| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 04/24/2006 : 13:48:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Re: which page you get your FYC entry on, I've always thought there should probably be a summary page made up by the FYC organiser (as with FWTOs) of everyone who's entered and a link to their page.
I always did this in the past, and was going to do so this time.
|
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 13:49:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G o 1 f
The other way to go, Salopian, to get lots of votes is to wait till late Friday.
I'm not that bothered by lots of votes, and certainly not specifically in this instance.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 13:51:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
Koli, for Kong, I didn't vote for
"Gorilla beau, Ann Darrow."
because I had done
"Beau Ann Darrow"
Trouble is, Koli's makes sense.  You could change yours to "Bo! Ann Darrow" instead (cf. the great "Bo! Eminem rap city").
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 13:56:06
|
O.K., in case you want to know, here's what I would have written below the rules of the current round:
"I'll additionally carefully go through your top/bottom (please specify your preference) 26n reviews unvoted by me, where n equals the number of references within your F.Y.C. to the number 26, April, 1976 or Shropshire, plus the number of votes I give you this round."
|
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 15:36:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
Salopian, maybe people would be more apt to make considerations for you if you didn't act like a petulant three year old when your 'requests' aren't met immediately. I use the term requests lightly because you don't request, you demand. I'm going to make a demand now- I demand that you do not treat my personal friend Josh with rudeness or attitude. He means a great deal to me and he is trying to meet your requests, so leave the attitude at the door and try being grateful that anyone cares enough to listen when you stomp your foot, scream, throw a tantrum and 'request' something...
Don't be so melodramatic. It was a request, and all I said to Josh when he turned it down was "Thanks for nothing", which was perfectly apt. One has to wonder why he thinks that one needs to be on the first page; each of us can only know whether one person has been through all of the pages or not; I know that I always have.
I am not being melodramatic. Most everyone here knows that I am fairly quiet and I don't like confrontation but I think you were exceptionally rude and that you have a tendency for these sorts of things and all I can imagine is that you threw a fit once, it got you your way and from then on that was your way of going about things. Well, if someone had said no or pointed out how rude you are, perhaps you would have learned some manners. I'm happy to help. |
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 19:21:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I don't post or read review explanations, simply because accepted reviews have to live here on the site without them. [I've broken that rule only once.] If I don't "get it," I don't vote. So some of you may have lost votes over my lack of erudition...
�������������������
Randall, I used to feel the same way but I've change my stance.
Many times I see a FYC review posted for a movie from the 1930s that I've never heard of. It seems like there is a funny pun and can't help but think "I wish the person left an explanation."
Personally, my movie knowledge extends from the 1970s and up. If it was filmed in 1969 or earlier, I likely haven't heard of it unless it's a classic.
So that's my stance -- explanations for movies from the 1960s and earlier. A person's Titanic or Star Wars review should never need an explanation.
|
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 20:17:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I don't post or read review explanations, simply because accepted reviews have to live here on the site without them. [I've broken that rule only once.] If I don't "get it," I don't vote. So some of you may have lost votes over my lack of erudition...
�������������������
Randall, I used to feel the same way but I've change my stance.
Many times I see a FYC review posted for a movie from the 1930s that I've never heard of. It seems like there is a funny pun and can't help but think "I wish the person left an explanation."
Personally, my movie knowledge extends from the 1970s and up. If it was filmed in 1969 or earlier, I likely haven't heard of it unless it's a classic.
So that's my stance -- explanations for movies from the 1960s and earlier. A person's Titanic or Star Wars review should never need an explanation.
Oh, I don't mind others posting explanations; by all means, have at it. I just don't read them myself. In general, an explanation might be able to help you squeeze in a few more votes in this thread, or maybe jog a MERP's memory, but once the review's on the site, you can't count on that help ever again.
The only review I've ever explained in FYCTH was this one. I pointed out that in all "her" movie and TV appearances, "Lassie" has always been portrayed by a male dog. I felt the need to explain because benj declined the review at first! And I kinda regretted it afterwards [the reviews should stand by themselves, blah de blah], but I guess those four words would have been sheer nonsense if you didn't know the movie trivia fact.
EDIT: By the way, in case anybody takes offense at this sexist doggie fact, here's why all the dogs portraying Lassie have been male, from a fan website:
A female collie was hired to play the lead in Lassie Come Home, but when an opportunity came to film "Lassie" negotiating some rapids, the female reportedly would have nothing to do with the rushing water. Rudd Weatherwax's collie "Pal" was substituted, and not only stole the stunt but won the role. Weatherwax continued to use male collies in the role for a good reason: both sexes shed in the summer (when most movies and television shows traditionally film most of their episodes), but since the male has a thicker coat, he wouldn't look so scrawny during filming. Also, fans tend to think of Lassie as a "big heroic dog." Female collies are usually 10-15 pounds lighter than their male counterparts, therefore a male dog playing Lassie would look more impressive. Female collies were not ignored because they are any less intelligent; in fact, some of Lassie's stunt doubles have been females. |
Edited by - randall on 04/24/2006 20:22:22 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
FYCTH #189
