| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| mampers11 |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 10:55:52
While I was checking emails yesterday from some of our fellow FWFRers, a conundrum has occurred to me. Basically these FWFRers were voting for my American History X review which is "Denistry; Nazi Style". Two of our fellow FWFRers have told me that it can be used in another movie "Marathon Man" Now I am just thinking, would it be right to reuse a review onto another movie?
I have done this once before with my reviews on Shrek 2 and Our House: A Very Real Documentary About Kids Of Gay & Lesbian Parents with the review of "Meet The Fairy Parents". However I did use it due to my newbieness and I wanted to get some reviews on the board, but now I am a regular user of FWFR, would it be right for me to use it again? In my eyes, it seems to be a bit of a cop out, though I do not want my review on both Our House and Shrek 2 to be deleted. Bit hypocritical I know, sorry. I am just wondering what do you guys think and please post back
Mampers "not much of a conundrum but a countdown one"
|
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 09:58:13
I have done it occasionally to a degree, but I think when one of the words is slightly different or has a different meaning, e.g. I have got a "Sky blue" and a "Skye blue". I agree that it's not ideal, but I think it's within the site ethics. |
| mampers11 |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 16:40:45
Whippersnapper has the right idea. It is basically using the same review on two or more movies. As I said before, I personally think it would be a lazy way out of thinking of FWFRs but I dont wanna isolate or condemn those who have done it. It is just I think it is a cop out that is all. Hope that is cleared everything up, if it has not, you can speak to my representative Mr Sock, who is a sock.
Just joking, PM me if you guys dont understand.
Mampers.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 14:39:41
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
In general, I don't like to see the same review for different movies. However, I'm a chap who first assumes innocence, so I first assume the newbie didn't know of the previous review [it's easy to check with Google, BTW]. But fwiffers are such clever sorts that when somebody deliberately tries to break this rule with malice aforethought, as was done cleverly and meaningfully with the POLICE ACADEMY series, or the trope, "[whichever foe] upsets Mel" [Gibson], I'm willing to suspend my disbelief. Those instances are rare, and should remain so. I think you have to use common sense. Wish I could find some.
I think Mampy Baby is talking about him writing the same review for one film that he has already written for another, rather than him copying someone else's review for one film and submitting it for another, which I'm sure he would feel is not a really wonderful thing to do without requiring any advice.
On the other hand perhaps I'm wrong. 
Over to Mampers! |
| randall |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 00:15:27
In general, I don't like to see the same review for different movies. However, I'm a chap who first assumes innocence, so I first assume the newbie didn't know of the previous review [it's easy to check with Google, BTW]. But fwiffers are such clever sorts that when somebody deliberately tries to break this rule with malice aforethought, as was done cleverly and meaningfully with the POLICE ACADEMY series, or the trope, "[whichever foe] upsets Mel" [Gibson], I'm willing to suspend my disbelief. Those instances are rare, and should remain so. I think you have to use common sense. Wish I could find some. |
| Sludge |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 17:00:05
Toward the accolade, I've learned that Anne Frank was in hiding with a dentist... so if you can set up the right rules ("Nazis and Dentists" rather than "Nazis ARE Dentists") that's at least three films. |
| Sludge |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 16:40:29
If I have one that might apply to two films, I might try to vary it by a word for more specificity. More often, I will just keep it to the one film and hope it doesn't get accidentally stolen for the other film.
When that does happen, I try not to be bothered by it as I figure I'm guilty of doing the same (again, unintentionally) now and then.
One key point for me is, particularly if I think of one while offline that seems clever enough that it should already be taken, I search for that review for the intended film. If it's there, I vote for it and won't go find another movie to stick it on - on a really good fwfr it's pretty tough to come up with a variation that doesn't just "taste like" plagiarism. I sometimes wonder if everyone does that, if a good fwfr shows up virtually identical on a more obscure movie.
Mampers, similar thoughts went through my mind on yours. I would stick with the one film for this one, because Marathon Man has many many references to dentistry.
I was obviously inspired by noncentz' "Acts o' dental Terrorist" (which deserves far more votes), when I submitted "Axis' dental terrorist?" (which in hindsight may deserve to be pulled out with pliers).
You've helped raise awareness of the Nazi dental connection in films, and I think it deserves to be a Mampers accolade. |
| Paddy C |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 22:24:32
I've had a variation of this, with '50 First Dates', and an old Dana Carvey movie 'Clean Slate', where I basically submitted the same review, but with a different name eg for 50 First Dates: 'Barrymore's repeatedly spotless mind', and for Clean Slate: 'Carvey's repeatedly spotless mind' 
... hi, my name's Paddy and I'm a self-plagiariser...
Is there a code of ethics on this, or should I just know myself that it's wrong and Smithee the more recent one!? I guess the answer to Mampers question would be the same for mine... time for a kangaroo court i reckon. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 16:37:37
I don't agree with Chocky that if a review works for more than one movie then its not specific enough for either. Benj does not carry the generic concept THAT far.
I'd say this Mampy Baby, this site is supposed to be about writing original reviews, and, in my humble opinion, there is no plagiarism as sad and destructive as self-plagiarism.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 13:03:06
Technically speaking, I understood it that if a review works for more than one movie, then it isn't specific enough for either of them. However, one can get away with a slightly more general review for the first of a franchise of movies, but that the reviews for later films would need to be more specific to distinguish it from the other films.
As for your "Meet the Fairy Parents" reviews, you could make it more specific for Our House by changing it to "Meet the Homosexual Parents" or "Meet the Gay Parents" (as the slang "fairy" in regards to homosexuals is really gender specific to men and doesn't include lesbians - from what I understand). For Shrek 2, since I haven't seen it, I don't know if the princess' parents are actually fairies or not so I don't know if that's accurate.
|
|
|
