| Author |
 Topic  |
|
rockfsh 
"Laugh, Love, Cheer"
|
 Posted - 06/02/2009 : 03:36:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by rockfsh
A recent decline that cracked me up
World ends tomorrow. Not!
"Plus it's generic, plus that's not even a joke... guess we have to decline!"
25 votes for the first person who guesses the film 
Hint. "joke" in title |
 |
|
|
Wheelz 
"FWFR%u2019ing like it%u2019s 1999"
|
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 14:57:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by rockfsh
quote:
Originally posted by rockfsh
A recent decline that cracked me up
World ends tomorrow. Not!
"Plus it's generic, plus that's not even a joke... guess we have to decline!"
25 votes for the first person who guesses the film
Hint. "joke" in title
Is it The Day After Tomorrow ? |
|
|
|
Beanmimo
"August review site"
|
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 15:56:35
|
How I almost missed this thread!!
I submitted Finding Nero for the new Star Trek movie which to my dismay was rejected, I read the reason
MERP "Try Nero".
I realised that in my haste i had submitted Finding Nemo
Well i found that funny anyway.
For 'Fifty Dead Men Walking' I submitted (cheekily) "One wasn't enough?" I got back...
MERP "..and generic too!"
|
Edited by - Beanmimo on 06/03/2009 15:57:49 |
|
|
|
rockfsh
"Laugh, Love, Cheer"
|
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 16:20:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wheelz
quote:
Originally posted by rockfsh
quote:
Originally posted by rockfsh
A recent decline that cracked me up
World ends tomorrow. Not!
"Plus it's generic, plus that's not even a joke... guess we have to decline!"
25 votes for the first person who guesses the film
Hint. "joke" in title
Is it The Day After Tomorrow ?
No the word "joke" is in the film title |
|
|
|
aahaa, muahaha
"Optimistic altruist, incurable romantic"
|
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 17:29:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by rockfsh
quote:
Originally posted by Wheelz
quote:
Originally posted by rockfsh
quote:
Originally posted by rockfsh
A recent decline that cracked me up
World ends tomorrow. Not!
"Plus it's generic, plus that's not even a joke... guess we have to decline!"
25 votes for the first person who guesses the film
Hint. "joke" in title
Is it The Day After Tomorrow ?
No the word "joke" is in the film title
Is it "A Joke of Destiny"?
And if it is right, was your offer of 25 votes a joke?  |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 17:32:25
|
Or "History Of The Joke" maybe?
|
|
|
|
rockfsh
"Laugh, Love, Cheer"
|
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 17:34:04
|
| No not those flicks |
|
|
|
rabid kazook 
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 18:42:59
|
Jesus Tells A Joke?
|
|
|
|
rockfsh
"Laugh, Love, Cheer"
|
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 19:16:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
Jesus Tells A Joke?
We have a winner!! Votes sealed and delivered.
As you can see, the decline reason is more amusing than the review. |
Edited by - rockfsh on 06/03/2009 19:29:15 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 15:53:19
|
Another one that is hilariously absurd:
I submitted a review for JCVD which included "J.C." (punning on Jesus Christ, but giving the whole review would be a spoiler).
The rejection 'reason' is "Did you mean to type J-C?"
Um, no, I didn't.
Sure, hyphens from such names can be retained in their initials, but they don't have to be. This is proven by, oh, the title of the film!
When MERPs make stupid rejections like this, they don't seem to bear in mind that we have a very limited quota. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/20/2009 : 00:50:18
|
I submitted "Montana's between California, Tennessee!" for Hannah Montana: The Movie. The rejection reason is "Montana *is* between CA and TN, longitudinally. Why is this remarkable?"
Have a guess whether I was (a) giving some miscellaneous geography trivia or (b) describing the fact that Hannah Montana's physical and emotional split between California and Tennessee is the main theme of the film.
For every review "X" which sums up the plot, do we really have to add an 'explanation' of "The film is about X" or perhaps "I am not lying or being irrelevant in the above review: it actually describes the film"?! |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/20/2009 : 02:03:02
|
It just gets worse and worse.
Review: "Zellweger skating thin ice" for New in Town.
Explanation: "Her character is in a precarious position. There are lots of ice and snow incidents."
Rejection 'reason': "Bad."
Come on guys! |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/20/2009 : 02:22:25
|
Sorry to be posting so many specific examples but I'm going to carry on. The quality of the decisions has just got to improve.
Review: "Mads, murder" for Flame & Citron.
Explanation: "Mads is pronounced 'mass'. The Nazis kill Flame and Citron, who also killed lots of people."
Reason: "I have just listened to a Danish person's pronunciation of Mads. It is elided, but it is not pronounced mass."
O.K., this is an attempt at an actual explanation, but it is neither accurate nor a basis for rejection.
I cannot remember where I took the pronunciation from, but it was somewhere reasonable and it was as given, not based on my own judgment. I've just listened on Wikipedia and it sounds close enough to "mass" to me. However, the important point is that it would not matter if I was totally wrong about the pronunciation (which I wasn't): that only affects the pun, not the substance of the review. A review should only be approved if it is accurate (and not too 'generic' &c.) and mine should have been approved on that basis. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 07/20/2009 02:24:03 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/20/2009 : 02:35:42
|
Now one that is ridiculously pedantic (while having no proof) for a film for which all reviews are only based on the title.
Review: "Competitors are hempered" for Sack Race.
Explanation: "They are hampered by hemp (sacks)."
Rejection reason: "American sacks were more likely to have been made from burlap."
Well, maybe they were and maybe they weren't. I have no idea. I was only explaining my portmanteau, not actually pinning its validity on proven literal precision. I don't think it's really fair to reject it on the above level of (possible) inaccuracy. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 07/20/2009 02:40:18 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
De klein
