| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| TitanPa |
Posted - 05/12/2006 : 03:13:55
3 of my reviews that were denied for a new movie have a reason that I never saw before. Maybe it was made because of me that it was made. Whats the reason?
"The Film is unconfirmed"
Anyone else seen this? See somethin new everyday. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| benj clews |
Posted - 12/09/2006 : 02:35:48
I've just upgraded the database and I think some of the lists need refreshing. Hopefully it'll be sorted in a minute 
EDIT: Yay! Fixed now. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 12/09/2006 : 02:33:11
quote:
Originally posted by redPen
Here's a new one:
With 1373 reviews (which still shows on my ranking), for some reason my ID has dropped down to spot #6677, between too fwfrers with 0 and 1 review apiece . . . what the--??
I'm 4097th, between a 37 and a 6.  (You mean your rank, not your ID which is fixed)
Fwfr has entered a parallel universe. [whistles theme from X Files]
|
| redPen |
Posted - 12/09/2006 : 02:25:00
Here's a new one:
With 1373 reviews (which still shows on my ranking), for some reason my ID has dropped down to spot #6677, between too fwfrers with 0 and 1 review apiece . . . what the--??
|
| Cheese_Ed |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 22:36:45
Actually the status used to be Filming, I waited for it to change to that before I submitted the film to be added. They must have corrected the status subsequently. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 21:17:48
Woops...well, if that means what I think it means, then I offer my apologies to fox, cheese, and choco for opening my big fat mouth and getting their reviews declined. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 21:15:18
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I should still point out that the status of Welcome Back, Kotter hasn't really changed since my reviews were originally declined. It has a writer/director on board and the lead has been cast, but they're not filming yet.
Sorry... I was on a roll and accidentally added the film without checking the status  |
| Downtown |
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 21:11:47
I don't want this to be perceived as a complaint, because I'm very happy that I can finally resubmit two reviews that were declined for this very reason.
HOWEVER...
I should still point out that the status of Welcome Back, Kotter hasn't really changed since my reviews were originally declined. It has a writer/director on board and the lead has been cast, but they're not filming yet.
I'm going to assume that benj absolutely loves the show and he's SO EXCITED about the movie that he just couldn't wait any longer to add it to the website. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 09/30/2006 : 13:43:41
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
BTW I hope Samantha Bond is in the film as (in addition to her other assets, such as acting ability), she has the most beautiful, twinkling eyes. 
Here here! |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 09/30/2006 : 10:02:20
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Q isn't in "Casino Royale" because the character wasn't in the novel, either. That's also why Moneypenny is absent, as she barely makes an appearance in the book.
If the new version of Casino Royale is faithful to the novel it'll be a novelty. There's a long tradition of Bond films having only a passing resemblance to the original story.
BTW I hope Samantha Bond is in the film as (in addition to her other assets, such as acting ability), she has the most beautiful, twinkling eyes. (Yes, I know, I'd never make it in casting.)
About following the novels, I think there was a thing in Flemming's will or something about not using anything except the titles for X amount of years after he died. Now that the time has passed, they can use the actual stories for the films.
As for Samantha Bond - drool on, buddy! She's not coming back, from what I hear.
|
| Koli |
Posted - 09/30/2006 : 09:57:38
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Q isn't in "Casino Royale" because the character wasn't in the novel, either. That's also why Moneypenny is absent, as she barely makes an appearance in the book.
If the new version of Casino Royale is faithful to the novel it'll be a novelty. There's a long tradition of Bond films having only a passing resemblance to the original story.
BTW I hope Samantha Bond is in the film as (in addition to her other assets, such as acting ability), she has the most beautiful, twinkling eyes. (Yes, I know, I'd never make it in casting.) |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 19:59:47
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Q isn't in "Casino Royale" because the character wasn't in the novel, either. That's also why Moneypenny is absent, as she barely makes an appearance in the book. Eon may be rebooting the franchise and updating it a bit, but they're not completely reinventing it...there's good reason to believe that both characters will be back, although Samantha Bond says she won't do a Bond without Brosnan we don't know if Cleese will be back now that he's officially retired from full-time something-or-other (his comments were a little vague, and it's unclear if he's retired from writing comedy, or performing comedy, or acting altogether).
Well, I really don't care if Cleese never did another Q, since I thought he was horrid and anyway, I adored the late, great Desmond Llewellyn and for me, no one could ever equal him, let alone top him.
As for the part of Moneypenny - while Samantha Bond was good, I can imagine many other women could do the part quite nicely. Frankly, I liked Lois Maxwell better.
|
| Downtown |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 15:11:57
Q isn't in "Casino Royale" because the character wasn't in the novel, either. That's also why Moneypenny is absent, as she barely makes an appearance in the book. Eon may be rebooting the franchise and updating it a bit, but they're not completely reinventing it...there's good reason to believe that both characters will be back, although Samantha Bond says she won't do a Bond without Brosnan we don't know if Cleese will be back now that he's officially retired from full-time something-or-other (his comments were a little vague, and it's unclear if he's retired from writing comedy, or performing comedy, or acting altogether). |
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 14:49:36
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
(Of course, if the next James Bond film also has Daniel Craig and they also don't have a Q in that film, I'm screwed!)
Not really as you'd be able to argue that it's the first instance of it happening (you'd have trouble getting it up for subsequent films though). |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 13:08:48
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
This all makes perfect sense to me, as long as the reviews which have been sitting in my "declined" pile waiting for the movies to start filming are still considered "first," and don't get re-declined because someone else checked IMDB for an update before I did and submitted a similar review before I had a chance to re-submit mine.
If this happens, as long as I'm made aware of the problem, I can check the submission dates of both reviews and approve the earlier one.
Um, could you please do this for the equivalent case that I e-mailed you about then (where a later submission was approved before mine and then mine declined as being too similar)? Thanks. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 07:19:53
I'm pulling this from another thread because its more relevant here. Things like this seem to happen when people review films too early on.
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Yeah, we've been round and round about reviewing movies long before anyone's seen 'em. It can get mighty strange: check out foxy's matching pair here -- one of 'em's gotta go, but not until we know whether John Cleese appears. And they both even have votes!
Thing is, as soon as new films put up on IMDB, some enterprising fwiffer's going to add to to our database. Just one more aspect of our inexact science.
There are two reviewers that say "Royale with Cleese" - thefoxboy and noncentz. Both of these are now wrong. Foxy hedged his bets by adding a "Royale without Cleese". But one wonders... if we are being precise, then wouldn't that refer just as easily to the first Casino Royale with David Niven?
Personally, I think I was being pretty clever whith my "Q-less Craig Bonding" review, since not only does John Cleese not appear here, but there's no Q in this film at all. My editorial is also included in that review since I really don't see Daniel Craig as James Bond and I feel he was a totally clueless (Q-less, clueless - get it?) casting choice.
(Of course, if the next James Bond film also has Daniel Craig and they also don't have a Q in that film, I'm screwed!)
|
|
|
