| Author |
 Topic  |
|
w22dheartlivie 
"Kitty Lover"
|
 Posted - 04/17/2008 : 10:18:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
There's also things like reviews of remakes that mention an actor from the original film. My own review "Not Fonda Quaid Version" for the remake of Yours, Mine and Ours, which, of course referrs to the fact that Henry Fonda did the original.
Thanks Chocky. That's what I was trying to say. |
 |
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 10:25:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
There's also things like reviews of remakes that mention an actor from the original film. My own review "Not Fonda Quaid Version" for the remake of Yours, Mine and Ours, which, of course referrs to the fact that Henry Fonda did the original.
Thanks Chocky. That's what I was trying to say.
See, now - I don't think there's anything wrong with that kind of review - especially when the remake is such a flop as opposed to the original.
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 10:57:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Not so much commentary but references to other roles. For instance, I think I've seen references to the Charleton Heston's playing Moses in other of his films, and I just had a Hard Rain review accepted that included a nod to Minnie Driver's present TV show "The Riches". I've seen this a great deal here, and there are times this works very well - especially when the actor is very famous for one particular role and we're reviewing a different film that actor is in.
There's also things like reviews of remakes that mention an actor from the original film. My own review "Not Fonda Quaid Version" for the remake of Yours, Mine and Ours, which, of course referrs to the fact that Henry Fonda did the original.
Completely different thing, I'm afraid.
Your review was referring to the real world we live in- that of two films duelling against each other, not two characters in the film duelling. In this way, you're effectively summing up the state of cinema at that point, not the film you're purporting to be summing up.
If someone writes something like "Batman vs. Wolverine" for The Prestige however, whilst they're referencing other films, once the connection of the characters to actors is formed, the basic review is still about the film and not the outside world of cinema. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 11:25:26
|
| But... both are acceptable, no? |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 12:09:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
But... both are acceptable, no?
Not in my opinion. FWFRs are supposed to be about the film, not things outside of the reality of the film. If this is something you choose to add in addition to summing up the film- fine, but the FWFR should be, at the basic level, about the film itself. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 17:56:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
FWFRs are supposed to be about the film, not things outside of the reality of the film.
Um, but other films (especially those that feature the same actors) are outside the reality of a film. There is of course a distinction between these things, but other films and real-world stuff about the actors, say, are equally removed from a film in question. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 18:26:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
FWFRs are supposed to be about the film, not things outside of the reality of the film.
Um, but other films (especially those that feature the same actors) are outside the reality of a film. There is of course a distinction between these things, but other films and real-world stuff about the actors, say, are equally removed from a film in question.
Yes, I appreciate the characters are from different films and are thus not of the reality of the film being discussed. However, my main issue here is not of other films being referenced, it is that the fwfr being discussed is in no way about the events that happen in the film. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 20:56:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Yes, I appreciate the characters are from different films and are thus not of the reality of the film being discussed. However, my main issue here is not of other films being referenced, it is that the fwfr being discussed is in no way about the events that happen in the film.
I had to step away from this for a few hours to collect my thoughts. Ultimately, the review actually has more than one interpretation. Another interpretation is that Doc Holliday does happen to drunkenly challenge others to duels, in both Wyatt Earp and in Tombstone, which helps lead to the violent shootout at the OK corral. In that light, the review most certainly refers to events that happen in the film.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 21:02:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
I had to step away from this for a few hours to collect my thoughts. Ultimately, the review actually has more than one interpretation. Another interpretation is that Doc Holliday does happen to drunkenly challenge others to duels, in both Wyatt Earp and in Tombstone, which helps lead to the violent shootout at the OK corral. In that light, the review most certainly refers to events that happen in the film.
Curious. I could have sworn the version of the film I saw featured only one person called Holliday. If I'm incorrect in this please let me know. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 23:49:33
|
| I'll just find a new approach, this is giving me a headache. |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 00:15:44
|
I agree with benj on this issue. IMHO, [ACTOR'S FORMER ROLE] [VERB]s [FORMER DISPARATE ROLE OF ANOTHER ACTOR WHO NEVERTHELESS HAPPENS TO APPEAR IN THE SAME MOVIE] has nothing at all to do with the movie in question, unless it's an example of vastly superior wordplay which rises above the silly alternate reality. Otherwise it just wouldn't be a good review, no matter how many of them are already scattered on this site. So please don't make me a MERP, benj; you don't want to see me when I get angry. * Or maybe I should be one!!!
*That icon was meant to suggest The Hulk; I don't think it worked... |
Edited by - randall on 04/18/2008 00:18:07 |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 01:21:16
|
| I don't get it. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 01:45:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I agree with benj on this issue.
I always agree with Benj on all issues.
And I'm starting to like country music too.
Yeehah.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 01:53:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
I'll just find a new approach, this is giving me a headache.
I'm sorry to put you through this but at the end of the day it's just one fwfr to you, yet to me it's an open floodgate of reviews (all justified by citing your examples) in a direction I don't want this site to take. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/18/2008 : 01:59:50
|
In general, there is a big problem on this site with precedents not being followed. Reviews entirely equivalent to approved ones are rejected all the time. If the said precedent is deemed to have been a mistake, it should be promptly declined.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Benj - Is there a new MERP out there or something?
