| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Downtown |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 01:18:11
I'm still getting declines without any explanation. As I've said several times already, I can't fix it if nobody will tell me what's wrong with it, leaving me no choice but to try and get an answer here. So here's my review and the 100 character explanation I submitted it with:
Iron Man (2008)
"Stark wu'd into crimefighting"
(Wooed is spelled ''wu'd'' because a member of Wutang Clan uses Tony Stark/Iron Man as a persona)
Not my finest work ever, but it seems to conform with all the site rules, at least it seems that way to me. Obviously someone thinks otherwise, I don't mind having to tweak it but I really need to know what's wrong first. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 06:13:55
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
How could a "Don't Understand" not make any sense? If someone doesn't understand it, then they don't understand it.
Yes - in theory. But honestly, I've had a few where it was inexplicable how anyone could not understand it. I'll go through my reviews and find better examples when I have time, but the most recent one is "Thatcher: Tory leader, chick". Like I say, this is not one of the extreme instances that I've had, but the only thing that I think can possibly cause confusion is Tory (assuming that everyone knows chick means woman, which surely they do). However, this appears in so many prominent reviews here that I cannot believe any MERPs are not familiar with it, even if they would not be otherwise. My suspicion is that by 'Don't understand' they actually mean that they do not understand why I would want to submit this review [T-hatcher], but that's none of their concern.
I was blown away to discover that not everyone knew that Bird = Woman.
Americans had to learn that from Sixties Merseybeat pop stars. We never knew it before. However, neither did the Brits know what a "chick" was at that point. Hence, "Little Red Rooster" means lots more to Mick Jagger today than it did in 1963... So it goes. |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 23:40:09
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
How could a "Don't Understand" not make any sense? If someone doesn't understand it, then they don't understand it.
Yes - in theory. But honestly, I've had a few where it was inexplicable how anyone could not understand it. I'll go through my reviews and find better examples when I have time, but the most recent one is "Thatcher: Tory leader, chick". Like I say, this is not one of the extreme instances that I've had, but the only thing that I think can possibly cause confusion is Tory (assuming that everyone knows chick means woman, which surely they do). However, this appears in so many prominent reviews here that I cannot believe any MERPs are not familiar with it, even if they would not be otherwise. My suspicion is that by 'Don't understand' they actually mean that they do not understand why I would want to submit this review [T-hatcher], but that's none of their concern.
I was blown away to discover that not everyone knew that Bird = Woman.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 19:33:58
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
[brI could see how that could be considered generic by someone who didn't get the 'tea' connection. I had never heard of Assam (even though I've been to India) and had to google it. Now I can see it's quite specific and a good review.  Not everyone will get it though.
I can accept that people may not have heard of Assam, but this doesn't mean they could think it generic. In that position, they could have no clue what the review meant, and so 'Don't understand' would be perfectly valid. (If they thought it was 'Ass & M' combined with 'S&M', that would still warrant 'Don't understand' - what on Earth would 'Ass & M' mean?!) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 19:15:41
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
How could a "Don't Understand" not make any sense? If someone doesn't understand it, then they don't understand it.
Yes - in theory. But honestly, I've had a few where it was inexplicable how anyone could not understand it. I'll go through my reviews and find better examples when I have time, but the most recent one is "Thatcher: Tory leader, chick". Like I say, this is not one of the extreme instances that I've had, but the only thing that I think can possibly cause confusion is Tory (assuming that everyone knows chick means woman, which surely they do). However, this appears in so many prominent reviews here that I cannot believe any MERPs are not familiar with it, even if they would not be otherwise. My suspicion is that by 'Don't understand' they actually mean that they do not understand why I would want to submit this review [T-hatcher], but that's none of their concern. |
| Sean |
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 02:27:06
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I do get quite a few 'Too generic's and 'Don't understand's that don't made any sense. I got 'Too generic' for "AsS&M", for example - how many films involve tea and S&M?!!!
How could a "Don't Understand" not make any sense? If someone doesn't understand it, then they don't understand it. Period. 
I could see how that could be considered generic by someone who didn't get the 'tea' connection. I had never heard of Assam (even though I've been to India) and had to google it. Now I can see it's quite specific and a good review. Not everyone will get it though. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 19:03:26
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
This tends to sugggest the system works. 
I agree |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 17:26:12
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
That's a good review. It's generic if you read it as "Ass & M" though.
Thanks. Well, capitalisation and spacing have meaning, so I think it's all right. It got approved the second time round, as most seem to. |
| demonic |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 14:12:04
That's a good review. It's generic if you read it as "Ass & M" though. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 14:03:20
I do get quite a few 'Too generic's and 'Don't understand's that don't made any sense. I got 'Too generic' for "AsS&M", for example - how many films involve tea and S&M?!!! |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 13:58:29
I think there are occasions when the MERPs know a film's storyline, but not necessarily the storyline in a remake in particular. I had occasion to submit a review for Little Women (1994), which has been remade in various forms about a dozen times. I also read the book a few times when I was a lil Hoosier.
My review, while not the best in the world, was something like "Jo - women's suffragette." It was declined as "not a factual review." Since I wrote the review while I was watching it, I knew in at least THIS storyline, Jo indeed endorsed the woman's right to vote based solely on her gender. So I changed it a bit and again got it declined. Finally, I submitted it again on a new pass, revised it, and added the note "I KNOW this is correct as I watched it as I wrote it!!!!!" and finally got it accepted. It wasn't that great a review, but it was the principle of the thing. Anyone who read the book, or saw most of the other versions of it, may well have thought it inaccurate. In any case, that's the story of my MERP disagreement. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 13:07:42
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Married? I had no idea. He should have announced that, too! That certainly makes this far less important. Anyway, I've already tweaked it and resubed.
