| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
MguyXXV 
"X marks the spot"
|
 Posted - 10/08/2006 : 19:56:37
|
No full-blown rant today; just an observation. We have exhausted the topic of qualitative reviews (always acceptable) vs. plot descriptors (a little annoying, but generally accepted) vs. scene descriptors (the lowest of the acceptable, though sometimes redeemable). However, I think we should draw the line at prop descriptors.
"Anthony Hopkins's facemask." is neither a review of "Silence of the Lambs" nor is it a description of the plot, nor is it a description of a scene. It describes a prop. (Now, I could wax poetic and grammatical to salvage this "review," since "facemask" has a verb quality in the context of U.S. Footbal, being a particular penalty call when an opponent grabs a player's facemask -- which would then actually give my little example a bit of legitimacy, but that's not the point.) O.K., bad example. 
"Weaver's coon skin hat." There, try that one for "Daniel Boone." All it does is describe a prop (in a TV series, I might add, but let's ignore that for now). Yes I can guess what film (um, TV series) it belongs to, but all it does is describe a prop. Here's a few more I made up. Can you guess which films they belong to?
"Biggs's apple pie."
"Murphy's animal doctor's smock."
"MacGregor's hypodermic needle."
"Dillon's police officer uniform."
"Hulce's harpsichord"
"John Belushi's mustard jar."
The list could be endless. One key thing these items have in common: they all lack verbs. Accordingly, they "review" nothing (though, I have seen verbless reviews that are legitimate, so I'm not seekin a hard and fast rule here). While I agree that describing a key scene may have review characteristics (for reasons expounded upon by others elsewhere), I am reluctant to endow the mere identity of a prop with such power.
"Perkins slashes Leigh" is mundane but passable. "Perkins's bloody knife," I submit, is not (though "Perkins bloodies knife," again mundane and perhaps too generic, might get some action).
On that note, I've been wrapping these branches with fistsfull of straw and dipping them in pitch for weeks, but I just don't know what to do with them. I heard there was a mad doctor in the hills who is creating an abomination, so I got nervous and just needed something to do with my hands. These things actually burn quite nicely, I discovered by accident.
Of course I'm not suggesting a witch hunt. Why would you ever think that? In fact I'm not asking anyone to identify any prop descriptors at all. What I'm really asking is that benj and the MOPEs don't approve them.
I raise it as a topic to see what others think.
|
Edited by - MguyXXV on 10/08/2006 20:22:34 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 22:11:47
|
Interesting subject- I'm amazed we've never discussed this before (or indeed had it bother me before).
I'd say these shouldn't be ruled out entirely- I'll explain why in a second. However, the requirement is there that there should at least be some kind of visible rethought on said prop going on- just like my rally cry against boring reviews a while back on scene descriptors.
Curiously, I find your example- "Anthony Hopkins's facemask", a decent argument against declining these outright. I read this as a subtle pun (therefore, the reviewer put a bit of thought into this) on the scene where Lector wears another person's face as a mask, rather than the regular interpretation of facemask.
Like boring reviews, I'd say thoughtless descriptions (like the others detailed) are a 'reviewing' approach that should be avoided as much as possible. In my usual fashion of wanting to keep the site as fun a read as possible, I will decline anything of this ilk unless it has a darned good reason for going through. |
 |
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 23:06:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Curiously, I find your example- "Anthony Hopkins's facemask", a decent argument against declining these outright. . . .
That's why I said it was a bad example before. Oh the bother of being a genius: I just can't write ANYTHING not good!  |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 23:11:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Curiously, I find your example- "Anthony Hopkins's facemask", a decent argument against declining these outright. . . .
That's why I said it was a bad example before. Oh the bother of being a genius: I just can't write ANYTHING not good!
Me sorry- you am correct  |
|
|
|
Stalean 
"Back...OMG"
|
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 00:04:17
|
| That has always been my take on the "Anthony Hopkins's facemask." review. I only bring it up now that it has been mentioned, but I've always thought that it would be more apparent as "Anthony Hopkins's 'face' mask," but I rather like the mystery of finding the real meaning behind apparently generic reviews, though. |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 05:26:41
|
Seems to me that the overall cleverness of reviews has declined over the past few months.
You old regulars are still producing excellent work, but on the whole, I think I there has been a decline. I hope I am mistaken.
What do y'all think? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 13:29:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh
Seems to me that the overall cleverness of reviews has declined over the past few months.
It's hard to say, but my cleverness of reviews has certainly declined over the past few years.  |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 18:17:25
|
You know, MguyX, I agree completely with what you've said re prop descriptions. I'm sure I have a few reviews on the site that just seem to point at the screen and say, "Duh. Her red dress." But that's partly because I was imitating as I was starting out, trying to figure out what a "good" review was. [My first thought on my first day was, "Dudes, these aren't reviews!" But I quickly got over it. That's just what we've all decided to call them.]
I have my share of "-umentaries" too, which I now loathe unless they come very damn near to the word "documentary," because I finally decided it was just a cheap, easy way to get a documentary review approved, and I didn't need to further muck up the site myself.
Were I benj, either of those formulations would have a tough time getting past me unless they were really something special. [I agree with him on the "facemask" review. There is some verve in using that particular word.] It's not so much that a review may be verbless [BTW, which verbless one of mine caught your eye?] -- you're on thin ice trying to assign grammatical generalities to this stuff -- but what bugs us is really very simple: the verbless, verveless ones just don't say anything.
What I've tried to do, ever since benj issued his quality plea a couple months back, is to self-police my submissions and give them a little more thought. I agree that the general quality of reviews has declined in the past few months. I'm certainly part of that. But I do take a little longer to think these days, and that's my advice to everybody else too. |
Edited by - randall on 10/10/2006 18:22:21 |
|
|
|
thebrasseye 
"THIS IS THE NEWS"
|
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 18:25:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh
Seems to me that the overall cleverness of reviews has declined over the past few months.
You old regulars are still producing excellent work, but on the whole, I think I there has been a decline. I hope I am mistaken.
What do y'all think?
Just wait til my reviews get approved, it'll be on the rise again . |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 02:18:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
[My first thought on my first day was, "Dudes, these aren't reviews!" . . . .]
But notice how quickly you caught on to the whole "four-words" thing! 
[I agree with him on the "facemask" review. There is some verve in using that particular word.]
Damnit! I know! I know! I already said that! Must I constantly be berated with my own genius?!  It' SO hard being me.
It's not so much that a review may be verbless [BTW, which verbless one of mine caught your eye?] -- you're on thin ice trying to assign grammatical generalities to this stuff . . . .
Damnit! I know! I know! I already said that! Must I constantly be berated with my own stupidity?!  It' SO hard being me.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Reviews that are not reviews
