| Author |
 Topic  |
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
 Posted - 07/26/2007 : 23:53:48
|
I am planning on catching "Arthur" on AMC this weekend - could everyone please disown their reviews for Arthur and I will be sure NOT to visit Alan Smithee's reviews page - I don't want to spoil it - you never know what that Dudley Moore is going to get into (don't even get me started on Demi Moore).
Alan Smithee... |
 |
|
|
The General
"Forty? What? Me? How?."
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 00:58:09
|
I think this situation is unusual enough that no-one needs to worry about precedent-setting (which is odd enough already on a site where anyone is free to obey or ignore precedent as they wish).
But, getting in the spirit of things, here's a proposal:
Any time the fastest-selling book in history comes out, and the movie of the book does not come out for another three years, can people (a) refrain from writing reviews with spoilers, and (b) can the reviews not pop up on the front page for some period of time (a month?)
I ask as I sit at home waiting for Amazon.com's camel to arrive bearing my copy of the book.
|
|
|
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 05:20:24
|
I have an even simpler proposition: that we refrain from writing reviews with spoilers.
I dare say that if someone went through all my reviews they would find some that fit the description (though as Ali and Salopian agree, we don't all agree on the definition), but I don't think it's all that difficult to write reviews without giving away the denouement or major plot twists.
There have been rumours for years about the fate of the main characters in the final Harry Potter book, and strong hints that one or more will die. I think it would be very wrong for anyone to reveal who dies - and in terms of a timescale I'm thinking years, not months. September 2017 I might be able to live with; September 2007's far too soon.
Surely that's not too much to ask. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 05:50:11
|
does anyone not know the spoilers in 6th sense or Crying Game by now? I fear mentioning them here for the faint of heart, but when the spoiler becomes the enduring element of the film it must be dealt with on FWFR - our job is to capture the essence of the film and some movies have a spoiler which is at the core.
I can successfully filter out the reviews from the movie titles and really if you don't want to see any of the Potter 7 reviews you can avoid them. I don't like any more rules than 4 words, relevant and specific to the film. I don't like to read reviews from here before I see a film and so far in 4 years it hasn't been a problem. |
|
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 06:15:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
does anyone not know the spoilers in 6th sense or Crying Game by now? I fear mentioning them here for the faint of heart, but when the spoiler becomes the enduring element of the film it must be dealt with on FWFR - our job is to capture the essence of the film and some movies have a spoiler which is at the core.
Yep, Bruce Willis is really a girl, is that the one you mean? |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 06:52:25
|
As far as I'm concerned, it's tough titties if someone doesn't know the twists of past films that have pervaded the zeitgeist.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 09:58:03
|
I'm with Ali. I've no intention of allowing myself to be constrained by the filmic ignorance of others. 
Not that I'm not sympathetic, of course... 
|
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie 
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 11:07:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Pottermaniacs would then have six weeks or so to read the book before seeing spoiler reviews. My guess is that if they haven't read it by then, then it will already be too late for anyone other than troglodytes, as far too many people have read it and will be talking about it at bus stops etc. 
I haven't read the first one, and couldn't get through the first film. Geez, I'm worse than troglodyte, though I'm not sure what that means. I don't have Geico car insurance either.... |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 13:04:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Pottermaniacs would then have six weeks or so to read the book before seeing spoiler reviews. My guess is that if they haven't read it by then, then it will already be too late for anyone other than troglodytes, as far too many people have read it and will be talking about it at bus stops etc.
I haven't read the first one, and couldn't get through the first film. Geez, I'm worse than troglodyte, though I'm not sure what that means.
What that means is that someone who wants to avoid HP7 spoilers for the next six weeks will probably have to live in a cave for the next six weeks.  |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 22:13:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
[quote]Originally posted by Salopian
The simple solution (as has been suggested earlier in the thread) would be for MERPs to MERP reviews in order, i.e., not seek out HP7 and process reviews. This would mean HP7 reviews wouldn't appear on the site for six weeks or so (the current wait-time). This would be fair (as older reviews for other movies would be processed before HP7 reviews) and would not set any precedent that we need to worry about.
