| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
 Posted - 12/11/2006 : 09:21:43
|
Um... Very sorry, but I'm afraid to say that I can think of lots and lots of movies where an arch-enemy gets his "cold" revenge. And the original quote, which is a very, very old saying - sans the "it is very cold in space" bit - appears in many movies as well. Just off the top of my head I believe that it appears in (at least) one James Bond movie and am sure I heard it in the last version of Vanity Fair. I also remember Jane Fonda saying it - perhaps in Cat Ballou?
So unfortunately, I think you'll need to do something with that review to make it specific to this movie - such as figuring out a way to add the word "space" into it.
|
 |
|
|
Ali 
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 09:44:11
|
The original phrase is "La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid," wrongly attributed to Pierre Choderlos de Laclos's book Les Liasons Dangereuses. So, yes, of course it is not a Klingon proverb. But I maintain that it is most identifiable with Khan, especially when geeks are concerned.
Though that is not my problem. My problem is how the cruel internets can bring out the most meddlesome and pathetic in people.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 10:04:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
The original phrase is "La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid," wrongly attributed to Pierre Choderlos de Laclos's book Les Liasons Dangereuses. So, yes, of course it is not a Klingon proverb. But I maintain that it is most identifiable with Khan, especially when geeks are concerned.
Well, I have to disagree with you as far as it being the most identifiable with Kahn - except where geeks are concerned. Thing is, this site isn't just for geeks.
quote:
Though that is not my problem. My problem is how the cruel internets can bring out the most meddlesome and pathetic in people.
Hey, we all want this site to be the best it can. And making your review better can only contribute to this effort. If you can work in Kahn or space into that review, then I'm sure it will be better than it was to begin with.
Yes, it is annoying when this happens, but perhaps if you try to think about the bigger picture...
(Of course, when someone bumps one of my reviews I'll be even more pissed off! [insert appropriate 'I hope I'll be gracious but you never know' smilie here])
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 10:09:20
|
My turn to bitch. 
I've just had an old review declined as "similar to another review". 
It was "Rhett/Belle without cause" for Gone With The Wind.
I take it the similar review refered to is "Belle without a cause" by some Kiwi penguin-lover who shall remain nameless. 
My review is, IMHO, an improvement on that review, given that mine is closer to the "Rebel without a cause" which we are both referencing.
That's why my review was written in the first place, and it was accepted almost certainly knowing this (as the other review is the no.1 review for the film its very prominent) and that's how it stood for a long time.
Its obvious to me that my review was a valuable addition to the original review and its deletion is just wrong.
Can I have my review back please?
|
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 10:44:46
|
quote:
Hey, we all want this site to be the best it can. And making your review better can only contribute to this effort.
There is a fine line between altruism and solicitude.
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 11:24:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I've just had an old review declined as "similar to another review".
It was "Rhett/Belle without cause" for Gone With The Wind.
I take it the similar review refered to is "Belle without a cause" by some Kiwi penguin-lover who shall remain nameless.
My review is, IMHO, an improvement on that review, given that mine is closer to the "Rebel without a cause" which we are both referencing.
That's why my review was written in the first place, and it was accepted almost certainly knowing this (as the other review is the no.1 review for the film its very prominent) and that's how it stood for a long time.
Its obvious to me that my review was a valuable addition to the original review and its deletion is just wrong.
Can I have my review back please?
Okay, now this is an old debate back again.
Clearly, as you say yourself, both reviews are derived from the same pun. And yes, yours is the better worded pun, but... the other review came first and that has to win out, otherwise this site will become a "my review is an improvement on Noncentz's/ Conan's/ Whippa's/ whoever's review, so decline theirs and approve my version" site.
There really does have to be a line drawn on this.
The only exception I can see is if the writer of the former review agrees to forfeit their effort in favour of yours. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 12:43:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I've just had an old review declined as "similar to another review".
It was "Rhett/Belle without cause" for Gone With The Wind.
I take it the similar review refered to is "Belle without a cause" by some Kiwi penguin-lover who shall remain nameless.
My review is, IMHO, an improvement on that review, given that mine is closer to the "Rebel without a cause" which we are both referencing.
That's why my review was written in the first place, and it was accepted almost certainly knowing this (as the other review is the no.1 review for the film its very prominent) and that's how it stood for a long time.
Its obvious to me that my review was a valuable addition to the original review and its deletion is just wrong.
Can I have my review back please?
Okay, now this is an old debate back again.
Clearly, as you say yourself, both reviews are derived from the same pun. And yes, yours is the better worded pun, but... the other review came first and that has to win out, otherwise this site will become a "my review is an improvement on Noncentz's/ Conan's/ Whippa's/ whoever's review, so decline theirs and approve my version" site.
There really does have to be a line drawn on this.
