| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 13:34:57
This and this overlap substantially, although they each contain films that the other does not. |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| turrell |
Posted - 01/07/2007 : 04:46:05
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Nope, it true! I've heard of 'El Cid' at least, but they've totally passed me by. I didn't even know Michael Mann's dad was a filmmaker. 
I guess its true then that the child is in fact the father of the Mann. |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/06/2007 : 20:13:17
Nope, it true! I've heard of 'El Cid' at least, but they've totally passed me by. I didn't even know Michael Mann's dad was a filmmaker. |
| Rovark |
Posted - 01/06/2007 : 18:10:07
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Hey Rovark - may as well keep the first accolade as it is - it does no harm as a standalone, although I understand your aim in making a pair. I can't personally see a reason to make an accolade for Anthony Mann though because I've never seen any of his films. So please, keep it.
Whaaaat!!??
You're saying you've never seen Any of these , Winchester '73, El Cid. Say it ain't so
|
| demonic |
Posted - 01/06/2007 : 14:02:33
Hey Rovark - may as well keep the first accolade as it is - it does no harm as a standalone, although I understand your aim in making a pair. I can't personally see a reason to make an accolade for Anthony Mann though because I've never seen any of his films. So please, keep it. |
| Rovark |
Posted - 01/06/2007 : 12:58:45
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
First Mann, Second Mann.
Ooops, my bad.
I was keen on two companion accolades, one for Anthony Mann and one for Michael Mann but having checked Anthony's for "Who's The Mann I", neglected to check Michael's films for an existing accolade before creating "Who's The Mann II".
It's going, but do you want to set up an Anthony Mann accolade as it's kinda good to have the two as a pair. Let me know and I'll get rid of "Who's The Mann I as well.
Rovark |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/06/2007 : 01:43:34
First Mann, Second Mann. |
| demonic |
Posted - 12/16/2006 : 01:57:04
quote:
Originally posted by Gentleman Ghost
Also, I think Benj has the earlier of the two Star Trek accolades, not the later. (21 vs. 597)
Then DrZm's should be cast into space forthwith.
Here are two more - here and here. Bife's is later but clearly more complete, and has a nice graphic (hooray!)
|
| Gentleman Ghost |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 22:51:01
I'm not worried about the similar accolades, but the exact duplicates ought to go. Maybe if one of the American Pie accolades (The Stiffmeister or The Pie Charters Trophy) was expanded to include the direct-to-video sequels it would make more sense to have two.
Also, I think Benj has the earlier of the two Star Trek accolades, not the later. (21 vs. 597) |
| demonic |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 21:07:19
These two accolades are indentical - Take One and Take Two . Unfortunately the later of the two was made by our beloved leader, but as neither have a desirable image it doesn't much matter if the other one is deleted!  |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 09:35:44
You may not remember near duplicate accolades being eliminated in the past, Josh, but they certainly were. This was benj's explicit policy. (There was discussion over whether having an individualised trophy or being older should give an accolade priority.) For example, immediately after I added all the Tarzan films and created my Tarzan accolade, someone else created another Tarzan accolade and benj then deleted this. I am not telling anyone to delete anything - just pointing them out so that benj can decide whatever he pleases. (This can therefore not be called 'policing'.) I would be quite content for my accolades to be deleted where they turned out to offer nothing significant on top of earlier ones. I had not come across the examples you have given; had I, I would have noted them here in the same way. I checked for the current The Queen twice and have just checked again and still cannot see it; I can only see the 1968 one. |
| Josh the cat |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 08:20:21
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Rovark's has the current The Queen and Josh's doesn't.
I agree that they are not exact duplicates, but near-duplicate accolades have been eliminated before, so I was just pointing it out so that benj could decide.
Right then mister policeman, you are right mine and Rovark's are similar with some major differences, the criteria are different.
Why, if you feel you must police the site, do you not start with the obvious like
http://www.fwfr.com/search.asp?accid=258
&
http://www.fwfr.com/search.asp?accid=702
or
http://www.fwfr.com/search.asp?accid=12
&
http://www.fwfr.com/search.asp?accid=1463
Where the criteria are essentially the same! If it please you I shall delete my completely acceptable accolade so that you can feel happy in your pedantic way, other than that get a life!
I thought long and hard about replying to you salopian because I love this site but people like you are making life here annoying, why don't you just roll with the site and let people be!
Josh the cat 
EDIT: Having just inspected my accolade it does include 'The Queen' so please try to get your facts right occasionally! |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 07:40:41
Rovark's has the current The Queen and Josh's doesn't.
I agree that they are not exact duplicates, but near-duplicate accolades have been eliminated before, so I was just pointing it out so that benj could decide.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 07:33:53
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
This and this overlap substantially, although they each contain films that the other does not.
Could this be because Josh's is updating and Rovark's isn't? I see that Josh has the new "All the King's Men" (2006) in it while Rovark's doesn't.
If they both updated automatically, and had the same update criteria, then they should contain the same number of films and then they would be duplicates. As it is, they really aren't total duplicates.
|
