| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
 Posted - 08/06/2009 : 17:26:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
1. "Nice" is both the name of a French city and a word meaning pleasant.
I usually wouldn't bother pointing this out but isn't this using the (admittedly obvious) idea I'd already used for this same film?
A propos your comments, yes, I agree completely. It's the same idea, and it's obvious. 
However, my version is more economical and particularly designed to be funny in the "What film?" bubble - i.e. why isn't this simple two word review generic?
I could quote my earlier KILLER TOMATOES EAT FRANCE review - "Tomatoes taste Nice" - but there must be tons of earlier Nice puns on site.
And [Matt], how did you know my middle name? Go on, give me a clue! 
|
 |
|
|
hustleboy007 
"There is no avatar..."
|
|
|
ci�nas 
"hands down"
|
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 19:05:31
|
recent approvals
Viewed & voted up to here when posted. |
Edited by - ci�nas on 08/10/2009 00:40:36 |
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 23:07:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
A propos your comments, yes, I agree completely. It's the same idea, and it's obvious.
However, my version is more economical and particularly designed to be funny in the "What film?" bubble - i.e. why isn't this simple two word review generic?
I could quote my earlier KILLER TOMATOES EAT FRANCE review - "Tomatoes taste Nice" - but there must be tons of earlier Nice puns on site.
I agree there are probably a fair few previous examples of the Nice pun on site, even yours, just that using the same idea as someone for the same film is usually considered a duplication, no? There's actually no difference between our reviews other than the brevity. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 08/06/2009 : 23:36:35
|
Well, whether two reviews for the same film are too similar is a MERP decision.
If you're not happy, flag my review up as too similar and let them decide. I assume they already felt mine was different enough when they accepted it, but it's possible it was an oversight.
Personally I'm happy that my review is different enough to stand in its own right. Mine uses a specific phrase in common usage - "Nice film" googles over 100,000 examples - and that gives my review a different feel from your review. That's how I see it.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 00:01:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
If you're not happy, flag my review up as too similar and let [the MERPs] decide.
Unless it has been changed it secret, only Benj acts on reported reviews or can otherwise act on them once approved. Unfortunately, I have never seen evidence of any reported review being acted upon. For example, reviews of my own that I've reported are intact. Some time ago, but long after reporting was introduced, Benj said this. I haven't seen any progress since. In other words, it's best to delete one's own duplicates.
quote:
Mine uses a specific phrase in common usage - "Nice film" googles over 100,000 examples - and that gives my review a different feel from your review.
It depends what you mean by a specific phrase. It's a phrase in terms of linguistics usage, but it's hardly an expression or idiom. It's like saying that big tree is a phrase. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 08/07/2009 00:02:51 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 00:23:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Well, whether two reviews for the same film are too similar is a MERP decision.
If you're not happy, flag my review up as too similar and let them decide. I assume they already felt mine was different enough when they accepted it, but it's possible it was an oversight.
Personally I'm happy that my review is different enough to stand in its own right. Mine uses a specific phrase in common usage - "Nice film" googles over 100,000 examples - and that gives my review a different feel from your review. That's how I see it.
Hmmm. All I can say is if our positions were reversed and I'd seen your review first I probably wouldn't have used the same idea. When I constructed my review I originally was going with "Nice Documentary" but decided to expand to avoid a straight generic decline. You were braver (given your review is very generic as it stands -applying to any film about or set primarily in Nice), but the difference between them is slight.
As you suggested I have flagged it up and we'll see if anything comes of it - as Sal said most of the time these things get ignored for the sake of keeping the submission rate down and the community happy. Look, you've even got me agreeing with Salopian... what's going on in the world??  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 00:32:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
All I can say is if our positions were reversed and I'd seen your review first I probably wouldn't have used the same idea.
To be fair to napper, it's highly unlikely that yours had been approved when he submitted his, as they were submitted close together. However, if it were mine, I would delete it promptly and not make excuses.
quote:
most of the time these things get ignored for the sake of keeping the submission rate down and the community happy.
I don't think that's it -- I have never noticed even the most straightforward case be acted upon. I really think Benj has not begun on them yet. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 00:44:20
|
| That would be a truly bizarre coincidence if true Salopian - the film wasn't a recent addition to the site - it was sitting unreviewed, and I reviewed it after watching all of Vigo's films in one go online - it's not been recently shown anywhere. It was also on site two weeks before Whipper's was approved. Anyway, this is by the by - back to the regular program of vote whoring. Sorry for the hijack folks. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 01:24:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
That would be a truly bizarre coincidence if true Salopian
The I.D. number of yours is 435696; his is 436475. That was my basis for thinking their pending periods likely overlapped. However...
His was submitted on 3rd August. Yours was approved on 26th July. So you are correct -- he submitted his after yours was visible, and the only review for the film. Bad napper. |
|
|
|
[matt]
"Cinemattic."
|
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 01:39:33
|
I'm not going to take any side here, but I just have to say that arguing isn't very Nice.
VV to here.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 01:59:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Well, whether two reviews for the same film are too similar is a MERP decision.
If you're not happy, flag my review up as too similar and let them decide. I assume they already felt mine was different enough when they accepted it, but it's possible it was an oversight.
Personally I'm happy that my review is different enough to stand in its own right. Mine uses a specific phrase in common usage - "Nice film" googles over 100,000 examples - and that gives my review a different feel from your review. That's how I see it.
Hmmm. All I can say is if our positions were reversed and I'd seen your review first I probably wouldn't have used the same idea. When I constructed my review I originally was going with "Nice Documentary" but decided to expand to avoid a straight generic decline. You were braver (given your review is very generic as it stands -applying to any film about or set primarily in Nice), but the difference between them is slight.
As you suggested I have flagged it up and we'll see if anything comes of it - as Sal said most of the time these things get ignored for the sake of keeping the submission rate down and the community happy. Look, you've even got me agreeing with Salopian... what's going on in the world??
You make several Nice points - some I agree with, some I don't.
I think the best thing I can say is that we see this differently, but I am comfortable that my review is legit.
My legal team has advised me to inform you that "We regret that no further correspondence can be entered into."
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 08:40:46
|
| Boys, boys. Please, play nice! |
|
|
|
clay 
"Viewer discretion is revised."
|
|
|
Beanmimo
"August review site"
|
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 11:22:38
|
Linking this weeks haiku choice to the fycth!! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Sean's FYCTH - #529
