| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 23:30:12
Gosh, I haven't done this is a long time, but I gotta admit: I'm one baffled BaftaBabe!   [2] Can anyone help? Please!
I originally submitted this FWFR for One Fine Day:
'Mismatched Clooney/Pfeiffer match.'
Actually, the original submit was without the / between the names. It was rejected without explanation.
> I checked it for word count: 4
> I checked it for dupe of another FWFR: nope
> I checked it for accuracy: yup ... in this rom-com George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer play chalk and cheese single parents who have to work together to look after the kids and [spoiler alert] who subsequently make a love match.
> I checked it for generic: nope, George and Michelle only appeared in this film together. They DID supply voices to a French animated documentary video about superheros, but they didn't act together in that and anyway it was made about 4 years after One Fine Day.
> I checked it for spelling: check
I asked a wise old owl who's been on the site forever who said it seemed perfectly acceptable as a FWFR and suggested a resubmit adding an explanation and inserting the / between the two names. So I did.
That was quite a while ago. Today, it got rejected again. Obviously there must be something wrong that I'm not seeing. OK it's not the greatest review in the world, but I did at least attempt some word play. I won't resubmit it again, because I don't know what to do to make it acceptable.
Does anyone have any suggestions about this?
TIA for your help.
Da Babe is confused!
|
| 14 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| turrell |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 23:51:09
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
I fear the + may be treated as the word and or an '&' which would make that one 5 words - you might replace with a comma or semi-colon to get legal.
Well, benj has stated he thinks it's ok, and I've had/seen other FWFRs approved with it included. We'll see, eh?! 
I've used and seen them in reference to an equation i.e. romeo + juliet = suicide pact. Not sure how you are using it... |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 22:48:19
Thanks again, everyone.
Tori, how nice to see you back among us.
It's all academic because my re-drafting of the review got an immediate approval -- so I guess someone was listening 
|
| Tori |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 19:03:24
I don't really think they are a mismatch in casting or in their roles. They are professionals, good looking, both of the same sexuality, single parents. They don't like each other at first but that is because they don't know each other. Of course, liking each other is key to a good match. :) |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 18:31:38
Definitely not more than 4 words. A "/" (and irritatingly even a "+") doesn't count as a word. And if a review is refused for being more than 4 words they tell you so.
The film includes Pfeiffer and Clooney so that can't be the problem.
So we're down to "mismatch" and "match".
Although its a bit picky are they really mismatched? They're both single, heterosexual of opposite sexes, both American, same race, the same age, same class and income group, live in the same city, both have one small child of the same age...
A sociologist probably would say they were very well matched indeed. 
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 17:41:46
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
I fear the + may be treated as the word and or an '&' which would make that one 5 words - you might replace with a comma or semi-colon to get legal.
Well, benj has stated he thinks it's ok, and I've had/seen other FWFRs approved with it included. We'll see, eh?!
|
| turrell |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 15:43:42
I fear the + may be treated as the word and or an '&' which would make that one 5 words - you might replace with a comma or semi-colon to get legal. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 13:32:50
Thanks again, all. Before I read these I did a new submission:
Mateless Clooney + Pfeiffer mated.
Digits crossed, eh?
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 11:38:40
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
CL: Your suggestion is perfectly valid and fine, but it slightly changes my meaning because you're using 'match' as a noun [they're a mismatched match], and I was using it as a verb [they match], which to my addled widdle bwain has undertones of a deeper compatability than their surface habits might indicate.
What about... "Clooney, Pfeiffer: match, mismatched"? This, to my mind, also includes the fact that they probably fight with each other (as in: boxing match).
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 10:34:04
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
CL: Your suggestion is perfectly valid and fine, but it slightly changes my meaning because you're using 'match' as a noun [they're a mismatched match], and I was using it as a verb [they match], which to my addled widdle bwain has undertones of a deeper compatability than their surface habits might indicate.
I read yours as a noun too ("A mismatched Clooney/Pfeiffer match"), but either way seems completely valid as a review to me. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 10:26:31
Thanks, all!
Turrell: re: the '/' - as I explained it wasn't in the original submission and I only added it after a suggestion by a wise and experienced FWFRer.
RedPen: I agree it 'seems' contradictory, but on careful reading it really isn't. They're a mismatch as people, and yet [spoiler ahead] they do wind up together, i.e. they make a match, or they match - in the matchmaking sense of the word.
CL: Your suggestion is perfectly valid and fine, but it slightly changes my meaning because you're using 'match' as a noun [they're a mismatched match], and I was using it as a verb [they match], which to my addled widdle bwain has undertones of a deeper compatability than their surface habits might indicate.
Anyway, I suspect it's not worth it. Pity, though, 'cause I wanted it as part of my Accolade One Won. Ah, well, back to the drawing board!
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 10:11:16
It seems fine to me.  |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 06:41:39
I might have gone with just rearranging the words and submitted "Clooney, Pfeiffer: mismatched match". Just makes more sense than your original submission. If you like it, go for it!
|
| redPen |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 00:39:44
Hi Baf,
My only blind uneducated guess from reading your review is maybe it was confusing. You say "mismatched" but you also say "match." We all know that the written word can be read different ways by different readers, so maybe this seemed contradictory?????????
This is just a guess. In my short time here, I've learned that when you really believe in a review that doesn't get accepted, you can usually find ways to reword the review, while still saying the same thing. Rewording gets rejected reviews accepted quite a bit, in my limited experience.
Just a thought!
 |
| turrell |
Posted - 02/14/2007 : 00:27:04
It seems to pass muster to me - not sure if you need the '/' and if that is part of the problem. |
|
|
