| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 12/10/2006 : 11:13:51
|
| In other head-line news, mine for Marie Antionette, "Another Coppola severed head!", got chopped as inaccurate. I presume that's because the actual beheading isn't shown. But doesn't that make several more on the page inaccurate as well? I'm just askin'. |
Edited by - randall on 12/10/2006 11:14:22 |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 11:26:07
|
Please, gentlemen! Let's not go losing our heads now! 
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 12:04:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
In other head-line news, mine for Marie Antionette, "Another Coppola severed head!", got chopped as inaccurate. I presume that's because the actual beheading isn't shown. But doesn't that make several more on the page inaccurate as well? I'm just askin'.
Hm... perhaps because the MERP also thought that this Coppola didn't have any severed heads in other movies. Of course, daddy had a severed horses' head in one of the Godfather movies. ... hm... |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 12:41:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
In other head-line news, mine for Marie Antionette, "Another Coppola severed head!", got chopped as inaccurate. I presume that's because the actual beheading isn't shown. But doesn't that make several more on the page inaccurate as well? I'm just askin'.
Hm... perhaps because the MERP also thought that this Coppola didn't have any severed heads in other movies. Of course, daddy had a severed horses' head in one of the Godfather movies. ... hm...
Yep, that was exactly the joke I was attempting.
And this review was declined as inaccurate after being approved and posted on the site, so somebody reported it and benj evidently agreed. Fair enough. I'm just saying, how does this differ from the several others that reference Marie's doomed pate? |
Edited by - randall on 12/10/2006 12:44:37 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 12:53:25
|
Personally, if I were you, I'd re-submit the review (maybe change it to "Coppola severed heads, again") and site this thread as your explination.
|
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 14:33:48
|
I agree, Randall and Koli's reviews shouldn't have been deleted.
I'm finding the Report button a little annoying. I've used it to report a few reviews but only when the reviews were exactly the same, except for minor differences such as a comma instead of a period (or full stop as the Brits like to say).
I just had this one taken away for Chasing Amy: "Amy: The Good Bi-Girl." Amy is a lesbian, then she starts sleeping with Ben Affleck. How many men does she have to sleep with before she can be certified bi-sexual? I say because she is sleeping with a guy, she's entered bi-sexual territory, even is she isn't a full blown bi-sexual.
I wish I had a chance to defend it before it got killed.
I understand that Benj is too busy to e-mail everybody asking for an explanation, and bottom line, this is his sight and he's the boss.
But I sympathize with Koli. It's tough when you have a review you believe is clever, accurate and has collected votes to suddenly wind up in the decline pile. |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 14:42:46
|
A review should be of what happens IN the film, not what happens before, after, to the director in real life, the character in actuality (as opposed to what happens in the film), etc... etc...
Basically, if it doesn't happen (or is not implied to happen) within the bounds of the film then it's not relevant to the film. To review this Marie Antoinette film talking about the decapitation is akin to reviewing Rocky III referring to Rocky fighting a Russian.
If there are more fwfrs with references to Marie being decapitated then, yes- they're wrong (for this film) also.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 15:29:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
A review should be of what happens IN the film, not what happens before, after, to the director in real life, the character in actuality (as opposed to what happens in the film), etc... etc...
Basically, if it doesn't happen (or is not implied to happen) within the bounds of the film then it's not relevant to the film. To review this Marie Antoinette film talking about the decapitation is akin to reviewing Rocky III referring to Rocky fighting a Russian.
If there are more fwfrs with references to Marie being decapitated then, yes- they're wrong (for this film) also.
I agree with you on principle about Randall's review, but its unfortunate that his review should be singled out when there has been a culture, for that film, of allowing decapitation reviews. Therefore can we axe the rest please? 
On a similar matter I reported a whole bunch of reviews for Bambi Meets Godzilla which were based on "doe" puns. There is no doe in this film, only Bambi, who is a buck, and Godzilla's foot. At least in M-A there is a historical justification for decapitation jokes. Here there simply is no doe so doe jokes should be no go. Why should these doe reviews stay if M-A decapitation jokes go?
It would be nice to hear why Koli's review was put on the block. 
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 16:16:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
My review of The Execution of Mary Stuart, "Mary, head off state", has been removed after two years on the site. The reason? It is said to be too similar to another review of the same film.
Presumably the 'similar' review is Bife's "Mary, head of state".
Fair point- I think I must have taken a cursory glance and thought they were identical.
Apologies on this- resub it and I'll reapp it.
I think I'll also add a check on the Report function to stop repeated reportings from being submitted- this way no review can be flagged for the same thing twice, meaning I can't make the same mistake twice. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 16:19:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I agree with you on principle about Randall's review, but its unfortunate that his review should be singled out when there has been a culture, for that film, of allowing decapitation reviews. Therefore can we axe the rest please?
Nobody's flagged them yet or, if they have, I've not gotten around to them yet.
quote:
On a similar matter I reported a whole bunch of reviews for Bambi Meets Godzilla which were based on "doe" puns.
Ditto- I haven't hit these yet  |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 19:22:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
[quote]Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I agree with you on principle about Randall's review, but its unfortunate that his review should be singled out when there has been a culture, for that film, of allowing decapitation reviews. Therefore can we axe the rest please?
Nobody's flagged them yet or, if they have, I've not gotten around to them yet.
OK, off with their heads!
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 20:18:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
A review should be of what happens IN the film, not what happens before, after, to the director in real life, the character in actuality (as opposed to what happens in the film), etc... etc...
Basically, if it doesn't happen (or is not implied to happen) within the bounds of the film then it's not relevant to the film. To review this Marie Antoinette film talking about the decapitation is akin to reviewing Rocky III referring to Rocky fighting a Russian.
If there are more fwfrs with references to Marie being decapitated then, yes- they're wrong (for this film) also.
There are plenty of them. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 06:13:43
|
Okay, but before all these reviews are axed, I'd like to defend one of my reviews for this movie: "Eats cake, loses head". This movie includes huge amounts of food and in my review, I was referring not to her being decapitated, but rather to her losing control, and getting involved in inappropriate liaisions, being overly frivolous, etc.
(Really... that's what I had in mind. Honest! I'll even change the review to "brioche" if you wish.)
((No? Oh... well, I guess I'll live with my poor Marion Faithfull pun review instead.))
(((And come to think of it - all these reviews that talk about the cake bit along with the head bit are also basically wrong. She was still popular when she said that brioche line, and it was a very long time after that quote that Versaille fell and only quite some time after that when she was tried for treason and executed. While the line typified her excesses and detatchment from the people, the one didn't cause the other.)))
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 12/11/2006 06:22:38 |
|
|
|
aahaa, muahaha
"Optimistic altruist, incurable romantic"
|
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 06:20:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Okay, but before all these reviews are axed, I'd like to defend one of my reviews for this movie: "Eats cake, loses head". This movie includes huge amounts of food and in my review, I was referring not to her being decapitated, but rather to her losing control, and getting involved in inappropriate liaisions, being overly frivolous, etc.
(Really... that's what I had in mind. Honest! I'll even change the review to "brioche" if you wish.)
ha ha, that's indeed a good defense. I'll vote on it before it goes.  |
|
|
|
Ali 
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 07:42:09
|
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.
First of all, let's recap the scene from said film. Khan asks Kirk whether he is familiar with the Klingon proverb "Revenge is a dish best served cold," and adds that "it is very cold in space." 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?). Thus, any self respecting movie geek (an oxymoron, I know) would obviously know what film it referred to.
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.
Why would anyone go out of their way to do such a thing in the first place? It baffles the shit out of me.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Okay, NOW I'm pissed!
