| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
boydegg 
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
 Posted - 06/05/2006 : 21:06:03
|
A while back, I had a bet with another member of FWFR. We thought it would be a laugh to see which of us could get the lamest, most unimaginative review possible accepted. We chose 'Die Hard' as the challenge film.
My first attempt was appalling ... "Bruce Willis fights terrorists."
To my amazement, it was accepted!
Later that evening when I logged in again, it had been moved to my 'declined reviews' list. I'm the first to admit that such a crap review shouldn't have been accepted in the first place - but on that occasion, I was deliberately trying to write a rubbish review. That was the whole point of the bet.
Has anyone else had that happen? Have you had a review accepted and then later removed? Shouldn't an accepted review count, no matter how crap it is?
Boydegg
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/05/2006 : 21:29:42
|
Yes, it's happened to me.
If Benj feels a MERP's or MERPs' decision was wrong he can unaccept the review.
The MERPs are only doing their best, but Benj always has final editorial control. He does own the site after all. 
Having said that, a lack of imagination in a review is no bar to its acceptance, just as wit is no guarantee against rejection. If its an accurate non-generic review of a film then it should be acceptable, however boring it might be.
|
 |
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 03:13:44
|
That review being approved was probably a mistake as the review is generic, i.e., Die Hard isn't the only movie where Bruce fights terrorists (take The Siege for example). So I'd guess it was subsequently declined for that reason, not because it was "lame, unimaginative, or appalling."
If you skim down to the bottom of most movie pages, you'll see plenty of simple reviews of that nature, ie, simple plot summaries (that's assuming you sort by votes).
FWFR began it's life (and still is) the Four Word Film Review, not the Four Word Contrived Pseudo-unrelated-pun Palindromatic Times-cryptic-crossword-puzzle Sexual-innuendo-joke Film Review, although that doesn't stop people trying, myself included.  So, reviews need to be correct, non-generic plot/theme summaries ow whatever, and no more than four words. That's all. Having said that, if someone comes along one day and starts writing 100 boring, pointless reviews for every movie, then I'd be hoping the rules changed somewhat.  |
Edited by - Sean on 06/06/2006 06:42:54 |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 10:36:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Having said that, if someone comes along one day and starts writing 100 boring, pointless reviews for every movie, then I'd be hoping the rules changed somewhat.
Funny you should mention this... I've started a new thread on this very subject.
http://www.fwfr.com/fourum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3382 |
|
|
|
boydegg
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 17:23:19
|
Benj
I've just read your thread about reviews lacking any kind of thought.
That was what started the bet between my friend and I ... we were appalled that one of the FWFR's most prominent members (YOU know who you are!!!) seems to churn out utter rubbish on a regular basis - and often has 10 or more reviews for the same film.
So we were trying to make our own little statement by seeing what was the worst possible 'Die Hard' review we could get past the MERPs.
I agree with your opening comments on that thread. The whole appeal of FWFR (for me) is to read clever or amusing reviews. If everyone just submitted: "Robot stalks Sarah Connor" or some-such-shit, then the site would become very dull, very quickly.
Reviews like that aren't just lazy - they're boring. No fun.
(having said that, some of my earliest reviews are bland and unimaginative in the extreme!!)
Boydegg
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 17:30:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
If everyone just submitted: "Robot stalks Sarah Connor" or some-such-shit, then the site would become very dull, very quickly.
Boydegg
True, but some reviews like that make ours look much better. |
|
|
|
TitanPa 
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 19:38:24
|
| hmmm. People enjoy toying with this site. |
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 21:20:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
Benj
That was what started the bet between my friend and I ... we were appalled that one of the FWFR's most prominent members (YOU know who you are!!!) seems to churn out utter rubbish on a regular basis - and often has 10 or more reviews for the same film.
Boydegg
I know, I know, it's me. But I enjoy FWFRing so much and am just not clever. Don't kill me! |
Edited by - Tori on 06/06/2006 21:20:59 |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 21:43:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
...
That was what started the bet between my friend and I ... we were appalled that one of the FWFR's most prominent members (YOU know who you are!!!) seems to churn out utter rubbish on a regular basis - and often has 10 or more reviews for the same film.
...
Boydegg
Your seriously opinionated and whoever you may be discussing with your friend (and if it's me then tough) I think it may be better for you to be a little more descrete with your opinions.
Personally I would prefer not to know who you and your friend have deen destroying with your own reviewing standards.
This I always thought was a great friendly site with a positive attitude but it seems that the atmosphere and attitudes may be changing.
Josh the cat |
Edited by - Josh the cat on 06/06/2006 21:45:21 |
|
|
|
Arch Stanton 
"I am a gardener."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 23:20:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
Benj
I've just read your thread about reviews lacking any kind of thought.
That was what started the bet between my friend and I ... we were appalled that one of the FWFR's most prominent members (YOU know who you are!!!) seems to churn out utter rubbish on a regular basis - and often has 10 or more reviews for the same film.
So we were trying to make our own little statement by seeing what was the worst possible 'Die Hard' review we could get past the MERPs.
