| Author |
 Topic  |
|
w22dheartlivie 
"Kitty Lover"
|
 Posted - 05/15/2008 : 03:18:14
|
I posted this in the other thread, but I thought it may have gotten lost in the shuffle, so I deleted it and am reposting it here.
I had a review rejected for the film War Games because I used the name Ferris Bueller. The reason was "Reviews that make reference to an actor�s character from another film, when it has no relation to the film being reviewed, are likely to be declined. Could you please resubmit making your review specific to this film. Thank you."
Now I could accept that, except that there are currently eight other reviews for the film that make reference to Ferris Bueller, and one that refers to Inspector Gadget. On the Top 100 list there is "Beat Joe Black" for Fight Club. Others include "Ace Kaufman, bit defective" for Man in the Moon and "Erase Ventura: Past Defective" for Enternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, "Indy and a Jones" for The Fugitive, "Mrs. Doubtfire exposures himself" for One Hour Photo, "Foreign Gump" for The Terminal, "Huns, Forrest, Huns!", "Good Will hunts Nazis", and "Forrest Gump saves Damon" for Saving Private Ryan. I'm sure I could find many more. So what's changed? My review makes reference to the fact that Broderick has a computer in War Games, so it relates to the film in question. |
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 03:29:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
I posted this in the other thread, but I thought it may have gotten lost in the shuffle, so I deleted it and am reposting it here.
Others include "Ace Kaufman, bit defective" for Man in the Moon
I will speak up for my own review. IMHO it's a legitimate comment, putting forth a clearly expressed opinion on MAN ON THE MOON, which happens to be my own, without referring to an earlier Jim Carrey movie. The fact that through wordplay it does in fact reference a particular Carrey movie is just the icing on the cake; the opinion is still my own on the movie in question. That makes it one of the relatively few reviews on this site which is actually a review. Using this example to uphold your particular point just doesn't hold up. |
Edited by - randall on 05/15/2008 10:33:18 |
 |
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 05:56:28
|
| My point wasn't that these others weren't valid reviews. The fact is they were accepted without issue. Whether the intent was to reference the other film or not, they do. I will admit of all the examples I quickly found resting in mostly the Top 500, the two Carrey films may have been the weakest of the group. What I really want to know is why my review was rejected for this reason when its reference is little different than the rest of the examples. |
Edited by - w22dheartlivie on 05/15/2008 09:18:30 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 07:49:41
|
Randall's right that his isn't an example of this, but the others are. Several people, including me, have expressed that they do not really like character names being used from other films. However, this is just personal preference and, as you have shown, the precedent is clearly that they are allowed. I think this MERP is confusing their own preferences with actual site policy.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, there's a big problem here with neither precedents being followed nor bad precedents being removed. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 07:26:52
|
So I resubmit this War Games review with this rationale: "there are 8 reviews for film that ref. Bueller and 1 that does Insp. Gadget, why is this different?"
It was again declined, with this click for details: "There are reviews on the site that would be declined today."
So out of curiosity, I go to the most recently approved list and find:
What Women Want: Mad Max manipulates Hunt.
and
Batman Begins: American Psycho is Bats.
I'm done complaining about this, and will let it drop, but either this is a policy or it isn't, and either it should be equally applied or it shouldn't be a policy.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 09:04:46
|
| Hm... I was just told that my review for The Wackiest Wagon Train in the West staring Bob Denver of "Gilligan's Island" fame which used Gilligan in the review wouldn't be accepted because it refers to the actor's role in the TV series but he doesn't portray that character in this movie. Funny, other reviews which say 'Gilligan' in them were accepted. Never mind. I changed 'Gilligan' to 'Denver' and submitted it again. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 09:59:30
|
There's now a thread for anyone to post a particular pov about any declined fwfr. It's called The Spotlight.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 11:07:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildheartlivie
It was again declined, with this click for details: "There are reviews on the site that would be declined today."
Yep, this MERP is definitely confused. Some of the very old classic reviews would be declined as too 'generic' today (e.g. "Fin"), but Benj has frequently mentioned that in general (run-of-the-mill) old reviews are to be removed if they do not meet current standards. Further, Benj has never said (that I have ever read) that character names from other films are not allowed, even though I get the impression he is not keen on them. He has even differentiated recently between references to other films being O.K. and references to the actors' lives outside films not being O.K. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 11:12:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
There's now a thread for anyone to post a particular pov about any declined fwfr. It's called The Spotlight.
