| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 19:16:16
Hi
I'm not complaining, honestly. But I AM baffled. Can someone please help me understand this refusal?
Here the history:
I first submitted it many months ago without a hyphen and without an explanation because I thought it was pretty obvious. It got sent back with "don't understand."
I then re-submitted with an explanation, and it got rejected again without a reason.
So I thought, maybe it needs a hyphen, so I resubmitted it again - keeping the explanation but adding the hyphen.
It's just been declined again, and with no explanation.
The film is The Passion of the Christ.
The review is: Mel cross-references Jesus.
Very grateful for any thoughts? I really like this one and would hate to lose it completely.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 06:41:20
quote:
Originally posted by bife
I have never read this review with a missing 'and', but with a missing 'get', so "To Helen back" would mean "To (get) Helen back", not "To Helen (and) back"
I am not so sure now, though, I will have to rethink it  
Oh, so maybe that's why my one was rejected?  
|
| bife |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 23:26:19
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I think that Troy review is very good - but I see what you mean about the sense of it. It takes the reader to do that extra bit of work, but I think it's entirely clear what the reviewer is getting at, and to add the extra "and" to make grammatical sense would ruin the pun.
I have never read this review with a missing 'and', but with a missing 'get', so "To Helen back" would mean "To (get) Helen back", not "To Helen (and) back"
I am not so sure now, though, I will have to rethink it
|
| demonic |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 15:35:41
I think that Troy review is very good - but I see what you mean about the sense of it. It takes the reader to do that extra bit of work, but I think it's entirely clear what the reviewer is getting at, and to add the extra "and" to make grammatical sense would ruin the pun. I think Benj decision very rightly should hinge on the quality of the pun in these instances. The Troy example is given a major boost by being a common phrase and instantly understandable, no such luck in my case. 
One more question then to the fourum - is it better to delete second passes and put them through again as first passes as Choccy has done? I'm assuming the Benj is still responsible for them alone or surely we would have seen those get dealt with with a higher priority than seems to be the case? Like Choccy my first passes are currently dated back to mid-July. |
| Sean |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 06:35:33
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Just as an random example, "Britain's got Talons" for "Kes" doesn't make any sense on a pun, or on surface level, as far as I can tell.
I can't comment on how it fits the movie (not familiar with it) so I don't get that review, but on face value it's a comprehensible statement, i.e., correct English. It makes sense like "Sean's got ears" or "Sean's got aliens" etc. All three involve correct use of English; whether the statement is true or not is another matter. Whereas your one failed that initial "Is it correct English?" test.
My guess is that any review that fails that fundamental "use of English" test is probably lucky to exist.  I can't immediately think of any but concede there are probably some on the site that have slipped through.
Ahah! I've just thought of one... "To Helen back" for Troy. Perhaps it's lucky to be on the site (and I recall it's validity being challenged when it was first accepted). To be correct English one must first unscramble it in one's head and change it into four-worder "To hell and back", with the unscrambled use of "Helen" connecting it to the movie. This one is perhaps similar in concept to your "Overrate" one, a significant difference being word count. My guess is there are only a handful of this kind of review on the site.
The main issue would be whether or not benj wants "incorrect use of English at face value" reviews on the site. He approved the Troy one at any rate.  |
| demonic |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 05:47:26
quote:
As an experiment I just went through the Top 100 and couldn't find one there that didn't make sense at face value.
The Top 100 is a particularly inaccurate gauge of the content of this website because I think we both know the site is packed with reviews that don't make sense at face value. In fact there were several in tonight's concluding FYC round. Just as an random example, "Britain's got Talons" for "Kes" doesn't make any sense on a pun, or on surface level, as far as I can tell. It's a pun on a current TV show but that doesn't reflect the content of the movie, or make sense in itself. But it has been accepted and voted on. This is getting back round to Baffy's consistency question again, which isn't my point.
quote:
Another way to look at it: if the reader of the review is expected to change it into something quite different in their head before it becomes comprehensible English - and in this case they're required to change it into a five-word review ("overrate" into "over eight") - then I think it's a no-go.
Does the change to five words have any bearing? In this instance I think the reader would see the review doesn't make immediate sense and would have to read it again to decipher it. In fact only a handful of my 700 odd reviews read without a pun or a word alteration, so it's sort of obligatory. I concede that this one is a probably just too oblique though!
quote:
Sorry you had to wait nearly a year to get the verdict though. 
That's the main problem to be fair; I'd begun to care too much! If I'd had been a fast turnaround I'd do what I always do - tweak and resub - but I've been living with it (and several others, hopefully to be dealt with soon) for a while. Thanks for your thoughts on this one Sean. |
| ragingfluff |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 19:40:15
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G o 7 f
Ragingfluff: Resubmit your Grindhouse review as "A Kill Double Bill" and I'd bet it passes. I love it personally.
