| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 11:02:27
One of the greatest areas for, shall we say "confusion", is so-called generic reviews.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that I've been getting some odd "generic" rejections lately  . Let me share a couple.
Firstly, "Self-destructs in 110 minutes". 
Yes, this could apply to any film of 110 minutes in which the concept of self-destruction is relevant, but I have a suspicion that more than one fwfr could guess what film I applied it to. 
Secondly "Harm-on-a-car".
This also came back as generic. Not everyone will be familiar with this film, but I think anyone who knows the film will "get" the review. (Particularly anyone who lives somewhere between London and Brighton, eh, Baffy?)Even if you don't know which film I'm refering to,(and obviously the rejecter did,) does the review LOOK generic? Maybe, just maybe "Harm on a car" might be considered generic - and I'm being really generous here - but "Harm-on-a-car"??
By all means feel free to guess these films, but my point is whoever rejected these views as generic needs to reconsider his/her ideas of what a generic review is, because, IMNSHO, they are getting it very wrong.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 23:41:46
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I suppose the way I see it, nobody is going to be happy all of the time with declines, some will be happy none of the time with declines, but most will be happy most of the time. Whether the decline has a reason attached or not.
Agreed, but when you get a rejection labelled GENERIC for a review like "Harm-on-a-car" I think the practice has got out of kilter with the intended purpose. This is a long, long way from "Nice film, great music" or "Cagney plays gangster", isn't it?
I guess I'm trying to say that anyone who thinks a review like this is generic is just looking too hard for genericisms. And if they look too hard they'll probably find some justification, as they could for most of the reviews on the site.
End of.
I think a review like this certainly looks generic- how many films can you think of where someone or thing is harmed on a car? Basically, any film where there's a hit and run, fist fight in a car park, fight in an open top car, etc...
This is a fwfr that, unless you know the film well makes little sense and so the MERPs involved must have assumed the generic take on it. It'd require an explanation to clarify why this isn't generic and then deeper MERP consideration on the second reading where it'd probably be a line call.
Personally, I'd probably decline it on the grounds I still don't get it I understand there's a key harmonica soundtrack and that the film involves a car, but where does the 'harm on a' bit come into it?
The harm comes through them racing on a public road and getting stopped by police and threatened with arrest. Also a stall or barrow gets knocked over. Anyhow, remember I'm not arguing here it should be accepted, I'm arguing that its not generic.
Yes, I suppose that if the MERP didn't notice the harmonica reference, and just thought I had randomly thrown together a rather awkward phrase like "harm on a car", and chosen to hyphenate it without apparent reason, then they could have thought it was a generic reference to any harm which befalls anyone on a car.
It puts me in mind of when, during the OJ Simpson trial, a defence attorney tried to explain away OJ's shoe-prints (from a distinctive, unusual Italan imported and expensive shoe) by asking the expert witness whether it was conceivable that someone else might have gone out, bought a pair of the same rare expensive shoes in OJ's size and walked on the site to deliberately plant the shoe-prints to frame OJ.
"I don't think that's very likely" said the witness.
Lemmy, you go and find a film which prominently features a harmonica, and a car and the idea of harmony (not musically, as that would be self-referencing), get it passed and let me know. There's a vote in it for you. Guaranteed.
Anyhow, I appreciate the trouble taken to reply.
|
| lemmycaution |
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 20:30:43
'HarmoniCAR', perhaps? |
| benj clews |
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 18:29:26
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I suppose the way I see it, nobody is going to be happy all of the time with declines, some will be happy none of the time with declines, but most will be happy most of the time. Whether the decline has a reason attached or not.
Agreed, but when you get a rejection labelled GENERIC for a review like "Harm-on-a-car" I think the practice has got out of kilter with the intended purpose. This is a long, long way from "Nice film, great music" or "Cagney plays gangster", isn't it?
I guess I'm trying to say that anyone who thinks a review like this is generic is just looking too hard for genericisms. And if they look too hard they'll probably find some justification, as they could for most of the reviews on the site.
End of.
I think a review like this certainly looks generic- how many films can you think of where someone or thing is harmed on a car? Basically, any film where there's a hit and run, fist fight in a car park, fight in an open top car, etc...
