| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Yukon 
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
 Posted - 06/11/2006 : 14:46:45
|
I hoping for some help from the FWFR gang for a review that has stumped me.
For Nude Law Enforcement, I've had three declines.
1ST TRY: "Royal Canadian Police Mounted"
The organization's name is officially Royal Canadian Mounted Police, so I flipped the last two words around, with "Mounted" being a sexually suggestive term. Declined as Not Factually Accurate.
2ND TRY: "Royal Canadian Poilce Mounted"
I thought this is factually accurate, and playing the name straight is kind of funny because in this context, it makes the name of Canada's top police force sexual. Declined as not factually accurate.
3RD TRY: "Royal Canadian mounties"
Mounties are the nicknames of RCMP officers. Again, turned down as factually inaccurate.
This is one of the scenarios I wish the MERPs could write me a longer explanation because I just don't understand how these reviews are "not factually accurate." The RCMP is law enforcement.
I don't think this is funniest review I've ever written but I like it. I'm looking for some outside opinion. Feel free to be honest if you think it sucks. |
|
|
MM0rkeleb 
"Better than HBO."
|
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 15:13:23
|
The only thing I can think of is that the film is a US one, hence there are no mounties whatsoever.
However, scanning the reviews already up, I noticed one review that referred to mounties and another that referred to bobbies, so if this is the reason, there's some inconsistency here. |
 |
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 15:19:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
I hoping for some help from the FWFR gang for a review that has stumped me.
For Nude Law Enforcement, I've had three declines.
1ST TRY: "Royal Canadian Police Mounted"
The organization's name is officially Royal Canadian Mounted Police, so I flipped the last two words around, with "Mounted" being a sexually suggestive term. Declined as Not Factually Accurate.
2ND TRY: "Royal Canadian Poilce Mounted"
I thought this is factually accurate, and playing the name straight is kind of funny because in this context, it makes the name of Canada's top police force sexual. Declined as not factually accurate.
3RD TRY: "Royal Canadian mounties"
Mounties are the nicknames of RCMP officers. Again, turned down as factually inaccurate.
This is one of the scenarios I wish the MERPs could write me a longer explanation because I just don't understand how these reviews are "not factually accurate." The RCMP is law enforcement.
I don't think this is funniest review I've ever written but I like it. I'm looking for some outside opinion. Feel free to be honest if you think it sucks.
Maybe because the movie is about American Nude Law Enforcement and not Canadian Nude Law Enforcement?
|
|
|
|
RockGolf 
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 23:31:22
|
| How about "Always getting their man" |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/12/2006 : 02:31:50
|
I haven't seen the movie, Yukon, but IMDb says it's a US movie, and gives this as the plot:-
Plot Outline: Slick Louie gets captured by 3 lady cops who then do a striptease to get information from him.
and I found this review at Amazon:-
This one had potential. I hoped to see women cops, or former cops stripping, hopefully dancing as if they had done it before. Not even close. 3 models "act" as cops and find a crook and force information out of him with threats of stripping. This stripping takes far too long, they fog up the picture during the process just to annoy you further. Picture quality is very good, crisp and clear. The opening exercise scene almost works. But the camera person didn't really know what, or who to film. Girls are pretty, just too little happening. Truth be told.
So I'm not sure what this has to do with being mounted, or being Canadian. 
From memory (I've read up on most of the Toilet Graffiti movies at some stage although some are hard to find information on) the "Nude" ones generally involve an excuse to film chicks getting their tits out, with a very basic plot. They aren't porn. And I think they're all set in the USA.  |
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 06/12/2006 : 03:28:27
|
Thanks for the tip Sean. You and the MERPs really know your smut.
I still think one of my three reviews should have been approved, even if Nude Law Enforcement has nothing to do with the RCMP.
I'm assuming there are no SWAT team references, yet TWAT Team was approve;. There's no Hawaiin references, yet Hawaii Six-9 was approved. I thought my review was in the same ilk.
However, I'm not totally attached to this review so I'll let it die. After six months on this site, I pretty much have things figured out and when something gets turned down - even if I disagree with the decision - I usually know why.
This was the first decline in a while that had me stumped. Thanks for your help.
ROCKGOLF: Loved your review (Always get their man) but I'd feel guilty if I submitted it because it's vastly different than mine. I can't take credit for it. Feel free to submit it yourself. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/12/2006 : 06:19:41
|
Sometimes with these kinds of movies, fwfrers look at the title, make a very broad assumption as to what they think the movie might be about, then review it based on that. I recall a couple of years ago I started reviewing these movies in that way, and one that got knocked back (by benj at that time, this was pre-MERP) was something like "'Exposed' in court" for Naked Lawyers. I couldn't see why it was knocked back until I actually looked at the plot summary for the movie, to discover that at no stage does anyone go near a court, the movie takes place in an office. So it was wrong.
Edit: I also vaguely recall having reviews declined for Nude Law Enforcement that related to cops with their schlongs hanging out, of course that was because they are female cops, so wrong again.
Another example, Naked Football League, plenty of reviews relate to nudification of current American Football Teams, which seems fine, but I recall reviews being passed (and subsequently declined) as it was pointed out that they were Canadian baseball teams. So we do have some leeway for 'gag' movies, but the leeway isn't infinite.
Nowadays when reviewing 'gag' movies I always find a plot summary and/or cast list etc to find out what it is that I'm actually reviewing, and write a review that in my opinion is correct. That way it is much more likely to pass, and if it does pass, is much less likely to be subsequently deleted during a clean-up.
So, I think in the case of your review Yukon, I can see how it was declined, but rather than you being unlucky to not have it on the site I'd say some of the others on that page are perhaps lucky to be there. Periodically incorrect reviews sneak through and have to be cleaned out. I recall Naked in New York, The Fatal Glass of Beer and others have had reviews removed as they related to the title only, and had little to do with the movie. Hence when I review movies I try to stick to the plot (even though sometimes it's less fun) as I'm not keen on seeing a review pick up votes and subsequently get the bullet. |
Edited by - Sean on 06/12/2006 06:29:36 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
The Mounties don't always get their FWFR approval
