| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
 Posted - 02/12/2007 : 15:26:36
|
quote:
For my two pence/cents worth, I'm all for not having to read the same review on different films, BUT, do also agree that the same review could have different meanings depending on the film in question. Wish I had an example to back my case up but I don't.
Here's an example, both from the House Of Whippa:
For Bugsy Malone
and
For City Of God
[/quote]
Mm, interesting. I don't see it for City of God. But I just added another vote for the Bugsy Malone one |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 15:33:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Mm, interesting. I don't see it for City of God. But I just added another vote for the Bugsy Malone one
Thanks for the vote .
The City Of God connection is little kids involved in organised criminal gangs and shooting people.
( )
|
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 15:37:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
[
Thanks for the vote .
The City Of God connection is little kids involved in organised criminal gangs and shooting people.
()
Everytime one of your posts pops up next to mine I feel bad about my dog scaring your badger. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 15:38:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Here's an example, both from the House Of Whippa:
For Bugsy Malone
and
For City Of God
Hhmmm, I don't think that's any good. I think each person's reviews should be different from each other. Although the films differ greatly, the reviews have the same meaning (kids who are gangsters). (In one, the kids represent adults; in the other, the 'kids' represent their real ages. However, the reviews do not refer to this distinction.) I have got a rejected review identical to a review of mine that was approved for a worse film, but if it were approved, I would delete the other one. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 15:41:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Mm, interesting. I don't see it for City of God. But I just added another vote for the Bugsy Malone one
The City Of God connection is little kids involved in organised criminal gangs and shooting people.
This is another problem with it. They are at best 'kids'. Apart from a few at the beginning, they are young adults. They are definitely not 'kiddies', even the youngest ones. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 18:04:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Mm, interesting. I don't see it for City of God. But I just added another vote for the Bugsy Malone one
The City Of God connection is little kids involved in organised criminal gangs and shooting people.
This is another problem with it. They are at best 'kids'. Apart from a few at the beginning, they are young adults. They are definitely not 'kiddies', even the youngest ones.
At the end they are very kiddies. And theres no definition I know where a kiddie turns into a kid.
As I told Michael Jackson, lighten up kid.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 18:20:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Here's an example, both from the House Of Whippa:
For Bugsy Malone
and
For City Of God
Hhmmm, I don't think that's any good. I think each person's reviews should be different from each other. Although the films differ greatly, the reviews have the same meaning (kids who are gangsters). (In one, the kids represent adults; in the other, the 'kids' represent their real ages. However, the reviews do not refer to this distinction.) I have got a rejected review identical to a review of mine that was approved for a worse film, but if it were approved, I would delete the other one.
Couldn't agree with you less.
Language exists in context, and so the very different natures of the two films mean the reviews have different meanings. One has the intended meaning something along the lines of "Children dressed up as gangsters" and the other intends "Here the gangsters are kids". The reader's emotional response to the two reviews should be quite different.
If you don't see this distinction, then fair enough, it's something you don't see. But it is there for some of us.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 18:25:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
[
Thanks for the vote .
The City Of God connection is little kids involved in organised criminal gangs and shooting people.
()
Everytime one of your posts pops up next to mine I feel bad about my dog scaring your badger.
LOL. But don't underestimate badgers!
And what about Sal's poor sheep?
|
Edited by - Whippersnapper. on 02/12/2007 18:25:42 |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 00:34:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Everytime one of your posts pops up next to mine I feel bad about my dog scaring your badger.
LOL. But don't underestimate badgers!
And what about Sal's poor sheep?
If their owner's anything to go by I think the sheep will do fine |
Edited by - Shiv on 02/13/2007 00:35:26 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 09:14:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
At the end they are very kiddies. And theres no definition I know where a kiddie turns into a kid.
Ah, O.K. I missed the end as I was ill. Regardless of when the distinction does fall, a teenager can be a 'kid', but definitely not a 'kiddie'. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 09:20:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Language exists in context, and so the very different natures of the two films mean the reviews have different meanings. One has the intended meaning something along the lines of "Children dressed up as gangsters" and the other intends "Here the gangsters are kids". The reader's emotional response to the two reviews should be quite different.
If you don't see this distinction, then fair enough, it's something you don't see. But it is there for some of us.
I still think what I did. You are conflating the situation and the words. The words of your review give no information as to what form of 'kiddies' are involved (but nevertheless it is the same meaning of the word 'kiddies', i.e. not just a pair of homonyms, which would be O.K.). It's like if I say "John visits big island" in two different (but non-metaphorical) contexts - the islands could be massively different in their size, so "big" depends on the context, but this does not mean that the sentence itself has two different meanings. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/13/2007 10:12:59 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 11:05:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Language exists in context, and so the very different natures of the two films mean the reviews have different meanings. One has the intended meaning something along the lines of "Children dressed up as gangsters" and the other intends "Here the gangsters are kids". The reader's emotional response to the two reviews should be quite different.
If you don't see this distinction, then fair enough, it's something you don't see. But it is there for some of us.
I still think what I did. You are conflating the situation and the words. The words of your review give no information as to what form of 'kiddies' are involved (but nevertheless it is the same meaning of the word 'kiddies', i.e. not just a pair of homonyms, which would be O.K.). It's like if I say "John visits big island" in two different (but non-metaphorical) contexts - the islands could be massively different in their size, so "big" depends on the context, but this does not mean that the sentence itself has two different meanings.
No.
Obviously homonyms would have different meanings, as in my Jockumentary for A World Tour Of Scotland and someone else's for a sports documentary, but that is not the limit of the concept of different meanings.
Its clear that the emotions evoked by the two Goodkiddies reviews are very different, and therefore, for me, they do not have the same meaning at all.
End of. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 11:37:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Obviously homonyms would have different meanings, as in my Jockumentary for A World Tour Of Scotland and someone else's for a sports documentary, but that is not the limit of the concept of different meanings.
Well then, I'm obviously misunderstanding the term "generic" on this site, then. It seemed to me that a review would be rejected for being generic if it wasn't specific enough to indicate that particular film. If, however, people are submitting the same review for several different films, how can those reviews be considered specific to all those films, at the same time?
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 11:45:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Its clear that the emotions evoked by the two Goodkiddies reviews are very different, and therefore, for me, they do not have the same meaning at all.
I think you're being, let's say, mildly optimistic to think that either review evokes any emotions. With regards to the reviews being the same, if someone had not seen either film, but read your review, they would have just a general image of child gangsters. When they then saw either film, there is no chance that they would then think "Oh, that review has a different meaning to what I thought it did." Both scenarios are covered by the standard meanings of the words concerned. I think you are taking this to be evidence that the words have different meanings, but this is false. Both scenarios are simply covered because 'kiddies' (like most nouns) does not have a highly specialised meaning. Leaving my doubts about the facts aside, characters in one are just kiddies and characters in the other are just kiddies. Referring to this does not give the slightest inference of the extra characteristics of the kiddies (e.g. acting as adults). |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/13/2007 11:53:33 |
|
|
|
Ali 
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 11:47:59
|
"Here's looking at you, kiddie."
I don't know. It could have gone either way.
|
Edited by - Ali on 02/13/2007 11:50:24 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Cross Pollination Similarity Decline Rule