This is a fwfr that, unless you know the film well makes little sense and so the MERPs involved must have assumed the generic take on it. It'd require an explanation to clarify why this isn't generic and then deeper MERP consideration on the second reading where it'd probably be a line call.
Personally, I'd probably decline it on the grounds I still don't get it I understand there's a key harmonica soundtrack and that the film involves a car, but where does the 'harm on a' bit come into it? |
| Willy Weasel |
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 18:15:04
End of.
Are you the temperamental hairdresser or the longsuffering nightclub dancer Whip?
I agree that the Generic brush is getting a bit wide but 'at the end of the day' this is Benj's site and if he doesn't like the review then it is going to bounce however it is phrased.
My rejection pile is getting pretty small as I get the hang of the requirements; I find that including an explanation with any cryptic review seriously increases its chance of inclusion. If Benj still doesn't like it, then focus on your babies which HAVE been welcomed and gleaned votes.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 02:51:37
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I suppose the way I see it, nobody is going to be happy all of the time with declines, some will be happy none of the time with declines, but most will be happy most of the time. Whether the decline has a reason attached or not.
Agreed, but when you get a rejection labelled GENERIC for a review like "Harm-on-a-car" I think the practice has got out of kilter with the intended purpose. This is a long, long way from "Nice film, great music" or "Cagney plays gangster", isn't it?
I guess I'm trying to say that anyone who thinks a review like this is generic is just looking too hard for genericisms. And if they look too hard they'll probably find some justification, as they could for most of the reviews on the site.
End of.
|
| AC |
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 02:01:25
Hmm, can of worms it may have been, but would this be something to re-evaluate? What were the other options that you took away again?
(kind of weird to look at an archived thread TWO years old that all us regulars were posting on! ) |
| Sean |
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 00:04:26
There was a time (about 2 years ago) when benj created a whole bunch more reasons for declining reviews, but it opened up a whole can of worms (people started complaining about specifics, wanting more information about the specific reason for the decline, posting that the reason for it's being declined was not valid etc etc) so within a short period of time the reasons were cut back to the handful we have now.
I suppose the way I see it, nobody is going to be happy all of the time with declines, some will be happy none of the time with declines, but most will be happy most of the time. Whether the decline has a reason attached or not.
Edit: OK, here's an old thread on the issue. |
| AC |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 15:50:23
But just to respond to that, Whip - I've noticed that there have been more reasons given for my declines than in past years, which I would think had more to do with people getting upset that they weren't getting decline reasons. 'Generic' seems a fairly blanket response and from what I've seen there doesn't seem to be anything more specific coming out than that. Sometimes I've had declines called 'generic' which have made me second guess it, because I think "no it's not!", whereas before if there was no reason I'd just think "ah well, must have been crap". I think if people stopped worrying about needing reasons, or if more reasons were supplied to get more specific (and that sounds very unwieldy to me) the spate of 'generics' might slow. Just a thought. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 15:37:17
Well, I hope we've all had a nice friendly discussion and no-one has been fatally injured. 
Sean, I hadn't noticed Conan's review  and I agree that my review is too close in spirit to his to warrant inclusion. It just goes to show what a great reviewer Conan can be! 
It is interesting that reviews can be valid for completely different movies. The film I wrote "Harm-on-a-car" for is a British film called Genevieve, a comedy about a veteran car on the London-Brighton rally. Its theme tune is played on the harmonica by the great Larry Adler, who came to London as a blacklist victim. It's probably not a film seen too much outside of the UK, but its a great comedy - I believe Halliwell's give it the full 4 stars. As I said below, the music really is pervasive, so the harmonica reference is genuinely apposite.
I doubt if there are many really good reviews on the site which could not be applied to some other film - and my real point is that the application of the generic rejection can be too bureaucratic at times. The rule shouldn't be more important than the reason behind it.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 23:57:42
Fair enuf, Whipper. Looks like everyone agrees that "Self-destructs in 110 minutes" is a valid review for the first movie and it was mistakenly declined. I just went to the movie page to have a look for it, it's not there yet so must still be pending, but I did happen to notice Conan's "Self-destructed in five seconds" which I had already voted for. It could be argued that yours is pretty close to a dupe of Conan's i.e., they don't really say anything different, just a difference of viewer opinion as to how long it took the movie to self destruct.
