| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| boydegg |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 06:07:45
Hi all
I've just had a review (one I was quite proud of) rejected for the second time.
I fully accept the MERP's decision on this - if they don't like it, they don't like it, and that's final. But I was so certain it would not only get accepted, but also scoop a lot of votes ... maybe it's just me though.
Please tell me honestly if you'd also decline this review, and if so - why?
(note: both times it was rejected, no explanation was given, so I don't know why it was turned down)
The film: 'Charlotte's Web'
My review: "Spider-ham."
I thought it was simple and cute. It covers the film fine ... Charlotte is a spider and Wilbur is a pig (ham) ... and it sounds like Spider-man, which just appealed to my own crappy sense of fun/humour. Even if the spider-ham/spider-man pun doesn't work, the spider and pig reference ought to be enough on its own .... or am I wrong?
Tell me honestly what you think.
Boydegg
|
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| boydegg |
Posted - 06/10/2006 : 18:04:39
Yes!!!!! Got it in this time!
Thanks for the help, guys.
Boydegg
|
| Montgomery |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 19:14:34
quote:
Originally posted by Face
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
The film: 'Charlotte's Web'
My review: "Spider-ham."
I thought it was simple and cute. It covers the film fine ... Charlotte is a spider and Wilbur is a pig (ham) ... and it sounds like Spider-man, which just appealed to my own crappy sense of fun/humour. Even if the spider-ham/spider-man pun doesn't work, the spider and pig reference ought to be enough on its own .... or am I wrong?
Tell me honestly what you think.
Boydegg
Well, I have to say, I thought I'd seen my fwfr colleague boydegg sink as low as he could get until this thinly-veiled attempt to catch sympathy votes for his frankly feeble 'Spiderham'...I mean, we could all play at that game, couldn't we?
I, for one, though, will not sink to such levels of blatant attention-seeking. I could, if I was a less principled fwfr , draw attention to my recently rejected - but to my mind quite brilliant - review of the first Harry Potter flick: 'Voldemort occupieS QUIRREL'S NUT' and how it wounded my very soul to have it discarded without a word of explanation, in the hope that someone out there would think 'Well, I can't abandon a fellow fwfr in his hour of need - what kind of monster would that make me?'
I could stoop to these levels, but I - FACE, the author of such recent, un-voted wonders as 'Robert Don Niro' for Godfather II or 'Natalie fakes passPort, man' for Closer - will not embrace such lowly, transparent efforts to garner more votes.
After all, this would make me nothing more than a common whore, wouldn't it?
Your review for Closer is wrong. She didn't fake her Passport. That is her real name. The fake name is the one she gives to Law. Watch the movie again.
So, your review, if it has been approved, should be rejected because it's wrong.
Sorry, but true.
EM :)
|
| boydegg |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 18:07:48
Heh heh heh - the irony is, he IS a whore in real life! Well ... rent boy, but they're the same thing, aren't they?
|
| Face |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 16:47:42
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
The film: 'Charlotte's Web'
My review: "Spider-ham."
I thought it was simple and cute. It covers the film fine ... Charlotte is a spider and Wilbur is a pig (ham) ... and it sounds like Spider-man, which just appealed to my own crappy sense of fun/humour. Even if the spider-ham/spider-man pun doesn't work, the spider and pig reference ought to be enough on its own .... or am I wrong?
Tell me honestly what you think.
Boydegg
Well, I have to say, I thought I'd seen my fwfr colleague boydegg sink as low as he could get until this thinly-veiled attempt to catch sympathy votes for his frankly feeble 'Spiderham'...I mean, we could all play at that game, couldn't we?
I, for one, though, will not sink to such levels of blatant attention-seeking. I could, if I was a less principled fwfr , draw attention to my recently rejected - but to my mind quite brilliant - review of the first Harry Potter flick: 'Voldemort occupieS QUIRREL'S NUT' and how it wounded my very soul to have it discarded without a word of explanation, in the hope that someone out there would think 'Well, I can't abandon a fellow fwfr in his hour of need - what kind of monster would that make me?'
I could stoop to these levels, but I - FACE, the author of such recent, un-voted wonders as 'Robert Don Niro' for Godfather II or 'Natalie fakes passPort, man' for Closer - will not embrace such lowly, transparent efforts to garner more votes.
After all, this would make me nothing more than a common whore, wouldn't it? |
| RockGolf |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 15:46:36
I just had a rejection for the musical version of Web from the 70's. The "may sing" spider ma'am.[9]
I'd say I earned that rejection. |
| boydegg |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 15:40:22
Actually, it's strange how punctuation suddenly takes on so much more importance and meaning when you're working within the confines of a four word limit!
|
| TitanPa |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 15:37:19
Im fonda the review. |
| Stalean |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 14:15:44
I know you have already resubbed, boydegg, but if all do get rejected again, you might try "Spider/Ham." Just a thought.  |
| boydegg |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 07:56:25
Thanks for the advice, guys!
I've resubmitted three versions of it, with the tweaks you've advised. If it still gets rejected this time, I'll let that one die!
|
| Sean |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 06:43:24
This might be fixable with punctuation. "Spider-ham" suggests that the ham (the pig) is described as a "spider pig". Does that make sense? What's a "spider pig"? If by the review you just mean that the movie contains a spider and a pig, and want it to coincidentally sound a bit like "Spiderman"  , then perhaps the way to do it would be "Spider, ham". Or something like it. The hyphen you used makes it somewhat incorrect, IMO.
Often when a review is declined, it pays to really dissect it, i.e., what exactly does it say if you read it literally? If you remove the joke or gag from the review, does it still make sense and make a correct statement?
So, if I was you I would remove the hyphen and puncutate so that there is nothing incorrect about it. 
Edit: You could argue that it's correct the way you wrote it if the pig is somehow a possession of, or attached to the spider (haven't seen the movie, but read the book 30 years ago  ). E.g., if the pig is an employee (or something) of the spider then you could argue that the hyphen is OK. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 06:18:07
I think the idea is a good one, its just not developed enough.
Just a thought - what if you tried something like: "Charlotte, Wilbur=Spider, Ham!" Or perhaps "Wilber: Charlotte's spider-ham".
Worth giving a try. |
|
|