Pottermaniacs would then have six weeks or so to read the book before seeing spoiler reviews. My guess is that if they haven't read it by then, then it will already be too late for anyone other than troglodytes, as far too many people have read it and will be talking about it at bus stops etc.
I like this idea. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 00:39:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
The simple solution (as has been suggested earlier in the thread) would be for MERPs to MERP reviews in order, i.e., not seek out HP7 and process reviews. This would mean HP7 reviews wouldn't appear on the site for six weeks or so (the current wait-time). This would be fair (as older reviews for other movies would be processed before HP7 reviews) and would not set any precedent that we need to worry about.
Pottermaniacs would then have six weeks or so to read the book before seeing spoiler reviews. My guess is that if they haven't read it by then, then it will already be too late for anyone other than troglodytes, as far too many people have read it and will be talking about it at bus stops etc.
I like this idea.
Yep, it was a good idea of Conan's. (Third post on Page 1.) |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 10:49:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
As far as I'm concerned, it's tough titties if someone doesn't know the twists of past films that have pervaded the zeitgeist.
Well that depends on how you define 'pervasion' and 'zeitgeist'. One thing that needs to be considered in this context - and in any discussion of 'filmic ignorance' - is that some countries get films sooner than others. It's hardly the fault of someone living in Australia or New Zealand that they haven't seen a film that's been showing in say the USA for weeks (or months) but hasn't reached their shores. A single person living in New York, who happens to be able to visit the cinema regularly, is at a considerable advantage over someone on the other side of the globe. Does that mean it's reasonable for that person to scatter spoilers all over the site on the ground that New York's perspective of the zeitgeist has been pervaded, and everyone else can go hang because they are ignorant of films? I don't think so. |
Edited by - Koli on 07/28/2007 10:51:14 |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 11:13:30
|
| Very true Koli but this is referring to spoilers based on a book launch not a film... the book was unveiled at the same time around the English-speaking world. The problem of spoilers for the non-literate will remain until the film comes out sometime around 2009. |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 11:33:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
Very true Koli but this is referring to spoilers based on a book launch not a film... the book was unveiled at the same time around the English-speaking world. The problem of spoilers for the non-literate will remain until the film comes out sometime around 2009.
Well Ali can speak for himself but I think he was talking generally about films rather than specifically about the Harry Potter book-cum-film, and that's the context in which I made my response.
Here in Chez Koli I'm third in the queue for HP7. Our youngest finished it in a couple of days, and now my wife has it. She's a quick reader too, so I may have it before the weekend is out. So by the end of August (sic) I may have reached the final chapter. I promise not to leak, as the incontinent patient said to the chiropodist. |
Edited by - Koli on 07/28/2007 11:34:00 |
|
|
|
Rovark
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 19:11:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
I have an even simpler proposition: that we refrain from writing reviews with spoilers.
Aahh, this comes back to a major issue. What is the point of this site at all. Four Word Film Review. Review a Film - In Four Words. Once you exclude opinions, "wonderful songs, amazing choreography" as generic, you're left to a large degree to descriptions of action sequences, charactor motivation, or other plot elements.
A review of "Resurected Diggory assassinates Potter" would be a perfectly acceptable review for Deathly Hallows if this is what happens. It succinctly reduces an entire film to just 4 words. That's the whole point. Spoilers are inevitable.
Perhaps the real point here is that all reviews for "Hallows" are reviews of the book. They're not reviews for for the film. It hasn't been made. Before then, Radcliffe could spiral down a drug fuelled road to dependance and insanity, and the others be lost at sea in a bizarre freak giant-jellyfish attack resulting in the movie never being made.
Check out the reviews for the other Harry Potter films and see there's a few that refer to book incidents that weren't in the films. I'm sure it will be the same for the Narnia series. I could sit down now and write reviews for all the Narnia books from memory. But what would be the point. They would be book reviews.
The simplest proposition would acually be to not review films that haven't been made. All reviews for films not yet made should be reported as innacurate anyway, as by definition, it cannot be an accurate description of what happens in the film. There is no film.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Request for Deathly Hallows reviews
