| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 02:55:01
... at least half the votes of your best?
It's clear from Airbolt's thread that people's most voted reviews are near the beginning of their time here, so I thought it would be interesting to see how severe that skewing is.
Approved 13th October 2004. I was quite shocked by that. I knew that most of my good reviews were early, but I didn't realise that every single one of my reviews from all these later years was so low. That most recent one is also the lowest of those above halfway. Lower down on my top page there are a sprinkling from 2005 and 2006, two from 2003 and one from 2007, but everything else is from 2004. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 23:33:48
quote:
Originally posted by dem9nic
quote:
Originally posted by 9afta9abe
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
When I met up with Baffy and Demonic I felt most ignorant. Their taunting didn't help...
Bigger Boat's a sissy
Bigger Boat's a sissy
I don't remember taunting. I remember poking with a sharp stick and cackling...
I don't know though... I love film and I like to watch a lot of them, but I'm no where near as well versed as BB. There are some hefty gaps in my viewing. I've never seen "The Sound of Music". Or "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". Or "Rashomon" or "The Searchers". Or "Gandhi", "Harvey" or "Frankenstein". "La Strada", or "8 1/2", or "La Dolce Vita".
Worse I've never even seen "Big Momma's House 2....
Well, in that case i haven't seen " Citizen Kane" but have seen "Taxi 3". I draw the line at Mark Dascasos tho! |
| demonic |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 18:49:26
quote:
Originally posted by 9afta9abe
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
When I met up with Baffy and Demonic I felt most ignorant. Their taunting didn't help...
Bigger Boat's a sissy
Bigger Boat's a sissy
I don't remember taunting. I remember poking with a sharp stick and cackling...
I don't know though... I love film and I like to watch a lot of them, but I'm no where near as well versed as BB. There are some hefty gaps in my viewing. I've never seen "The Sound of Music". Or "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". Or "Rashomon" or "The Searchers". Or "Gandhi", "Harvey" or "Frankenstein". "La Strada", or "8 1/2", or "La Dolce Vita".
Worse I've never even seen "Big Momma's House 2.... |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 18:45:56
It's frustrating though when something I want to see only has peak performances! �3.50 seems so expensive in comparison. But yes, it's a great thing. And the double seats at the back are awesome. |
| demonic |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 18:39:36
quote:
Originally posted by Salopixn
However, I was extremely thirsty the other day and was pleasantly surprised that the largest soft drink size was 'only' �2.10 at the P.C.C. I think that's about half the price of normal cinemas.
Got to love the PCC though. �1.50 before 5pm for a film just a month or two old is a great reason to celebrate. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 17:54:11
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
As long as you don't buy the bucket of fizzy sugar water.
Yup, it's a terrible rip-off. I know from my usher days that that concessions are where cinemas make almost all of their money. However, I was extremely thirsty the other day and was pleasantly surprised that the largest soft drink size was 'only' �2.10 at the P.C.C. I think that's about half the price of normal cinemas.
quote:
You're much more interested than me - I dabble and can just about keep up with you film aficionados.
I dunno -- the vast majority of the films I have been able to score on here come from the last few years, when I have had a Cineworld card. I suppose I am into Bollywood films but that's mainly for their visual and to some degree linguistic content. I came to this site wholly for the wordplay, and maybe a certain amount of interest in film has rubbed off -- although I would never go so far as to watch a film without F.W.F.R. in mind, except perhaps Brokeback Mountain. I do find that film ignorance is quite a big disadvantage. People like noncentz and BaftaBabe have so many film connections in their heads that they can think of angles for reviews that would pass me by. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 17:09:02
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
When I met up with Baffy and Demonic I felt most ignorant. Their taunting didn't help...
Bigger Boat's a sissy
Bigger Boat's a sissy
|
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 16:57:25
quote:
Originally posted by Salopixn
It's cheap and I'm poor.
As long as you don't buy the bucket of fizzy sugar water.
quote:
However, I'm only less interested in film than other people here. I'm still probably more into it than most people.
You're much more interested than me - I dabble and can just about keep up with you film aficionados. When I met up with Baffy and Demonic I felt most ignorant. Their taunting didn't help...
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/27/2008 : 05:45:35
I started out here in late December 2005 and my top page is also filled with mostly 2006 reviews. The newest one with half of my top voted would be this little piece of blasphamy that is dated December 19, 2006.
