| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
|
 Posted - 06/06/2006 : 15:19:48
|
I hope that all the reviewers are here to have a good time and take pride in the site. One of the things that I love is the diversity of the reviews and the reviewers. Simple plot descriptions are "legal" but it is usually possible to make them enjoyable as well with just a little extra thought and effort. I also decry the tendency to churn out many reviews for a single film. Guess I wouldn't have a real problem with it if they all gave me a chuckle or an insight.
Your points are well taken, benj and I will endeavour to raise my personal standards. |
 |
|
|
Josh the cat 
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 15:25:11
|
The only problem here is Benj that not all of us have the natural wit and charm to enable us to come up with clever funny smart reviews.
I review in a 'what is this film about' style most of the time not a 'which pun can I use here' style.
Whilst I have never and will never rebuke somebody for the style of their reviews I believe that a review should be just that not just a clever word play that says nothing about a film.
I am aware that some puns and other clever reviewing styles are also descriptive not all are.
My I suggest that if you have a particular problem with a limited number of reviewers maybe you could PM us directley and then we will know that our output needs 'improving'.
I'm not having a go just suggesting that review based reviews must have some merit surely!
Josh the cat
I'm now preparing to be slated by other FWFR's |
Edited by - Josh the cat on 06/06/2006 15:26:13 |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 15:37:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Josh the cat
The only problem here is Benj that not all of us have the natural wit and charm to enable us to come up with clever funny smart reviews.
Trust me, I've thought long and hard about this- it's a tough, fundamental decision. I'm not asking that everyone come up with beautifully crafted multilayered amusing reviews (I tried hard not to say any of this was required in my original post)- I'm just asking for a little bit more thought.
Contrary to what you may think, you have plenty of clever funny smart reviews and I think everyone has natural wit and charm (it's just a question of whether anyone else appreciates it or not) which they can use to create their own style (funny, clever or not) of review. Directly transcribing a scene from a film into four words is not a style- it's just cutting and pasting. Where's the fun in that? |
|
|
|
AC
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 15:38:01
|
I have my fair share of accolade completers too, and I'm not proud of many of them. That said, I'm going to keep completing accolades in any way I can, but I'll make an effort now to up the quality.
I agree with everyone above though - while I love the multiple pun reviews on joke films like Chatterbox, seeing two or five or ten or twenty reviews from the same user on the same film which do nothing but describe a different scene, annoys me. I don't think reviewing the same film multiple times in this way helps the site at all. |
|
|
|
Sludge 
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 15:45:47
|
I avoid those like the plague.
Okay, I do stand guilty of multiple reviews of the same film, and there are certainly some I could trim away, but then once and awhile I'll get votes for all of them. Of my last ten FWFRs voted on, four were for the same film. Perhaps I should get rid of "Been there, bun that", but I have high hopes for "Snatcher in the Rye" and expect "A flour-gone conclusion" to take off any day now.
There's some good discussion on this under "Too Generic" reviews. Tired formulas are one way of looking at it, such as what Willy Weasel pointed out as the X Verb's Y's Noun formula.
Benj, maybe without naming names you could mention a film where this was most prevalent - not multiple reviews per se but where a lot "junk" fwfrs had been approved.
I've just submitted "Stewart has long hare". It's still available for Donnie Darko, if anyone wants to give it a shot.
|
Edited by - Sludge on 06/06/2006 15:58:27 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 15:55:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
Benj, maybe without naming names you could mention a film where this was most prevalent - not multiple reviews per se but where a lot "junk" fwfrs had been approved.
I'd rather not- half my reason for posting here was so that no-one was singled out and I really don't think I could pick a film without inadvertantly drawing attention to anyone.
I'd also like to stress that I don't have a problem with multiple reviews against films, it's multiple (or single, even) say-what-you-see reviews. The reviews you listed don't actually fall into this category (although they could possibly fall into others  ). |
|
|
|
MM0rkeleb 
"Better than HBO."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 15:55:25
|
Well, one of the things we're butting our heads against here is different people have different ideas of what's clever.
Now, I'm as much against boring reviews as the next reviewer, and just as guilty about sometimes stooping to them. But I think there are times when a description review can be pretty neat. For one thing, if it's an overall description of the entire film, it's erudition might be impressive even if it's not particularly funny. I know I've sometimes voted for a review for no reason other than "Wow, I'm amazed that they fit that much information into four words!"
Also, I like the way descriptive reviews can be misleading, if they're about some small event in the film. One review I voted for some months ago - well, I can't remember any of the details, but the review was about something or other unfortunate happening to a mailbox when the film was actually about familial strife. I thought making the film sound as if it were about a mailbox was pretty damn funny.
Not only that, but descriptive reviews can in of themselves be a form of criticism (the original purpose of the site, if memory serves) by commemorating something the reviewer thought was especially cool - or, more often absolutely ridiculous - about the film.
