| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 06/23/2008 : 07:23:46
|
I had a review approved (after proving that it was valid) but with characters chopped off due to the 60-character limit. I therefore resubmitted it with an amended wording (just with a vocabulary change -- the validity is the same), explaining what I have just said here and quoting the approved form. It has now been rejected as not being accurate.
What should I do about this? Given the approved form is 60 characters, there is not space for me to cite that, explain that it was approved and that I am amending it PLUS repeat the proof I had earlier given that it is accurate.
If a review has been approved earlier by another MERP or Benj, unless a MERP is very sure otherwise, shouldn't they treat it as though the review is accurate and just process the review on the basis of the changes made? Did they read the comment and decide to ignore the review's history, or did they just not read the comment at all? |
 |
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 06/25/2008 : 13:37:45
|
I've had a couple of declines recently that are concerned with this new-ish policy of not using external character names and wanted to get a bit of clarification. Benj makes it fairly clear in this thread his parameters for allowing this type of review....
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.
Both my examples were declined very quickly for using external character names (one for "Battle Beyond the Stars", and one for "Along Came Polly" for any observing angels) but I don't believe the MERP gave them due attention given the guidelines above. They both employ a clever spin and I believe are decent reviews and have artistic merit, neither are simply "X does this".
I think flat refusals of reviews of this sort that are actually carefully thought out are a shame. Benj could you please check that the MERPs are clear on your feelings of "merit or spin" before good reviews get confined to the hinterlands of the second pass? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Click for details
