| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 08/30/2007 : 19:16:16
|
Hi
I'm not complaining, honestly. But I AM baffled. Can someone please help me understand this refusal?
Here the history:
I first submitted it many months ago without a hyphen and without an explanation because I thought it was pretty obvious. It got sent back with "don't understand."
I then re-submitted with an explanation, and it got rejected again without a reason.
So I thought, maybe it needs a hyphen, so I resubmitted it again - keeping the explanation but adding the hyphen.
It's just been declined again, and with no explanation.
The film is The Passion of the Christ.
The review is: Mel cross-references Jesus.
Very grateful for any thoughts? I really like this one and would hate to lose it completely.
|
|
|
bife 
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 19:35:53
|
| I don't get what it means - how does Jesus get cross-referenced? |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 19:41:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
I don't get what it means - how does Jesus get cross-referenced?
he's crucified on a cross
Mel makes reference to this in the film
... which is what my explanation said
For comparison, here are some existing reviews for this film:
Dead Man Crossing.
Mel promotes Red Cross.
Jesus gets bloody cross. |
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 08/30/2007 19:44:37 |
|
|
|
RockGolf 
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 19:57:46
|
"Cross" isn't the problem. "Referenced" is. It really doesn't have any relevance to the movie. I'm not a MERP, but I'd reject it, as I would "Mel get cross-eyed" "Mel finishes cross-word" or "Cross-walk is unsafe".
Actually I might accept that last one. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 20:10:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G o 7 f
"Cross" isn't the problem. "Referenced" is. It really doesn't have any relevance to the movie. I'm not a MERP, but I'd reject it, as I would "Mel get cross-eyed" "Mel finishes cross-word" or "Cross-walk is unsafe".
Actually I might accept that last one.
Agreed - in fact the whole film is about the events that lead up to his Crucifixion, thus "referenced" does not seem accurate as it implies it is a small part of Mr. Gibson's story. |
Edited by - turrell on 08/30/2007 20:12:56 |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 20:32:17
|
I'd side with Bafta on this but the basis that as the text that Gibbon used for the basis of the movie was so obscure and you'd have to cross reference Jesus with other words to find it.
Just my pennies worth!! |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 08/31/2007 : 00:28:37
|
Sorry for late reply ... just got back to the puter.
Thanks everyone very much for your thoughts.
I guess I can see that the phrase 'cross reference' might cause some confusion, but Mel Gibson does reference the cross in his film, so it's not really factually inaccurate, is it?
Surely for a film whose apex to the passion [aka suffering] is crucifixion, it's as relevant as 'dead man crossing' or 'jesus gets bloody cross,'' both of which were approved.
Cross-walk is certainly relevant just as cross-eyed isn't.
Of course, I accept the decision, but I still don't really understand why the review was rejected.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 08/31/2007 : 00:39:18
|
| Did the decline make you cross? |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 08/31/2007 : 01:19:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Did the decline make you cross?
But ...
To be honest, no it didn't. Confused and sad, yes. Not just because I think my FWFR deserves to be accepted, but even more because of the inconsistency. That doesn't send out good messages to readers and potential new FWFRers.
|
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 08/31/2007 : 02:31:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I guess I can see that the phrase 'cross reference' might cause some confusion, but Mel Gibson does reference the cross in his film, so it's not really factually inaccurate, is it?
Kind of, but he does more than reference it - it's the major image of the last section of the film, so in that respect it is inaccurate. For want of a better example it might be like saying "Stone references Vietnam war" for Platoon.
But the words you use are "cross reference" and that doesn't seem to make sense in the context of your review other than having the word "cross" in it. I think a great pun for a FWFR works both ways - the immediate meaning and the double meaning. To make sense in the immediate meaning I think you need to have Gibson cross reference Jesus to something. In the double meaning it doesn't make clear sense.
Not really helped much with a solution BaffledBabe, but that's my thoughts on the decline. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 08/31/2007 : 02:32:15
|
By the way I utterly hated this film. I thought it was awful.  |
|
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 08/31/2007 : 04:07:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
By the way I utterly hated this film. I thought it was awful.
Yes, don't get me started on that again |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 08/31/2007 : 07:54:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I guess I can see that the phrase 'cross reference' might cause some confusion, but Mel Gibson does reference the cross in his film, so it's not really factually inaccurate, is it?
Kind of, but he does more than reference it - it's the major image of the last section of the film, so in that respect it is inaccurate. For want of a better example it might be like saying "Stone references Vietnam war" for Platoon.
But the words you use are "cross reference" and that doesn't seem to make sense in the context of your review other than having the word "cross" in it. I think a great pun for a FWFR works both ways - the immediate meaning and the double meaning. To make sense in the immediate meaning I think you need to have Gibson cross reference Jesus to something. In the double meaning it doesn't make clear sense.
