| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
 Posted - 11/13/2008 : 10:51:24
|
Look here you MERPS, most of the time when I get a "TITLE PLAY ONLY" refusal it is clearly not a title play only, or alternatively its for an old film with very few details where title plays only are supposed to be accepted.
Why the hell can you not get this right? What is so difficult about it?
I've just had one for "THE DRUNKEN ACROBAT" (1896) where EVERY published review is a title play only, and has to be. 
There have been several complaints about use of this refusal in the past and, IMHO, its about time you started getting it right.
End of rant.
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/13/2008 : 12:00:31
|
Actually, one MERP does know how it works since I did do a "title play only" review on a popular, modern film and it was rejected. The rejection explained that this is allowed only when there are little to no details available for the film in question.
Which means, you were robbed! |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 11/13/2008 : 12:48:03
|
Well, my review has now been refused as "Factually Inaccurate" instead, which is really interesting, given that theres no real synopsis of the film available nor can I locate a copy of the film.
SO how exactly does the MERP know its factually inaccurate? And are all the other reviews for this film factually accurate? Show me one review for this film which you can PROVE is factually accurate!
Lets get real here. This kind of film exists on the site for joke reviews. Reviews which, hopefully, will cause a little amusement. If they do that then whats the problem in publishing them?
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
TITLE PLAY ONLY...not...
