| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 08:14:28
TA:MOU = Themed Anniversary: Moving On Up
DA EVEN NEWER ROOLZ
Each Tuesday a theme will be decided based on the Anniversary of some significant event. All you have to do is trawl your reviews for any that relate to that event and post them here with a link.
You can post as many as you wish, so long as either the film or your review clearly relates to the theme. You can only post during the week of the current TA:MOU.
You don't have to say you voted unless you really want to - but you are expected to visit all the links posted. As a courtesy to the majority of fwfrs, you may only post a link that uses the http://www.fwfr.com domain name.
Each TA:MOU # will be removed when a new one takes its place. This is to deter re-visiting of expired threads.
Yours truly
Da Management
ON THIS DAY
in 1923
What kind of film site would we be if we didn't celebrate the official dedication of The Hollywood Sign in the hills above Los Angeles. The sign originally read Hollywoodland, but the last syllable was dropped after the 1949 renovation.
Prove you're a true H'wood maven with a display of your reviews for films set entirely or primarily in Los Angeles.
For an extra challenge, and since we've recently had an Oscar theme, films about the Academy Awards are ineligible.
Who wants popcorn?
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 10:11:02
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
And, um, I think we know who's spending every waking hour on FWFR here. Give us all a break, try switching it off and reading a book or something.
If you don't want to read my posts then you are more than welcome not to. However, asking me repeatedly about the same points within the same review is not the best way to not get posts from me.  |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 02:58:33
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Um, why don't you? I have no enthusiasm in pursuing this matter and have simply answered your unfounded posts as they have come.
Well I realise we are entirely in agreement about something - a lack of enthusiasm regarding this conversation.
And, um, I think we know who's spending every waking hour on FWFR here. Give us all a break, try switching it off and reading a book or something. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 00:49:56
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
You know as well as I do that just doing a deed and performing "a good deed" are entirely different things - I can open my front door - that's a deed.
Aarghh. I have not suggested that a deed is the same as a good deed. I have been extremely clear that what I am saying (as is the dictionary) is that a good deed is precisely a deed that is good, nothing more and nothing less.
quote:
Pretending that the OED is backing your argument because it uses the phrase as part of the definition doesn't serve you at all.
I am pretending nothing. When a phrase does not mean exactly the sum of its parts, it is individually defined in the dictionary. Conversely, if it does mean exactly the sum of its parts, it isn't. This happens to be even more explicit in this case as the phrase is used (with no other explanation) as an example of one of the words.
quote:
Yes, that part was, but you also rather grandly emphasized the fact that your new (less than average) review is quality. Get a grip. Or at least a trace of humility.
I had to do something to entertain myself, with you going on and on in the face of the facts. However, it may be less than average quality for me, but not for the site. Have you not seen all the totally straightforward summaries out there?!
quote:
I why not go and enjoy some of that too?
Um, why don't you? I have no enthusiasm in pursuing this matter and have simply answered your unfounded posts as they have come. |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 13:07:30
You know as well as I do that just doing a deed and performing "a good deed" are entirely different things - I can open my front door - that's a deed. I can open it because someone is struggling up the path with the shopping - that might be a good deed, but even then you'd be stretching it. Pretending that the OED is backing your argument because it uses the phrase as part of the definition doesn't serve you at all.
quote:
Oh come on, I put a winking face: it was obviously a tongue-in-cheek comment.
Yes, that part was, but you also rather grandly emphasized the fact that your new (less than average) review is quality. Get a grip. Or at least a trace of humility.
quote:
I hope you found my index useful in order to get back to this thread
I did, as my voting has been delayed this last week. That's real life getting in the way... hey... why not go and enjoy some of that too?  |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 12:46:16
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yes, that is the crux then. The O.E.D. defines deed as "an action that is performed intentionally or consciously: doing good deeds." There's no indication that it needs to be spontaneous, cannot be emotional, cannot be practical &c.,
Yes, you've managed to define "deed" very well there, but not specifically "good deed" which would be more relevant to your argument. As you well know the example added is to demonstrate usage, not define the phrase.