Thank you. I resubmitted it as "A Double (Kill) Bill" with an explanation...we'll see what happens. I resubmitted the Alfie review with an explanation (using today's word: "priapic")...I'll let you know if and when they get accepted, or if they get rejected again, I'll post the reasons.
The GRINDHOUSE review just got approved!
|
| Sean |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 04:20:32
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
But I see what you mean Sean - it doesn't make sense on the surface level. Is the pun level not enough, you think?
That's the way I see it. A good way to test a pending review for 'correctness' is to imagine that you've written it on a piece of paper, and accost strangers at random in the street and ask them whether the words make sense without telling them what it's for or saying anything about it whatsoever. The review should make sense at face value. That of course doesn't mean that they'll have a clue what it relates to, but they should agree that it's correct. As an experiment I just went through the Top 100 and couldn't find one there that didn't make sense at face value.
Another way to look at it: if the reader of the review is expected to change it into something quite different in their head before it becomes comprehensible English - and in this case they're required to change it into a five-word review ("overrate" into "over eight") - then I think it's a no-go.
If people were allowed to write reviews that didn't make sense on the assmption that readers will be forced to change them into something else in order to understand them, then I could see it opening up a whole new can of worms. It would become pretty hard to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable, not to mention reviews will become harder and harder to understand. It's the kind of thing you'd do on a site with no rules, i.e., where people could write anything they wanted.
Sorry you had to wait nearly a year to get the verdict though. |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 00:22:28
She didn't exactly over eat that food out of the fridge too. |
| demonic |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 00:03:43
Thanks for your comments folks. The review is just a way of saying the film is overrated while making use of the 'over-eight' pun.
I think the way Fluffy suggests the change doesn't make sense because 'overrated' doesn't sound like enough like 'over eight', and that's what makes the review work. (Or not!  ) But I see what you mean Sean - it doesn't make sense on the surface level. Is the pun level not enough, you think? |
| randall |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 21:01:33
I agree with Sean: what does it mean? |
| ragingfluff |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 18:10:42
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
edit: Comically, while I was writing this (perhaps because of it, you lurking MERPs you) a review for "Nine 1/2 Weeks", one of my oldest second passes, got declined. It stings a lot, mainly becasue it took nearly a whole year to get judgement and after that amount of time you begin to fixate (but also lose perspective?). It was also a review I liked and thought had legs. I've never done this before, but cheekily piggybacking Baffy's thread I wouldn't mind some wise fourum thoughts. My review was "Overrate and 1/2 Weeks".
I also don't get it. What does it actually mean? "Over eight and 1/2 weeks" is a correct statement, but it's five words, so that's no good. "Overrate and 1/2 weeks" says... what? That it's overrated? Then you need to put a 'd' at the end of 'overrate', which leaves you with a statement "and 1/2 weeks", which means what, exactly?
Or did I miss something? I can certainly see how it was declined, anyway. 
"Overrated and 1/2 weeks" is a perfectly fine FWFR for this film.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 01:22:25
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
edit: Comically, while I was writing this (perhaps because of it, you lurking MERPs you) a review for "Nine 1/2 Weeks", one of my oldest second passes, got declined. It stings a lot, mainly becasue it took nearly a whole year to get judgement and after that amount of time you begin to fixate (but also lose perspective?). It was also a review I liked and thought had legs. I've never done this before, but cheekily piggybacking Baffy's thread I wouldn't mind some wise fourum thoughts. My review was "Overrate and 1/2 Weeks".
I also don't get it. What does it actually mean? "Over eight and 1/2 weeks" is a correct statement, but it's five words, so that's no good. "Overrate and 1/2 weeks" says... what? That it's overrated? Then you need to put a 'd' at the end of 'overrate', which leaves you with a statement "and 1/2 weeks", which means what, exactly?
Or did I miss something? I can certainly see how it was declined, anyway. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 23:19:44
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
The lack of clarity would explains the first decline - I resubbed with explanation. The film is overrated, but "nine and 1/2 weeks" is also literally "over eight and 1/2 weeks". What think you?
chuckle, chuckle. No idea if it'll be seen as a valid fwfr, but I got it because it I read it out loud. It's a true review at least. |
| demonic |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 23:10:48
The lack of clarity would explains the first decline - I resubbed with explanation. The film is overrated, but "nine and 1/2 weeks" is also literally "over eight and 1/2 weeks". What think you? |
| bife |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 21:02:24
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
edit: Comically, while I was writing this (perhaps because of it, you lurking MERPs you) a review for "Nine 1/2 Weeks", one of my oldest second passes, got declined. It stings a lot, mainly becasue it took nearly a whole year to get judgement and after that amount of time you begin to fixate (but also lose perspective?). It was also a review I liked and thought had legs. I've never done this before, but cheekily piggybacking Baffy's thread I wouldn't mind some wise fourum thoughts. My review was "Overrate and 1/2 Weeks".
Maybe it's just me, but I've absolutely no idea what it means
And I've seen Nine 1/2 Weeks more than once |
|
|
