| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
[matt] 
"Cinemattic."
|
 Posted - 08/20/2008 : 18:03:37
|
I submitted this review for Vacancy: Much Ado About Snuffin'.
Then the next day I suddenly thought 'hang on, why the hell did I abbreviate the 'snuffing' when the title I'm punning isn't abbreviated?' So I decided to alter the spelling, only to find that it had actually already been approved. I altered it anyway to 'Much Ado About Snuffing.' And now it's been declined!  
The reason being 'There are lots of others. If you disagree, please resub and explain.' I know there are perhaps a few other movies with stuff about snuff movies in the plot, but surely not many which are completely about them like this film is? I understand (and agree with) why reviews for this type of film which simply allude to murder/death are declined, as these could often apply to a large number of films, but 'snuffing' is a lot more specific as it refers to the situation which the two lead characters find themselves in.
I guess I'm just annoyed because I like this review and it's so annoying that it was approved first time and declined now!
( Sorry if there's a broader thread this might fit into, but I wanted to make sure Benj will see it and maybe re-approve it for me.  ) |
|
|
MguyXXV 
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 19:46:56
|
| Try resubmitting with explanation that it had been approved, just changed spelling. |
 |
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 21:13:48
|
| 8mm would be a blooming good fit. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 22:24:19
|
| As it did for Traffic, but that one was approved over a year ago, and things have tightened up a bit since then. A variation also worked for Blow and Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears A Who! I agree, it's a great review, I'm a bit partial to Ado, too. Aren't you? |
Edited by - w22dheartlivie on 08/20/2008 22:29:55 |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 22:53:12
|
"Snuff" might have been interpreted as simply "kill," rather than "take one's own life," by an altogether different MERP. It might even be about snuff films. [Or that stuff which makes you sneeze!*] Seems reasonable to ask for an explanation if you really don't understand which. BTW, you were right to fix it: your new one is even closer to your Shakespearean inspiration.
*For the benefit of our humor-challenged fwiffers, this has been a joke. |
Edited by - randall on 08/20/2008 22:56:33 |
|
|
|
[matt]
"Cinemattic."
|
Posted - 08/20/2008 : 23:26:29
|
aww SON of a BITCH!!! damn you!  haha
Well I guess that makes my review a bit redundant anyway lol. I'll guess I'll just have to vote for yours and hope it gets the recognition such a totally genius review deserves! 
MguyX - Yeah I was going to just re-submit it but didn't want to waste a(nother) submission. It's now obviously a good job I didn't!
JTC - I haven't actually seen 8MM or Traffic and didn't know they were about snuffing. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/21/2008 : 00:31:15
|
| Previously approved reviews with insignificant changes get rejected all the time, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 08/21/2008 : 01:47:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by [matt]
JTC - I haven't actually seen 8MM or Traffic and didn't know they were about snuffing.
Traffic was a little bit about sniffing and a little bit about snuffing. 8MM was an uncomfortable film about a snuff film. Snuff is also a smokeless tobacco that gets sniffed/snuffed. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 10:58:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Previously approved reviews with insignificant changes get rejected all the time, unfortunately.
I have just had another case of this. (I changed a spelling to the more primary one, a difference of one letter, and explained this in the comment.) Benj, please could you let us know whether or not this is supposed to be allowed? Are MERPs allowed to override each other like this? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/05/2008 : 01:49:38
|
I've just had another one. The first version ended in "... a condition" but this was approved (due to the previously secret 60-character limit) as "... a condi". I therefore resubmitted it as "... ailment", mentioning the form that had been approved. It has now been rejected with "What does it mean?"
I had already explained what it means and proven that it is valid. Surely the MERP should be able to recognise that the change from the approved form is synonymous and just a pragmatic measure. The decision on the review has really already been made. Can't they trust the previous MERPs?
This is an example where the 100-character limit on comments is a big problem. It's not possible to explain the review, prove its relevance and cite its previous approval all at once. Benj, what should I do about this and similar cases please? |
|
|
|
Yukon
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
|
Posted - 10/05/2008 : 12:21:50
|
| Whenever I resubmit a review to correct spelling, I always put "ALREADY APPROVED- just correcting a spelling mistake" in the explanation field. That seems to work. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Previously approved review now declined?!
