| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 05/31/2006 : 06:47:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh
As Sean said once, I don't have to rent DVD's, I can just sit on my couch and watch the movies in my head.  
 I've got no recollection of saying that. It doesn't mean I didn't say it, just that if it was before last week, then I've forgotten it.  I have the memory of a goldfish, so spoilers aren't a big deal for me, as I'm almost certain to have forgotten them by the time I watch the movie. |
 |
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 05/31/2006 : 07:15:19
|
Okay, I realize that once in a while a review here might actually give something away that someone who hasn't seen the movie really shouldn't know (example: "Rosebud was the *****" - even I won't fill that in, just in case...). But if you think about it, for the most part, exactly how much CAN we give away in only four words? For instance, if I did a review for Gosford Park that was "Butler didn't do it" I'm sure the MERPs would reject it for being too generic. I'd say that most of the reviews (my money's on 90%) that could give too much away would actually be considered too generic to be accepted.
|
|
|
|
boydegg
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
Posted - 06/05/2006 : 21:19:09
|
*sigh* ... there goes my 'Bruce Willis is ghost' review.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/05/2006 : 21:35:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Okay, I realize that once in a while a review here might actually give something away that someone who hasn't seen the movie really shouldn't know (example: "Rosebud was the *****" - even I won't fill that in, just in case...). But if you think about it, for the most part, exactly how much CAN we give away in only four words? For instance, if I did a review for Gosford Park that was "Butler didn't do it" I'm sure the MERPs would reject it for being too generic. I'd say that most of the reviews (my money's on 90%) that could give too much away would actually be considered too generic to be accepted.
Warning: Those of you who haven't seen TITANIC do not press this link! |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 07:15:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Okay, I realize that once in a while a review here might actually give something away that someone who hasn't seen the movie really shouldn't know (example: "Rosebud was the *****" - even I won't fill that in, just in case...). But if you think about it, for the most part, exactly how much CAN we give away in only four words? For instance, if I did a review for Gosford Park that was "Butler didn't do it" I'm sure the MERPs would reject it for being too generic. I'd say that most of the reviews (my money's on 90%) that could give too much away would actually be considered too generic to be accepted.
Warning: Those of you who haven't seen TITANIC do not press this link!
Hehehe. Still... with most movies that are supposed to be including some historical facts, you can't really write a total spoiler review. I remember before I went to see that particular version of Titanic I was a bit wary, and said: "why did they bother making yet another film about the Titanic? The ship sinks, lots of people die, some people survive. What more can they do with this basis to make it all that different?". Of course, that was before I saw the underwater scenes of the real Titanic. That was the only good thing about that movie, for me.
(Ooops - did I spoil something for someone here?)
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 08:16:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I remember before I went to see that particular version of Titanic I was a bit wary, and said: "why did they bother making yet another film about the Titanic? The ship sinks, lots of people die, some people survive. What more can they do with this basis to make it all that different?". Of course, that was before I saw the underwater scenes of the real Titanic. That was the only good thing about that movie, for me.
Oh, come on now, that's not fair.
How about the bit where Leo sinks?
Glug, glug, glug...  |
Edited by - Whippersnapper. on 06/06/2006 10:05:09 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 09:54:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Oh, come on now, that's not fair.
How about the bit where Leo links?
Nahhh... too slow. Should've happened three hours earlier.  Mind you, if that had happened then Kate wouldn't have 'got them out'.  <the only bit of the movie I remember...>  |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 10:52:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Oh, come on now, that's not fair.
How about the bit where Leo links?
Nahhh... too slow. Should've happened three hours earlier. Mind you, if that had happened then Kate wouldn't have 'got them out'. <the only bit of the movie I remember...>
I agree with the Whip - Leo's death was too slow and too late in coming.
(And I didn't think Kate's pair were anything special. Of course, being a straight female, I'm hardly one to judge.)
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:05:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
And I didn't think Kate's pair were anything special.
 I beg to differ! |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:36:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Oh, come on now, that's not fair.
How about the bit where Leo sinks?
Nahhh... too slow. Should've happened three hours earlier.
You have a point, but better late than never, eh? |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:53:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Oh, come on now, that's not fair.
How about the bit where Leo sinks?
Nahhh... too slow. Should've happened three hours earlier.
You have a point, but better late than never, eh?
Yes, thank heavens for small favours!
|
|
|
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 13:27:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
And I didn't think Kate's pair were anything special.
I beg to differ!
I'm with the boss on this one. They were the first pair two of my kids saw in a film, and are likely to provide them with a benchmark labelled 'female bodily perfection'. Well, better that than thinking Jordan or Rebecca Loos represent normality. |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 13:44:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
*sigh* ... there goes my 'Bruce Willis is ghost' review.
You bastard, I was really looking forward to seeing Die Hard. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 13:55:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
*sigh* ... there goes my 'Bruce Willis is ghost' review.
You bastard, I was really looking forward to seeing Die Hard.
Ah well... I guess it won't spoil it any more if I tell you it turns out McClane's a guy, too. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 14:40:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
*sigh* ... there goes my 'Bruce Willis is ghost' review.
You bastard, I was really looking forward to seeing Die Hard.
Ah well... I guess it won't spoil it any more if I tell you it turns out McClane's a guy, too.
Really! You know, I suspected it from way back... why, I think it was when I saw "Sweet Charity" that I... what? Oh...!
(Nevermind.) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Spoiler Reviews