The only exception I can see is if the writer of the former review agrees to forfeit their effort in favour of yours.
"Delete your review, or the penguin gets it!"
Er, no, thanks, I don't think so.
You wrote:
otherwise this site will become a "my review is an improvement on Noncentz's/ Conan's/ Whippa's/ whoever's review, so decline theirs and approve my version" site.
This is simply a non sequitur. There's no obligation, or let me say suggestion by me, that the original need or should be deleted.
There is a perfectly reasonable alternative, which actually I thought we were following, namely "my review is a clear and significant improvement on someone else's review and therefore please include mine too". In this case not only is my review the better worded pun, but, pun aside, mine contains twice the information that Sean's does viz. that Rhett has no cause as well as Scarlett having no cause. In four words I have got much more information.
You say a line has to be drawn on this. I agree. I suggest it should be drawn where you believe a similar review is not a significant improvement on the original. If it is a significant improvement, in your opinion, why deprive the site and its readers of that review?
|
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 19:45:46
|
| Ali, why don't you try to resubmit it as "Kahn Serves Cold Dish" or something similar that makes it specific to that film? |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 05:36:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
Two of my reviews just got declined. Whereas my Terminator 2 review ("Terminators") can be construed as too generic (I think otherwise, but there we go), my Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan review was not. It was "Arch-Enemy Serves Cold Dish," and was one of my FYC entries last week.
This is really interesting, as much as you defend your Star Trek review I can see wholeheartedly why it was cut; your main argument is that people will identify a very famous proverb to a film which happens to mention it, whereas most people would disagree. Maybe it was the first film you saw that used the phrase, which explains why you would relate the saying automatically to the film, but I don't think it's famous enough a line to defend.
quote:
The line is immensely identifiable with the film, so much so that it was used in another successful revenge flick (maybe you've heard of it; Kill Bill?).
I'd lay a bet that Quent wasn't quoting "Wrath of Khan" when he wrote that line into his script, as fond of referencing other films as he is.
The other main issue is that you mention nothing that would tie it explicitly to the Wrath of Khan. If you really give this some thought you could probably think of other films this could apply to. What's wrong with "Khan serves Cold Dish", like Livie suggested? Exactly the same review, not generic, unless there an added layer to Arch-enemy that I'm missing.
quote:
My favourite review on this site is the revered "Brother gets own room" for Saving Private Ryan. Again, you identify it with that film, and that film only. Unless, of course, you happen to be an officious prig, and decide to make a case for it referring to, I don't know, Adaptation.
Good example. If you look at the review in the context of its page it's a very witty and worthy contribution but seen, for example, in "what film?" top right hand bubble completely out of context it could actually be anything. Because it is now a revered review as you point out there's no way that it would get the chop, even if anyone dared to report it, but it is generic and if it only had 10 reviews and had been written under the new stricter guidelines in the last couple of months I doubt it would last. You can call me an officious prig now if you like. 
Funny thing is I think you have a very good argument to save the first of your reviews, the one you let go, if you point out that James Cameron quite famously directed the sequel to Alien and rather cleverly named it Aliens rather than Alien 2 (perhaps the first example of this kind of imaginative sequel naming, anyone?), particularly seeing it featured shit-loads of them rather than the solitary killer from the first film. In that context "Terminators" is a really fine review - not only referencing the director's previous famous work, but also the fact there are two Terminators and because it predates T3 it wins the "not generic to a later sequel" rule. There may well be other films with 'terminators' in, in a general sense, but not "Terminators" with a capital T, and certianly not one's directed by Cameron, which was your point all along, right?
quote:
Why would anyone go out of their way to do such a thing in the first place? It baffles the shit out of me.
I don't think anyone is going out of their way to do anything - we've been invited to try to clean up the content on the site using Benj's own guidelines - his is the final decision whether it stays or goes anyway. I think it's fair game - but I do think everyone should defend their losses, particularly if there is an the angle the "reporter" missed that makes it worthy. |
Edited by - demonic on 12/12/2006 05:37:44 |
|
|
|
aahaa, muahaha
"Optimistic altruist, incurable romantic"
|
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 06:51:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
"Delete your review, or the penguin gets it!"
Er, no, thanks, I don't think so.
You wrote:
otherwise this site will become a "my review is an improvement on Noncentz's/ Conan's/ Whippa's/ whoever's review, so decline theirs and approve my version" site.
This is simply a non sequitur. There's no obligation, or let me say suggestion by me, that the original need or should be deleted.
There is a perfectly reasonable alternative, which actually I thought we were following, namely "my review is a clear and significant improvement on someone else's review and therefore please include mine too". In this case not only is my review the better worded pun, but, pun aside, mine contains twice the information that Sean's does viz. that Rhett has no cause as well as Scarlett having no cause. In four words I have got much more information.
