| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| GHcool |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 05:00:18
I know this isn't exactly against the rules of FWFR, but I'd consider it a personal favor if people would refrain from writing reviews for the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows for a reasonable amount of time until everyone who has an interest in reading the book has done so. I'm getting mine in the mail tomorrow and I don't want any spoilers to jump at me on the New Reviews page. I know my request would be probably be impossible to enforce without setting a dangerous precedent, but I feel like there will be more than one fwfr'er with my sensibilities on this specific film.
Thanks,
GHcool |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Koli |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 13:58:25
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
My Gosh. Welcome to FWFR with a catch. Benj is gonna have to have fine print for some of these rules. FWFR with a loop hole.
Four (Unless otherwise connected with a hypen) Word (Doesnt have to be in the dictionary. You can use pronouns. You can even use words that have no meaning) Film (But please wait til it comes out in the movies. We are buying the book this week and are taking our good old time to read it. THe movie comes out in 2010. You might have come up with a great review... But can you wait a few years) Review (You may write anything about movie as a review. But if you give away a spoiler then you anger those people who have not watched a 30 year old movie. If you do give a spoiler, you will be shunned and ridiculed. The spoiler might be the point of the movie and might be a great review, but do you really want to write it. Please don't tell me who Superman really is. It is possible for us to stay away from certain movie reviews, but just in case. Keep from writing a review. We might not have any will power. Also keep from writing reviews from a certain book. We havent read it yet. We dont want you writing a review that we might think up but you beat us to it. We were hoping that you would wait to write a review so we can beat you to the punch and the votes)
Nice rant, Titanpa, but I still think spoilers are best avoided. And I agree that reviews for films that haven't yet been made are best avoided. Note that I'm not calling for additional rules. I'm suggesting that we voluntarily avoid these things. |
| TitanPa |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 07:18:12
My Gosh. Welcome to FWFR with a catch. Benj is gonna have to have fine print for some of these rules. FWFR with a loop hole.
Four (Unless otherwise connected with a hypen) Word (Doesnt have to be in the dictionary. You can use pronouns. You can even use words that have no meaning) Film (But please wait til it comes out in the movies. We are buying the book this week and are taking our good old time to read it. THe movie comes out in 2010. You might have come up with a great review... But can you wait a few years) Review (You may write anything about movie as a review. But if you give away a spoiler then you anger those people who have not watched a 30 year old movie. If you do give a spoiler, you will be shunned and ridiculed. The spoiler might be the point of the movie and might be a great review, but do you really want to write it. Please don't tell me who Superman really is. It is possible for us to stay away from certain movie reviews, but just in case. Keep from writing a review. We might not have any will power. Also keep from writing reviews from a certain book. We havent read it yet. We dont want you writing a review that we might think up but you beat us to it. We were hoping that you would wait to write a review so we can beat you to the punch and the votes)
|
| Stalean |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 06:40:46
quote:
Originally posted by Rovark
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
I have an even simpler proposition: that we refrain from writing reviews with spoilers.
The simplest proposition would acually be to not review films that haven't been made. All reviews for films not yet made should be reported as innacurate anyway, as by definition, it cannot be an accurate description of what happens in the film. There is no film.
I have always felt that films not yet released should not be allowed for reviewing purposes. It's one thing to review a film one hasn't yet seen (at least you can get some idea about it from critical reviews, IMDB, etc), and quite another to review, for all intent and purpose, a film that hasn't been made and may never be made. I can't remember another film that I have advanced a review for except 'Deathly Hallows' (you may correct my memory if I am wrong). I wouldn't have done so this time, except for the fact that what I had approved would be integral to and included in the film if it is released (which I have not doubt, even if they have to get a whole new cast). 
|
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 03:45:23
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
I am planning on catching "Arthur" on AMC this weekend - could everyone please disown their reviews for Arthur and I will be sure NOT to visit Alan Smithee's reviews page - I don't want to spoil it - you never know what that Dudley Moore is going to get into (don't even get me started on Demi Moore).
Alan Smithee...
This reminds me of a thread I fell upon regarding Godfather III earlier today. Someone wrote "thanks for the spoiler." I answered that when one considers the film is SEVENTEEN years old, if the poster hasn't seen it yet, he doesn't plan on seeing it in the near future. Besides, it's a Godfather film, most everyone dies.
|
| Rovark |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 19:11:26
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
I have an even simpler proposition: that we refrain from writing reviews with spoilers.
Aahh, this comes back to a major issue. What is the point of this site at all. Four Word Film Review. Review a Film - In Four Words. Once you exclude opinions, "wonderful songs, amazing choreography" as generic, you're left to a large degree to descriptions of action sequences, charactor motivation, or other plot elements.
A review of "Resurected Diggory assassinates Potter" would be a perfectly acceptable review for Deathly Hallows if this is what happens. It succinctly reduces an entire film to just 4 words. That's the whole point. Spoilers are inevitable.
Perhaps the real point here is that all reviews for "Hallows" are reviews of the book. They're not reviews for for the film. It hasn't been made. Before then, Radcliffe could spiral down a drug fuelled road to dependance and insanity, and the others be lost at sea in a bizarre freak giant-jellyfish attack resulting in the movie never being made.
