| Author |
 Topic  |
|
boydegg 
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
 Posted - 03/23/2008 : 01:56:12
|
"Bear's Jaw Hits Floor"
Can you identify the film?
|
|
|
Yukon 
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 03/23/2008 : 22:56:17
|
| Nope. |
 |
|
|
boydegg
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 02:27:07
|
Are you sure, Yukkon?
According to the MERPs, it's 'too generic', meaning it could refer to multiple movies.
|
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 02:41:42
|
I guess it can apply to any film where a bear passes out/gets shot and hits the floor.
However I'd approve the review if it's very clever. Is it actually about a bear? Is there a person named Floor who gets hit with a bear skull?
What's the film? |
|
|
|
MM0rkeleb 
"Better than HBO."
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 03:00:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
"Bear's Jaw Hits Floor"
Can you identify the film?
Sounds like something by Tex Avery, but I'm not familiar enough with his canon to hazard a guess. |
|
|
|
boydegg
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 06:40:00
|
Fair enough.
It's for 'The Golden Compass'. Have you seen it?
There's a scene where two polar bear's fight for leadership of the ice bears. The 'goodie' bear hits the 'baddie' bear so hard that he removes his entire lower jaw.
I'm sure I haven't seen that in any other film!
Boydegg
|
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 07:03:41
|
I could tell it's The Golden Compass right away. Then again, it might be construed as being too similar to my review for the film "Jaw dropping bear fight," or some such nonsense I came up with.
|
|
|
|
boydegg
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 08:17:22
|
Apologies, Ali
I hadn't seen your review when I wrote my own.
Even so, that would have meant rejection on the grounds of 'similar to another review' ... not 'too generic'.
I don't know why I let it annoy me, but sometimes it seems like the MERPs dismiss a review with little or no thought. Maybe the MERPs could give me a list of other films where bears have their jaw smashed right off?
Ah well - back to the FWFR board, I guess.
Boydegg
|
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 10:47:00
|
hey boydegg - having seen the film, i agree with you, it isn't generic because it is literal, and i can't think of any other films where this applies literally
However, I assume most MERPs haven't seen all the films they cover (damn, processing times are long enough as it is, i guess they would be infinite if we had to wait for the MERPs to actually watch every movie)
And if i hadn't seen the film, and didn't know how well the review applied to the movie, i would possibly conclude it was generic too
That's why we have the 'resubmit' function, so we can explain the genius that the MERPs miss on first passing. I would resubmit with an explanation, and I think you'll have a fair chance of getting it through
edit: and i tried looking this up on imdb, just to see if the MERPs were being lazy, and i couldn't find any obvious reference to this happening in the film |
Edited by - bife on 03/24/2008 10:49:53 |
|
|
|
boydegg
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 11:07:27
|
Hi Bife
I did resubmit it - just before starting this thread.
Actually resubmitting it should have been enough. I only started the thread because I was still seething at having it rejected.
It seems even more ridiculous now that I know Ali had 'Jaw Dropping Bear Fight' accepted.
Oh well - I'll wait and see.
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 15:50:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
Are you sure, Yukkon?
According to the MERPs, it's 'too generic', meaning it could refer to multiple movies.
Except that benj changed the guidelines of what's considered "generic," although it became clear to me a long time ago that some of the people that are now running this website for him either didn't get the message or have chosen to ignore it and are applying their own standards of what they consider acceptable. That review should not have been declined as "generic," but they frequently decline stuff they simply don't like or don't fully get and are too lazy to look up. It's all very arbitrary and they're not really making any effort at uniformity, the fact that such a similar review to yours wasn't deemed "generic" is proof of that...but it could be even worse, wait until the day you discover that a review that you submitted and had rejected was then later submitted by someone else and accepted. It's not a lot of fun and it doesn't help when the reaction after you complain is "well, tough shit for you." |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 16:01:06
|
These are benj's own words:
Reviews that are clearly referencing a film or element of it (regardless of if they may fit a large number of other films) will now be more readily considered for acceptance. The hard rule that reviews of the type 'Boy, girl meet, marry' are declined will still stand however- there must be at least some effort to tie the review to the film beyond bog standard film elements. |
|
|
|
aahaa, muahaha 
"Optimistic altruist, incurable romantic"
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 17:06:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Except that benj changed the guidelines of what's considered "generic," although it became clear to me a long time ago that some of the people that are now running this website for him either didn't get the message or have chosen to ignore it and are applying their own standards of what they consider acceptable. That review should not have been declined as "generic," but they frequently decline stuff they simply don't like or don't fully get and are too lazy to look up. It's all very arbitrary and they're not really making any effort at uniformity, the fact that such a similar review to yours wasn't deemed "generic" is proof of that...but it could be even worse, wait until the day you discover that a review that you submitted and had rejected was then later submitted by someone else and accepted. It's not a lot of fun and it doesn't help when the reaction after you complain is "well, tough shit for you."
...which is why I am beginning to feel that one should prolly never delete a declined review from one's declined pile.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 15:54:52
|
Yep, that review's fine. There may be loads of films where bears fall down, but the jaw dropping in this case is far more particular.
MERPs not knowing the film means they should say "Don't understand", not "Too generic".
Downtown is right that some of them do not seem to have got Benj's message. I often get "Too generic" when no other film seems possible or where the one in question is by far the most apt.
There also seems to be a new rejection reason of "Title play only". Unfortunately, this seems to be used to mean "Title play and cannot be bothered to think about why it also actually describes the film properly, even though you have provided an explanation with the review". |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 16:30:29
|
I suppose ultimately whether a review is generic or not is a matter of opinion, but I have had some bizarre refusals due to supposed generic qualities. Actually I have just got one today.
As Bife says, just throw it back with an explanation and hope someone sees sense. 
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/25/2008 : 19:24:53
|
| On what Downtown mentioned about duplicates of rejected reviews being accepted later, I'm also getting quite frustrated at reporting newer versions, and resubmitting the older ones with the explanation 'Should be approved in place of the newer "Blah blah blah"', only for those older submissions to be rejected for being 'Too similar to another review'! Do the MERPs actually read the explanations? It seems inconceivable that they do in some cases. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
What film is this?