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 12:13:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yep, this MERP is definitely confused. Some of the very old classic reviews would be declined as too 'generic' today (e.g. "Fin"), but Benj has frequently mentioned that in general (run-of-the-mill) old reviews are to be removed if they do not meet current standards. Further, Benj has never said (that I have ever read) that character names from other films are not allowed, even though I get the impression he is not keen on them. He has even differentiated recently between references to other films being O.K. and references to the actors' lives outside films not being O.K.
Yep, the fact reviews of a certain type are already on the site doesn't mean they cut the mustard by today's standards- they may just be in my big pile of flagged reviews.
I'm not keen on external (in terms of the film's world) character names used for no reason. If they can be used to ironic effect, or alliteration or some other clever spin then great, but if an external character name is being used for no good reason, I don't see what purpose it serves.
The bottom line is: I don't think these fwfrs are legitimate (or, more to the point, accurate) reviews or summaries of a film, but I'm willing to make an exception where the fwfr has artistic merit. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 12:21:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I'm not keen on external (in terms of the film's world) character names used for no reason. If they can be used to ironic effect, or alliteration or some other clever spin then great, but if an external character name is being used for no good reason, I don't see what purpose it serves.
The bottom line is: I don't think these fwfrs are legitimate (or, more to the point, accurate) reviews or summaries of a film, but I'm willing to make an exception where the fwfr has artistic merit.
O.K., thanks. This is clearer than we've had before. Previously it just came across like you didn't think too much of such reviews, not that they were disallowed.
Since there are so many reviews like this (which I also dislike, by the way), though, this is going to be an ongoing problem. People are always going to see numerous examples that they consider no more 'artistic' than their own submissions. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 12:31:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Since there are so many reviews like this (which I also dislike, by the way), though, this is going to be an ongoing problem. People are always going to see numerous examples that they consider no more 'artistic' than their own submissions.
For once, I think this could be pretty clear cut. Alliteration is easy to spot and a clever spin (that isn't too ridiculously convoluted) can be explained in a resub. Any use of an external character name that can't be easily justified doesn't make the cut. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 13:00:14
|
Nah, there'll be loads of grey areas. It will be cases like when an actor is known for one role and something about another role contrasts with that in a significant or funny way. What's significant, and especially what's funny, to one person... There could also be cases of MERPs not noticing a pun etc.
Further, this is quite a departure. Apart from a few old reviews, hasn't the theoretical policy been that dull and clever reviews have to stand by the same measure, i.e. that the literal content of clever reviews has to be as accurate as that of dull ones? |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/02/2008 : 14:55:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Nah, there'll be loads of grey areas. It will be cases like when an actor is known for one role and something about another role contrasts with that in a significant or funny way. What's significant, and especially what's funny, to one person... There could also be cases of MERPs not noticing a pun etc.
Well, it shouldn't have to be funny (or, at least, funny to the MERP), just not a completely unjustified external character reference. As ever, if the MERP has missed the joke, the review can always be resubmitted.
quote:
Further, this is quite a departure. Apart from a few old reviews, hasn't the theoretical policy been that dull and clever reviews have to stand by the same measure, i.e. that the literal content of clever reviews has to be as accurate as that of dull ones?
It may have been that way in the past but I'm trying to be more accommodating. fwfrs that reference external characters are given more wiggle room if they're using that reference for good reason. NOTE: by 'good reason' I'm not saying 'funny'- a ridiculously convoluted character connection that is funny still wouldn't make the grade in my book. |
|
|
|
Sludge 
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 23:46:00
|
Possibly moot to add to Benj's policy clarification, but here's where I see it philosophically.
I believe, and am not sure to what extent I've ignored this thought when submitting, that it works much better if the reference is to a character/film that predated the film being reviewed, and that it was a character with whom the actor is strongly identified. Ferris Bueller is strongly identified with Matthew Broderick, and was released three years after Wargames.
I believe in ALL of your examples from the Top 100, the characters referenced predate the films reviewed.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 00:22:02
|
| Yes, I agree. Unless the review somehow references the fact, alluding to not-yet-existing characters works particularly badly. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Click for details
