| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Salopian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 10/20/2006 : 09:35:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I think you're being a bit over sensitive here. I realize that the movie may actually be a good one, and I'm sure it covers sensitive material. Still, I'm not sure we can stop people from trying to be clever and alluding to certain connections between Islam and persons/places/things that are directly connected to that religion.
But for the sake of peace on this site, may I ask you if the following two reviews would be found offensive to you? If so, I will happily remove them from my pending list. They are:
"Maidens Mecca-ing out."
"Sorry, Islam forbids pork-ing!"
I still feel that referring to (non-religious) parts of the Middle East when talking about non-Middle Eastern Muslims is not appropriate. However, references to Mecca are fine since this is significant for all Muslims. Referring to people making out is also fine since this is not homophobic. The other review is also fine except that it says "Islam forbids sex", which is not true. "Porking" does not specify gay sex or even unmarried sex. However, I am sure it can be amended slightly to make it apt. |
 |
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 09:36:18
|
| P.S. I would vote for both of these. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 09:46:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Can I resubmit it as: "Sisters: eye-to-eye"? Or perhaps: "Sisters share POV" (POV=Point of View)?
I would definitely vote for both (although you should use an unhyphenated "Sisters: eye to eye"). The latter is fine because although they cannot see with their shared eye, it is a 'point of view' in the sense that it is a point where sight would be located. Both reviews are good because the sisters do seem to be in agreement about things (not being separated etc.) more than average. |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 09:55:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I feel very upset that this film has been hijacked like every other film with Gay in the title (in a way that, please note, does not happen with e.g. films about black people). This is a serious documentary which shows the severe hardship that people are going through (such as being denied any access to their children). If someone does a Google search for "gay muslims" and comes across that page, then they will very likely feel demeaned and even more isolated by some of the reviews.
Even if no other reviews get removed, all references to Middle Eastern countries etc. need to be deleted, as the film is wholly about Muslims in Britain.
I'm afraid I can't agree with this. Since when does a movie about severe hardships become exempt from us making jokes about it? Even documentaries about severe hardships have some very clever and funny reviews here.*
As for it being about Muslims in Britain - while that may make some of the reviews wrong, referring to places that have significance to Moslems should be allowed.
(* Of course, if you're worried about the site being bombed or hacked because of Muslems taking offence to our reviews, perhaps we should reconsider...?! Hm... Nope, I don't think so.)
We've been here before, I think.
Some of these made me laugh, some I wish weren't there, even though I don't advocate their forceful removal, but as Salopian says some are just plain wrong.
After all, this is the 'Four Word Film Review' site, not the 'Four Word Film Title Review' site |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 11:03:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
After all, this is the 'Four Word Film Review' site, not the 'Four Word Film Title Review' site
Now that is a very good point. And in this case, I'm thinking you would be right.
(Of course, we sometimes have to write reviews based solely on the title - especially if IMDb doesn't have any information to indicate with the film is about. This happens primarily with very old films, some foreign films and more the obscure shorts that happen to get added here.)
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 10/20/2006 11:05:47 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 11:05:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I think you're being a bit over sensitive here. I realize that the movie may actually be a good one, and I'm sure it covers sensitive material. Still, I'm not sure we can stop people from trying to be clever and alluding to certain connections between Islam and persons/places/things that are directly connected to that religion.
But for the sake of peace on this site, may I ask you if the following two reviews would be found offensive to you? If so, I will happily remove them from my pending list. They are:
"Maidens Mecca-ing out."
"Sorry, Islam forbids pork-ing!"
I still feel that referring to (non-religious) parts of the Middle East when talking about non-Middle Eastern Muslims is not appropriate. However, references to Mecca are fine since this is significant for all Muslims. Referring to people making out is also fine since this is not homophobic. The other review is also fine except that it says "Islam forbids sex", which is not true. "Porking" does not specify gay sex or even unmarried sex. However, I am sure it can be amended slightly to make it apt.
The MERPs declined both reviews.
I've submitted the first one again with a slight change to "Problem: maids Mecca-ing out". I thought of changing the other one to "Sorry, Islam forbids pork(ing)!" since Islam does forbid eating pork but decided against it.
