| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
 Posted - 01/26/2007 : 02:34:42
|
I have had the following reviews rejected (with no reason given) and would like to understand what is needed to make them valid reviews.
Life (Eddie Murphy/Martin Lawrence film) 'Murphy surprises with performance'
Edison (Morgan Freeman, Justin Timberlake's debut acting role) 'Timberlake's debut very average'
Mr and Mrs Smith 'Glorifies domestic violence - avoid'
I may be missing something here, but aren't these 'reviews' of the film by definition of a review? Comments on actors in the role, a comment on the way domestic violence is portrayed in a film?
If someone is going to say that they have to connect to the film, well doesn't the Edison one do that? Timberlake will only be making one debut acting performance, and this is it.
What about the other two? If they appeared with the film name they would very clearly be reviews of that film.
This is from the FAQs "General film reviews- generalized reviews, e.g. "Beautiful cinematography, moving soundtrack", will seldom make the site."
Mine are much much more specific than that.
"...doesn't work in the context of random "What film?" quotes"
In regard to "What film?" do the following reviews from the site pass muster in isolation from the film page
Mr and Mrs Smith
See Jane kill (could be GI Jane) The hits that bind (could be for Grosse Pointe Blank)
So while my review isn't clever wordplay like these ones, the possible generic nature of the review (which is not why it was rejected) does not apply if it appears with the film title. It's a genuine review of the film. What would be the reason for rejecting mine? The two mentioned above work when on the film page, but could be comments on other films when not connected to the film page.
Edison
"Freeman/ Timberlake in sync"
This is a pun on Timberlake's band name and the duo teaming up in the film, but if they appear in another film together this might apply to that. So, at the moment the answer to 'what film?' is based on knowing that they appeared together in Edison. Doesn't 'Timberlake's debut very average' link to Edison in a tighter way since Timberlake will only debut once?
Life
"Murphy manages touching performance"
How is this different to my review? Is mine being rejected because there is only room for one comment on his performance. This review could also apply to Dr Doolittle for example (as could mine of course). If this is the case, the FAQs page needs to be updated. However, I am disappointed to think that we can't actually give our personal responses to movies or performances.
I've had lots of reviews rejected for being 'generic' which I agreed with, but I don't believe these are too generic. Also, it seems hard to actually review the film if these kind of reviews are rejected. So I'm just competing with others for clever wordplay, or have to make a simple statement of content 'Murphy, Lawrence get life' 'Timberlake is journalist' 'Pitt, Jolie play assasins' etc.
I have resubmitted these with some comments. Possibly the MERP did not realise that Timberlake's performance with his acting debut, so that might pass. With the other two I have queried what the problem is, if they are not generic.
With some guidelines I can review my waiting reviews, rather than having them rejected first.
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 08:39:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
I have had the following reviews rejected (with no reason given) and would like to understand what is needed to make them valid reviews.
Life (Eddie Murphy/Martin Lawrence film) 'Murphy surprises with performance'
Edison (Morgan Freeman, Justin Timberlake's debut acting role) 'Timberlake's debut very average'
Mr and Mrs Smith 'Glorifies domestic violence - avoid'
I may be missing something here, but aren't these 'reviews' of the film by definition of a review? Comments on actors in the role, a comment on the way domestic violence is portrayed in a film?
If someone is going to say that they have to connect to the film, well doesn't the Edison one do that? Timberlake will only be making one debut acting performance, and this is it.
What about the other two? If they appeared with the film name they would very clearly be reviews of that film.
This is from the FAQs "General film reviews- generalized reviews, e.g. "Beautiful cinematography, moving soundtrack", will seldom make the site."
Mine are much much more specific than that.
"...doesn't work in the context of random "What film?" quotes"
In regard to "What film?" do the following reviews from the site pass muster in isolation from the film page
Mr and Mrs Smith
See Jane kill (could be GI Jane) The hits that bind (could be for Grosse Pointe Blank)
So while my review isn't clever wordplay like these ones, the possible generic nature of the review (which is not why it was rejected) does not apply if it appears with the film title. It's a genuine review of the film. What would be the reason for rejecting mine? The two mentioned above work when on the film page, but could be comments on other films when not connected to the film page.
Edison
"Freeman/ Timberlake in sync"
This is a pun on Timberlake's band name and the duo teaming up in the film, but if they appear in another film together this might apply to that. So, at the moment the answer to 'what film?' is based on knowing that they appeared together in Edison. Doesn't 'Timberlake's debut very average' link to Edison in a tighter way since Timberlake will only debut once?
Life
"Murphy manages touching performance"
How is this different to my review? Is mine being rejected because there is only room for one comment on his performance. This review could also apply to Dr Doolittle for example (as could mine of course). If this is the case, the FAQs page needs to be updated. However, I am disappointed to think that we can't actually give our personal responses to movies or performances.
I've had lots of reviews rejected for being 'generic' which I agreed with, but I don't believe these are too generic. Also, it seems hard to actually review the film if these kind of reviews are rejected. So I'm just competing with others for clever wordplay, or have to make a simple statement of content 'Murphy, Lawrence get life' 'Timberlake is journalist' 'Pitt, Jolie play assasins' etc.
I have resubmitted these with some comments. Possibly the MERP did not realise that Timberlake's performance with his acting debut, so that might pass. With the other two I have queried what the problem is, if they are not generic.
With some guidelines I can review my waiting reviews, rather than having them rejected first.
