| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
 Posted - 05/02/2007 : 01:18:11
|
I'm still getting declines without any explanation. As I've said several times already, I can't fix it if nobody will tell me what's wrong with it, leaving me no choice but to try and get an answer here. So here's my review and the 100 character explanation I submitted it with:
Iron Man (2008)
"Stark wu'd into crimefighting"
(Wooed is spelled ''wu'd'' because a member of Wutang Clan uses Tony Stark/Iron Man as a persona)
Not my finest work ever, but it seems to conform with all the site rules, at least it seems that way to me. Obviously someone thinks otherwise, I don't mind having to tweak it but I really need to know what's wrong first. |
Edited by - Downtown on 05/02/2007 02:07:49 |
|
|
Yukon 
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 01:34:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Iron Man (2008)
"Stark wu'd into crimefighting"
(Wooed is spelled ''wu'd'' because a member of Wutang Clan uses Tony Stark/Iron Man as a persona)
Hey Downtown,
I guess my problem (and possible the MERPs) is why does wu'd equal Wutang Clan? Is WU a commonly used short form?
I think you have to be a really big Wutang Clan fan to get the review.
(Never heard of Tony Stark, just Old Dirty Bastard-RIP if I remember correctly).
Maybe it's just too much of a stretch for the MERPs to get an approval. |
Edited by - Yukon on 05/02/2007 01:35:14 |
 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 01:41:07
|
| I have to admit it really is kind of a stretch. I've got Wu-Tang's first album and I didn't know about the Iron Man thing. It's really not obvious where you're going with that with that film review. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 01:44:14
|
quote:
Hey Downtown,
I guess my problem (and possible the MERPs) is why does wu'd equal Wutang Clan? Is WU a commonly used short form?
I think you have to be a really big Wutang Clan fan to get the review.
(Never heard of Tony Stark, just Old Dirty Bastard-RIP if I remember correctly).
Maybe it's just too much of a stretch for the MERPs to get an approval.
Ah...maybe that's it. I hadn't even considered that possibility. Yes, "wu" is a very acceptable abbreviation for the Wutang Clan. They called themselves that all the time in their rhymes.
Whether that's the issue or not, thanks for offering a theory. Unfortunately, the only person I'd be able to get a confirmation from is benj, since the MERPs identities are secret (unless you're cleverly pretending NOT to be one as a means of getting more information, but I know better than to even ask that). But that could very well be the problem, since one would have to listen to the Wu to know they call themselves that. |
Edited by - Downtown on 05/02/2007 01:55:12 |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 01:54:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I have to admit it really is kind of a stretch. I've got Wu-Tang's first album and I didn't know about the Iron Man thing. It's really not obvious where you're going with that with that film review.
It was the title of Ghostface Killah's first solo album, and the inside artwork goes with the theme. When they did solo albums, they were still doing them as members of Wutang, the album artwork always included the Wutang logo and included the group name in their rhymes. By their second group album, Ghostface had fully adopted Ironman as a second nickname, the liner notes were actually calling him that. His second solo album further expanded on the theme, featuring numerous samples from the old animated series "The Invincible Ironman," and calling himself Tony Stark (Iron Man's secret identity) so much that I once had to explain to a friend that his real name is in fact Denis Coles.
So you see, it's not a stretch. It might not be common knowledge, but once you know all the background the connection seems clear (to me). Clearly, I failed to convey enough of the facts in the explanation.
In any case, the review should be good enough anyway as it's an accurate summary of the plot: Tony Stark gets wooed into crimefighting and becomes a superhero. The explanation only explains why it's purposely misspelled. |
Edited by - Downtown on 05/02/2007 01:58:06 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 08:03:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I have to admit it really is kind of a stretch. I've got Wu-Tang's first album and I didn't know about the Iron Man thing. It's really not obvious where you're going with that with that film review.
It was the title of Ghostface Killah's first solo album, and the inside artwork goes with the theme. When they did solo albums, they were still doing them as members of Wutang, the album artwork always included the Wutang logo and included the group name in their rhymes. By their second group album, Ghostface had fully adopted Ironman as a second nickname, the liner notes were actually calling him that. His second solo album further expanded on the theme, featuring numerous samples from the old animated series "The Invincible Ironman," and calling himself Tony Stark (Iron Man's secret identity) so much that I once had to explain to a friend that his real name is in fact Denis Coles.
So you see, it's not a stretch. It might not be common knowledge, but once you know all the background the connection seems clear (to me). Clearly, I failed to convey enough of the facts in the explanation.
In any case, the review should be good enough anyway as it's an accurate summary of the plot: Tony Stark gets wooed into crimefighting and becomes a superhero. The explanation only explains why it's purposely misspelled.
PMFJI But --
-- suppose you resub it as:
Crimefighting Wu's Stark.
Which, I think, gives you some lee-way, retains the meaning, and offers some ambiguity which is also relevant.
Just a thought!
Hope it's helpful.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 11:53:24
|
What about spelling Wu'd' with the capital letter?
Yukon's suggestion is good, but surely would still have the same problem if 'wu'd' was the problem?