You say a line has to be drawn on this. I agree. I suggest it should be drawn where you believe a similar review is not a significant improvement on the original. If it is a significant improvement, in your opinion, why deprive the site and its readers of that review?
Am totally with you on this. I've just had a review declined from the pending pile for the film "Wal-Mart: The high cost of ..." My review was "Hypermarket? Hyped market!!" - it was declined without any reason. I'm surmising that it may have been declined as it may be construed to be similar to another review "Not so supermarket." However, as you can see, my review is different both in terms of context and intent, so, its decline doesn't seem to make sense to me. Also, a decline without having any reason is highly unproductive - as (i) it demotivates the reviewer; (ii) with a reason absent, the reviewer resubmits the review, thus adding to the workload of MERPs and most importantly, (iii) the reviewer keeps making the same mistake again and again in several other reviews, adding to his declined pile and/or the MERPs' pending pile with 2 passes.
|
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 07:29:32
|
I see all your points, most of them valid, but fuck it, eppur si muove, and no nos moveran!
I will not resubmit it as "Khan serves cold dish" because I believe there should be an element of surprise in the review. When one clicks on it, and gets to the film page, there should be a feeling of "A-haaaa," rather than a dull, lifeless sentence, devoid of whimsy and charm, which are the two very foundations of this site (as far as I can see). If it still gets rejected, it gets rejected.
Also, Quentin Tarantino definitely referenced Khan as the quote at the beginning of the flick has the following attribution: "old Klingon proverb."
|
Edited by - Ali on 12/12/2006 07:39:12 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/13/2006 : 02:53:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I've just had an old review declined as "similar to another review".
It was "Rhett/Belle without cause" for Gone With The Wind.
I take it the similar review refered to is "Belle without a cause" by some Kiwi penguin-lover who shall remain nameless.
My review is, IMHO, an improvement on that review, given that mine is closer to the "Rebel without a cause" which we are both referencing.
It's arguable that it's an improvement, in my view it isn't. Both reviews dropped a syllable. Although mine isn't exactly my finest hour, I prefer it as I have a strong dislike for \""() etc within reviews (although I confess I've done it myself when I've run out of options), hence mine "rolls off the page" easier. 
I didn't report your review, and it's presence on the site wouldn't have bothered me at all. I don't mind people ripping off my reviews and tweaking them , I've unashamedly done it myself on many occasions , although I tend to find another movie to fit them to. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/13/2006 : 14:58:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
It's arguable that it's an improvement, in my view it isn't. Both reviews dropped a syllable. Although mine isn't exactly my finest hour, I prefer it as I have a strong dislike for \""() etc within reviews (although I confess I've done it myself when I've run out of options), hence mine "rolls off the page" easier,
Ironic then that its my review which actually has rolled off the page and yours is still there! 
And I have no problem that you think your review is better than mine. You are perfectly entitled to be wrong if you want to.
|
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/13/2006 : 15:32:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
I will not resubmit it as "Khan serves cold dish" because I believe there should be an element of surprise in the review. When one clicks on it, and gets to the film page, there should be a feeling of "A-haaaa," rather than a dull, lifeless sentence, devoid of whimsy and charm, which are the two very foundations of this site (as far as I can see). If it still gets rejected, it gets rejected.
Here you're assuming that people are going to see your review in the "what film" bubble, right? Considering it's cycling through several hundred thousand reviews I shouldn't worry too much about the surprise factor! Better to have a review on the page that when people visit they vote on it. For what it's worth I don't think "Arch-enemy serves Cold Dish" as it stands is particularly whimsical or charming. The inclusion / exclusion of Khan in this actually makes no difference, other than making it specific.
quote:
Also, Quentin Tarantino definitely referenced Khan as the quote at the beginning of the flick has the following attribution: "old Klingon proverb."
Now I remember. I stand very much corrected, my apologies. I still wouldn't have related that to "W of K" though as I don't remember it being an especially memorable line from the film. It's been a while though. |
Edited by - demonic on 12/13/2006 15:32:41 |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/13/2006 : 16:07:07
|
quote:
Here you're assuming that people are going to see your review in the "what film" bubble, right? Considering it's cycling through several hundred thousand reviews I shouldn't worry too much about the surprise factor! Better to have a review on the page that when people visit they vote on it. For what it's worth I don't think "Arch-enemy serves Cold Dish" as it stands is particularly whimsical or charming. The inclusion / exclusion of Khan in this actually makes no difference, other than making it specific.
And there I was thinking you were cool, based purely on your avatar: Brian Bolland's iconic image of the Joker's birth from The Killing Joke.
Instead, you've just joined the list of people I dislike on general principle.
Yes, it's a long list. And yes, I am a petty little shit.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Okay, NOW I'm pissed!
