| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AC 
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
|
 Posted - 05/18/2006 : 02:01:25
|
Hmm, can of worms it may have been, but would this be something to re-evaluate? What were the other options that you took away again?
(kind of weird to look at an archived thread TWO years old that all us regulars were posting on!  ) |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 02:51:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I suppose the way I see it, nobody is going to be happy all of the time with declines, some will be happy none of the time with declines, but most will be happy most of the time. Whether the decline has a reason attached or not. 
Agreed, but when you get a rejection labelled GENERIC for a review like "Harm-on-a-car" I think the practice has got out of kilter with the intended purpose. This is a long, long way from "Nice film, great music" or "Cagney plays gangster", isn't it?
I guess I'm trying to say that anyone who thinks a review like this is generic is just looking too hard for genericisms. And if they look too hard they'll probably find some justification, as they could for most of the reviews on the site.
End of.
|
|
|
|
Willy Weasel 
"Look left and right."
|
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 18:15:04
|
End of.
Are you the temperamental hairdresser or the longsuffering nightclub dancer Whip?
I agree that the Generic brush is getting a bit wide but 'at the end of the day' this is Benj's site and if he doesn't like the review then it is going to bounce however it is phrased.
My rejection pile is getting pretty small as I get the hang of the requirements; I find that including an explanation with any cryptic review seriously increases its chance of inclusion. If Benj still doesn't like it, then focus on your babies which HAVE been welcomed and gleaned votes.
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 18:29:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I suppose the way I see it, nobody is going to be happy all of the time with declines, some will be happy none of the time with declines, but most will be happy most of the time. Whether the decline has a reason attached or not.
Agreed, but when you get a rejection labelled GENERIC for a review like "Harm-on-a-car" I think the practice has got out of kilter with the intended purpose. This is a long, long way from "Nice film, great music" or "Cagney plays gangster", isn't it?
I guess I'm trying to say that anyone who thinks a review like this is generic is just looking too hard for genericisms. And if they look too hard they'll probably find some justification, as they could for most of the reviews on the site.
End of.
I think a review like this certainly looks generic- how many films can you think of where someone or thing is harmed on a car? Basically, any film where there's a hit and run, fist fight in a car park, fight in an open top car, etc...
This is a fwfr that, unless you know the film well makes little sense and so the MERPs involved must have assumed the generic take on it. It'd require an explanation to clarify why this isn't generic and then deeper MERP consideration on the second reading where it'd probably be a line call.
Personally, I'd probably decline it on the grounds I still don't get it I understand there's a key harmonica soundtrack and that the film involves a car, but where does the 'harm on a' bit come into it? |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 20:30:43
|
| 'HarmoniCAR', perhaps? |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 05/18/2006 : 23:41:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I suppose the way I see it, nobody is going to be happy all of the time with declines, some will be happy none of the time with declines, but most will be happy most of the time. Whether the decline has a reason attached or not.
Agreed, but when you get a rejection labelled GENERIC for a review like "Harm-on-a-car" I think the practice has got out of kilter with the intended purpose. This is a long, long way from "Nice film, great music" or "Cagney plays gangster", isn't it?
I guess I'm trying to say that anyone who thinks a review like this is generic is just looking too hard for genericisms. And if they look too hard they'll probably find some justification, as they could for most of the reviews on the site.
End of.
I think a review like this certainly looks generic- how many films can you think of where someone or thing is harmed on a car? Basically, any film where there's a hit and run, fist fight in a car park, fight in an open top car, etc...
This is a fwfr that, unless you know the film well makes little sense and so the MERPs involved must have assumed the generic take on it. It'd require an explanation to clarify why this isn't generic and then deeper MERP consideration on the second reading where it'd probably be a line call.
Personally, I'd probably decline it on the grounds I still don't get it I understand there's a key harmonica soundtrack and that the film involves a car, but where does the 'harm on a' bit come into it?
The harm comes through them racing on a public road and getting stopped by police and threatened with arrest. Also a stall or barrow gets knocked over. Anyhow, remember I'm not arguing here it should be accepted, I'm arguing that its not generic.
Yes, I suppose that if the MERP didn't notice the harmonica reference, and just thought I had randomly thrown together a rather awkward phrase like "harm on a car", and chosen to hyphenate it without apparent reason, then they could have thought it was a generic reference to any harm which befalls anyone on a car.
It puts me in mind of when, during the OJ Simpson trial, a defence attorney tried to explain away OJ's shoe-prints (from a distinctive, unusual Italan imported and expensive shoe) by asking the expert witness whether it was conceivable that someone else might have gone out, bought a pair of the same rare expensive shoes in OJ's size and walked on the site to deliberately plant the shoe-prints to frame OJ.
"I don't think that's very likely" said the witness.
Lemmy, you go and find a film which prominently features a harmonica, and a car and the idea of harmony (not musically, as that would be self-referencing), get it passed and let me know. There's a vote in it for you. Guaranteed.
Anyhow, I appreciate the trouble taken to reply.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Generic?
