was a current option, but it's not possible any more, thanks to my suggestion to Benj some years ago. It was just people who didn't bother to register or log in, I would suggest. I don't believe for a second that anyone actively decided to submit a review anonymously.
That review is just as rubbish as most of Alan Smithee's so it would fit very well. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Alan Smithee