Granted, usually when I write a descriptive review, I try to put a little hook into it (or at least makes sure it's phrased in a way that tickles my fancy just a little), but truth be told, sometimes it's just a little hook, and you have to look pretty hard to find it. Take this recently approved review for Unforgiven. Looks pretty vanilla, but I thought it worth putting forward because of the similarity between the words "Clint" and "cunt," and because I thought "cunt peddlers" was a pretty punchy way of referring to prostitutes. Obviously, this review isn't going to garner many votes, but I think it deserves to be on the site.
Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to be as creative as we can. But let's face it, we all only have finitely much creativity, and a lot of times we're forced to use just a little. And it's easy to see that as no creativity, when it isn't. Because creativity is in the mind of the beholder. So let's all try to keep that in mind. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 16:04:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Yeah, I agree that the MERPs already have a lot on their plate and we want to keep it as simple as possible for them. However, since MERPs can vote as they approve, there's a couple of possibilities I can think of...
1. Controversially... give MERP votes more weight (e.g. a MERP vote is worth, say, 2 votes)
2. Flag any review that gets a MERP vote and have the MERP recommendations chart or whatever generated from that
I don't like these ideas on principle - some members will become more equal than others - and I don't see how they address the problem.
I'd make this suggestion: any review which remains voteless for a specified period of time e.g. a year, should be deleted. Maybe some exceptions e.g. if the film has less than 5/10 reviews. It seems to me that any review which sits on the site for a year without a vote deserves little mercy, particularly if its for a film with loads of reviews.
This way people can write their reviews, get them published if they meet the criteria but they don't hang around for ever if no-one sees any merit in them.
Easy peasy.
Just wanted to add that some reviews which look merely descriptive can have hidden wit. It sometimes takes me a while to remember why I wrote a particular review which looks totally witless, when in fact its only almost totally witless.
|
Edited by - Whippersnapper. on 06/06/2006 16:20:02 |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 16:17:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I don't like these ideas on principle - some members will become more equal than others - and I don't see how they address the problem.
This i agree with competely.
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I'd make this suggestion: any review which remains voteless for a specified period of time e.g. a year, should be deleted. Maybe some exceptions e.g. if the film has less than 5/10 reviews. It seems to me that any review which sits on the site for a year without a vote deserves little mercy, particularly if its for a film with loads of reviews.
This way people can write their reviews, get them published if they meet the criteria but they don't hang around for ever if no-one sees any merit in them.
Easy peasy.
This idea I hate, and yes hate is the correct word!
Having not seem most of the films on the site I will vote for very few of the reviews, I have to love a review for a film that I have not seen before I will vote for it.
It is not acceptable to me to have thousands of reviews deleted because either people don't get or don't like the review or have not seen the film and therefore will not vote.
Benj you seem to know the reviewers that you are talking about so pm them or visit their pages with the review neutraliser.
Josh the cat
PS I was not looking for sympathy or votes or recognition just stating my own opinion of my reviewing 'style'. |
Edited by - Josh the cat on 06/06/2006 16:25:12 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 16:22:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Yeah, I agree that the MERPs already have a lot on their plate and we want to keep it as simple as possible for them. However, since MERPs can vote as they approve, there's a couple of possibilities I can think of...
1. Controversially... give MERP votes more weight (e.g. a MERP vote is worth, say, 2 votes)
2. Flag any review that gets a MERP vote and have the MERP recommendations chart or whatever generated from that
I don't like these ideas on principle - some members will become more equal than others - and I don't see how they address the problem.
Why will some members be more equal than others? If you're referring to MERPs being able to say what goes on this chart or vote higher than others, well they already say what does or doesn't go on the site- what could be more influential than that?
Whilst these don't address the problem directly, they do at least attempt to more properly reward those who don't forsake quality for quantity. It would also, if correctly placed, serve as a good example of the diverse range of reviews you can write, rather than just SWYS reviews.
quote:
I'd make this suggestion: any review which remains voteless for a specified period of time e.g. a year, should be deleted. Maybe some exceptions e.g. if the film has less than 5/10 reviews. It seems to me that any review which sits on the site for a year without a vote deserves little mercy, particularly if its for a film with loads of reviews.
This is, of course, dependant on that review having been seen- if not, we could be deleting a highly underappreciated review. I'm not yet convinced the site is well enough laid out to enable every review it's due and therefore wouldn't want to base any kind of auto-deletion based on this alone  |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 16:33:14
|
Here is a review of mine that is voteless.
In fact it is one of my favourites not because it is witty (it isn't) but because in its apparent simplicity it evokes the austerity of Robert Bresson, the director, and it belies the depth and beauty of the film.
