| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 12:59:35
I had a rejected review on the basis of "Title play only." Now the thing is, this film is a 1984 film that has a sum total of 46 votes on IMDB, with no plot summary or synopsis. I have observed scores of reviews on FWFR that are title play only, usually based on films with pedigrees similar to this. So... what does one do? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 20:54:07
I've just had another "title play only" rejection.
This is for the classic "Ladies' Skirts Nailed To A Fence" of 1900. O know, it's way up there in all our Top Ten Film lists.
My review was "The out-skirts of town".
As I said before, surely the test must be if the title were different would the review still be relevant, and here there would still be skirts outdoors, so it just cannot be a title play only.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 20:33:44
Here's my latest: "Hopefully also last 'Sunday'" for the very poor First Sunday. This is not title play only. It is not a great review, and does not describe the plot, but I am commenting on the film's quality. If that (while pinning it down to the exact film by alluding to the title) is not a valid review that's one thing (although there are many parallel cases), but that does not mean that it should be rejected using this reason. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/31/2008 : 01:58:33
Mine was "Baked Under Capricorn" for Naked Under Capricorn. This obviously is title play, but it does describe the film (or in fact, I think, miniseries) as it is (partially, but significantly) about a white man living out under the scorching Australian sun with some Aborigines. I explained this with my submision. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 03/31/2008 : 01:35:56
Firstly, I am talking about a tendency rather than simply one review.
However, my review this time was for THE MAGIC ROUNDABOUT and the review is Magical (in roundabout way).
Now the roundabout is 100% obviously NOT just in the title, it is definitely in the film, and the film really is magical, by which I mean magical things happen. They happen on or in the environs of a roundabout.
Therefore I can tell you with total certainty that I am rejecting the TITLE PLAY ONLY refusal as NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. 
A simple test of this is to imagine that the film title was something else, like "Florence and Zebbedee" for example. My review would still apply to the film, it just would not play on the title as well.
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 03/31/2008 : 01:23:59
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I have to agree about this.
I've just had another rejection on exactly these lines. 
Can something be done about this please Benj?
Once again, I need to know what film/ review we're talking about. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 03/31/2008 : 00:50:36
I have to agree about this.
I've just had another rejection on exactly these lines.
Can something be done about this please Benj?
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 18:28:13
My problem with this reason, as I've mentioned in another thread, is that it seems to be being used to reject perfectly valid reviews that are also a play on the title. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 16:30:19
The film is The Secret Diary of Sigmund Freud and the reviews just basically repeat what we all fairly know about Sigmund Freud:
Sigmund Freud is shown as a young doctor full of neuroses about blood and various other things doctors are not supposed to be concerned with. As he grows into the profession he more or less invented, hypnotism of his patients yields their own self-diagnoses, and he gets rich and famous writing down his patients' ideas. within the last ten minutes or so, a plot develops, simply so the film can end properly, but it's far too late.
So I wrote a review about the id.
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 15:59:52
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
OK, so what if the film has either an external or user review on imdb which gives a clue to a film's content? And what about if it's based on a novel, and the plot of that is available somewhere else ... e.g. amazon or wikipedia, etc?
As long as we have some information (be that the source novel or someone's review on another site) to figure out what the basic plot is then I'd class it as non-title-play fodder. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 15:49:37
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
I had a rejected review on the basis of "Title play only." Now the thing is, this film is a 1984 film that has a sum total of 46 votes on IMDB, with no plot summary or synopsis. I have observed scores of reviews on FWFR that are title play only, usually based on films with pedigrees similar to this. So... what does one do?
You'd have to let me know which film this is. Generally, title-play is only allowed if there's no further detail available on the film so if you're correct in that there's no summary or synopsis then the review should be okay. Of course, should more information arrive about the film later, the review could then be end up being declined post-approval. Such is the risk of title-play reviews.
OK, so what if the film has either an external or user review on imdb which gives a clue to a film's content? And what about if it's based on a novel, and the plot of that is available somewhere else ... e.g. amazon or wikipedia, etc?
Gosh - this is getting complicated  
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 14:35:58
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
I know, I'm not Benj (though we do share the same mane)
It's true - he passed a lion detector test. 
|
| Ali |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 14:27:37
I am benj. Just wanted to clear that up.
|
| Ali |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 14:26:56
quote:
I know, I'm not Benj (though we do share the same mane)
Best. Typo. Ever.
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 14:20:05
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
I had a rejected review on the basis of "Title play only." Now the thing is, this film is a 1984 film that has a sum total of 46 votes on IMDB, with no plot summary or synopsis. I have observed scores of reviews on FWFR that are title play only, usually based on films with pedigrees similar to this. So... what does one do?
You'd have to let me know which film this is. Generally, title-play is only allowed if there's no further detail available on the film so if you're correct in that there's no summary or synopsis then the review should be okay. Of course, should more information arrive about the film later, the review could then be end up being declined post-approval. Such is the risk of title-play reviews. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 03/26/2008 : 14:19:45
I just wanted to confirm that I'm not Benj either.
Just wanted to clear that one up.
Oh, yeah, Livie, I had the same thing a few weeks back for a film similarly without any other details, so how anyone was expected to write a review about that film which wasn't a title play, and how the MERP knew it was just a title play and not a brilliant summary of a 1910 or whenever film which they certainly have not seen, is beyond me.
What you're supposed to do is decide whether the review is worth resubmitting, in which case you resubmit it or, alternatively, move on.
I moved on. 
|
