| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 22:03:41
Months ago, a heap of reviews were declined from this movie, why? Cause this documentary was made 4 yrs before the ear biting incident. Lots of high voted reviews went that day, looks like a few more will go soon....sorry. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 00:35:50
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
But can I refer to him as an ear-biter because he later became one and we all now think of him as one?
If so I would argue that "Ear-biter loses Hearing" would be OK as he lost the Rape Hearing within the context of the film, and therefore that review could stand.
If that's not acceptable, could it pls be changed to "Ironically, Tyson loses Hearing" instead of being completely, eh, knocked on the head?
These fwfrs are nothing but trouble... 
It sounds like a reasonable argument, although benj is probably ripping his hair out (and his ear off) over it. |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 00:35:10
This film contains archival footage of Tyson and Holyfield.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0301050/
|
| randall |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 23:18:03
Hey hey, ho ho,
Those ear reviews have got to go! |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 16:14:05
The Judgment of Solomon Benjamin.
But can I refer to him as an ear-biter because he later became one and we all now think of him as one?
If so I would argue that "Ear-biter loses Hearing" would be OK as he lost the Rape Hearing within the context of the film, and therefore that review could stand.
If that's not acceptable, could it pls be changed to "Ironically, Tyson loses Hearing" instead of being completely, eh, knocked on the head?
These fwfrs are nothing but trouble...
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 12:18:48
The simple(ish) rule is if it doesn't happen or isn't referred to in the film then it doesn't stand as a review/ summary of the film. If these types of reviews are allowed you could theoretically review the Hollywood satire/ biography 'Swimming With Sharks' as "Diver meets dangerous fish".
The exception (i.e. the reason for putting 'ish in the above statement) is that if there's no information available about the plot of the film then title plays are allowed, which I think is pretty generous.
If there are other films where reviews fail this ruling then those reviews should also be declined, it's just a matter of them being flagged up and me getting around to declining them. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 10:00:43
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
And as it stands, the review said "Lobe at First Bite."
Hhmmm, it's true that is not explicit as some, but it does come across as more a part of the actual film than the type of thing I was imagining.
Surely there is a later documentary that these reviews could be attached to? Similary, why can't the non-Dunst reviews be moved to another Marie Antoinette film? |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 10:00:35
And to think I supported the Fox Hunting ban too! 
|
| Sean |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 09:58:12
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
This thread is in the wrong section, by the way. The 'Site maintenance' section was created so that this section did not have too many negative threads.
That damned foxboy! |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 09:43:43
And as it stands, the review said "Lobe at First Bite." It didn't say that he bit anyone in the film, nor did it say that the film was about anything like that. It said that when he bit, he bit lobe. I think it's a valid review, and actually thought it was one of the better ones I've written. Of course this thread is going to upset me. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 09:32:47
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
No, it isn't fair that some were deleted, especially given the fact that "there are heaps of reviews that mention things that don't happen in [a] film." However, the purpose of the post was to advocate for deleting them. Since my review was the only one this round that was for this film, how could it not be singling out?
No, this was definitely right - if the reviews were along the lines of my first example above. Any which call him an 'ear-biter' etc. are valid, though.
It wasn't singling you out, as you were not named and it was according to a precedent from the past.
This thread is in the wrong section, by the way. The 'Site maintenance' section was created so that this section did not have too many negative threads. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 09:29:03
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Isn't this a bit like the debate over the Marie Antoinette reviews that mentioned her beheading when it wasn't portrayed in the film? Those reviews still stand.
Well, at the time, reviews stating that she is beheaded in the film certainly were not allowed - for example, my "Cake advocate loses loaf" was rightly deemed inaccurate (I hadn't seen it when I submitted), but my "Cake advocate'll lose loaf" was rightly accepted. Either the MERPs have got slacker since or the reviews you mention do not explicitly say that the beheading is in the film, just that she's someone who gets beheaded. Edit: Yep, loads of those are no good. |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 23:58:55
Sorry you feel that way, I have said enough.
It's up to the judge to decide. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 23:44:14
No, it isn't fair that some were deleted, especially given the fact that "there are heaps of reviews that mention things that don't happen in [a] film." However, the purpose of the post was to advocate for deleting them. It wasn't mentioned until later to return the other reviews. Since my review was the only one this round that was for this film, how could it not be singling out? The fourum has certainly gotten contentious lately. Don't vote for it. |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 23:38:59
This won't be the first movie to need 'cleaning out' more than once.
Naked Assassins has been cleaned out in the past, and due for another clean by the look of it. It's got nothing to do with nudity whatsoever, it's simply a B-grade kung-fu movie, which makes ALL of the reviews on the page ready for the bullet. Again.
Nobody is singling anyone out. Mentioning the Tyson movie again is only fair to those who have already lost their 'ear-biting' reviews for it. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 23:32:15
I'm throwin' in the towel, that Fox Boy's got me beat.
No rematch, no rematch!
Adrian!
|