Check out the reviews for the other Harry Potter films and see there's a few that refer to book incidents that weren't in the films. I'm sure it will be the same for the Narnia series. I could sit down now and write reviews for all the Narnia books from memory. But what would be the point. They would be book reviews.
The simplest proposition would acually be to not review films that haven't been made. All reviews for films not yet made should be reported as innacurate anyway, as by definition, it cannot be an accurate description of what happens in the film. There is no film.
|
| Koli |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 11:33:04
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
Very true Koli but this is referring to spoilers based on a book launch not a film... the book was unveiled at the same time around the English-speaking world. The problem of spoilers for the non-literate will remain until the film comes out sometime around 2009.
Well Ali can speak for himself but I think he was talking generally about films rather than specifically about the Harry Potter book-cum-film, and that's the context in which I made my response.
Here in Chez Koli I'm third in the queue for HP7. Our youngest finished it in a couple of days, and now my wife has it. She's a quick reader too, so I may have it before the weekend is out. So by the end of August (sic) I may have reached the final chapter. I promise not to leak, as the incontinent patient said to the chiropodist.  |
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 11:13:30
Very true Koli but this is referring to spoilers based on a book launch not a film... the book was unveiled at the same time around the English-speaking world. The problem of spoilers for the non-literate will remain until the film comes out sometime around 2009. |
| Koli |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 10:49:30
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
As far as I'm concerned, it's tough titties if someone doesn't know the twists of past films that have pervaded the zeitgeist.
Well that depends on how you define 'pervasion' and 'zeitgeist'. One thing that needs to be considered in this context - and in any discussion of 'filmic ignorance' - is that some countries get films sooner than others. It's hardly the fault of someone living in Australia or New Zealand that they haven't seen a film that's been showing in say the USA for weeks (or months) but hasn't reached their shores. A single person living in New York, who happens to be able to visit the cinema regularly, is at a considerable advantage over someone on the other side of the globe. Does that mean it's reasonable for that person to scatter spoilers all over the site on the ground that New York's perspective of the zeitgeist has been pervaded, and everyone else can go hang because they are ignorant of films? I don't think so. |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 00:39:15
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
The simple solution (as has been suggested earlier in the thread) would be for MERPs to MERP reviews in order, i.e., not seek out HP7 and process reviews. This would mean HP7 reviews wouldn't appear on the site for six weeks or so (the current wait-time). This would be fair (as older reviews for other movies would be processed before HP7 reviews) and would not set any precedent that we need to worry about.
Pottermaniacs would then have six weeks or so to read the book before seeing spoiler reviews. My guess is that if they haven't read it by then, then it will already be too late for anyone other than troglodytes, as far too many people have read it and will be talking about it at bus stops etc. 
I like this idea.
Yep, it was a good idea of Conan's. (Third post on Page 1.) |
| GHcool |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 22:13:16
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
[quote]Originally posted by Salopian
The simple solution (as has been suggested earlier in the thread) would be for MERPs to MERP reviews in order, i.e., not seek out HP7 and process reviews. This would mean HP7 reviews wouldn't appear on the site for six weeks or so (the current wait-time). This would be fair (as older reviews for other movies would be processed before HP7 reviews) and would not set any precedent that we need to worry about.
Pottermaniacs would then have six weeks or so to read the book before seeing spoiler reviews. My guess is that if they haven't read it by then, then it will already be too late for anyone other than troglodytes, as far too many people have read it and will be talking about it at bus stops etc.
I like this idea. |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 13:04:30
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Pottermaniacs would then have six weeks or so to read the book before seeing spoiler reviews. My guess is that if they haven't read it by then, then it will already be too late for anyone other than troglodytes, as far too many people have read it and will be talking about it at bus stops etc.
I haven't read the first one, and couldn't get through the first film. Geez, I'm worse than troglodyte, though I'm not sure what that means.
What that means is that someone who wants to avoid HP7 spoilers for the next six weeks will probably have to live in a cave for the next six weeks. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 11:07:46
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Pottermaniacs would then have six weeks or so to read the book before seeing spoiler reviews. My guess is that if they haven't read it by then, then it will already be too late for anyone other than troglodytes, as far too many people have read it and will be talking about it at bus stops etc.
I haven't read the first one, and couldn't get through the first film. Geez, I'm worse than troglodyte, though I'm not sure what that means. I don't have Geico car insurance either.... |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 09:58:03
I'm with Ali. I've no intention of allowing myself to be constrained by the filmic ignorance of others. 
Not that I'm not sympathetic, of course...
|
| Ali |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 06:52:25
As far as I'm concerned, it's tough titties if someone doesn't know the twists of past films that have pervaded the zeitgeist.
|
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 06:15:30
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
does anyone not know the spoilers in 6th sense or Crying Game by now? I fear mentioning them here for the faint of heart, but when the spoiler becomes the enduring element of the film it must be dealt with on FWFR - our job is to capture the essence of the film and some movies have a spoiler which is at the core.
Yep, Bruce Willis is really a girl, is that the one you mean? |
