| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| [matt] |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 02:17:36
My friend (who's not a fwiffer but has read a lot of my reviews) hates reviews that are puns of other film titles. He says it doesn't make any sense because it's a different film! For example, he looked at this one and said "Well that's stupid - Benjamin Button has nothing to do with The Bourne Identity, so why is it in the review?"
I was just wondering if anyone knew how the whole punning of other film titles came about and who started it? Did Benj come up with it as a way of doing FWFRs or was it one of the members who first did it?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 16:45:43
Thanks Whip and Sal.
But I'll just carry on regardless as this is the first time I've seen this thread!!
My decline rates are generally quite low these days so I'm happy about that anyway.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 16:40:49
Here is the thread about it. Unfortunately, some of the MERPs still find it hard to grasp. I have had quite a lot of rejections where they have named one or two other possible films as a basis for rejection, sometimes ones which fit the reviews much less well. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 16:36:18
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
I would have presumed that one review being applicable to even two films made it generic?
Even under the old rule, a review could apply to a small number of films. Under the 'new' rule, there isn't really a limit to how many.
One of my F.W.F.R.ers' challenges was reviews that can only apply to one film and in fact there are hardly any. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 16:34:34
Three? |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 16:25:43
I'm not Benj, but you are wrong Beanie.
It should apply to several films before it is regarded as generic.
|
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 16:23:21
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
If even one of these features blood then I would understand the 'reluctant decline'!!
Nope. There are not enough films to make it too generic, but even if there were then they should choose that option rather than write this silly 'explanation'.
I would have presumed that one review being applicable to even two films made it generic?
Benj?
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 16:16:10
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
If even one of these features blood then I would understand the 'reluctant decline'!!
Nope. There are not enough films to make it too generic, but even if there were then they should choose that option rather than write this silly 'explanation'. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 14:29:32
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by clay
Alas, approval was not forthcoming. "A reluctant decline."
Well, that is quite ridiculous. If a MERP is reluctant to decline a review they should simply approve it, or at least explain why they are unable to. There is nothing wrong with that review, since it seems sufficiently likely that the film will have Thor doing some bludgeoning, and there are many far more spurious There Will Be Blood puns on the site.
I wonder whether the MERP is a British viewer of The Apprentice. It has got to the stage where S'ralan told the last people to leave "With regret, you're fired" and that sounds very similar!
If even one of these features blood then I would understand the 'reluctant decline'!! |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 14:00:07
quote:
Originally posted by clay
Alas, approval was not forthcoming. "A reluctant decline."
Well, that is quite ridiculous. If a MERP is reluctant to decline a review they should simply approve it, or at least explain why they are unable to. There is nothing wrong with that review, since it seems sufficiently likely that the film will have Thor doing some bludgeoning, and there are many far more spurious There Will Be Blood puns on the site.
I wonder whether the MERP is a British viewer of The Apprentice. It has got to the stage where S'ralan told the last people to leave "With regret, you're fired" and that sounds very similar! |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 07:24:34
quote:
Originally posted by clay
Alas, approval was not forthcoming. "A reluctant decline."
Too bad. I would have voted on that one.
So [matt], what we're telling you, basically, is that your friend just doesn't GET the essence of a pun, let alone this site. That's all there is to it. Nothing wrong with that - it isn't for everyone. I bet he gets lots of other things, and very successfully, I'm sure.
(I just hope he never he had any aspirations of becoming a comedy writer. Unless he wants to write for Judd Apatow. That could work.)
|
| clay |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 05:39:19
Alas, approval was not forthcoming. "A reluctant decline." |
| clay |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 02:16:35
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by clay
When the THOR movie comes out, I'll be ready with "Thor Will Be Blud(geoning)."
That might just about be good enough actually! The film's already here, so you should add that review, even if in a tongue-in-cheek way.
Have done, on your advice--now pending approval! Thanks! |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 01:32:01
quote:
Originally posted by clay
When the THOR movie comes out, I'll be ready with "Thor Will Be Blud(geoning)."
That might just about be good enough actually! The film's already here, so you should add that review, even if in a tongue-in-cheek way. |
| clay |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 01:02:56
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
My review recently highlighted by boydegg falls into this category, of course.
What I find interesting is how certain ones take off, such that people become obsessed with punning on them. I cannot tell you how amazing a There Will Be Blood variant would have to be for me to vote on it now.
When the THOR movie comes out, I'll be ready with "Thor Will Be Blud(geoning)." |
| randall |
Posted - 06/04/2009 : 21:15:47
quote:
Originally posted by [matt]
My friend (who's not a fwiffer but has read a lot of my reviews) hates reviews that are puns of other film titles. He says it doesn't make any sense because it's a different film! For example, he looked at this one and said "Well that's stupid - Benjamin Button has nothing to do with The Bourne Identity, so why is it in the review?"
I was just wondering if anyone knew how the whole punning of other film titles came about and who started it? Did Benj come up with it as a way of doing FWFRs or was it one of the members who first did it?
Any successful pun has to cause that instant of recognition that makes it funny [or groany; same thing]. It could be a phrase that's entered the culture, even a person's name. Around here, movies are topic #1, so it's only natural that some titles become fodder for those who take pun in hand. It's not lame or stupid; you're simply part of a community where everybody happens to like movies! |