The newest review I have on my top page is from October 30, 2007. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/27/2008 : 02:05:14
It's cheap and I'm poor. However, I'm only less interested in film than other people here. I'm still probably more into it than most people. |
| demonic |
Posted - 10/27/2008 : 00:24:41
quote:
Originally posted by Salo9ian
As well as the general ones I've covered, reasons specific to me are that I am not particularly interested in film compared to everyone else here and thus have exhausted a larger proportion of the films with which I am familiar
Really?? For someone not particularly interested in film you do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time in the cinema, certainly more than I do, and I absolutely love film going. I'm quite surprised by that.  |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/26/2008 : 22:26:45
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Everyone's quality goes down because if one will have an idea for an old film then it's not in most cases going to take years and years to come along (though of course some will do). So that mainly leaves new films (to the world or oneself) for new reviews.
I don't think I really follow what you mean... can you explain again?
I have ideas for old films on a regular basis, it just depends on when I devote some attention to the subject. I review on a film by film basis, mainly after a cinema, DVD or TV viewing. My recent "Walk the Line" review you liked came after re-watching on DVD, three years after I saw it in the cinema.
Sure, there will be plenty of cases like this, but my own impression is that it is more likely that the majority of the best ideas will come sooner rather than later.
quote:
I also don't believe as an example that my, or yours, or Sal's most recent 100 reviews are significantly less competent or worthwhile that our first 100, simply that perceptions on the fourum have changed as to what a vote worthy review is. Maybe we're just harder to please.
Well, my later ones are certainly weaker than my first ones for a variety of reasons. As well as the general ones I've covered, reasons specific to me are that I am not particularly interested in film compared to everyone else here and thus have exhausted a larger proportion of the films with which I am familiar, and that I had recently worked in a pun-heavy job and so was both in the mindset and able to recycle some of my own pre-existing wordplay.
I don't think perceptions have changed, for me at least. My perception was always that some good wordplay used in a particular way was worth a vote once. For the same idea to get another vote later, it needs to also bring something new. |
| Pope George Ringo |
Posted - 10/26/2008 : 15:29:24
I am certainly one of those who's big hits came early. Like say, The Eagles or Billy Joel, my first greatest hits album would be a whole lot better than my second. Anyway, here's my most recent with 1/2:
http://fwfr.com/display.asp?do=mr&uid=3492&id=3027&Mode=&Sort=3&Rows=100&Dir=1&Start=1
|
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 10/26/2008 : 02:50:11
I joined August 31, 2006, and I'm fairly pleased to say that the latest review for which I have half as many votes as my top (50), was from January 6, 2008. I am also really happy with the good reception it was given. |
| Yukon |
Posted - 10/26/2008 : 02:13:55
When I first started on FWFR more than three years ago, it wasn't out of the ordinary to get 20 votes during a FYC round because there were about 30 regulars. Now, getting 15 is almost impossible.
Still, I've had a few get 19 votes this year:
I'm proud of these ones and feel if they were written three years ago, they'd have about 40 votes by now.
Story of Alexander Graham Bell: "Bell finds his calling"
Killer Bees: "Slaughterhouse Hive"
Heath Ledger Profile: "I Am Ledger" |
| demonic |
Posted - 10/26/2008 : 01:46:16
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Everyone's quality goes down because if one will have an idea for an old film then it's not in most cases going to take years and years to come along (though of course some will do). So that mainly leaves new films (to the world or oneself) for new reviews.
I don't think I really follow what you mean... can you explain again?
I have ideas for old films on a regular basis, it just depends on when I devote some attention to the subject. I review on a film by film basis, mainly after a cinema, DVD or TV viewing. My recent "Walk the Line" review you liked came after re-watching on DVD, three years after I saw it in the cinema.
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Lack of originality is one reason. Of course originality becomes progressively more difficult as the site matures, but that's the reality we live with.
I guess it's hard to be fresh with every review, but I do believe that there are great un-mined puns for every film waiting to be found, even if it's a film that has already been reviewed to death.
I also don't believe as an example that my, or yours, or Sal's most recent 100 reviews are significantly less competent or worthwhile that our first 100, simply that perceptions on the fourum have changed as to what a vote worthy review is. Maybe we're just harder to please. |