What else is it that you think should have been announced?
Evidently, I need to announce when I'm making a joke.  |
| Sean |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 12:57:55
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Secondhand Popemobile - I was under the impression it was electric, so I got that wrong. (The secondhand bit was because he would be taking it off the Pope since the Pope was standing in for him anyway). You are right that other reviews name gas guzzlers too - do you think that makes them inaccurate reviews? I love Lamborghini of God, for example. I believed that my review looked like a lot of other people's - an answer to the question in the title. Looks like I should let this one go.... (I did post about this a little while ago, but then decided it wasn't worth bothering people with )
This is a case of a "gag" movie; i.e., a movie with no info at IMDb, so users make their own interpretation as to what the movie might be about solely from the title, and 'review' accordingly. It really comes down to whether benj wants the reviews on the site or not. Some of them can be funny. But if the title of that documentary was changed to something like "Christians For Responsible Consumption Of Oil Reserves Through Fuel-Efficient Vehicles" then many of those reviews would become totally meaningless. Hence it doesn't make sense to worry about 'lateral' 'reviews' that are declined.quote:
Mozart murdered by madman? - Isn't the hidden implication of the film that Salieri poisoned Mozart through jealousy? In the film, Abraham certainly plays Salieri as increasingly 'mad' towards the end. This was accepted after I gave the explanation (and pointed out that other reviews referenced this).
Wiki suggests that some suspect he was poisoned, so I guess you're right and the review was correctly passed second time. quote:
Fiery rendition of Freebird quote:
Dunno this flick, but if you mean Lynyrd Skynyrd's song then it's "Free Bird" so the review is 5 words.
Yes, it was rejected the first time for that reason - but I was able to provide evidence that it is also written Freebird, so someone let it through the second time. If you think this is unfair (because the original albums have it as Free Bird), please speak up and I will remodel it into 4 words and resubmit.
My CD has it as "Free Bird" but Skynyrd's website shows it as "Freebird" so that's the end of that. Correctly passed second time again.
This tends to sugggest the system works. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 12:11:06
This is a great example of how useful it would be if the system warned us when we were submitting a review for one film which had already been submitted for another film.
I'm hoping that Benj will manage to get this feature up and running before the end of his honeymoon, and might even be done earlier if he can sneak off for a couple of hours during the wedding reception.
|
| Shiv |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 10:59:47
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Chaplin - Dances with Rolls
Hiya ... just a footnote to Sean's comprehensive message:
Actually, Chaplin does the bread-dancing routine first in The Gold Rush - so there's room for confusion.
Thanks, oh knowledgeable one I will transfer this (after checking to make sure someone hasn't used this already) - I never thought about the confusion between the films with Chaplin doing this, and this biopic. I just assumed it was actually a 'don't understand' rejection, and resubmitted with an explanation.
I'm beginning to formulate that the 'no explanation' rejection is Not Quite There, Rethink or Doesn't really match film . (i.e. less absolute than Inaccurate , which is perhaps what you more experienced fwiffers are trying to explain to us )
EDIT: HURRAY FOR ROVARK He got there with Dances With Rolls for Goldrush 4 years ago. Thanks BaftaBabe, if you hadn't made your comment I would never have known this. I shall delete this pending review forthwith...(and go voting on Rovark's pages in celebration).
|
| Shiv |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 10:46:49
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Perhaps some others could add some decline reasons in no more than four words as food for thought?
This was meant to be a suggestion that others try to put the fwfr rules into a list of concise decline reasons.
Yes - and I was offering up my reviews for people to play with and test run decline reasons on without prejudice But thanks for your responses to my reviews! You have helped me work out why some of them are being declined.
Secondhand Popemobile - I was under the impression it was electric, so I got that wrong. (The secondhand bit was because he would be taking it off the Pope since the Pope was standing in for him anyway). You are right that other reviews name gas guzzlers too - do you think that makes them inaccurate reviews? I love Lamborghini of God, for example. I believed that my review looked like a lot of other people's - an answer to the question in the title. Looks like I should let this one go....(I did post about this a little while ago, but then decided it wasn't worth bothering people with)
Mozart murdered by madman? - Isn't the hidden implication of the film that Salieri poisoned Mozart through jealousy? In the film, Abraham certainly plays Salieri as increasingly 'mad' towards the end. This was accepted after I gave the explanation (and pointed out that other reviews referenced this).
Fiery rendition of Freebird quote:
Dunno this flick, but if you mean Lynyrd Skynyrd's song then it's "Free Bird" so the review is 5 words.
Yes, it was rejected the first time for that reason - but I was able to provide evidence that it is also written Freebird, so someone let it through the second time. If you think this is unfair (because the original albums have it as Free Bird), please speak up and I will remodel it into 4 words and resubmit
Television caught in crossfire! In the shootout at the end of the film between Ackroyd and Cusack the television gets caught up in the action. This is my memory of the film. Anyone know if I am remembering this wrong? This is still in my pending, so you have probably put your finger on the problem. Too obscure. Perhaps this kind of review should have a What The Hell! rejection explanation
|
|
|