I don't care if it ever gets a vote (it has been on the site for 30 months) but I sure wouldn't like it to be deleted. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 16:47:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
Here is a review of mine that is voteless.
In fact it is one of my favourites not because it is witty (it isn't) but because in its apparent simplicity it evokes the austerity of Robert Bresson, the director, and it belies the depth and beauty of the film.
I don't care if it ever gets a vote (it has been on the site for 30 months) but I sure wouldn't like it to be deleted.
I think there is an inherent humour in reducing something big to something very compact. It cuts the crap. It makes a big deal an almost irrelevant thing. And it offers perhaps the most honest description of something there is. This, when applied to a 90 minute film, is what the basic idea of fwfr was originally.
When this same idea is applied to a very small timescale in a film- say a few seconds, we get something else entirely. There's little (or no) crap to be cut and we end up with an almost dead on description of the events. At this point, barring any personal spin on words or events, the concept loses it's humour and the creative skill required is zilch.
I'm not knocking reviews that reduce 90 minutes to a 2 second read- that undoubtedly is a skill indeed. I'm knocking reviews that reduce a few seconds of screen time to a 2 second read without offering anything we don't already know by watching the film ourselves. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 17:01:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Yeah, I agree that the MERPs already have a lot on their plate and we want to keep it as simple as possible for them. However, since MERPs can vote as they approve, there's a couple of possibilities I can think of...
1. Controversially... give MERP votes more weight (e.g. a MERP vote is worth, say, 2 votes)
2. Flag any review that gets a MERP vote and have the MERP recommendations chart or whatever generated from that
I don't like these ideas on principle - some members will become more equal than others - and I don't see how they address the problem.
Why will some members be more equal than others? If you're referring to MERPs being able to say what goes on this chart or vote higher than others, well they already say what does or doesn't go on the site- what could be more influential than that?
I'm sure the MERPS (and you!) all try their best to judge on objective criteria, as far as people can ie they are trying to follow a set of rules. Yes, it's influential, but it is not a privilege. Doubling their voting power would be a privilege because it is not necessary and a vote is a subjective, personal matter.
Whilst these don't address the problem directly, they do at least attempt to more properly reward those who don't forsake quality for quantity. It would also, if correctly placed, serve as a good example of the diverse range of reviews you can write, rather than just SWYS reviews.
quote:
I'd make this suggestion: any review which remains voteless for a specified period of time e.g. a year, should be deleted. Maybe some exceptions e.g. if the film has less than 5/10 reviews. It seems to me that any review which sits on the site for a year without a vote deserves little mercy, particularly if its for a film with loads of reviews.
This is, of course, dependant on that review having been seen- if not, we could be deleting a highly underappreciated review. I'm not yet convinced the site is well enough laid out to enable every review it's due and therefore wouldn't want to base any kind of auto-deletion based on this alone
As I said, there can be exceptions, and you raise a very good point. Presumably you can count the number of times a film's review page has been read, so add in a generous minimum number of readings before the deletion kicks in.
I think Lemmy's point is reasonably covered by the idea of a minimum number of reviews per film before deletions apply and we can also add an idea of being able to protect a certain number of unvoted reviews which we think are special - not too many though.
To Josh I'd say this: why should a review for a well-reviewed film, seen by many people, and never judged worthy of a single vote for a long period of time, have an automatic right to be eternally preserved? It's only four words strung together, not the Ark of the Covenant.
I've also solved Lemmy's specific problem in a most practical fashion.  |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 17:06:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I'm sure the MERPS (and you!) all try their best to judge on objective criteria, as far as people can ie they are trying to follow a set of rules. Yes, it's influential, but it is not a privilege. Doubling their voting power would be a privilege because it is not necessary and a vote is a subjective, personal matter.
Like I said, it's controversial and of the two ideas it was the one I felt most dodgy suggesting. No feelings on the second suggestion? |
|
|
|
Paddy C 
"Does not compute! Lame!"
|
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 17:17:25
|
Good thread this.
Ok, can I try and illustrate good and bad reviews with two of my own?
Good would be: Downfall: "Hitler loses war, dies"
Bad would be: Once in a Lifetime: "Pele in New York"
The first one is in the 'too brief synopsis' category, which gives it the chance of being funny, but the second is just a bland description of the movie... ahem..
I reckon this is a subjective area for each reviewer Benj.. highlighting the Forum on the homepage as BB suggested, is a good idea as it'll get people reading reviews. Also, the Editor's selection idea, or an 'FWFR 101' instructional page in the forum can give people ideas on how to write em.. after that, to agree with Randall, Lemmy et al, it's up to us all to try and avoid the bland ones, apply our own quality control. So I'll try and do that from now on, accolades be damned.
And Merps, if i have angered ye, most humble apologies, far be it from me to suggest you get more work in your in-trays!! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Quality reviewing
