| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 05/31/2008 : 08:21:17
|
As promised, here's a thread where we can each spotlight one query about the way any particular review was handled. No discussion, just a posting - perhaps with your explanation - BUT NO DISCUSSION WITH OTHERS. If others want to post their own gripes, do it in your own thread.
And let's be patient.
And no repeats. Here I quote from benj's FAQ on the subject:
quote:
if, after resubmitting with this additional information, the review is still declined THE EDITOR'S DECISION IS FINAL. We mean this. No further discussion is expected, partly to avoid delays in approving the remaining (usually sizeable) backlog of reviews, but mostly because these discussions can get lengthy and, to be brutally honest, "a bit fucking irritating".
So: One fwfr per post. No replies. NO REPLIES.
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 09:52:53
|
| I've deleted my post as not replying here caused someone to delete their review when I did not want them to. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 06/13/2008 23:55:19 |
 |
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 06/06/2008 : 13:48:09
|
I came up with a review a couple of years back, had it accepted and watched the votes come streaming in. Then a respected member came up with the same review and mine was deleted. On seacrhing through a few forums I found another member (a buddy of said respected member) claiming that mine was posted second (this wasn't true, I'd already checked) and asking for it to be deleted.
That's when I realised that this place is more political than it first appears and why most of the reviews in the top 500 are there despite their mediocrity. |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 06/06/2008 : 15:49:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
I came up with a review a couple of years back, had it accepted and watched the votes come streaming in. Then a respected member came up with the same review and mine was deleted. On seacrhing through a few forums I found another member (a buddy of said respected member) claiming that mine was posted second (this wasn't true, I'd already checked) and asking for it to be deleted.
Any chance you could give me a few more details on this? If this really is the case, I'll do my best to recover the review if possible. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/11/2008 : 14:38:26
|
This post is not set to self-destruct.
I wrote a review for CASINO - "Case for Vice Squad?" which has been refused, with this reason given:
"Actually, that's a murder detail crime, regardless of the criminal vice issue."
I've already explained in the notes that [spoiler alert]... the review references Pesci putting a criminal's head in a vice so it's not just a misunderstanding.
I really don't understand the reason given, but if it is because that particular crime would be handled by the homicide squad, not the vice squad, then we have a really serious SOH failure, and if all reviews had to pass such a literal test then there would be a lot fewer funny reviews. After all, the film certainly includes plenty of crimes for the vice squad - Ginger's prostitution, for example, and isn't gambling a vice any more? - so its not as if the crime of vice is inappropriate to the film anyway.
I know this is not a thread for replies, but if anyone feels I have misinterpreted the reason for refusal pls pm me with what you think it is supposed to mean.
As things stand I can only see this refusal as really small-minded literalism and its very very disappointing. 
|
|
|
|
chazbo 
"Outta This Fuckin' Place"
|
Posted - 06/23/2008 : 20:33:14
|
I've recently gotten several rejections without any explanation. No doubt some of them were rightly refused, as they were pretty weak, but there's one that I quite like and will try to explain here.
It is for the documentary, Hollywood on Trial, which looks at the period of McCarthyism during which actors/directors/etc. were asked to name names to the House Un-American Activities Committee.
My review is "House of ill repute." I was trying to play on the idea of reputation/repute (to speak ill of someone or something), and on the idea of selling out one's colleagues. I know that this could probably refer to a number of films, fictional and non-fictional, dealing with this subject. But this documentary (I think) most comprehensively deals with that period of history.
Or maybe it's just too generic or too vague.
In any case, the defense rests.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
THE SPOTLIGHT
