| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ali |
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 07:48:46
This rule seriously requires a reevaluation. A few of my otherwise perfectly pertinent reviews have been declined based on this criteria, the utilisation of which has been inconsistent, to say the least (and to remain polite). Case in point: A recent review by Sludge.
And it's not just this one either. There have been dozens and dozens recent approvals that should have been declined based on the aforementioned rule. Just saying.
PS. I think the rule should be discontinued. But then again I also don't believe in astrology.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 02:44:55
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
if they get approved, I have to give them to Alan Smithee
No one should ever disown any review, of course, but if you want to you don't need to wait for approval -- you can disown a pending review. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 02:42:07
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
I think it's great that Salopian hunts down the old thread rather than starting a new one.
Thanks. I'd rather see the whole of a topic together so that's what I try to apply.
I think your review is valid, for the reasons you've given, i.e. that there's nothing signifcantly new about the film. |
| Larry |
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 03:49:21
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
OK, I posted them ... but if they get approved, I have to give them to Alan Smithee, since I can't really take credit for them (heck, I disowned my "I Am A Camera" rip-off review for that same reason). 
Is there a rule about not accepting gifts? As far as I'm concerned you can keep them if they get approval. Besides, I don't want Smithee to get them -- he's not far behind me. |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 03:39:31
OK, I posted them ... but if they get approved, I have to give them to Alan Smithee, since I can't really take credit for them (heck, I disowned my "I Am A Camera" rip-off review for that same reason). |
| Larry |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 20:58:16
You want 'em? You got 'em. |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 20:28:58
quote:
Originally posted by Larry
...
Bunny in the house
Read, then burn
...
I like these two!  Can I have 'em, please, please, please??? |
| Sludge |
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 16:11:00
I think it's great that Salopian hunts down the old thread rather than starting a new one. It gives a sense of history and in this case, I hadn't remembered this thread or Ali's original critique. So, to comment on it over a year and a half later... I think my fwfr pointed out here is an excellent case to have been discussed.
I agree that it ventures into that possibly decline-able territory, and I thought just now of dumping the review. On further thought, though, together with Benj's commentary: it does reflect my opinion of the film as an extension of the Fast Furiously Gone In 60 Seconds "genre" - that is, I don't think it's forging any new territory, and the original territory was pretty shallow to begin with. This could be said of many sequels but this one happened to have the whole "we don't even know what to call the sequel" element, and I think that's what I was trying to capture with this equally shallow fwfr.
So, does the fwfr belong in the book? I'd say no.
Oh, wait. It's already in the book?
Yipeeeeee.
Disclaimer: I haven't seen the book. I'm sure it's not really in there.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 21:01:05
I'm not really clear how reviews which mention the word Beetle but make no other mention of a Bug/bug and no mention at all of love can be 'title play only' for The Love Bug.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/14/2009 : 02:25:37
I had another frustrating one in this category recently. It was for Monsturd -- apart from the fact that mine was not really title play at all, I defy anyone to come up with a review that plays on that title but which does not describe the film. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 12/07/2008 : 01:21:07
That illustrates a frequent problem -- MERPs rejecting an already approved review that has been amended insignificantly. |
| Pope George Ringo |
Posted - 12/07/2008 : 01:08:43
I get a kick out of this one myself. I recently edited an old review of mine for "24 Hour Party People", changing "Manchesterians require no sleep" to "Mancunians require no sleep" and it was declined as title play only. A review that was okay when only Benj was deciding is now no longer acceptable. go figure.
|
| aahaa, muahaha |
Posted - 09/09/2008 : 18:32:41
I've been very inactive on fourum and the site of late but I submitted one review which I thought went beyond title play; sadly, the MERP did not think so.
The film: What happens in Vegas...
My review: ...should've stayed in Vegas.
While it is a play on the saying, given the universal panning by the critics that the film received, I don't think that my review can be considered as "title play ONLY." I've seen the film and am yet unable to understand why it is a hit. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 09/07/2008 : 13:30:52
Thanks Benj/MERP. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 15:12:36
O.K., thanks. The MERP thought differently.
I've resubmitted, asking her/him to see this thread. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 14:22:10
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Benj, what do you think about "Hopefully also last 'Sunday'" for First Sunday. This does rely on the title but us also commenting on the quality of the actual film.
I've no probs with that- it's not saying the film is about something other than what it is based on the title alone. |