Not really helped much with a solution BaffledBabe, but that's my thoughts on the decline.
Thanks, demonic ... well, I guess we're using different dictionaries 
PS I hated it, too!
|
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 06:03:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I guess I can see that the phrase 'cross reference' might cause some confusion, but Mel Gibson does reference the cross in his film, so it's not really factually inaccurate, is it?
Kind of, but he does more than reference it - it's the major image of the last section of the film, so in that respect it is inaccurate. For want of a better example it might be like saying "Stone references Vietnam war" for Platoon.
But the words you use are "cross reference" and that doesn't seem to make sense in the context of your review other than having the word "cross" in it. I think a great pun for a FWFR works both ways - the immediate meaning and the double meaning. To make sense in the immediate meaning I think you need to have Gibson cross reference Jesus to something. In the double meaning it doesn't make clear sense.
Not really helped much with a solution BaffledBabe, but that's my thoughts on the decline.
I'm with Demonic on this and on the movie. I disliked it intensely.
I find it surprising that in some countries kids as young as 12 are allowed to watch it. Interestingly, it's banned in Malaysia - except for Christians! |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 08:53:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I guess I can see that the phrase 'cross reference' might cause some confusion, but Mel Gibson does reference the cross in his film, so it's not really factually inaccurate, is it?
Kind of, but he does more than reference it - it's the major image of the last section of the film, so in that respect it is inaccurate. For want of a better example it might be like saying "Stone references Vietnam war" for Platoon.
But the words you use are "cross reference" and that doesn't seem to make sense in the context of your review other than having the word "cross" in it. I think a great pun for a FWFR works both ways - the immediate meaning and the double meaning. To make sense in the immediate meaning I think you need to have Gibson cross reference Jesus to something. In the double meaning it doesn't make clear sense.
Not really helped much with a solution BaffledBabe, but that's my thoughts on the decline.
I'm with Demonic on this and on the movie. I disliked it intensely.
I find it surprising that in some countries kids as young as 12 are allowed to watch it. Interestingly, it's banned in Malaysia - except for Christians!
damalc's review sums it up for me |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 12:05:24
|
Okay - pushing points I know but 
Well, I think we all agree the film is at best distasteful. As has been discussed many times elsewhere.
BUT - you're not going to distract me from trying to understand ...
I'm still saddened by the inconsistency that applies to various puns on the site. For this film alone I've quotes a couple of approvals that have an equal relevance to my decline.
I mean, am I missing something or does the film have something to do with the international aid agency called The Red Cross? I think the review is valid, however, because Jesus's cross was bloody with his wounds. But The Red Cross as an organization doesn't actually appear.
And that other review I quoted: Jesus gets bloody cross. Well, the cross is bloody, but if you apply the other meaning of the pun, it makes the review inaccurate, since all the biblical interpretations agree that getting cross is the one thing Jesus didn't do. He forgives everyone. I'm no expert, but I thought that was part of being Jesus - turning other cheeks, etc.
It's the inconsistency that is at the heart of my confusion. I like the two reviews I've quoted, and I think they add to the site. But, by the same token, I think my own review falls into the same category.
I honestly do appreciate what everyone's posted here, but nothing you've said answers my confusion on that specific point. Because if your comments are valid, then the reviews I've quoted -- and hundreds of others throughout this site which play on words that are only tangentially related to the film - all those are invalid and ought to be reported/removed.
Someone obviously thought they were funny. I think mine is funny, too. It's certainly as funny as others on the page.
I wish someone would address the wider point of consistency and stop making this about me and my review. I realize with several review-editors there are bound to be personal anomalies, but I still believe there's room for clarity.
I suppose posts like this annoy some people, but please believe me, I never post out of petulance or awkwardness. I post to clarify, to help make the site better in the future and more welcoming to participants.
I'm not going to name names, but in the past I've been privately messaged by people who've since left the site for precisely reasons like this. People seek clarification and are encouraged to post here for discussion. Then either they get shat on from a great height, or ridiculed, or the thread is undermined or deflected to something else.
I hope I don't have to repeat how much I love this site, and how grateful I am to benj and all the MERPS for the amazing, selfless work they do. The site's honestly enriched my life, and compared to many other boards I'm familiar with - it's generally the most helpful, the most friendly, and certainly the most lively and interesting site i know.
We shouldn't be afraid to discuss little niggles, extrapolate, put them in a wider context of all wanting to make the site better. If this angers or insults you, I'm sorry, that was never my intention. If it bores you, please don't feel you need to read or contribute.
But, as I say - if someone would like to address the wider point I brought up, I'd be very grateful.
Many thanks for your help, participation, ideas, humor and friendship.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Help please