As for "Harm-on-a-car", as you were describing the movie I was also starting to think of Once Upon A Time In The West as was M0rkeleb. Still don't know the movie that it's for though. |
| Arch Stanton |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 19:22:39
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
One of the greatest areas for, shall we say "confusion", is so-called generic reviews.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that I've been getting some odd "generic" rejections lately . Let me share a couple.
Firstly, "Self-destructs in 110 minutes".
Yes, this could apply to any film of 110 minutes in which the concept of self-destruction is relevant, but I have a suspicion that more than one fwfr could guess what film I applied it to.
Secondly "Harm-on-a-car".
This also came back as generic. Not everyone will be familiar with this film, but I think anyone who knows the film will "get" the review. (Particularly anyone who lives somewhere between London and Brighton, eh, Baffy?)Even if you don't know which film I'm refering to,(and obviously the rejecter did,) does the review LOOK generic? Maybe, just maybe "Harm on a car" might be considered generic - and I'm being really generous here - but "Harm-on-a-car"??
By all means feel free to guess these films, but my point is whoever rejected these views as generic needs to reconsider his/her ideas of what a generic review is, because, IMNSHO, they are getting it very wrong.
Delete it.
Move On.
|
| MM0rkeleb |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 18:56:18
Well, the the harm-on-a-car review makes me think of Once Upon a Time in the West. Lots of harmonica music, associated with and played by the Bronson character (who is listed in the credits as Harmonica), who, in the first scene of the movie, comes into town on a boxcar and immediately shoots up three guys. Hence, the character of Harmonica is, literally, harm on a car.
However, from the hints you've given on the thread, I can deduce that Once Upon a Time in the West is not the film you're referencing. So ... yeah, I forgot where I was going with this. I would agree that there are probably not scads of movies that this fits for, but evidently, there are at least two very disparate movies for which it does fit.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 14:04:11
quote:
Originally posted by Josh the cat
This type of thread has caused massive issues in the past and is to be honest best avoided, in my opinion.
So I am taking my own advice and leaving not to return.
Josh the cat
Josh
Meow! 
It's quite possible to debate without fighting, provided a few simple rules are followed, like it should be conducted politely and respectfully, without any sarcasm, and also people shouldn't keep making the same point over and over in the same thread. On this site it is also necessary to accept that, whatever you think, Benj makes the final judgments.
Given that, there's no need to stifle debate. As an example, a few weeks ago there was a thread on the top all-time reviews and Sal and I, albeit for different reasons, took the view that MGuyX's no 1 all time review, "I bet Kramer wins!" was not a legitimate review  . MGuyX joined in the discussion...
Afterwards I pmed MGuyX to say that I hoped he had not taken offence (), and he replied just the opposite, that he had really enjoyed the thread, he loves a bit of controversy and it was exactly the kind of thing he came to the forum for.
So you see Josh, not everyone feels the same way as you do about these things. Some of us like a little fire to warm ourselves, so please stop calling out the fire brigade.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 13:05:21
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I don't understand. I do understand the "first in franchise" rule, which is very sensible, but surely it was submitted against the first in the franchise, "Mission: Impossible". Also note the length of the film, 110 minutes, has a resonance to "10 seconds" which strengthens the review, as opposed to, say, 123 minutes.
Please let me know what I'm missing here.
If it's against the first film, then it's fine. For some reason I remember it as being submitted against the third
No, definitely submitted against the 1st. I've resubmitted it (anyway) and look forward to receiving your vote.
|
| Josh the cat |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 12:52:49
Personally I find the way to deal with this is to resub with an explanation, or if that doesn't work accept it.
If I did wanna take it further I would pm Benj (and I never have for this reason - yet) as debating this in an open fourum does not help Benj or the merps do a job that personally I don't have the time for or the knowledge to do!
This type of thread has caused massive issues in the past and is to be honest best avoided, in my opinion.
So I am taking my own advice and leaving not to return.
Josh the cat |
|
|
