| Author |
 Topic  |
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
 Posted - 07/04/2007 : 22:03:41
|
| Months ago, a heap of reviews were declined from this movie, why? Cause this documentary was made 4 yrs before the ear biting incident. Lots of high voted reviews went that day, looks like a few more will go soon....sorry. |
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 22:30:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
Months ago, a heap of reviews were declined from this movie, why? Cause this documentary was made 4 yrs before the ear biting incident. Lots of high voted reviews went that day, looks like a few more will go soon....sorry.
Yes I remember that. It was tough for some to swallow. |
 |
|
|
w22dheartlivie 
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 22:45:28
|
| And? Criteria has changed a bit, and there are more than my review for that film that mentions earlobes, biting and eating, including yours. Isn't this a bit like the debate over the Marie Antoinette reviews that mentioned her beheading when it wasn't portrayed in the film? Those reviews still stand. |
Edited by - w22dheartlivie on 07/04/2007 22:49:11 |
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 22:51:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
And? Criteria has changed a bit, and there are more than my review for that film that mentions earlobes, biting and eating, including yours. Isn't this a bit like the debate over the Marie Antoinette reviews that mentioned her beheading when it wasn't portrayed in the film? Those reviews still stand.
I'm not asking for you to delete your review, just thought it was fair to bring it up. What's 'Hungry' got to do with biting an ear? |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 22:52:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Criteria has changed a bit
Has it? The generic rule has been loosened, but that doesn't apply here.  |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 22:52:52
|
Nah, TFB has boxed clever, he just alludes to earbiting, he doesn't actually say in what way Tyson is hungry.
The criteria hasn't changed to allow inaccurate reviews, so I'm afraid ours may be back to the dressing room earlier than we planned. Fightfans, we have a disqualification...
Anyone got an icepack?
|
Edited by - Whippersnapper. on 07/04/2007 22:55:59 |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 22:53:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
And? Criteria has changed a bit, and there are more than my review for that film that mentions earlobes, biting and eating, including yours. Isn't this a bit like the debate over the Marie Antoinette reviews that mentioned her beheading when it wasn't portrayed in the film? Those reviews still stand.
They shouldn't stand, though. Reviews should be film reviews, not film title reviews, and I don't believe that criteria has changed.
Pretty sure benj will use foxy's post to delete them - he usually has in the past. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 23:10:58
|
| To know all the particulars of any given film requires that you see the film. I sincerely doubt that anyone has seen every film they've reviewed, so in many cases, the review ends up being a review of the film title, or a perception of what the film is about. As for the Marie Antoinette film, I also recall that the argument was made that it was known that she would end up beheaded. In any case, those films were not removed. In this case, Tyson's biting was just more of the same behavior that took him down. But I do appreciate being singled out. |
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 23:25:20
|
There are heaps of reviews that mention things that don't happen in the film. However, is it fair that other reviewers lost their high voted reviews for this film and then others are approved?
If these current reviews stand, I think benj has to go back to archives and bring back the ones that where deleted.
You were not singled out, the movie was. You are just one of the unfortunate ones this time. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 23:32:15
|
I'm throwin' in the towel, that Fox Boy's got me beat.
No rematch, no rematch!
Adrian!
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 23:38:59
|
This won't be the first movie to need 'cleaning out' more than once.
Naked Assassins has been cleaned out in the past, and due for another clean by the look of it. It's got nothing to do with nudity whatsoever, it's simply a B-grade kung-fu movie, which makes ALL of the reviews on the page ready for the bullet. Again.
Nobody is singling anyone out. Mentioning the Tyson movie again is only fair to those who have already lost their 'ear-biting' reviews for it. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 23:44:14
|
| No, it isn't fair that some were deleted, especially given the fact that "there are heaps of reviews that mention things that don't happen in [a] film." However, the purpose of the post was to advocate for deleting them. It wasn't mentioned until later to return the other reviews. Since my review was the only one this round that was for this film, how could it not be singling out? The fourum has certainly gotten contentious lately. Don't vote for it. |
Edited by - w22dheartlivie on 07/05/2007 00:19:03 |
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 23:58:55
|
Sorry you feel that way, I have said enough.
It's up to the judge to decide. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 09:29:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Isn't this a bit like the debate over the Marie Antoinette reviews that mentioned her beheading when it wasn't portrayed in the film? Those reviews still stand.
Well, at the time, reviews stating that she is beheaded in the film certainly were not allowed - for example, my "Cake advocate loses loaf" was rightly deemed inaccurate (I hadn't seen it when I submitted), but my "Cake advocate'll lose loaf" was rightly accepted. Either the MERPs have got slacker since or the reviews you mention do not explicitly say that the beheading is in the film, just that she's someone who gets beheaded. Edit: Yep, loads of those are no good. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 07/05/2007 09:40:21 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 09:32:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
No, it isn't fair that some were deleted, especially given the fact that "there are heaps of reviews that mention things that don't happen in [a] film." However, the purpose of the post was to advocate for deleting them. Since my review was the only one this round that was for this film, how could it not be singling out?
No, this was definitely right - if the reviews were along the lines of my first example above. Any which call him an 'ear-biter' etc. are valid, though.
It wasn't singling you out, as you were not named and it was according to a precedent from the past.
This thread is in the wrong section, by the way. The 'Site maintenance' section was created so that this section did not have too many negative threads. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 07/05/2007 09:38:39 |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 09:43:43
|
| And as it stands, the review said "Lobe at First Bite." It didn't say that he bit anyone in the film, nor did it say that the film was about anything like that. It said that when he bit, he bit lobe. I think it's a valid review, and actually thought it was one of the better ones I've written. Of course this thread is going to upset me. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Mike Tyson.
