| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Catuli |
Posted - 12/16/2006 : 14:54:50
Have you ever submitted an review in the magestic confidence that it was destined to be accepted, and then found out later--to your chagrin, anguish, and lament--that it was declined? In that category for me was "The Iceberg Cometh." This was declined as being too generic, but I thought it was simply a riff on a Eugene O'Neill play and that the film being reviewed was instantly detectable, supposedly a requirement for a good review. Who knows, perhaps I'm wrong. I'll email gold to the first respondent who correctly identifies the movie. If anyone thinks the review reeks of ambiguity, please let me know.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 05:56:55
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G o 7 f
They were like two ships that...
nevermind.
Strangers in the night, shoo-be-doo-be-doo
Those penguins always scared me... |
| damalc |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 01:00:36
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G o 7 f
They were like two ships that...
nevermind.
Strangers in the night, shoo-be-doo-be-doo |
| randall |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 00:13:48
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes. 
And it's the only review that person has. Ironic.
Isn't it? 
Not sure I understand, Whippy ... does that mean you've double-registered as Mak 
One must own an album called JAGGED LITTLE PILL... |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 00:00:31
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I reference, BaftaBabe, the previous discussions on the song "Isn't It Ironic" and the meaning and definitions of irony and the possibility that this example is not, in fact, ironic at all. And all done with the economy of words of a true poet. 
Indeed. A man after my own heart who got my reference |
| Catuli |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 23:51:21
Earlier in the post someone questioned the accuracy of "cometh" in "The Iceberg Cometh," pointing out that the ship was "coming" to the iceberg and not vice versa. Well, that's true, but there's also the sense of time and inevitably, and in that regard I believe "cometh" works. But what do I care, for it's not my review.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 15:32:43
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
And it's the only review that person has. Ironic.
Isn't it?
Not sure I understand, Whippy ... does that mean you've double-registered as Mak
I reference, BaftaBabe, the previous discussions on the song "Isn't It Ironic" and the meaning and definitions of irony and the possibility that this example is not, in fact, ironic at all. And all done with the economy of words of a true poet.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 14:47:00
This reminds me. Benj, you know how you said that if people gave different decline reasons then the first one were displayed? It would be better if it gave whichever one were the stronger, i.e. more objective, reason. Thus, being over four words might be the strongest one, followed by being similar to another review and so on. I know that you would need to set the hierarchy, but in the long run it would seem better than just whichever happened to be picked first. |
| Catuli |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 13:08:20
OK, it's a dupe, you might say I was duped. I disagreed with the "too generic" decline but I find "identical to another review" to be a perfectly sound reason.
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 09:08:01
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
And it's the only review that person has. Ironic.
Isn't it?
Not sure I understand, Whippy ... does that mean you've double-registered as Mak
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 08:57:56
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
And it's the only review that person has. Ironic.
Isn't it? |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 04:14:09
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
And it's the only review that person has. Ironic. |
| Catuli |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 00:34:18
Wow, first a drought and then a flood of replies. Thanks for the interesting feedback all. I'm really not frustrated about the decline, just curious. I know sometimes the review requirements can be daunting, conveying a specific review within four words. I don't know how often that is perfectly accomplished. While "iceberg" may apply to movies other than "Titanic," there are many key words that apply to a whole lot more. A lot of times the only way to add specificity is work the director's or an actor's name into the review. This was suggested here, but frankly, I think it would be just too ironic to have the review of "Titanic" watered down 
|
| Sludge |
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 23:24:08
The Iceberg Smasheth? |
| demonic |
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 22:58:17
The Convergence of the Twain by Thomas Hardy (1912)
In a solitude of the sea
Deep from human vanity,
And the Pride of Life that planned her, stilly couches she.
Steel chambers, late the pyres
Of her salamandrine fires,
Cold currents thrid, and turn to rhythmic tidal lyres.
Over the mirrors meant
To glass the opulent
The sea-worm crawls - grotesque, slimed, dumb, indifferent.
Jewels in joy designed
To ravish the sensuous mind
Lie lightless, all their sparkles bleared and black and blind.
Dim moon-eyed fishes near
Gaze at the gilded gear
And query: "What does this vaingloriousness down here?"...
Well: while was fashioning
This creature of cleaving wing,
The Imminent Will that stirs and urges everything
Prepared a sinister mate
For her - so gaily great -
A Shape of Ice, for the time fat and dissociate.
And as the smart ship grew
In stature, grace, and hue
In shadowy silent distance grew the Iceberg too.
Alien they seemed to be:
No mortal eye could see
The intimate welding of their later history.
Or sign that they were bent
By paths coincident
On being anon twin halves of one August event,
Till the Spinner of the Years
Said "Now!" And each one hears,
And consummation comes, and jars two hemispheres. |
| RockGolf |
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 22:41:49
They were like two ships that...
nevermind. |
|
|
