| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Catuli 
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
 Posted - 12/16/2006 : 14:54:50
|
Have you ever submitted an review in the magestic confidence that it was destined to be accepted, and then found out later--to your chagrin, anguish, and lament--that it was declined? In that category for me was "The Iceberg Cometh." This was declined as being too generic, but I thought it was simply a riff on a Eugene O'Neill play and that the film being reviewed was instantly detectable, supposedly a requirement for a good review. Who knows, perhaps I'm wrong. I'll email gold to the first respondent who correctly identifies the movie. If anyone thinks the review reeks of ambiguity, please let me know.
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 12/16/2006 : 14:58:52
|
I'm assuming it's for Titanic, but then, there are several movies about that poor fated ship.
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 12/16/2006 14:59:25 |
 |
|
|
Catuli
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 19:34:26
|
I really don't have anything to add. I just find it sad that I have only one reply to my thread.
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 19:45:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catuli
I really don't have anything to add. I just find it sad that I have only one reply to my thread.
Hiya Catuli
I think CL has said it all, really. O'Neill's play aside, your review of course evokes Titanic, but which version? It could apply to any of them, really, including some documentaries.
Also, as Benj has recently stated publicly in another thread, it's quite demoralizing, not to mention diverting of his [and MERP's] time to have to explain everything.
I'm only posting this way because in my earlier days on the site -- ah, waaaaay back last spring -- I felt as frustrated as you. But in the vast majority of cases declines because of "too generic" are usually spot on! If you think about this in relation to your review you'll see how wise the decline decision was. Which isn't to say it couldn't be resubmitted to make it more picture-specific ... just off the top of my head: "Cameron's iceberg cometh" or some such.
Wotcha reckon? 
PS sorry to be picky, but I think you meant to say: majestic ... no?
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 12/18/2006 19:46:34 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 19:46:01
|
| Lots of non-Titanic films feature icebergs too. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 21:22:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Lots of non-Titanic films feature icebergs too.
Maybe, but there arent many of them where you know an iceberg is coming and you're waiting for the moment, as implied in Catuli's review.
As for Baffy's argument that it could apply to any version of the Titanic, well, go see how many reviews are there for Titanic (1997) which could apply to any version of the story - there are loads - virtually all those which don't mention Jack or Rose or Cameron. For most people on the planet the 1997 version is the version of Titanic.
However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes. 
|
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 21:35:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Lots of non-Titanic films feature icebergs too.
Maybe, but there arent many of them where you know an iceberg is coming and you're waiting for the moment, as implied in Catuli's review.
As for Baffy's argument that it could apply to any version of the Titanic, well, go see how many reviews are there for Titanic (1997) which could apply to any version of the story - there are loads - virtually all those which don't mention Jack or Rose or Cameron. For most people on the planet the 1997 version is the version of Titanic.
However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
The case for the defence rests M'Lud!
|
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 22:18:30
|
So it's generically duplicitous. 
Anyway, it's wrong. The iceberg didn't come to the ship, the ship went to the iceberg.  |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 22:41:49
|
They were like two ships that...
nevermind. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 22:58:17
|
The Convergence of the Twain by Thomas Hardy (1912)
In a solitude of the sea
Deep from human vanity,
And the Pride of Life that planned her, stilly couches she.
Steel chambers, late the pyres
Of her salamandrine fires,
Cold currents thrid, and turn to rhythmic tidal lyres.
Over the mirrors meant
To glass the opulent
The sea-worm crawls - grotesque, slimed, dumb, indifferent.
Jewels in joy designed
To ravish the sensuous mind
Lie lightless, all their sparkles bleared and black and blind.
Dim moon-eyed fishes near
Gaze at the gilded gear
And query: "What does this vaingloriousness down here?"...
Well: while was fashioning
This creature of cleaving wing,
The Imminent Will that stirs and urges everything
Prepared a sinister mate
For her - so gaily great -
A Shape of Ice, for the time fat and dissociate.
And as the smart ship grew
In stature, grace, and hue
In shadowy silent distance grew the Iceberg too.
Alien they seemed to be:
No mortal eye could see
The intimate welding of their later history.
Or sign that they were bent
By paths coincident
On being anon twin halves of one August event,
Till the Spinner of the Years
Said "Now!" And each one hears,
And consummation comes, and jars two hemispheres. |
|
|
|
Sludge
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 23:24:08
|
| The Iceberg Smasheth? |
|
|
|
Catuli
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 00:34:18
|
Wow, first a drought and then a flood of replies. Thanks for the interesting feedback all. I'm really not frustrated about the decline, just curious. I know sometimes the review requirements can be daunting, conveying a specific review within four words. I don't know how often that is perfectly accomplished. While "iceberg" may apply to movies other than "Titanic," there are many key words that apply to a whole lot more. A lot of times the only way to add specificity is work the director's or an actor's name into the review. This was suggested here, but frankly, I think it would be just too ironic to have the review of "Titanic" watered down 
|
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 04:14:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
And it's the only review that person has. Ironic. |
Edited by - w22dheartlivie on 12/19/2006 04:16:37 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 08:57:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
And it's the only review that person has. Ironic.
Isn't it? |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 09:08:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
And it's the only review that person has. Ironic.
Isn't it?
Not sure I understand, Whippy ... does that mean you've double-registered as Mak 
|
|
|
|
Catuli
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 13:08:20
|
OK, it's a dupe, you might say I was duped. I disagreed with the "too generic" decline but I find "identical to another review" to be a perfectly sound reason.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Being Barbaric About Too Generic
