| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 08/17/2007 : 07:55:52
|
Some of the 'gag' jokes are funny.... until you watch the movie and realise that none of them make sense whatsoever. 
One of the long-running problems the site has had with title-play reviews has been drawing the line between what's considered a 'joke' movie (i.e., one where title-plays are the norm) and what's not. On the whole, if no information is available on a movie, then title-plays have been allowed (simply as nobody can prove they're wrong), but where the movie content is available and the review clearly hasn't much to do with the title, then it hasn't been allowed.
What's stopping people writing reviews involving hurricanes or tornadoes for Gone with the Wind? Nothing, if title-plays are generally allowed.
Or to put it another way, this site is for four word film reviews. Not four word reviews of films that don't actually exist but could be inferred to exist in a parallel universe using titles of movies that do exist in our universe.
There have been many occasions in the past when there has been a 'cleanout' of title-play reviews. Naked in New York had title-play reviews deleted, as did Naked Assassins (there's nothing 'nude' about them). I submitted reviews a few years ago for Naked Lawyers based on lawyers 'doing their stuff' in a courtroom with no clothes, they were correctly declined as incorrect (none of the movie occurs in a courtroom). Subsequently, similar or identical reviews have appeared on that page and could be considered to be living on borrowed time, as they're incorrect.
So, if you have reviews posted for a movie that have nothing to do with the movie, then it pays not to get too attached to them, you may wake up one day and find they've all been given the bullet. 
And as bife said, reviewing movies that exist is more challenging than reviewing movies that don't exist. Ultimately it's all up to benj what he allows and what he doesn't. If it was up to me I'd keep the site for reviews about 'real movies'. It annoyed me somewhat when I watched Night of the Living Dead a couple of years ago and it became patently clear who had seen the movie and who hadn't. I think the page would be better with 'correct' reviews, not generic reviews about other movies with a generally similar premise. |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 09:28:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Some of the 'gag' jokes are funny.... until you watch the movie and realise that none of them make sense whatsoever.
One of the long-running problems the site has had with title-play reviews has been drawing the line between what's considered a 'joke' movie (i.e., one where title-plays are the norm) and what's not. On the whole, if no information is available on a movie, then title-plays have been allowed (simply as nobody can prove they're wrong), but where the movie content is available and the review clearly hasn't much to do with the title, then it hasn't been allowed.
What's stopping people writing reviews involving hurricanes or tornadoes for Gone with the Wind? Nothing, if title-plays are generally allowed.
Or to put it another way, this site is for four word film reviews. Not four word reviews of films that don't actually exist but could be inferred to exist in a parallel universe using titles of movies that do exist in our universe.
There have been many occasions in the past when there has been a 'cleanout' of title-play reviews. Naked in New York had title-play reviews deleted, as did Naked Assassins (there's nothing 'nude' about them). I submitted reviews a few years ago for Naked Lawyers based on lawyers 'doing their stuff' in a courtroom with no clothes, they were correctly declined as incorrect (none of the movie occurs in a courtroom). Subsequently, similar or identical reviews have appeared on that page and could be considered to be living on borrowed time, as they're incorrect.
So, if you have reviews posted for a movie that have nothing to do with the movie, then it pays not to get too attached to them, you may wake up one day and find they've all been given the bullet.
And as bife said, reviewing movies that exist is more challenging than reviewing movies that don't exist. Ultimately it's all up to benj what he allows and what he doesn't. If it was up to me I'd keep the site for reviews about 'real movies'. It annoyed me somewhat when I watched Night of the Living Dead a couple of years ago and it became patently clear who had seen the movie and who hadn't. I think the page would be better with 'correct' reviews, not generic reviews about other movies with a generally similar premise.
I agree with you, Se�n ... even though some of those titles have given me a chuckle from time to time. I guess my own What Would Jesus Drive? [...besides moneylenders from temple?] just narrowly escapes, but only just!
It would be a shame, though, to lose those funny parallel-universe titles ... especially since the site is gaining a reputation for wit as opposed to depth of film analysis.
SO
Would it be possible -- as there is already a place for porn reviews or whatever [sorry to be vague but in all honesty I've never visited those threads] -- would it be possible to have one of those sticky threads for amusing reviews of film titles - Four Word Title Reviews, FWTR? Or even a HomePage link to a separate FWFR page set-up just for those?
AND ALSO
Along the same line of argument ... what's the skinny on reviews that only address one moment of a film? Or even one scene, or a characteristic of any single character? They're even less likely to be amusing than the title thing because mostly they just state facts.