I haven't defined it: the dictionary has. I expected it to define good deed as a phrase. However, the fact that it uses it as an example within the deed definition means that it considers the meaning to be exactly the sum of its parts. If you don't agree, you'd best take it up with the O.E.D.; I'm happy to trust them in every case.
quote:
quote:
I am. It is a quality review, just not as quality as some of my other reviews. All of my reviews add to the quality of the site. 
I'm sure we'd all like to think that. No insult intended, but I suggest not every review you put out is gold standard. A shocking concept I know.
It might be contentious to suggest the number of votes applied suggest a level of quality to a review as we both know there are undervalued and very overvalued reviews here and not all highest ranked reviews deserve their status (I bet you don't think your reviews in the Top 500 are your best - they just got in there early enough). But I believe there is a general marker, and I'll be interested to see how many votes your amended review manages. 
Oh come on, I put a winking face: it was obviously a tongue-in-cheek comment. Besides, I only said quality, not gold standard. Votes are indeed contentious, so I'm not going to get into that. However, my reviews are for sure better on average than the average, and there is something about each one of them (i.e. no totally mundane ones however desperate I am to get a review through for a film).
P.S. I hope you found my index useful in order to get back to this thread, given B.B.'s bizarre fetish for obliterating the identity of these rounds. |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 12:27:50
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yes, that is the crux then. The O.E.D. defines deed as "an action that is performed intentionally or consciously: doing good deeds." There's no indication that it needs to be spontaneous, cannot be emotional, cannot be practical &c.,
Yes, you've managed to define "deed" very well there, but not specifically "good deed" which would be more relevant to your argument. As you well know the example added is to demonstrate usage, not define the phrase.
quote:
quote:
My opinions are inaccurate are they?
Yes, because they are based on a definition of (good) deed which is imaginary.
Using that logic you believe that if you support a friend or encourage a student you are performing a "good deed" - who's being inaccurate?
quote:
I am. It is a quality review, just not as quality as some of my other reviews. All of my reviews add to the quality of the site.
I'm sure we'd all like to think that. No insult intended, but I suggest not every review you put out is gold standard. A shocking concept I know.
It might be contentious to suggest the number of votes applied suggest a level of quality to a review as we both know there are undervalued and very overvalued reviews here and not all highest ranked reviews deserve their status (I bet you don't think your reviews in the Top 500 are your best - they just got in there early enough). But I believe there is a general marker, and I'll be interested to see how many votes your amended review manages. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/24/2010 : 03:49:26
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I think the crux of the disagreement boils down to our different ideas of what would constitute a good deed. I'm not sure any of those things incorporate the way I'd define it. Offering emotional support isn't and vague concepts of "helping" you mention aren't either. Even leaving money to his employee is practical and understandable, not really a spontaneous act of kindness.
Yes, that is the crux then. The O.E.D. defines deed as "an action that is performed intentionally or consciously: doing good deeds." There's no indication that it needs to be spontaneous, cannot be emotional, cannot be practical &c.
quote:
My opinions are inaccurate are they?
Yes, because they are based on a definition of (good) deed which is imaginary.
quote:
I was under the impression you were interested in adding quality reviews to the site
I am. It is a quality review, just not as quality as some of my other reviews. All of my reviews add to the quality of the site. |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 02:35:36
quote:
Countless things. For example, he still emotionally supports his friend (mostly) even though he is emotionally devastated himself. He helps out the young hustler/drifter. He helps the kid in his class who might otherwise commit suicide himself. He leaves money for his housekeeper and makes other such arrangements around his planned suicide.
I think the crux of the disagreement boils down to our different ideas of what would constitute a good deed. I'm not sure any of those things incorporate the way I'd define it. Offering emotional support isn't and vague concepts of "helping" you mention aren't either. Even leaving money to his employee is practical and understandable, not really a spontaneous act of kindness.
quote:
And I'm not objecting to your voicing your opinions of the review. It's just that they are inaccurate and I don't mind whether you like it.