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 10/20/2006 11:13:02 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 11:16:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Can I resubmit it as: "Sisters: eye-to-eye"? Or perhaps: "Sisters share POV" (POV=Point of View)?
I would definitely vote for both (although you should use an unhyphenated "Sisters: eye to eye"). The latter is fine because although they cannot see with their shared eye, it is a 'point of view' in the sense that it is a point where sight would be located. Both reviews are good because the sisters do seem to be in agreement about things (not being separated etc.) more than average.
We shall see what the MERPs think, then, shall we?
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 12:06:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I thought of changing the other one to "Sorry, Islam forbids pork(ing)!" since Islam does forbid eating pork but decided against it.
I think there's a good review at the heart of it. How about "Islam forbids pink porking"? "Pink" is relevant to pork, and it does allude to homosexuality (although it does perhaps also allude to general Caucasian skin and genitalia, so is not particularly specific). I am quite keen on pink representing homosexuality, since gay men died in the war wearing it (and it is so much preferable to the inexcusably awful rainbow). |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 12:15:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
After all, this is the 'Four Word Film Review' site, not the 'Four Word Film Title Review' site
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. I think it is fine to mess around with films that clearly have no significant content other than described by the title, but 'real' films are a different matter. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 12:23:11
|
Contains spoiler:
Many reviews for Marie-Antoinette, including some pending for me, contain references to her losing her head. This does not happen in the film. I think this is probably fine - but is it? |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 15:45:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Contains spoiler:
Many reviews for Marie-Antoinette, including some pending for me, contain references to her losing her head. This does not happen in the film. I think this is probably fine - but is it?
Not sure. Historically correct, but not film specific. Still, using a famous historical incident to refer to the person, instead of using their name, might be considered acceptable.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 15:49:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I thought of changing the other one to "Sorry, Islam forbids pork(ing)!" since Islam does forbid eating pork but decided against it.
I think there's a good review at the heart of it. How about "Islam forbids pink porking"? "Pink" is relevant to pork, and it does allude to homosexuality (although it does perhaps also allude to general Caucasian skin and genitalia, so is not particularly specific). I am quite keen on pink representing homosexuality, since gay men died in the war wearing it (and it is so much preferable to the inexcusably awful rainbow).
Hm... Maybe... In any case, thanks for the help, but I'll leave it for now. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 17:05:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Contains spoiler:
Many reviews for Marie-Antoinette, including some pending for me, contain references to her losing her head. This does not happen in the film. I think this is probably fine - but is it?
Not sure. Historically correct, but not film specific. Still, using a famous historical incident to refer to the person, instead of using their name, might be considered acceptable.
Exactly. I think one can refer directly to a person in relation to an incident that doesn't appear (e.g. call Guy Fawkes a plotter even in the unlikely event of a film about him not showing him plotting), but it's hard to know whether the incident can itself be mentioned (e.g. "Guy Fawkes plots"). I think it depends upon how much the events shown in the film dictate the unshown event. Hhmmm... |
Edited by - Salopian on 10/20/2006 17:07:01 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 13:33:59
|
| Benj, could we please have a ruling on this issue for future reference? Thanks. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/23/2006 : 14:48:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Contains spoiler:
Many reviews for Marie-Antoinette, including some pending for me, contain references to her losing her head. This does not happen in the film. I think this is probably fine - but is it?
Not sure. Historically correct, but not film specific. Still, using a famous historical incident to refer to the person, instead of using their name, might be considered acceptable.
Exactly. I think one can refer directly to a person in relation to an incident that doesn't appear (e.g. call Guy Fawkes a plotter even in the unlikely event of a film about him not showing him plotting), but it's hard to know whether the incident can itself be mentioned (e.g. "Guy Fawkes plots"). I think it depends upon how much the events shown in the film dictate the unshown event. Hhmmm...
For instance, I wouldn't see a problem with writing a review about a film about Napolian that refers to Waterloo, even if that battle isn't in the film itself. It's simply something that is so closely related to that particular person that we can't separate that person from that event. So, even if Marie never said "let them eat cake" (and apparently she didn't), any review that has a cake reference would - I think - be okay.
But you are right in asking Benj to make a ruling. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Reviews that are wrong