I agree with your opening comments on that thread. The whole appeal of FWFR (for me) is to read clever or amusing reviews. If everyone just submitted: "Robot stalks Sarah Connor" or some-such-shit, then the site would become very dull, very quickly.
Reviews like that aren't just lazy - they're boring. No fun.
(having said that, some of my earliest reviews are bland and unimaginative in the extreme!!)
Boydegg
Ahem.....beg pardon....but...I... er...think you have just copied my review for Crocodile Dundee.
|
|
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 23:23:31
|
I don't care about what anyone (except benj) thinks about quality v quantity, I have written my fair share of each. The way I see it is that nobody is forcing anyone to be here and you are free to review in whatever style you like. The way I tackle it is to vote on what I like and not vote on what I don't like.
Benj has just made simple request.
As a great man (well, Whippersnapper ) once said, Easy peasy. |
|
|
|
Warzonkey
"Seriously Lo-Res"
|
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 00:01:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
That review being approved was probably a mistake as the review is generic, i.e., Die Hard isn't the only movie where Bruce fights terrorists (take The Siege for example). So I'd guess it was subsequently declined for that reason, not because it was "lame, unimaginative, or appalling."
Just to be pedantic (coz I'm in the mood), maybe it was rejected because it was inaccurate. In Die Hard the villains turned out to be simply hostage-taking thieves - not terrorists in the conventional sense of word (i.e. their motives weren't political or religious). They demanded the release of various political prisoners in order to stall the negotiators, but they were just plain robbers.
In fact, the review would more accurately describe Die Hard 2, where the bad guys hijacked the airport in order to free some political prisoner or something like that (I'm drunk, I forget exactly).
|
|
|
|
boydegg
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 08:07:11
|
Oh crumbs. I've brought the wrath of FWFR down upon myself!
Ok let me go through those posts and answer them all...
Whippersnapper - agreed.
Tori - it wasn't you. Sorry if I made you feel bad.
Josh the Cat - you're right ... FWFR does have a positive attitude and I'll keep my opinions to myself from now on ... that post (and the bet I had with my friend) were the result of frustration - sometimes it seems like dozens of reviews we put a lot of thought into get rejected without explanation, whilst certain reviewers get one no-brainer after another accepted. I'm sure we're not the only two FWFRers to have had this feeling. But ... so be it - I'll learn to live with it and shut the f*ck up.
Arch Stanton - I didn't purposefully pinch your review. Great minds think alike, I guess ... have sent you a PM about it. Meantime, I've deleted that Crocodile Dundee review from my list.
Warzonkey - also right! They were robbers, not terrorists ... as my friend pointed out when that review got accepted. But since my goal was to get a piss-poor review accepted, that made it all the better in the context of our bet.
Benj - I was happy to see your thread asking reviewers to put a little more thought into what they submitted. It makes for a more fun and interesting site.
Finally - for anyone else who had their feathers ruffled by my comments, but didn't bother posting ... I'M SORRY!!!!
Everyone ok now? Hope so.
Boydegg
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 09:06:58
|
Hey, boydegg, your mother su.... 
Ah, I'll leave it.  
Everyone reviews with a different style, I'm pretty sure that some don't like my style because I lurk in the toilet, but nobody has said so yet. There are some users whose style doesn't particularly appeal to me, but I'm gonna keep those thoughts to myself. Humour (or the point in writing fwfrs) is an individual thing. Each to their own.
BTW, the only style I don't like is thefoxboy's style. All his reviews are crap and should be deleted.
BTW2 I just gave you a few votes to cheer you up. |
|
|
|
Arch Stanton
"I am a gardener."
|
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 10:20:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
Oh crumbs. I've brought the wrath of FWFR down upon myself!
Ok let me go through those posts and answer them all...
Whippersnapper - agreed.
Tori - it wasn't you. Sorry if I made you feel bad.
Josh the Cat - you're right ... FWFR does have a positive attitude and I'll keep my opinions to myself from now on ... that post (and the bet I had with my friend) were the result of frustration - sometimes it seems like dozens of reviews we put a lot of thought into get rejected without explanation, whilst certain reviewers get one no-brainer after another accepted. I'm sure we're not the only two FWFRers to have had this feeling. But ... so be it - I'll learn to live with it and shut the f*ck up.
Arch Stanton - I didn't purposefully pinch your review. Great minds think alike, I guess ... have sent you a PM about it. Meantime, I've deleted that Crocodile Dundee review from my list.
Warzonkey - also right! They were robbers, not terrorists ... as my friend pointed out when that review got accepted. But since my goal was to get a piss-poor review accepted, that made it all the better in the context of our bet.
Benj - I was happy to see your thread asking reviewers to put a little more thought into what they submitted. It makes for a more fun and interesting site.
Finally - for anyone else who had their feathers ruffled by my comments, but didn't bother posting ... I'M SORRY!!!!
Everyone ok now? Hope so.
Boydegg
You were right to bring the subject up - no need to apologise.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
accepted .... then rejected!!
