| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Catuli 
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
 Posted - 02/09/2007 : 04:50:05
|
OK, here's what I mean by my rather clunky title. I wrote a review for the 1970 film "Elvis" and came up with a title that, save for the word Elvis, had no words in common with any of the other review titles. To my astonishment, the review was declined for "being similar to another review." Obviously, there are several movies dealing with Elvis, and I discovered that another Elvis movie does indeed have a review that is similar to mine. I suppose in the grand scheme of things my review should be discarded, but it seems unfair to be hit with a decline when you check out a movie title, see nothing remotely close to your idea, and enter the review in good faith. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 07:17:18
|
Hmmmm. Most here would say it's bad form to have a review for a movie that another fwfrer wrote first for another related movie. So perhaps the decliner did you a favour by declining it so you don't have to deal with the moral issue of whether or not to keep it? 
To my knowledge, I don't have any duplicates of other's reviews, same movie or different movie (please let me know if I have, and I'll consider giving it the bullet). It's another thing though if the same review is used in a different way for another movie, i.e., same words have another meaning.
How about this recent example, in order submitted:-
Psychomania - "Brat out of Hell" - 2004
Little Nicky - "Brat out of Hell" - 2004
Omen (1976) - "Brat out of Hell" -(I submitted this and deleted it in 2004 when I saw that I wasn't original)
Hellboy - "Brat out of Hell" - 2006
Omen (2006) - "Brat out of Hell" - 2007
so, moralise on this one, folks. Should the reveiw be on the site five times (it's there four times at the moment)? It's obviously generic so you could argue that all should be deleted. My opinion? It's a nice pun and should be on the site on the movie that it fits best, but obviously we're talking about an ideal world here. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 09:09:57
|
| I think the rule should be extended so that reviews should not be duplicated across films with the same subject matter (e.g. the cases above, adaptations of the same novel, documentaries/biopics about the same person/group). This wouldn't mean that the duplicate-writer would be considered to blame, but the duplicate would be deleted all the same. Some individual films now have more than 500 reviews, and in those cases I have given up on reading through all of them in advance of submitting a review. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 09:36:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I think the rule should be extended so that reviews should not be duplicated across films with the same subject matter (e.g. the cases above, adaptations of the same novel, documentaries/biopics about the same person/group). This wouldn't mean that the duplicate-writer would be considered to blame, but the duplicate would be deleted all the same. Some individual films now have more than 500 reviews, and in those cases I have given up on reading through all of them in advance of submitting a review.
That would be grossly unfair since a similar review, as Se�n has noted, can have different meanings in different contexts ... even if source material is the same.
I still think the main reasons for reporting FWFRs should be whether they can apply to more than one film. And I'm not sure I agree that a good pun should be allowed through even if it's inaccurate or generic. My 'pet' hate are all those reviews that refer to apes as monkeys. It's like saying all Australians can be called Kiwis!  
There's already an earliest film rule which may not always be adhered to, but I'd prefer that to be the start of deletion, if deletion is needed.
Also, it's not that hard to run a search on a few multiple-page FWFRs to check one's own. It doesn't take that long!
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 09:41:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I think the rule should be extended so that reviews should not be duplicated across films with the same subject matter (e.g. the cases above, adaptations of the same novel, documentaries/biopics about the same person/group). This wouldn't mean that the duplicate-writer would be considered to blame, but the duplicate would be deleted all the same. Some individual films now have more than 500 reviews, and in those cases I have given up on reading through all of them in advance of submitting a review.
That would be grossly unfair since a similar review, as Se�n has noted, can have different meanings in different contexts ... even if source material is the same.
No, not in the categories I have listed. If more than one meaning is possible, the first review will already have both meanings if the subject matter is the same. (Of course, there could be exceptional cases where a double meaning refers to one film and not the other, but this is no different to the films of a franchise. Individual cases can always be specifically highlighted for exemption.) |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/09/2007 09:57:54 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 09:43:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
My 'pet' hate are all those reviews that refer to apes as monkeys. It's like saying all Australians can be called Kiwis!
I agree; I've made this exact point before. Ditto hares/rabbits, ducks/canaries etc. etc. But bear in mind that Jamaica can be called Trinidad, so it is already established that nationalities are also interchangeable. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 09:45:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
There's already an earliest film rule which may not always be adhered to, but I'd prefer that to be the start of deletion, if deletion is needed.
You've lost me. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 09:46:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Also, it's not that hard to run a search on a few multiple-page FWFRs to check one's own. It doesn't take that long!
As I've mentioned before, Apple F for some reason often does not work on the pages. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 10:00:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Also, it's not that hard to run a search on a few multiple-page FWFRs to check one's own. It doesn't take that long!
As I've mentioned before, Apple F for some reason often does not work on the pages.
Apples are not the only fruit.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 11:50:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
My 'pet' hate are all those reviews that refer to apes as monkeys. It's like saying all Australians can be called Kiwis!
I agree; I've made this exact point before. Ditto hares/rabbits, ducks/canaries etc. etc. But bear in mind that Jamaica can be called Trinidad, so it is already established that nationalities are also interchangeable.
Thirded. And inaccurate fish reviews. There's a review for Finding Nemo "Koi Story" which really irritates me. Koi is a freshwater fish and has nothing whatsoever to do with Finding Nemo.
And, Sal, a lot of reviews for Bambi Meets Godzilla, including one of yours  , using doe, when there is no doe in the film!. No doubt you will now be kind enough to delete it.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 12:05:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
And, Sal, a lot of reviews for Bambi Meets Godzilla, including one of yours , using doe, when there is no doe in the film!. No doubt you will now be kind enough to delete it.
Nope, like with everything, I have thought about this very carefully.  Bambi in Bambi can only be referred to as male, and should theoretically only be referred to as a stag or a buck and a calf or a fawn depending upon which is correct for that species (an American something-or-other, though this is not the same species as in the book). However, Bambi in Bambi Meets Godzilla is not officially the same Bambi. Given that his/her sex cannot be determined from the film, and his/her species is not definite either, then I feel it is all right to use either and any. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/09/2007 12:08:09 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 12:08:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
And, Sal, a lot of reviews for Bambi Meets Godzilla, including one of yours , using doe, when there is no doe in the film!. No doubt you will now be kind enough to delete it.
Nope, like with everything, I have thought about this very carefully. Bambi in Bambi can only be referred to as male, and should theoretically only be referred to as a stag or a buck and a calf or a fawn depending upon which is correct for that species (an American something-or-other though this is not the same species as in the book). However, Bambi in Bambi Meets Godzilla is not officially the same Bambi. Given that his/her sex cannot be determined from the film, and his/her species is not definite either, then I feel it is all right to use either and any.
Oh, come on, stop passing the buck!
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 12:11:32
|
| In Bambi, he is a white-tailed deer (I've read American white-tailed deer before): he is first a fawn and becomes a buck. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 12:15:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Oh, come on, stop passing the buck!
I cannot believe that "Passed, the buck" had not been submitted (before I did just now). Thanks! |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 12:19:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Oh, come on, stop passing the buck!
I cannot believe that "Passed, the buck" had not been submitted (before I did just now). Thanks!
Well, I find that staggering!
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 12:25:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
There's a review for Finding Nemo "Koi Story" which really irritates me. Koi is a freshwater fish and has nothing whatsoever to do with Finding Nemo.
Now, let's not start everyone bullying Paul Bennison again. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Cross Pollination Similarity Decline Rule