Hiya Shiv
As I read your postings it's like looking into a [typed] mirror of things I used to go on about when I first landed on planet-FWFR. Firstly can I say that you'll prob'ly not get a true insight into the processing of reviews because - quite rightly imho - benj is fearful it will lead to abuse. What you need to take on trust is that it's pretty much fair, and that the main point is to have fun! Fun in constructing wonderful [and perhaps not so wonderful  ] reviews. Fun in appreciating the [twisted   ] minds of others. Fun in getting to know one another here on the 4UM!
Now about those pesky declines [and I am NOT a MERP, and NO expert]:
First of all - and this is a bit niggly, but some of my early reviews were declined because of it - have you checked that your sentences have a full stop/period at the end?
Life (Eddie Murphy/Martin Lawrence film) 'Murphy surprises with performance' TOO GENERIC: think about this - it might apply to any of his films since you're expressing an opinion [nothing wrong with that] but someone would need to be clairvoyant to know which film you meant.
Edison (Morgan Freeman, Justin Timberlake's debut acting role) 'Timberlake's debut very average' Yes, this is frustrating because there are many reviews, usually the older ones, which merely state an opinion of a performance. But I suspect Benj is trying to clamp down on these. Can you try to make some clever play directly related to the film itself? Just a thought -- and I see by some of your other FWFRs that you're very capable of that and more than very average 
Mr and Mrs Smith 'Glorifies domestic violence - avoid' On scrutiny this is funny, but is simply too generic and might apply to a number of films. Dunno - instead of the caveat to 'avoid' you might consider using your 4th word to specifially tie it in, perhaps with a character name, actor name, director name - perhaps with a pun!
Hope this helps and it's great to see you making such thoughtful contributions.
Mostly - have fun!
|
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 10:12:57
|
| See here. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 14:07:51
|
Nos. 1 & 3 are too generic.
No.2 IMHO probably should have been accepted, but, like Timberlake's performance, it is very average and the time would come when you wished you hadn't written it, so frankly it's no loss to anyone, including you, that it has been rejected.
Try something like "Timberlake in wooden debut" - puns do wonders for both acceptance rates and the amusement of your readers. 
|
Edited by - Whippersnapper. on 01/26/2007 14:09:16 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 14:11:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
No.2 IMHO probably should have been accepted, but, like Timberlake's performance, it is very average and the time would come when you wished you hadn't written it, so frankly it's no less to anyone, including you, that it has been rejected.
True on both counts, but reviews like this should always be approved because they are within the rules and sometimes they have another level that may get missed.
quote:
Try something like "Timberlake in wooden debut" - puns do wonders for both acceptance rates and the amusement of your readers.
Nice. Is he at all sappy in it? If so, you could have "Timberlake's debut: wooden, wet". |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/26/2007 14:12:28 |
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 18:38:43
|
Shiv,
One of the other problems with this site is that in the beginning, Benj wasn't as strict with the "generic" rule.
Once the site became really popular and the reviews started to roll in, Benj was able to get picky.
That mean's there are lots of approved reviews out there that once passed the mustard, but today are too generic. (Look at the list of top 100 reviews, many are generic.)
It's been debated before about going back and removing the older ones but I would personally be pissed if a review I wrote in 2003 that had 60 votes was suddenly dumped into my decline pile. |
|
|
|
Rovark
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 19:49:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yukon
Shiv,
One of the other problems with this site is that in the beginning, Benj wasn't as strict with the "generic" rule.
Once the site became really popular and the reviews started to roll in, Benj was able to get picky.
That mean's there are lots of approved reviews out there that once passed the mustard, but today are too generic. (Look at the list of top 100 reviews, many are generic.)
It's been debated before about going back and removing the older ones but I would personally be pissed if a review I wrote in 2003 that had 60 votes was suddenly dumped into my decline pile.
Funny that.
I've just had a review from February 2003 dumped as generic. I think it only had 3 or 4 votes so the key here is obviously it has to have a certain number of votes to aquire immunity. 60 is safe, 5 isn't.
Any idea where the cut off is anyone? 20, 30,
btw I still don't think it was generic but I'm just trying to be cool about the whole thing and not start shoutng. |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:23:57
|
Thanks guys. This helps. I didn't get the 'too generic' label for any of these reviews, just the blank 'no reason' - which is why I raised this.
Yes, my Life review is fairly generic, and your explanation that the rules are getting tigher is fair enough. Any number of 'performance' reviews could be written.
Also, thanks for the kind words about my approved reviews!
I get the sense that the people who stay around on this site are the ones with perseverance and who are enjoying the site as a whole, rather than just worrying about the approved reviews.
I'm happy for this thread to be locked, as I think that there is enough info on here to help any other newbies. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:39:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
See here.
I think my original posting above shows that I did 'see there' and found it lacking in enough detail to understand why the reviews above were rejected with no reason. Looking at other postings elsewhere on the site I see that I'm not the only person who has questions beyond those answers. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 23:08:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
See here.
[size=2]I think my original posting above shows that I did 'see there' and found it lacking in enough detail to understand why the reviews above were rejected with no reason.
Sorry - I only read a few lines of your post since your first review seemed completely 'generic' to me. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/26/2007 23:32:33 |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 00:26:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
See here.
I think my original posting above shows that I did 'see there' and found it lacking in enough detail to understand why the reviews above were rejected with no reason.
Sorry - I only read a few lines of your post since your first review seemed completely 'generic' to me.
[size=2]No worries I got the answers I wanted |
Edited by - Shiv on 01/27/2007 00:27:03 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
'What is a "review"?