My opinions are inaccurate are they? Not as far as I'm concerned or I wouldn't have bothered to bring it up in the first place. We'll beg to differ as usual.
quote:
I'll bear that in mind just as soon as Benj brings in a rule of one review per person per film.
Ah, never mind then. I was under the impression you were interested in adding quality reviews to the site and not just crawling up the most reviewed ranking list... |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 15:02:58
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
But what "good deeds" does he perform for any of them
Countless things. For example, he still emotionally supports his friend (mostly) even though he is emotionally devastated himself. He helps out the young hustler/drifter. He helps the kid in his class who might otherwise commit suicide himself. He leaves money for his housekeeper and makes other such arrangements around his planned suicide.
quote:
And how can you tell his consideration is atypical anyway? The only George we see before the death of his partner is flashbacks to their relationship - you know, when they were starring in those 80s Calvin Klein adverts.
I didn't say that it is atypical of him: I would have used uncharacteristic if that were what I meant. I meant that it is atypical of someone suffering extreme grief.
quote:
Well I know you are definitely not a MERP, but that wouldn't justify your regular advice and improvements on other people's reviews.
And I'm not objecting to your voicing your opinions of the review. It's just that they are inaccurate and I don't mind whether you like it.
quote:
I still think your new idea is a lot better.
I'll bear that in mind just as soon as Benj brings in a rule of one review per person per film. |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 12:19:38
Meanwhile, back in L.A., two new reviews are passed and added... |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 12:18:50
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
In his grief, he's atypically considerate of others, such as his student, his friend and his housekeeper: as I've already said, that was much of the point of the story for me.
But what "good deeds" does he perform for any of them, even if he is atypically considerate as you say, he's planning on killing himself and won't see any of them again. He gives his housekeeper a hug, I remember that. It doesn't evoke a concept of generally doing good deeds. And how can you tell his consideration is atypical anyway? The only George we see before the death of his partner is flashbacks to their relationship - you know, when they were starring in those 80s Calvin Klein adverts... 
quote:
Unless you're a MERP, which I'm basically certain you're not, as you suspect I'm therefore not looking for your approval of it.
Uh huh. Well I know you are definitely not a MERP, but that wouldn't justify your regular advice and improvements on other people's reviews. I still think your new idea is a lot better. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 01:57:25
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Good deeds like what for example...? I don't particularly remember that being a notable aspect of his grief, as when you grieve it's pretty hard to have any interest in doing things for yourself. I'm sure it doesn't make much difference to you, but I do think it's a tenuous idea and not a particularly good review, even though the newer variant is much better.
In his grief, he's atypically considerate of others, such as his student, his friend and his housekeeper: as I've already said, that was much of the point of the story for me. I explained it all when I originally submitted the review, and it was approved; its removal was not on the basis of its being inaccurate but on the superficial similarity to yours. Unless you're a MERP, which I'm basically certain you're not, as you suspect I'm therefore not looking for your approval of it. |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 01:36:20
Good deeds like what for example...? I don't particularly remember that being a notable aspect of his grief, as when you grieve it's pretty hard to have any interest in doing things for yourself. I'm sure it doesn't make much difference to you, but I do think it's a tenuous idea and not a particularly good review, even though the newer variant is much better.
quote:
Feel free to vote for it then.
Don't worry I will, when I enter the next round and vote on this one. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 15:06:36
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I didn't get the point of that review anyway - the alliteration wasn't distinct, and what "good deeds" were you talking about?
The good deeds that Firth's character does for all the others, his selflessness in his grief. That was much of the point of the film for me.
I don't think the alliteration &c. is in any way indistinct. However, I now think it would be better as "Goode dead. Good deeds", so I'm going to resubmit it as that.
quote:
Your new review is loads better.
Feel free to vote for it then. |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 13:51:01
I didn't get the point of that review anyway - the alliteration wasn't distinct, and what "good deeds" were you talking about? Your new review is loads better. |
|
|
