| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 04/04/2006 : 17:06:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
What makes the review illegitimate for me is the "I bet" bit, as it can only be said by someone who hasn't seen the film. "I havent seen this film but I bet X happens" cannot be a review. If the writer has seen the film then there's no sense in "I bet...".
"Kramer wins" would be OK, because Kramer does win - although Kramer also loses! 
I see what you mean, but I think "I bet.." is not by definition inappropriate. "I bet Titanic sinks" would be fine - one would be taking on a mock perspective of not knowing the outcome when in fact everyone knows it - it makes no difference whether that is due to history or the film's title.
"Kramer wins" would still not be standardly O.K., in the way I have described above, as it relies on the title still. |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 18:07:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
What makes the review illegitimate for me is the "I bet" bit, as it can only be said by someone who hasn't seen the film. "I havent seen this film but I bet X happens" cannot be a review. If the writer has seen the film then there's no sense in "I bet...".
"Kramer wins" would be OK, because Kramer does win - although Kramer also loses!
I see what you mean, but I think "I bet.." is not by definition inappropriate. "I bet Titanic sinks" would be fine - one would be taking on a mock perspective of not knowing the outcome when in fact everyone knows it - it makes no difference whether that is due to history or the film's title.
"Kramer wins" would still not be standardly O.K., in the way I have described above, as it relies on the title still.
We're not agreeing here.
For me, assuming we believe that "Kramer wins" is factually correct - arguably the film is saying that no-one wins in Kramer v Kramer type cases, but let's leave that aside - then it would stand on its own, regardless of the title (although the title makes the review more interesting).
The taking of a mock perspective of not knowing for me is not ok as a reviewer should have seen the film (or at least have the decency to pretend to have seen the film. )
I think we need a few more opinions on this.
How about some guidance from an authority figure? |
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 21:22:10
|
I bet Kramer stays #1 
I voted for the reviews in the top 4. They seemed good to me. Although I also think that some of these reviews would not be passed today. |
|
|
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 01:56:32
|
Okay I think people are splitting hairs on MGuyX's review - it is funny precisely because of the "I bet". when two people square off in a competition (and V. usually indicates a boxing match or a court case) you want to know who wins - and the humour in this review is that he mockingly assumes that Kramer wins since its one Kramer versun the other.
But its perfectly fine to comment solely on the title of the film - this is done all over the site and its settled law as far as FWFR goes. What other film could this possibly be about? And who cares if someone wins or not the title of the film poses a question and the reviewer feigns ignorance by making an overly obvious abservation - to me a justified FWFR - in fact when I tell people about the site I usually use this as an example of what a FWFR is.
Like so much debate here its all highly subjective whch is why out of thousands of people who registered on the site less than 200 people voted for it. |
Edited by - turrell on 04/05/2006 01:59:07 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 03:10:43
|
| I bet this debate could go on for ever and nobody wins. |
|
|
|
silly 
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 03:54:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I bet this debate could go on for ever and nobody wins.
Wanna bet?
Oops. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 09:31:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
For me, assuming we believe that "Kramer wins" is factually correct then it would stand on its own, regardless of the title.
No, I don't think so. It does not say enough. See my "Finch loses" example, as I said. I really do not believe that that would be allowed.
quote:
The taking of a mock perspective of not knowing for me is not ok as a reviewer should have seen the film (or at least have the decency to pretend to have seen the film. )
For me, it's one of those things that is all right in the right circumstances. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 10:22:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
But its perfectly fine to comment solely on the title of the film - this is done all over the site and its settled law as far as FWFR goes.
No, benj has been quite explicit that that is not the case. A review can play/comment on a title, but it has to also stand on the content solely. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 12:39:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I bet this debate could go on for ever and nobody wins.
Sometimes Sean is as funny as he thinks he is. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 12:49:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
Okay I think people are splitting hairs on MGuyX's review - it is funny precisely because of the "I bet"...
Yes, we know what makes it funny, but being funny does not necessarily a review make.
I certainly agree its largely subjective and most of what we are exchanging here is opinions. My opinion is that this review by MguyX breaks my idea of the rules, but you can disagree. Obviously you do!
The non-subjective element is of course Benj who decides. Sal is definitely right that Benj has said that a play purely on the film's title is not enough. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 13:02:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
Okay I think people are splitting hairs on MGuyX's review - it is funny precisely because of the "I bet"...
Yes, we know what makes it funny, but being funny does not necessarily a review make.
Yup, I agree. It wasn't that we were missing what was funny about it! |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 13:03:27
|
| Has anyone actually contacted MguyX to tell him the news? |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 14:15:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
What other film could ["I bet Kramer wins."] possibly be about?
Check out the underrated top review [url=http://fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=5302]here[/url]. |
Edited by - RockGolf on 04/05/2006 15:29:02 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 14:58:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G o 1 f
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
What other film could this possibly be about?
Check out the underrated top review here.
You mean like that...
Hm... interesting review. |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/05/2006 : 15:02:13
|
I'm with Sean and cool. Both reviews made me laugh, which no "Icy dead people" ripoff can possibly do nowadays [give it a rest, folks!]. The Kramer and Ryan reviews are hilarious -- to try and define them off the site would be to split hairs so fine that I couldn't trust them in anyone's hands but Sal. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Kramer wins!