It's confusing to people who haven't seen the film in question because the reader can't tell whether the review purports to be of the entire film, or even whether the review references something important. Technically, they're accurate and have four words. But they're not reviews and it's impossible to tell why the writer has chosen that particular moment to highlight, since some of them aren't exactly vital to the story.
I'll exaggerate an example:
Let's say the film is Deliverance, which I've just chosen off the top of my head. A review of the type I'm talking about might be: Albino banjoist on porch. [I SAID I'm exaggerating.]
I've actually seen approved reviews of films that are on that level. You can't say they're inaccurate or overlong. But so far as a review goes they don't comment on the film, they don't tell us anything relevant or important in the wider context, and they're not funny.
So what are they doing here?
Same with character 'reviews': For Frankenstein it might be something like: Boris Karloff is tall. [EXAGGERATING!]
I think both those approaches, albeit exaggerated, set bad examples. There may be moments one remembers about a movie - because it was the first time something was ever shown on screen, or was so astounding ... though I reckon the latter would probably fall into the spoiler category. I'm thinking, for instance, of The Crying Game ... and even then, isolating the moment of discovery actually does have to do with one of the film's themes.
But it's very rare that one moment will define a film for everyone. I've seen lots of the films which use the single-moment-review, and I admit to being totally stumped as to why that moment was chosen to highlight.
Carried to an absurd conclusion, that single-moment approach could be used to document every single shot of a film -- providing the site with millions of irrelevant FWFRs.
It's not the same as swys-reviews otherwise known as plot summaries which do address the whole film. And which, given the rules, seem appropriate.
Do other people have a view about this they'd care to share?
|
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 09:32:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
Seems to me if you can get the whole plot in 4 words and make it funny then is a great review.
I tried that with moderate sucess here |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 09:56:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
AND ALSO
Along the same line of argument ... what's the skinny on reviews that only address one moment of a film? Or even one scene, or a characteristic of any single character? They're even less likely to be amusing than the title thing because mostly they just state facts.
Okay, I do this from time to time. For instance, my review for Failure to Launch review is the top seated review for that movie, and yet it only really addresses one particular scene in the movie. Still, I think its okay because what leads up to that scene as well as the results of that scene is a major sub-plot of the film. There's also the all the stuff that is implied in that review, as well. But I have to agree that in many cases describing one tiny bit of a movie might not make a really good review. However, I can't say that the reviews shouldn't be accepted, since they are correct. Those types of reviews will just not get many (if any) votes.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 10:13:46
|
If the title-pun reviews for What Would Jesus Drive? are so unacceptable to our community, why did we write them and why have they attracted so many votes?
|
|
|
|
zulu 
"Resisting the Bay lobotomy"
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 11:17:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
If the title-pun reviews for What Would Jesus Drive? are so unacceptable to our community, why did we write them and why have they attracted so many votes?
Damn straight!  BB's review for this film is the one that I have most admired and enjoyed on the site for a long time. I have not seen the film, but I am guessing that there is no scene where Jesus is driving moneylenders from a temple. So who here thinks we should delete her review? |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 11:30:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by zulu
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
If the title-pun reviews for What Would Jesus Drive? are so unacceptable to our community, why did we write them and why have they attracted so many votes?
Damn straight! BB's review for this film is the one that I have most admired and enjoyed on the site for a long time. I have not seen the film, but I am guessing that there is no scene where Jesus is driving moneylenders from a temple. So who here thinks we should delete her review?
Not me, boss!
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 13:09:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
If the title-pun reviews for What Would Jesus Drive? are so unacceptable to our community, why did we write them and why have they attracted so many votes?
They clearly aren't unacceptable to much of the fwfr community. And I'd guess people wrote them for fun. And voted for them 'cos they liked them. Many of them are clever and funny.  None of that changes the fact that fwfr is a movie-review website for movie reviews.
I could write some "Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman...." jokes on the IMDb page for Citizen Kane that would make a lot of people laugh. They wouldn't last very long though.
The only issue at fwfr is whether or not benj wants 'non-review fwfrs' on the site and the precedent they set. I think it can be quite confusing for newbies to understand that there are some movies here where you can post virtually anything you like, and others where you have to review the movie. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 13:29:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
If the title-pun reviews for What Would Jesus Drive? are so unacceptable to our community, why did we write them and why have they attracted so many votes?
The only issue at fwfr is whether or not benj wants 'non-review fwfrs' on the site and the precedent they set.
Oh, so the issue doesn't involve anyone else in any way then? Silly me, I thought it did.
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 14:12:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
Seems to me if you can get the whole plot in 4 words and make it funny then is a great review.