I've seen other discussions here about reviews that only a few people will get, and most people seemed to be saying that's okay, if the review itself holds water etc. Often people seek an explanation if they want it. It seems to me you have met the 'criteria' of fwfrs imho
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 14:10:44
|
| All good suggestions. It's also possible it's the explanation that needs to be fixed. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 03:14:37
|
| It really will just leave people confused. I don't think people will even get that by "wu'd" you mean "wooed." "Wooed" is an awkward word to use there anyway, and the misspelling just makes it more confusing. I really don't think this one holds up, Downtown. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 14:18:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
It really will just leave people confused. I don't think people will even get that by "wu'd" you mean "wooed." "Wooed" is an awkward word to use there anyway, and the misspelling just makes it more confusing. I really don't think this one holds up, Downtown.
Sorry, I don't buy that, it sounds like a justification for an arbitrary decline. There's nothing awkward about "wooed" being used to mean being drawn into something, and gags like the misspelling are a longstanding practice here. There are lots of gags and jokes and references in people's reviews that are confusing to me and which many people don't understand, never has that been a barrier to getting reviews approved as long as those references do have a logical explanation behind them that can be properly conveyed to the editors.
Besides...if it "confused" whomever declined it, that's what the "Don't Understand" label is for. Which of these criteria can be cited? I'm really not fighting for inclusion of the review this time, I've already changed it based on some suggestions here and resubmitted it. Benj's built this feature to help us, and I'm concerned it's not being used. Is there a problem with the review? Can it be fixed or will I have to completely discard it? Did I simply fail to explain it properly? There's just no reason to be kept in the dark. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 17:05:49
|
We'll disagree on this. If I were a MERP, I would decline it.
That said, did you ever get explanations for declines? I've only been on this site for a few months and I've practically never gotten a reason. Did this use to be common practice or what? |
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 17:27:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
We'll disagree on this. If I were a MERP, I would decline it.
That said, did you ever get explanations for declines? I've only been on this site for a few months and I've practically never gotten a reason. Did this use to be common practice or what?
There are several reasons...
generic
repeat
Don't Understand
Bad (you don't get an explanation with this decline, it just means unapproved)
Inaccurate |
Edited by - Tori on 05/03/2007 19:22:05 |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 18:35:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
We'll disagree on this. If I were a MERP, I would decline it.
That said, did you ever get explanations for declines? I've only been on this site for a few months and I've practically never gotten a reason. Did this use to be common practice or what?
There are several reasons...
generic
repeat
Don't Understand
Bad (you don't get an explanation with this decline)
Inaccurate
"Bad" is NOT supposed to be a decline reason. If editors are now acting as critics, benj never bothered to announce that. And since I've repeatedly expressed concerns that that is precisely what's happening, I find it exceedingly troublesome that nobody has ever bothered to tell me that I'm wrong.
If MERPs have been told to decline anything they don't find clever or funny, that's a drastic change in the guidelines and I think that at the very least, we're entitled to some sort of announcement.
Like I said: it's not the decline, it's being kept in the dark about it. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 18:41:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
We'll disagree on this. If I were a MERP, I would decline it.
That said, did you ever get explanations for declines? I've only been on this site for a few months and I've practically never gotten a reason. Did this use to be common practice or what?
I guess it's a little reassuring to know that I'm not being singled out for the silent treatment. But ultimately, the problem still remains: they're either declining reviews for reasons OTHER than the rules set up by the guy that hired them, or they're not using the tools he created for them to inform us of which rules they're citing when making declines. Either way, is it really too much to ask that my concerns at least be ACKNOWLEDGED by someone, if not actually addressed? This is the fourth time I've brought this up over several months. |
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 19:23:10
|
| It's just my term for unapproved, it doesn't mean it's a sucky review. I was just trying to list the reasons I could think of and I chose a bad word (ha ha ha). |
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 19:26:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
We'll disagree on this. If I were a MERP, I would decline it.
That said, did you ever get explanations for declines? I've only been on this site for a few months and I've practically never gotten a reason. Did this use to be common practice or what?
There are several reasons...
generic
repeat
Don't Understand
Bad (you don't get an explanation with this decline)
Inaccurate
"Bad" is NOT supposed to be a decline reason. If editors are now acting as critics, benj never bothered to announce that. And since I've repeatedly expressed concerns that that is precisely what's happening, I find it exceedingly troublesome that nobody has ever bothered to tell me that I'm wrong.
If MERPs have been told to decline anything they don't find clever or funny, that's a drastic change in the guidelines and I think that at the very least, we're entitled to some sort of announcement.
Like I said: it's not the decline, it's being kept in the dark about it.
I highly doubt that is the case. Not all reviews are clever or funny, you can take one look at my page and know that is fact. As far as I or anyone else knows, the MERPS are doing the same job they've always done. I haven't heard of any change and I'm assuming that if there is no reason then it's the same as it's always been...it was not approved and that is that. The other reasons are a courtesy if you ask me. I don't remember ever getting an explanation from Benj before the MERPs. Like I already said, I didn't mean 'bad' as BAD, I just meant it as an unexplained decline. Don't let what I say influence you, get your information from Benj. Since when do I know what I'm talking about?  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
What's wrong with this review?