I tried that with moderate sucess here
I think I went even one further here. I've always been proud of this one because it's alliterative (which might not make it "funny" but it's at least clever), it summarizes the plot in three words, and I managed to also review the film using the one word I had left over. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 14:22:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
AND ALSO
Along the same line of argument ... what's the skinny on reviews that only address one moment of a film? Or even one scene, or a characteristic of any single character? They're even less likely to be amusing than the title thing because mostly they just state facts.
Okay, I do this from time to time. For instance, my review for Failure to Launch review is the top seated review for that movie, and yet it only really addresses one particular scene in the movie. Still, I think its okay because what leads up to that scene as well as the results of that scene is a major sub-plot of the film. There's also the all the stuff that is implied in that review, as well. But I have to agree that in many cases describing one tiny bit of a movie might not make a really good review. However, I can't say that the reviews shouldn't be accepted, since they are correct. Those types of reviews will just not get many (if any) votes.
Umm, this has already been discussed multiple times, and I don't understand why it keeps becoming an issue. We're all writing these kinds of reviews, anyway..."Icy Dead People" is only about the last few scenes of a very long movie, "Hand Lost, Han Found" has ignored the entire movie save for one split-second image from a swashbuckling duel and a couple of scenes about the bounty hunter, "Crossed, uncrossed, HELLO, crossed" isn't even about a scene, it's just one aspect of this scene...why are we even debating how acceptable this kind of review is when we all seem to love them?
I think some FWFRers are a little too focused on deciding what is and isn't the "right" way to use this website, and way too concerned about developing a set of personal rules about what's worthy of their votes. When something catches my eye and makes me laugh or smile or think to myself, "wow that's clever" I just immediately click on that "vote" button without even giving it a second thought...I don't consult my personal FWFR rulebook to determine whether or not I'm allowed to vote on it. And I'm only concerned about whether or not a review belongs here if I think it's actually factually wrong. |
|
|
|
Beanmimo
"August review site"
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 16:34:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
Seems to me if you can get the whole plot in 4 words and make it funny then is a great review.
I tried that with moderate sucess here
I think I went even one further here. I've always been proud of this one because it's alliterative (which might not make it "funny" but it's at least clever), it summarizes the plot in three words, and I managed to also review the film using the one word I had left over.
Fare Enough!! |
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 19:28:19
|
| Awhile ago I lost all of my Naked Fairy Tale reviews. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 21:22:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
Awhile ago I lost all of my Naked Fairy Tale reviews.
Fairy nough!
|
|
|
|
zulu
"Resisting the Bay lobotomy"
|
Posted - 08/17/2007 : 22:04:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
AND ALSO
Along the same line of argument ... what's the skinny on reviews that only address one moment of a film? Or even one scene, or a characteristic of any single character? They're even less likely to be amusing than the title thing because mostly they just state facts.
Okay, I do this from time to time. For instance, my review for Failure to Launch review is the top seated review for that movie, and yet it only really addresses one particular scene in the movie. Still, I think its okay because what leads up to that scene as well as the results of that scene is a major sub-plot of the film. There's also the all the stuff that is implied in that review, as well. But I have to agree that in many cases describing one tiny bit of a movie might not make a really good review. However, I can't say that the reviews shouldn't be accepted, since they are correct. Those types of reviews will just not get many (if any) votes.
Umm, this has already been discussed multiple times, and I don't understand why it keeps becoming an issue. We're all writing these kinds of reviews, anyway..."Icy Dead People" is only about the last few scenes of a very long movie, "Hand Lost, Han Found" has ignored the entire movie save for one split-second image from a swashbuckling duel and a couple of scenes about the bounty hunter, "Crossed, uncrossed, HELLO, crossed" isn't even about a scene, it's just one aspect of this scene...why are we even debating how acceptable this kind of review is when we all seem to love them?
I think some FWFRers are a little too focused on deciding what is and isn't the "right" way to use this website, and way too concerned about developing a set of personal rules about what's worthy of their votes. When something catches my eye and makes me laugh or smile or think to myself, "wow that's clever" I just immediately click on that "vote" button without even giving it a second thought...I don't consult my personal FWFR rulebook to determine whether or not I'm allowed to vote on it. And I'm only concerned about whether or not a review belongs here if I think it's actually factually wrong.
I'm with Downtown on this. I want to enjoy the site rather than be a rules lawyer. I have enough rules, conventions and strict working practices in my real life. We are all free to submit the type of reviews that we think are suitable. If the MERPs are approving my reviews then my reviews are de facto acceptable to be on the site and meeting the necessary criteria. If Benj wishes to change the rules at a later stage then that is fine, because he is the boss. In the meantime, can we fret less and enjoy the creativity, energy and good humour that makes this site so good? 
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Originality sorely lacking.
